Talk:Tibetan Buddhism

Archives

• Archive 1

Deleted Historically Inaccurate Section

Deleted this section: "Tibetan Buddhism exerted a strong influence from the 11th century AD among the peoples of Central Asia, especially in Mongolia and Manchuria. It was adopted as an official state religion by the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Manchu Qing dynasty that ruled China." This is incorrect. The branch of Buddhism the Yuan and Qing dynasty followed was not Tibetan Buddhism, but a different variant. Tibetan Buddhism did play an important role in Mongolia. Intranetusa 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see someone reverted this deletion. I don't have a clue which is correct. Does anyone know?

Moonsell (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it ever permeated the people of China, but certainly a number of Chinese emperors were students of various lamas, so I suppose Tibetan Buddhism was recognized as "an official state religion" at various times. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderlane (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Actually Tibet itself has its present form due to being such a huge influence in China and Mongolia, due to the influence of the great lamas from C. 800 onwards. What bugs me is the editing of this article is so poorly done, and that apparently someone from China keeps editing and reverting the changes to a pidgin form of English. Here is a perfect painful example: "Of all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, none more than skepticism and guru devotion[23] have led it into conflict with Chinese socialism and so invited the genocide of the Tibetan intelligentsia under Mao.[24]" what??? The conquest of land in Tibet had little or nothing to do with guru devotion, and such comments do not belong in an article on Tibetan Buddhism any more than they would on any other religion such as Episcopal or Catholic.

Also it depends on what region you define as China - much of it was ancient Tibet - is Mongolia China? There much of the population is Tibetan Buddhist.

Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, all part of ancient Tibet. Wonderlane (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What school is tibetan buddhism from?

I've been trying to figure this out lately. Is it the Mahayana or Vajrayāna? Is it a combination? Is it not a combination? Does it use certain practices from each? I'm somewhat lost about the school its from and its origins. Does Tibetan Buddhism not associate itself with directly one school of thought? In other words, is it simply a clashing of different teachings into one unified religion? I really think if that it is in this wikientry, it's not very clear. That's why the term Lamaism is bothering me. I'm sure someone said the word has Chinese origins, but Tibet is not in China. Because Tibet is in China, I don't see why it's called Lamism. - User: Cyberman (not logged in)

Vajrayana is not divided from Mahayana in Tibet, although not all Mahayanists are Vajrayanists per se. The Tibetan tradition was rich and complete in systems of philosophical Buddhist argument, tending toward the Indian style of Buddhism rather than the Sinitic. There are traditional elements of the native Bon faith included to varying degrees as well. Lamaism was a term applied by early European academics familiar with only other forms of Buddhism such as Theraveda and the Mahayana of other nations (as Tibet was a closed nation for many years), and lacking any training or expertise in the mantrayana, so really the use of the term is an ethnocentrically derived relic without any sound basis in thought. It has been used at times as a dismissive epithet, in much the same way as some have inexactly considered the Theravedin traditions to be "Hinayana". The word 'lama' is Tibetan and isequivalent to the Sanskrit 'guru'. Tibet is as much a part of China as Hawaii has historically been part of the United States, but with more historical conflict. If diplomacy had worked out slightly differently Tibet might have been a British protectorate. Dorje0000 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are at least a couple valid ways of relating the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana as taught in Tibetan Buddhism. Kalu Rinpoche uses the analogy of a house where the Hinayana discipline is the solid foundation, the Mahayana is the infrastructure and the Vajrayana is the rest of the house. (Luminous Mind : Fundamentals of Spiritual Practice, Wisdom Publications, 1996, ISBN 0-86171-118-1) Also, Vajrayana has been described as a set of set of skillful Mahayana meditation practices.

An American Lama in the Tibetan Buddist Tradition joked with me once that Lamaism might actually be an appropriate term considering how important the student-teacher relationship is in Tibetan Buddism. So, while I suggest that Dorje0000 is correct to say that Lamaism is an ethnocentrically derived relic,I would disagree that it is without sound basis in thought. Having said this, the Lama was joking with me and I would never in a million years suggest calling Tibetan Buddhism, Lamaism.

David Picariello 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another lama said: Hinayana is the foundation, Mahayana is the walls and Vajrayana is the roof of the house. Gantuya eng 00:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd and flaw trying to relate Buddhism Mahayana school to Tibetan Buddhism. Bare in mind that, before 1959 Chinese communism invasion, slavery and caste system are part of Tibet cultures. And Buddhism forbids unfair treatment and deny caste system. I am amuse that the wikiepdia entry relate the Tibetan Buddhism with Mahayana. Pdavidp has speak of some truth. In fact, according to Chinese Buddhism history, there is no trait record to show Tibetan Buddhism practice the Mahayana. Thus "Lamaism" are not a joke. In fact, it is a term used for many century in China refer to Tibetan Buddhism. --219.93.152.11 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Try as you may to distance Tibetan Buddhism from Mahayana and Indian Buddhism in general it can't be denied that the first teachers of Buddhism in Tibet, Shantirakshita and Guru Padmasambhava were the greatest living exponents of Indian Buddhism in that time. What they taught in Tibet was the curriculum of the monastic university at Nalanda. Both were incumbent at Nalanda before coming to Tibet and Shatirakshita was the Abbot. Also Atisha Dipamkara Srijnana, the reformer, was the Abbot of the Indian monastic university at Vikramashila when he came to Tibet. So Tibetan Buddhism has always been very close to Indian Buddhism including the foundational texts as well as the Mahayana and Indian Vajrayana. Before Atisha came to Tibet he had been teaching Mahayana in Sumatra. I know quite well that "Lamaism" (Lama jiao) has been used in China for centuries but that doesn't mean that it is a correct description of Tibetan Buddhism. In fact in China it is usually used by those who want to create a division between Chinese and Tibetan Buddhists. The 2 can actually get along quite well together as can be seen at Wu Tai Shan in China. Tibetan Buddhism at Wu Tai Shan --Bodhirakshita (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Historically, Mahayana developed from Hinayana and Vajrayana from Mahayana, although each development was underground and inchoate for a long period before it surfaced - Buddhists even say, from the beginning. All three developments were complete and all three forms coexisting in ancient India by the time Buddhim was introduced to Tibet. The three forms complement and enhance each other. Devotion to the guru almost certainly predates Buddhism and was universally accepted in Buddhism by the time it was introduced in Tibet. (See: Edward Conze, A Short History of Buddhism.)

Moonsell (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When Tibetan Buddhists were originally discovered by Western explorers and military leaders the Tibetan Buddhist religion was not known, in fact it was not understood to be Buddhist at all. At that time the name "Lamaism" was associated with what was found in the high reaches of the Himalayas. Now that term is considered to be derogatory, misinformed, and has fallen out of use.

Mahayana, Vajrayana are the vehicles of study of Tibetan Buddhism - yana means wheel. Maha - great, Vajra - thunderbolt, diamond, so Great Vehicle and Diamond Vehicle.

I believe the reason there aren't a bunch of Tibetan Buddhists out here helping you all is because most of the Translators and scholars are trying very ardently to perserve what remains and has been transmitted to the West of the canon, texts, transmissions and to document them in books.

Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Wonderlane (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AD vs. CE

CE for Common Era is an accepted, non-denominational alternative to 'AD' (which stands for Anno Domini and is explicitly Christian). I don't feel that 'CE' is "wrong" particularly in an article about a non-Christian religion. Zero sharp 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since this question was raised, but either system (CE/BCE or AD/BC) are acceptable, per WP:ERA, as long as they are used consistently within an article. CE/BCE seems to be the prevalent choice in the Buddhism-related articles generally, and I agree with your assessment about the non-Western context, as well. I have changed the remaining occurrence of AD in this article. /Ninly (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Milarepa

I have added now, for the second time, a reference to Milarepa in 'See Also' on the 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. Please tell me why you consider 'Milarepa' to be an inappropriate reference but Mo-ho-yen, who is Chinese, is an appropriate reference. Also, please explain why you consider removing 'Milarepa' to be an 'improve to list'. Jem bac 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because as I said, we can't list everybpdy. I added a link to Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, where Mila and everybody else can be easily found. The category system is your friend. Use it! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Mo-ho-yen, he was already there, I didn't add him. His article says the his defeat was "pivotal to Tibetan Buddhism" and he is not listed under the Tibetan Buddhist teachers category. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

as I said

Thank you Ms. E -- the operative phrase here is "as I said". And just WHO are you? You have every right to edit any article. You could question the notability of Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' if you so chose and move the reference to the Category "Other Assorted Theories" because 'We can't list them ALL'.

Your consideration of Milarepa as "We can't list EVERYBODY" in Tibetan Buddhism is telling. One Google result refers to Milarepa as -- Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism. I will not add it again because a third reversal of an edit could trigger mediation.

And as long as you have found the time to edit MY articles and additions, you should find the time to clean up your own. As one person wrote on your Vajrayana entry: "How can anyone trust someone who explains the terms so poorly?" Your entry is currently tagged: This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations" and has been so tagged since July 2006. But I notice that your Vajrayana internal link in 'See Also' stays put.

You are tampering with legends. 125.24.163.195 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac

Um, I didn't write any substantial part of Vajrayana. Also, please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Oh, and don't forget to login, and you don't OWN "your" article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your own page says: "I noticed there is no article on Vajravarahi so I started one." You are right -- I do not own anything. EVERYBODY owns it and, so far, you are the only one who has revised any of my contributions. I did not attack you personally -- I only questioned your credibility Jem bac 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)jem_bac

I have now read no personal attacks including the section on Examples that are not personal attacks. No personal attacks were involved. I asked you for your rationale and you offered none beyond "Because as I said, we can't list everybody"

Mo-ho-yen is OK but Milarepa is not. Mo-ho-yen wasn't even Tibetan. The 'See Also' list thus already had an historical figure -- I was not the first to add one to the list.

• "Milarepa: Greatest Poet-Saint in the History of Buddhism."

http://bodhisattvas.tribe.net/photos/8261bfd6-ed9d-45cd-ae1f-caf6b0398df1

• "... as witnessed by Tibet's patron saint Milarepa, who was very much assisted by his guru Marpa..." http://oaks.nvg.org/wm3ra19.html

• "Nine hundred years after his death, Milarepa remains one of Tibet's most beloved saints and prolific poets." http://www.milarepamovie.com/

So I will leave the page alone for now. If I choose to re-instate the Milarepa listing -- for the third time -- under 'See Also' I will request a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and maybe {{Expert}} Thank you. Jem bac 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac

I have to ask you, Jem bac, why it is so important to add Milarepa. Yes, he is a significant figure... to the Kagyu school. But other schools have their own significant figures. Padmasambhava is not listed. Tsongkhapa is not listed. Once one is listed, how many others will have to be listed? But all three are listed under Category:Lamas which is accessible from the Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers, so listing them would be redundant. I could perhaps see your argument if you were arguing for a "short list" of important figures, but you are only arguing for one. That doesn't seem to me to adhere to WP:NPOV - it biases the see also list in favor of a particular school. Even the Dalai Lama is not listed here, why is it so essential to list Mirarepa? A Ramachandran 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Points are well taken. I am working on just such a "short" list -- maybe 10 or less -- tentatively called "Legendary Tibetan Buddhist Personages". Legendary meaning historical, not contemporary. The list is being compiled with the help of a native Tibetan-speaking Geshe with a USA University appointment. It will be irresepctive of school or affiliation. My rationale is to make it so that persons who visit the Tibetan Buddhism main page, and may be exploring Tibetan Buddhism for the first time, will not have to dig deep or read through text to meet the pre-eminent personages including those you mention. And I am open to any suggestions.

Milarepa is now 2 levels deep from the main page under 'Lamas'...and it is quite a grab-bag page. As a person new to WIKIPEDIA, I maybe too casually added some names to a list. I am now trying to structure my reasons for adding any name to a list or creating a new list with greater rigor.

As you will note, Steven Seagal, with no disrepect intended, has a full paragraph write-up on the main 'Tibetan Buddhism' page. WIKIPEDIA has its detractors. Is this a serious attempt at an open encyclopedia or a version of PEOPLE magazine? Such prioritization can only give fodder to WIKIPEDIA critics. I thank you for your comments Jem bac 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Jem_bac

I think this is a good solution. And I agree that Steven Seagal is overemphasisd on this page (there was an editor around a while ago who devoted himself exclusively to making edits about Steven Seagal; that may be the cause). By the way, it would be excellent if you could get your Tibetan Geshe friend to look over some of our Tibetan-language-related articles and naming conventions, etc.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Milarapa belongs here in this article, he was the first enlighten Tibetan as the story goes, but I believe some of Padmasambhava's first 25 students were enlightened in that lifetime too. Some of the lamas have very long memories, as they say, dating back to a student under Guru Rinpoche and to the time prior to our historical Buddha Sakyamuni. Wonderlane (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderlane (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I've got huge problems with pretty much the entire content of this Wikipedia entry. It's obviously not written by someone with any expertise in Tibetan Buddhism, it's also obviously not written by a Tibetan Buddhist. People would be far better off going to something like the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) website for accurate information on what this tradition is all about. Otherwise, get one of the many excellent introductory books around (eg, B. Alan Wallace's Tibetan Buddhism From the Ground Up). This page makes it seem like some sort of obscure, exotic religion, not a living, practical, logical philosophy (which is what it is). At present I've not the time nor the inclination to rewrite this - anyway, I think it better for people to simply to go other information on the web that is far more accurate/authoritative. Besides, I fear that any rewrite would be taken down and reverted to the poor quality article currently posted. Wikipedia is full of useful, seemingly accurate information, but as this entry shows, there are certainly exceptions. So one certainly shouldn't believe everything one reads here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk • contribs) Zero sharp 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NB: I'm the guy who made the previous anon. comment above (have just created an account for myself). I just found that it seems that at least a lot of this article was plagiarised from here:

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/tibetan.htm

--Darkstar9999 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that is just another mirror site that drew its material from here. Of course new editors are always welcome but it will be helpful if the reasons for your edits are as clear as possible - for instance, it isn't clear why you deleted the picture of the monks. Sylvain1972 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material?

172.162.250.24

That link from religionfacts (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/tibetan.htm) above should be looked into. They have a copyright claim on their content. It would be interesting to see who stole from who. Here is the content directly from their website:

"Non-initiates in Tibetan Buddhism may gain merit by performing rituals such as food and flower offerings, water offerings (performed with a set of bowls), religious pilgrimages, or chanting prayers (see ). They may also light butter lamps at the local temple or fund monks to do so on their behalf.”

You gotta admit, that is awful similar to our:

" Non-initiates in Tibetan Buddhism may gain merit by performing rituals such as food and flower offerings, water offerings (performed with a set of bowls), religious pilgrimages, or chanting prayers (see also prayer wheel and prayer flag). They may also light butter lamps at the local temple or fund monks to do so on their behalf."

Anyone know about this? Did they collect their information from us, or is Wiki using someones copyrighted material without citing sources? (Alternatively, it is nearly plagiarized, depending on the circumstances.)

Hi,

Sorry deletion of the picture of the monks was unintentional (new at this). Might've been a bit hasty in accusing previous writers of plagiarism - as it's quite possibly that that site has copied from here, rather than vice versa. --Darkstar9999 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Have flagged a statement under 'Monasticism' as 'dubious' - doubtful that the proportion of Tibetan population that were monks was 25% over entire period from 16th century to 1959 and no reference is cited. --Darkstar9999 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zero Sharp I agree with you. However as poor as my knowledge is, I have studied Tibetan Buddhism for 30 years this fall. This article requires a complete re-write - its terrible. Editing it must be like trying to edit mud to make a lotus.Wonderlane (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bodong and Buton

In the "minor traditions" section, the Bodong and Buton sects redirect to articles with a different meaning, so I edited the link. By the way, it would be nice to have some more information on those sects. Nazroon 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction outline is incorrect

I removed a line on the introduction that said: "The information here is incorrect, please verify", or something to that extent. Nonetheless, actually what it is said in the introduction seems to be quite wrong or, at least, very badly explained. It reads:

Tibetan Buddhism is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition, meaning that the goal of all practise is to achieve full enlightenment (or Buddhahood) in order to remove all limitation on one's ability to help all other living beings to attain this state.

I would say that the main characteristic of Mahayana is to avoid enlightenment (keeping the state of bodhisattva, instead of becoming a Buddha, or attaining Buddhahood) in order to help all other living beings to attain this state (Buddhahood). Only that this postponing is a vow made by Avalokitesvara (the most important Bodhisattva) and not by simple human beings. I would say that one of the main characteristics of Mahayana is the belief and faith in the compassion of the Bodhisattva as a means to obtain illumination (or something like that). Even so that would account only for part of Mahayana, and wouldn't account for the specificity of Tibetan Buddhism, which is what is being treated here. Nazroon 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely disinclined to argue about this, but you obviously have no idea about what Mahayan Buddhism is. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. If you make a statement that the goal of practise is to 'avoid enlightenment', you clearly do not have any idea. This is nonsense, and a good demonstration of the problematic nature of Wikipedia (ie, anybody, no matter how lacking in knowledge, has just as much access to edit entries as anybody else). My hope is that some serious Tibetan Buddhist students will become involved in editing this page, and that we get some quality in it.

This article is a good example (as I said above) of the problematic nature of Wikipedia. Some of what's in this article is very good, some of it very poor. But attempts I've made to get rid of the poor quality/repetitious/inappropriate stuff have been reverted. In addition, whilst many of the latest edits by 'GlassFET' are fair enough, he/she has also taken it upon themselves to delete any links to centres' sites in the links list. I don't consider this to be very fair, in that, for example, the link to the FPMT website has been deleted. This is the largest Tibetan Buddhist organisation in the world, and contains much very good, reliable information (in fact, generally of far better quality than what is in this article). Further, many interested in Tibetan Buddhism would be interested to go to a centre to learn more - so for that purpose the site for the FPMT (which has more centres around the world than anyone else) would be highly appropriate to be listed in the links. The problem seems to be that, basically, it's only the unemployed/under-employed/students, etc that actually would have time to keep coming back and attempting to maintain quality in a particular article (due to the fact that anyone, no matter how lacking in knowledge) can come along and add inappropriate/bad quality material. Then, it seems that because there is no community of people here who are serious students of Tibetan Buddhism, I would pretty much be fighting a lone battle. And continually be forced to engage in debate with people who have no idea on the subject, in order to try to justify why I think the nonsensical/badly expressed/inappropriate/dubious material they've added should be taken down. And even if I do get it taken down, anyone on the planet with a net connection can revert it later. If I can illustrate the point I'm trying to make with a fictitious example: there is a Wikipedia article entitled 'Planet Earth', that has very few editors, one of whom may know something on the subject. Someone adds a quite a long explanation to the article on why it is that the Earth is flat. The one person who knows the Earth is round must then attempt to engage in 'debate' with this person who asserts that the world is flat, before he will allow the material to be taken down, if he ever will (he may be very stubborn indeed in maintaining his view that the Earth is flat). End of long expression of frustration.

I don't know who you are, and you don't address to what I said, just said that I have no idea; then, you go on a long, long speech about how so many people is so ignorant around you. Why don't you stick to the point of discussion and see if we can come to a clear conclusion? What do you think? Nazroon 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the point of Mahayana is to avoid enlightenment, but I suppose it depends on which of the multitude of Mahayana Buddhists you listen to and how you interpret what they say.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be correct, what Nat says. --Klimov 10:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

'Nazroon' I am NOT going to waste my time 'debating' the subject of whether the goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to 'avoid enlightenment'. I may just as well go to a Wikipedia page on 'planet Earth' and start 'debating' with people who claim that the Earth is flat. Do some reading on the subject.

You're both suffering from narrow perspectives. Avoiding enlightenment is quite a common idea in East Asian Buddhism (Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism, pages 110f), but not in Tibetan Buddhism. Much of the problem with Buddhism articles is that people assume their version is the only one. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The concept in Mahayana Buddhism is not avoiding enlightenment but attaining enlightenment and then not entering Nirvana until all others have attained enlightenment. There is a clear distinction. The Bodhisattva's final act is to attain enlightenment, then, and only then, to renounce it!--Bodhirakshita (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazroon, I have studied Tibetan Buddhism for 30 years this fall. The goal is to gain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. Tibetan Buddhism is a combination of different yanas all with the same goal - enlightenment. Tibetan Buddhism is not just Mahayana either, it includes Vajrayana, and even Bon.Wonderlane (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Date For Invasion

I believe the date given in this article for the Chinese Communist government's invasion of Tibet is wrong. It was not 1959, but either 1949 or 1950, depending on whether you're talking to the Tibetan government in exile (1949) or the Chinese (1950). See "The Snow Lion and the Dragon," by Melvyn C. Goldstein, U of Cal Press. 99infosponge88.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. For the record, the invasion of Tibet (or the "peaceful liberation" as described by some people), occurred ca. 1950. There was then a period of uncomfortable coexistence where the government of Tibet was a mixture of Chinese officials and the former Tibetan elite. In the late 50s, there was a popular uprising against China which culminated in the Dalai Lama's flight for India in 1959 and the destruction of the Tibetan elite (except for the Panchen Lama and his circle, who had been close to the Chinese for a long time, so they were not undone until the early 1960s).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'm not really sure how the only image of the interior of a Tibetan Buddhist temple is "unimportant", so I'm re-adding it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This image is unimportant because is old, bad quality picture taken from imagination or bad memory, is not very informative and unhelpful. I dont know whether it is Tibetan, Chinese or Mongolian inferior. This picture adds nothing to the article. Is good for cheap, pre-WWII adventure stories, but has no important data in article context. So I removed it again. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The artist of the image was a renowned explorer of the region, it is clearly labeled as a Tibetan temple, and perhaps you can explain why you think it is "bad quality"? I notice you have removed six other images from Tibet-related articles, each time simply stating that you personally don't like the image. Please refrain from any WP:Ownership issues, and respect that your personal opinion about an image is one vote in a pool of thousands. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a question of preferences, personal opinion or label given more then century ago. This pictures have no distinctive details at all. So named "lamas" are only three guys in red clothes. Maybe there are monks, but nor their positions, nor their schools are visible. And they only staying, doing nothing. There are no ritual objects, no distinctive ornament, no characteristic activity, simply nothing. Notability of an artist does matter only in his own field - if his works add nothing to article only its value is taking place wih nice red-colored rectangle. Today any child after seeing Dalailama in TV can make the same pictures, with the same precision. And finishing: this is encyclopedia not a collection of old pictures. If something isn't documentation should be removed. And this pictures are not a documentation at all. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By your standard, there is no purpose to an image of Napoleon II, Saint Peter or anyone else...the point is to show Lamas as they've been portrayed through time. They don't need to be performing a specific action, and on other Tibetan articles you've removed images specifically of actions such as demonstrating Tibetans prostated in prayer, saying that you don't think they're worthwhile. See the problem? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about lamas not history of portraying them, if picture has no value as an additional source of information (art history is other topic) should not be placed here. --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"omnipresent"

The introduction says, In perceiving the empty nature of all phenomena as well as each of their relative characteristics, one becomes both omniscient and omnipresent. "Omnipresent" may be something to do with manifestations/ avatars/ tulkus/ sprulku or with Buddha knowing what is going on everywhere and witnessing everything everywhere but the use of this particular word rings alarm bells that I can't quite put my finger on. My gut feeling is that it is misleading. Perhaps it's because people are apt to jump to the conclusion that any old yogi with a touch of emptiness is omnipresent in the same way God is.

Moonsell (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it.

Moonsell (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted from "tenet systems"

From the paragraph, Tibetan Buddhists all follow one or another particular understanding of the true nature of reality, the inherent emptiness of all things, known as Madhyamika Prsangika. I have deleted the words known as Madhyamika Prsangika. There are other understandings of emptiness apart from this one.

Moonsell (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

synonyms for "Vajrayana"

In the introduction, I have deleted the following footnote to "Vajrayana": Vajrayana may be cognate with Tantrayana, Mantrayana, etc. amongst many other renderings; though scholars and specific traditions often employ terms in specific ways with particular denotations. There are no true synonyms in English as in every other language.

The reason is that "Vajrayana" is already hyperlinked and this stuff on terms is a digression here. There is stuff on terms on the "Vajrayana" page.

Moonsell (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

tenet systems - deleted qualm

I have deleted the following paragraph under the heading Study of tenet systems in Tibetan Buddhism

It is not clear whether these four streams ever actually existed as distinct philosophical traditions in India, or if this classification was introduced by Tibetan scholars only after the transmission to Tibet.

The four tenet systems as distinct philosophical traditions in India (perhaps among others) is well-known. Cf, for example, Edward Conze, A Short History of Buddhism.

If anyone wants to reinstate this qualm would they please supply a source for their doubt. Moonsell (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have originally written the tenet section AND that particular sentence. I tried to find the article i had that bit of information from and think i found it: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level5_analysis_mind_reality/four_indian_buddhist_tenet_systems/major_indian_authors_texts_tenets.html?query=vaibhashika

Reading it anew, i guess i got confused with this sentence: "There is little evidence, however, that these subdivisions existed in India." Dr.Berzin is referring to the SUBdivisions of what he explicitely calls "the four traditional Indian tenet systems.", like Svatantrika-Madhyamaka and Prasangika-Madhyamaka

concluding, i would say you were perfectly right in deleting my unfounded "qualm" :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi 3ö (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Buddha Ideal

I've created this subheading and moved the introductory material to it. This material coherently falls under this heading and was not really introductory. Some better introduction is needed.

Moonsell (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana

In the paragraph:

Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism encompasses Vajrayana (a Sanskrit word that is a conjunction of vajra which may be translated as diamond, thunder or indestructible and yana or vehicle).

I've deleted the words after "Vajrayana" since redundant – this should be in the Vajrayana article, not here.

Moonsell (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava, a Tibetan master

In the phrase, Padmasambhava, a Tibetan master, I've deleted '"a Tibetan master", because he was from the now Pakistan/Afghanistan area.

Moonsell (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nyingma

I've deleted: [Nyingma...] relies on very early esoteric scriptures known as tantras... because it was simplistic and written in a patronising style.

I've deleted the following sentence too: In this school there is a good deal of emphasis placed on meditation. for the same reasons.

Moonsell (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Milarepa

In the phrase, ...Milarepa, an eleventh century mystic who meditated for many years in mountain caves before eventually reaching enlightenment, I've deleted the words after "mystic" because patronising and simplistic.

Moonsell (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist political power

The abstract has the paragraph: Verhaegen (2002: p.28) frames the political and economical dynamic within the evolving context of Tibetan Buddhism: Being politically involved from its very beginning in Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism's various schools and sub-sects, in order to further their own interests, had become allied with the hereditary nobility. The aristocratic families, seeking power, influence, and support, increasingly became the secular arms of the monasteries and sects they supported. In time, as the monasteries became increasingly economic and political entities, their power often eclipsed that of their patrons.

Does anyone know why this material is so prominently displayed, right near the beginning of the article, with no further elaboration? Is the writer trying to imply there is something peculiar about Buddhists being involved in politics or that it has not happened in other countries?

Is there any objection to moving it to the section on monasteries? It certainly doesn't seem to serve the purpose of orienting the reader to Tibetan Buddhism, which is what is needed for the beginning material.

Moonsell (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To Do

Added to do list to our talk page. Moonsell (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this list have the right sort of things on it?

Moonsell (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan terminology

I've added Tibetan terms where I could to the parts of the article I've been able to so far. I'm not suggesting others feel obliged to do it, but am asking other editors to tolerate it. There are two reasons I'm aware of why this is necessary:

• The lack of standardisation in English terms for Tibetan and Buddhist concepts both means there is too much scope for confusion about what people are talking about unless the Tibetan (and Sanskrit) are added in wherever possible as a reference point, and
• The lack of citations in the article in general is only partly due to not enough books and page numbers. Without Tibetan and/ or Sanskrit terms it might look to the reader like the article was a write-up by someone of a dream they had.

I've added Tibetan terms in double-doses each time: first a phonetic form, then the Wylie transliteration. There are too many of them to add the word "Wylie:" each time. This would make it all too unreadable. I've just put them there in pairs with a comma between them.

Often, especially where the Tibetan may be most needed, I've added it in the text in parentheses, at the cost of cluttering up the text with jargon. Other times, to leave the text more readable, I've added it as a footnote and am thinking of moving more of these to footnotes. This has a minor drawback too: when you click on the number of the footnote it just takes you to some jargon where you might have hoped for some explanation.

What do people think?

Moonsell (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

lamrim & lojong

I started subsections on these and then realised there are other Wikipedia articles on them. I have linked to those other articles.

Moonsell (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava & Bön

The article has: It was Padmasambhava (more commonly known in the region as Guru Rinpoche) who merged tantric Buddhism with the local Bön religion to form what we now recognize as Tibetan Buddhism.

I would like to delete this very provocative paragraph. Does anyone have any references for it? Please elaborate on how you interpret these references.

Moonsell (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted it. Before reverting, please give references and elaborate on your interpretation of them.

Moonsell (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite accurate. Padmasambhava brought Buddhism to Tibet C 800. He engaged in debates which included the display of extraordinary feats, termed miracles. The local religion was called Bön. See this article by Berzin for more information: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/tibetan_traditions/bon_tibetan_buddhism.html

Those aspects of Buddhism that the Bön liked they picked up. Among the educated Tibetan Buddhist lamas today are taught Bön traditions and may even make a special study of them. Wonderlane (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bön and other movements

I have changed the above heading to: "Minor Schools". If anyone would like to change it back, please cite and explain the evidence for Bön being a movement in Tibetan Buddhism.

Moonsell (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bön deletion

I have deleted the following: The Bön religion, which predated Buddhism in Tibet and remains distinct from it, has now been formally honoured by the Dalai Lama as the fifth religious tradition of Tibet. Bön practitioners honour Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as their founder instead of Shakyamuni Buddha.

Of course, Bön is relevent, but it is redundant since duplicated on the Bön page. Who is this pushing Bön out there anyway?

Moonsell (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Created a "References" section at the end of the article to enable abbreviated footnotes, as per ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Provide_full_citations>. Not sure yet how to differentiate this section from "Further Reading".

To refer to the same source multiple times in the article we can put full details of it here and then just refer to it in footnotes by author, date and page number. The Wikipedia link above says to have the date without parentheses, so I'll put removing them on the to do.

Moonsell (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

derivation of non-Nyingma

The article has: Padmasambhava established the Nyingma school from which all schools of Tibetan Buddhism are derived. This seems to ignore the later influences of Indian Buddhism on Tibet, e.g., Atisha and Marpa. I propose to delete the words after Nyingma school. Please elaborate on objections.

Moonsell (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What should be in the introduction?

Does anyone have ideas on this?

Moonsell (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's missing in this article?

What do people need to know about Tibetan Buddhism? Does anyone have ideas on this?

Moonsell (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana

I have moved the following two paragraphs from the "Vajrayana" section to a Vajrayana stub in the subheading, "General Methods of Practice":

It is said that Vajrayana practice is the fastest method for attaining Buddhahood, however this is only the case for advanced practitioners who have a solid and reliable grounding in the preliminary practices (which may be categorized as renunciation, Bodhicitta and Wisdom, specifically, the wisdom realizing emptiness). For practitioners who are not qualified, Vajrayana practice can be very dangerous, and will only lead to increased ego problems and more suffering if it is not practiced with the pure motivation of Bodhicitta.

Even for the qualified advanced practitioner, a specific Vajrayana practice should only ever be followed on the basis of receiving the appropriate initiation (also known as an empowerment) from a lama who is fully qualified to give that initiation.

Right at the beginning of the article, there is a link to the Vajrayana article, so we only need stuff here that distinguishes the Tibetan practice from others. Hence this structure. Is it OK?

These Vajrayana paragraphs still need rewording and referencing.

Moonsell (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava image

I've moved this nice image from the middle of the article, where it didn't seem to belong to anywhere in particular, to the beginning of the article, where it stimulates readers' interest. Can anyone suggest a better place?

Moonsell (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Section on Tibetan Buddhism and politics extremely inaccurate/biased

The following text in the introductory section is, I believe very inaccurate and biased (in fact, it seems to borrow very much from Beijing's propaganda/lies about pre-invasion Tibet). I also do not think that reference to political issues should be given this degree of prominence in the Wikipedia article on Tibetan Buddhism. It is an ancient philosophical and religious tradition, and in itself has nothing whatever to do with politics. No doubt there were some instances in Tibet of so-called monks who played politics with a negative motivation. If you know anything about Buddhism, however, you would know that anyone engaging in such activities is NOT, in fact, a Buddhist.:

"Being politically involved from its very beginning in Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism's various schools and sub-sects, in order to further their own interests, had become allied with the hereditary nobility. The aristocratic families, seeking power, influence, and support, increasingly became the secular arms of the monasteries and sects they supported. In time, as the monasteries became increasingly economic and political entities, their power often eclipsed that of their patrons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That passage does not sound very controversial to me, although I'm not sure it belongs in the intro. As for whether Buddhism has anything to do with politics, it clearly was the position of the Dalai Lama's government that it did, since the entire basis of the ruler's authority was his religious authority. It seems to me that you hedge a bet by specifying that you mean an involvement in politics with a negative motivation. However, it is often impossible to determine the real motivations of historical personages.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move it to the section under monasteries...? Not sure where else to suggest.

Moonsell (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it could be a footnote to something, but what? It's strange on its own.

Moonsell (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the section under monasteries. I wonder, though: Does this say something that is characteristic of Tibetan Buddhism or just what Buddhism has always been like in other countries too?

Moonsell (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

removed from Further Reading

I've removed from this section a number of books that were duplicated under the section "References". (The References section was added earlier as per Wikipedia guidelines for enabling multiple citations of the same work in an abbreviated form.) There are still duplications but may need to check more before removing further.

Moonsell (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Theravada

A well-meaning user changed the reference to Hinayana in the intro into a reference to Theravada. These terms are not synonymous. In one sense of the word "Hinayana", we can say that Theravada is a Hinayana school, but the influence of Theravada per se on Tibetan Buddhism is minor at best. In this context, "Hinayana" is referring to a concept within Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, not to a particular school practiced elsewhere, and Hinayana (or the Tibetan equivalent, tegchung) is indeed what this concept would normally be called. In view of the fact that "Hinayana" can indeed by offensive, I have replaced it in the text with the euphemism "Foundational Vehicle" which is used by the Dalai Lama, pending further discussion of which term should be used. Some time ago, I started the article on Nikaya Buddhism in the hopes that it would stand as an acceptable alternative to "Hinayana" (primarily for historical purposes, though), but this never caught on.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is unfortunate but we will probably be reverting these edits for years and years. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote to "Foundational Vehicle" could give enough info on this issue to enourage people to reflect before reverting further. I notice, though, someone has started a Hinayana page on Wikipedia. Perhaps much of this info could be added there, and "Foundational Vehicle" could be linked to it with maybe a briefer footnote if still necessary...?

Moonsell (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Hinayana Buddhism page on Wikipedia.

Moonsell (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration: Looking through just the first 2 archives on the Hinayana talk page so far, I see why this has been raised here, not there. There has clearly been an issue whether Tib Bsm has an attitude to Hinayana that, however validly deriving from Indian sources, may be distinct from that of other types of Buddhism. If we just do our own Hinayana thing here, at worst it will duplicate something in the other article and at best it will fit in with an unresolved controversy quite peacefully. Perhaps can I suggest again the idea of an elaborate footnote in the Tib Bsm article with just a link to Hinayana as well?

Moonsell (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Eight chariots

Shouldn't they be mentioned? I just put some links, maybe somebody wants to insert the important points in one way or another.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.64.228 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[9] In the section about Her Eminence Jetsun Kushok Chimey Luding (sister of Sakya Trizin) it is said: "Lam Dre, like Dzogchen, Ziji Chod and Kalacakra Yogas, is among Tibet's "Eight Chariots," or unique and complete systems of meditation practices leading to Enlightenment." Sounds different from the other explanations.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.195.179 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jetsun Kushok Chimey Luding Since she has not got a wikipedia site of her own I am going to put some information on the site of her brother, the above link first.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.195.179 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Practices and Vajrayana

I've changed the sketch of headings under "General Methods of Practice" to group the two above things together, after realising "preliminary" is only so-called in reference to the more advanced (Vajrayana).

The article had:

It is said that Vajrayana practice is the fastest method for attaining Buddhahood, - I've abbreviated this.

however this is only the case for advanced practitioners who have a solid and reliable grounding in the preliminary practices (which may be categorized as renunciation, Bodhicitta and Wisdom, specifically, the wisdom realizing emptiness). - I've replaced this with more elaboration about the relation of preliminary practices to Vajrayana.

For practitioners who are not qualified, Vajrayana practice can be very dangerous; it will only lead to increased ego problems and more suffering if it is not practiced with the pure motivation of Bodhicitta. - I've reworded and elaborated on this a bit. I've added the other principal aspects of the path as prerequisites too, based on sources emphasising wisdom in particular as crucial.

Moonsell (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Monasticism

I've deleted the following:

Verhaegen (2002: p.28) frames the political and economical dynamic within the evolving context of Tibetan Buddhism:

Being politically involved from its very beginning in Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism's various schools and sub-sects, in order to further their own interests, had become allied with the hereditary nobility. The aristocratic families, seeking power, influence, and support, increasingly became the secular arms of the monasteries and sects they supported. In time, as the monasteries became increasingly economic and political entities, their power often eclipsed that of their patrons.

We've discussed it before. Can we have a discussion about what it tells us about Tibetan Buddhism that is different from Buddhism in other places before reverting, please. Also, can we discuss why we need an extensive quote like this. If there is something in this that contributes to this article, wouldn't an abbreviated paraphrase do that better?

Moonsell (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs and translations

Wikipedia is not a Tibetan/English dictionary, but if you want to add these translations, please use the format below rather than using refs. Also, refs are not to be placed on section titles.

• Analytic Meditation (Tibetan), 'jegom, dpyad-sgom)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jossi. On translations, please refer to:

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). I've kept one footnote to a heading, though. That is because the footnote is a citation for the whole section. I've seen this in books. If I put it on any particular part of the section, it will be misleading as to what it refers to. If I make an extra sentence in the body of the section for the footnote to refer to, that looks like a digression and is verbose. Apart from this, I've adopted your suggestions. Do others have any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsell (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

'Introduction'

Content of 'introduction' is mostly very irrelevant and very poorly expressed. An 'introduction' to Tibetan Buddhism should contain (to state the very obvious) introductory information on the tradition for those who know little or nothing about it. Currently, this section does not serve this purpose, nor does it serve any real purpose at all in an article which seeks to explain Tibetan Buddhism. There's much else in this article that is inappropriate/badly expressed, but I've currently not the time nor the inclination to fight to get some quality into an article that seems written in large part by people with little idea of what Tibetan Buddhism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.24.12 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor schools

The article says, "Besides these major schools, there are a number of minor ones like Jonang." It's not that this would surprise me, but I'm not aware that this is so. What are some of the other minor schools? Rewording this sentence might allow us to put a little more emphasis on the Jonangpas, which would be nice.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no-one has any ideas. Why not make a change, Nat, if you're so inclined.Moonsell (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Three marks of existence

Under Tibetan definitions of “Buddhist”, the article has: More precisely, Tibetans specify two alternative criteria for being Buddhist: a) formal: having taken refuge and b) in belief: acceptance of the three marks of existence.

Instead of three marks of existence, I originally had "Four Seals of Dharma". It's nice that someone has found a page to link it to. However, I'm a bit hazy on details, but as far as I know, in Tibetan Buddhism there are 4. I'm glad to see the parallel of the three marks of existence in Southern Buddhism, but is it quite the same? Perhaps the best solution would be a new article on the four seals and notes pointing to the parallel with the three marks of existence, all of which is beyond my knowledge. Has anyone got any ideas? Please be bold if you can. Moonsell (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Reading further on the three marks of existence article, I see the fourth one mentioned too after all. How to tidy this up? Moonsell (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've attempted a stop-gap measure: I've renamed the link in the Tib Bsm article to "four marks..." It links to an article titled "three marks..." A bit shoddy, but the best I can think of. If we could just get the three marks article people to drop the number from their title... Any other ideas? Moonsell (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hierarchy of Tibetan Buddhism" section

The recently added section on Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, which consists of a quote from Glenn Mullin, strikes me as questionable. The idea that the Samding Dorje Phagmo outranks the Karmapa is certainly news to me. Since the various dignitaries of Tibetan Buddhism were from different sects, and the sects themselves were often rather loosely organised, and the "rankings" are sometimes rather informal anyway—for example, the Dalai Lama is generally seen as the highest-ranking Gelug lama, and the Panchen Lama is second; however, many sources say that the Gandän Thripa formally outranks both of them—so, I don't know where these overall rankings of lamas could come from, except perhaps from the government in Lhasa in the 19th century, which was, needless to say, not a neutral source. Glenn Mullin, I'm sure, is extremely knowledgeable, but he also seems to be quite Gelug-oriented, and I'm not sure whether he is writing for a scholarly standard in The Fourteen Dalai Lamas.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the text pending further discussion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese-Tibetan Buddhism

• Dr. Yutang Lin: The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion

I would like to insert this interesting discourse here, but: Dr. Yutang Lin seems to be of chinese nationality. Does this mean that his teaching has to be called chinese Buddhism?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.104 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

History

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6d#Teaching_story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.79.147 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Council of Samye, Council of Lhasa

-- 88.75.79.147 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)