Talk:Avalokiteśvara/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Avalokiteśvara. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Adding Mongolia's "Migjid Janraisig"

After or among the Tibetan Paragraph?; open to suggestions and/or brutal editing.Nhrenton 12:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Theravada

The article said: "In the Theravada tradition of Southeast Asia, Avalokiteśvara is known as Lokeśvara (Lord of the World)." I took this out, since I don't think Avalokiteśvara is known in Theravada at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Resurgence of Worship in Mongolia

The Mongolian name of Migjid Janraisig means "the Lord Who Looks in Every Direction;" Nidü-ber üjegci means "He Who Looks with the Eyes." While the worship of Avalokitesvara was repressed during Communist rule under the Stalinist rule of Horloogyin Choybalsan, the deity has enjoyed a renaissance since the 1990s. The dominant trend within Mongolian Buddhism is the Tibetan Gelupga sect; as a result, Mongolians hold the Dalai Lama as Avalokitesvara's earthly manifestation. A 26.5 metre statue of the deity was rebuilt in 1996 at the Gandantegchinlen Khiid Monastery, where an active monastic community has blossomed.

(There is an article about Mongolian Buddhism on the Gendantegchinlen Khiid Monastery article, but I find it heavy going--and not very specific re Avalokitesvra. You might be able to read it more profitably.)Nhrenton 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Avalokiteshvara/Chenrezig

Quick question here! Am I correct in thinking that Avalokiteshvara is the Sanskrit name and Chenrezig is the Tibetan name? I know that the Sanskrit pronunciation of Om Mani Padma Hum is described as 'the mantra of Avalokiteshvara' whereas the Tibetan pronunciation Om Mani Peme Hung is described as 'the mantra of Chenrezig'.

Yes, that would be what the very first paragraph of the article says. Jpatokal 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't read it properly! (the lay out of the page makes it easy to miss the 'in Tibetan' bit) But maybe it should be right at the start - Avalokiteśvara or Avalokiteshvar, अवलोकितेश्वर (Sanskrit, lit. "Lord who looks down") (Tibetan: Chenrezig). Or maybe not?

Name

Is Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara's name pronounced [ˌa.ˈval.ɔ.kit.eʃ.ˈva.ɹa], or is it a different pronunciation? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In Sanskrit, I think it is [ʌʋʌˌlokiˈteɕʋʌrʌ].—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Oppose merge. While they are considered to be the same, they are culturally quite different. A combined article could not go into the depth that separate articles could. Cundi 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The articles were originally the same, but were split off in 2004 (see [1]) and, IMHO, quite successfully. Jpatokal 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The figure of Guan Yin (Quan Am in Vietnam) requires separate treatment. Many people in Vietnam who are very familiar with Quan Am have never heard of Avalokiteshvara. There is no doubt an historical connection, but Quan Am is now a separate figure. Merging these two articles would be like merging the article on the French language with the article on Latin, on the theory that historically French is an offshoot of Latin. DoktorMax 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am getting rid of the merge box. There are 3 opposes and no reason for merges. Benjwong 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't understand Chinese and Japanese words.

I am not a Buddhist nor Chinese speaker nor a Japanese speaker. I could not understand some statements due to the use of Japanese or Chinese words without the English IAST with them. Few examples:

In Etymology:

Lokeśvara-rāja ( 盧迦委斯諦, lit. 'King of world sovereignty') is another epithet of Avalokiteśvara. The Chinese interpretation of Lokeśvara-rāja 世自在王 is 'World Sovereign King'. īśvara 自在 n. lord, adj. free; unrestrained; unrestricted; liberated. In Chinese Dharma-character school 法相宗, 自在 vb. means 主宰 to dominate; to dictate; to govern; to predominate; to rule or to reign.

Please write which language it is for words like 盧迦委斯諦,自在. Write English IAST words for 法相宗, 自在. It would be appreciated if written in this format: e.g Avalokiteśvara or Avalokiteshvar, (Sanskrit: अवलोकितेश्वर , lit. "Lord who looks down") ie Word in English (Language: in local script , lit. meaning).

In lead:

Avalokiteśvara is known as Guan Yin ( 觀音)

Which language:觀音????

Mayana Account:

Six forms of Avalokiteśvara in Mahayana (defined by Tian-tai, terrace) 天臺六觀音: 1. 大悲觀音great compassion, 2. 大慈觀音great loving-kindness, 3. 獅子無畏觀音lion-courage, 4. 大光普照觀音universal light, 5. 天人丈夫觀音leader amongst gods and men, 6. 大梵深遠觀音, 大梵至聖觀音 the great omnipresent Brahma

Meaning given but the terms not given in English, same applies to the Chinese column in Manifestations table and Vajrayana para:

Seven forms of Avalokiteśvara in esoteric Buddhism 密教七觀音: 1. 不空羅索觀音not empty (or unerring) net, or lasso. Amoghapāśa. 2. 千手千眼面觀音1000-hand and 1000-eye, vara-sahasrabhuja-locana/Sahasrabhujasahasranetra, 3. 馬頭觀音horseheaded, Hayagriva, 4. 十一面觀音11-faced, Ekadasamukha, 5. 准提觀音 Cundi, 6. 如意輪觀音wheel of sovereign power, Cintamani-cakra; 7. 聖觀音, 正觀音holy one, 聖觀自在arya Lokiteśvara, the Holy sovereign beholder of the world (loka), a translation of īśvara, means ‘ruler’ or ‘sovereign’.

I request the editors to address these concerns.--Redtigerxyz 06:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the following text:

"Lokeśvara-rāja ( 盧迦委斯諦, lit. 'King of world sovereignty') is another epithet of Avalokiteśvara. The Chinese interpretation of Lokeśvara-rāja 世自在王 is 'World Sovereign King'. īśvara 自在 n. lord, adj. free; unrestrained; unrestricted; liberated. In Chinese Dharma-character school 法相宗, 自在 vb. means 主宰 to dominate; to dictate; to govern; to predominate; to rule or to reign"

from the etymology section, because this section is about the etymology of the word Avalokiteshvara only. Moreover, the Chinese interpretation of Lokeśvara-rāja seems to be the same as the Sanskrit meaning, hence it is not necessary to explain it here. Lokeśvara-rāja may be mentioned in the intro, that's sufficient. Moreover, the meaning of the words "In Chinese Dharma-character school" is not clear to the average reader. 89.54.175.192 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit/Nepali name in Infobox

I don't know whether or not it's right, but I changed the infobox to conform with its template. Presumably this was an older form of the infobox (I couldn't find the revision in question), but at some point it got changed and thereby broken, perhaps because that form of the name is Nepali and not Sanskrit? I'm guessing and don't know the languages, but any such change (incorporating another language) would need to be made in parallel in the Bodhisattva Infobox template -- which, incidentally, uses Avalokiteśvara as an example of its usage. /Ninly (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LGBT?

According to LGBT themes in mythology, this figure is somehow LGBT-related. Does anyone know how, even if it is disputed? If not, i've tagged it for removalYob Mod 13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume it's a really far-fetched reference to the fact that, while originally male, his version as Guan Yin is usually depicted as female. Jpatokal (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More Migjid Janraisig

I can get this name in Cyrillic if desired; how shall that be handled in the name box? English AND Cyrillic? Also, Migjid Janraisig seems to be the more popular (perhaps more nationalistically Mongolian?) name for Avaloskitevara. Should it perhaps be listed first in the first paragraph? Furthermore--doea anyone have suggestions for how to handle the name Migjid Janraisig in stories withina purely Mongolian context. As time permits, I shall try to introduce something on the renaissance of this deity in Mongolia.Nhrenton 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we probably shouldn't put the Cyrillic writing of Migjid Jainraising in the article. This spelling doesn't have a very long history and isn't closely associated with Buddhism. Please put the Cyrillic script on this talk page and we can add it later if we decide to do so.

As for Mongolia-specific information, I recommend a section titled "Mongolian beliefs concerning Migjid Jainraisig" to be placed immediately after the section about Tibet.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat. Here the Cyrillic: Мигжид Жанрайсиг .Mind you, there's also classical Mongolian horizontal script (which is perhaps more theologically correct), but it's a tricky font issue. I'm off to Asia until the new year; I'm afraid I'll only be able to give you a poor effort (being an Anglican/Episcopalian); I'll put it here--if you think it'll do as a start, feel free to add it in your recommended space. I'm guessing about some of the names. I fear it gets off topic out of ignorance; about all I could divine from it was that Mongolians tend to be Gelupga.

By the way--Is that Xongsim name a Chinese name from Inner Mongolia?

Hmmm, shouldn't Мигжид Жанрайсиг become "Migjid Janraisig" in English, rather than "Migjid Jainraisig"? Also, I don't know where "Xongsim" comes from, but it doesn't look like any kind of Chinese that I'm familiar with. I guess there's an off chance it could derive somehow from the Mandarin Chinese "Guan Shi Yin".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Мэгжид Жанрайсиг" wins in a frequency contest with Google. Doesn't make much of a difference: /e/ and /i/ in the first syllable have merged (into /i/) in Ulaanbaatar dialect. I can't make much sense of the Hangsim as well, but as for Nidüber üjegci: I should be pretty surprised if you find any Mongolian who's not a philologist and knows this ancient term. I would bet 10.000 Togrog that if you walk into Gandan and ask from the first 10 young (max. 25 years) monks you encounter, less than three of them will know. (Older monks will probably not know the term but won't fail to deduce its pretty obvious meaning.) G Purevdorj (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Хонсим is frequently found in the pre-revolutionary literature. This beautiful word is used in combination with "bodhisattva": хонсим бодисад. I've never thought of the meaning, but this talk made me interested in it. Maybe I saw it in Injinashi or in the Novel of Green Tara or somewhere else. As for Megjid or Migjid, is it Мэлмий нээгч, that who opens the eyes. Nidüber üjegci (Нүдээр үзэгч) is perhaps another version. In either case, is Mig or Meg in Migjid "eye" in Tibetan? Is Migjid Janraisig only one of the many forms of the deity? Another form being Мянган Мутарт Жанрайсиг (Chenrezig with Thousand Arms) ? Gantuya eng (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A call for critical review of....

the following books...

http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&lr=lang_en&as_brr=0&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=lang_en&as_vt=avalokitesvara&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn=

^^^^
FYI

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+avalokitesvara&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

--124.78.226.174 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Avalokiteśvara => Avalokitasvara

It should now be apparent that the original name is "Avalokitasvara", and was for around 600 years during the bulk of development of Mahayana Buddhism in India. "Avalokiteśvara" is a different modification of this that changes the meaning and implications of the bodhisattva's characteristics. For example, in many Mahayana sutras, "Avalokitasvara" is associated with sound and meditation methods involving listening to sounds. These would have all been "Avalokitasvara" in the original Sanskrit (predating 7th century). In the Chinese translations, they were basically all "Guanshiyin" or "Guanyin" (before Xuanzang's time) which is again an exact translation of "Avalokitasvara". Although an argument for keeping "Avalokiteśvara" could be made for purposes of its use in Tibetan Buddhism (which inherited the later Sanskrit terms for some uses in mantras), in fact "Chenrezig" is more widely attested in Tibet. Furthermore, the main mantra associated with Avalokitasvara in Tibet, has no direct reference to a name (om manipadme hum), so this does not cause a conflict. That leaves the West as the only place that uses "Avalokiteśvara" as a general purpose name, and we now know that the name does not apply before the 7th century when the overwhelming majority of Mahayana texts were authored. For these reasons, I believe the page and its contents should use "Avalokitasvara" as the more correct and accurate general term. A redirect from Avalokiteśvara and its alternate romanizations would be automatic. Tengu800 (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. In short, we use the most common English name (Avalokiteśvara), not a historical name that "should" be more common but is not. Jpatokal (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is renamed that way, most people may be confused or think that we made a misspelling unless they read the corresponding lines in the article. But many people visit an article not to read it all but just to see the bit that most interests them. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the real policy is to use the most common name, then that would certainly be "Guanyin", which is definitely the most widely attested name for the bodhisattva in English. However, the reason we don't use this most common name, is because we think that using the Sanskrit name is more accurate. If accuracy is then a major factor as well, then it is certainly misplaced in using a name that didn't even enter into Buddhist texts before the 7th century. Tengu800 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Guanyin" isn't a common name for Avalokitesvara. "Guanyin" is the name of a Boddhisattva in the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. Even it is not pronounced that way in the other countries that accepted the Chinese Buddhism such as Korea or Japan. Avalokitesvara is the common name. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no major extant Buddhist tradition uses "Avalokiteshvara" -- it's pure western revivalism. They use "Guanyin", "Kwannon", "Chenrezig", or some other localized name. "Guanshiyin Pusa" is an exact translation of "Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva", and it refers to the same bodhisattva first introduced in the Lotus Sutra. Of these various names, Guanyin has been used the most in English and therefore is the most widely attested. So if the "common name" policy really applied as you say it does, then Guanyin or Guanshiyin would be the standard name. My point is not to advocate changing the name to Guanyin, but to show that "Avalokiteshvara" was not chosen simply because it was the most common name. It was chosen because people thought (incorrectly) that it was the accurate Sanskrit name. Tengu800 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all kind of irrelevant -- we have a separate article about Guanyin, because she/he/it has diverged so much from the original. This article talks about the "original" Buddhist Avalokiteśvara, and the commonly accepted rendering of the name in the original Sanskrit is Avalokiteśvara. Jpatokal (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Avalokitasvara chapter of the Lotus Sutra is the earliest source for the bodhisattva. This is one of the most popular pieces of Chinese Buddhist literature, and is often read and studied as a separate sutra. To consider Guanshiyin a separate bodhisattva, a deity, or an exclusively female figure is very wrong. For much of the history of Chinese Buddhism, Guanshiyin Pusa was depicted as a male bodhisattva, often observing the sea of suffering, listening to the cries of the world. This is exactly the original Avalokitasvara of the Lotus Sutra. Tengu800 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jpatokal except calling Guanyin "it". If you feel difficulty choosing a pronoun, please say "this Bodhisattva". Gantuya eng (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In Ummon's words:

A monk once asked Ummon, "What is the Buddha?" Ummon answered thus: "A dried shit-stick!" Jpatokal (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This type of teaching was never meant to be used as free license to disrespect buddhas and bodhisattvas. Tengu800 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to meditate a little more deeply on what Ummon is saying and why. Jpatokal (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone who is enlightened can even be a butcher without incurring karma, but that isn't you. Since this is Wikipedia, little things like "names" and "content" actually do matter. This is especially true on a thread about a naming proposal that you are arguing against. "Names don't matter at all, as long as they are the names I want." Tengu800 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's how you shape your karma. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bayon Temple at Angkor

Avaolkitesvara / Jayavarmnan VII, Angkor Thom North Gate
Avaolkitesvara / Jayavarmnan VII on towers of Bayon Temple, Angkor Thom

I am not a specialist in this area at all, but stumbled into this through visiting the temples at Angkor. The stunning Bayon temple, and the gate entrances to Angkor Thom, were all created under the reign of Jayavarman VII, whose military, diplomatic and imperial success is represented in this most impressive project of the Angkor Khmer empire. He was also the emperor who changed the official religion of the empire from Hinduism to Buddhism. I therefore was surprised, in the context of the relationship between Shiva and Avalaokitesvara to see only a passing reference in the article to the relationship between the carved faces of Bayon (216 faces! which are of Avaloketesvara but are said to be modelled physically on Jayavarman). Here is the reference:

"In Theravada, Lokeśvara, "the lord, ruler or sovereign beholder of the world", name of a Buddha; probably a development of the idea of Brahmā, Vishnu or Śiva as lokanātha, "lord of worlds". In Indo-China especially it refers to Avalokiteśvara, whose image or face, in masculine form, is frequently seen, e.g., at Angkor"

Given the importance of Angkor as a historical site, and the extent of public interest, I would be grateful if an expert in this field could develop this reference further in order to provide a discussion of the issues involved in this crucial concept behind the design of the massive Angkor Thom site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lornshillht (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(fixed gallery) Tengu800 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that only the Wade-Giles version of transliteration of the Chinese name is used. What is the Pinyin form with the tone markers?

124.61.6.120 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Avalokitesvara in Wayism

I thought this may be worth a mention. Avalokitesvara is an import figure in Wayism. Wayists believe that Avalokitesvara is somewhat of a celestial Christ figure. They believe that Avalokitesvara appeared on the scene in the 1st century at a time that corresponds to that which Jesus described when his so-called 2nd coming would occur (within a generation of the crucifixion, after the calamities of the fall of Jerusalem and banishment of Jews from the city). Wayists indicate to corresponding expectations of what the followers of Jesus' Way (not Christianity) understood regarding the reason for, and the 'person' of the glorified Jesus and Avalokitesvara. In short, they believe the spirit who incarnated as Jesus was glorified and returned as Avalokitesvara, and therefore they worship the Bodhisattva as the Lord of Compassion in most of its various forms known to the Mahayana tradition. Ref: http://wayism.wikispaces.com/Avalokite%C5%9Bvara http://www.amazon.com/Wayism-Harmonious-Existence-Worldview-Lifestyle/dp/0987680013/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

If you agree, I can research it more and write a brief mention for this page CuriousJon 17:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan59 (talk • contribs)

tibetans view on Chenrezig

The story of Buddha Amithaba's task to Chenrezig is findable in a commentary by Lodro Tulku. --Kt66 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This section, "Tibetan Buddhist beliefs concerning Chenrezig", is completely superficial, written from an external naive perspective. Among Tibetans politics is perceived rightly as politics, just as it is in every other society. I believe this treatment would be, at best, amusing, and is most likely insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.138.196 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Form

Should someone make a reference to the fact that this is also "Kanon" in Japanese ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.32.198 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Chanrai

Jainraising, Chenrezig and the name Chanrai, used today by many persons of Indian culture, sound as the same, and Chanrai may correspond to an spirit invoked to have good luck, some sources point Chanrai is the name of the Smiling Big Man considered a Buddha image. Local or more precise sources needed and welcome.--Jgrosay (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How is Avalokitesvara pronounced?

How do you pronounce Avalokitesvara, especially which syllables are stressed? Thank you 85.124.176.91 15:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I can answer this question. I am originally from Sri Lanka. They speak Mixed Singhala meaning pure Singhala plus Sanskrit. This is a compound word of avalokita+izvara. Lookup these words at the Sanskrit dictionary - University of Cologne. The meaning becomes obvious. In Sanskrit, the beginning a is as u in cut. All other a letters are mute inside a morpheme, unless they are long a vowels. e and o are always long in Sanskrit. The i in Isvara is long (indicated by the capital - Harvard-Kyoto scheme). When the two words join, they undergo Sandhi. i+I -> e (long as said before). Recap: All a's are mute except the first one. The e is like a in way. o is just as in low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahangama (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone's watching this board, I too want to know what syllables are accented. Is it like some other old languages, where nobody knows and there isn't a definitive pronunciation? --Munge 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The most accented syllable is teś (as in John Tesh); the first A is also stressed. Roughly: AH-va-lo-kee-TESH-va-ra. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's AH-wa-low-kee-TESH-wa-ra

Two things to note: Where I have transliterated it as "wa", you pronounce the "w" as a letter in between a "v" and a "w" (hard to explain). Also, the when pronouncing the "r", you simply tap your tongue against the middle of the top alveolar ridge (the ridge at the roof of your mouth). This is called an alveolar tap Armyrifle (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This explanation is right except the 'r' is simply the common sound of r in English in similar locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahangama (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanskrit: "looks down" or "looks upon"?

I am an OTRS volunteer. Someone recently wrote to OTRS complaining that the beginning of the article: :Avalokiteśvara (Sanskrit: अवलोकितेश्वर lit. "Lord who looks down") might imply disrespect, because it is an expression of disdain in English to "look down" on someone.

Would "Lord who looks upon" be an accurate enough translation? If so, it would eliminate the double meaning in English for the phrase "looks down". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think looks down upon is fine, but if changed, perhaps 'looks upon from above' keeps the same divinity, without the implicit condescension. I would think looks down is fine though.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much Chinese?

I wonder why the infobox on the right hand side of the article has so much Chinese - and why all those Chinese names come before the Sanskrit and Pali names? This is the English Wikipedia and Avalokiteśvara originated in India not in China — so I would think Sanskrit and Pali names should come before all those Chinese names. And why so many Chinese names? Surely anyone who can read Chinese could refer to the article on Chinese Wikipedia if they want to know all the different Chinese names. For everyone else this is meaningless. Avalokiteśvara also has over 108 names in Sanskrit so should those be listed as well? And of course all those Sanskrit names have Tibetan, Mongolian and Manchu equivalents that could added as well. I see no particularly good reason to give so much prominence to Chinese. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have yet read or verified a Sanskrit or Tibetan version of the Lotus Sutra, however the Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra is possibly where the first popularized modern day accounts of Avalokitesvara may have occurred. Of course it does upset me a lot when I edited the Wikipedia page and I saw a infobox profile box named Chinese - I have seen infoboxes about the template Person, why on earth do I need a specific infobox template named Chinese when Shakyamuni Buddha's Wikipedia page is just using a standard Person infobox. My personal grievances is my own problem, still part of it relates with how while the Gautama Buddha was said to have spoken the Mahayana e.g. Lotus Sutra, whether was Avalokiteśvara in effect a mythical supramundane being or a worldly humanitarian manifestation has been further adorned with official Chinese accounts and reports that are rather difficult or even downright impossible going into detail accruing from how the truth system works approximately in Chinese legacy.

I offer and provide a comparable example of another Buddhist bodhisattva being that confuses me as well - the Chinese literature classic of Romance of Three Kingdoms was a romanticized impression of Chinese history, accruing from the classic literature an entire civilization spawned forth its own religious beings like Guan Yu i.e. what came being known as Sangharama Bodhisattva, till value-adds of modern softwares till academic journals. While the attainment of Guan Yu as Sangharama Bodhisattva is widely regarded by the Chinese as acceptable - he was a heroic wartime murderer who embraced Buddhism after he got beheaded, which case the Chinese Buddhist communities awarded him the posthumous title of bodhisattvahood because of his said new found allegiance in a religious cause instead of a military purpose. Regarding the RTK series, when you regard how the Japanese also embraced it developing a Koei game series based on it before propagating it into the West as well, differentiating history and legend becomes a modern day endeavour when there are both historically verified accounts of ancient beings while there are also culturally mooted versions too.

So the thing is historically in India, I have little evidence that Avalokiteśvara may actually exist as a person like Shakyamuni Buddha was officially recorded as. From the manner in which how the Mahayana teachings portray Avalokiteśvara, I do what I can by just replacing the Infobox template with a Person template adding a Buddhism stub, what I would have liked myself is some citation itself about Avalokiteśvara's birth date and place geographically on this planet, if you have the free resources in verifying claims all over the world about said gnosis, that may give others meaning perhaps, still I tried and there's a limit about what I can know as a mundane being. - :) Rongxiang Lin 01:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

Cleanup-rewrite???

Someone has added the tag "Cleanup-rewrite" to this article saying "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. " Please state your reason for adding this tag in the talk page -- or I delete it next time I come back (which may never happen, to be honest:). This article has been rated as B-class, that is "mostly complete and without major problems" -- so it is weird to say it needs to be rewritten completely?!

Lebatsnok (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lebatsnok. JimRenge (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

The cleanup-rewrite tag was added by this user account User:Ronggy, now in the context where the tag ought to be removed, now the Chinese historical influence where Avalokiteśvara and related legends are concerned having known origins tracing back a thousand of years or more. So if you browse through this article's recent talk page comments, what is the situation here is how a couple of accounts bearing Western names have expressed an opinion or two between the Chinese and Avalokiteśvara - which is alright - what is noteworthy here is how if anybody has done the simplest of research regarding Buddhism and the related bodhisattvas before, which the historically acclaimed Shakyamuni Buddha was known as having been born in Nepal and conducted His Ministry in parts of Northernmost India, most of His legacies are popularized by other Asian civilisations especially those with East Asian or South East Asian backgrounds.

Now if anybody with a Western name such as Lebatsnok or JimRenge finds a Wikipedia tag peculiar, what an Asian finds weirder is how when an Asian tells you that an Asian article requires a complete rewrite, an a Westerner or two appears suggesting that the article is actually a B-class, you may be right in thinking the article deserves being kept as status quo, you may be wrong in thinking that you know better than I do.

Rongxiang Lin 08:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

An editor who places a template message to indicate a problem should explain his/her rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. Please explain why this article needs to be rewritten (why it does not conform with wikipedia policies and guidelines). Thank you JimRenge (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether someone is in Asia or the West has no bearing on the Wikipedia editorial process. It certainly does not confer upon anyone special privileges. Tengu800 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Now in the event that it is the Wikipedia contributor here that is either deluded or misinformed, thereby putting such a tag on a Wikipedia page that warrants your inquiry, what makes one chuckle even more, is where the inputs that come in as if guiding the deluded and misinformed contributor, suggests that everybody else is also equally deluded and misinformed or even more than the contributor that put the tag there.

If the contributor has a basis in suggesting that the article deserves cleaning up, now does he work at Wikipedia or does he represent the subject matter i.e. Avalokitesvara here?~

The answer is trivial. This contributor should start of saying what specifically is wrong. Just putting a general tag does in no way help making the article better. The reader may think that everything is wrong -- which is obviously NOT the case. Lebatsnok (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If a contributer either works at Wikipedia or he represents Avalokitesvara, then please just listen and keep the tag there because somebody has seen the need of the article being rewritten - if you need a basis being further expounded.. again reiterating oneself.. somebody above has commented about either the China and the Chinese where Avalokitesvara is concerned.. I recall telling you further in these comments wherein lies the issue - the issue is simply because Avalokitesvara has a huge degree of Chinese historical and religious origins and followship.

If you take a look at the huge number of research that pertains this particular bodhisattva or deity, you yourself as a Wikipedia reviewer are falling in a manner that tickles me. Look, Shakyamuni Buddha with all the archaeological research done already has got an estimated birth date as well as estimated death i.e. nirvana date tagged with His infobox. Go check out all the other saints of major religions known on this planet, and other wonderful saints whether male or female have got their infoboxes describing where there were were born, where they lived, where they preached, till why they fell sick or passed away. Jesus is one such example, He too is known like Shakyamuni as somebody that was archaeologically known as having existed historically.

I give you good folks an option - change the cleanup-rewrite tag, put something else more deserving there. Still, if quality ain't the issue of concern here, the 'person' infobox becomes the other major problem, because Avalokiteśvara was never recorded as being born on this planet at all, even the gender of this 'person' is dubious, when a person's gender can hardly be qualified as a historical fact i.e. he is neither a male nor a female.. Is this 'person' neutered? Is this 'person' born special like e.g. Shakyamuni Buddha or Jesus Christ? what sort of mammal on earth is such a 'person' named Avalokiteśvara when nobody on this earth knows precisely whether is this person a male or a female?　And when the entire planet earth hardly knows whether Avalokiteśvara is definitely a male or definitely a female, and when all that are alive on this planet can hardly discern when was the approximate birth year of Avalokiteśvara and when the approximate death year was.. you can have an entire world putting in 33 citation references suggesting they knew such and such a being might have existed, my point is have you any idea when is Pikachu born? Will you use a 'Person' infobox describing Pikachu? Can you get Avalokiteśvara a better infobox template and infobox then? :)

The China Chinese officially proclaim till out modern day in a widespread manner that Avalokiteśvara has manifested on the Asian continent before.

If any Wikipedia contributor editing this Talk page or article has any issue with a China Chinese Avalokiteśvara it is hardly about special privileges till internet etiquette it is about how you hardly know better than I do so quit complaining about another misinformed being and get your facts right for me and others instead of telling one Wikipedia contributor where I may have went wrong.

Is Avalokiteśvara a male or female was Avalokiteśvara born at all - if this person never existed why bother keeping an article about somebody that never existed - do you prefer a speedy deletion tag instead?

Duh,

Rongxiang Lin 13:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your English is very difficult to follow (you are evidently not a native speaker). If you have a specific point, then please make it succinctly -- this is not a discussion forum. I would also encourage you to read the article Encyclopedia, which may help you to understand the purpose and scope of Wikipedia. Since you are apparently a very new editor who has little experience editing Wikipedia, please stay for some time to learn the basic etiquette and editing process before you begin insulting editors here and deleting information. Tengu800 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about being Asian or Westerner, this is about backing up your claims. If you say the article requires a complete rewrite, then the least that can be expected is that you say why. The most that can be expected is that you make the article better, by doing the revisions that you say should be done. I came here in search of information and saw the tag which, apparently, casts doubt on everything that is said in the whole article. I just do not think this is fair. Have a good day :) Lebatsnok (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Avalokiteśvara = Guan Yin

Avalokiteśvara = Guan Yin -- WonYong^Talk 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no, Guan Yin is a manifestation of Avalokiteshvara, but there are many more manifestations of Avalokiteshvara, like 4-armed and 1000-armed Avalokiteshvara. So yes, a horse is an animal, but not all animals are horses...rudy 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems that there were changes as Avalokiteśvara became Guan Yin, and as both articles are already lengthy, I think it best to keep them separate, but with appropriate links. Aleta 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There were already multiple opposes on this merge before. See above. Benjwong 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Avalokiteśvara was translated as a 'he' guy if you check out the Longer Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra, my personal suggestion without saying I'm right, is how the sutras themselves have been carried forward into China when the limitation of the Chinese language and culture is such that the ordinary folklore of China began expressing Avalokitesvara as a Guan Yin goddess instead of the Guan Zi Zai bodhisattva identity which was the initial intention of the translator that brought the sutras into China.

Now there is a very major difference between China and Nepal or India even though they are adjacent within the same continent.

The China populace are Chinese, the India populace are Indians, the Shakyamuni Buddha was born in Nepal technically He was a Nepalese by birth, in the middle of China and India. If the Shakyamuni Buddha met Avalokiteśvara in person when the Heart Sutra was spoken, they were probably in India anyway. Over 2500 years of Buddhist sangha, the Shakyamuni's birth and death was archaeologically given approximate dates, was Ksitigarbha or Avalokiteśvara born or manifested or otherwise the only rationale why we would know of Avalokiteśvara is because the early sangha left their oral legacies, presumably as best as they could without paper. When the later era Chinese related Avalokiteśvara with Guan Yin or Guan Zi Zai, and even portrayed these bodhisattvas as goddesses and deities till the extent of feminizing Him or Them, by then in china it was just a collection of legends instead of monastic truths.

When a reader primarily oriented in English reads about Avalokiteśvara, He's just a supramundane guy that lived during the time of Shakyamuni Buddha, like the Licchavi Vimalakirti.

When the Buddhist sutras were brought into China or Japan, Avalokitesvara possibly an Indian male became a Chinese female, even Vimalakirti an Indian male became a Japanese character. Rongxiang Lin 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Isvara before 7th century.

The word Iśvara clearly appears before the seventh century as it appears multiple times in the Yoga Sutras which are generally dated some time around 200 b.c.e.. Further more I believe Iśvara and Aiswarya both occur in Sankhya treatises that predate Patañjali. This suggests that usage of the word Iśvara is in fact older than the first Mahayana Sutras, no?Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

•So the word Iśvara occurs in the Bhagavad Gita (between the 5th and 2nd century BCE)

•In the Yoga Sutras शौच संतोष तपः स्वाध्यायेश्वरप्रणिधानानि नियमाः ॥३२॥ Yoga Sutras II.32 (between 200 BCE and 400 CE)

•And in the name of Iśvarakṛṣṇa (from between the third and fifth century CE) who wrote the Samkyakarika (terminus ad quem 569 CE)

So the word Iśvara was clearly in use in Sanskrit before the seventh century CE. If the claim was for BCE, then that is before Buddhism or Avalokiteśvara was around (between 600 and 400 BCE, Avalokiteśvara possibly closer to 300) and equally erroneous. The claim that Iśvara in Avalokitesvara predates the sanskrit word Iśvara is totally and obviously incorrect, unless they are claiming the deity predates the Buddha. Not to say it couldn't still mean svara-sound instead of iśvara-lord.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim is that the word Avalokiteśvara doesn't appear before then, not the word īśvara. If it needs to be reworded to clarify that, fine, but you're reading the sentence wrong. However, as a native speaker of English, I cannot understand your reading that the reference is to īśvara. "This name was later supplanted by the form containing the ending -īśvara, which does not occur in Sanskrit before the seventh century" in context is obviously a reference to Avalokiteśvara. Ogress _smash! 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I see. It really didn't seem clear before to me, but now there is no mistaking. I'd say the process works! Before it seemed like the reason one could assume svara-sound over isvara-lord was isvara being too young a word. The lack of clear antecedent misled me. Thanks for the rewrite.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

But it seems worth adding that this whole section is somewhat unclear and looks like it changes its POV part way through (starting with Isvara and switching to Svara). Maybe both definitions should be presented at the top of the section and then clarified below. I'm hesitant to edit it myself, because the Chinese translations are a little beyond me, but this whole section could be more clearly presented.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avalokiteśvara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol13/vol13_art13_CHANDRA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Deity?

I think deity is a very inapropriate term. Worship may also be misinterpreted. Dustin Asby 08:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. - Nat Kraus e 09:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disagreed. Guan Yin in particular is a deity worshipped by millions who couldn't give a fig about theological hairsplitting. But can you suggest better terms? Jpatokal 12:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the people venerating Guan Yin do not care about theological hairsplitting, while quite true, does not justify inaccurary in an encyclopedia. I'll work on coming up with an alternative. - Nat Kraus e 13:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed "deity" to "bodhisattva". I wouldn't mind at all going with something more general, but I'm not sure that would be true. In any event, we would have to specificy "most widely ... other than Shakyamuni Buddha" and even then, I'm not sure that Avalokitesvara's cult is really more widespread than Amitabha's. - Nat Kraus e 11:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amitabha/Amida venerators are definatly more prevalent.Dustin Asby 23:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have either of you ever been to Asia? Your average man on the street (in notionally Buddhist countries like China or Thailand) has no idea who Shakyamuni is, may recognize Amitabha from the magical "Namuamidafa" bumper stickers pasted on taxis to protect them from traffic accidents, but it's Guan Yin who gets the little grannies, education mamas and grizzled fishermen alike waving their joss sticks at the local temple. An active "Goddess of Mercy" is a very easily digested Virgin Mary-esque concept, whereas Amida meditating in his Pure Land is too abstract.

Now, among people who actually actively understand some Buddhist doctrine, the Amidist schools are certainly the most popular — but that's a different kettle of fish. Jpatokal 04:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I live in China, but I can't say that I have talked to that many people about religion. I would be very surprised to learn that people have never heard of "the Buddha" (佛祖) and I've talked to a few educated but otherwise ordinary people who know the name 释迦牟尼 -- I'm not sure if that's the distinction you're making. As to whether the common people are more dedicated to Guan Yin or Amitabha, I have no idea, but I have no reason to doubt you. - Nat Kraus e 10:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the Lotus Sutra, Avalokitesvara refers to himself as a mahāsattva which is a clear and distinct identity which is attained through great difficulty. Deity is NOT a term which should be applied. The Lotus Sutra was first introduced at the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir. In the Asian tradition, Avalokitesvara has morphed into Guanjin, who is revered as a Goddess. However, she must remain a mahāsattva since this is what she/he first referred to herself as.VaniNY (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Source for Avalokiteshvara postponing nirvana?

Under the header "Origin", it says Avalokiteshvara made a great vow to postpone his/her nirvana until all sentient beings are freed from suffering. Is there a source for this claim? I do not seem to find anything like this in the princeton dictionary, nor in Paul Williams description of Avalokiteshvara in "mahayana buddhism: the doctrinal foundations". Also, if this is the case, it would strongly contradict the theory that Avalokiteshvara would be the successor to Amitabha Buddha in Sukhavati. I don't remember how common that theory is though. --Skottniss (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On a second look, on page 289 of Mahayana Buddhism: the doctrinal foundations, Williams writes "There is also, e.g., a Chinese tradition that great Mahayana Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara [...] have rejected Buddhahood in order better help sentient beings." He then goes on to say that this makes no sense in the "apratisthita nirvana model", but that it can make sense in an earlier model. I had to look up "apratisthita nirvana" in the princeton dictionary, and it's defined as the nirvana of the buddhas, which is a nirvana that still enables buddhas to help sentient beings in the world. (I assume via nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya). Not sure if this is relevant enough to be included in the article though, since this "older model" seems rather outdated. --Skottniss (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: The quoted sentence here says "a Chinese tradition". We should not include a sectarian view.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge:If we're to write anything about this opinion, it should be clear that it's not the common mahayana view. As it would be some kind of view that doesn't involve buddhas being able to manifest nirmanakayas in order to help sentient beings. I don't think any of the chinese traditions today think that buddhas can't have nirmanakayas, and Williams did clearly write that this only makes sense in "an earlier model" (some kind of buddhahood-model earlier than apratisthita nirvana). On a different note, the mirriam-webster source seems to go by the common misunderstanding of bodhisattvas aiming to postpone buddhahood: "supremely examplifies the bodhisattva's resolve to postpone his own buddhahood ...". --Skottniss (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: It hardly gets any better by you adding another source to that claim. --Skottniss (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I added some information to the article, although I would prefer for the information about Avalokiteshvara postponing buddhahood to be removed. Simply because, it is very clear by Williams book that this is not the commonly held view of buddhahood in the current day. He states that some sutras do imply that postponing buddahood happens, but he says that this is likely a consequense of mahayana accepting "all sutras", even early sutras compiled before a clear doctrine on the nirvana of the buddhas was formulated. --Skottniss (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avalokiteśvara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015143154/http://www.asiaexplorers.com/china/baoern_temple.htm to http://www.asiaexplorers.com/china/baoern_temple.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://angkorblog.com/_wsn/page11.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tibetanbuddhist.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avalokiteśvara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808134917/http://www.dhagpo-kundreul.org/anglais/glossaire/gloss_k_en.html to http://www.dhagpo-kundreul.org/anglais/glossaire/gloss_k_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Exclusion of Guanyin in Avalokitesvara Article??

Guanyin is the name Avalokitesvara is called throughout the Sinosphere (i.e. China, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong and maybe Singapore) and in its sino-xenic pronunciation in Japan, Korea and Vietnam. By excluding Guanyin, which by the way refers to the same bodhisattva worshipped in Tibet and Mongolia (the only other major areas where Avalokitesvara is widely worshipped today) as well as its unique manifestations originating in China, you have excluded the practices of the vast majority of Buddhist practitioners who worship and honor and emulate him/her. Also the etymology of Avalokitesvara is reversed; it should be corrected and the history of its naming in China (and hence Japan, Korea and Vietnam) is all garbled. And this makes this a 'B' rated article? Encyclopedic information is descriptive as well as canonical. There are native accretions in Tibetan forms of Avalokitesvara as well not to be found in any canonical source. The Sri Lankan "Natha" is included in this article but not Guanyin; Natha is not even consider a bodhisattva anymore in Sri Lanka; it is consider a deva; perhaps originally derived from Avalokitesvara but no longer even a bodhisattva. What do you think? Hanbud (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia can be added to the list of countries where Guanyin (esp. the Chinese forms) are worshipped esp. by their ethnic Chinese populations. Nepal can be added to the list where worship is similar to Tibet and Mongolia. "Natha" can be seen as a deva form emanation of Avalokitesvara; but the Sri Lankans do not see it this way. They either see him as a deva or Maitreya (Theravadan apologists). Guanyin in the Chinese forms are seen as a bodhisattva although she has been adopted by Daoism as one of their deities. Hence the confusion with 'goddess' which is especially promoted in the West. In China and other sinosphere countries virtually everyone accepts that the Chinese form of Guanyin is a bodhisattva (i.e took vows, etc.,) Her exclusion in this article is incomprehensible esp. when one considers by conservative estimates at least 540 million people worship her compare to perhaps 20 million for the other forms. On a descriptive basis, this is misinformation. Hanbud (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

FGSBM-Avalokitesvara.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)