From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Manjusri)
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm rather surprised that Manjusri was listed as female in the older version of this article, as I've never come across such a thing before. Where exactly did that information come from? As far as tradition goes, Saraswati/Benzaiten is often seen as his shakti, but I doubt anyone gets them any more confused than Krishna and Radha, or another such pairing. I've removed the information for now as it's misleading in my opinion, but if there is precedent for including it beyond mere speculation (or obscure sect beliefs), I'd like to see it. Hidoshi 10:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


I thought she was Brahma's shakti/consort. Does that mean that Manjusri is in some sense considered to be an aspect of Brahma? Luis Dantas 16:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's the implication here. It may be a change of traditions as Buddhism moved into Japan, but also just a reconsideration. Often the Dhyani Buddhas such as Amitabha transform into Shaktis as well and are seen as the companions of other deities.
What's the source for saying that Manjusri has a consort at all? It sounds a bit odd to me to say that a bodhisattva has a consort ... unless we're talking about Tantric Buddhism, in which case that should be specified.
More hair splitting: "the Prajnaparamita" is not a scripture, but a genre. Anybody know if it's supposed to be the Heart Sutra, or something else? - Nat Krause 04:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've seen quite a few images in the Lamaistic Pantheon, amongst other books, which have Manjusri with a consort, Tantric or otherwise. I cannot confirm if it's Saraswati, but the editor of this article before me (or an earlier one) listed the information as such, and I did not find anything converse to the statement, so I left it in. As to the Prajnaparamita, I've never seen it listed as anything but 'The Prajnaparamita'. It may in fact be the Heart Sutra (since it's the most common sutra), or may refer to the scripture as symbolising any book within the scope of the Prajnaparamita. -- Hidoshi 04:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I am being too imprecise, but what I mean when I say "Tantric Buddhism" encompasses Vajrayana generally, i.e. including Lamaism. This is, however, only a subset of the veneration of Manjushri. - Nat Krause 06:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Mm, well do as you see fit. I come from a Vajrayana background myself, but I have been to Chinese temples where they have Manjusri with a consort. I never did check to see if it was Saraswati. It's funny though, 'cause I meditate upon the latter, but not the former. If you think it should be edited, I've no qualms. -- Hidoshi 16:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's Tantric Buddhism. Her name in Tibetan is Yang Chen Ma, an aspect of White Tara, she plays the vina, has white skin and is associated with the full moon. If you want to wander into the Hindu connection, Manjushri has more in common with Vishnu than Brahma. Vaishnavites hold the Wisdom aspect of Hinduism just like Manjushri is the Wisdom Bodhisattva. Krshnayamari is one of the more wrathful names of Manjushri, which obviously shows a Krishna/Vishnu connection.

"Dzong-ka-ba continued, 'In general whether you take Raktayamari, Krshnayamari, or Bhairava as your tutelary deity, Manjushri looks after you since these three are increasing degrees of ferocity of Manjushri..."

(Kalachakra Tantra by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Wisdom Publications 1999 pp 143-144)

In Shakyamuni's Praises to Arya Tara

Homage! she whose face combines a
Hundred autumn moons at fullest!
Blazing with light rays resplendent
As a thousand star collection!
namah śata-saraccandra
saṃpūprna patalānane
tārā sahasra nikara

(English translation from FPMT's Praises to the 21 Taras; Sanskrit transliteration from Chögyal Namkye Norbu, traditional prayer, second verse)

On another note, in Hinduism, Saraswati is the consort of both Brahma and Vishnu.

I believe to the contemporaries of 1000 years ago, the connection between Hinduism and Buddhism was obvious, and many or most deities have their equivalents in either system. The difference is that in Buddhism, they are not worshipped but seen as aspects we can all achieve.

By the way, "Lamaism" is an outdated term. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has spoken out against this term many times. The kings and scholars of Ancient Tibet worked very hard to receive the complete Buddhist tradition from the respected teachers of Nalanda University in India. It is more correct to refer to Tibetan Buddhism as the Sanskrit tradition, or Vajrayana.

link [ ]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 

Tibetan Buddhism is largely representative of only the late period of Indian Buddhism, after extra esoteric elements entered into it from Hindu Tantra (including Hindu deities). There are also many inventions and additions that were added later. Most sutras were preserved in Tibetan rather than Sanskrit, so calling Tibetan Buddhism the "Sanskrit tradition" is about as silly as using that term for Shingon. And considering that the Tibetan canon doesn't even include the basic Sutra Pitaka as the Theravadin and East Asian traditions have, it's also difficult to call it a complete Buddhist tradition of what was at Nalanda. Don't let that spoil your collection of rainbow beams and magic mandalas, though. :-P Tengu800 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Saraswati is important in both Mahayana Buddhist and Jain traditions - as well as in the Brahmin / Hindu tradition. Some scholars claim that the figure of Saraswati was adopted into the Hindu tradition from Buddhism - not the other way round. BTW Krishnayamari really has nothing to do with Krishna/Vishnu. "Krishna" just refers to the dark color of this deity. The Hindu term Shakti is also not used in Buddhist texts to refer to deities with a female form. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Manjushri Buddha[edit]

In Tibetan Buddhism, and especially in the image that is put up, Manjushri is considered a Buddha, so I changed the title.rudy 21:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be stated in the article then, with a reference for your claim. I've changed the picture caption to simply "Manjusri" for time being, and removed the misleading Wenshu Pusa bit as that's Chinese, not Tibetan. Jpatokal 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Manjushri is only considered a Buddha in Tibeten Buddhism, and mostly in certain sects. It is not representative of Buddhism as whole. In the only Vajrayana tradition, Shingon Buddhism, he is a Bodhisattva. Thus, we should keep the title as just the name. (thank you Jpatokal) Ph0kin (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In Tibetan Buddhism, he is considered to be one of the Great Bodhisattvas along with Avalokiteshvara and Vajrapani, and also a Buddha, so it is no problem at all to call him a Bodhisattva. In the open teachings, or Sutrayana, he is considered to be a Bodhisattva; in the Tantrayana, he is a Buddha. If you want to be really cool, you can call him a Bodhisattva and secretly see him as a Buddha, as Tantra is given more power if you keep your practice secret. Peace-Clodya —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Some Work[edit]

I can see why this got flagged. Someone came in and threw in a bunch of Vajrayana terminology without carefully trying to integrate it into the rest of the text, or try to preset a more general overviews. I did some revising, moved things around, cleaned up some over technical senteces, etc. I also included elements from Shingon Buddhism, the other Vajrayana sect (which also reveres Manjushri), to help balance things out. It could still use more work though. Ph0kin (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese characters[edit]

The full name "Manjusri" is correctly rendered 文殊師利 (Wénshūshili) in Chinese characters. The zh article is at 文殊菩薩 Wénshū Púsà, or "Manju Boddhisattva", but boddhisattva is an honorific title and not a part of his actual name. Jpatokal (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Related to this - I wonder why in this, and several other similar articles, it is felt necessary to display the name of the figure in so many different languages and scripts - and, for some languages, even multiple versions of the name? This is an English Wikipedia, not a multi-lingual Wikipedia, and perhaps that kind of information is better in a Wiktionary entry to which a link could be provided. Even if it is felt there is a need for this, it's curious that the Chinese name usually seems to be placed before the original Sanskrit (Devanagri script) name.
This listing of names could easily get completely out of hand ~ In Sanskrit there are over 100 different names for Manjusri and if course there are Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian and Manchu equivalents for each of these names.
Chris Fynn (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A call for critical review of ...[edit]

the following book

-- (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


-- (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ManjusriManjushriWikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and general policy would have us write Mañjuśrī as Manjushri, not Manjusri. Ogress 04:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment by nom: NGRAMS are misleading because Google Books reads Mañjuśrī as simply lacking diacriticals ("Manjusri"); the scholarly norm is actually Mañjuśrī but I keep getting yelled at when I nominate a page move to IAST for some reason. The romanisation standards here and elsewhere clearly point to Mañjuśrī, but Manjushri is the WP:COMMONNAME we're apparently willing to accept. (The current name does not actually appear with any frequency.) Ogress 04:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Move-Per Ogress.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move. I am agnostic on the issue of diacritics vs. no diacritics. But, if it's to be no diacritics, ś=sh is preferable to ś=s. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.