Talk:Tibetan Buddhism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Can I suggest this would be difficult for many uninformed readers but it is interesting to others. Perhaps a new Wikipedia page on the Eight chariots, with a footnote in the Tibetan Buddhism article linking to that page...?

Moonsell (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2009 (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)

Good deletion. That appears backwards. The hereditary nobility in some cases was the Buddhist school, such as the Sakya sect. When you are talking about Tibet and support, sure there was the silk road, but their major export was BORAX. Not a huge profit market for that - you have to get the money to support a religion in the mountains from someplace. The Dalai Lama's incarnations again were based on his merit - he was recognized but he had the right stuff. Wonderlane (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (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)

Yes there are minor schools, based on the number of readings, empowerments, or initiations of living traditions. In other words if a tradition did not fold into another due to a lack of participation or support, and still exists on its own, it is a minor school. There are 4 major schools. Not long ago there were 6 major schools. Since these traditions come from roots that lead individuals to enlightenment that is why there is so much concern among the lamas that they be perserved. If you read HE Deshung Rinpoche's biography by Jackson you will see his emphasis on this. One form which works for one person may not work as well as another form. It's the wisdom schools, they do not wish to leave anyone behind. I hope this helps to explain the reasons.

Wonderlane (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2009 (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)

It is called the four seals of Dharma. There are 5 basic vows. A Tibetan Buddhist tries to uphold as many as possible.Wonderlane (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2009 (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)

Hierarchy is very important in Tibetan Buddhism, it is essencial to Tibetan custom. I asked why and was advised on more than one occation by more than one teacher that when you are enlightened competition has a different aspect then it does for regular people. What else is there to do was the feeling.

So there are politics in the Tibetan culture, and it has to do with how the lamas are seated in order when a high ordination, empowerment, event or initation is being given or even for what in the West would be considered political meetings. Its the same when a president comes to meet another state leader. The Tibetan govt was the political and religious scene in Tibet at least since the Sakyas were granted rulership by the Khans in appreciation for the Hevajra Empowerment. So it also depends on who the host is, and how old and revered the lama is.

A great example is HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - as the respected teacher of the Dalai Lama and most of the other great lamas of our time, Dilgo Khyentse might be seated anyplace that was deemed appropriate.

So in seating at political events the President is first, then the vice president and on the other side it might be the Premiere and his 1 Secretary of State or whatever. It is bound to status. In Tibetan Buddhism, while it is based on the Govt, and political status, it can also be based on achievement in spiritual realms.

HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche was nicknamed "Mr. Universe" not for his ability to lift weights, but for his deep spiritual understanding.

My point is you need an expert to comment on this section as it is very important, part of the decorum of the Tibetan Buddhist culture and of Tibetan culture itself. Believe me - it is not informal at all - it is informed. Wonderlane (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone insists on restoring it, could they please do so as a *separate* article with just a link to it in the Tibetan Buddhism article. This article is already too big and unwieldy and badly in need of material to be farmed out into other articles. The section in qustion is only of marginal interest to the rarely informed reader.Moonsell (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Or the material could be added as a new page in Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers with a link in the main article if people think that is needed.

Moonsell (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Ganden Rinpoche is the nominal head of the Gelugpas, the Dl is the de facto head. I think I put citations in relevant articles. Peter jackson (talk) 11:48, 19 March 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)

Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism have strong similarities. This looks like a nicely expressed piece of Chinese Buddhism. Please note, however, that we are not allowed in Wikipedia to copy material from other places. We can only draw attention to it. Moonsell (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the "Chinese" in the article; can you tell me?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.92.28 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The author says he teaches Buddhism in Taiwan. There are Tibetan Buddhist teachers there too, but he is Chinese. The article includes no technical terms in Tibetan but many in Chinese ideographs. He refers to his many talks and writings in Chinese.

Moonsell (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is mostly "outward stuff". The terms in "Chinese ideographs" included in the article, as you say, can you please show me what they are? Thanks.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.211.254 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this 無限的智悲 an ideograph? I would like to ask you some other question: is there tantra vajrayana in China?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.211.254 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those are ideographs. I don't know too much about it but my vague recollection from reading is that there was tantra once in Chinese Buddhism but it may be hard to find now.

Moonsell (talk) 06:16, 3 May 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)

Padmasambhava

Somewhere on the site he is called a Mystic. He (also) was a Yogin. Is there any difference between those two?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.68 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Karel Werner edited a book called The Yogi and the Mystic, which rather suggests he thought they were different. Peter jackson (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Look here, if you want to: Chondu the Mystic, Mahesh Yogi: First Indian mystic to give jet-set-go mantra

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.147 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysticism is found in Christianity &c. People don't usually call it yoga. Perhaps not all yogis are nystics either. Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more links

• Buddhist Symbols, Color Symbolism in Buddhism
• Colors and Costumes

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.147 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Old Talk

Does anyone know how to archive the old talk? Moonsell (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Issues

I would like to cut the stuff on the invasion of Tibet. The reasons: - It is mostly not integrated to the rest of the article. The reader wonders why it is mentioned in places. - It is too in-your-face. In particular, it should be excised from the introduction. There are too many people who did not come to this article to be lectured about that.

What do people think? Moonsell (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's useful to point out in the introduction that Tibetan Buddhism became more accessible to the rest of the world after the Tibetan diaspora, which was caused by the Chinese takeover of Tibet. This can be said more succinctly than what we currently have in the intro. Bertport (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaner and meaner?

Can I suggest the Tibetan Buddhism article could be leaner and meaner.

Can I first propose the mission statement that it give the reader a good nutshell overview of Tibetan Buddhism without itself going into details. What do people think?

This could be done best by creating new articles in Wikipedia, moving some of the lengthy bits from this article to there and linking to those new ones from this article. Which bits are candidates for this? Tibetan Buddhist Schools looks high up on this list to me. What does everyone think? Moonsell (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Schools in the Introduction

I've deleted the stuff on schools from the introduction. The deleted material read:

"Tibetan Buddhism comprises many distinct schools, but is primarily divided into four main traditions: Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug, and Sakya. All schools are said to include the teachings of the three vehicles of Buddhism: the Foundational Vehicle, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, although some schools, the Gelug for example, consider Vajrayana a part of Mahayana."

"According to Shamar Rinpoche the three yanas/vehicles originally were and scholarly have to be categorized in another way: namely as Shravakayana (Nyän thö kyi thegpa in Tibetan), Pratyekabuddhayana (rang sanggyä kyi thegpa in Tibetan) and Bodhisattvayana (dschang tschub sempä thegpa in tibetan). He says that using the terms Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana is leading astray, because the Pratyekabuddhayana is left out and because the terms Hinayana and Mahayana wrongly suggest that some vehicles are bigger than others."

I've restored the older sentence, which bore consensus with refinement over a long time:

"It includes the teachings of the three vehicles of Buddhism: the Foundational Vehicle, Mahayana, and Vajrayana."

Before putting more stuff on schools in the introduction, can we please discuss the following:

- Do we want stuff that is not introductory in the introduction?

- How to integrate the new material with the subsection we already have on schools?

- What is the purpose of the article and how much detail on things like schools accords with that purpose? If, as I would suggest, the purpose is an overview of Tibetan Buddhism that is succinct, can I repeat my suggestion that all the stuff on schools be farmed out to another article on Wikipedia, perhaps called something like "Tibetan Buddhist Schools", with just a brief mention and link to it in the main article.

Moonsell (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention of the four schools and "yana" classification. Are these not important to giving a short introduction to the structure of Tibetan Buddhism? Mitsube (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Mitsube. I still have two problems with this, though. One is it puts terms in the introduction that are strange and indigestible to a new reader who has come to Wikipedia for his first overview of the topic. He or she will just stop reading straight away. Second, can you please let us know why you want this stuff in the introduction? Is there anything about the schools that is essential to Tibetan Buddhism? Even if all but one of them died out, would it not still be Tibetan Buddhism? As for the yanas, there is nothing about them that is particularly Tibetan. They are universally Buddhist. The article goes on to talk about the foundation vehicle, mahayana and vajrayana anyway and there is a whole section on the schools. I would feel much better if this stuff were integrated with the later parts of the article. Don't you think so too?Moonsell (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the stuff on schools to the "Schools" subsection and restored the older consensus on this paragraph. Please, before reverting, would you kindly say why the stuff on schools is introductory.Moonsell (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Glossary

I would like to add a short glossary at the end of the article and move all the non-English equivalents of technical terms to there. This would make the article more readable by reducing the footnotes. We need these equivalents as long as the English technical terms we use are not immediately known to even an informed reader (a perennial problem with Tibetan Buddhism, due to the lack of standardisation in terminology). I'll put this on the ToDo list. Does anyone have any thoughts? Moonsell (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Did a glossary.Moonsell (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Is it time to archive more of this talk page? Which bits are still on the back burner and shouldn't be archived? Does anyone know how to do archiving? I've found stuff on it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page and can research it in time if no-one else wants to do it. Would anyone rather wait on it for a while longer? Moonsell (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean it up.

Come back here from time to time and am not surprised to see that this article contains very many instances of poor expression and inaccuracies. I hope some day someone who knows the subject properly will clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do let us know exactly what's wrong. Maybe something can be done.Moonsell (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Omniscience

Deleted the following:

""Omniscience" relates to the Buddhist principle that all things are created by mind.(ref)For this principle in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, cf. Nyanaponika Thera (1965), 21f.(/ref)"

I've wondered about it for a long time. I wrote it but I don't understand it and it looks prone to misunderstanding and possibly contentious.Moonsell (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Enlightenment

According to Tibetan monk Professor Tsedum at 5:45 of this short documentary, the world Enlightenment 'Sangya' comes from the Sanskrit words Sang, which means "getting rid of the three poisons" and the word gya, which means "complete knowledge of everything." I plan to add this definition to the section "Tibetan Buddha Ideal."

Those words are Tibetan, not Sanskrit. Also, the definitions given are pretty free. sangs just means "purify" or something along those lines. The stuff about the three poisons is implicit.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

'skepticism' and guru devotion

the section titled as above clearly implies that devotion to a teacher is engaged in without critical analysis, by trying to contrast the practise of guru devotion with some notion of being 'skeptical'. It conveys an inaccurate concept of what guru devotion is and why it is engaged in. For one thing, in Tibetan Buddhism, one is advised to examine a teacher's qualities extremely carefully before accepting him or her as a teacher. There are in fact ten qualities which it is said a teacher should have in order to be perfectly qualified to teach the Mahayana. It may take years of observing a person before accepting them as a teacher. I would like to rewrite the entire section at some point. But thought I better put something here and give warning of this intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.24.12 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Please discuss further. I'm having trouble getting what the matter is, for one. Doesn't the last paragraph of that section already say what you are saying? As for the ten qualities and other details, a separate article would be the right place to expand since this article so badly needs trimming down already. You could link to it. Moonsell (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

is this mentioned already?

• [10]
• [11]

-- 88.75.91.59 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reincarnation system

• [12]

sorry, the tulku reincarnation system is tibetan, is it not.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.204.148 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are correct; while reincarnation is common to all Buddhist sects, the tulku system is unique to Tibetan Buddhism. It would be helpful to have a citation for this. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe a citation can be found here/there Tulku.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.192.170 (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The terms "reincarnation system" and "reincarnating system" seem a bit wierd. I wonder if they're a translation of something. One problem is they make me wonder if you get out of one system (samsara) into another (reincarnation). Another is, they're so vague in their wording that they could lead to misunderstandings if the word "tulku" were not attached. Under "Native Tibetan developments", our article already mentions "the system of incarnate lamas", linking to the article on tulku. Perhaps "reincarnating lamas"...?Moonsell (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Love being a topic in Tibetan Buddhism

http://sss.vn.ua/bsv2text.htm

"Baba's speech: "The spirit present in all of the beings is varily seen as that of mind. They are all full of the essential love. Without love, it is all just a pun, without love you can not be happy."

google searching for Love in Buddhism

-- 88.75.203.210 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Glossary

I've restored the glossary with a slight improvement. Whoever deleted it, please clarify. I've found nothing about it in the talk. In my view a small glossary is extremely useful here because:

a) Tibetan Buddhism is plagued by a unique scholastic problem: lack of standardised English vocabulary. For example: a prominent, reputable and prolific team of translators of Tibetan Buddhism from the 19970s used the English term "delusion" for what we have as "affliction". ("Affliction" is Jeffery Hopkins' term.) Translators of Theravada Buddhism use "delusion" for moha, an altogether different thing.

b) Even where terms are not an extreme source of confusion, like that, they can be unfamiliar. Many of the Tibetan or Sanskrit equivalents will be more familiar to Tib Bsm practitioners than the English equiivalents. About half of the items on our list are like this. The English is necessary for people with more rudimentary knowledge, however, to prevent the article becoming longer and unreadable.

If there can be any doubt about what an English term might refer to, may I suggest it would be best to include it in the glossary. That does not mean people should be inhibited about contributing without being able to add to the glossary. Someone else can improve the presentation later if necessary. Do others have a different view? Moonsell (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of the glossary of Tibetan Buddhist terms. I agree it is better to keep it here until someone provides a better place for it. Bertport (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Schools

I have moved the following sentence: "Texts recognized as scripture and commentary are fixed by the Tibetan Buddhist canon." from this section to the beginning of the article and amplified it a bit. Moonsell (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Monastries destroyed by Tibetans

The article had: "There were over 6,000 monasteries in Tibet, and nearly all were ransacked and destroyed by the Chinese communists (many of them young ethnic Tibetan Red Guards), mainly during the Cultural Revolution. (Citation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7307495.stm | title=Tibetan monks: A controlled life | publisher= BBC News | date=March 20, 2008}})."

The citation turns out to have nothing to do with the idea of Tibetans destroying their own monasteries, which is a pretty provocative statement. I have removed it. Before reverting, please provide a genuine citation in the talk here for our further discussion. Moonsell (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Extensive revision by IP

I've reverted extensive revisions by an IP editor that reduced the number of reference citation from 40-some to 12. Please read Wikipedia Manual of Style, and verifiability and citation policies. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Every once in a while I would look at the IP's recent edits very briefly, and it was apparently good faith work. But, IP, if you're reading this, keep in mind that other editors expect you to provide edit summaries explaining what you are doing. Bertport (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the "IP" in question. Here is the latest version of the revision we are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibetan_Buddhism&oldid=335231438

For an introductory article on such a sweeping topic, citations are not all that useful in themselves--rather, it would be better to rely on links to subsidiary articles, which would include detailed references of this sort. The bibliography ought to focus on suitable introductory material and not, for example, books by whatever Buddhist authority figure an editor particularly wishes to recommend.

In general, articles on various religions (and subdivisions thereof) ought to cover a range of expected subtopics such as history, teachings, practices, population and location, etc. For certain Asian religions with large Western followings, I notice a tendency to focus on topics of interest primarily to certain "spiritual seeker" types, at the expense of a more balanced and rounded view of religion. 118.165.204.242 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the conversation. The sort of bibliography you are advocating is what the "Further Reading" section is for. I recommend you set up a Wikipedia user account. Bertport (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are each required to be cited. Subarticles may change. Citations have to be here, as well as in subarticles, because of this. Yworo (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what is an IP? Moonsell (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits made by anyone who is not signed in as a named user show up as belonging to an IP address, e.g. "67.100.222.46". Bertport (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP for joining in. Your enthusiasm and skills are impressive and would help enormously here. Please get a username on Wikipedia and join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tibetan_Buddhism.

It feels lame soldiering on with this article after your impressive revision, which is a joy to read. The things that stop elements of the revision fitting in so far are a) reference notes and other considertions as above. b) your approach is a bit slash and burn. Please consider that this article has evolved painfully through hard-won consensus to the warts and all form it now has. Adopting such a sweeping revision throws our baby out with the bath-water. Could you possibly live with a sculptor's lovingly patient chipping away here, refinement there approach? That said, I think your revision points in positive directions for us.Moonsell (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Geographical history

The article has: "GEOGRAPHICAL HISTORY Chandra, et. al. (1902: p. 34) relate in their Dictionary that the text the 'Sambalai Lamyig' (Tibetan: སམབཧལཻ་ལམ་ཡིག, Wylie: sambhalai lam yig) states that in ancient times many Tantriks resided in 'Koka' (Tibetan: ཀོ་ཀ་, Wylie: ko ka) a locality within Bengal. (Sarat Chandra Das (1902). Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms. Calcutta, India: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.)"

This may be good in a detailed article but seems out of place in a main article on Tibetan Buddhism, which needs to be more of an overview. This makes it off-putting to a reader. Furthermore, it is not integrated with the rest of the article and one wonders, "So what?"

Are there reasons not to delete it? Moonsell (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there an example on Wikipedia or elsewhere where I can see what exactly geographical history is and how it is distinguished form other history? Moonsell (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Native Tibetan developments

In this section we had: "Some commentators have emphasised Tibetan innovations such as the system of incarnate lamas, (tulkus) but such genuine innovations have been few.[27] True to its roots in the Pala system of North India, however, Tibetan Buddhism carried on a tradition of eclectic accumulation and systematisation of diverse Buddhist elements, and pursued their synthesis. Prominent among these achievements are the Stages of the Path and motivational training."

Someone added the following paragraph: "Proper preparation for death (phowa) techniques and ceremonies for producing the ability to transfer one's spiritual attainments into another body (reincarnation) are subjects of detailed study in Tibet. Many of these techniques and practices are clearly Tibetan in origin. (Mullin, Glenn H. (1998). Living in the Face of Death: The Tibetan Tradition. 2008 reprint: Snow Lion Publications, Ithica, New York. ISBN 978-1-55939-310-2.)"

I have emailed Glenn Mullin and got the following response:

"The powa and other death related practices are clearly from India. In Tsongkhapa's commentary on the Six Yogas he traces the origins of each of the practices to original Tantras. All six, of course, were a synthesis made by Tilopa, an Indian. the person is not quoting me in his/her statement, but rather makes a statement, and then lists two of my books in which death and transmigration are subjects. It is hard to say exactly what passage gave this impression, because both books detail Indian origins. That said, I do like to point out that the Tibetans made their own contributions. Chopping up bodies and offering to the birds, for example, altho based on the Iranian and Indo-pharsee tradition of offering bodies to birds as food, is unique in that the body is not just laid out and offered as-is, but rather the body is chopped up and offered."

On the basis of this reply, I have deleted the new paragraph. Is the Tibetan form of sky burial significant enough for us to list it among Tibetan innovations in Buddhism? Moonsell (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep it out. Mitsube (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good reversion. Especially given the author's statement. As for the sky burial question, I lean towards thinking it might be worthy of inclusion... but not strongly. Changchub (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mitsube. I see you've put back the paragraph as follows: "Proper preparation for death (phowa) techniques and ceremonies for producing the ability to transfer one's spiritual attainments into another body (reincarnation) are subjects of detailed study in Tibet."

Why are you putting it under the heading "Native Tibetan developments" after agreeing these are not a native Tibetan developments?

Not only don't these observations belong under that heading, but can you please say why you need them in an introductory article of this nature at all? They may look wierd out of the blue like that and be offputting to the reader who is looking for an overview of Tibetan Buddhism. Surely there is a specialised article, e.g. the Vajrayana article that would welcome them more readily.Moonsell (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

History

Hi, Mitsube. Last week I spent some days adding to the history section material that brought it a few centuries closer to modern times. What I added was unsourced. However, it could be corroborated from any book on Tibetan Buddhist history and avoided anything controversial.

What was already there before I added was well-sourced and well-argued but needed abridging. That's all I did. What I cut out was inconsequential. However, I didn't realise that stuff I abridged was yours. If I had, I would have taken the trouble to comment on it in the talk. Please accept my apologies for this oversight. Please also review what you restored and ask yourself why we need those things in an article of an introductory nature.

You've deleted the history material I added and your only comment is: "Stop removing sourced content and adding unsourced. Wikipedia is written using material sourced to secondary sources." From this I understand you're very upset about me chasing up that reference of Glenn Mullin's to your stuff about phowa and reincarnation. removed unfair attribution of improper motivation in another editor

What's going to happen if I put more stuff in the history section?Moonsell (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added 3 paragraphs to the history section. For a source, please see the noted reference. These paragraphs link that section to the following one, "Transmission of Chan to the Nyingmapa" and put it in context. Please discuss any qualms before reverting.

May I suggest, we also need stuff to bridge this oldest era with modern times.Moonsell (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have created a subsection: "Later History". I've renamed "General History" to "Early History". Now history is in 3 subsections: that before Langdarma, comment on that period and history after the persecution of Buddhism.

The following sentence: "Tibetan Buddhism exerted a strong influence from the 11th century CE 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." has been moved from before the transmission of Chan to the Nyingma (where it was a few centuries too early) to the "Later History" section.Moonsell (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Transmission of Chan to the Nyingmapa

I've incorporated this into the History section. It is no longer an independent section. Moonsell (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I had another look at the Barber article on which the section was entirely based. It's a weird one. Besides being riddled with basic spelling errors, the whole of the case Barber makes for Chan's incorporation into Dzogchen seems to be based on a single uncited quotation from "the hagiography of Rong zom" which is never identified any further. Which is not to say that it is wrong, but it's an astonishingly sloppy article for an academic.

This article[13] is perhaps the authoritative one on the subject - I'd like to start incorporating it when possible.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply, Sylvain. Someone has reverted this to its own separate section. Is it better like that? What does everyone think?Moonsell (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on Sylvain's proposal, may I suggest this section could be a whole new article linked from the History section here and from the Dzogchen article. This new article could be created at once incorporating all the detail we have here and a stub template added to it to ready it for expansion along the lines Sylvain has suggested. Moonsell (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ...Actually, revision rather than expansion. Moonsell (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate article is far too much. As I recall, what is known about Chan influence on Dzogchen is little and speculative, although I haven't reviewed the Germano article in a while. It should be incorporated into the Dzogchen article though, for sure.Sylvain1972 (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible keep us posted here on developments with this in the Dzogchen article too? Moonsell (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a few other things right now so I don't think I'll have time for this immediately, but if I did revise the Dzogchen article I would certainly incorporate some of the revisions over here too.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I regularised some naming in this section. Hoshang Mohoyan (Wylie: Hwa-shang Mo-ho-yan) is variously named Hwashang (after Tucci) and Mo-ho-yan. I changed it all to Mo-ho-yan but then undid my own edit since Hoshang is what Tibetans usually abbreviate the name to. Perhaps it would be best to redo the regularisation using this form. Moonsell (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Schools

I thoroughly reworded the section on Tibetan Buddhist Schools, but it has been undone. Can anyone give me an idea of what was wrong?Moonsell (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I would like to try rewording this section again for coherency and readability. Before I do, does anyone have any caveats in mind that could save me time and effort?Moonsell (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be cited to secondary sources, in accordance with WP:V. And good work on the Mullen material. Mitsube (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Mitsube. Do I understand you correctly as saying that if one of us rewords some section or sentences for coherence and readability, even if the rewording does not change the meaning, you will veto it on the grounds that the rewording does not add citations? Moonsell (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has: "Tibetan Buddhism comprises many distinct schools, but is primarily divided into four main traditions..." I believe it was Nat Krause in past years who drew our attention to the lack of other distinct schools, except for the (indistinct?) Jonang. No one has objected since then. Let's tidy this up with a bit of pruning.Moonsell (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We have under SCHOOLS, "All schools categorize their teachings into three "vehicles":Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, although some schools, the Gelug for example, consider Vajrayana a part of Mahayana." Actually, the Gelug caution against practicing Vajrayana without Mahayana. How could this be possible if Vajrayana is part of Mayahana for them?Moonsell (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make brief mention of debate, the emphasis on which characterises the Gelug so much so that I have heard a disciple of Chogyam Trungpa disparaginly refer to them as "the debators". Does anyone feel such a mention would be controversial?Moonsell (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Songtsen Gampo and the Nepali princess

In the Early History section, we have:

According to a Tibetan legendary tradition, Songtsän Gampo also married a Nepalese Buddhist princess, Bhrikuti; but Bhrikuti, who bears the name of a goddess, is not mentioned in reliable sources.

. This is contradicted by Alexander Berzin (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/general_histories/introduction_history_5_traditions_buddhism_bon.html). How can we reconcile these points of view? Moonsell (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see also that the Bhrikuti article cites Ancient Tibet: Research materials from the Yeshe De Project, p. 202 (1986). Dharma Publishing, Berkeley, California. ISBN 0-89800-146-3 as a source for her marriage to Songtsän Gampo. Another source for it, Stein, R. A. (1972). Tibetan Civilization, p. 58. Stanford University Press, Stanford California. ISBN 0-8047-0806-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-0901-7, is cited in the Songtsän Gampo article. Should we dispute these sources too as unreliable? Where does the unreliability claim come from, actually? Moonsell (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Khotan in Early History

Based on http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/general_histories/introduction_history_5_traditions_buddhism_bon.html, I've added a mention of Khotan in the Early History - influences on Tibet. Based on http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/general_histories/spread_buddhism_asia.html I've added it under the mention of Sarvastivada. My understanding of the latter source is Sarvastivada went to Khotan and thence to Tibet, and Mahayana went from Tibet to Khotan. Does anyone have any advice on this or further light on the Khotanese connection? Moonsell (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Early History - King Thothori Nyantsen

We have this king as 5th century but Alexander Berzin has him as born in 173 CE (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/unpublished_manuscripts/survey_tibetan_history/chapter_1.html). Does anyone have access to check our citation, Studholme, Alexander: The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum, Albany, NY 2002, p. 14? Moonsell (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Just realised there is already dispute mentioned in Berzin's source about these dates. Moonsell (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable about the heavy reliance on Berzin. Mitsube (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Moonsell (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up?

This [14] cleaned-up this:

"A Bodhisattva is a sentient being who has conceived the will and vow to enlightenment in dedicating all their lives with Bodhicitta for the sake of all beings. Tibetan Buddhism teaches methods for accelerating completed Buddahood with the Vajrayana path to directly access beings who are Buddha."

It also left the source in to attribute other text.

The Bodisattva is key part of Tibetan Buddhism as Thurman points out. Without mention, the article does a disservice to Tibetan Buddhism and Wikipedia. Let's work it back in appropriately.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The source (Thurman) has been added to the footnote that was already there (note [4]). It has not been removed.

The material that was removed mentioned mahayana and vajrayana. Neither are necessary because the introduction already mentions them and they are general to Buddhism. Anyone can get the info by just following the links that are at the beginning of the article. For that reason, although mahayana had already been mentioned this way in the past at this place, the content had long ago been transferred to a footnote. You took a lot of words to say much the same thing as the footnote, so I removed them and put the footnote back into the body of the text, adding the Thurman reference.

You're right that the bodhisattva is a key part of Tibetan Buddhism. It was just that it's also a key part of mahayana too and it's better to save words as much as possible. Please reread the section and see if you can live with it shorter, like this. Moonsell (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have faith that Wikipedia will have generosity for a few words about the Bodhisattva in Tibetan Buddhism. Let's make some room to bring in the Bodhisattva in the text. They like to give way for everyone else; however, as you indicate they are significant to both, perhaps even back to the Buddha. The Bodhisattva is important to every living source I've met and a few published ones too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded Zulu Papa's contribution and incorporated it more fully into what was already there in the "Buddhahood" section. I've moved the introductory sentence to the beginning of the "Buddhahood" section, where this material becomes an expansion on it. I hope others will find this all an improvement in coherency. Thank you, Zulu Papa for pointing to this improvement, which is a direction others have urged us in more tentatively in the past. Moonsell (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your work in this article. I've been wanting to incorporate additional material from the Thurman source. 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of sections

The History section ends with the ground for inception of the modern Buddhist schools. Can I suggest it be moved to be just before the section on Schools. Moreover, Tenet systems seems to flow well after the last para of Native Tibetan developments.

Can I propose the following order for better coherence to the whole article:

1. 1 Buddhahood
2. 2 Tibetan definitions of "Buddhist"
3. 3 General methods of practice
4. 4 Native Tibetan developments
5. 5 Study of tenet systems in Tibetan Buddhism
6. 6 History
7. 7 Schools
8. 8 Monasticism
9. 9 Tibetan Buddhism in the contemporary world

Moonsell (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

done Moonsell (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra digression

Under "Early history", we have:

"According to a Tibetan legendary tradition, the text of Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra arrived in a casket from the sky unto the roof of the palace of the 28th king of Tibet, Lha Thothori Nyantsen who died in 650 C.E., in southern Tibet. This coincides with one version of dating of the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra, somewhere in the 4th or perhaps early 5th century, however it seems more likely that the sutra has originated in Kashmir, due to closeness to characteristics to Kasmiri tantric traditions of the time and to Avataṁsakasūtra earlier associated with the Central Asian regions.(Studholme, Alexander: The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum, Albany, NY 2002, pp. 13-14.)"

The final part in brackets is actually formatted as a footnote. I reformatted the paragraph so that the second sentence became included in the footnote. I called this reformatting "cleanup" in my edit summary, as I didn't change or remove any content and the sentence in question is off-topic. Mitsube has reverted with the following edit summary: "This was not just cleanup, you effectively cut out significant information. Do not use misleading edit summaries again."

Would Mitsube care to expand on why he regards the sentence in question as integral to the body of the text. Does anyone else have any views on this?Moonsell (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it is important to present the historical facts and not just the myths. Don't you know that? Mitsube (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking any position on the facts and myths here. Can Mitsube please explain why he so vehemently insists the second sentence of the paragraph stay in the body of the text, rather than being included in the footnote. I ask this while bearing in mind that the section is about the early history of Tibetan Buddhism, the article is already quite long and this digression makes it so much the less readable. Moonsell (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in the history then delete the myth and leave the history. Mitsube (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contribute the info on the myth, but the myth is relevant to the early history of Tibetan Buddhism and another editor has already stopped me deleting it. Are you able to answer my question? Can we take it you have no grounds for stopping the sentence in question going into a footnote? Moonsell (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it is important to present the historical facts and not just the myths. That's what encyclopedias do. Mitsube (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reason why it should not be presented in a footnote? Moonsell (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is important. Mitsube (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel a footnote is unimportant in some way? Moonsell (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Mitsube (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is it about a footnote that makes it unimportant for you? Moonsell (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel footnotes are unimportant because it's easy to skip over them. If information is in the body of the text, it becomes "in your face" and hard to ignore. But just because something is easy to ignore doesn't make it unimportant. The people who have an interest in an issue will follow the footnotes to see what else they can find there.

In this case, we need a sentence to be in the footnotes because it is off-topic. This is the primary use of footnotes. When there is a digression, that can be moved to a footnote to keep the flow of ideas for a reader who is not interested in being interrupted by it, no matter how important it is to some other readers. It is precisely the way they keep information from being "in your face" that makes footnotes most useful for digressions.

Please explain why this information has to be in the reader's face. Remember, the article is a general one about Tibetan Buddhism and the section is a general one about early history. Moonsell (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a digression. Mitsube (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is about the dating of the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra, its origin in Kashmir and similarity with Kashmiri works and the Avataṁsakasūtra. Please explain the relevence of this to the early history of Tibetan Buddhism. Moonsell (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the history of an important sutra an important part of the history of Tibetan Buddhism? Mitsube (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid it isn't. Neither is the wife of an important member of the government an important member of the government. In this case, what is relevant to the sutra is not relevant to a general article on Tibetan Buddhism.

Let me put the problem another way. A friend of ours wants to be informed about Tibetan Buddhism and the section entitled "Early history" takes his interest. How does this material on this sutra help him? Moonsell (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a compromise that will suit both of us. Wikipedia has an article specifically on Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra. I propose moving the sentence in question there. That way, it will also be accessible to other people too — not just those reading about Tibetan Buddhism.

Once the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra article has the information from the sentence under contention, there will be no need to duplicate it in the Tibetan Buddhism article at all, which would satisfy me. I also propose adding a link to the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra article from the article on Tibetan Buddhism, so that anyone with a particular interest in the sutra can go to this information straight away from there. Could you live with such an arrangement? Moonsell (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Early history

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/tib_timeline.htm

According to this, Buddhism came to Tibet in 200 CE. Since this website is a major Buddhist website, I take it that it's an accurate history. Can someone verify/add this to the history section? 76.115.15.97 (talk)

I've found the exact date to be 233 CE and mentioned it in a new footnote. I've revised the first two sentences of this section in the light of material I have found while checking this out, including reconciling it with stuff elsewhere on Wikipedia. Moonsell (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Really?

"Vajrayāna is said to be the fastest method for attaining Buddhahood but for unqualified practitioners it can be dangerous."

Said by whom? Dangerous how? Unqualified as determined by whom?

Can this be re-written, or tagged as "weasel words" or some other dispute, please? Thanks. 38.109.88.154 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You can flag it with a "citation needed" template {{cn|June 2012}} which may take an "expert" awhile to get around to. See Esoteric_transmission#Secrecy. Called "secret", so there is likely no reference. Perhaps hooey? User:Jim1138 04:41, 3 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Good point. The wording was bad. I've changed "said" to "acknowledged" and added a citation. Thanks for pointing that out. User:Moonsell 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New from Old

This article is long and needs to be shortened. There are parts that are too highly specialised to be of interest to the general reader, but also too short to be of use to the more inquiring reader. Prominent among these is the section on Monasticism. Other possibilities are those of Schools and Study of tenet systems.

I would like to spin these and maybe others off into new articles all of their own, which would then be more amenable to amplification, and link to them in this, the main article. The link could be in a "See also..." at the end. Does anyone have any views on this?

Moonsell (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into how to do this. I would like to create the following new articles, move the relevant stuff to them and link to them from the Tibetan Buddhism main article:

- Tibetan Buddhist study of tenet systems - Tibetan Buddhist history - Tibetan Buddhist schools - Tibetan Buddhist monasticism.

Does anyone have any final thoughts about this?

Moonsell (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead stated: Teachers such as Chogyam Trungpa, Sogyal Rinpoche, Lama Jampa Thaye (Karma Thinley Rinpoche's western regent), have helped Western understanding of Tibetan Buddhism through Western Sanghas and their books. This list contains at least one obscure person and is highly selective anyhow. The dalai lama misses, on the other hand. Either replace it by a reference to Tibetan Buddhism outside Tibet (not necessarily the West) or establish a list of important teachers outside Tibet. -- Zz (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Schools: Tuguan zongpai yuanliu

Under "Schools", the article has:

"Tuguan zongpai yuanliu was a classic history of the different schools written by Turken."

I don't know anything about this and have no issue with it as fact, but there are some strange things about it:

1) It is the first sentence in the "Schools" section, but is not the topic of its paragraph. The rest of the paragraph, and indeed, of the section ignores it. What is it trying to say? Whatever it is getting at, why isn't it in a footnote? There seems to be a stylistic/ content need to integrate it, if it is to remain included.

2) It uses the past tense. Is this source lost now, or what?

3) One word: "zongpai" looks like Tibetan. Otherwise, "yuanliu" looks Chinese and the rest, including the author's name, may be Mongolian, Chinese or something. The footnote, apparently the original title, all looks like Chinese ideographs. Presumably, there are many other native sources besides this. Why is this source singled out from others? Is it distinguished in some way, and from what? If it is not Tibetan, why is it given prominence over Tibetan ones?

Does anyone get what this is about?

Moonsell (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it pending clarification. The text was: "Tuguan zongpai yuanliu was a classic history of the different schools written by Turken." with the following citation: "藏传佛教典籍".

Moonsell (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Schools: Grub mthah thams cad kyi khuvs dav hdod tshul ston pa legs bśad śel gyi me lov

Under "Schools", the article now has:

'Grub mthah thams cad kyi khuvs dav hdod tshul ston pa legs bśad śel gyi me lov was a classic history of the different schools written by Turken.' with this footnote (in square brackets instead of arrows): "<http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sutra/tibet/keru/author_J01_1.htm 土觀宗派源流>"

I have the same problems as with the previous bit just above:

1) The rest of the section ignores this bit of information. It is not integrated into the other things that are written there. Because of this, it is incoherent.

2) It uses the past tense. Is this source lost now, or what?

3) Most of the words are Tibetan but the transliteration system is not a standard one, so that the words are not all identifiable as Tibetan. Standard Tibetan transliteration systems do not use word-final "v" or "vs". It is hard to tell, but the correct substitutions may be "ng" and "ngs". Also, we don't use the "s" with a slash over it.

4) The footnote includes Chinese ideographs. What are they and why are they there? The web page it links to: <http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sutra/tibet/keru/author_J01_1.htm 土觀宗派源流>, is in Chinese. Could the editor please give us a summary in this talk page of what it says. If it is to remain included in the Tibetan Buddhism article, some such summary needs to also end up in the footnote.

5) It's good that the reference is now in a footnote, but the whole paragraph is highly technical. So what is it trying to say? Whatever it is getting at, why isn't all of it in a footnote? The article is to introduce people to Tibetan Buddhism, and to put this in the body of the text instead of a footnote puts readers off.

Moonsell (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an online Chinese translation.Vegetarianiwow9 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New from Old

This article is long and needs to be shortened. There are parts that are too highly specialised to be of interest to the general reader, but also too short to be of use to the more inquiring reader. Prominent among these is the section on Monasticism. Other possibilities are those of Schools and Study of tenet systems.

I would like to spin these and maybe others off into new pages all of their own, which would then be more amenable to amplification, and link to them in this, the main article. The link could be in a "See also..." at the end. Does anyone have any views on this?

I'm looking into how to do this. I would like to create the following new articles, move the relevant stuff to them and link to them from the Tibetan Buddhism main article:

- Tibetan Buddhist study of tenet systems

- Tibetan Buddhist history

- Tibetan Buddhist schools

- Tibetan Buddhist monasticism

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Moonsell (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. And we already have articles like that. Merigar (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I first mooted this late last year. It's in the Talk Archive. We do have a monasticism page already and that could be amplified with material from the Tib Bsm article.

What others do we have already?

In the last year I've been checking on this and found this helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting.

The stuff in the Tib Bsm article would not be lost. It would be summarised and linked to the child pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style.

What are the problems with this?

Moonsell (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your assertions. We already have individual pages for the 6 Tibetan schools including Bon and Jonang.Merigar (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

At 57KB, the article is overlong per WP guidelines at WP:WHENSPLIT. So Moonsell's proposal is a good one for improving the article. Bertport (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Then trim the article, and link to the already existing pages. There is a page for everything already. Merigar (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is kind of a hodgepodge at the moment. I think a reorg could potentially be helpful. As long as anything worthwhile that gets cut is covered eslewhere, it think it's fine.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Buddhist article Anatta is longer (70KB), and is much lower quality / hodgepodge than this one. Merigar (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• This article is nowhere near the stage where it really needs splitting into multiple articles. Someone mentioned the guideline WP:WHENSPLIT, but didn't read it properly. What the guideline actually says is, "At 50 KB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles". Note it says "readable prose", and not the total byte count for the article as a whole. Currently, the article has 26,327 bytes of readable prose, barely halfway to the point where splitting should be considered. What the article does need is some further solid expansion. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Black Hats

The Kagyu tradition is called here (and in other pages on Wikipedia: Kagyu, Red Hat sect) one of the "red hats sects". In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it is mentioned that the main subsect of Kagyu, Karmapa, is also known as "black hats" ("Among the many lineages that have developed within the Bka'-brgyud-pa [Kagyu] order, the one that is best known today is the Karma-pa (Black Hat) lineage"). I think it would be worthwhile to mention that under the section "Schools", either under the subsection "Kagyu(pa)" or at the end, after the chart of the four schools. I think it would clarify the place of the "black hats" regarding the red and yellow hats, which would be hard to find out otherwise (perhaps it would be useful in the Red Hat sect page too. --Nazroon (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan Tantrism...

The section, "Preliminary practices and approach to Vajrayāna" section has been amplified with a very long body of text starting with the words, "Tibetan Tantrism..." There are two problems with it: 1) It is entirely unreferenced. 2) It belongs in the Vajrayana article, since it is too long for an introductory article like this one. Moving the text to fix 2) would be easy enough, but what to do about the lack of referencing? Moonsell (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If anyone wants it back, please put in the Vajrayana article, where it belongs. May I suggest, it won't survive long there either without the addition of extensive references. Moonsell (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reincarnating lamas: the Tulkus

This bit is not well-written and quite uninformative. It is completely unreferenced. The following section already contains a link to the main article on this. I've deleted it. Moonsell (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Study of tenet systems - The termas

This bit is not well-written. It is not part of tenet systems. It says, termas are still being created, which is a big swallow. It is completely unreferenced. Above all, do we even need a mention of termas at all in an introductory article of this nature? Moonsell (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If anyone wants to restore it, please address the concerns above first. Moonsell (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

History

I've moved this section to the article, Tibetan Buddhist History. It was too detailed for an introductory article like this one. I've added Tibetan Buddhist History to "See also" at the end of this article.

If there are any problems with this, please discuss before trashing this work. It has involved some detail to make it nice. Moonsell (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Monasticism

This section overlaps the Wikipedia article, List of Tibetan monasteries and largely duplicates it. The material in this section is not of an introductory nature, so that the Tibetan Buddhism article would be better not to include it and just to refer to it. This material and that in List of Tibetan monasteries need to be consolidated outside the Tibetan Buddhism article. Moonsell (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Schools - Genealogy of Tibetan Buddhist schools

This beautiful graphic is a welcome piece of decoration and colour. It makes the topic less dry. However, it has issues of its own.

1) There are so many names that are not mentioned otherwise in the text. Do we need them?

2) The diagram itself is not integrated with the body of the article. The article does not even refer to it.

3) It seems to say, Bon is one of the roots of Tibetan Buddhism. This is an idea that was taken for granted in the past but is disputed now. A contemporary native authority, the Dalai Lama even holds that Bon influences on Tibetan Buddhism have been few and superficial, such as in the form of musical instruments (Australian public talk, 2010).

When I double-click on the graphic itself, I see that it is copied from a book published in 1928. It should be an easy matter to substitute an edited copy of it that removes these difficulties and I am prepared to try. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this first? Moonsell (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've substituted an edited graphic to address the last two of these concerns. Not sure yet what to do about the first one yet, though. Moonsell (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've substituted another edited graphic to simplify the material, as per concern 1) above. Moonsell (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhist monasticism

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanMonks/documents/Tibetan_Buddhism_and_Mass_Monasticism.pdf

http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Drepung.pdf

https://tibetanhistory-20thcentury.wikischolars.columbia.edu/The+Struggle+for+Modern+Tibet

http://www.academia.edu/1470188/_Macho_Buddhism_Gender_and_Sexualities_in_the_Diamond_Way_in_Religion_and_Gender_1_2011_pp._85-103

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2014/07/Stoltz-Tibetan-Polyandry-final1.pdf

http://www.iep.utm.edu/santideva/

https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/wiki/tibettourism/Gay%20%26%20Lesbian%20Travelers.html

BRENTON T. SULLIVAN - Academia.edu http://www.academia.edu/attachments/32150823/download_file http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32150823/resume2013_Academia.edu.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1412807836&Signature=ZxwKv8lwxu62kFihjMyTKklWBU4%3D

Rajmaan (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

General methods of practice

Restored the original picture. The one substituted by Parabolooidal is already used in the section, "Study of tenet systems", further down in the same article. The latter belongs there because it is of debate over tenets. The old one belongs in General methods of practice because it is under the subheading of "Transmission and realization". Transmission is normally by reading from a text. Moonsell (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential Addition

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have composed an article on Karma in Tibetan Buddhism. I was wondering if it would make sense to add it to this page, or any other page. It seems rather applicable to be standing on its own. Here is the link to the article, let me know what you guys think! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Tibetan_Buddhism Thanks! Tara Nielson (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tara. Thank you for your graciousness in using this Talk page. The Tib Bsm article is already long by Wikipedia standards. That makes it unwieldy for some users. A gradual process is underway to put material from it into other articles and refer to them in the main article.

There are two ways to refer. You can make a single word in the body of text into a link. In this case, you could do that with the word "karma". This can be fussy and complicated at times. The other way which I like is to put a "See also..." somewhere in the Tib Bsm article.

Making a "karma" link to the "Karma in Tibetan Buddhism" article has the potential problem that there may be articles competing with yours for that link, in this case "Karma", a long article that has a "Buddhism" subheading. It would be good to check the material there and see if you can add yours into it. After that, it is possible to make the word "karma" in the Tib Bsm article link specifically to that "Buddhism" section. (Can't remember how, though.)

If it looks like karma in Tibetan Buddhism is somehow different from karma in Buddhism generally, it could be made a subheading there.

Moonsell (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bön

Thanks to Victoria for her interest and wish to contribute but I have undid her changes to this section. Those changes were based on Sam van Schaik, who seems to be proposing that Bön "arose" from the 11th century, not more ancient times.

I have no interest in promoting or denigrating Bön but the stuff I undid had problems:

- It is potentially controversial. A Tibetan Bön friend of mine, for example is proud of Bön's pre-Buddhist heritage.

- It surely cannot be taken to deny Bön's more ancient roots, which are well-established. In that case, isn't it some kind of hair-splitting? Do we want side-issues like this in the main Tib Bsm article, which is already bloated?

I have restored the older text of the article. It does need rewriting for coherence but it also has good stuff that had been deleted without explanation. Moonsell (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonsell: See Wikipedia policy WP:VNT, which states editors "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's refrain from personal attributions. I gave reasons. If there are problems with them I'm interested to know what they are. Moonsell (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonsell: You are engaging in tendentious editing. See WP:TE. There is nothing personal. I am merely citing Wikipedia policy. Your "reasons" for objecting to my edit are multiple violations of WP:VNT. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea from van Schaik that Bon is a recent religion is not held by other scholars, as far as I am aware. On the ancient roots of Bön, see for example: <http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/history_buddhism/buddhism_tibet/details_tibetan_history/history_early_period_buddhism_tibet/Part_1.html>. The writer, Alexander Berzin says here that while it did not become an organised religion until the 11th century, it traces its origins to "the remote, distant past". Berzin is just echoing the accepted consensus among scholars.

There is a specific Wikipedia Bon article too. Van Schaik's view is prominent there and there is no mention of others.

Whether you think van Schaik is better or not, I believe this introductory article on Tib Bsm is not the place for this controversy.

   Moonsell (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your weblink talks of the myth of Shenrab. Yet that myth was only created in the 14th century by Loden Nyingpo. Nyingma Dzogchen traces its origin to Garab Dorje, yet that myth only arises with the Vima Nyingthig. Hinduism traces Krishna to 5,000 B.C. All of this is not actual history.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that van Schaik himself rejects out of hand the idea that there was no "Bon" before the rise of organised Yungdrung Bon; the quote we are picking is out of context given the other work he has done on the topic as in this article, The naming of Tibetan religion: Bon and Chos in the Tibetan imperial period, where he carefully examines pre-11th century Tibetan religion. Perhaps we could clarify that the statement in question is in regard to a unified, organised Bon (Yungdrung Bon). As he writes, "Yet we should not be lead into thinking that we have only two alternatives: either to accept the there was a religion before and during the Tibetan imperial period that went by the name of bon, or to reject the whole concept of a pre-Buddhist religion." As you can see in van Schaik's article, much of what characterises Bon as a unique school of Buddhism (or para-Buddhism, if that is your personal viewpoint) is present in Imperial-era texts. It also explicitly refers to lha chos "Buddhism" in contrast to what van Schaik consistently calls "The Little Religion". Ogress _smash! 22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. He is saying we shouldn't reject the concept of a pre-Buddhist religion. But this religion is not Bon. Sam van Schaik does reject Bon before Tibetan Buddhism. In his 2011 book he states:

"Though some people call the old pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet ‘Bon’, it is unlikely that before Buddhism the Tibetans had a clear sense of practising a religion as such, or a specific name for these practices. In fact, the Bonpo religion only started to take shape alongside the revival of Buddhism in the eleventh century. And when the scriptures of the Bonpo started to appear in Tibet, it was mainly through the work of tertons...in truth the ‘old religion’ was a new religion..."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, that van Schaik article is brand new - 2014 - and therefore more recent. As he notes on his own blog:

I conclusion, I suggest that the idea of a non-Buddhist Tibetan religion as an entity came from the Buddhist missionaries in Tibet, in their criticism of Tibetan beliefs and rituals. It was the Buddhists who brought together this variety of Tibetan rituals and beliefs as an entity that can be identified, named and discussed. Some of the ritualists involved in these non-Buddhist practices were known as “Bonpo” and later Buddhist polemicists increasingly used this term for non-Buddhist ritual in general (though usually specifically for funeral rituals). Though I don’t go this far in the article, I would suggest that what happens after the tenth century is that this generalized use of the term Bonpo is reclaimed from the Buddhist polemicists by those who are reconfiguring the old rituals in a Buddhist-inspired framework, gradually evolving into what we mean nowadays by “the Bonpo school”.

He is finding more nuance than his older work, stating that while Yungdrung Bon was a new movement, it didn't materialise out of thin air, which is what the original quote suggests when it says "the ‘old religion’ was a new religion..." We could simply note what van Schaik says above to clarify his earlier position and link to or quote that statement. Bon in the Imperial age related to funerary rituals and practices specifically, but what was incorporated as Bon in the 11th century was existing ritual and beliefs. Right now it sounds like the tertöns wrote the medieval equivalent of Dianetics. Ogress _smash! 07:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is 2013, not 2014. And to repeat myself, you need to read more carefully. There is no change in Sam van Schaik's position in these 2 years. Schaik is saying we shouldn't reject the concept of a pre-Buddhist religion. But this religion is not Bon. Thats the entire point when he says "Yet we should not be lead into thinking that we have only two alternatives: either to accept the there was a religion before and during the Tibetan imperial period that went by the name of bon, or to reject the whole concept of a pre-Buddhist religion." VictoriaGrayson^Talk 08:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Moonsell: VG, you are difficult to talk to because you post like 11 versions of your comments every time you post, each time changing what you wrote.

I suggested not that we excise his quote but merely add a clarification that he is not suggesting Bon was invented whole cloth. This is what other editors were commenting about in the first place: that it suggests a de novo invention à la Scientology instead of a continuation of pre-Buddhist Tibetan tradition. You told me on my talk page to read more carefully before making "bold claims", but I am making no bold claims. I suggest you reread the article starting at the bottom of 248 where van Schaik quotes Honko's notion of tradition as cultural potential:

In Honko’s terminology, tradition refers to the materials available (narrative accounts, ritual techniques, and so on), whereas culture signifies an ordering of the mass of traditional material into an integrated and functional whole, a system. In this sense, when we study the early Tibetan ritual materials, we are clearly dealing with a tradition. At the same time, we are struggling to understand the cultures (plural) that made use of these traditional materials. Thus I would suggest we should not look for an essence behind the term bon (or other terms from the pre-Buddhist religion), but rather for family resemblances within the material that is available to us. In this way we are free to talk about a ‘tradition’, ‘culture’, or even ‘religion’ without suggesting something possessing a centre (such as at the imperial court) or an essence (such as specific ritual narratives).

This is what I am talking about when I say van Schaik is stating a more nuanced response than the bare quote we currently have on this page. I see zero reason we should not qualify the statement to refer to the organisation of (Yungdrung) Bon out of indigenous chos - to use the Imperial-era Tibetan - as well as Buddhism. Ogress _smash! 08:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This quote does not help you. Schaik does not suggest Bon is a continuation of pre-Buddhist tradition. Quite the opposite. Bon and its myths developed out of terma, just like much of Nyingma. Bon is analogous to Nyingma terma and its myths of Garab Dorje, Yeshe Tsogyal etc. Loden Nyingpo created the myth of Shenrab in the 14th century. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 08:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point. Also, what part of "I would suggest that what happens after the tenth century is that this generalized use of the term Bonpo is reclaimed from the Buddhist polemicists by those who are reconfiguring the old rituals in a Buddhist-inspired framework, gradually evolving into what we mean nowadays by 'the Bonpo school'" leads you to conclude there is no connection between Bon and Tibetan religion before the 11th century flourishing of Nyingma and Bon? Ogress _smash! 19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. If we start inserting 14th century myth, then the Hindus and the Nyingmas will want the same thing. What part of this don't you understand:

Though some people call the old pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet ‘Bon’, it is unlikely that before Buddhism the Tibetans had a clear sense of practising a religion as such, or a specific name for these practices. In fact, the Bonpo religion only started to take shape alongside the revival of Buddhism in the eleventh century. And when the scriptures of the Bonpo started to appear in Tibet, it was mainly through the work of tertons. Loden Nyingpo was not the first Bonpo terton by any means, but he was one of the most influential, although he too died young, at the age of twenty-five. His vast terma, known as The Brilliance, contained the legendary biography of the founder of the Bonpo religion, and defined the religion itself in a way that is still influential today. The story told by Loden Nyingpo’s treasure is something like this. The founder of Bon was a man called Shenrab, who lived in Tazig (the land of the Tajiks, in or near Persia). He travelled far and wide in this world and beyond, accompanied by his many wives, sons and daughters, converting sinners both human and non-human. Later in his life he became a monk and meditated in a forest hermitage, where he contested with the Prince of Demons and finally converted him. Shenrab’s life story echoes those of other figures, particularly Padmasambhava’s travels and Shakyamuni’s quest for enlightenment. The Bonpos believe that the teachings of Shenrab travelled from the land of the Tajiks to the ancient Tibetan kingdom of Zhangzhung long before Buddhism came to Tibet. Turning the Buddhist histories on their heads, they see the great tsenpos as the villains of the piece, hated persecutors of Bon. The coming of Buddhism to Tibet is blamed on ‘the perverse prayer of a demon’, and the decline of the old religion is ‘the setting of the sun of the Doctrine’. The disintegration of the Tibetan empire is of course put down to the malign influence of Buddhism. In this topsy-turvy history (at least from the Buddhist point of view), Bonpo tertons such as Loden Nyingpo were the culture heroes who rescued the old religion from obscurity. But in truth the ‘old religion’ was a new religion...

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

readability

The article seems to have acquired more jargon over time, e.g., "sunyata" instead of "emptiness". A better way would be to use a readable term on its own but linked to the more technical article. I've made one change like this in "Study of tenet systems". The glossary at the end of the article was originally intended to help with this process. I'd like to add "improve readability" to the to do list at the beginning of this talk page.

               Moonsell (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
               

Gelug -- Ganden Tripa and Dalai Lama

This statement on the Gelug Order is patently incorrect: "...its temporal [head is] the Dalai Lama". The Ganden Tripa article has it right. Since my edit to that effect was reverted, I'm not going to fix it myself, but leave it to @Montanabw: after he does a little research. djlewis (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why the Origins section is valuable

There are people around even in the 21st century who think Tib Bsm is an aberration. With little knowledge, some assume tantric stuff is mere aboriginal Tibetan shamanism, for example. Others have no idea how much Indian folklore (like water spirits) had become part of Buddhism before it went to Tibet. Still others assume Tib Bsm is some sort of home grown thing that has nothing in common with Buddhism past or present.

I've been trying to think for a long time how to make the article more informative to these people without too many words. So that's why I still think this section fills a need for the introductory reader. I have been having second thoughts, though, that it would be better further down in the article, just before the "Schools" section, since it's not of concern to as many people as the first stuff.

                   Moonsell (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

|}

"Hinayana"/ "Foundation Vehicle"

I've restored the term "Foundation Vehicle" in place of "Hinayana" at two places in the article. Please refer to the archived talk at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism/Archive_1#Hinayana.2FTheravada_Reverts?.

A key point was made in this discussion of eight years ago and which culminated in a consensus among editors: "The Dalai Lama has dropped the term 'Hinayana' and now uses 'Foundational' or 'Basic' Vehicle."

               Moonsell (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion 8 years ago is hardly the gospel truth, consensus can change. Sources are required. Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Two points here: Please don't make me rehash the talk that is already there. It was at a time when this article thrived with input from many editors and a lot of thought went into the discussion. I mentioned the Dalai Lama since he is not only a source but a big consideration.

If you want to reopen the discussion and need sources, please read the old talk first and say what is a problem there for you.

                   01:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Moonsell replacing reliable sourcing with nonreliable sourcing

The citation of 2 letters from the Dalai Lama on some Bon websites is not reliable sourcing. And he inserted his own personal essay. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Joshua Jonathan, CFynn, Montanabw, Tengu800, Cullen328, and JimRenge:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess now, he is merely inserting his personal essay.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, what on earth could you have found in this new section that is a genuine point of difficulty for you? Say what is going on and I'll see what source I can find to make you happy. Moonsell (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced, save for one completely useless ref to an entire book. It's also incomprehensible gibberish. On an article such as this extensive and careful footnoting is required. BTW, the History of Buddhism article suffers from the same set of problems as far as being hard to read and some sources are sketchy. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So there's nothing tangible actually wrong with the substance of the section then...

               Moonsell (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I stated. You MUST follow WP:V. WP:RS and so on. You also need to write clearly WP:COMPETENCE is required. No one can determine what you are trying to say because the material you added is also poorly structured and has bad grammar. Absent sources, no one can verify if your material is accurate or not. Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to use sources. While we are in disagreement over the content, I think three of us agree the content you are adding is not wikipedia. There's no sources and it's badly written. Let us discuss here what the issue is that you feel needs addressing. Ogress _smash! 05:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well now Moonsell is blocked, so they can think about what they want to discuss maybe. Ogress _smash! 05:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this is common practice on WP: Where you have a source that expands on pretty much all the stuff in a paragraph or a section, you put that source at the end of the first sentence with the understanding that it applies to the rest too. I don't see that we need to keep repeating the same source without some special reason.

This practice seems good to me where a source has a developed exposition of something, not just a tidbit you can pick out, and the section is a pithy overview of that. The Tib Bsm bits of the book I cited are easy to see but the Indian roots of Tib Bsm are also covered there in a way that is good for readers who want that.

If people need more citations, please say just what those needs are. They are the points where more would indeed help and they're the bits others may have trouble with too. But it's not helpful if people won't say which bits are the problems.

If material isn't actually detracting from the article, an option besides deleting is leaving things in place, discussing and if need be, tagging.

                   Moonsell (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just coincidentally, has anyone noticed that the entire Bon section consists of three sentences. The first is highly contentious and unsourced. The expression in it is simplistic and dogmatic. The other two cite the same two pages of the same book three times.

Moonsell (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"The citation of 2 letters from the Dalai Lama on some Bon websites is not reliable sourcing." Can you please explain this, Victoria. Bear in mind that the citations were on a section headed "Bon", the Dalai Lama's letters are primary documents and he is a renowned *native* authority on things Tibetan.

                   12:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing long comments by one user

Can anyone enlighten me as to where this came from? Moonsell (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Me. "Hatting" or collapsing long sections of closed topics is a permissible way to manage a talk page where a discussion has become unwieldy. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Origins

I've added this new section to make up for a longstanding lack of perspective in the article.

               Moonsell (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Victoria has a problem with this new section too, deriding it as my personal essay. She seems to have overlooked the "See also: History of Tibetan Buddhism" at the top of the section. The new material is hardly controversial and is just a summary. I suspect, we may be entering a period of vexatious editing.

               Moonsell (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Moonsell, see below. You must source no matter what and the material you added is absolutely unreadable. Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've relocated this section to later in the article, as I said under "Collapsing long comments by one user".

                   09:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Adding material to this or any other article on wikipedia is subject to policy. Policy is that material needs to be neutral, verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Relevant guidelines include WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CITE. Also, of course, WP:NPOV. Before any discussion of "this should be added," there needs to be a discussion of "what sources exist to support the addition of concept x, y, or z?" That applies to everyone. The problem of other poorly-sourced articles on wikipedia is an WP:OTHERSTUFF problem and not a useful or helpful article here. Read the guidelines and polcies, go do the research and then discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll do as you ask and go over the guidelines and polcies.

Moonsell (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It will take me a bit of time to do the research you've requested. In the meantime can I ask you to do something.

There is a sentence in the Tib Bsm article that needs to be cut out. It is unsourced. It is highly contentious. It is the first sentence in the Bon section.

I drew attention to it in the discussion you put behind "Collapsing long comments by one user." It is part of a section that over some months has made it virtually impossible for me to keep contributing and made collaboration here dysfunctional.

Such has been the assumption of bad faith from the start by the editor who composed this sentence that I am not in a position to follow the principles you've insisted on myself, for fear of my motivation being misinterpreted.

                   03:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have little assumption of bad faith, I just think you don't understand how to properly edit wikipedia. If you are concerned about certain sentences, you can use the "citation needed" template to tag them. You type {{cn}} which will look like this: . Don't do it in 10,000 places on the article (we call that "tag-bombing") but you can tag the sentence you are most concerned about. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. So if there's dispute over the presentation of sourcing but nothing's actually wrong with the content, we don't necessarily have to cut it out.

20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• (**Pounding head on wall**) I did not say that there was "nothing wrong with the content" In fact, I said it is impossible to know if the content is valid or if it is merely the ravings from the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster until we see some valid, neutral, third party sources. Otherwise, how is anyone unfamiliar with the topic to know if this is legitimate content or just someone making up stuff and talking out their ass? I do not know how to make this any clearer. SOURCE this material! Then we can discuss if it should or should not be included! Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. Any bits another editor might not know already must have have citations. If we see one without we need to cut it out. Does that go for articles other than Tib Bsm?

21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

PLase read the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. WP:BURDEN states that the person trying to change the article is the one who must justify their changes. Here, several people have told you that your material is in need of sourcing. So source it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done what you requested, Montanabw. This is unambiguous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

It explains why there is so much material on WP that doesn't require sourcing, e.g. (by Mantanabw): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bovine_sports&diff=prev&oldid=641788413#Bovine_bingo

Montanabw and Victoria, my understanding is that the material I've proposed in the Origins section is common knowledge to scholars. *To demand a source for every sentence means you do not trust anything I write.*

I've asked you both to discuss what you want to challenge in the material but you've repeatedly declined. Do you have any problems with what I've proposed for this Origins section? Please say which bits you are challenging and why.

                   Moonsell (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the section on Bon sufficient?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a disagreement among editors regarding the section on Bon; we cannot reach consensus about the issue of whether a quote accurately provides sufficient information on a the topic. One editor insists a particular quote suffices; another raised the topic because they feel it provides undue weight to one perspective; a third (myself) feels the quote is incompletely accurate and requires further qualification based on the quote author's subsequent work. More eyes would be very helpful. Ogress _smash! 21:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The above is inaccurate. Sam van Schaik's 2013 paper reinforces his 2011 book. There is no change in position.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I was requested to come here as it was an RFC..seeing old friends it seems. Anyway, I don't think that quote sufficiently shows that Bon is a sect of Tibetan Buddhism or that it fits those definitions, just that "Bon" refers to a set of beliefs that started to appear under the influence of Buddhism. Isn't it generally recognized that 'bon' believes are quite different than other Buddhist beliefs? Anyway, enough speculation. Powers says" Bon is commonly considered to be the indigenous religious tradition of Tibet, a system of shamanistic and animistic practices performed by priests called shen (gshen) or bonpo (bon po). Although this is widely assumed by Buddhists, historical evidence indicates that the Bon tradition only developed as a self-conscious religious system under the influence of Buddhism." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/understand/bon.html is a very good article on the topic. Maybe can find better quotes there? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your own source confirms what I am saying. The Bon tradition only developed as a self-conscious religious system under the influence of Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yah I am not trying to contradict you... don't worry..sheesh! I am supporting what you are saying in a sense, but pointing out that calling it Buddhism seems to be a bit far fetched. I wouldn't include it in 'Tibetan Buddhism' at all, but would support that through the influence of Buddhism it gained traction as a religion. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Theres a lot more scholarship on this issue..Tibetologist Per Kvaerne says (page 12-13) "According to its own historical perspective, it was introdudced into Tibet many centuries before Buddhism and enjoyed royal patronage until it was supplanted and expelled by the "false religion" (i.e. Buddhism) coming from India." "Bon tradition holds that the early kings of Tibet were adhernets of Bon, and that consequently not only the royal dynasty but the entire realm prospered" "it does not of course, mean that Bon has not at some stage been powerfully influenced by Buddhism; but once the two religions, Bon and Buddhism, were establisheda s rival traditions in Tibet, their relationship was, it is now realized, a complicated one of mutual influence" from "Bon, Buddhism and Democracy: The Building of a Tibetan National Identity" 1993. Theres so, so much more out there--no time to look at it now. Its not a simple little answer though ;) Prasangika37 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thats all 14th century myth. Thats why he says "according to its own historical perspective."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you've done some very limited research in this. These are from brief google searches that took less than a few seconds "Tucci and other scholars believe that Bon preceded the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet. They identify divination and exorcism as central elements of the indigenous folk religion but also of Bon, and believe that both the folk religion and the more structured Bon contributed to the undeniably shamanistic aspect of Tibetan religious practice and customs. In this view, Bon brought a multiplicity of gods, demons, and spirits of nature into the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, where they joined the gods absorbed from Indian tantrism. Tucci attributed Bon's formal doctrinal structure to a later borrowing from Buddhism. According to the standard history, Bon vied with Buddhism for dominance during the early centuries after the introduction of the new religion, and during the period between the first and second diffusions. In any case, Buddhism prevailed, but Bon, or some form of it, has survived in parts of Tibet as well as in remote Himalayan areas, such as Dolpo in northwestern Nepal, and there has recently been a Bon revival in the West. " Prasangika37 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Another option, which is a third-Bon was a Buddhism beforehand but strands from another part of the world. But it still existed in some heterodox form BEFORE "Tibetan Buddhism" (e.g. Tantrism etc) from India. "David Snellgrove, in contradiction, argues that Bon is not the old indigenous religion of Tibet. He agrees with the claim of present-day Bonpos (adherents of Bon) that their religion was, from the beginning, a form of Buddhism, however heterodox. Snellgrove maintains that before the famous introduction of Buddhism to Tibet in the seventh century under royal sponsorship, forms of Buddhism that had reached Central Asia were actually familiar to some Tibetans, and that Bon developed in Western or Central Asia earlier than its arrival, as traditionally understood, in Tibet. // PS.http://library.brown.edu/cds/BuddhistTempleArt/buddhism4.html is the source. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika, these are old understandings that do not take into account documents and resources unavailable during the early study of Bon. Bonpos believe their faith dates back to Tönpa Sherap, but the historical record demonstrates that while there was a ton of religious stuff going on that was not Buddhist, it was not organised as a single religion; indeed, it never had any reason to be organised as such until Buddhism put pressure on it. The terms bon and bonpo is only found in connexion with funerary activities; while it is clear traditional Tibetan religious beliefs and practices were codified by Yungdrung Bon, they weren't organised before that anymore than "Shinto" was. Ogress _smash! 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37, listen to Ogress. The whole "topsy-turvy" (as Schaik describes it) mythological history of Bon is from 14th century terma. We don't take Nyingma termas (Garab Dorje, Yeshe Tsogyal) as actual history either. We don't believe Krishna dates to 5,000 B.C.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Snellgrove and Per Kverne both offer alternative points of view though... Neither of them are 'old views' from my understanding(Per is early 90s, but maybe thats still old?) ? Snellgrove at the very least is very recent. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Snellgrove is 95 and has been retired since 1982. We're talking discoveries within the last 5 years at Dunhuang that have up-ended the field of Bon studies. Ogress _smash! 20:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay sounds good :) I didn't realize how recent the studies were. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old (sourced) stuff that got excised *without explanation*?

"Bön "This is the pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet and has also been recognized by Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, as a principal spiritual school of Tibet. In 1978 the Dalai Lama acknowledged the Bon religion as a school with its own practices despite the long historical competition between the Bon tradition and Buddhism, after visiting the newly built Bon monastery in Dolanji."

The source cited there is no longer available but this new one does an even better job. It gives multiple invaluable native Tibetan citations:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/dalai-lama-recognizes-the-bon/

And by the way, this excised text, why is stuff like this missing in the Bön article?

I didn't write the excised material but I must say, it sticks to the topic (Tib Bsm). It avoids controversial digression. There is no need from this for semantics and verbose convolution in search of balance. It's readable and succinct. It does the job quite elegantly. It's informative to someone googling Tib Bsm. Is the stuff that replaced it so much better? Moonsell (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops. A slight tweak needed there. I didn't read the web page I mentioned carefully enough. It has Shugden polemics appended.

Still, without getting sidelined into the Shugden controversy, the stuff that's useful in it could be put together in a footnote. Moonsell (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We could just quote the 14th Dalai Lama rather than a Dorje Shugden site quoting him because the latter uses the quote to launch into an attack on the Dalai Lama for not oppressing Bonpos: [15] is one example and [16] has the famous photo of him donning the rainbow vajra crown of the Yungdrung Bon at Menri Ling to show his support for the Bon tradition. He does not say it is Buddhism (but rather a valid religion of Tibet and that Bonpos are under his protection as "divine subjects") in any work I've located, but I'm hardly an expert on the Dalai's writings, so if you can find a reliable quote, do so. Ogress _smash! 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

.

the story so far

We editors seem to have been through an exasperating situation over a small new thing buried way down in the Tib Bsm article.

1) One of us had cut out material she didn't like without explanation. The lost material had been sourced.

2) She had inserted material others didn't like, restored it twice after undoes accompanied by careful talk and so far has remained adamant not to withdraw it even as long as others remained unconvinced.

3) She was disdainful of other editors here and on their personal pages.

4) The material cited a source who she represented as being at odds with not only other western scholars but also the native Tibetan scholarly consensus. The editor seemed unable to get this. A balanced treatment of the controversy would take up space.

5) The new material was challenged as not even accurately representing the view of the scholar it cites. Maybe we need a change in the rules: "WP is not a game of cards. An ambiguous newer source does not trump centuries of clear informed tradition." A balanced treatment of this would take up still more space.

6) The new material as it still stands is so embarrassingly simplistic as to lead to absurdity: Was there no Judaism (or Buddhism) before records? The proponent seemed not to have a problem with this. A balanced treatment of this aspect of the controversy would be a weird digression from Tib Bsm and take up still more space.

7) The editor has saddled us with an interpretation of her source that hinges on the odd question whether a name like "Bon" can be legitimately applied to a religion in a world where there were no known others to differentiate it from. As Seinfeld said, "What do the Chinese call Chinese food? 'Food'". A demoralising turn of events indeed. A balanced treatment would require more digression that's getting ever more off-beat and take up still more space.

8) I'm not sure if implicit or explicit, but another question wrapped up in this is what "religion" means. A balanced treatment would demand digression that is beyond the pale in an introduction to Tib Bsm and take up still more space.

9) The material duplicates that in the WP Bon article where it has the same substantial flaws. If it was revised there in a quest there too for balance, I doubt that relevance would be a lesser issue but space certainly still would be a big one. Perhaps a reader there would tolerate it in a footnote.

10) If the material is altered in the Tib Bsm article but left as it stands in the Bon article, WP will become self-contradictory and incoherent. This is always the pitfall of duplicating any material in two articles. What editor that gets their way with the material can guarantee to be vigilant about keeping it, right or wrong, in both places in the future? Another way that actually works is just glossing over details in one general article but including a link to the detailed specific one.

11) The Tib Bsm article is not the Bon one. Here the controversy is out of context and a trivial digression sure to exasperate readers.

So what are we to do? Space is at a premium in an introductory article that is already woefully bloated. We're trying to evolve towards pithy stuff on Tib Bsm in a nutshell.

A quick fix would be to just leave the proposed Bon non-antiquity sideline out of the Tib Bsm article but I suspect it may have gone beyond that now. On top of that, it looks just for starters like this whole talk section along with the one above also needs to be moved to the Bon talk page where it belongs.

I'll wait at least one day more and if no one else would like to lend a hand I'll do what I can to start to clean things up with the Tib Bsm article. I guess the next step, after reverting a third time to the old material, will be to see if it can be improved.

That will free the Tib Bsm article from a danger of excess verbiage but it will leave Wikipedia burdened with this controversy on the Bon page. A consensus about what to do there will be for others more informed than me to seek.

               Moonsell (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The old section was sourced from 2 broken links. See link1 and link2. This is not proper sourcing. Ogress agrees with me that Sam van Schaik is a great source. We have a minor disagreement over interpretation. So you are going against consensus and Wikipedia policy on sourcing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the original text of the Bon section for the third time. For the third time I've removed the contentious material that had been substituted for it, and I urge Victoria to give her fellow editors the consideration of leaving it out as long as we have such problems with it. I've improved the wording of the restored text and updated its references. Thanks to Ogress for her suggestions with this.

Moonsell (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ogress supports the use of reliable sourcing such as Sam van Schaik. You are using clearly nonreliable sourcing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The current (Dec 6, 2014) article text is unacceptable. It is a distortion at best of van Schaik's characterization of Bon, and clearly contradicts common understanding of Bon among its adherents as well as other interested parties. That said, it makes sense for any text on Bon in this article to substantially agree with the Bon article. This discussion does belong there. Once some stable state is reached there, the next step would be to find a reasonable, brief summary to put here. Bertport (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Point out exactly why its a distortion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Bon is a sect of Tibetan Buddhism." Van Schaik does not say this. He says that Bon appeared as a recognizable thing with a name contemporaneously with Tibetan Buddhism, and shared many characteristics with Tibetan Buddhism, and that its proponents' stories of older origin were unsubstantiated myths. Bon should not be listed in the "Schools" section of this article, and possibly should not be mentioned at all. Bertport (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Ogress and Bertport I still don't have access to the van Schaik source but hope to in the new year. However, just going on the interpretation of him here in itself I've already detailed how this leads to absurdities that detract from the article. I'm keen for them to be addressed.

However, I guess it's time to examine the wording of the section to try to work out what the interpretation exactly is.

The Bon section as it stands is:

"Bon is a sect of Tibetan Buddhism. It arose in the eleventh century upward[Van Schaik, pp.99] and established its scriptures mainly from termas and visions by tertöns such as Loden Nyingpo.[Van Schaik, pp.99-100] Though Bon terma contain myths of Bon existing before the historical introduction of Buddhism in Tibet, 'in truth the 'old religion' was a new religion.[Van Schaik, pp.99-100]"

A few things seem clear. Bon is conflated with Tibetan Buddhism. If there is indeed evidence for that, it is grounds for mentioning Bon in this article. Otherwise, Bon is no more relevant than Islam in Tibet, which may or may not too have been influenced by Buddhism in some way.

We're saying Bon "arose" and that it arose "upward". Either it was somehow dormant before that or it didn't exist then. Which is it? If dormant, was the dormant Bon not also "Bon"?

If it didn't exist then, that means we're saying Buddhism came to Tibet 400 years before Bon. Please would the editors put their hands up who want to subscribe to that.

We are calling Bon before the 11th century "myths" so I guess the second interpretation of what we are trying to say is the correct one.

OK. That is what we're saying. But then van Schaik says there was "the 'old' religion". Which old religion is he referring to?

Apart from the absurdities our interpretation (whether correct or not) leads us to, please can we talk about the big picture which I raised at the start, namely:

1) We can't sweep it under the carpet that this stuff is contentious. That means we need consideration of more than just one side of the issues for the sake of balance. That means we need space and lots of words. That means it becomes a digression.

2) There is no source for the assertion that Bon is a school of Tib Bsm. That means Bon is not even tangentially relevant.

                   01:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Bon section here and in the Bon article WP makes claims that are unverifiable.

The source cited says Bon started to "take shape" in the 11th century. WP jumps to the conclusion that Bon "arose" when it had started to "take shape". Christianity arose after the death of its founder. Judaism and Buddhism arose centuries after Moses and Buddha. (Or do we count the "mythical" tablets of stone?) Bon "arising" is not found in the purported source.

We have WP claiming that Bon did not "exist" before Buddhism in Tibet. This too is not found in the purported source.

The citation is misleading.

21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we must agree, this is going nowhere. Please can we escalate this from RfC to the next level. Does anyone know how?

                   Moonsell (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent."

I've come to realise the lack of balance in this section is a side show. Bon is a religion that has been sidelined by Tibetan Buddhism. It has some relevance to it, but not enough to justify it having its own section in this article. Does anyone still want to keep the Bon section?

                   Moonsell (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I support removing Bon from the article altogether. The article is about Tibetan Buddhism, not Tibetan religions. Bertport (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

splitting out Schools section to a list-article; help wanted! also notice of AFD

See Draft:List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism and see discussion/call for help at Draft talk:List of schools and lineages of Tibetan Buddhism. It seems to me that one list-article explaining the various schools and lineages branching off, would be helpful. Up front, I think it's better to have one big list-article, rather than separate ones for lineages in each major school. I really would welcome help and advice though. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aro gTér, ongoing AFD about Aro gTér, a sect within the Nyingma school. --doncram 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything that makes the article less bloated without sacrificing valuable content. Thank you for proposing this.

Moonsell (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as Tibetan Buddhism?

Buddhism beyond the nation state by Richard Payne. This is an interesting material. Komitsuki (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Komitsuki for that. It's curious, but does not seem helpful to us directly.

1) The article claims there is no such thing as Tibetan Buddhism. Like it or not, that term is not used geographically these days. We don't need the Tibetan nation in order to call things "Tibetan", and if we stop talking about Buddhism with that word, other people just won't understand us. It's just the way we use language. The literature of the premodern tradition was written in a dead language, Sanskrit. The modern inheritance of that literature is written in Tibetan.

2) The same thing goes for the idea, 'there is no equivalent for “Tibetan Buddhism” in premodern Buddhist literature from Tibet'. That is uninformed. All the literature from the Pāla period of Buddhism in Tibet was, not only the basis of Tibetan Buddhism, but more or less the same. Tibetan Buddhism, whether the Tibetan nation exists or not, is the modern survivor of the Pāla tradition of Buddhism, practiced in the Indian university of Nālanda and others.

3) The same thing goes for the proposal that Vajrayāna is the same thing as Tibetan Buddhism. The latter includes the former as well as other things. Other forms of Buddhism include it too.

The question that this other article highlights is, should our Wikipedia article here make all these things clearer than they are already?

  Moonsell (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added new material to the introduction to address these points.

   Moonsell (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just helping by putting some pieces of info in the talk section most of the times. I have a tendency not to edit the actual articles. Komitsuki (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Tibetan Buddhism actually Buddhism? 86.178.174.160 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrathful bodhisattvas

This bit is not well-written. It is not integrated with the rest of the article. It is completely unreferenced. Do we even need a mention of this at all in an introductory article of this nature? Moonsell (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If anyone wants it back, please address the concerns above first. Moonsell (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

---

yes, better you delete it.... otherwise people could learn too much.-82.158.148.147 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Introduction, Vajrayāna, rainbow body

I've moved two sentences about Vajrayāna and rainbow body from the introduction to the section "2.5 Preliminary practices and approach to Vajrayāna".

The reasons are:

- the material is not introductory; - a case needs to be made for singling out this aspect of Tib Bsm in particular;

and

- the article is more coherent this way.

I haven't changed the text. If my change is a bad idea, please discuss before reverting. Moonsell (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the material is introductory. Its from a book called "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is helpful. But how many pages are in that book? Should we claim every page there can belong in the introduction to this article? If so, I still need to ask, why is that?

Please give some thought to the two other issues I've raised and thank you for this discussion. Moonsell (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles such as Buddhism list the goals. To be consistent this article should also list the goals.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I can't understand this. Would you elaborate please.

     Moonsell (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted my change.

Moonsell (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To be consistent with the lede of the Buddhism article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I put this another way. I changed the position of two sentences you wrote. You reverted. You haven't explained why.

So why, then, is it so important that those sentences be in the place you're insisting on? Moonsell (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, to be consistent with the lede of the Buddhism article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your justification for this is that another Wikipedia article has it? Please confirm this.

Do you have any opinion about the difficulties I've raised? What is it?

Moonsell (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot more we need to discuss about this. Can I ask you to please at least move these two sentences out of the introduction while we don't yet have consensus about them. (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Next point: rainbow body is an obscure term in Tibetan Buddhism. Why is Wikipedia mentioning it in the main article? Moonsell (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, please. This discussion mustn't be like pulling teeth. I've let material of yours stand in the past except for one that I had big problems with. The problems I have here again are genuine ones.

I feel shut out of the editing process. On past experience I fear getting into pulled into a war over anything I contribute here. My call for justification of your own material once more is legitimate and I'm making it once again now. Please continue the discussion. Moonsell (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. The next thing: Rainbow body is not at all the same as Buddhahood.

My understanding is that it is a very subtle mind that is a basis for Buddhahood. If there is a source, please share it here.

To summarise this discussion, there are two sentences in question. They are:

"Tibetan Buddhism preserves the Vajrayana teachings of eighth century India. Tibetan Buddhism aspires to Buddhahood or rainbow body."

Some flaws here are:

1 - Both sentences do not belong in the introduction (lede). They are detail that may or may not belong in the body of the article.

2 - Both sentences are about a certain subset of Tib Bst practices in particular without elaboration or mentioning others. This is arbitrary and makes the article confusing to the reader.

3 - Both sentences are about vajrayana. There is already a section on that class of practices later in the article. The sentences need to be moved there for coherence.

4 - In the second sentence WP mentions "rainbow body", an obscure term, without elaboration or mentioning others. This is confusing to readers, above all to those reading this, the main article.

5 - In the second sentence Wikipedia contends that rainbow body is the same as Buddhahood. It needs to be shown that this is not original material.

On the other hand, the following have been suggested:

1 - The material comes from a book that has the word "introduction" in the title, even though it is over 500 pages and presumably has other things not anywhere in this WP article.

2 - It's said that both sentences don't reduce the article's coherence but rather improve it. This is because they're there (with identical wording and contributed by the same editor) in another WP article and there too they're in the introduction. We still don't know why material in the intro of one WP article needs to be in the intro of another, let alone justification of why it is in the intro of either one.

3 - These sentences "list the goals". We still don't know what this means but the suggestion may be that it's not enough that the first section of the WP article (following the intro) is Buddhahood.

4 - My complaint that there is not consensus here between me and another editor is denied without explanation. This trivialises this whole discussion.

If there is justification for why this material should stand as is but no editor is prepared to give it, that must be explained or else WP must let go of it. So why?

If the material simply can't be justified, WP must let go of it. So can it?

Is there any reason why it should still stand? Moonsell (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, please show us why the bit about rainbow body is not original material. Moonsell (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 415: “rainbow body” of supreme buddhahood.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but how does this support your claim?

Moonsell (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow body is Buddhahood.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see those words there. Moonsell (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 415 says "“rainbow body” of supreme buddhahood".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

and you interpret this as meaning, "Rainbow body is supreme Buddhahood"? Moonsell (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Another book, Natural Liberation, says "To accomplish buddhahood in the best way is to accomplish it by achieving the rainbow body". VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I read this too in a highly reputable source. "To accomplish buddhahood in the best way" means that the goal is Buddhahood. "… is to accomplish it by achieving the rainbow body" says that rainbow body is a technique. "By" means that the technique is a way to get there.

This doesn't mean rainbow body is the same as Buddhahood any more than a car is the same as the place you arrive at. However, reading other references to "rainbow body" on WP makes me wonder whether the term might not be ambiguous. Like your other source, however, the evidence for rainbow body being taken as the same as Buddhahood is not clearly presented.

In these other parts of WP, rainbow body is presented as being the same as *one* aspect of Buddhahood, sambhogakaya. In these same places, however, two other aspects of buddhahood, nirmanakaya and dharmakaya are presented as being a cause of sambhogakaya (the former) and the result of it (the latter).

This presentation is very different from that in other schools of Tibetan Buddhism and I wonder if it too is accurate. It is hard to tell without details. In the other schools, as I understand it, the three aspects of buddhahood do not cause each other and this presentation is based on Abhisamayalankara, one of the key texts in Tibetan Buddhism.

Seeing as all this is getting controversial and murky at the least, we come again to the issue of, do we want to go into stuff like this in the main (introductory) article on Tibetan Buddhism? We can't just briefly present one view without explaining that there is another. We had this same problem with the Bon stuff last year, which turned into a huge red herring in us collaborating on this article.

That brings us to yet another problem with this: rainbow body is a specific practice in Dzogchen, which is a specifically Nyingma practice. Why are we starting to mention specific practices in this article and moreover, why this particular one?

So we still have the problem that you and I have clear sources for rainbow body only being a means for getting buddhahood but no clear ones for anything else. On top of that we have the question, why do we need to mention rainbow body at all in this particular article? Moonsell (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the books. The book Lady of the Lotus-Born says "The rainbow body, synonymous with the diamond body, is the name given to the attainment of Buddhahood". VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How am I misinterpreting books? Moonsell (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The book Lady of the Lotus-Born says "The rainbow body, synonymous with the diamond body, is the name given to the attainment of Buddhahood".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion started about the mention of vajrayana in the introduction and the mention of rainbow body there. I steered it onto whether rainbow body was the same as buddhahood. I knew of a source that said it wasn't.

You don't have to shout. I can see that this last source clearly supports that. You've also shown others that are ambiguous and one that agrees with my source.

Are you shouting because you want it all to be simple and black and white? It's not. Different books don't agree with each other.

Initially I didn't understand that there was this difference of opinion. It's been interesting to see that now and I thank you for that, but it means WP shouldn't be black and white on this. Moonsell (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The books themselves agree. Its only your view that they disagree.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess we won't get agreement on that. But back to the more important point: Why do you feel the need to mention rainbow body at all in this article? Moonsell (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it anything more than curious jargon? Moonsell (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked why we need to keep this term in the article. Does anyone still think we do? Moonsell (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tibetan Buddhism. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160129235251/http://www.thdl.org/ to http://thdl.org/

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclature

You've reverted this twice this week, Montana. Do you have a problem with it?

Moonsell (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See above section. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede, Tibetan Buddhism in the contemporary world

Hi, Montana. You've reverted me a second time this week. Last time you've written:

"Quit removing sourced material and please take proposed changes to talk, do not edit-war."

Please can you tell me which bit is the problem and I'll try to fix it.

Moonsell (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of it. Anything you removed that was sourced. Any changes to the lead. Anything you added that was inadequately sourced. Start by not changing anything in the lead and anything in the body text that is sourced. Only add material with properly formatted, reliable, verifiable sources. Then anything you wish to change, propose it here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take the time to say exactly which bits you are concerned about and why. That will make your editing helpful to the rest of us.

Moonsell (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's Victoria's rainbow body sentence. I reckon it's just jargon. I asked if she still insisted on it and she let the discussion drop six months ago. Now you're telling us it's hands off.

To be honest, the first time I cut it out I thought she had let go of it. The second time, I just forgot it was even there.

I think your threats are over the top. I know your thing is horses, not religion, but have some shame about trashing things you don't understand.

As to your fetish for sourcing as a pretext for acting like a vandal, here's an example of a contribution (by you) with no sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bovine_sports&diff=prev&oldid=641788413#Bovine_bingo. It's not controversial, so there's nothing to challenge in it, so it doesn't need sources.

This is the WP guideline on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

If you can't understand an article, how can you challenge anything in it? You've challenged nothing in this article but in the year and a half since Victoria brought you to it, all your contributions have been reverts. You've given not a word about the meaning of anything you've trashed.

Destructive editing is not quite the same as vandalism. Vandals don't know how to work the system. They show us how open the system is; destructive editors show us how trusting it is. But the line can get blurry.

I'm going to keep editing. I'll try to work around that sore sentence but if you're going to take an interest in them you're going to need to show us how much responsibility you take for the edits you make.

Moonsell (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, the policy is that any information may be challenged and removed, and the WP:BURDEN is generally on the person changing sourced material or trying to make the dramatic change. You have no grounds to question what my knowledge is or is not; I may understand more than you know and choose to let others do the heavy lifting. There is a huge difference between an amusing aside about rural life and discussion of a major world religion. WP:V and WP:RS is policy. If you want to change material on an article like this one, which is on a major world religion, you need verifiable, unimpeachable sources. It also helps if you write well. Seriously, if bovine bingo is the best you can do, you've pretty much proven my point. Now, I suggest that you try for one set of changes at a time and offer your rationale for those changes here, with citations. (Also, don't remove infoboxes and navboxes, that's just poor editing) Montanabw^(talk) 02:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

shortening the article

There has been much talk over years about how long this article is. The agreed solution has been to move subsections into their own articles and consolidate bits that ramble but the stumbling block has been to find people with the time to do it. I made a start on this some time ago with the History of Tibetan Buddhism section and it has been successful.

I have time now to create new articles from the Monasticism and Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia and China sections and maybe others people would like to suggest, using the material here. I am ready too to consolidate the geographical info in the lede and the Tibetan Buddhism in the Contemporary World section.

Are there any issues with this and would anyone like to help with the work?

Moonsell (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made the changes to the lede and the Tibetan Buddhism in the Contemporary World section, so everyone can see what I have in mind there. If there are any problems with it please spell them out in a way we can understand. Any constructive suggestions are welcome. Moonsell (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to move the Spread to the Mongols section to the article, History of Tibetan Buddhism. Moonsell (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is too long. ( I wrote an article about a racehorse that's longer than this one!) What it is is disorganized and poorly sourced. I think it's a good idea to create new, additional articles as needed, but I think that too much was chopped here and I'm tempted to revert. The better approach is to create the spinoffs first, and then use the good sourcing that we hope is used there to update the summary sections here with better phrasing and better sourcing. On this article, my suggestion is to arrange the existing material in a more logical and understandable fashion and then rewrite each section carefully and thoughtfully. Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Montana for her thoughts. In consideration of them I've made the following changes:

• moved the section, "Spread to the Mongols" to the article, History of Tibetan Buddhism along the lines she proposed;

• changed the section's title; (The subsection's original title was, "Spread to the Mongols and China". Presumably someone changed it for reasons of 20th century cultural sensitivities. I've changed it to "Spread to the mongols and central asia" (after Berzin, http://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture), which is more accurate.)

• created a new article, Tibetan Monasticism, moved the "Monasticism" subsection there and put a "see also" to it under "General methods of practice";

• reordered sentences in the lede for better coherence;

• deleted the redundant "Origins" section;

• moved "Native Tibetan developments" to later in the article for coherence and updated it a bit;

• tidied "External links" up a bit and removed the item, "Tibetan Buddhism: History and the Four Traditions" (already cited in the article, History of Tibetan Buddhism.

Does anyone else have any thoughts apart from the past consensus on this matter?

Moonsell (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tibetan Buddhism. 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/20131102032603/http://yzzj.fodian.net/BaoKu/FoDianWenInfo.aspx?ID=FW00000462 to http://yzzj.fodian.net/BaoKu/FoDianWenInfo.aspx?ID=FW00000462
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101202452/http://hk.plm.org.cn/qikan/xdfx/5012-012A.htm to http://hk.plm.org.cn/qikan/xdfx/5012-012A.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511061419/http://www.kagyuoffice.org/buddhism.nyingma.html to http://www.kagyuoffice.org/buddhism.nyingma.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101117193624/http://www.gampoabbey.org/ane_pema/ to http://www.gampoabbey.org/ane_pema/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601092702/http://www.vajradakininunnery.org/firstsforwomen.html to http://www.vajradakininunnery.org/firstsforwomen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601092727/http://www.vajradakininunnery.org/nyima.html to http://www.vajradakininunnery.org/nyima.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2012/geshe-kelsang-wangmo-an-interview-with-the-worlds-first-female-geshe/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on this question regarding the best exposition of the four noble truths, a central teaching in modern Buddhism.

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the term "redeath" (sanskrit punarmrtyu) is not commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings. Chris Fynn (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I heard mention of a term "Delok" and see it nowhere on English wikipedia.

It does appear on the Dutch wikipedia.

I think it would be an interesting addition somewhere, the term translates as having returned from death.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delok

Idyllic press (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Idyllic press, it looks like a notable subject to me, judging from the Dutch article, which i can read. You can translate from the Dutch article to English, or start from scratch. Let me know if you need any tips or tricks. I am mostly familiar with Theravāda, but I can give general advice, if at all required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This Discussion

I'm hanging. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, Jonathan. I'm snowed under till October but please hang in there to continue the discussion.

Moonsell (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Promising to continue the discussion, and then do a whole-sale revert without any discussion is not helpfull... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Monastic "high" culture 'versus' "folk" culture

"Folk" religion and customs are suspiciously lacking in this Wiki-article... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Tibetan Buddhism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tibetan Buddhism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibetan Buddhism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Indo-Tibetan Buddhism"

I've added the Snellgrove reference to Further Reading at the end of the article and removed Leppaberry-123's tag ("by whom?"), querying the term. Moonsell (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Tantra in the introduction

Here WP has:

"Tibetan Buddhism is a form of Mahayana Buddhism stemming from the latest stages of Indian Buddhism (and so is also part of the tantric Vajrayana tradition). It thus preserves "the Tantric status quo of eighth-century India."[White, David Gordon (ed.) (2000). Tantra in Practice. Princeton University Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-691-05779-6.] However, it also includes native Tibetan developments and practices."

I don't have access to the White reference but it came from Victoria. 1) Can I ask again, what does he mean by "the Tantric status quo of eighth-century India"? Why is WP saying this?

"The tantric Vajrayana tradition": Is there also a non-tantric Vajrayana tradition?

What "native Tibetan developments and practices" is WP talking about here?

If no-one has any light to cast on this, does anyone mind it getting edited down and why? Victoria…

talk) 03:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"rainbow body"

This term came from Victoria. What does it mean and why is WP using it in the intro of this article? Does anyone have any objection to leaving it out? Moonsell (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

schools in the intro

What is the purpose of mentioning the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism in the intro? Moonsell (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The four schools figure prominently in Tibetan buddhism, thus the inclusion of info is appropriate in intro. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

And the four schools are inherently inseparable Moonsell from Tibetan buddhism. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

At same discussion Moonsell, I just corrected "cuts across" to "is a blend of" since 'cutting' is not really a correct description. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Another point Moonsell: "Each school is independent and has its own monastic institutions and leaders" would be correct as,"Each school is independent and has a designated titular head. The school's monasteries are established by teachers entitled as lamas, and by masters entitled as Rinpoches." Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Moonsells's concerns

Women in Tibetan Buddhism

I would like to make this subsection into an article of its own. It's too important to be relegated to an afterthought but too big to put anywhere else in the article. (Readers would not get round to reading anything else that came after it.) Any thoughts?

Moonsell (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Rainbow body" again

WP's introduction mentions Buddhahood and one synonym for it: "rainbow body". There is a citation. Please, is anyone able to show how this citation:

— actually says Buddhahood and rainbow body are synonyms;

— says why "rainbow body", out of the countless common synonyms, is the preferred one to mention right at the beginning of the article above all others?

and also what the context is in which the citation uses the term "rainbow body". In particular, what are the topic, section and chapter headings it is under. If possible, can anyone quote what it says?

Moonsell (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's Vic's particular concern. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Schools in the introduction

1) Why does WP need to mention this in the introduction? Given that most readers are looking for elementary information here, what introductory purpose does it serve?

2) Two sentences here confront the reader with no less than six terms that look like pieces of jargon — quite a turn-off. Why is this a good idea?

Moonsell (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism = Vajrayana Buddhism?

Of course, Vajrayana is included in Tibetan Buddhism but are they the same, as WP's introduction implies? This is a misunderstanding stemming from the 19th century. In the 21st it will be hard to find it outside WP.

WP's first sentence defines Tibetan Buddhism as one kind of Vajrayana. Tibetan Buddhists, on the other hand, say that Vajrayana is the bit they get to after years of study and meditation of other kinds. They also say that it is only one way to get Buddhahood and is not suitable for all Buddhists.

Where is the preoccupation with Vajrayana here coming from? Our introduction doesn't even mention the other things, let alone emphasise them as primary.

Moonsell (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Moonsell: The preoccupation probably comes from the individual who wrote that. In fact all Tibetan Buddhist schools teach that the Buddhism of Tibet is a combination of all Three Yanas - and that the Vajrayana is a branch or a method of practice within the Mahayana, not something separate from the Mahayana. In Tibetan Buddhism the monastic and lay vows and discipline comes from the Shravakayana, the practice of Bodhicitta and view of Emptiness comes from the Mahayana and meditations involving the visualisation of deities, chanting of mantras as well as various yoga practices are fom the Vajrayana. There is a well known saying in Tibet that Buddhist practitioner should outwardly appear like and maintain the vows of a follower of the Shravakayana (or 'Hinayana'); inwardly or mentally maintain the Bodhisattva vows and view of the Mahayana (Bodhicitta & Emptiness) and secretly maintain the vows and practice of the the Vajrayana. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The preoccupation with tantra even gets duplicated by three subsections: "The Tantric view", "Preliminary practices and approach to Vajrayāna" and "Tantric Yoga". These three are not even consecutive. One of these subsections mentions one main article where the material is duplicated: Deity yoga. (See below under "History" for some of the pitfalls with this.)

Moonsell (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP says, Tibetan Buddhism "preserves 'the Tantric status quo of eighth-century India.' Is WP saying that it includes all the non-Buddhist tantras? Also, why that century in particular. There is a citation. Can anyone please show what light it sheds on these issues.

Moonsell (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Texts and study

Ditto this subsection, re another main article: Tibetan Buddhist canon.

Moonsell (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Women in Tibetan Buddhism (again)

Again, this is a subsection that duplicates material in not one but two whole WP articles. One of them even has the same name as this subsection. As already mooted above, this is crying out to be its own article.

Moonsell (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the one section that's indeed too long. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Buddhahood and Bodhisattvas

This elementary, essential stuff comes not until a quarter of the way through the article. It needs to be near the start. The same goes for some of the even later subsections.

Moonsell (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The length of the article

The text of the article is clearly trying to serve two contradictory purposes:

— either a catch-all repository for tidbits of new contributions, unintegrated with the rest of the article and ignoring its need for coherency, or

— alternatively a minimally technical overview of Tibetan Buddhism, as a starting point for the most common reader who knows little about it.

The title of the article establishes that the second one is what it calls for most. You can't get a more general title than this. It's not going to work if anything whatsoever to do with Tibetan Buddhism is entitled to a quota of space in the article.

In that case, the article needs to be concise and easily readable. It also needs to get back in touch with its roots: the fundamentals. All this can be achieved if editors try to make a habit of taking time to come back and keep cleaning it up for expression, coherence a brake on long-windedness, and, above all, keeping the main focus.

That means both rewriting things and spinning stuff off from subsections into either whole articles that are already on WP or else ones newly created for the purpose. It needs to be done with care, not throwing the babies out with the proverbials. Can anyone help with this?

Moonsell (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Guru

This subsection has now been renamed to "Guru yoga", in accordance with Tibetan tradition. Moonsell (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomenclature

This section of the article is concerned with the term "lamaism" and alternatives to it. Towards the end it digresses onto a tangent:

"There is a "close association between the religious and the secular the spiritual and the temporal" [5] in Tibet. The term for this relationship is chos srid zung 'brel."

Then it returns to the topic. Can anyone please elaborate on:

— how this is coherent;

— what purpose is served by mentioning this in the article at all without expanding on it.

Moonsell (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This bit has now been relocated to "Rites and rituals". Moonsell (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While removing most of it... I've re-inserted it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

chos srid zung 'brel is a term which refers to a theory or doctrine of combined (or intertwined) religious and secular rule. (In other words a form of rule akin to a theocracy) See: The Relationship Between Religion and State (chos srid zung 'brel) In Traditional Tibet Chris Fynn (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

History

This is the title of a subsection in the article. It opens with a reference to another WP article, History of Tibetan Buddhism. Please can anyone justify:

— duplicating quite a large part of this other article here;

— putting WP in the position where, if someone alters either the article or this subsection alone, it needs some mechanism to reconcile the differences (which it doesn't have), and

— including text on this topic at all, at the cost of making this article so long.

Moonsell (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This subsection has now been moved to the end of this article, pending incorporation into the main article: History of Tibetan Buddhism. (Please see above.) Moonsell (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• The history-section is shorter than the history article;
• To reconcile, you'll have to do by hand, if you think this is necessary;
• Seriously? Because history is relevant?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've moved this section back to the top; it provides an overview and introduction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctrine

This whole section is crowded with technical terms that look to most readers like jargon. Why?

It is long-winded, digressing into fine points. Why?

It is only about the view of voidness — i.e., the bit a person may or may not get to after all the study of other preparatory parts of the doctrine. Why?

Moonsell (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The beginning of this subsection has now been excised. (Please see above, especially under "History".) Would anyone like to help with integrating the material into one of the main articles, e.g., Buddhist_philosophy § Tibetan_Buddhist_philosophy. Moonsell (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The tenets-system is a central element of Tibetan Buddhism. It 'digresses' into "fine points," because Tibetan Buddhism itself makes those "fine points." Removing it withoud adding it somewhere else was not an improvement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Schools

This subsection has now been made into its own article: Schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Moonsell (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that, although I've deleted this section in this article and created an identical new article, there will be a delay before the latter is approved. Moonsell (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Schools of Tibetan Buddhism redirects to Tibetan Buddhism... I've re-inserted this material. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

This has now been simplified for readability. Material that was extraneous, technical or uninformative in this place has been pruned from it. (Please see above.) Before reverting, please say how you would address the concerns outlined above. Please first read the talk above, comment here and invite more discussion. Moonsell (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Paramita and Compassion

This subsection too has now been excised. (Please see above, especially under "History".) Would anyone like to help with integrating the material into the main article, Paramitas. Moonsell (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see no reason why this was removed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Malke history section consistent

Good basic info but the paragraphs which explain the risings of the 4 schools should be consistent in that each should provide info on current titular heads, lineage, etc. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Info has been added for consistency. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Délok

Found some synonyms for this cool Buddhist concept that I stumbled on a while back.

I notice it is associated with Tibetan Buddhism but not mentioned here.

It is mentioned as an independent page on the Dutch wikipedia but has no independent English page.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delok

I think it might be of some value to mention it here and perhaps redlink a page for it for future addition.

I am not sure what should be the formal English spelling for the word either so I will list all those I found in my quick search.

délok delok délog delog 'das-log

I found mention of it on another niche wiki with some references

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=D%C3%A9lok

Idyllic press (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)