From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Mongolian Name[edit]

The mongolian is a literal translation of the Sanskrit which isn't realy used. Yamantaka is usally refered to Yamandeg in Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

the following books

-- (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


-- (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Jayaguru-Shishya[edit]

About the editing objection from Jayaguru-Shishya (talk).

Before and after of the yamantaka's stage are the most dangerous and should not be idealized one. The Sanskrit "antaka" does not have the meaning of terminator. It is rather near death place of the hell. I wanted to also edit it, but compromised because a reference was attached. Other most descriptions are also described mistakenly without references. May somebody die because of the description of wikipedia?

The No. 2 leader of a large cult died in Thailand of his business trip in December 2009.

I thought that he was in dangerous situation of the stage nearly as far as he continued the same work, but I was not able to promote attention. Even if I did it, they must have made a fool of me though. Buddhism is good at alerting such a thing in symbols.

The sentence "practitioner's journey to enlightenment" is also a problem. Buddhism has each name for dozens of the stages. What is Sanskrit corresponding to "enlightenment"? It is only darśana-bhumi (Kenshō) if I say forcibly. It is the rudimentary experience and contemporary is equivalent to "endorphin high". If there is not an objection, I want to edit it again. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC):

I corrected a passage. If an objection is not given, I edit it on Sunday. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you start with explaining: a) what do you wish to get changed, b) how do you wish it to be changed, and c) why do you wish it to be changed? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That is all because it is wrong descriptions. Even if there is a reference, it is inappropriate. I already explained it enough. We should give priority to the original sūtras. The beginning sentence is my former version, and the Outlines is like this.
Yamāntaka is seen as a wrathful incarnation of Mañjuśrī, the bodhisattva of wisdom, and in other contexts functions as a dharmapala or a Heruka. Yamāntaka is also expressed as one stage of the Pariṇāmanā for full development. Though Yamāntaka takes a different figure affected by tantrism in Tibetan Buddhism, it is pictured with six legs, faces and arms holding various weapons while sitting on a water buffalo in original Vajrayana Buddhism.
Let's add this reference!: Yamāntaka (焔曼徳迦) has six legs, faces and arms (六足六首六臂).
It is also necessary to change Etymology of Yamāntaka in this way.
Yama, the name of "the god of death or the king of underworld"; and antaka, "making an end or causing death". Thus, Yamāntaka's name literally means "making an end (of yama's border)" or "causing death (of yama's border)".
Thank you for your cheers. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC). I corrected a passage. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, Sérgio Itigo. All the material in Wikipedia should meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Moreover, the source you suggested is hardly a WP:RELIABLE source. Therefore, I have to oppose your proposed changes.
The article has been tagged ever since December 2008 to suffer from insufficient inline ciations. That's a concern I would be more worried about right now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Your claim is like the large cult that I know. Thank Jayaguru-Shishya for your funny man-ship. They totally behave like gurus and repeat incoherent claims, and keep a tight lid on mistakes and crimes. They were arrogant and were too ignorant of the knowledge except their manuals.
The number one leader of them did not die, but I hear that his face swelled up like the Tibetan Yamāntaka in 1996. However, it is also sure that his step is slow like a water buffalo. Therefore, those facts do not have any relation to the verifiability of this page.
By the way, it is about approximately three years ago that I knew the figure of Tibetan Yamāntaka. Rather it is minor in Buddhism, although it may be described in each page of wikipedia because of the sensational figure. Of course some sūtras are found that the Yamāntaka rides a water buffalo and to have six legs, faces and arms. I looked for the sūtras which described the figure of Tibetan Yamāntaka, but was not found. As it is natural, most of sūtras of Indian Tantrism do not exist. It can reappear only from the inherent scriptures of Tibet. This is common sense of the Buddhism study. If you cannot point it out where and how is lacking in reliability, I carry out editing. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sergio, fortunately the prevalence, importance, and heritage of a meditation practice does not depend upon any single person's research. There is no doubt about the validity of this (and many other) deity's provenance from India. The author of the 'fragment' of the original tantra was a pretty well-known Indian siddha called Lalitavajra. This particular deity is very much tied to Indian traditions of Bhairava, especially as found in Eastern Bengal and Orissa. The primary practice of this deity is far from obscure, and is indeed one of the most popular (if not the foremost) for the Mongolian Buddhists, and many others. There are several Yamantaka tantras - including the six arm Yamantaka from the Yogatantra methodology, and as a deity of other mandalas such as Guhyasamaja. However, when talking of Yamantaka in general, it's the Mahavajrabhairava form which was promulgated by Lalitavajra and popularised by Rwa Lotsawa. All of this is easily available to any scholar of Himalayan Buddhism. Another thing you mention is the that texts are only available in translation - but this is not true of most of the core tantras, and this tantra is no exception. The original sanskrit has been preserved in folios, and are available to scholars from Nepalese sources. (20040302 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC))
It will be so. It will be Bhairava and Mahavajrabhairava from the tantra of Hinduism formerly. The figure of Tibetan Yamāntaka may be considerably after ages. At least it will be a thing after Tibetan Buddhism parts from tantrism. The persons who see the figure of Tibetan Yamāntaka and want to transform like that will be considerably rare except the large cult that I know. I want to edit only a certain part by English references. Will you support me? --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree. The relationship between "Hindu" and Buddhist tantra is far more complex than at first appears. Tantra derived from many traditions. Also you keep on going on about a large cult - yet Yamantaka is well-established as primary deity of several major schools of Buddhism, especially (but not exclusively) the Gelukpa school, which is not a cult. The most popular variants of this practice were brought to Tibet by translators such as Rwa and Ga. I believe that you need to learn more regarding the early history of tantra, and how it developed. If you look at academic sources you will find that most Hindu tantra are authored in the 14th to 17th centuries, whereas obviously Buddhist tantras eg Guhyasamaja ) are dated up to a thousand years prior, when 'Hinduism' was completely different. (20040302 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC))
The cult that I say is a modern commercial cult. I can understand your other claims well. My expression "tantra of Hinduism" was inappropriate. Rather it will be worship. In the sentence of article, I intend to write it only "influenced by Hinduism". Tibetan Buddhism is rare Buddhism influenced by tantra, so it may be popular abroad. However, in Tibetan Buddhism, the symbol of the times when they idealized tantra and the symbol which is critical for tantra, for example "Citipati", are mixed. Of course there would be the conflict between denominations of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Yamāntaka may be delicate. However, it cannot doubt the thing that is clearly different from the general Buddhism in documents.
By the way, there are a lot of manners and customs to make fun of Bodhidharma in Japan, although not as much as Satyr. It is only Zen Buddhism to admire Bodhidharma. Moreover, the proper Zen Buddhist does not admire Bodhidharma. Because they know that it is something like worship of Yamāntaka (MahiSasaMvara) to admire Bodhidharma. Yamāntaka is not idealized for a specific denomination, too. Please approve of it. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Sergio, I do not know of what commercial cult you are refering to. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, one cannot say that Buddhist tantra is influenced by Hinduism - because the tantric traditions have a different past from hinduism. I would be happier with a statement that says some Buddhist traditions adopted tantra - but to claim Hindu provenance is a mistake; one has to be careful with the concept of 'influence' here too: In your case here, it would be similar to saying that Christians were influenced by Pagans when they chose to move Christmas to coincide with the feast day of Sol Invictus. Tantra provides many skillful means, and Buddhism is very fluid - as long as the final result is the threefold training. Likewise, the use of the word 'worship' is really not appropriate within the context of tantra. Devotion is a far better word - and it's very risky to conflate these two. Devotion towards one's practice is an essential component to any soteriological method.
Now let us imagine that there is a commercial cult that has chosen to adopt Yamāntaka as a deity. If they have a good lineage and they honour the three gates of entry - the first of which is correct refuge, and the second of which is the bodhisattva vow, well - if they are instructing their students with correct preliminary practices, and training them in understanding a correct view of emptiness (which, for the Yamantaka lineages, would be Madhyamaka Prasangika, in accordance with the writing of Candrakirti) as well as training them in the Bodisattva path - then, as long as the commercial aspect is done a skilful means rather than for profit, I can see no harm. (20040302 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC))
That's fascinating, 20040302. Can you recommend any further reading on the relation of Madhyamaka Prasangika and Yamantaka? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at - for more information you should really receive teachings and initiation from a qualified teacher, such as the current Dalai Lama, Ganden Tripa, or other reliable source. 20040302 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
If there is a commercial cult adopting Yamāntaka as a definitive deity not as "the pre-stage of Bodhisattva path", it is already a commercial Satanism. It is easy that the worship to idols becomes a goal, and the "train-ing" for Bodisattva path does not have a bypath.
By the way, what you are saying has contradiction. You referred to Bhairava and Mahavajrabhairava. Then it will be good in my description plan of the above statement. There was not a source of "the pre-stage of Bodhisattva path", so I used the abstract expression of Pariṇāmanā. Both may be few concepts in Theravada. Also I was surprised at "Threefold Training" very much. Being able to happen If is taken from where in sūtras?! I have ever been surprised at the difference between the Trinity of Orthodox Church and the Trinity of Protestant in particular, but no longer.
I made my description plan of the past a bold-face. It is the same except that I changed one preposition. It is most suitable as common recognition. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
So sorry, I am lost. What are you asking re. the threefold training? ----
I can not understand it either. Please do not mind it. Threefold training is not the subject here, and there seems to be no direct danger. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"incarnation of Mañjuśrī" or "expression of Mañjuśrī"[edit]

As the description of Pariṇāmanā depends on my self-expression and leadership, I may retract it. But it is necessary to be careful about the word of this subject. "Pre-stage of Mañjuśrī" is also a mistake. Then, readers cannot take consideration into the existence of this phase even if it is a good person of the perception. This is my contribution to match a phase with other language. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sergio, one cannot say 'incarnation' - as that means something different to what is practices with deity yoga. What is it exactly that you are saying about this? I am willing to help find the right term - but incarnation is not that. (20040302 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)) -- maybe the word appearance is better.
Incarnation is translation of Sanskrit nirmāṇakāya. It means "body of transformations". Of course Yamāntaka transforms towards Mañjuśrī through this process, and it is enough to the person who know the art structure of Vajrayana. I admit that it may be interpreted adversely in other people. However, Your suggestion appearance is like Mickey Mouse costume or the space suit, and is easy to be also reversed. It is different from the poses of yoga. It was so, Mañjuśrī is a Bodhisattva. Your description "the Samyaksambuddha of wisdom who" is incomprehensible.
By the way, how about in omen ? It is also perfect expression psychiatrically. I have ever read that there were sometimes a nurse and medical intern who fainted. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of 'Incarnation' is that it literally means the embodiment in flesh, which is not suitable for nirmanakaya and neither does it suit for an ishtadevata. Likewise ishtadevata are not really the same as nirmanakaya- as they are meditative devices that only correlate to nirmanakaya in some contexts, not all contexts. (20040302 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC))

I can understand what you are saying well. However, it is sure that Buddhism have used nirmāṇakāya in this case. Ishtadevata will be a process to expose the contents of matryoshka doll like peeling an onion. The practitioner of austerities transforms to a beast, a bird and others for seeking intrinsic qualities of the existence or God. He will do embodiment in flesh again from there. But, seeing from the side of Bodhisattva, it is nirmāṇakāya. If I say more, Chinese Buddhism sometimes considered Bodhisattva to be yet a monkey.
By the way, yesterday in reality, I heard the news of a former professional athlete. He seemed to have been carried to a hospital for the habitual use of LSD once. He had revived by the electronic shocks to brain, not the heart. However, still he did not stop the use of LSD. I was shocked to the news. So I thought that omen might be good. What do you think? --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is more to the practice of tantra than you seem to be aware of - and your identification of nirmanakaya with a tantric deity needs substantial academic reference. I do not understand your other comments - especially concerning 'omen'. Nirmanakaya means emanation body, not transformation body, but as I mentioned this is only a partial correlate. I suggest this discussion is ended- unless there are further points that you wish to make? 20040302 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not concluded. Though I changed the word incarnation from "emanation", incarnation is incomprehensible, but "em----" gives misunderstanding. Are there academic references supporting emanation? There are plenty of academic references of nirmāṇakāya, but other translation equivalents are inappropriate, for example "enlightment", and cause misunderstanding. Why is a grand study of Monier not reflected?! As for you, the description of "the Samyaksambuddha of wisdom who" cannot but be returned to the former. Except omen or appearance, is there not good one? How about "breakup" ? --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yamāntaka and MahiSasaMvara[edit]

In dictionaries of machine translation, Yamantaka seems to often become "大威徳". However, Yamāntaka is "焔曼徳迦" (pinyin: Yànmàn déjiā). Yamāntaka never becomes "大威徳" by both transliteration and free translation. "" of "大威徳" means "Mahi" of "MahiSasaMvara". It possess the meaning of a water buffalo at "MahiSa". In addition, Yamāntaka or MahiSasaMvara with six faces, legs and arms exists in also Tibet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sérgio Itigo (talkcontribs) 18:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC) . I added a link. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

About a link of Yama

Yamāntaka was not preached in East Asia. It should be linked to this Yama. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)