Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will in China (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 9 April 2009 (→work in progress: objection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archive

Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana

The same argument holds that all Buddhism is primarily a form of Hinayana since Hinyana suttas, and vinaya continue to have importance, and many later teachings have their origins in Hinayana thought. Indeed even Vajrayana practices contain an element of Hinyana in the form of renunciation which the Vajrayana came to see as the quintessential Hinayana practice."

This was removed because it is based upon the premise that Hinayana and Mahayana are what they are according to what scriptures they accept. However, this is not the case: Hinayana has as it's goal the Nirvana of an Arhat. Mahayana and Vajrayana have as their goal the Nirvana of a Buddha. This is why it is 'okay' to say that the Vajrayana is a specialised form of Mahayana. (20040302 16:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC))

I'm curious, do you know if the Theravada school accepts this distinction? - Nat Krause 10:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The specific distinction (I guess) you are refering to is that between a Bodhisattva and Sravaka? (Mahayana refers to the path of Bodhisattvas, and here Hinayana I took to refer to Sravakayana - or the path of Arhats)? Yes, there is no problem with that. The Pali canon and Jataka tales assert that there is a distinction between the Bodhisattva and the Sravaka. Remember, the Pali canon does agree that Sakyamuni was a Bodhisattva before he achieved enlightenment. Buddha himself said it was not necessary to follow the path of a Bodhisattva to escape samsara, that all one needed to do was to get out, and this is why he taught the Sravakayana. I do not think that any tradition actually objects to this point.

Hmmm, I guess so. It's not that I'm trying to argue that some sect or another is wrong or right or more ultimate or something, or that anybody is malicious (well, "every heart is sinful and desperately wicked"). But I'm still trying to figure out if I can really agree that there is no Mahayana school / non-Mahayana school division. I'll continue to dwell on the subject occasionally. - Nat Krause 18:15, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't take it that you were looking for dirt, but to the issue of Mahayana/non-mahayana, which (I believe) is a more interesting discourse.

My point above (as ever) was that mahayana is the path of the Bodhisattva, not a group of schools. In this sense, mahayana is recognised by the Theravada and other Nikaya schools (though they may dispute that schools that call themselves 'mahayana' are actually following the mahayana path!)

Regarding the division itself, we need to ask ourselves "Is it useful? -Does it serve a good purpose?" If we look 'across the road' to Christianity, at the division into Catholicism and Protestantism - is that a legitimate division of Christianity? And in one sense, the answer is 'Yes' because by definition Protestants have protested against Catholicism, though a quick trip to the List_of_Christian_denominations will show just how reductive such a division is. Why I brought this up is that I believe that early Western scholars were looking for a similar division of Buddhism as a rationale (e.g. the 'northern buddhists' of China and the 'southern buddhists' of Ceylon), but were possibly faced with the dilemma of attempting to find the "Martin Luther" of Buddhism. Of course, if they did think this way, they missed the point - in that Buddhism has a different cultural background, and is imbued with a completely distinct set of messages than those that are found in the Ibrahimic religions.

My working assumption of the distinction between the Nikaya and non-Nikaya schools is based upon the concept of transmission. I believe that the Nikaya only recognise transmission through scripture, whereas non-Nikaya recognise transmission through realisation. This allows the non-Nikaya to be more creative, adaptive, and dynamic with scriptural elements, in that (if you will) they are more interested in the Spirit of the law rather than the Letter of the law; moreover, because they recognise the idea of transmission of realisation, then who they call 'Buddha' is not just the person who walked and taught in the C6th BCE, but also the consequences of his actions and teachings. This then allows for the later authorship of sutras, which are indeed spoken by the Buddha, but not in the way that is normally meant by such an idea- the individuals who penned the words 'heard the sutra' through realisation; for them to claim that it is 'their own' realisation would imply the existence of a self that they do not wish - moreover, they could claim, whatever remnants of their self-grasping there is could not write dharma - dharma is the pure expression of Buddha's mind - and in that sense, it is more appropriate to say that the text is indeed authored by Buddha.

So following this tirade, the Nikaya, non-Nikaya distinction can indeed be made (by identifying those that agree solely with the Pali or it's equivalents). However, we still need to ask ourselves is such a distinction, on those lines, relavant or useful? It is really clear that e.g. the Pure Land traditions are completely distinct from any of the Tibetan traditions, and certainly in some respects (e.g. Tibetan monastic vinaya) the Tibetan tradition is considerably closer to Theravada than it is to Korean or other Mahayana monastic vinaya, though in many other respects their are other similarities.

I wouldn't try to make too clear a distinction between the Tibetan and the east Asian Mahayana. When I went to Taiwan in 1984 I was surprised to find so many similarities in the rituals at some temples with the Tibetan rituals I was familiar with. The Tibetan variety of Vajrayana was the preferred religion of the Mongols and the Manchus when they were ruling China. And it is Chinese custom to practise more than one school at any time. They often don't regard different schools as contradictory but simply as having different functions. For example, people go to a mandala offering ceremony to receive blessings & make offerings. They recite Pureland texts mantras when someone dies or to ensure longevity. Pure Mahayana without Vajrayana is sometimes practised in the Tibetan tradition but it is simply overwhelmed by the preponderance of the Vajrayana. I knew a monk in the Tibetan tradition who was advised by his lamas not to take deity empowerments and to just practise Mahayana teachings. This was his personal decision and there are other individuals in similar situations. It is a matter of personal potential which teachings are best suited.--Bodhirakshita 09:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had an interesting discussion with an academic the other day about just how cartesian and C19th the whole idea of cataloguing, categorising and taxonomising is; how the mid C20th brought about the ability for us to break out of these absolutist concepts, and yet how incredibly reluctant we are to let go of them as building blocks, and see them just as the patterns that they are - models that are useful for certain purposes only, but no nearer or further from any objective truth than any other model that we wish to use.

Hmmm.. Obviously drank lots of coffee this morning! (20040302 11:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC))

You have made a good distinction between the Nikaya & non-Nikaya but what do all these different traditions have in common that makes them Buddhist? There are a number of factors that all orthodox Buddhist schools share. The Buddha outlined 37 factors which he considered prerequisites to enlightenment. They are known in the Pali Canon as the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhamma, the Wings to Awakening. As they are common to the Foundational Vehicle (The Dalai Lama now uses "Foundational Vehicle" in preference to "Hinayana" which has derogatory connotations) & the other schools it not incorrect to say that the other schools are based on the Foundational Vehicle. These factors are what distinguish Buddhism from other religions.

A Theravadan article on the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhamma can be found at http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/wings/index.html --Bodhirakshita 08:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well put, Bodhirakshita. (Sorry for the 7 month lag!) Since I wrote this, I have not changed my view-point much - though I further feel that we also see a division between Nikaya and Mahayana on the basis of the nature of a Buddha after death. This is the distinction between Nirvana-with-remainder and Nirvana-without-remainder. After all, according to Mahayanists, Sakyamuni Buddha is still directly teaching and will continue to do so until the end of time, whereas from what I understand of the Nikaya, Sakyamuni Buddha ceased to teach directly on the moment of his Parinirvana. Regarding to the commonality of Buddhism, I guess I would also say that accordance with-

• The belief that Sakyamuni is (for our time and our planet) uniquely realised.
• The maintenance, promotion, and study of the Tripitaka
• The support and maintenance of one of the ancient lineages of Vinaya

In other words, the institutional support and maintenance of the three refuges. I guess this is possibly more contentious, but my personal view sees that as pretty reasonable. (20040302 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

What is Vajrayana? A faster path to enlightenment

I have a problem with this section which puts the emphasis on the speed factor of Vajrayana when it's chief characteristics are purification & transformation, purifying thought & action & transforming passions & delusions into wisdoms. See http://www.dzogchen.org.au/buddhism.html I think the whole section should be re-written. - --Bodhirakshita 04:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Second speed-up technique: Esoteric Transmission or Initiation"

"The esoteric transmission framework can take varying forms. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism uses a method called dzogchen. Other Tibetan Kagyu schools and the Shingon school in Japan use an alternative method called mahamudra."

This is incorrect on several counts. Dzogchen transmission is not the same as Vajrayana initiation or empowerment. Dzogchen transmission has a different function to Vajrayana. Dzogchen is also found in the Bön tradition & in the Kagyu sub-sects. And again Mahamudra transmission is not Vajrayana empowerment. See the Misplaced Pages article Dzogchen - --Bodhirakshita 04:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Buddhahood vs nirvana

This curious sentence was recently added: It should also be noted that the goal of the Mahayana and Vajrayana is the attainment of Buddhahood, whereas the goal for Theravada pracitce is liberation from the cycle of rebirth in Nirvana.

Did I miss something in Buddhism 101, or isn't attaining Buddhahood the same as liberation from the cycle of rebirth...? Jpatokal 01:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thoroughly don't know, but many people would say they are not the same. They are making a distinction between arhatship and Buddhahood. To be clearer, Buddhahood is seen as a type of arhatship, i.e. a type of liberation from samsara. Ideally, this should be reflected in the article. - Nat Krause 02:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are 3 types of Buddhahood: Sravaka, Pratyeka & Samyaksam Buddha. See the Misplaced Pages article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Hinayana - --Bodhirakshita 03:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that you can have gradations of Buddha-ness. Awakenedness isn't supposed to be composite, so it's hard to see how you could break it down. If an Arhat is not considered by (some?) Mahayanists(?) to be a real Buddha, then I think that is something that should be said. I think Jpatokal's 18-month-old observation ought to be addressed somewhere, but I've no idea which article is most appropriate.

I don't know which kinds of Buddhist think that Arhatship is not a kind of Buddhahood, but I know that some take that view. I'd like to know which Buddhists take which view, and what their reasonings are.

--MrDemeanour 21:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vajrayana Buddhists make a distinction between enlightenment (Buddhahood, cessation of all illusion and confusion) and liberation (cessation of the illusory ego). The Theravada term of 'enlightenment' is the same thing as the Vajrayana term of liberation. What Theravada sees as the goal, Vajrayana sees as the first step. Hope this clears things up.

--Zormal 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zormal! Actually I'm familiar with the distinction that vajrayanists make; I'm curious as to whether other buddhists make a similar distinction between arhats and samyaksambuddhas. I'd also like to have some better understanding of what the difference is. As I understand it, it's to do with the removal of progressively more subtle veils of ignorance - but what do I know :-)

MrDemeanour 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Nirvana and Buddha hood.

Nirvana is a Sanskrit word as you well know, but did you know it consists of tree words, Nir Vad Djna, literally this mean “Without wrong thought”, at least this is what my teacher Chhimed Rigdzin Rinpoche taught me. To reach Nirvana is to come to the end of ones preconceived ideas, to the place where the world is new at every moment.

Buddha hood is to gain the state of a Buddha, to be a Buddha is to gain throughout ages an accumulation of merits or positive accumulated fearlessness to deal with the parts of life that beings do not like to deal with and witch make up what is commonly known as the subconscious. Having gained a storage of “good merit” one will have the connection to a whole world of sentient beings, through ones work, and so will start at a proper time a new world cycle of Buddhist teachings.

To become a Buddha and to attain Nirvana is one and the same, there is no difference between the two, in actual experience. To reach Nirvana is like becoming truly sane. And to become a Buddha is to become the King of Fearlessness.

Nirvana you may gain for you self anytime but becoming a Buddha is another matter. --Mitrapa 16:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa.

Different teachers give different etymologies for the word "nirvana". The most common is as follows: "nir" is the prefix meaning "to cease" or "to stop"; "vaana" means "blowing": thus "extinguished" or "blown out" would be the literal translation. - --Bodhirakshita 03:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please rewrite...

...the first section. How can anyone trust someone who explains the terms so poorly? Mandel June 30, 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Attempted improvements: Vajrayana isn't a school. The "three yanas" don't include "Theravada", as such. Vajrayana not really a 'subset' of the Mahayana 'school', as vajrayanists study widely in all the Mahayana schools. I'm afraid this edit felt a bit like butchery; I'll have a pop at the second paragraph separately, in the hope that this will make it easier to revert my efforts.

--MrDemeanour 18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Vajrayana texts

Shouldnt there be a sectiron about vajrayana texts ( sutras,tantras ) etc . And links to external sites that have vajrayana texts .Farhansher 8 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Any cononical Vajrayana texts that aren't tantras are also texts that non-tantric schools of Buddhism accept (Sutra, Vinaya, Shastra). So you are asking for a section about the Tantra#Tibetan_tantra; this exists already.

If you are asking for a catalogue of Buddhist tantras, it might be hard to get a definitive set (according to some traditions, they are numberless); and it's not clear what the 'regular' reader would be expected to make of a list of names of Buddhist tantras. Since those to whom these texts have been properly explained are generally bound to maintain some degree of confidence/secrecy, people are stuck with the titles of the tantras, their alleged authors, and some handwaving stuff like that.

I don't know what we are supposed to do about this, unless some non-vajrayana philologist who understands the language wants to come along and expound the tantras to folks who are is considered by vajrayanists to be incapable of understanding the explanation. And how could someone with a "correct" knowledge of the material revise it, without breaking their vows?

I think a decent explanation of the philological/anthropological/whatever view of what is known about these texts would be fantastic. I have only one reference of that kind though:

David Snelgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Shambhala Press, ISBN1-57062-973-0

Very interesting, lots of footnotes, quite a lot of repetition. Very good (in my ill-informed opinion) on the relationships between the different classes of Buddhist tantras. Large section on the connections between Buddhist and Shaivite tantra, and some serious discussion about the origins of the practices. Some material that is rather explicit, and that probably should be considered off-bounds to practitioners, unless they have the proper permission.

I'm not tantric - I think you are supposed to have some realisation of emptiness before it makes any sense to try to approach tantra; but such teaching as I have had was all aimed in a generally-tantric direction.

--MrDemeanour 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are more or less right. It's impossible to have any substantial ability in one's practice of Buddhist tantra without a strong grounding in both emptiness and bodhicitta. Of course, there are plenty of practitioners who do NOT have such a grounding, and I guess it would be rude or provocative to tell them that they are not tantrics! The classical source for differentiation of the tantras is a Tibetan historian called Bu-ston; his works are still relied upon by academics from the East and West. Of course, there are many other issues regarding Tantra - for instance, is the mere mantra recitation tantra? We find similar 'dharanis' for warding off snakes and so on even in the Pali canon. I could waffle on for pages.. (20040302)

"Should..."

"Secrecy is a cornerstone of tantric Buddhism, simply to avoid the practices from harming oneself and others without proper guidance. One should realise that it is not even allowed to explain the full symbolism and psychology of the practice to the un-initiated, so obviously, this leads to misunderstanding and dismissal. Tantric techniques may initially appear to consist of ritualistic nonsense; however, it should only be practiced on the basis of a thorough understanding of Buddhist philosophy and strictly following the traditions."

It is not the place of wikipedia to tell people what they should and shouldn't do.

Also this passage is POV. There are many people who think that the policy of witholding religious teachings from the uninitiated is more for the benefit of the teachers, the hierarchy, than of the disciple, because it makes the disciple politically dependent on the teacher. For instance this was the reason for Nichiren's hostility to Shingon. Nichiren said (at least according to the way his teachings are interpreted and taught within Soka Gakkai International) that enlightenment depended on the individual's faith rather than on a mastery of techniques or on intercession from others. I assume that there are other Buddhists and Buddhologists who take a similar view (analogous to Luther's objection to the obscurantism of the Catholic Church) and who would therefore have the a similar objection to the Vajrayana position.

Some relatively minor rewording should be enough to keep everybody happy :-) Ireneshusband 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Entheogens

Why was my addition of a bullet point (with citation: http://www.earthrites.org/magazine_article_crowley.htm) noting the potential use of entheogens within Tantric Buddhism deleted?

Response: First, "theo" means "god", and buddhism is a non-theistic religion. (Deva/yidam is a different thing) Then most gurus are explicit against drugs, even if there is some use of alcohol as "samaya substance". Even if this is a true secret vajrayana practice (which I sincerely doubt), an encyclopedia entry should not expose esoteric and controversial knowledge about its subject, but what is publically known. Third, the article referred does not conform to academic standards of quality, and is seemingly just a sensationalist piece. If some aknowledged scholar in the vajrayana made the comment, then the possibility would have to be acredited. Since "Mike Crowley" is vastly unknown and have never been even quoted or cited in any of the works on vajrayana I have read, it seems to me his opinion should not be publicly related to vajrayana.

I am the second one to have deleted the reference. I don't know who first did it.

Response: First, if you'd prefer the word "psychedelic," that's fine. I was using the term "entheogen" to abate controversy. I meant it in its loose sense, which generally uses the root "theo" to refer to anything that approximates the divine, but psychedelic may work better. Second, Misplaced Pages is full of controversial interpretations of historical writings. As long as they are acknowledged as such (as I did) and supported with references (as I did), I see no problem with mentioning them in an encyclopedia. I've seen some real unfounded nonsense on here pass for vaguely argued "possibilities," and mine is certainly a cut above most of them. Third, your ad hominem attacks on the author of my reference hold little water. Mike Crowley may not be a well-known scholar, and he may have merely posted his book online instead of going through the proper channels of publication, but his argument is more than sound if one gives it the chance. Furthermore, his work is online and freely available for scutiny if anyone chooses to click on the link.

I've been deleted again. Your bias is disgusting. You are the reason why many people rightfully hate and fear the democratic nature of Misplaced Pages.

This is not bias. It is an application of policy. Please read WP:V. Web sources are not permitted. I have no objection to the inclusion of the information as long as you can provide a reputable source. Ekajati 14:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mike Crowley pages are definitely filled with supposition and hypothesis mixed up with fact - and his authority is questionable. His understanding of Abhisheka and Amrita is particularly limited, and his correlation of Amrita with Soma is mostly mistaken. Regardless, there are rare (very rare!) instances of drugs being directly mentioned - not the drugs that Crowley talks about - not in the way in which Crowley specifies - and certainly not as entheogens - but for other purposes. This is not the place to discuss such things. As a general rule, I concur with Ekajati etc. regarding the placement of the Crowley pages - it is more likely to further confuse what is already a largely mistaken area of practice and study(20040302 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Response: I do not think this is a topic which needs to be discussed in a highly public forum like wikipedia. However, the use of entheogens in the Vajrayana tradition has been well documented in reputable sources by such respected scholars as Ronald M Davidson, William George Stablein, Bulcsu Siklos, David B. Gray, Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, Shashibhusan Das Gupta, Francesca Fremantle, Shinichi Tsuda, David Gordon White, Rene de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, James Francis Hartzell, Edward Todd Fenner, Ian Baker, Dr. Pasang Yonten Arya and others. If you would like additional information you can contact me by writing to "thecontemplative" *at* *yahoo* *dot* *com* Thecontemplative (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vajra

Anyone knows what Vajra means? I couldn't find it, and i think it should be mentioned in the very first of the article.Janviermichelle 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I've just addressed this; folks might see fit to move my remarks to a new (stub?) article. -- MrDemeanour 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

where to put this?

don't know yet.

Psychedelics and sex.

Can we please delete that? It is ridiculous and that source has been proven to be incorrect. Crowley has mentioned that the khatvanga entering a skullcup looks like an inverted mushroom. Well he's wrong. The Heruka tsog puja text (which contains the process) clearly states that the khatvanga melts into the skullcup, therefore making it impossible to look like a mushroom. The whole inner offering is the offering of emptiness, so I don't see how emptiness could possibly have anything to do with 'magic mushrooms'. He also forgot to mention how the rest of the process is related to mushrooms, so he clearly picks out what might make sense and takes it out of it's original context. That is just one example of how flimnsy his evidence is.

As for the sexual refernce, it only is symbolic and therefore should explain the symbolism instead of what's there. It is not a central practise of Vajrayana, as Lama Tsong Khapa gained enlgihtenment without it.

Jmlee369 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deity practice

I removed the following, misleading fragment from the article:

"Deity Tantra is often practiced at the moment directly prior to sexual climax. The practitioner takes a consort and this is practiced in pairs. Often times the couple pictures themselves as the deities in the mandala making love."

It gives the impression that tantric buddhist deity practices are predominantly done in a "sexual" setting. In reality however, these deity practices are just meditation practices - with no consort involved. In anuttarayogatantra, the deities often do have consorts, but anuttarayogatantra is not relevant to most tantric practitioners.

And where to put this?

• Love and Passion in Tantric Buddhist Art

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.113 (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Countries?

I'd like to see some info about which countries vajrayana is practiced in today? Hohohahaha (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be some information on Nepal and Newari Buddhism which is a separate Vajrayana transmission from the Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese schools of Vajraryana. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Prettifed too much?

Why? Revealing it's cultish won't hurt ppl reading but will bring some light on those poor females. Vajrayana is a combination of Buddhism,Hinduism,and Shamanism. The Definition as a sect of Buddhism is not accepted by many Buddhist. Mea Culpa (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Move Tantric Techniques?

Does anyone object if I move the bulk of the material in Tantra techniques section to the already linked main article page Tantra techniques (Vajrayana)? Think Deity yoga etc more relevant there. Dakinijones (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But why? rudy (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - I mean that 'tantric techniques' is the essence of tantra; tantra IS basically a technique of meditation.rudy (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See my previous comment below... your excellent re-shuffle of the material made that section make sense to me. I meant to withdraw suggestion. Dakinijones (talk)

Tibetan buddhism not Vajrayana?

"Vajrayana is seen as adding to the general Mahayana teachings for somewhat advanced students." This statement is unsupported by reference and doesn't accord with my understanding as a 10year Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana student... which doesn't mean I'm not wrong... but I'd like to see a reliable source for this. Dakinijones (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... interesting... I see Berzin refers to it in exactly those terms... I'll see if I can get a ref in though to make it reliably sourced Dakinijones (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"General Mahayana" does not contain typical tantric techniques, so it would be correct to say that Vajrayana adds something, no? rudy (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with you - but not sure how to phrase it. Any ideas? Feel free to jump in and edit! BTW thanks for that shift of the Tantric techniques material... makes much more sense to me now... before it just looked like a jumble of practices, now it reflects the actual Tantric process Dakinijones (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Mahayana

Under this heading, we had:

From this view the Hinayana and Mahayana are provisional and compromised aspects of the Vajrayana - rather than seeing the Vajrayana as primarily a form of Mahayana Buddhism. This view is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, where it is taught that ultimately one can only become a Buddha by practicing tantra (even if only for the very last step of the path).

I've deleted the last sentence. Pabongka Rinpoche's lamrim has: The secret tantras are said to be even rarer than the Buddhas.(Pabongka Rinpoche; Ed. Trijang Rinpoche, transl. Michael Richards (Revised edition, 1993). Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand. Wisdom, 649. ISBN 0861715004.) Tibetans believe that enlightenment occurs without Vajrayana but that it takes aeons.

Moonsell (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Newar Buddhism?

As far as I am aware, there is no sub-school of Buddhism like Newar Buddhism. What is generally practiced in Nepal is Hinduism which includes the Buddha as one of the Avatars. To present this as a sub-school of Vajrayana is quite wrong. The influence came from Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism (from the mountain areas).rudy (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages article on Newar, about 15% of them are Buddhists. Searching Amazon for books written about Newar Buddhism brings up a couple of hits, such as this one. My impression is that Newar Buddhism is a topic which has been largely ignored by Western scholars until a recent flurry of interest.—Nat Krause 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My experience in Nepal is that people in the plains are basically Hindu. When they say they are Buddhist, they seem to use it just like the expression of 'Shivaism' or so, actually what westerners would consider a tradition within Hinduism. I made the above note because I deleted a new paragraph without content in the main article. If nobody has any knowledge of this, we should certainly not make a new empty paragraph in the article... I suspect the 'flurry' is caused by a few individuals with little experience in Hinduism and Buddhism - I've never heard a scholar about this yet.rudy (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Newari Vajracaryas are an incredibly important group for those interested in the study of Vajrayana. Almost all of the Sanskrit texts relating to Vajrayana which exist today were preserved by the Newars (there are a few palm leaf manuscripts that were preserved in Tibet as well, but these are inconsequential when compared to the mass of Sanskrit material preserved by Newars). It is truly unfortunate that the Newari Vajrayana tradition has received very little attention in the West. However, there has been some excellent work done in this area by scholars like David Gellner, Todd T. Lewis, Siedfried Lienhard, John K Locke, and Bruce Owens, any and all of whom should be consulted on this topic.Thecontemplative (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Reliable references?

The note at the top of the page from June 2007 saying reliable references are needed seems a little out of date and no longer necessary. What do people think? Do we still need it or can it be removed now? Dakinijones (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A week with no comment... if there's no objection, in a week I'm going to remove the reliable refs needed sign from the page. Dakinijones (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see plenty of references throughout the article. Use {{fact}} after a disputed sentence instead of saying the whole article "needs more references".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Link

• A Study of Traditional Vajrayana Buddhism of Nepal That link today doesn't work anymore.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.24 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article does not quote just academic sources but also practice sources such as the Dalai Lama, Alex Berzin and Tenzin Palmo. Since this is so, why is it not possible to quote from the valid source of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books? Perhaps Mistube would give clear reasons why the inclusions he or she has deleted are incorrect or inaccurate. Perhaps they would also like to say why Geshe Kelsang's works are unreliable while the works of other practitioners are not? Actually, it is Mistube who is being partisan and sectarian for no justifiable reason and his or her actions are leading to an unnecessary edit war. If you examine Geshe Kelsang's books you will find that they are mainstream Buddhism, not a partisan view. Speaking of partisan, your use of the word 'inherent' and 'inherently' is a partisan view because few Vajrayana practitioners, unless they were Shentongpas would assert that Buddhanature and Buddhahood exist inherently, yet you do not say that your view is partisan.

If you have reasons, give them, otherwise why delete information that improves the article? Buddhism is based on logic, not emotional reaction. I'm giving you a chance to have your say. If you do not give any valid reasons, I shall re-include the material in the next 24 hours.

We should practice equanimity here, either replacing all the references to practice sources with academic sources, or you should allow quotations from the valid practice sources of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as he is a respected author and Tharpa Publications is a respected publisher. I await your reasons.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct answer is "replace all the references to practi sources with academic sources". This is a core policy for all Misplaced Pages. Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jpatokal, I completely agree with you. But also we cannot have an article where all the vajrayana teachings are explained from Geshe Kelsangs perspective. Truthsayer and -body and emptymountain could make a small subsection in the aticle explaining about Geshe Kelsang, but they cannot enter those teachings in all parts of the article. Greetings, Sacca 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"we cannot have an article where all the vajrayana teachings are explained from Geshe Kelsangs perspective" is quite an exaggeration! "they cannot enter those teachings in all parts of the article" = separate and unequal? What Misplaced Pages policy is that based on? I have only added one quote from GKG in all these articles, when it seemed appropriate. See the before and after here. I don't see how this is "taking over" the article, flooding it with quotes from GKG. This is the explanation I gave on the AN, and so far no one has faulted the edit on its own merits: The Bodhisattva article itself says, "Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category." Did you know that Manjushri also became a Bodhisattva by first cultivating shepherd-like bodhichitta? Yet, the DL quote says, "there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment." That is why I think it is incorrect, no matter who said it. Thank you. Emptymountains (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacca, perhaps you could explain why Geshe Kelsang's view of Vajrayana is different from everyone else's? Could you explain where he diverges from mainstream Vajrayana teachings? He doesn't. The basis of Geshe Kelsang's books are the teachings of his Lineage Gurus (who were the same lineage Gurus of the Dalai Lama, for example) and in particular the works of Je Tsongkhapa who was greatly praised for his clarification of Tantric practice by Teachers of other traditions. Do you have any valid objections to the technical content of Geshe Kelsang's books? --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You say he doesn't diverge from mainstream Vajrayana. But who are you? We need scholarly articles here, not personal opinions. We can discuss but in the end what we need are high quality references. Your kind of discussion will bring us nowhere at this point. Find scholarly quotes first please. This is the attitude we use here at Misplaced Pages. Greetings, Sacca 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is you who have made the statement that Geshe Kelsang's books are not high quality references but yet you have provided no evidence to support your view. Geshe Kelsang's books are WP:RS academic sources because he is a scholar who has studied and meditated on Vajrayana his whole life. You cannot answer my questions on how Geshe Kelsang's teachings diverge from mainstream Vajrayana and you cannot raise any technical objections to the material, therefore I'm wondering what your objection is. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's books are academic sources (as he trained at the monastic universities in Tibet). Not Western academia -- however Misplaced Pages does not practice cultural imperialism over eastern academia. Moreover, thousands of Westerners train in the study of these books, and they have been used in Western academic courses. So they are qualified in this respect too. Plus, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if we remove GKG as a source, we also have to remove Tenzin Palmo and the Dalai Lama and every other Tibetan Buddhist teacher from Wiki articles for the same reasons, which would be a great shame.(Truthbody (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

No monastic universities are religious institutions, not academic institutions. Of course his followers study those books. Catholics would read books by the pope, that doesn't mean his books are academic. Ok lets remove the other sources too then and replace them with good sources from academic publications. We should end this quickly.Greetings, Sacca 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and more than 2/3 of the sources cited in this article would have to removed. Seems like an extreme reaction, especially when you consider this would have to apply to all other related articles. I think it makes more sense to consider each citation on a one-on-one basis and ask ourselves whether it contributes to the article. I am not sure about the "all or nothing" approach being suggested here. Emptymountains (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes where the opinions of the Dalai Lama, GKG, Mickey Mouse etc are presented as their own opinions are fine. However, attributing statements like "This meditation causes dualistic appearances to subside into emptiness" or "The moon is made of green cheese" to self-published sources is not appropriate according to WP:RS.

The fundamental problem with this article (and many, many other articles about Buddhism) is that different sects and different people have different opinions, even about the fundamentals. The only way out is to be very careful in attributing statements: instead of "A is B", it should always be "according to X, A is B". Jpatokal (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to what you say, Buddha's original teachings, the basis of all these articles, would have to be considered a self-published source. Buddha was not an academic, so you're saying we couldn't use Buddha's teachings as the basis for an article on Buddhism which is completely absurd!

The whole point about these topics is that it is those who are practising and gaining experience of the these teachings who have the greatest insights so it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'practice references' from these articles. What kind of articles would we have if we removed all of the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist sources from Buddhist articles and all sources from the Pope and other Catholic writers from articles on Catholicism? Very poor articles, I would think.

On the subject of what is POV, elsewhere Sacca accuses Truthbody of including POV edits because he is including material from Geshe Kelsang's books but as I understand it, Sacca is a Theravadin practitioner. If Sacca makes edits according to Theravadin view, aren't his edits POV? Simply including a view from one school of Buddhism isn't POV because that's reality - Buddha taught many different and at times seemingly contradictory views. There is no one 'right' view except about common subjects such as a the Four Noble Truths. There are many disagreements between Theravadin and Mahayana. If Sacca and Mitsube have objections to the content of Truthbody's edits they should make changes but to just revert for no logical reason is against the non-partisan stance of Misplaced Pages, surely? If they have valid technical objections to the content of the edits, these can be discussed but without justification their objections seem themselves to be POV, discriminatory and sectarian. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal experience is not verifiable and thus not accepted as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Again, quotes from notable individuals are acceptable as illustrations, but you can't use them to "prove" a fact. Jpatokal (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats no true. This is about Vajrayana, while Truthbody and you (same person, sock puppet?) are adding stuff from NKD only.

Also I am theravadin but if you care to look, I only use scholarly publications as references, not the kind of self-published material as is published by Geshe Kelsang. Theravada has a lot of that too but since it is mostly unsuitable for usage on wikipedia i use it very (VERY) sparingly. You use only self-published stuff, you add no scholarly quotes at all. That maks your additions just bad and partisan.

What you are doing is like using the pope to explain the teachings of christianity. You can't do that. The pope is catholic, you might be able to use the writings of the pope in the catholicism article to a limited extent, but not in the christianity article without adding the positions of protestant and other movements. Especially since Geshe Kelsang started a seperate movement outside of Tibetan Buddhism and is still condemned for some of his practices by mainstream tibetan buddhism.

Try adding info from other sources, scholarly stuff. We don't want self-published references here. Greetings, Sacca 10:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, with respect, since you are Theravadin and don't accept the Mahayana teachings of Buddha, why would you be trying to dictate the contents of an article on Vajrayana? Secondly, NKT is a Mahayana Buddhist tradition that practises Vajrayana. Do you have detailed knowledge and experience of Vajrayana? Your statement that Buddhanature is inherently existent, for example, is incorrect.

I have examined the references for this article and what I find is that most of them are non-academic, Buddhist writers like Reginald Ray, Tenzin Palmo, the Dalai Lama, Robert Beer and so forth. Geshe Kelsang is also in this category and his teachings are mainstream Buddhism, so where is the problem? Why are you saying that this is a self-published source? If you have a problem with the technical content of the edits, discuss it with Truthbody. I am not a sockpuppet of Truthbody but I feel very strongly about this issue. As far as I see it, it's about my Teacher and my tradition being judged by people like yourself. You do not have a right, any more than the Dalai Lama does, to dictate what is valid and what is not valid when it comes to Buddhism. Everyone who has knowledge, experience and valid references can edit these articles, including Kadampa practitioners and if you have a problem with the technical content of the edits (as I do with yours) you can discuss. You don't have a right to stop anyone from editing and improving this article. You are trying to set a precedent about who can edit this article and what they can include. This is partisan and you don't have the right to do this. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, all those bad references have to be either removed or replaced. We do not want those in the first place, let alone that we want to add more of them. I am sorry, but your or anybody elses experience and knowledge doesn't count. It has to be verifiable, thats the thing that counts. You can have a lot of experience with Vajrayana, that doesn't matter if we cannot check the things you say. And the writings of Geshe Kalsang are unsuitable for checking the correctness of the statements you are adding. Find other sources. Check acedemic articles, academic books on Buddhism. Greetings, Sacca 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jpatokal, for reverting my edits. That's actually what I was hoping would happen, because I also agree it's a nonsensical approach that Sacca, Mistube, and others are suggesting (i.e., "all those bad references have to be either removed or replaced"). Emptymountains (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, but there is no policy which requires sources be academic. The primary requirement is that they be reliable. Mainstream publications in the field may also be used. Publishers like Snow Lion, Tharpa and Wisdom are certainly mainstream within the field of Tibetan Buddhism. However, since Tharpa was founded by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, anything said about him in a Tharpa publication may not be objective. However, what he may say about Buddhist practice is certainly valid. If it diverges too much from the norm, then there will be multiple sources which present the majority view and GKG's view should be removed or clearly presented as minority in the context of presenting multiple views. What's going on here appears to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, which is not really a good thing. Pure academics can never give a complete view of spiritual practice, as the results of practice are experiential and cannot be evaluated by someone who is not engaged in them. This leads to frequent inaccuracies and outright mistakes in Western academic approaches to Tantric Buddhism. Material from the practice side is in my opinion necessary to present a neutral view of the subject. Will in China (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be sensible approach, thanks for your input. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

Truthbody just violated the 3rr rule again. second time already. Where to report it? He doesn't seem to listen to anything but himself. Greetings, Sacca 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the admin page. I am simply undoing your reversions of my valid edits, not reverting any of your edits. I am listening (and in fact I am the one who for the past five days have been requesting you on your talk page to discuss) but you haven't given me any specifics whatsoever as to which edits are inaccurate. If you do so, on the talk pages of this article, and show my edits are wrong, I will edit them -- or you can edit them yourself or give a different POV. All these things are possible on Misplaced Pages, but just automatically pressing the undo button on every single one of another editor's edits is not following wiki rules e.g assuming good faith. (Truthbody (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

You don't want to understand the wikipedia edit policy. you are pushing your own POV, cannot be stopped by anything. Your sources are bad, they should not appear on wikipedia pages, if its only once it can be forgiven, but all your sources are from the very same sect and publisher, you fill whole articles with them. They do not belong here. Greetings, Sacca 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand by what I say above. I have not pushed my own POV once, my edits are all based on secondary sources. I have edited many Wiki articles and used a wide variety of sources. Please give specifics so there is something to discuss.(Truthbody (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

The purpose of the 3rr rule is to show some restraint. And restraint is precisely what you are lacking. You are so convinced that you are right and your sources are good. But they are not usable for Misplaced Pages articles. When your edits are reverted you keep pushing them back into the article. That's precisely what the 3rr rule is for. We need scholarly sources, not religious discourse. Greetings, Sacca 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring complaints may be reported to WP:AN3 by any party. Warning, it is common for the complainant to be blocked if they have also participated in the edit war. I suggest that everyone stop edit warring and stick to the issues, pledging to work them out and resolve them to the satisfaction of both parties. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Truthbody to WP:AN3. I was also close to reporting Sacca as well, but to date he's stayed within the 3-reverts-a-day rule. Jpatokal (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

work in progress

I will work more on the 'classifying Vajrayana section', now it is still incomplete, what's there isn't referenced also so not so dependable.Greetings, Sacca 08:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be critical, but are you unaware that Devanagari is the classical alphabet of Sanskrit and that you therefore removed the original Sanskrit word for Vajrayana? Second, the phrase "it should be noted" should never be used in an encyclopedia. It usually emphasizes an opinion of an editor rather than anything useful. Third, you've removed a comprehensive introduction and replaced it with a poorly written hack. "This schematism"? That's a very poor choice of word and since it the subject of the first sentence of the section, seems to refer to nothing in particular.

Unless you or someone else can improve on these changes, I'll be reverting them. Will in China (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead should give an overview of the important aspects of the subject, not a disclaimer that falsely implies that little is known (maybe in India where your source was published, but certainly this is not true in US and Europe). I've revised the old lead to be more accurate and based it on non-practitioner sources, of which there are many to choose from. If you believe any facts in the lead need further sourcing, please use citation needed tags. Thanks! Will in China (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Devanagiri alfabet is - just like the roman alfabet - one of the ways in which one can write sanskrit. No reason to include it, it adds no value just clutter to the text. Different peoples wrote sanskrit in different scripts.

Also you removed too much well referenced info. Especially the role of ritual, the problems for scholarly research. I removed the turnings of the weel info but you can add it at another place in a shortened form. It is just a classification, we have a subsection for that now. The intro should be brief, you made it much too long. Greetings, Sacca 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Most articles titled with a Sanskrit word give the Devanagari, it's useful information. You yourself removed much information from the lead which maybe you didn't notice but which I cited to better sources. Please check the sources before reverting. There may be "problems" for your Indian writer, but there is a lot of scholarship in the US and Europe and those criticisms are inaccurate. In any case, it's simply been moved, not deleted. The three yanas and "turnings of the wheel" are critical elements and belong in the lead. Also, please see WP:CRIT, criticism in not usually placed in the lead, which is for definitions of the topic, but rather either integrated into the article text or in a separate section. Will in China (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see now you changed the references. Problem I see though is that the text hasn't changed. You make a reference to 'three turnings of the wheel', how serious should I take that reference? What does it apply to? I imagine to just the term 'three turnings of the wheel'. In that case what is the use of the reference? To prove that the term exists? What about the content of the text around it? How serious are you with these references?

What do you mean indian writer? I used a Japanese scholar and a Canadian one. None of them is indian. I will have aother look, also at where you put the info on ritual. thanks Greetings, Sacca 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My sources support at least whole sentences. Sorry, I meant Indian publisher.

I see you've reverted again. I'll be taking your edit warring to WP:ANI. Will in China (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WillChina,

You edit of the introduction is nonsensical. You want to inser 2 paragraphs in the introduction about the classification of Vajrayana, while there is already subsection called 'Classification of Vajrayana', which starts immediately under the introduction. To be ideological is sometimes ok, but in this case you are pushing over the limits.

I will have to change it back, this revert is about having a logicl stucture in the article, not about ideology. The content can stay, just not in the intro.Greetings, Sacca 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The views expressed are not ideological. They are from neutral academic sources. It was my understanding that Misplaced Pages operates by consensus. Are you saying that you instead own the article and get to make the decision by yourself. I think other editors besides myself may object to that. Will in China (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vajrayana as evolved from the local conditions of Medieval India

Will China attempted to change the text in the subsection called , to make it more like the Vajrayana views. However the text below it is strictl based on the references. WillChina, please do not change the text without reading the reference in the actual book, you are claiming the books says things which it does not. Greetings, Sacca 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles