Talk:Padmasambhava

Exact location of Oddiyana

There are many scholarly articles which suggests that Oddiyana is recognized more likely with Uddiyana or Odra Desha - present day Odisha. Most of the Mahayana Buddhist belive it is somewhere near the Mahanadi and Baitarani delta. Padmasambhava was son of King Indrabhuti who is known to have ruled Shambhala which is Sambalpur in Odisha. I suggest that we make it balanced by saying that "Oddiyana is a place in North India which is recognized with Odisha. Few historians also point it to SWAT valley in Pakistan. As it is very difficult to settle down with one location(as per Wiki guidelines) we need to make it balanced. As there is a equal consensus of it being in Odisha as well. I suggest a move here.216.163.246.1 (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Compare opening with Britannica

I think it's useful to compare the opening section of this article with the corresponding article in Britannica -- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438026/Padmasambhava To me, an educated lay person with no expertise in this topic -- i.e. a perfect example of the intended audience of Wikipedia -- Britannica's is *vastly* superior. Its opening matches pretty much everything I *have* read on Padmasambhava, and doesn't muddy things up with references to "literary character[s]" (whatever *that* means), "terma" or "tertons" (the fact that both of those are linked to their master articles doesn't, to my mind, excuse their use in the opening). The linked article at http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Padmasambhava is also superior in my opinion.

I've added a "too technical" tag, although "too obscure" would be more accurate. Could someone knowledgeable simplify the opening, and move the extraneous stuff down into the main article?Thomask0 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thomask0: I did not see your post until now and agree with your POV. Please see this section where I'm attempting to sort this out.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Created archive for resolved discussions

Older discussions are archived here.Bahnheckl (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of article name?

Can anyone provide the pronunciation for his name in in Devanagari and the International Phonetic Alphabet? My main question is which A s are long, and which are short? This has a big effect on how the word sounds.

Psmeers (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Digitial Dictionary of Buddhism says its Padmasaṃbhava, so that would mean none of the a's are long, and it would be पद्मसंभव, [pəd̪məˈsəmbʱəʋə].—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Guru Rinpoche Mantra

Om Ha Hum Guru Padma Siddhi Hum should be cited as his main mantra. Gus

Actually, the above is wrong- it should be Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum, or Om Ah Hung Bensa Guru Pema Siddhi Hung in Tibetan, as it says in the article. AdamHolt

Im confused by this second buddha thing - werent there many buddhas before Shakyamuni? Another buddha then? Or, simply, consider him to be enlightened, if that info has any value at all that is? DN

Attempt to clarify

There are two separate issues subsumed under this section heading. I shall deal with them separately.

In regard to the mantra

In a very tight nutshell: the Sanskrit vajra – "vəˑd͡ʒrə" (more-or-less, only: my IPA is very rusty) – is generally considered "correct" pronunciation of that particular word in this mantra. And while AdamHolt's version is by far the more widely recognized form, I have also seen it written out – albeit very rarely – precisely as Gus gives it (i.e., omitting vajra altogether). Sometimes a thing as simple as a woodblock carver's error will in fact become enshrined in the oral tradition.  :^) :^)

It's usually written out something like this in Tibetan: ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ་བཛྲ་གུ་རུ་པདྨ་སིདྡྷི་ཧཱུྃ། – though with mantra especially, even such details as syllable markers will quite often vary. If I were to transliterate the mantra into Western orthography the way I personally say it, I would probably go with something like "ōm āh hūng bendzra gūru padma siddhi hūng", but I'll be damned if I intend to start an edit war over some really pretty silly-lookin' diacriticals, and least of all while openly acknowledging that I pronounce it "wrong".

In a very slightly larger, somewhat cracked nutshell, then! Contemporary Tibetan pronunciation (in this and other mantras) of vajra as "bɛˑd͡ʑr̩ə" (with plenty of really interesting regional variants, to boot!) is the result of both phonetic and (though almost certainly to a lesser extent) also phonological transformation over time: all of which occurred subsequent to the term's original introduction to Tibet. (Also, do keep in mind the word vajra – when used outside of mantra, as for instance, in referring to the multi-pronged, symbolic ritual implement – was eventually translated into Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་, Wylie: rdo-rje.)

The ritual implement: in Sanskrit: vajra, in Tibetan: dorje.

Many Western practitioners, in turn, simply maintain the pronunciations given to them by their Tibetan teachers, while others will occasionally attempt to "restore" pronunciations closer to the original Sanskrit: far more commonly, however, with such mantras as the hundred syllable mantra of Vajrasattva than with the twelve-syllable mantra of Padmasambhava. At any rate, "there is no fault" (as buddhist scholars do seem apt to say) in simply maintaining the pronunciation of a given mantra as it's transmitted to a student by his or her teacher. And I don't recall ever hearing this particular mantra pronounced any other way than in modern Tibetan.

If memory serves, though: the 14th (i.e., the current) Dalai Lama does suggest that for practitioners who have access to the recent scholarship which clarifies these sorts of discrepancies, it's generally preferable for them to try and use the Sanskrit pronunciation – while also emphasizing that "perfect" pronunciation of mantra is by no means some sort of magical dealbreaker. Of course, I'm paraphrasing here, 'cause heck; I don't think I even have the Dalai Lama's statement on the matter close at hand. My point in doing though I guess is just to say that sometimes, seemingly insignificant details like vowel lengthening are extremely important; but just as often, purely technical questions (such as those concerning transliteration of Sanskrit and Tibetan words into Western orthography) can mushroom into seemingly insurmountable roadblocks to understanding.

I'll just wrap up this little digression then by saying that Dr. Berzin has specifically addressed the "bendza" issue on at least two separate occasions I'm personally aware of . In the second-referenced piece by Dr. Berzin he describes a rarely-performed "mantra-checking" procedure which I personally find rather interesting, although to quote it in a reference would make the reference itself completely unwieldy. Suffice to say in passing that the modern science of Phonetics has its roots in ancient Sanskrit grammar. Different translators will also variously transcribe the above mantra's identical third and twelfth long-vowelled syllable as "hung" or "hum" because our standard Latin alphabet has no truly satisfactory way to represent the nasalized consonant which actually concludes it, shown in Sanskrit typically with a Chandrabindu, though also sometimes (in other contexts) with an Anusvara in combination with the Visarga.

Mantras should not really be printed in an encyclopaedia at all.84.93.183.227 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In regard to "this second buddha thing"

The "second buddha thing" is, indeed, rather confusing – having its roots (as it does) in the specifically mahayana (for want of a better term) definition of "buddha", and again, the specifically mahayana presentation of Trikaya doctrine. Basically: between the dharmakaya, the sambhogakaya, and the nirmanakaya, enlightened beings (buddhas) are said to manifest outwardly from time to time in emanations of nirmanakaya form to help wandering beings. The term "second buddha" does get used for different folks at different times, though – Je Tsongkhapa, for instance – which would appear to raise the question of "how many second buddhas are there?"

Obviously that can get pretty sticky for people who consider just one or another of these various "second buddhas" to be among their own teachers to the exclusion of some other one so designated by somebody else. It would be interesting to research just how far back the use of the "second buddha" epithet does go; but my gut feeling is that it's probably a fairly recent innovation. At any rate I seriously doubt it has its source from any mention, say, in one of the sutras. At risk of drawing parallels with christianity, a lot of people say about a lot of other people "(s)he's a saint" or "(s)he's an angel" with neither formal canonization having ensued from the Vatican in the former case nor any scriptural naming of the person in question as such for the latter.

In brief, I think it would be fair to say that calling a noteworthy personage such as Padmasambhava a "second buddha" is largely a matter of showing one's teacher the highest respect. The use of "second buddha" (in a recitation text, for instance) therefore has to be considered a statement of interpretable (as distinct from definitive) meaning if it isn't to serve as a cause for suffering in the form of sectarian strife.

References cited in this response

References

Patron saint of Sikkim

The fact that he is the patron saint of Sikkim is only mentioned in the picture's title. Could some info on the history of this be added to the text of the article? Wiki-uk 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eight manifestations

On German wikipedia site the eight manifestations mentioned there are not completely the same. That Guru Orgyen Dorje Chang is lacking on the german site, instead there is a Guru Tsokye Dorje who is lacking on english wikipedia site (this one). Does anybody know about those different names? Are they thought to be different people?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.24.214 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Within this long text on Padmasambhava maybe an answer to my question is to be found. [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.113 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this text [2], going first to Lineage and second to Khordong History Tsokye Dorje is another name for Padmasambhava.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.1.30 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The depictions are usually Padmasambhava plus his eight manifestations (so 9 in all). Tsokye Dorje ("Lake born vajra" - a form of Padmasambhava with the vajra held at his heart) is usually the central figure surrounded by the other eight. Cfynn (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Five consorts

• Shakyadevi
• The Five Consorts

Shouldn't all of them be mentioned?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.75.51 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

would summaries of the activities of each of the five consorts, with references, be useful? I say yes. I'm happy to work on this section and I can start a second sandbox for those of you who would like to add content, review, or make suggestions. AD64 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Eight Wishes

• Eight Wishes to the Manifestations of the Vajra Guru

Austerlitz -- 88.75.87.175 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Padmasambhava's Oath Binding

• [3] see: the Model of Padmasambhava's Oath Binding
• Buddha Gallery — Padmasambhava

Some more information should be added to the article.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.240 (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

the same, on guru Dorje Drollo, [4],

• "Dorje Drolo Crazy Wisdom Vajra

Dorje Drolo is a wrathful manifestation of Padmasambava and a subduer of demons. Guru Padma arose in the wrathful form of Dorje Drolo in the famous Tagstang or Tiger’s Nest Cave in Bhutan in order to subdue the negative and demonic forces of these degenerate times. Ferocious in expression, amidst a mass of primordial wisdom fire, he stands upon the back of a pregnant tigress who is the wrathful form of his Wisdom Consort of enlightened activity, Tashi Kye Dren, whose ferocity is unpredictable and wild. Dressed in a robe of brocade, his body is purple in color and he wears a garland of severed heads representing the cutting of the 52 levels of dualistic mind-concepts. In his right hand he holds a vajra aloft emitting lightening bolts, and in his left a kila-purba that severs the three poisons that are the source of all suffering. The ferocious expression he wears while riding a tigress makes for a menacing figure. His body is dark brown and surrounded by a halo of flames."

• Guru Dorje Drollö und Guru Drakpo .

References

Tashi Kye Dren

Austerlitz -- 88.75.216.130 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

German text .

References

Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.240 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeshe Tsongyal: Meister Padma bindet alle Götter und Dämonen Tibets durch Eid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.202.214 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Different Aspects "of his being"

the wikitext says that the socalled eight manifestations are different aspects of his being. I don't know.

This text [5] says in section 12. Departure From The World says: "In Tibetan art he is also shown as a group of eight, representing eight major events in his life."

1. Pema Gyalpo (Padmaraja) of Uddiyana, the Lotus Prince, king of the Tripitaka, or the Three Collections of Scripture. He is shown looking like a young crowned prince or king.

2. Lo-den Chokse (Sthiramati) of Kashmir, the Intelligent Youth, the one who gathers the knowledge of all worlds. He is shown in princely clothes, beating a hand-drum and holding a skull-bowl.

3. Sakya-seng-ge (Bhikshu Sakyasimha) of Bodh Gaya, Lion of the Sakyas, who learns the Tantric practices of the eight Vidyadharas. He is shown as a fully ordained Buddhist monk.

4. Nyima O-zer (Suryabhasa) of Cina, the Sunray Yogi, who illuminates the darkness of the mind through the insight of Dzogchen. He is shown like a naked yogi dressed in only a loin-cloth, holding a trident and pointing towards the sun.

5. Seng-ge Dra-dok (Vadisimha) of Nalanda University, the Lion of Debate, promulgator of the Dharma throughout the six realms of sentient beings. He is shown in a very fierce form, dark blue and imitative of the powerful Bodhisattva Vajrapani, holding a thunderbolt sceptre in one hand and a scorpion in the other.

6. Pema Jung-ne (Padmasambhava) of Zahor, the Lotus-born, giver of happiness to all sentient beings. He is shown dressed like a Buddhist monk, with a Pandit's hat, and holding a skull bowl.

7. Pemakara of Tibet, Lotus-creator, the Saviour who teaches the Dharma to the people. He is shown sitting on a lotus, dressed in the three robes of a monk, under which he wears a blue shirt, pants and heavy Tibetan boots, as protection against the cold. He holds the diamond-sceptre of compassionate love in his right hand and the yogi's skull-bowl of clear wisdom in his left. He has the trident-staff (khatvanga) of a wandering Yogi, and wears on his head a Nepalese cloth crown, stylistically designed to remind one of the shape of a lotus flower. Thus he is represented as he must have ap­peared in Tibet.

8. Dorje Dro-lo of Bhutan, the fierce manifestation of Vajrakilaya (wrathful Vajrasattva) known as "Diamond Guts", the comforter of all, the Paracletos, imprinting the elements with Wisdom-Treasure.

I have to think about this.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.184 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.95.119 (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What does Rigpa Shedra say here [7]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.22 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Response by Xeltifon: Rigpa Shedra says the Tukdrup Yang Nying Kundü ("Union of All Innermost Essences" Tibetan: ཐུགས་སྒྲུབ་ཡང་སྙིང་ཀུན་འདུས་, Wylie: thugs sgrub yang snying kun 'dus) sadhana of Padmasambhava's Eight Manifestations comes from a "pure vision" (Tibetan: དག་སྣང་, Wylie: dag snang) terma of the 5th Dalai Lama contained in his Sangwa Gyachen (Tibetan: གསང་བ་རྒྱ་ཅན་, Wylie: gsang ba rgya can), and that the "sadhana and empowerment texts were arranged by Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo". Whether or not Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo's involvement qualifies the aforementioned sadhana as one of the sixth in the Seven Authoritative Transmissions (Tibetan: བཀའ་བབས་བདུན་, Wylie: bka' babs bdun) I honestly have no idea, and frankly prefer not to hazard a guess.  :^) :^) Hope this helps, regardless. Cheers! Xeltifon (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

References for this response:

References

What exactly is up for discussion here, if I may ask? Bahnheckl (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

no devanagari?

why there is tibetan script but no devanagari?

201.201.1.162 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Life story of Padmasambhava according to Jamgon Kongtrul"

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan: "The section on Padmasambhava you removed was actually up for a few years and the translator of that, Erik publisher of Rangjung, was very happy about it. Your editing history is mainly bitter and negative. Secondly you have messed with things you don't understand and since you're not an expert on Tibetan Buddhism which is the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni & completely alien to your middle class passe fad of westernized Japonisme. I would advise not meddling further in areas you don't understand." (Unsigned, but written by User:The1973onez diff

• This section has been removed at 12 november 2012diff by User:Mzilikazi1939 for the following reason: "deleted overlong hagiography taken directly from a web source; have referenced it earlier; removed tag at start since article shortened";
• It was re-inserted at 21 december 2012 diff by [User: The1973onez]] without an edit-summary;
• I've removed it again at 21 december 2012 diff leaving this edit-summary: "Removed extended amount of copy-righted text"

Wikipedia-articles give summaries of information available elsewhere, not copies of extended info. See WP:SIZE. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The1973onez: I replied to your friend you involved on his talk page and pointed out your editing of Tibetan Buddhist contents you have embarked upon is in ignorance and furthermore in bias and has to be constantly monitored. User:The1973onez [8] (UTC)

No one else has involved me on their talk page. I chose to be involved on your talk page when I came across your gratuitous, bullying and offensive comments to another editor. Just stop your with your ridiculous behaviour. Afterwriting (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions of class warfare and fashion aside (which I doubt can be be satisfactorily answered once and for all in a talk page discussion over a single edit) I nonetheless find this an interesting question: what is the proper and fitting rôle of the traditional Namthar (Tibetan: རྣམ་ཐར་, Wylie: rnam-thar) literary genre in crafting entries suitable for the world's largest collaborative encyclopædia? Perhaps someone who actually knows "the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni" will be so kind as to enlighten us not only as to what he knows, but also how, precisely, he knows what he knows, and how such knowledge fits within wikipedia's existing framework of policies and guidelines. Xeltifon (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Afterwriting, you are a follower of Zen which dismisses Tibetan Buddhist basic tenets, tantric practices and deities and have embarked upon systematic editing and deleting of TB sections. Secondly you dragged your friend into bullying me. He deleted my logical responses on his talk page to his verbal abuse. I will resurrect this issue at the right time. Thirdly you continue to abuse verbally as you just did calling my cool and logical responses as "ridiculous behaviour" and continue your bullying language and friends of yours who do the same. Your editing of Tibetan Buddhist sections will be monitored. Fourthly unlike a TB seasoned follower or an academic, your knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism is almost non-existent. Fifthly you consistently refuse to answer these logical objections to your habitual actions on Wiki. User:The1973onez [9] (UTC)

Dear Xeltifon, you left a long irrelevant rant on my talk page. See my answer above. What you're defending is like a Catholic editing and erasing large sections on reformation while claiming to be unbiased. Plus knowing next to nothing about the subject. Finally your long irrelevant diversions are truly a cause for concern as they are highly unstable in nature so I wish you well and calmness. User:The1973onez [10] (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I have yet to find the "response above" of yours which you've mentioned now in three identical paragraphs you've posted on my talk page, on your talk page, and now apparently here as well. What exactly am I missing?

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs}} 08:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Afterwriting, I notice you censored my response to you in your talk page, like your friend did. I will resurrect this issue. This is is unethical as I did not censor your or your friend's on my page. All the best to you. User:The1973onez

Dear Afterwriting I hope you're well. Once again you censored my logical points about issues on your talk page. Then once again you wrote on my talk page which I let stand, unlike you and your friends, despite your methods. Finally you again avoided my enumerated points about the issues and merely called me names. Why do you abuse others by deleting their issue based comments, yet do the same on their page and to top it all merely abuse them personally too? If you have no empathy for human beings you should at least reciprocate the protocols and not indulge in prejudiced and discriminatory one sided methods. I will monitor your edits and will resurrect your unfair methods at the right time and place. All the best. User:The1973onez(UTC)

The1973onez, Xeltifon, Afterwriting. If I may be so bold as to voice my thoughts on the matter. It is clear to me we all love buddhism. We love it so much we think everybody should be able to read about it the way it IS. Our ideas about what it is, just differ. The way I understand it, things basically boil down to this: The1973onez, you want the "Life story according to Kongtrul" put up as a part of the article again, while Xeltifon and Afterwriting do not. Could you please explain why you think this biography is essential for this article, so we may understand a little better? Also, Xeltifon and Afterwriting, could you tell me why exactly you think it is should not be included? Lastly, would all three of you please reflect on my suggestion above (dated December 30th), and let me know what you think about that? Best regards, Bahnheckl (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The deleted section was WP:UNDUE long, and copied from a website. A link would suffice, of which there already are several. I've added several subheaders, to distinguish the several topics and subsections. The biography is actual quite short, and could use some references. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this quite clear. I am not interested in this article and I am not any kind of Buddhist. Why some of you are making completely false and totally irrelevant comments about me in regard to both is bizarre and beyond comprehension. Afterwriting (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Life and teachings

Maybe we should change the "Life and Teachings" section to expose the different views on Padmasambhava's life story. See for example the article on Bodhidharma. This way we'll have the following advantages:

• Clear and concise overview of these differing views
• Different biographies under one heading (looks nice, shorter article length)
• Paraphrase of copyrighted text/text already found elsewhere, instead of full (bulky) text.
• Uniformity of biographical information on articles regarding Buddhist Missionairies.

Bahnheckl (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally I've had a chance to check Bodhidharma. While my knowledge of Bodhidharma is next to nil, I do feel safe in saying that the outline structure there appears (to my eyes, anyway) to work quite well, indeed. At risk of grossly oversimplifying matters, unlike § Life and Teachings (as it currently stands, anyway) here, the entry for Bodhidharma differentiates very clearly between

1. biographical accounts,

2. legendary accounts, and

3. practices and teachings.

I personally think it would be very helpful for persons to contribute here who feel no particular special connection to Padmasambhava. The question for me, personally, is how to handle the namthar literary genre: it's basically a highly-specialized form of hagiography: such, indeed, that I question my own ability sometimes to adequately disentangle questions of fact from questions of fiction without running seriously afoul of WP:COI. Tales of miraculous occurrences, for instance, may in fact at times refer (however circuitously) to actual historical events ; but just as often, utterly obscure references (or lack thereof) to such seemingly simple and straightforward matters at when a person was born may be intended to serve some specific pedagogical function in the instruction of students.

Thanks very much for providing us an excellent example of one way (there are many others, I'm sure) as to how this page might be concretely improved.

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs}} 08:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference for this response, I hope :^) :^)

References

Thank you for your response Xeltifon. There must be some academic study on the scientific value of the Namthar. I suggest we find it and add some footnotes on the matter? Bahnheckl (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Such as:

• Gunther, H.V. (1996) The teachings of Padmasambhava (Leiden);
• Tsogyal, Y. (1978) The life and liberation of Padmasambhava, Padma bKa'i thang Toussaint, G.C., Tarthang Tulku, Douglas, K. & Bays, G.M. (eds.) (Berkeley);
• Dowman, K. & G. Eddy (1973) The legend of the Great Stupa and the life story of the Lotus Born Guru (Berkeley).

I have access to these works and will look into it in the near future. Bahnheckl (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dowman (1973): 71 says the same thing as Allione does in the article on Namthar, and so does Tarthang Tulku in the English edition of the Padma bKai Thang (pg. xxxiii-xxxiv):

"Padmasambhava's life is more than just a historical reality. It is the culmination of altruistic actions manifesting in perfect human form." (Tarthang Tulku)

Therefore all authors on the matter assert that Namthar (although I'm not really sure the Padma bKai Thang falls into this category) describe "more than reality" and emphasize the importance of presenting a perfect example of a bodhisattva on the Path. On the other hand this book assumes that there is factual accuracy to this particular spiritual biography, although it cites no sources to reinforce it's claim. Maybe we should suffice, for the time being, with warning our readers for the historical inaccuracy of our sources, while presenting the sources themselves all the more accurately. That being said, I have found the following article: Willis, J.D. (1982) 'On the Nature of Namthar: Early Gelugpa Siddhi Biographies' in: Soundings in Tibetan Civilization (Kathmandu). This might shed further light on the matter. EDIT: see the namthar-article for the information taken from Willis (1982).Bahnheckl (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC). Edited: Bahnheckl (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added some of your comments (from both) to the article; it's up to you both to nuance it. And how many "ancient" biographies are there on Padmasambhava? Can one of you provide an overview? "Many" is not really specific. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm parking an extensive quote here. Feel free to use it.

All the incidents in the life of Padmasambhava, be they actual reminiscences or pious inventions, can betraced back to the gter-ma ("hidden treasures") tradition that began with Sangs-rgyasbla-ma (ca. 1000-1080) and, in the specific case of Padmasambhava, started withNyang-ral nyi-ma 'od-zer (1124-1192), the "discoverer" of the Slob-dpon Padma'byung-gnas-kyi skyes-rabs chos-'byung nor-bu'i phreng-ba rnam-thar zangs-gling-ma (of which several versions exists), and continued through a long line of "discoverers of hidden texts" (gter-ston) of whom the more important ones are (1) Chos-kyi dbangphyug (1212-1270), the "discoverer" of the bKa'-thang sde-lnga-the discovery occurred in 1231--of which the third section from among the five sections, the bTsun- mo'i bka'i thang-yig, is the most significant one because it contains old material,though no linguistic archaisms, and (2) Urgyan (or Orgyan) gling-pa (1323 or 1329-ca.1360 or 1367), the discoverer of the U-rgyan guru Padma-'byung-gnas-kyi skyes-rabsrnam-par thar-pa rgyas-par bkod-pa in 1346. This text is better known by its shorttitle of

Padma bka' -thang of which an excellent edition was published by the Si-khronrni-rigs (Minorities) Publishing House (China) in 1987.From a historical point of view these "rediscovered" texts are of little relevance:there are too many discrepancies, if not to say, blatant contradictions in one and the same text or the texts ascribed to one and the same author, concerning what we know to be historical facts. But from a literary point of view these "rediscovered" texts are of enormous importance. Written in verse form in the language as spoken by the"discoverer" at the time of their discovery, these texts reflect the Zeitgeist that demanded that everything had to be "Indian" and, therefore, as tendencious writings, they increasingly marginalize Padmasambhava's "foreign" (Urgyan, also spelled Orgy an)and even Tibetan connection. Thus, Padmasambhava's consort, mKhar-chen-bza' Yeshes 'tsho-rgyal (also spelled mtsho-rgyal), originally one of king Khri-srong Ide'ubtsan's five wives, requested by Padmasambhava and given to him by the king "for services rendered," is completely overshadowed by the princess Mandarava, daughterof the king of Zahor (somewhere situated between Nepal and Assam). It is this lastmentioned text that makes Padmasambhava a callous murderer in Urgyan and shows him to have had an inordinate interest in young girls. Thus, of

the two generally recognized consorts of Padmasambhava, mKhar-chen-bza' Ye-shes 'tsho-rgyal was about twelve years of age when Padmasambhava firsts met her, and the princess (Iha-Icam) Mandarava was thirteen years of age when he got involved with her. In an episode,recorded in the bTsun-mo bka'i thang (Paro edition 1976, p.551; Berthold Laufer, Der Roman einer tibetichen Kdnigin, text and translation, .Leipzig 1911, pp. 82 and 190), Padmasambhava is reported to have said when the king and his Bon queen Tshespong-bza' dmar-rgyan offered him their young and beautiful daughter Khrom-pargyan, as a reward for having cured the queen of leprosy: Iha-Icam Khrom-pa rgyan-Ia dgongs-pa mdzadphyi yul bzang-Ia nang sems dag-pas [Laufer, dge-basJ snang'gro-ba'i don mdzad sems-can mthun-par byarabs-chad ma-ning bya-ba'i ngag bcad phyirgurus khab-tu bzhes-par zhal-gyis bzhes I have thought about the princess Khrom-pa rgyan; Physically she is beautiful and mentally she is (still) innocent. Acting on behalf of the living beings she will make them live in harmony.In order to put an end to the rumor that my line will die out (because) I am impotent,I, the guru, promise to take her to be my wife. As the story goes, he had two sons from her, the one was a no-good and died young,the other was precocious, but failed to establish a "lineage." It is therefore very likely that these "rediscovered" texts are compositions in themanner of historical fiction by the respective discoverers.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your tremendous effort. Now, about the biographies: There's the Padma bKa'i thang by Yeshe Tsogyal, which Tarthang Tulku calls the most definitive source of information we have on Padmasambhava. According to him there are many more, though he does not refer to them by name. I'm not sure which ones they are, but I'm sure we can find out somehow... Regards, Bahnheckl (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Oy vey -- I'm not dead yet! Sorry -- I got knocked outta commission rather badly for a few days there and started burrowing myself into a whole completely different area when I came out of it, as I very often to do. I've just now skimmed through these one "next edit" at a time, since only now am I starting to check my emails again. Still very much a noob where diff and talk pages are concerned -- which ain't to rationalize anything stoopid i've done so much as it's just to say "eek!" There's a humongous amount of excellent material here now -- a whole nice big shiny new shipping pallet loaded up with cans o' worms, if you will -- and I'm frankly more than a little overwhelmed; I gotta catch up systematically, or else I'll be completely screwed. I wade out so far into things before I even know it -- and not on purpose, either; just seems to be what I do. Obviously I've got questions to answer and have a great deal to review here; please for whatever it's worth do know I'm not ignoring anyone -- just need to get a little project I've been kinda focused on to a *little* bit better stopping point than where it's at before I change directions, otherwise I'll wind up with sixty-four gazillion things *not* done, *and* some angry Mongol hordes on my doorstep, to boot. :^) :^)

All the best,༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs} { ζ }} 13:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions (on the Namthar as well), Xeltifon. I'm thinking of adding some sections from the Padma bKaí Thang to the article. Haven't gotten round to it though... What do you think? Bahnheckl (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank *you*!

I think the cans of worms have cans of worms inside 'em all. Fifth Dalai Lama's family was Zahor. I'm goin' absolutely buggy-eyed just tryin' to get him to a point where I can comfortably just let it rest a while, 'cause man, he is a bear!

Here's a book review with some fairly interesting and possibly helpful information, even though it's from an older academic journal, of a decidedly problematic translation of a translation, and is shared here as links to three separate images (which *might* not be up on the web for too terribly long, for some reason or other):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3xp2RpcvXt_ZDF3VHFUX094S3M/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3xp2RpcvXt_MEQ3QW5VSG5XTW8/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3xp2RpcvXt_VjM3LWpueEdoa0E/edit

Would you believe me if I told you I just happened to have that one particular volume on hand, opened it up to that particular book review by sheer chance, scanned it in, added the citation digitally, and uploaded it to the personal Google Drive of my worst enemy? No -- wait -- you might not *actually* want to answer that.  :^) :^)

I think the fortune cookie says "proceed with caution".

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs} { ζ }} 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There is another more recent edition, referenced in the article: Tsogyal, Yeshe. The Lotus-Born: The Lifestory of Padmasambhava. Translated by Erik Pema Kunsang. Boudhanath: Rangjung Yeshe Publications, 2004. I can not find this at my local university library. Do you know any better sources on his life? (I did find this by the way). Bahnheckl (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

What is the deal with inserting the quote in the lead?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

too much jargon

Hi,

I just joined Wikipedia because of this page, which I found to be forbiddingly rich in jargon. The first graf makes no sense to someone who is not already well versed in Buddhist terminology -- and the rest of the article continues in that vein. Seems to me that the article is therefore not useful to the general reader.

Apologies for any breaches in protocol - as I say, I've just now joined, so I don't know How Things Go around here. But I can't make heads or tails of this article. Ethandeseife (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ethandeseife: I think it's fair to say a lot of pages are filled with jargon and Original Research; I spend a lot of time trying to fix that (o lord some of the pages on Hinduism). I have sent you a welcome message on your talk page that discusses the basics of Wikipedia, such as using reliable secondary sources, not primary ones or rando webpages. When dealing with individual pages such as this one, there may be specific policies that apply: for example, WP:INDIC discusses when the use of non-English scripts is appropriate.

So basically: please, by all means, discuss and fix! Just remember: a good editor uses the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: make BOLD edits; if they are reverted by another user, discuss it on the talk page and find consensus.

Now that I've used a lot of jargon, would you like to point out where you'd start editing? Since you are new, I'd be happy to work with you. Ogress _smash! 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The obscure sorcerer

The lead currently dismisses Padmasambhava as an obscure sorcerer. This does not appear to be the general opinion as per EB and others. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism's entry begins:

Padmasambhava. (T. Padma ’byung gnas) (fl. eighth century). Indian Buddhist master and tantric adept widely revered in Tibet under the appellation Guru rin po che, “Precious Guru”; considered to be the “second buddha” by members of the RNYING MA sect of Tibetan Buddhism, who view him as a founder of their tradition. In Tibetan, he is also known as Padma ’byung gnas (Pemajungne), “the Lotus Born,” which translates his Sanskrit name. It is difficult to assess the many legends surrounding his life and deeds, although the scholarly consensus is that he was a historical figure and did visit Tibet.

This is quite contrary to the sentiment currently expressed in the lead of this article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Did you even read the sentence of your quote which says "It is difficult to assess the many legends surrounding his life and deeds, although the scholarly consensus is that he was a historical figure and did visit Tibet." This is pretty much what the lede says. And the rest of the entry, which you did not quote, expands on this idea. Lastly, your text says Nyingmas "view him as a" founder. It does not say he is a founder.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I've rewritten/restructured the lead in accordance with the mainstream view which does not regard him as an obscure sorcerer who was chased out of Tibet but as a historical figure who brought Tantric Buddhism to Tibet. Please have a look.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your own sources contradict you as I already pointed out. EB says legendary. You clearly lack WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Legendary" does not mean "fictional". Dharmalion76 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend acquainting yourself with a dictionary and a better tone of conversation.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop engaging in WP:TE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What factual accuracy are you now disputing with your tag?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: There are so many problems with your edits, I don't even know were to begin. But to get to the heart of the issue, read this passage from a Tibet A History, which is a basic history book written by top Tibetologist Sam van Schaik:

According to earlier histories, Padmasambhava had given some tantric teachings to Tibetans before being forced to leave due to the suspicions of the Tibetan court. But from the twelfth century an alternative story, itself a terma discovery, gave Padmasambhava a much greater role in the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, and in particular credited him with travelling all over the country to convert the local spirits to Buddhism

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

: @VictoriaGrayson: "Top tibetologist" as opposed to Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Robert Buswell, Jr., Per Kværne, Kurtis Schaeffer, et al.? The heart of the matter as per the quoted passage is that the "alternative story" gave Padmasambhava (the 8th century figure) a much greater role which is pretty much what everybody is saying. Historical figure first and terma discovery next; dismissing the historical figure in the summary is effectively OR. From the Historical Dictionary of Buddhism by Carl Olson:

A north Indian tantric yogin who lived during the eighth century and was believed to be an emanation of the Buddha Amitabha …

From A Dictionary of Buddhism by Damien Keown:

The great 8th century ce yogin.often known as Guru Rinpoche, who was instrumental in introducing Buddhism into Tibet during the reign of King Trisong Detsen (Tib., Khri srong lde brtsan). He is especially venerated by the Nyingma school who view him as a ‘second Buddha’ …

From the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions by John Bowker:

Prominent member of the Indian siddha tradition associated with the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet and founder …

… and so on. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 05:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed out a few times your sources contradict your claims. Secondly, the lede mentions the historical Padmasambhava very clearly in paragraph 3.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: They do not. Your version of the lead does not give prominence to the historical figure and dismisses him as an obscure sorcerer. Note that all cited sources begin by referring to the historical figure and credit him with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet. Piecing together disparate statements and coming up with a summary of your own making is OR. Your preferred lead is not in keeping with the widely stated summary of Padmasambhava by "Top Tibetologists".--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 05:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"obscure Indian sorcerer" is a direct quote from an academic book by Ronald Davidson. And the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism does not credit Padmasambhava with the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: "Obscure Indian sorcerer" is neither the mainstream view nor the preferred terminology. And re:the Princeton Dictionary:

Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet, the figure of Padmasambhava has played a key role in the narrative of Buddhism’s arrival in Tibet, its establishment in Tibet, and its subsequent transmission to later generations.

This qualified statement is in keeping with the other sources as it credits the figure of Padmasambhava with the introduction (arrival) and establishment of Buddhism in Tibet.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it says he played a role in the "NARRATIVE" of the Buddhism's arrival in Tibet, "Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet". VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Hence the use of "qualified" in my previous reply as well as the phrasing "who is said to have introduced" in my edit. Lopez and Buswell are following up on their previous statement where they state that It is difficult to assess the many legends surrounding his life and deeds, although the scholarly consensus is that he was a historical figure and did visit Tibet. You will notice that the other sources use similar wordings ("associated with the introduction of Buddhism", "instrumental in introducing Buddhism into Tibet"). Anyhow, is this your only gripe with my edit? I'm happy to have the wording tweaked accordingly. If you're opposed to the other parts of the edit as well, then I'd like to refer this issue to whatever mediation process WP has in place to resolve editorial disputes. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Princeton Dictionary merely says he was a "historical figure and did visit Tibet". It does NOT say he introduced Buddhism. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please pause

I've noticed your ongoing quarrels, and didn't dare to dive into it. I will now, though. But could the two of you please stop reverting back-and-forth? Please add some tag to the article, with a link to the relevant talkpage-section, and try to work this out, with the help of others, like me. I'll need some time to read and understand the contested text, but I will, I promise. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Done. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are still edit warring.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Please stop. The problem has been noticed, and I will look into it. Promised. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You will notice that my revert restores a pre-issue version of the article along with tags. Isn't this the preferred state when an issue is under mediation?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Captain! For the moment, I'd say: just leave it as it is now. The two of you have reverted so many times; and I'm not an "official" Wiki-mediator or so; I'm just trying to do my wiki-duty. Vic asked me to help, so I do. He knows I'm objective (more or less), and also critical of him. So, I don't feel like diving into the nuances of policies regarding; I'm just curious what's going on, and would to hear your arguments and considerations. Vic already agreed to removed the term "obscure sorcerer" from the lead, so that's a starting-point, isn't it? (It's an interesting qualification, though; yoga is not only about moksha, but also about siddhis. Hence the term "sorcerer," I guess) I hope this answer is satisfying; otherwise, please ask more. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Obscure sorcerer" versus "second Buddha"

"Obscure sorcerer" versus "second Buddha": that summarises (summarizes?) the problem, doesn't it? I just read the talkpage; some compromise must be possible. Vic, you're a mighty analist, and I really like your grasp of academical virtuosity. But let's also try to give some consideration to human sensitivities (academics are human too, of course; and academic brilliancy can be hurt too).

So, the full part (4,811 bits (or signs?)) would be this, while a smaller part (3,063) would be this, right? Pfff... First the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Several contested parts. I'll subhead them all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hi, I'm not sure that that this is going to get us anywhere as VG has basically opposed my entire edit and is also looking to remove preexisting content. IMO, it will be more fruitful to find out why VG is disagreeing (or seeming to disagree) with the mainstream views of scholars on who Padmasambhava was. I have copied the complete entries from reference books (only excerpts of which I had included in the discussion above) into this page. My edit simply attempts to paraphrase these entries. I would appreciate it if you would read through these and then break these entries down into their salient points and question VG on why they should not be included. Please also note the importance given to each point. Also worth considering are the opinions expressed here and by MontanaBW here. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Pff... some homework. Regarding questioning Vic: that's a tough one. But he is able to come back to his edits, once and a while. I've seen that before. So, I'd still appreciate it if you could comment below too. Then I know what I've got ot reconcile etc. Note that I know nothing about Padmasambhava. But I know how to weight various edits. The preexisting content will follow later. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry about the homework :) If you haven't noticed already, I'd added my comments along with my reply above. Should I have added them as separate edits oslt? --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock is the one disagreeing with what mainstream scholars say. See WP:IRONY. I have compromised and included some of Cpt.a.haddock's info in the following:

Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet, Padmasambhava came to be viewed in later narratives as providing a key role with the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'm going to read it all now. Best regards, to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Literary character

The 3,063 version:

Padmasambhava (lit. "Lotus-Born"), also known as Guru Rinpoche, is a literary character of terma, an emanation of Amitābha that is said to appear to tertöns in visionary encounters and a focus of Tibetan Buddhist practice, particularly in the Nyingma school.

Notes

References

Do the two of you agree on this part? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree to a slightly revised version per here:

In Tibetan Buddhism Padmasambhava (lit. "Lotus-Born"), also known as Guru Rinpoche, is a character of a genera of literature called terma, an emanation of Amitābha that is said to appear to tertöns in visionary encounters and a focus of guru yoga practice, particularly in the Rimé schools.

Notes

References

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose revised version. Primacy should be given to the historical Padmasambhava on whom everything else is based as in my edit as well as the referenced sources. VG also wants to remove all mention of the Nyingma sect and their views on Padmasambhava from the article for some reason.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits give primacy to the mythological Padmasambhava.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: My edits paraphrase the text of the cited references. The references (all of them) give primacy to the historical Padmasambhava. Please peruse them here. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits are based on secondary academic sources. Your edits are based on original research and misunderstanding tertiary sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I disagree. In any event, if you believe that I'm misreading these tertiary sources, please paraphrase the Princeton dictionary entry that begins Indian Buddhist master and tantric adept widely revered in Tibet and put that up for comment. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Princeton dictionary says he played a role in the "NARRATIVE" of the Buddhism's arrival in Tibet, "Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Then just as Buswell and Lopez have done, please begin your paraphrasing of their entry by calling Padmasambhava a Buddhist master and tantric adept (a phrase even Schaik religiously employs), a "second Buddha" viewed as a founder by the Nyingma tradition, etc., and then note his role in the NARRATIVE of Buddhism's arrival later. The reader can make up his own mind as well as read later sections for more information. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it works! This is already very enlightening: "historical Padmasambhava" versus "mythological Padmasambhava." That's a quicky. reading the sources will take more time... Anyway, thanks already both for enlightening me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Legendary Indian Buddhist master

Or do we start with this one, from the 4,811 version:

Padmasambhava (lit. "Lotus-Born"), also known as Guru Rinpoche, was a legendary Indian Buddhist master who is said to have introduced Vajrayana to Tibet in the 8th century. He was instrumental in the establishment of the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism consider Padmasambhava a founder of their tradition and closely follow his teachings. A number of legends have grown around Padmasambhava's life and deeds and he is widely venerated as a 'second Buddha' across Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Himalayan states of India.

Notes

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Support.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm. "Legendary" may mean "great, immense," but it may also mean something akin to "mythological," right? Nice irony; you're both being served here ;) NB: User:Cpt.a.haddock/Padmasambhava gives the quotes for all these references? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think that the first line is fine. It gives ample opportunity to elaborate on both the "historical" and the "mythological" part. Vic has sharply noticed that allmost all sources actually say that most stories on him are legendary stories, and that Padmasambhava himself therefore is legendary. He has also intriduced a solid fact, namely that Padmasambhava plays a key role in the therma. And Captain has emphasized the role he has in the story of the establishment of Tibetan Buddhism; a story and role which gives him a more realistic appearance. It seems to me that both (or all three) are correct; it's a matter of phrasing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorcerer

Remove or include the sorcerer?

Although there was also a historical Padmasambhava, nothing is known of the "obscure Indian sorcerer" apart from him helping the construction of a temple at Samye at the behest of Trisong Detsen and shortly being chased out of Tibet.

References

NB: the term "sorcerer" is not explained in the article. It would be good to explain this term. And then, still, alternatives may be simply "him," or 'Padmasambhava, also known as the "obscure Indian sorcerer" and as "the second Buddha." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You can remove sorcerer and just say:

Although there was also a historical Padmasambhava, nothing is known apart from helping the construction of a temple at Samye at the behest of Trisong Detsen and shortly being chased out of Tibet.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This is tackled better in my edit. Chased out is also too harsh without context. IMO, this should be addressed in a separate section mentioning the differing views on the duration of Padmasambhava's stay in Tibet. This view should mention the court intrigue behind his exit from Tibet.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is "my edit"? At least is the sorcerer is gone. "Chased out" may be reformulated. Is there a section on this court intrigue? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry, I didn't see this reply of yours until now. By "my edit", I meant the one to the article that rewrites the lead. "Court intrigue" is covered in the Testament of Ba in Sam Schaik's book. IMO, details of Padmasambhava's stay should be covered in the body of the article as there are multiple versions of the story (mythological or otherwise).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: FYI, I've added the Schaik excerpt.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Key role

And is this to be included or excluded? Also depends on "legendary Indian master," doesn't it?

Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet, Padmasambhava came to be viewed in later narratives as providing a key role with the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Include. This is my compromise to include Cpt.a.haddock's info.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the lead-up to this statement. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ypu mean: how do we mention both the historical and the mythological part? Yes. I'll have to read sources. Thanks for your input, both of you. This part of the problem is clear, at least to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Not even a proposal, but a suggestion:

Padmasambhava (lit. "Lotus-Born"), also known as Guru Rinpoche, was a legendary Indian Buddhist master who is said to have introduced Vajrayana to Tibet in the 8th century.

Although there was a historical Padmasambhava, nothing is known of him apart from helping the construction of the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet at Samye, at the behest of Trisong Detsen, and shortly thereafter leaving Tibet due to court intrigues.

Regardless of his historical status and the duration of his stay in Tibet, Padmasambhava came to be viewed in later narratives as providing a key role with the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet.

A number of legends have grown around Padmasambhava's life and deeds, and he is widely venerated as a 'second Buddha' across Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Himalayan states of India.

He is a main literary character of terma, an emanation of Amitābha that is said to appear to tertöns in visionary encounters and a focus of Tibetan Buddhist practice, and the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism consider Padmasambhava to be a founder of their tradition, and closely follow his teachings.

References

How about this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• 'legendary' violates WP:PEACOCK
• Even Cpt.a.Haddock's beloved Princeton Dictionary does not say anything about Padmasambhava introducing Vajrayana. Even on a mythological level.
• Why did you remove the info about Nyangrel Nyima Özer being the principal architect of the Padmasambhava mythos?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Largely support. How about this version which might give some of VG's concerns greater prominence?

Padmasambhava (lit. "Lotus-Born"), also known as Guru Rinpoche, was an legendary 8th-century Indian Buddhist master and tantric adept who played a key role in the narrative of the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet. As a literary character of terma, he is believed to be an emanation of Amitābha that is said to appear to tertöns in visionary encounters, particularly by the Nyingma school who consider Padmasambhava a founder of their tradition and a 'second Buddha'. Padmasambhava is widely venerated across Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Himalayan states of India. Very little is known of the historical Padmasambhava besides his role in the establishment of the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet at Samye at the behest of the emperor, Trisong Detsen. While it is unknown exactly how long he spent in Tibet, it is believed that rumour and intrigue at the royal court kept his stay brief. Traditional accounts …

… and expand further …

(cross post. This does not address VG's latest concerns.) --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

JJ @VictoriaGrayson:

• Peacock? Hmmm.... I like the ambiguity of the term.
• Oh oh.... I didn't take a look at the present led; I only looked at your diffs.... More homework to do, I'm afarid.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look: there's more about Özer in the lead than there is in the article. As it is now, I'd suggest to move this line from the lead into the article, and expand it. NB: "played" should be "plays," I think. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Once again, I'll attempt to compromise. Please see this ARTICLE DRAFT HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Oppose. You again appear to be trying to delete entire sections of the article.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes because they are poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Again note that Cpt.a.haddock refuses to compromise one bit.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We're only talking about the lead now, aren't we? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I've copy-edited the lead, taking regard of your suggestions, I hope. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Subjugation of local relions

The "Padmasambhava cult"

Next. What we've got now is Captain's preferred version, right? May I suggest that we simply add Vic's info?:

Sam van Schaik notes that twelfth century terma departs from earlier histories by presenting a story of Padmasambhava travelling the countryside converting local spirits:

According to earlier histories, Padmasambhava had given some tantric teachings to Tibetans before being forced to leave due to the suspicions of the Tibetan court. But from the twelfth century an alternative story, itself a terma discovery, gave Padmasambhava a much greater role in the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, and in particular credited him with travelling all over the country to convert the local spirits to Buddhism.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyangrel Nyima Özer

This part is not clear to me:

Nyangrel Nyima Özer (1136-1204) was the principal architect of the Padmasambhava mythos, and the Padmasambhava biography terma art revealer. Zanglingma (Jeweled Rosary) is Nyang Ral Nyima Özer's Guru Rinpoche terma biography. It's in the vast treasury Rinchen Terdzö collection. Guru Chöwang (1212–1270) was the next major contributor to the cycle.

References

• I do understand "Nyangrel Nyima Özer (1136-1204) was the principal architect of the Padmasambhava mythos," but what is "the Padmasambhava biography terma art revealer"?
• What's the relevance of "Zanglingma (Jeweled Rosary) is Nyang Ral Nyima Özer's Guru Rinpoche terma biography. It's in the vast treasury Rinchen Terdzö collection."
• And "Guru Chöwang (1212–1270) was the next major contributor to the cycle." Which cycle?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Zulupapa5 made some weird edits.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Terma are Guru Rinpoche teachings revealed at an appropriate time. Özer la revealed Guru Rinpoche story in Zanglingma, as an authoritative source. This makes it the primary source art compiled in the Rinchen Terdzö terma collection. To imply that Zanglingma is constructed architecture, really misses key points in the visionary creative process that Tibetan masters train to bring relativity constructed truths in union with ultimate truths. So many sources discuss terma as revealed treasures, why folks want to force mythos into this article is interesting, and really undue. Mythos should be attributed to Janet Gyatso architectural creativity where VG picks up on it to propose forking. Was surprised to see this article seems to overlook Zanglingma attribution. Guess, I should be busy on Rinchen Terdzö indexing, translating and referencing to complementary standards. It's about maybe a 8 x 10 ft library shelf compendium. On my bucket list but, computers do so faster these days. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue; those are two fundamentally differnt ways of looking at this topic. The "insiders-view" should also be mentioned - but from an "outsiders-view," I'm afraid, since this is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. Thanks for responding, by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The insiders have at least 2700 years of outsider scholarship on these secret methods. Disrespecting this illustrates Wikipedia editorial bias. Would suggest avoiding the NPOV karma on that. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Then Hindus will say Krishna existed 5,000 B.C. Mormons will say Jesus visited America. We cannot take a religious view on Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bogus, speak for the sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyingma

To be done later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Only solution

Only solution is to have 2 Padmasambhava articles. One on the mythological Padmasambhava. One on the historical Padmasambhava.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, as that could be a WP:CONTENTFORK. I think that two different sections in this article might address the issue, though. Start with the real human who gave rise to the mythical aspects, perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

They are pretty cleanly two different things.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Two articles is not a solution, of course. How much is there known about the historical Padmasambhava? NB: his (whether hitorical or mythological) importance for Tibetan Buddhism is not in question, is it? That's the next part, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The historical Padmasambhava does not have much importance to Tibetan Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Really should take the something like the Hagiography approach when writing about this greatest masters attributes. While in school scholars carry him in hearts mind, school outside scholars just may not get his story (history) right with her say (heresy). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An RfC could be used to see if people want 2 articles: Padmasambhava (historical) and a Padmasambhava (mythological) article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It will be terminated right-away, as a coatrack or contentfork. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So duality happens to be non-dual for content forks, dissolving them into edit history and finding middle view with NPOV. There are mythic things happening on Wikipedia too. Remind me which source has the mythological reference to even consider making an article around it? Sounds to me like folks are making things up to push and vacuous point about Terma discovery, largely unseen outside the Nyingma school. The Dali lama has a recent powerful new terma, that is Nyingma confirmed. Yes, Nyingma can be the Tibetan root to all the Tibetan schools cannon expansion, no matter the size or follower counts. When Nyingma scholars find a discrepancy, well ... just heard about one tonight the later schools may adopted to change. This figure has many names and that reference to the same person, suggesting to get all the names in article and work with them to expand. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The mythological sources are few if any, points to terma; which are very clearly, over an over again in mantras, described as Guru Rinpoche discovered treasures. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama revealed a terma?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Kilaya Tantra Gurkhukma Branch: Heart Sacred Bond Sole Kilaya ... wait ... have to verify. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

any news on the Dalai Lama's terma, @ZuluPapa5:? I'm curious to know as well.AD64 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving section on five consorts

I'd like to move the section on the five consorts out of the icongraphy section. It is degrading to have the only mention of these important women practitioners, and founders of Tibetan Buddhism, be listed as "attributes" in iconography. I propose they get their own section, just as the 25 main disciples get a section. What are your thoughts and suggestions on this? 05:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AD64 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the five consorts are more appropriately grouped with the 25 disciples. Perhaps make a heading "Disciples and consorts", with subheadings "Twenty-five main disciples" and "Five main consorts". 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Bom (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your input, @Baba Bom:. I appreciate your idea about the structure and it makes even more organizational sense than what I was considering. I'll make the change soon and am open to comments, suggestions, and other input. It's so clear to me that collaboration produces better articles. Thanks again and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made the change to the structure of the article, putting the 5 consorts and 25 disciples together in the last section. I also added content and links for the five wisdom consorts and removed unnecessary content and less than reliable reference. The deleted content remains in my sandbox, should it be needed. Let me know if you have suggestions or concerns. Best, AD64 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Padmasambhava. 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/20090125123308/http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=17074 to http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=17074
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209101244/http://www.rangjung.com/books/lotus-born.htm to http://www.rangjung.com/books/lotus-born.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bengali

Hi 49.37.46.178 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

So many gross errors

Whats with all of the errors ?

I corrected them per qualified scholars, and the corrections were reversed.

I also corrected misstatements attributed to a source. That's even more disturbing. This is an honor system, we can't just create fictional narratives and pretend its what the source states.

Do we need to debate each point, or are the corrections self-evident? Metokpema (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi here's the topic. Respond here as an editor, and stop leaving threats and accusations on my talk page. Metokpema (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi Ok, You refused. You didn't bother to answer this note on your own talk page, but went for another revert. That's hostile behaviour. I see you've been cited already for edit warring, and you're doing it again after I opened the talk topic to stop your edit warring.

I read the Padmasambhava page a few years ago, when it was well written and sourced. The lede and following paragraphs are now embarrassing for an encyclopedia, and contradict unerased facts further into the page as if those facts haven't been deleted yet. It's now junk.

Your notes on reverting my corrections are not factual, another technique of edit warring. First you complained on the 'serious changes' now its deleted sources. No sources were deleted.

van Schait is still a source, but his scholarship is questionable. His fantasy of Padmasambhava being asked to leave Tibet is unsupported by any research I have read, and I have read a lot. His POV is hostile as is the POV of the editor who wrote the lede and following paragraphs. He's the latest Chinese go-to for disinformation cloaked as scholarship.

Your reverts are supporting hostile POVs and fantasy narratives. Why? For whom?

It's clear your depth of scholarly knowledge of Tibet's history and Tibetan Buddhism is shallow. To grasp onto incorrect information so much so that you're edit warring suggests more than just shallow understanding. What's going on Ixudi ?

I am not really interested in the other aspects of your edits however I disagree with you removing the source from Sam Van Schaik. As long as reliable sources are not removed from the article and fringe theories are not introduced, I am happy with the article remaining as is.Ixudi (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here. Interestingly, van Schaik's opinion appears to be the 'fringe' opinion, according to the page's sources and according to the page's lengthy list of biographies on Padmasambhava. As such, the lede is not the place for fringe theories. Metokpema (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if you disagree with him. You cannot unilaterally remove what is considered to be a reliable source. You can include other sources that demonstrate a different viewpoint however. Ixudi (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the source is not removed, just their fringe theory that has been deleted repeatedly. A reputable scholar would not posit that nothing is known about Padmasambhava since it is really not possible that they've not noticed volumes on his life, some of which are included on the lengthy list of biographies here on the page, making van Schaik's statement, misplaced in the lede, appear rather ridiculous. And political. And furthermore, three pages of their one book is cited excessively, so claiming a source has been removed is not correct. Metokpema (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)