Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
SetUp
Thanks User:Sylvain1972 for setting this up. For my part, I've been wrestling with the Svatantrika/prasangika articles -- thoug not specifically Tibetan. I was also trying to get the Nyingma Tantras articles in better shape, particularly the three divisions of Atiyoga. Also Jigme Lingpa, Garab Dorje. I'll try to get a better list together. Zero sharp 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Svatrantika/prasangika _is_ a specifically tibetan distinction. No indian author ever uses those terms - theyre simply madyamaka then. It is refering in a large extent to indian authors, but they were classified as svatrantika or prasangika much later, by tibetans. And also, gelug prasangika is quite specific, different from what most other schools consider prasangika (and sometimes even contradictory with chandrakirti) - if pressed with that question, gelugpas would admit that; this difference of its presentation is why Je Tsonkhapas connection with manjusri is so essential for gelugpas (and all schools consider prasangika highest - check Berzin explanation for eg). there are numerous mistakes on buddhist (especially tibetan) related pages on wiki, i was thinking of spending some time trying to help out--Aryah 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ayrah, welcome, help is always needed. I'm not sure that I agree that no indian author ever uses the terms Svatrantika/Prasangika - they are sanskrit terms after all, and as such would not have been invented by Tibetans. And Indians such as Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita and their respective lineages of Madhyamaka were very much in active disagreement with one another. Sylvain1972 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, you are right the terms were used (for a system, but not as unique schools), but still, there was a reason I thought this difference is overstated, and it really was not as important In india - so I dug it up.See this discussion on e-sangha - its hardly NPOV, but quite detailed : http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=24832&view=findpost&p=346171
Prior to Tsongkhapa, in general, Tibetans considered the difference between Svatantra and Prasanga to be pedagogical. Moreover, it was considered that Svatantra was more effective at debating non-Buddhists, while Prasanga was best for debating the realists among the Buddhists.
Indians it seems also did not distinguish the two systems on any thing other than pedagogical grounds, and as far as I have been able to determine, the distinction between Prasanga and Svatantra as unique schools of thought was introduced by Patsab or his immediate followers in reponse to attacks on Candrakiriti's texts by the committed Svantantrika master, Phyva pa of Sangphu.
Jnanagarbha does not refer to the followers of Candrakiriti by anything other than a passage in his Two Truths where he refers to "some who are notorious for their bad arguments."
So while the Svatantrika/Prasangika debate existed in India the sense there was a criticism of Buddhapalita's treatment of arising from self by Bhava, and a response to this crticism by Candra; the entire scope of the argument around whether one should use autonomous inferences or consequences to demonstrate emptiness to an opponent is strictly confined to an argument about paragraph long in Buddhapalita's Madhyamakavritti concerning the refutation of sprouts arising from themselves.
It is not the case that this is the only place where Candrakirti faults Bhava-- he also gives Bhavaviveka a hard time over how he etmologizes dependent origination [pratiityasamutpadaa] and so on-- but argument over svatantra and prasanga really is confined to just a passage in the Madhyamakavritti of Buddhapalita. Other than that, Chandrakirti does not distingiush svatantra and prasanga in the rest of the Prasannapada. --Aryah 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Idea for something to spend a little time on
It occurred to me that it might be a good idea to start making a series of dab pages for common Tibetan names. Tibetans seem to re-use the same elements in names quite a lot, and, since the names themselves are unfamiliar to most English speakers, this can be confusing. The disambiguation pages would list various notable persons who have used that word as part of their names. For instance, Gyatso would link to the list of Dalai Lamas, to Chogyam Trungpa, and to Chödrak Gyatso; Gedhun would link to Gedun Drub, Gendun Gyatso, and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima; Chökyi would link to Chogyam Trungpa, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, Qoigyijabu, Lobsang Trinley Lhündrub Chökyi Gyaltsen, Chökyi Gyaltsen the 1st Tai Situpa, Thubten Choekyi Nyima, etc. The page would also list variant spellings, of which there are often many, for the name and provide other miscellaneous information. I think this would be helpful to largely-uninformed google researchers.
This project is something that anyone who is familiar with some Tibetan names can work on for a few minutes now and then. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Sylvain1972 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Done:
To Do:
Scope of "Tibet" stub types
Please take note of this discussion on the scope of the current {{tibet-stub}}, and the proposed {{tibet-geo-stub}}. Comments welcome. Alai 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Help needed with problematic article (Phende)
I stumbled across this by accident and found it to be very problematic with regards to sourcing, POV, grammar, etc. I made a few attempts to fix some obvious problems but a great deal remains. It's even possible this article may need to be deleted; I just don't know enough about Buddhism. My edits were purely from the viewpoint of what appeared to violate Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I also noticed that the article's author had a history of submitting other problematic material (for instance American Buddha Online Library).
This article needs a review by someone familiar with the topic. I have left some additional comments on the article's talk page
Thanks,
--A. B. 14:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, I just noticed another article, Ngor, linked to the Phende article that seems to share the same style and the same problems.--A. B. 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"People" Articles
I added a few things to the 'People' section for article construction, trying to list the basic elements a page on a person should contain -- I'm sure there are other standards for this elsewhere in Wiki we could leverage Zero sharp 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I am crossposting this to WikiProject Buddhism. I was looking at random articles today and came across Lerab Ling, whose text struck me as something that could have been lifted directly from a promotional brochure. Following the links, I discovered Sogyal Rinpoche and The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, both of which are even more promotional. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying is exceptionally bad; the first words of the article describe the book as "an acclaimed spiritual masterpiece," and glowing celebrity reviews are interspersed with statements like, "This jewel of Tibetan wisdom is the definitive spiritual classic for our time." In his article, Sogyal Rinpoche is described as "one of the most renowned teachers of our time" and "the author of the highly-acclaimed and ground breaking book, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. I have no idea how much influence Lerab Ling, Sogyal Rinpoche, and his book really have in Tibetan Buddhism, so I was hoping that someone more familiar with the topic could take a look at these articles and evaluate the truth of these glowing statements. In the meantime, I've marked all three with {{advert}} tags. Thanks. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)