Talk:Tibetan Buddhism

A philosophy, not a religion

As an explanation: Nomenclature mentions interior dharmas and exterior dharmas. Religions operate with exterior figures or paternalistic objects which control. As a philosophy, buddhism does not relegate control to an entity outside of the body, but to each person's mind. A result is all can be buddhas, equally. Religions do not embrace this understanding. So, Moonsell and others, throughout the article, the term "religion" when referring to buddhism needs to be corrected to "philosophy". This change is in keeping with the ways Tibetans, and other buddhists, define buddhism. Do we need RS for change? Are you in agreement? Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not in agreement, and yes, you need RS for such a change. buddhism does not relegate control to an entity outside of the body, but to each person's mind is a western ideal, not an Asian reality. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say that Tibetan Buddhism (or for that matter any other traditional form of Buddhism) is "a philosophy, not a religion" Even the Dalai Lama talks about it being a religion and a philosophy. No serious contemporary academic scholar of Tibetan Buddhism would deny that it is a religion. Certainly the majority of Tibetan practitioners of Buddhim consider it a religion. Tibetans use the same term "Chos" to describe all religions - be it Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism or Buddhism. A few Tibetan Buddhist teachers have described Buddhism a "non-theistic religion". There are of course a few people who call themselves "Secular Buddhists", the majority of whom are natives of western countries, and a some of these people maintain that the Buddhism which they follow is not a religion, but this has little to do with Tibetan Buddhism or any orthodox or traditional form of Buddhism. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot I'm changing your "philosophy" edit in the first sentence back to "religion" diff. Dharma simply means "the way things are". Please listen to consensus of other editors. Badabara (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Badabara 'Dharma' has many interpretations, mostly 'truth' which can be very different from 'the way things are' unless the way things are is referring to magical display of the three kayas. @Joshua Jonathan and @CFynn Not ridiculous at all. Tibetan buddhist practitioners do not consider buddhism a religion, if you're speaking with a serious practitioner. An armchair practitioner might. Western Scholars that are not practitioners might use 'religion', as might others that do not study, meditate or work with a lama. Yes, the Dalai Lama does at times use both 'philosophy' and 'religion' to describe buddhism depending on the audience and the level of necessary skillful means. I understand it's easier to simply say 'religion'. The point is also that westerners understand religions and certain Christian nomenclature - priest, abbott, religion, celibacy, nuns, monks, guilt, heaven and hell - that somewhat mindlessly filters into articles on Eastern philosophies. And, the consensus is clear. But, I that can sometimes happen. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. Badabara (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem here with consensus. As I said above, "consensus is clear". Thanks.Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot wrote

[T]he term "religion" when referring to buddhism needs to be corrected to "philosophy".

It's my understanding that until just over a hundred years ago, "psychology" in the west wasn't differentiated from "philosophy". Now it is. Are we going to leave "psychology" out too?

Pasdecomplot maintains

Religions operate with exterior figures or paternalistic objects which control...

This seems to be Pasdecomplot's only actual objection to the term "religion" and admittedly, the term is unpopular with atheists in the west these days. But fashion isn't everything.

Pasdecomplot also wrote

'Dharma' has many interpretations, mostly 'truth'.

Conze (Buddhist Thought in India, Ann Arbor 1967, p.92f) reckons there are seven in Buddhism. One is

As reflected in the moral life, dharma means the moral law, righteousness, virtue, right behaviour, duty and religious practice...

So I don't think we have reason to prune "religion" from our range of available terms.

Moonsell (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Added founding dates to schools

Hi.

• I added dates and RS for the founding of the 4 schools, and for Rime. It's interesting, good for perspective. Nyingma school developed with Padmasambhava, so the source said 8th century. On Kagyu, 11th century. Dates for Sakya 1073 & Gelug 1409, in source. I trust it's not an issue, but let me know if it is. Please feel free to change with different sourced information.
• Also while I was there, the few words on Bon weren't clear, so I added the text about it being 'the predominant spiritual tradition ... before Buddhism' to the existing text.
• BTW, noticed the last sentence in section was missing...something. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Himalayan Buddhism (Implemented)

• Himalayan Buddhism is a redundant stub the content of which covers the same material as Tibetan Buddhism, an article which already covers several terms often used as synonyms for "Tibetan Buddhism" such as "Northern Buddhism", "Indo-Tibetan Buddhism", and "Sino-Indian Buddhism". I suggest the former be merged into the latter. Scyrme (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• This merge has since been implemented by Javierfv1212. Scyrme (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Truth Of Tibetan Buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism is Mainly Believed On Afterlife and the hell 2402:4000:12DC:A763:3486:8270:D3F:5A0E (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Hello, I rewrote the first paragraph of the lead, since I believe that the first section should try to summarize the key points of the entire article; the rest of the lead will then go into somewhat more detail on history, adherents, rituals, etc. However, my edit was reverted, and I was told to discuss changes to the lead here first. This is the first paragraph I wrote:

"Tibetan Buddhism is a form of Vajrayāna Buddhism mainly practiced in Tibet, Bhutan and Mongolia. It is in large part led by the Dalai Lama, the foremost spiritual leader of the largest of the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It has evovled into a distinct offshoot from other forms of Buddhism, in part due to its syncretic inclusion of elements from the indigenous Tibetan religion Bön. Characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism include its mystic religious pratices, widespread use of Tantric rituals, and large number of adherents actively engaged in religious pursuits."

Do we have any thoughts on this? @Skyerise?

Sprucecopse (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Sprucecopse (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok as far as it goes, but what are you going to take out, apart from the first para? The lead is already 5 paras long. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sprucecopse: Yes. First, the lead should be limited to four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. I would oppose the proposed paragraph. Tibetan Buddhism is not led "in large part" by the Dalai Lama. He has leadership only in the Gelug school. Anyone who knows the subject in any depth knows that. Dalai Lama has no role whatsover in governing the Nyingma, Shakya and Kagyu schools, and the idea that the Gelug is the largest of the schools is quite dubious. The lead is a summary, and the "facts" you have put together are not at all supported by the article text, which makes no statements about the relative sizes of the schools and makes no claim for the Dalai Lama's leadership except with respect to his own school. Your paragraph is not in any way a summary of what the article actually says. Skyerise (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but I still believe that the first paragraph should sum up the rest of the article neatly. Is the sentence "It also has a sizable number of adherents in the areas surrounding the Himalayas, including the Indian regions of Ladakh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as in Nepal. Smaller groups of practitioners can be found in Central Asia, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and some regions of Russia, such as Tuva, Buryatia, and Kalmykia." really necessary in the first paragraph, or is it perhaps more suitable to put in either a) a note, or b) in a separate paragraph, perhaps the second, relating to the history of the religion, the number of adherents, or adherents in general? We have already mentioned where it has a stronghold, in Tibet, Bhutan, and Mongolia. Do we at least agree that the current lead is not optimal? Sprucecopse (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the current lead. Since your proposed paragraph was so erroneous, why exactly should we respect your apparently knowlege-free proposal? I don't see any reason to suppose you really know the topic, and the current lead was developed by consensus among editors who actually do know the topic. Skyerise (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m genuinely just trying to improve the page, there’s no need to be a snide Suzy. Look at Buddhism in Thailand for example, the first paragraph of the lead provides short, concise information about several key points. Meanwhile on this article the first paragraph focuses only on where it is practiced, including regions where there are “smaller groups of practitioners”, which I personally think is more fitting to include later in the article. Sprucecopse (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to make a new proposal not full of erroneous claims and see if you can develop a consensus for it. Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)