User talk:Rudyh01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Welcome 3 Taranatha 4 Tara 5 Hey there 6 Hi 7 Shugden 8 Geshe Michael Roach 9 Michael Roach 10 Categories 11 Geshe Sopa 12 Question 13 Recent Maitreya Edit 14 Amithaba article 15 Vajrayana and intoxicant use 16 Tibetan naming conventions 17 Thonmi Sambhota 18 Songtsän Gampo 19 Sunyata 20 Recent addition of Nichiren to Template:Buddhism 21 Three Types of Buddha 22 Happy Vesak 23 Bodhicitta 24 Phurba & Singing bowl: Vajra & Ghanta 25 Thanks for voting at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote 26 Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama 27 Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

[edit] Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Rudy: I'm so sorry, in my haste to 'welcome' you I added the note to your _user_ page and not your talk page -- I've blanked my error. Apologies! Zero sharp 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi Rudy, I'm really glad to see that you're a wikipedia contributor. I've used your sites as resources in the creation of the Kalachakra page, and also with Kings of Shambhala. Thank you very much for providing those wonderful assets to the dharma community. On the latter page, we could use your help with a chronology questions being discussed on talk [1], if you have a minute. Sylvain1972 13:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taranatha

After I write my replacement version of the Taranatha article, perhaps you could take a look at it. I don't plan to write more than about two paragraphs, maybe three tops, so it will be in need of expansion. I'll get around to it in about the next week or so. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - PS: Or you can write it yourself if you prefer.

[edit] Tara

Hi Rudy,

Please don't make changes such as you made to the Tara (Buddhist) article minor. Minor changes are spelling, grammar and punctuation changes. Marking changes such as you made minor makes it appear that you are trying to avoid review by other editors. -Ekajati 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Welcome to WP, Rudy.. You know me from elsewhere (I am anonymous here), but it's good to see you! A friend of mine saw you at Amaravati this year - did you have a good time? (20040302)

[edit] Hi

Sorry for my belated response to your comments a couple weeks ago. You say, "I'm not very skilled with the Wikipedia, just trying to edit some stuff I see which is incorrect", but, of course, editing stuff that is incorrect is exactly what Wikipedia is here for, so have at it. The Taranatha article is off to a sketchy start thanks to some additional volunteers; way better than it was a couple weeks ago at least. I'm genuinely sorry that the Geir Smith situation was allowed to simmer for so long before being dealt with. Eventually, it will all get sorted out but it's really a shame that his material on articles like Taranatha was allowed to stand for so long. I suspect other editors ran across those pages and, not knowing much of anythign about Tibetan Buddhism, decided not to get involved but to go put out other fires elsewhere. That, plus we try to go a long way towards assuming that new editors are well-intentioned and can eventually become productive colleagues. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shugden

Hi Rudhy. Could you please be so kind to take time to check a short discussion and give your opinion there. In the Shugden article I put a paragraph on NKT/GKG's view to make it more understandable. Robertect removed it and I can not really agree on that removal (see: [2]) We came to no conclusion and are seraching for a neutral editor to mediate the discussion or listen to his view. See "removal of first paragraph" at the Shugden Talk Page. Thank you very much, --Kt66 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geshe Michael Roach

Dear Rudhy, after observing for a long time the efforts at the site of Geshe Michael Roach either to repress critic or to have biased critics (I am not free of such faults too), I felt the urge to use selfsources of Geshe Michael so that the critics can be put in the article without endless discussions. It would be nice if you can have a look and improve or comment it. (It maybe possible my last edit is reverted once more, so please look in the history too. I wish to avoid provoking an edit war but see also not much hope to avoid it.) Please look also to the link of the controversies if it is against WP rules, Thanks a lot, --Kt66 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. --Kt66 21:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Roach

Rudy, please check the talk page, as this has already been discussed there. I am not opposed to critical links that meet WP:EL and WP:LIVING. But I am opposed to links to anonymous critical websites where the creators of the websites do not identify themselves. That violates the requirements for reliable sources (WP:RS) and such dubious sources simply cannot be used for living persons. (P.S. saw your note on Hanuman Das's talk page. Replying b/c I believe I was the first one to remove that link and that H.D. is simply supporting my removal of it based on WP:LIVING. His arguments are under "Diamond Cutter Website" in the talk page. I was offline during that discussion and didn't participate, but originally removed the link for the reasons H.D. spells out quite well...) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, well, if you want to reject every anonymous editor on Wikipedia who cites proper sources, I'm nut sure how much we would have left here... rudy 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The site being linked to is created by a group of anonymous people. I fully support Ekajati in that I do not believe anonymous critical sites are permitted by the pertinant WP policies. If the site being linked clearly identified the names of its editors, there would be no problem. It doesn't, so precisely whose opinion is being cited? —Hanuman Das 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but they do cite their sources! What I mean is that "Hanuman Das", "Ekajati" or "rudy" is just as anonymus as their website. I thought the main issue is to have tracable sources, so when I as virtually anonymous "rudy" make a statement, it's source should be mentioned, and that is what they do as far as I can see it? rudy 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Please do not add the categories Category:Buddhist teachers and Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers to artcles in Category:Lamas. These are nested categories and an article should be only in the most specific one and not in the supercategories of that category. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is organized pretty well. There is no problem putting people in multiple categories at the same level, such as both Category:Lama and Category:Tulku and/or Category:Terton. Not all Lamas are Tulkus and vice versa. The only restriction is that once the correct categories are chosen, the article does not also get put in supercategories of those categories. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I'm looking for a Tibetan teacher, I would not intuitively be looking in Lamas, Tulkus or Tertons... Furthermore, the use of the term Lama has become a habit for westerners in some of the Tibetan traditions as well - typicaly when people have done the 3-year retreat within the Kagyu. In short, I don't really see the sense of separating lamas, tulkus and tertons, but perhaps it's only me... rudy 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They are different categories. Not all lamas are tulkus, not all tulkus are lamas. Only Nyimgma are likely to be tertons, and they are quite rare... Those categories already existed, and were brought together under Tibetan Buddhist teachers to make them easier to find. No all teachers are lamas. Some are Geshes, some are monks & nuns, but not Lamas. A Lama is a very specific thing. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're quick! Sorry, but then you don't know the meaning of the word Lama: it is the same as Guru; spiritual teacher. A lama is merely defined by 'having pupils'; so virtually all teachers are lamas, and nearly all Geshes? Being ordained has nothing to do with the title of lama. A lama is certainly not a very specific thing!rudy 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I've had discussions about this with others on WP. For example, I misidentified a particular Geshe as a Lama, and was told that the was not. Apparently there are various requirements for the title: one must either be a tulku, or a holder of a (i think it was) heart lineage. Lamas have to have completed a three-year retreat, and there are probably other requirements. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that several traditions define this differently! So in practice, it can even a be confusing term among Tibetans I suppose. I know for a fact from the Gelugpas that 'having students' is the definition. I also know that in (some) of the Kagyu traditions, someone is automatically given the title lama, when one has done the 3-year retreat. That is why several (sane) westerners call themselves lama. rudy 22:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I'll try to double-check this with the Geshe here at the center. rudy 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, a preliminary summary as I understood it from the Geshe here: Lama is used as translation from the Sanskrit Guru. However, it is a bit ambiguous -even within the Gelug tradition- when someone would be called a lama. Usually reserved for Rinpoches, but as this is a somewhat ambiguous term as well, this may not help too much. In the Kargyu tradition, everyone who completes a 3-year retreat is also called a lama, but it obviously says little about the teaching capability of a person. So, how would you want to define lama? Gets pretty confusing... Another thing with the current categories is where to put eg. Geshes (who are seen as qualified teachers in the Gelug) in the categories? Merely a handful of western Buddhist teachers can be considered to have a similar level of Buddhist education, but others are also listed under Buddhist teachers? Perhaps we should categorise them according the tradition they are in, but that is a bit weird too... I don't pretend to have an easy answer to this :-( rudy 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to add a category for Geshes... I will do so and moving one Geshe into the category. Feel free to move more into it... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geshe Sopa

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Geshe Sopa, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.fpmt.org/teachers/sopa.asp. As a copyright violation, Geshe Sopa appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Geshe Sopa has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Geshe Sopa. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Geshe Sopa, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. —Keakealani 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a break, I'm working on this, and in the middle of editing the information...rudy 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keakealani is right, you can't start by cutting and pasting a copyrighted text. That makes the whole article invalid and requires deletion. You have to start with your own words... There can't be a copyvio version anywhere in the history... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give me half an hour; is this a terrorist action or what? I accidentally hit the button save page while I was working on it. rudy 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal. Work on your version offline while waiting for the copyvio to be deleted, then start the article again with your non-copyvio version... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, you can set up a personal sandbox such as User:Rudyh01/sandbox and work on your article there. Just be careful, though, because it's true that you can't have a copyvio ever, so make sure you only cite but don't copy-paste. Let me know if you need help. —Keakealani 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

In the following sentence (from the Kalki page), you recently changed the word “Maitreya” into “Manjushri”: “The 25th Kalki as an emanation of Manjushri who brings about world-wide spiritual change.” Does the book that you cite actually mention Manjushri? Because I have always heard this as being the Maitreya Buddha. It would be weird for Manjushri to bring about world-wide enlightenment when Maitreya is the “next batter up” in terms of Buddhist prophecy. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Hi, these are two entirely separate predictions. The Kalachakra Tantra very much is a system within itself, with a prediction of a spiritual kind of war a few centuries from now. As far as I know, such a prediction is nowhere else to be found in Buddhism. On the other hand (accepted by just about all Buddhist traditions), the historical Buddha predicted that Maitreya Buddha will come to bring Buddhism back to earth when it is completely forgotten. This last prediction is probably to be seen in millions of years from now. (For example, it is said that this will happen after the human lifespan has gone to something like 80,000 years and then is reduced to 10 years.) That is also why I took out the phrase about worldwide enlightenment and turned it into spiritual change; this is mentioned in the Kalachkara tantra. The 'book I cite' is the Kalachakra tantra. rudy 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I read on one page sometime after posting this question that Maitreya was not associated with the Kalachakra. I've written articles on the Kalki Purana; Kali (Demon), who is the nemesis of Kalki; and Koka and Vikoka, the generals of Kali. I love learning of new things. (Ghostexorcist 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Recent Maitreya Edit

Your edit was not wrong, but neither was the material deleted. From your user page, it looks like you know a great deal about Buddhism. I have read some very Hindu-influenced Buddhism material that describes all of the heavens within the Vedic universe and it mentions the Tushita paradise as being one of the lowest heavens in the "Realm of Desire". I will look it up and expand the deleted sections so others will be able to understand it better. I will also cite my sources for others to check for accuracy. But I won’t do this until I have time later.(Ghostexorcist 19:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

No sweat! But it is really important to refer to genuine Buddhist materials when wrting stuff on Buddhism, there are loads of intentional and unintentional misinterpretations around, and please don't cite unreliable websites... rudy 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. It's genuine stuff though. The Hindu paradise of the 33 gods is in the lower heavens, where as the Buddhist paradises are in the higher realms of formlessness (I can't remember the actual wording right now). All of these heavens span from the mid point of Mt. Meru/Sumeru to it's summit and well beyond.(Ghostexorcist 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

I looked some things up and these realms are known as the "Threefold realms". They consist of the Realm of Desire (of which Mara's paradise is the 6th and highest), the Realm of Form and the Realm of formlessness.[3][4][5](Ghostexorcist 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

Eh, yes, so what's new? And what is the relevance here?rudy 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amithaba article

Hi Nat, could you please be so kind to check the mentioned article from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Tibetan name in the head. And also the articles Five Dhyani Buddhas - especially the table there on the different aspects and Amitayus. Thanks a lot. --Kt66 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vajrayana and intoxicant use

You might want to be aware that that material was merged from an article which has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intoxicant use in Tantric Buddhism. I agree with you that it should not be included in Vajrayana, as it appears to be original research. A Ramachandran 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan naming conventions

By the way,

How's your Tibetan? Perhaps you would be interested to comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Tibetan). We're working toward developing a set of guidelines for use on Wikipedia.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, my Tibetan barely goes beyond tashi deleg, and I wouldn't know how to write it :-( All I know that Wylie is the only widely accepted translitteration if you mean that. rudy 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thonmi Sambhota

I just read your question about the origin of the alphabet. Thonmi's name first appears in historical documents in around the 12th century if memory serves. Writing was probably introduced in 650 and the script probably wasnt invented but simply borrrowed. Some sanskrit alphabets looked much more like the Tibetan alphabet than Devanagri does now. In fact the Devanagari we all know and love is largely a product of printing in 19th century British India. If you are interested in the myth of Thonmi try Roy Andrew Miller's 'Prolegomenon to the first two tibetan grammatical treatises' published in the 90s by Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhismuskunde or something like that. Tibetologist 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!rudy 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songtsän Gampo

The information I removed was false. The source cited was Dujom Rinpoche's Nyingma School translated by Kapstein. It is a chos 'byung not a work of modern historiography. All of the falsehoods I removed I have discussed in detail on the history of Tibet talk page or the Songtsän Gampo talk page before. I do not have the time to repeat myself. The only contemporary documents are the Tang Annals, and the Old Tibetan Annals, they make no mention of a nepalese wife etc. An enormous cycle of popular legends has grown up around this figure, but they do not deserve to be treated as biographical fact, e.g. that he died by merging into a statute. All such stories are from hundreds of years after his death. Actually, Kapstein has been one of the foremost researchers of this material, and if you read his research in addition to his translations I think you will find he also thinks there was no Nepalese wife and he didnt die by merging with a statue. Tibetologist 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed info, I still believed in the 'commonly believed fairy-tale' then :-) rudy 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunyata

Saying that something doesn't exist absolutely is the same as saying it has no essence. Maybe the section can be reworked, I just objected to removing it wholesale. I'll work on it later. Arrow740 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read a great number of texts about it yet, but I think the Rangtongpas have it right. Arrow740 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well things are really not that simple; I'm sure a Shentongpa master would take less then five minutes to destroy your view :-) Perhaps there is not even a 'wrong' or 'right' here, just a matter of viewpoint. I like the Jain example of a group of blind men who investigate an elephant by touching it, and they come up with very different descriptions, depending on whether they touch a leg, the tail or the trunk. I truly believe all the different philosophical schools are not there in the first place to tell us which is right, but to make us think and churn about how it could be :-) rudy 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is just that one should not attach to any speculative views. Arrow740 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition of Nichiren to Template:Buddhism

Hi Rudy - I was wondering if you might have a viewpoint on the recent inclusion of Nichiren on Template:Buddhism (being discussed under Template_talk:Buddhism#needs_more_Japan). I'm soliciting feedback from regular, on-going WP contributors such as yourself, Nat_Krause and Sacca. Am I overreacting to this recent addition? Do you have a take on this? Thanks for any guidance or insight. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rudy! I appreciate your weighing in and hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Types of Buddha

Hi Rudy - just wanted to thank you for your recent note on Talk:Buddhism#Three Types of Buddha. I know it's not WP's reason for being, but I'm always delighted when you and others stretch my knowledge and appreciation. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Vesak

[edit] Bodhicitta

Hi Rhudy, I corrected some points in that article, please have a look on it. Regrads, --Kt66 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phurba & Singing bowl: Vajra & Ghanta

Thank you very much for your query on my talk page. I recommend you peruse the Internet Archive, with a little grace you may come upon a suite of recordings of direct, immediate translations/renderings in English of Tibetan texts sung and entoned by a chantmaster. I first came upon this cache after I performed a search with Rongzompa's full name in Wylie and alighted upon a veritable (and venerable) Naga's cache of cintamani. Mantrayana is the way of "secret mantra" and includes entwined lineagues of what are often in the English scholarly tradition (of group constructions) discussed separately, that is: the Ancient School, Bonpo, certain Ngagpa lineages and individuals and consists of specific Mahasiddha, etc. There are no true synonyms, this is true in English as in every other language. Though in general tantric buddhist discourse Vajrayana and Mantrayana may be employed synonymously to no ill effect, they most definetly are not congruent. I am not THAT privy to the deep traditions of the New Translation Schools, apart from Sakyapa. If you read Ashtamangala and look at the Precious Umbrella section that makes reference to the origin of that symbol/tool being the sacred mushroom, if you wish to deepen your understanding of ethnopharmacology and psychoactive Traditional Tibetan medicine, read the text cited. Moreover, regarding the substitutive polyvalent equivalences read Twilight Language and Lama Anagarika Govinda.
Blessings in blood: Raktarasa
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote

Hi Rudy - just a belated thank you for your much-valued vote at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote. I hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rudy! I just wanted to check in with you about the lastest development regarding the newly renamed article Buddha (general). It turns out that a few people have voiced their concern at Talk:Buddha_(general)#Late_remark that the suffix "(general)" has a militaristic sense to it and while, of course, in our minds this is not true at all, I can now appreciate how this might be true for the uninformed WP reader. So, I'm inclined to go with a possible new push for a re-vote on the naming of the Buddha (general) article. Would you oppose such a re-vote? If you have thoughts about this, I'd value hearing them (perhaps at Talk:Buddha_(general)#Late_remark ??). Whether or not you have the time or interest to respond to this, I hope you are happy and healthy and thank you once again for all of your terrific work! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, well, some people want to see ghosts (or generals) everywhere I suppose, isn't this simply the 'general' use of the word in Wikipedia? :-) rudy (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rudy - thanks for the reply. (Sorry I didn't see your response earlier -- I'll watch your page for the near future.) You raise a point that definitely interests me. Would you know, perhaps, if there are other "_(general)" pages on WP? (If so, sorry for my obvious ignorance and I'd sincerely appreciate any pointers.) Or perhaps you're more simply stating that the most common use of the word "general" is in the sense of "generic"? Either way, as always, thanks so much for any additional information! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rudy! Thanks for the follow-up. I hope you are doing great! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Larry and I gathered many more facts on talk:Buddha (general), and we feel it is time to vote again. Please take a look at the page and let us know what you think. — Sebastian 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

I've protected the article, but just putting tags will not protect the articles from vandalism - only adminstrators can protect articles. (the previous protection was expired on October 21, 2007). If you want an article to be protected please file a request at Wikipedia:Request for page protection and if it has enough vandalism activity it will be protected by an administrator. The protection was mainly for the October 30 vandalism that was heavy, so it was a border-line case, but it is semi-protected for two weeks. Thanks.--JForget 01:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know this!rudy 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)