Talk:Tara (Buddhism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Tara (Buddhism), or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Tibetan Buddhism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Tara (Buddhism) and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Tara is not just Tibetan 2 Missing content 3 Wikify please 4 Ekajati 5 Fruitional 6 Mother of compassion 7 Puzzling about Red Tara practice 8 Buddha or Bodhisattva?

[edit] Tara is not just Tibetan

I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist, so this may need some clarification and correction (there were certainly signs of incomplete familiarity with the subject in the article I edited). The Taras are very much background figures in all of the Buddhist schools I've practiced with. Feel free to let me know what you changed if you find that it needs correction, as I am always learning. HyperZonk 19:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing content

I notice all my additions to the article have been deleted. None of it was copied from other web sites. I have a Master Degree in Buddhist Studies from Naropa University 1997, and the article was written after months of research as a paper for that program. I may be a newbie to wickipedia, but i am astonished to see a whole article wiped out by someone else just on the claim that I copied it from other web sites. This is not true.

There are certain facts about Tara, that are common knowledge to anyone who had studied Tibetan Buddhism. You can say Tara is a Bodhisattva of compassion in so may ways but that does not mean you are copying from other web sites. Jlpinkme.

I have switched it back. Sorry about that. --Hottentot

I have done some minor editing; spacing, linking, etc., and plan to do more. Kind regards, 'Twisturbed Tachyon 05:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why ramifications should be underlined. I used it simply as meaning the outgrowth or consequence of, or the offshoot of... Linking it to a mathematical definition seems to me just getting carried away with putting in links. Jlpinkme

[edit] Wikify please

I'm sure this article is very informative to people with basic knowledge of Budahisum, but can someone please make this article easier to understand for us ignorant? I got lost after the third section. --Banana04131 23:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ekajati

I've redirected Ekajati here as technically she's a form of Tara and she is mentioned in the article, but she probably deserves her own article. If you want to start one, just replace the redirect. Ekajati 04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've started it myself. If you have info, please contribute! :-) Ekajati 08:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fruitional

Changing this word to fruitless, changes the whole meaning of the paragraph rendering it meaningless. It is like saying the non results results. Fruitless means having no fruit; barren.

I found that 'fruitional is a term widely used in Buddhist dictionaries, but it didn't turn up in online English dictionaries. Here is an example of its use:'retrospective knowledge', refers to the recollected mental image obtained in concentration, or to any inner experience just passed, as for instance, any absorption (jhána q.v.), or any supermundane path, or fruition of the path, etc. (s. ariya-puggala). As it is said: "At the end of fruitional consciousness, consciousness sinks into the subconscious stream of existence (bhavanga-sota, q.v.). -A Buddhist Dictionary.

Anyway, in the interest of not getting the language too philosophically aracane, I changed this to : end results.

The further you go in Buddhist philosophy, the more you have to learn almost a different language useful in trying to explain subtle and profound meanings.

In this respect I still think the article is an accessible look at Tara. If it appears difficult, then I suggest one look at the Wiki article on Existentialism.The first paragraphs there, are also challenging. Some subjects, by their very nature are more difficult to write about. The Wiki article on the Spice Girls is going to be easier to read, but it is not a subject that requires profound analysis or thought. Jlpinkme

[edit] Mother of compassion

• I'm a Theravada Buddhist. Is Tara the mother of The Blessed One Lord Buddha? I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Perhaps to clarify a bit, Tara is often called 'mother of the Buddhas', because in Vajrayana, the female buddhas represent wisdom. As wisdom is the most important cause of buddhahood, many female buddhas are called 'mother of the buddhas' in the tantric texts. By the way, tantric texts should rarely be taken literally, as they usually refer to a deep underlying symbolism which is not easy to understand for the uninitiated. rudy 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• No She is a goddess.Butshe has comein this century to teach.She is by no wayinaccord with the tibetans teachings.lefevremaubert@yahoo.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Buddhism has no goddesses. Zazaban 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Buddhism has many gods and goddesses - how else would you call the inhabitants of heavens; the conventional English translation for deva is god.. However, Tara is one of better known of the many Buddhas in Vajrayana. rudy 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism in nontheistic. Anybody who believes otherwises misunderstood, or is ignorant of, something. Zazaban 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are not familiar with mahayana or vajrayana Buddhism? Buddhism has no creator-God, but there are two types of beings who are often translated as god or goddess: one is the devas (beings in samsara, but in a much more comfortable situation then humans), the other one is high Bodhisattvas or Buddhas are sometimes translated as god/goddess. This are all very different concepts then the creator God (note the capital) of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition. rudy 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Idea that Buddhism is non-theistic is not one that survives an actual reading of the suttas, sutras and tantras. Gods and goddesses play major roles in Pali Canon texts. Indra aka Sakka, Agni aka Jataveda, and Brahma all appear. The Four Great Kings (who rule the 1st Devaloka) play important roles, and Yakkhas, Nagas etc are all pagan, chthonic figures best described as Gods - some of whom are still worshipped in India! It is Prthivi the Earth Goddess who witnesses the Buddha's lifetimes of practice under the Bodhitree. In the Golden Light Sutra Sri aka Lakshmi, and Saraswati both make appearances to protect the one who chants the sutras. In the Tantras many gods appear, sometimes to be converted to Buddhism (Shiva and his Goddess consort Nairatmya for instance), sometimes just hanging around like Sambhara or Bhairava. Gods are never denied by the Buddha - he talks to them all the time. They cannot offer a way out of samsara, but they do exist, and within Samsara they are powerful rulers! And if that is not sufficient then I think you will find that practising Buddhists frequently treat Buddhas and Bodhisattvas like gods - praying for healing, protection, even wealth and success for instance - with no sense of irony. mahaabaala (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism has Goddesses - Bodhisattvas and Yidams. I'm not familiar enough with Theravadan Buddhism to say. It could be argued that Devas are Gods too. This belongs on God_in_Buddhism and not here. Secretlondon (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling about Red Tara practice

In the section "Tara as a Tantric deity" it reads that the terma of the Red Tara practice was rediscovered in our century (obviously the 20th century is meant) by the lama Apong Terton. Apong Terton then is supposed to have been reborn as Sakya Trizin. The current Sakya Trizin was born in 1945, which leaves a question about when Apong Terton actually lived? __meco 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha or Bodhisattva?

Tara is a bodhisattva not a Buddha. This article reads as though they are the same thing. Secretlondon 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have time to do the corrections? (If not I will try to find time soon - but I am truly very busy at the moment). They would be much appreciated. Cheers, John Hill 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be caused by the question whether Avalokiteshvara is a Buddha or Bodhisattva ? (see that article - and please bring some citations...). --211.132.52.211 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tibetans, as I understand it, consider Tara to be a Buddha. Perhaps the distinction is a false one in this case? 81.107.41.173 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss this in the article. I've found some sources that say she is both. Secretlondon (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand there are several reasons for this. Tibetan Buddhism encompasses both the sutrayana and the tantrayana. In the sutras, the open teachings, there is just One Buddha and high bodhisattvas are just one step below that. In the tantras, it is propounded that one must first become enlightened in order to really help sentient beings; therefore one becomes a Buddha first and then one manifests as a Bodhisattva. Tara is considered to have the highest realizations and is therefore seen as a Buddha, but she wears jewelry, long hair etc to appear to sentient beings doing the actions of a bodhisattva. Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri and Vajrapani are in a similar vein, representing Buddha's body, speech and mind. --Clodya (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)