![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Hummingbird, what is the intention of the "1 Yidams with accoutrements and attributes" section; it does not make any sense at all to me? rudy 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very little of this user's edits to this (and many, many other) articles make any sense, and seem to me to be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.103.210 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This section is factual... however it would be more appropriate under Five Dhyani Buddhas (as those are the particular yidam in question) since this page is an overview of what a yidam is - not of each yidam's iconography. Any objection to me moving it to said page? Dakinijones ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Using a sanskrit name when a perfectly good English phrase exists and is in fairly common use seems to go against WP:Name convention. I really doubt anyone searches under Ishta Deva (Buddhism)... and if they don't add Buddhism they end up on the Hindu page. I'm proposing this page is moved to Meditational deity. Does anyone object? Oh... and any support would also be welcome! Dakinijones ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might help discussion if I posted here from WP:Name the general guideline for naming convention: Dakinijones ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
So in general - it says above from WP:Name - we optomise for readers over editors and for usuage in reliable sources in English. Nowhere does it mention going for consistency.
Nobody seems to be arguing with the fact that most users will be searching for yidam.
I'd like to see some evidence that reliable sources use the term with any frequency. The vast majority of English writing is from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and as far as I'm aware they say yidam or - more rarely - meditational deity. Academics writing about the tradition also use yidam in preference to Ishta-deva as far as I'm aware.
So the question is: which reliable sources - if any - use the term Ishta-Deva in preference to yidam? Dakinijones ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) BTW... I just checked and (with the obvious exception of the Sanskrit Dictionary) every single one of our sources/references uses the term Yidam. Dakinijones ( talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sylvain1972, please quote your source for 3 Roots as used in Vajrayana Buddhism. I have a reliable source saying there's evidence it's a Tibetan Buddhist formulation. Of course that source may be incorrect. But we need to see your reliably sourced evidence before we say different. I've corrected your edit back to what we have reliably sourced evidence for - please don't alter it again without citing your evidence.... preferably with a quote so we can all see the evidence for what it is. Dakinijones ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
We seem to read texts with totally different eyes. What you see as prooving one thing, I'm seeing as prooving another. That could make for some very productive work - for example, if you could find a good quote re use of the 3 Roots outside Tibetan Buddhism I would be delighted. We'd all know a bit more and WP would be a better resource. But currently we're mostly just arguing our different views here and not much growth is happening on the page. We don't seem to be finding ways to turn our different perspectives to our advantage in terms of producing a good page. We don't seem to be able to establish shared points of reference to work from. Since we so often seem to be talking at cross-purposes I think we may need to bring in a mediator if we're going to make progress with this page. Would a mediator be acceptible to you? Dakinijones ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the 3 roots. The general formulation is guru, yidam, protector Lama, yidam, khandro is a specifically Nyingma formulation - googling, it appears less than 300 times, guru, yidam, protector over 800 times. I'm happy for it to appear as guru, yidam, protector Dakinijones ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well no, the lama part isn't standard... as shown by the googling of guru, yidam, protector I linked above and which you seem to have ignored. (Of course there are plenty of reliable sources too). The English language formulation of the 3 Roots is most frequently guru, yidam, protector.
I googled "lama yidam chokyong" and the formulation appeared in that form only once in the English language (and that on a CZ web site). And in fact the 3 words appeared in the same sentence together less than 60 times. It appears that you may be misled by the fact that the originals are in Tibetan. We are talking about the English language formulation of the 3 Roots. If we presented "lama yidam chokyong" as a formulation we would be risking WP:OR, since it is a formulation not used by reliable sources... or any other sources for that matter.
If you wish to reference, in the 3 Roots section, the Tibetan language phrasing of the 3 Roots I have no objection at all - in fact I think that would make an excellent addition... although of course it will need to be the Wylie and not the Anglicised Tibetan you've given here, since that would only serve to confuse the reader. Dakinijones ( talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The most common usage in English is simply "deity." This would be the obvious choice under WP:Name, but for obvious reasons it fails Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The next most commonly used English term by far, as Google bears out, is Tutelary deity, which is an already existing article which makes passing reference to yidam and ishta-deva but covers a lot of other ground. I suppose we could subsume everything under a new article Tutelary diety (Buddhism), as was suggested. This would not be my preference, but if we can have a few editors familiar with Vajrayana topics weigh in and this option generates a degree of consensus, it is the solution I would be most amenable to.
As the Sanskrit original, Ishta-deva has "pan-Buddhist currency," as you mentioned, in a way that yidam doesn't. East Asian vajrayana does not derive from Tibet, it derives from India, or India-via-China. Not to mention, using yidam to talk about varjayana in India is misleading. I don't think breaking off Yidam as an article makes sense, because we are talking about the same fundamental phenomena (with variations) - it would be like having a separate article called "dgra bcom pa" to talk about arhat in a Tibetan context. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
proposed title | Google search string | Google-reported hits |
ishta-deva | "ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki [7] | "about 1,710" |
"ishta devata" -"ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki [8] | "about 2,130" | |
"istadevata" -"ishta-deva" -"ishta devata" +Buddhism -wiki [9] | "about 2,150" | |
tutelary deity | "tutelary deity" +Buddhism -wiki [10] | "about 6,350" |
yidam | yidam +Buddhism -wiki [11] | "about 12,000" |
My understanding is very poor in this area, but isn't it so that the 'secret' tends to refer to the subtle body - and when referring to a three-fold formulation, it is more normal to refer to the basis, path and fruit anyway? If this is a rendering of the four-fold formulation of outer/inner/secret/ultimate, then surely the trikaya belongs to the ultimate refuge, not the secret. I don't have a published source to hand but I'm pretty certain that the secret refuge would normally be channels, winds and drops?
An early translation of Milarepa states "Breath, nervous energy and life-force are three. these three are the secret refuge. I delight in taking refuge in them"
"The Stages of A-khrid Meditation: Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition - Page 33": "The secret (refuge) being the psychic channel, wind and bindu ..."
Also, Patrul Rinpoche states, in the Way of Great Perfection: "Crownned with the Three Jewels of the outer refuge, You have truly realised the three roots, the inner refuge; You have made manifest the three kayas, the ultimate refuge." - So here the identification of the Trikaya as being anything other than the ultimate refuge is refuted by Patrul Rinpoche himself. ( google of relevant page )
Tthe Rigpa wiki concurs with me - Rigpa's page So this suggests that it is wrong regardless of tradition. I will make the changes accordingly
( 20040302 ( talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
Larry Rosenfeld has made a suggestion which might help with this inpass: "I personally would vote for a WP page entitled Yidam whether it be this or another page; what to do with the seemingly less well-known, less well-sourced ishta-deva I'd leave for its advocates to contemplate and act on". Larry has recorded his vote and I'm adding mine to it.
I suggest that we create a Yidam page (or more precisely, we use the current Yidam redirect page) for an article on Yidam as used in Tibetan Buddhism. Anyone who wants to work on an Ishtadeva (Buddhism) page is welcome to continue working on this one here.
So far, that's two votes for. Any more votes for or against? Dakinijones ( talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern about using Yidam is that it is specific to Tibetan Buddhism, however Shingon Buddhism has the same basic form. Review for example some of the Shingon meditational deities on this web site. We really do need a common vajrayana concept for meditational deities which crosses or at least cross references both Tibetan and Japanese uses. There may still be some less well known chinese or korean forms too. So the Tibetan term Yidam would less appropriate to use to describe the Japanese usage, and the Japanese terms less appropriate for the Tibetan, yet if you review the deities they have many in common. So then a sanskrit term has the advantage of being neutral between the two major streams of vajrayana. I support keeping the content here. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, tutelary deity is an unfortunate comparison in my understanding of the subject. That seems closer to dharmapala and lokapalas, but maybe there's more to that term. Doesn't surprise me though that greek and norse concepts would be used to understand the buddhist ideas at first in the west. I'm fine with whatever consensus decides for this article really, but it does seem like there are various disadvantages with each name. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say thank you to the people who have been doing some useful work on the page lately. I'm starting to feel like an ishta-deva page might actually be workable and I hope the editors with experience of those aspects of buddhism will continue to work here. However, the 'yidam' material still is not at all sitting well with the rest. Over a thousand years of history doesn't conflate very easily and although I agree with Owlmonkey that there is problems with any of the possible terms, I do believe we need to address yidam as it's most widely known in the West. Since we have a category of 'yidams' with 14 articles in it, it would definitely be helpful to the WP reader to have a lead article on yidams.
By my count, we currently have 3 votes for a separate 'yidam' page, 1 vote against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones ( talk) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - are the two terms 'Yidam' and 'Ishta-deva' cognate? If so, one is a redirect to the other, _not_ two separate pages. Zero sharp ( talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
By my count, we currently have 3 votes (Larry Rosenfeld, Dakinijones and Chris Flynn) for a separate 'yidam' page, 2 votes (Sylvain1972 and Rudy01) against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones ( talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If it counts, I vote Keep - ie NO need for a separate 'yidam' page, on the basis that Shingon, Chinese, and Indian Buddhist tantra are all active, as well as historic, traditions that have ishtadevata. I don't like tutelary, though I may be persuaded by 'meditational deity'. Tutelary would only work for protectors, as it represents guardianship, or protection. ( 20040302 ( talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
OK... so we have a majority against a separate yidam page but also - as Sylvain pointed out - a majority against Ishta-deva. I propose that we take a look at all possible terms. And first we need to establish what they are. Since we are an English language wiki those terms need to be proven to be used by reliable English language sources before we can consider them. I suggest we do that by the proposer providing a quotation with full reference that demonstrates the use of the term. The rest of us can then either accept or reject the proposed term.
The term I'd like to propose is 'Buddha-form', which I came across recently and is used by Alexander Berzin and Dalai Lama XIV. (Although Bezin currently appears to favour 'Buddha-figure' which we might also like to consider.) Here's a quotation and reference:
Likewise, no matter how busy they are, no matter how many family and business responsibilities they may have, such disciples can find at least a few minutes to maintain the daily continuity of generating themselves in their imagination in the aspect of a Buddha-form and reciting the appropriate mantra. [1]
Does anyone have a technical objection to accepting this as one of our possible terms? We're only looking to establish here that it is a possible term - not that it's the best term. And does anyone have a quote and reference they'd like to offer to propose another term?
Dakinijones (
talk)
11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Buddha-form suggests (very strongly) Rupakaya. I object on that technical basis. How about Meditational Deity ? ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for all the great references... any chance you could offer us a quote for each... something that demonstrates how it is actually used? What I mean by technical is I'd just like to review all the possible terms and verify that they actually are terms in use in the English language for what we're talking about. And then after that compare them to see what's the most usuable... But to be honest, although that was my idea it seems like maybe it's too unwieldy or something and I'm not sure that's going to fly as there doesn't seem to be much interest besides me and you. So maybe we should just go for a discussion of whether or not the page should be moved to meditational deity? If you'd like to propose that I've no objections at all. Dakinijones ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
ETHER??? DUDE WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT ELEMENT FOR VAIROCHANA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.89.39 ( talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the aggregate of forms of physical phenomena (body), the five Buddha-families are associated with the five elements:
1. The Vairochana family represents earth. 2. The Ratnasambhava family represents water. 3. The Amitabha family represents fire. 4. The Amoghasiddhi family represents wind. 5. The Akshobhya family represents space.
Source:
@ Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, and Joshua Jonathan:
As Sanskrit equivalents for yi dam (ཡི་དམ) Lokesh Chandra's (1976) Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (p.२१४८ ) gives समादान [samādāna] The སཾ་བོད་རྒྱ་གསུམ་ཤན་སྦྱར་གྱི་ཚིག་མཛོད། (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary)(p 615) gives: སམཱདཱནི - ཡི་དམ། [samādāni] and Jeffery Hopkins gives: samādānatva.
Iṣṭadevatā is not found as the equivalent to yi dam (ཡི་དམ) in any reliable dictionary - and it seems Iṣṭadevatā is not at all a term actually used in Buddhist texts.
The citations currently used in the article to try and show Iṣṭadevatā is equivalent to Yidam seem to be very outdated and weak in comparison to these dictionaries.
The use of "Iṣṭadevatā" for Yidam just seems to be one of those many bits of misinformation left over from the 19th C / early 20th C assumption of an equivalence between Buddhist tantra and Hinduism (or that Buddhist tantra is the result of the "corruption" of Buddhism by Hinduism) which continue to be perpetuated. This really needs sorting out.
Chris Fynn ( talk) 08:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In the University of Oslo online Mahāvyutpatti database:
Sanskrit: dṛḍhasamādānaḥ ; Tibetan: yi dam la brtan pa; Chinese: 意堅畏; 所受堅固
And in the Yogācāra Glossary: ཡི་དམ་ཅན = samādāna
These just confirm what the Sanskit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries say. (again no iṣṭadevatā)
Chris Fynn ( talk) 14:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013) The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ( ISBN 978-0-691-15786-3):
"yi dam. In Tibetan, a term often translated as “meditational deity” or “tutelary deity.” In the practice of Buddhist tantra, it is the enlightened being, whether male or female, peaceful or wrathful, who serves as the focus of one’s SĀDHANA practice. One is also to visualize one’s tantric teacher (VAJRĀCĀRYA) as this deity. The term is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term. The etymology that is often given sees the term as an abbreviation of yid kyi dam tshig, meaning “commitment of the mind.” Traditionally, the yi dam is selected by throwing a flower onto a MAṆḌALA, with the deity upon whom the flower lands becoming the “chosen deity.” However, when one receives a tantric initiation, the central deity of that tantra typically becomes the yi dam, with daily practices of offering and meditation often required. Through the propitiation of the deity and recitation of MANTRA, it is said that the deity will bestow accomplishments (SIDDHI). In the practice of DEVATĀYOGA, one meditates upon oneself as that deity in order to achieve buddhahood in the form of that deity. The yi dam is considered one of the three roots (rtsa gsum) of tantric practice, together with the GURU and the ḌĀKINĪ: the guru is considered to be the source of blessings; the yi dam, the source of accomplishments; and the ḍākinī, the source of activities. These three roots are considered the inner refuge, with the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA being the outer refuge, and the channels (NĀḌĪ), winds (PRĀṆA), and drops (BINDU) being the secret refuge."
"The term [Yidam] is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term." OK this very recent source mentions iṣṭadevatā but it doesn't endorse it - we already know that it is sometimes identified with yidam - but on what basis? Chris Fynn ( talk) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Chris Fynn ( talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Yidam has been carried out. |
Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) → Yidam – This article was previously moved from it's original title "Yidam" to "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism)" on grounds of consistency with other related articles which have titles derived from Sanskrit - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually used in Buddhism and found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it does occur in some outdated western books which conflate Buddhist tantra with Hinduism). The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism - so I am requesting a move back to the original title: Yidam. for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @ Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, Joshua Jonathan, Dr. Blofeld, Rudyh01, Owlmonkey, 20040302, and Larry Rosenfeld: for comments Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(Please place any discussion on the proposal in this section.)
@
Anthony Appleyard: Your page move edit summary A page was previously moved from here (Yidam) to Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) on grounds of consistency with other related articles with titles derived from Sanskrit - bu...
was truncated. Can you formally close this with the non-truncated reason? Also note that an oppose !vote has been posted since you moved this. Thanks,
Wbm1058 (
talk)
16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
----
Thank goodness. This debate exhausted me back in 2008 and was one of the reasons I wasn’t around in 2014 to support the requested move. I wish I’d known the route to seek a request to move back then but like many editors I have limited time and health to put into understanding how things work behind the scenes. Thank you to everyone who devoted time and thought into resolving what had been such a long running impasse on editing this page. Dakinijones ( talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yidam. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
In Tibetan Buddhism, deities are not self-existing entities like gods. Each yidam both came from a practice text, possibly a terma, and is generated by practice. Each yidam has its own Body, Speech, and Mind. The body is the visualized form, the Speech is their sadhana and mantra, the Mind is their inherent Enlightened nature. To not include the practice category is to reduce the deity to an imaginary being, despite the fact the practice itself is part and parcel of the deity. Tibetan Buddhists speak of "practicing Vajrayogini" or "becoming Padmasambhava." If each Yidam were not itself a distinct practice, Vajrayana would be pointless. I'd point you to deity yoga, a major element of Tibetan Buddhism, but for some reason it's a redirect to a more general article. Skyerise ( talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Hummingbird, what is the intention of the "1 Yidams with accoutrements and attributes" section; it does not make any sense at all to me? rudy 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very little of this user's edits to this (and many, many other) articles make any sense, and seem to me to be original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.103.210 ( talk) 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This section is factual... however it would be more appropriate under Five Dhyani Buddhas (as those are the particular yidam in question) since this page is an overview of what a yidam is - not of each yidam's iconography. Any objection to me moving it to said page? Dakinijones ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Using a sanskrit name when a perfectly good English phrase exists and is in fairly common use seems to go against WP:Name convention. I really doubt anyone searches under Ishta Deva (Buddhism)... and if they don't add Buddhism they end up on the Hindu page. I'm proposing this page is moved to Meditational deity. Does anyone object? Oh... and any support would also be welcome! Dakinijones ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might help discussion if I posted here from WP:Name the general guideline for naming convention: Dakinijones ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
So in general - it says above from WP:Name - we optomise for readers over editors and for usuage in reliable sources in English. Nowhere does it mention going for consistency.
Nobody seems to be arguing with the fact that most users will be searching for yidam.
I'd like to see some evidence that reliable sources use the term with any frequency. The vast majority of English writing is from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and as far as I'm aware they say yidam or - more rarely - meditational deity. Academics writing about the tradition also use yidam in preference to Ishta-deva as far as I'm aware.
So the question is: which reliable sources - if any - use the term Ishta-Deva in preference to yidam? Dakinijones ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) BTW... I just checked and (with the obvious exception of the Sanskrit Dictionary) every single one of our sources/references uses the term Yidam. Dakinijones ( talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sylvain1972, please quote your source for 3 Roots as used in Vajrayana Buddhism. I have a reliable source saying there's evidence it's a Tibetan Buddhist formulation. Of course that source may be incorrect. But we need to see your reliably sourced evidence before we say different. I've corrected your edit back to what we have reliably sourced evidence for - please don't alter it again without citing your evidence.... preferably with a quote so we can all see the evidence for what it is. Dakinijones ( talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
We seem to read texts with totally different eyes. What you see as prooving one thing, I'm seeing as prooving another. That could make for some very productive work - for example, if you could find a good quote re use of the 3 Roots outside Tibetan Buddhism I would be delighted. We'd all know a bit more and WP would be a better resource. But currently we're mostly just arguing our different views here and not much growth is happening on the page. We don't seem to be finding ways to turn our different perspectives to our advantage in terms of producing a good page. We don't seem to be able to establish shared points of reference to work from. Since we so often seem to be talking at cross-purposes I think we may need to bring in a mediator if we're going to make progress with this page. Would a mediator be acceptible to you? Dakinijones ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the 3 roots. The general formulation is guru, yidam, protector Lama, yidam, khandro is a specifically Nyingma formulation - googling, it appears less than 300 times, guru, yidam, protector over 800 times. I'm happy for it to appear as guru, yidam, protector Dakinijones ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well no, the lama part isn't standard... as shown by the googling of guru, yidam, protector I linked above and which you seem to have ignored. (Of course there are plenty of reliable sources too). The English language formulation of the 3 Roots is most frequently guru, yidam, protector.
I googled "lama yidam chokyong" and the formulation appeared in that form only once in the English language (and that on a CZ web site). And in fact the 3 words appeared in the same sentence together less than 60 times. It appears that you may be misled by the fact that the originals are in Tibetan. We are talking about the English language formulation of the 3 Roots. If we presented "lama yidam chokyong" as a formulation we would be risking WP:OR, since it is a formulation not used by reliable sources... or any other sources for that matter.
If you wish to reference, in the 3 Roots section, the Tibetan language phrasing of the 3 Roots I have no objection at all - in fact I think that would make an excellent addition... although of course it will need to be the Wylie and not the Anglicised Tibetan you've given here, since that would only serve to confuse the reader. Dakinijones ( talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The most common usage in English is simply "deity." This would be the obvious choice under WP:Name, but for obvious reasons it fails Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The next most commonly used English term by far, as Google bears out, is Tutelary deity, which is an already existing article which makes passing reference to yidam and ishta-deva but covers a lot of other ground. I suppose we could subsume everything under a new article Tutelary diety (Buddhism), as was suggested. This would not be my preference, but if we can have a few editors familiar with Vajrayana topics weigh in and this option generates a degree of consensus, it is the solution I would be most amenable to.
As the Sanskrit original, Ishta-deva has "pan-Buddhist currency," as you mentioned, in a way that yidam doesn't. East Asian vajrayana does not derive from Tibet, it derives from India, or India-via-China. Not to mention, using yidam to talk about varjayana in India is misleading. I don't think breaking off Yidam as an article makes sense, because we are talking about the same fundamental phenomena (with variations) - it would be like having a separate article called "dgra bcom pa" to talk about arhat in a Tibetan context. Sylvain1972 ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
proposed title | Google search string | Google-reported hits |
ishta-deva | "ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki [7] | "about 1,710" |
"ishta devata" -"ishta-deva" +Buddhism -wiki [8] | "about 2,130" | |
"istadevata" -"ishta-deva" -"ishta devata" +Buddhism -wiki [9] | "about 2,150" | |
tutelary deity | "tutelary deity" +Buddhism -wiki [10] | "about 6,350" |
yidam | yidam +Buddhism -wiki [11] | "about 12,000" |
My understanding is very poor in this area, but isn't it so that the 'secret' tends to refer to the subtle body - and when referring to a three-fold formulation, it is more normal to refer to the basis, path and fruit anyway? If this is a rendering of the four-fold formulation of outer/inner/secret/ultimate, then surely the trikaya belongs to the ultimate refuge, not the secret. I don't have a published source to hand but I'm pretty certain that the secret refuge would normally be channels, winds and drops?
An early translation of Milarepa states "Breath, nervous energy and life-force are three. these three are the secret refuge. I delight in taking refuge in them"
"The Stages of A-khrid Meditation: Dzogchen Practice of the Bon Tradition - Page 33": "The secret (refuge) being the psychic channel, wind and bindu ..."
Also, Patrul Rinpoche states, in the Way of Great Perfection: "Crownned with the Three Jewels of the outer refuge, You have truly realised the three roots, the inner refuge; You have made manifest the three kayas, the ultimate refuge." - So here the identification of the Trikaya as being anything other than the ultimate refuge is refuted by Patrul Rinpoche himself. ( google of relevant page )
Tthe Rigpa wiki concurs with me - Rigpa's page So this suggests that it is wrong regardless of tradition. I will make the changes accordingly
( 20040302 ( talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
Larry Rosenfeld has made a suggestion which might help with this inpass: "I personally would vote for a WP page entitled Yidam whether it be this or another page; what to do with the seemingly less well-known, less well-sourced ishta-deva I'd leave for its advocates to contemplate and act on". Larry has recorded his vote and I'm adding mine to it.
I suggest that we create a Yidam page (or more precisely, we use the current Yidam redirect page) for an article on Yidam as used in Tibetan Buddhism. Anyone who wants to work on an Ishtadeva (Buddhism) page is welcome to continue working on this one here.
So far, that's two votes for. Any more votes for or against? Dakinijones ( talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern about using Yidam is that it is specific to Tibetan Buddhism, however Shingon Buddhism has the same basic form. Review for example some of the Shingon meditational deities on this web site. We really do need a common vajrayana concept for meditational deities which crosses or at least cross references both Tibetan and Japanese uses. There may still be some less well known chinese or korean forms too. So the Tibetan term Yidam would less appropriate to use to describe the Japanese usage, and the Japanese terms less appropriate for the Tibetan, yet if you review the deities they have many in common. So then a sanskrit term has the advantage of being neutral between the two major streams of vajrayana. I support keeping the content here. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, tutelary deity is an unfortunate comparison in my understanding of the subject. That seems closer to dharmapala and lokapalas, but maybe there's more to that term. Doesn't surprise me though that greek and norse concepts would be used to understand the buddhist ideas at first in the west. I'm fine with whatever consensus decides for this article really, but it does seem like there are various disadvantages with each name. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to say thank you to the people who have been doing some useful work on the page lately. I'm starting to feel like an ishta-deva page might actually be workable and I hope the editors with experience of those aspects of buddhism will continue to work here. However, the 'yidam' material still is not at all sitting well with the rest. Over a thousand years of history doesn't conflate very easily and although I agree with Owlmonkey that there is problems with any of the possible terms, I do believe we need to address yidam as it's most widely known in the West. Since we have a category of 'yidams' with 14 articles in it, it would definitely be helpful to the WP reader to have a lead article on yidams.
By my count, we currently have 3 votes for a separate 'yidam' page, 1 vote against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones ( talk) 11:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - are the two terms 'Yidam' and 'Ishta-deva' cognate? If so, one is a redirect to the other, _not_ two separate pages. Zero sharp ( talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
By my count, we currently have 3 votes (Larry Rosenfeld, Dakinijones and Chris Flynn) for a separate 'yidam' page, 2 votes (Sylvain1972 and Rudy01) against and Owlmonkey says he's happy to go with concensus. Any more votes or opinions? Dakinijones ( talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If it counts, I vote Keep - ie NO need for a separate 'yidam' page, on the basis that Shingon, Chinese, and Indian Buddhist tantra are all active, as well as historic, traditions that have ishtadevata. I don't like tutelary, though I may be persuaded by 'meditational deity'. Tutelary would only work for protectors, as it represents guardianship, or protection. ( 20040302 ( talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
OK... so we have a majority against a separate yidam page but also - as Sylvain pointed out - a majority against Ishta-deva. I propose that we take a look at all possible terms. And first we need to establish what they are. Since we are an English language wiki those terms need to be proven to be used by reliable English language sources before we can consider them. I suggest we do that by the proposer providing a quotation with full reference that demonstrates the use of the term. The rest of us can then either accept or reject the proposed term.
The term I'd like to propose is 'Buddha-form', which I came across recently and is used by Alexander Berzin and Dalai Lama XIV. (Although Bezin currently appears to favour 'Buddha-figure' which we might also like to consider.) Here's a quotation and reference:
Likewise, no matter how busy they are, no matter how many family and business responsibilities they may have, such disciples can find at least a few minutes to maintain the daily continuity of generating themselves in their imagination in the aspect of a Buddha-form and reciting the appropriate mantra. [1]
Does anyone have a technical objection to accepting this as one of our possible terms? We're only looking to establish here that it is a possible term - not that it's the best term. And does anyone have a quote and reference they'd like to offer to propose another term?
Dakinijones (
talk)
11:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Buddha-form suggests (very strongly) Rupakaya. I object on that technical basis. How about Meditational Deity ? ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for all the great references... any chance you could offer us a quote for each... something that demonstrates how it is actually used? What I mean by technical is I'd just like to review all the possible terms and verify that they actually are terms in use in the English language for what we're talking about. And then after that compare them to see what's the most usuable... But to be honest, although that was my idea it seems like maybe it's too unwieldy or something and I'm not sure that's going to fly as there doesn't seem to be much interest besides me and you. So maybe we should just go for a discussion of whether or not the page should be moved to meditational deity? If you'd like to propose that I've no objections at all. Dakinijones ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
ETHER??? DUDE WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT ELEMENT FOR VAIROCHANA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.89.39 ( talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the aggregate of forms of physical phenomena (body), the five Buddha-families are associated with the five elements:
1. The Vairochana family represents earth. 2. The Ratnasambhava family represents water. 3. The Amitabha family represents fire. 4. The Amoghasiddhi family represents wind. 5. The Akshobhya family represents space.
Source:
@ Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, and Joshua Jonathan:
As Sanskrit equivalents for yi dam (ཡི་དམ) Lokesh Chandra's (1976) Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary (p.२१४८ ) gives समादान [samādāna] The སཾ་བོད་རྒྱ་གསུམ་ཤན་སྦྱར་གྱི་ཚིག་མཛོད། (Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary)(p 615) gives: སམཱདཱནི - ཡི་དམ། [samādāni] and Jeffery Hopkins gives: samādānatva.
Iṣṭadevatā is not found as the equivalent to yi dam (ཡི་དམ) in any reliable dictionary - and it seems Iṣṭadevatā is not at all a term actually used in Buddhist texts.
The citations currently used in the article to try and show Iṣṭadevatā is equivalent to Yidam seem to be very outdated and weak in comparison to these dictionaries.
The use of "Iṣṭadevatā" for Yidam just seems to be one of those many bits of misinformation left over from the 19th C / early 20th C assumption of an equivalence between Buddhist tantra and Hinduism (or that Buddhist tantra is the result of the "corruption" of Buddhism by Hinduism) which continue to be perpetuated. This really needs sorting out.
Chris Fynn ( talk) 08:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In the University of Oslo online Mahāvyutpatti database:
Sanskrit: dṛḍhasamādānaḥ ; Tibetan: yi dam la brtan pa; Chinese: 意堅畏; 所受堅固
And in the Yogācāra Glossary: ཡི་དམ་ཅན = samādāna
These just confirm what the Sanskit-Tibetan and Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionaries say. (again no iṣṭadevatā)
Chris Fynn ( talk) 14:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013) The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ( ISBN 978-0-691-15786-3):
"yi dam. In Tibetan, a term often translated as “meditational deity” or “tutelary deity.” In the practice of Buddhist tantra, it is the enlightened being, whether male or female, peaceful or wrathful, who serves as the focus of one’s SĀDHANA practice. One is also to visualize one’s tantric teacher (VAJRĀCĀRYA) as this deity. The term is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term. The etymology that is often given sees the term as an abbreviation of yid kyi dam tshig, meaning “commitment of the mind.” Traditionally, the yi dam is selected by throwing a flower onto a MAṆḌALA, with the deity upon whom the flower lands becoming the “chosen deity.” However, when one receives a tantric initiation, the central deity of that tantra typically becomes the yi dam, with daily practices of offering and meditation often required. Through the propitiation of the deity and recitation of MANTRA, it is said that the deity will bestow accomplishments (SIDDHI). In the practice of DEVATĀYOGA, one meditates upon oneself as that deity in order to achieve buddhahood in the form of that deity. The yi dam is considered one of the three roots (rtsa gsum) of tantric practice, together with the GURU and the ḌĀKINĪ: the guru is considered to be the source of blessings; the yi dam, the source of accomplishments; and the ḍākinī, the source of activities. These three roots are considered the inner refuge, with the Buddha, DHARMA, and SAṂGHA being the outer refuge, and the channels (NĀḌĪ), winds (PRĀṆA), and drops (BINDU) being the secret refuge."
"The term [Yidam] is of uncertain origin and does not seem to be a direct translation of a Sanskrit term, although iṣṭadevatā is sometimes identified with the term." OK this very recent source mentions iṣṭadevatā but it doesn't endorse it - we already know that it is sometimes identified with yidam - but on what basis? Chris Fynn ( talk) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Chris Fynn ( talk) 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Yidam has been carried out. |
Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) → Yidam – This article was previously moved from it's original title "Yidam" to "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism)" on grounds of consistency with other related articles which have titles derived from Sanskrit - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually used in Buddhism and found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it does occur in some outdated western books which conflate Buddhist tantra with Hinduism). The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism - so I am requesting a move back to the original title: Yidam. for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @ Anam Gumnam, Dakinijones, Sylvain1972, Larry Rosenfeld, VictoriaGrayson, Joshua Jonathan, Dr. Blofeld, Rudyh01, Owlmonkey, 20040302, and Larry Rosenfeld: for comments Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(Please place any discussion on the proposal in this section.)
@
Anthony Appleyard: Your page move edit summary A page was previously moved from here (Yidam) to Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) on grounds of consistency with other related articles with titles derived from Sanskrit - bu...
was truncated. Can you formally close this with the non-truncated reason? Also note that an oppose !vote has been posted since you moved this. Thanks,
Wbm1058 (
talk)
16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
----
Thank goodness. This debate exhausted me back in 2008 and was one of the reasons I wasn’t around in 2014 to support the requested move. I wish I’d known the route to seek a request to move back then but like many editors I have limited time and health to put into understanding how things work behind the scenes. Thank you to everyone who devoted time and thought into resolving what had been such a long running impasse on editing this page. Dakinijones ( talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yidam. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
In Tibetan Buddhism, deities are not self-existing entities like gods. Each yidam both came from a practice text, possibly a terma, and is generated by practice. Each yidam has its own Body, Speech, and Mind. The body is the visualized form, the Speech is their sadhana and mantra, the Mind is their inherent Enlightened nature. To not include the practice category is to reduce the deity to an imaginary being, despite the fact the practice itself is part and parcel of the deity. Tibetan Buddhists speak of "practicing Vajrayogini" or "becoming Padmasambhava." If each Yidam were not itself a distinct practice, Vajrayana would be pointless. I'd point you to deity yoga, a major element of Tibetan Buddhism, but for some reason it's a redirect to a more general article. Skyerise ( talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)