Talk:Tara (Buddhism)

Buddhism Top‑importance

	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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tara in China[edit]

I know from personal experience that Tara is actually rather well-known at least in western China (Yunnan/Sichuan/Qinghai), it's just, they don't know her name, but refer to her as 绿皮母 (lǜpímǔ), 白皮母 (báipímǔ), which means like "green-skinned mother"/"white-skinned mother". If someone happens to have sources backing this up, I could add it to the article. --Natsymir

Tara is not just Tibetan[edit]

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)

The first picture on the main page is not Green Tara (it's mislabeled) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.47.120 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first image of Samaya Tara Yogini may or may not be a form or Green Tara. Generally "Samaya Tara" refers to one of the five female buddhas, who is not a form of Tara. There are many buddhist deities with identical names, but different identities. For instance "Maitreya" can refer to Buddha Maitreya, or one of the archetypal bodhisattvas. "Samantabhadra" can refer to Buddha Samantabhadra, or one of the archetypal bodhisattvas and so forth. Here Samaya Tara Yogini is depicted as the central figure of a practice, which likely belongs to the anuttarayogatantra category. That is to say, even if the form depicted would turn out to be a form of Tara, which is entirely plausible, it is not a widely practiced form of Tara, and therefore is not very representative of the subject matter of this article.Tritonist Dec 17, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you and will swap the first two images for now. Some attention needs to be given to image placement on this article. Yworo (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing content[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Wikify please[edit]

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)[reply]

Ekajati[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Fruitional[edit]

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

Mother of compassion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Puzzling about Red Tara practice[edit]

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)[reply]

Buddha or Bodhisattva?[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

So should we move this page to "Tārā (Buddhism)" at this point? - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Female Buddhas have existed[edit]

Many women have been enlightened, but their presence/achievement have often been obliterated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question on the Sanskrit -[edit]

Is the correct name Tara or Taaraa? The version with short vowels is usually translated as either to carry over or liberator. Here is an easy to use, but perhaps not scholastic on-line dictionary entry: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=tara&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=SE and http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=star&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=ES

65.78.143.25 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Bill[reply]

Existence of gods and goddesses in early Buddhism[edit]

as Buddhism was originally a religion devoid of goddesses, and in fact deities, altogether. Possibly the oldest text to mention a Buddhist goddess is the Prajnaparamita Sutra (translated into Chinese from the original Sanskrit ca. 2nd century CE), around the time that Mahayana was becoming the dominant school of thought in Indian and Chinese Buddhism.

These statements show a clear lack of knowledge about Indian and Chinese Buddhism in their early stages. For one, male and female devas have always been a part of Buddhist cosmology and appear in the earliest stratum of Buddhist texts including the Pali Canon and the Agamas of the early Buddhist schools. This is basic Buddhism that anyone should know, that there are many realms of heavens in Buddhist cosmology, that are inhabited by male and female deities (devas) who appear in the early scriptures.

Second, the 2nd century CE Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra translation mentioned in the passage above has no reference whatsoever to Prajnaparamita as a personified goddess, only to Prajnaparamita as one of the Six Paramitas and the central Paramita for the practice of the Bodhisattva Path.

Third, Mahayana was not becoming the dominant school of thought in Indian Buddhism or in Chinese Buddhism in the 2nd century CE. On the contrary, all scholars in the field acknowledge that Mahayana was a smaller movement in India at this time, and that Chinese Buddhism did not distinguish Hinayana from Mahayana until some time after. The Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra translation that is being touted as corresponding with the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism as the dominant doctrine, was in fact part of the first stratum of Buddhist texts ever translated into Chinese, and Buddhism was not even really established in the country before this.

This material is very strange and out of touch with basic facts of Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]