Talk:Milarepa

Tibetan names

How should we handle tibetan names like Jetsun Milarepa? My feeling is that especially where there is a conventional English spelling that should be used, and there is a case for using eg Wylie transliteration as well (as for example Pinyin is used in articles on Chinese topics as well as more common anglicized spellings , but what about wiriting it in Tibetan script, possibly as well? Billlion 18:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must add that Pinyin has been adopted so well in the English language that most Anglicized spellings are now obsolete. Even then, Anglicized spellings that are more common are still used on Wikipedia, e.g. Confucius, Mencius, etc. If we can do this for Pinyin, we can do this for Wylie, which is basically not used to name people or places outside of linguistics-related contexts. -- ran (talk) 00:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Doch, all academic papers on history, religion, and philosophy also use Wylie and only Wylie. It just so happens that fewer Anglophones read Tibetan than Chinese. While I agree that words that are well established yak, Dalai Lama, possible Milarepa, should be spelled as they are in English, the number of such words must be admitted to be no more than a dozen. Any one who claims that there is a well established spelling for Sangs-rgyas Rgya-mtsho in English is simply pulling my leg. Is it not better to use the Wylie before an erroneous spelling does in grain itself into English. --Nathan hill 13:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also repeat this post for the Benefit of clarity (since it is mainly about Mila), and refer interested readers to the Tibet discussion page.

You seem not to have minded my other changes to the Mi-la-ras-pa article, and indeed appear to have kept all of the Wylie (just moved to parentheses). So perhaps you did not find my edit so obnoxious as you have here implied. I admit I had qualms about Milarepa, because while not as well established as Dalai Lama it is certainly better established than Shigatse. If the encyclopedia had all of the Tibetan articles under the correct spelling, with ad hoc alternative spellings on redirect pages, or in parentheses this would seem far more scientifically acurate and truthful than to do the opposite. Those people who perfer incorrect spellings would sill be able to find their articles and although their innocent eyes would be exposed to the preceived infelicity which is the truth of Tibetan phonology, they could also sill see how these words are pronounced by ignorami.

p.s. I should point out that although Milarepa is well known Thöpaga (Thos-pa dga') is not, and how do you expect English speakers, who have no dierises (except in words like naiev where it has a different function) in their language to know what you mean by that diacritic.

p.s. I must be given some credit for not changing Gengis Khan to Činggis Qaɣan which is after all the correct spelling. --Nathan hill 13:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Milarepa Movie

I removed a link to the milarepa movie but it was just re-added. I had removed it as promotional. But I'd like other's opinions on this as well. The movie does present a traditional view of the biography of milarepa and I personally think it's a beautiful film, well executed, visually stunning, and not particularly controversial in its view. But I'm also wary of link spam and promotion on the Wikipedia generally. What do you think? Include it? Exclude it? If I don't hear any additional thoughts I may just remove it again after some time. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe create article "Milarepa (movie)" and add "otheruses" at the beginning?--Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Milarepa and the demons

Hi Owlmonkey, what is to be said about that link here Inviting the demon. (Milarepa, Tibetan Buddhism)(The Shadowissue) Judith Simmer-Brown, Parabola Vol.22 No.2 (Summer 1997) pp.12-18 ?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.27.48 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

could be used as a citation to add something about milarepa? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most probably. It can be used as an external link, too. that's what I did. Austerlitz -- 88.75.92.10 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it's more boarder-line as an external link. Have you read the WP:EL guidelines recently? I take the guideline to suggest that external links about the subject are ok if they're encyclopedic in nature. But when they just describe a particular aspect or add a piece of information, it's better to add what they point out in the article itself and use them as a citation instead. Otherwise, we would just include all citation sources as external links. So there is some kind of distinction between what is linked to in the external link section and what is a citation. I love Professor Simmer-Brown's writing, but that article she wrote is I think more of a citation source than an encyclopedic summary of Milarepa's life. But I leave it up to you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The following citation

" Having proclaimed the fearlessness which he had discovered in his

           practice, Milarepa followed the training given him by his guru. He 
           invited the demons to stay with him and to receive his hospitality. 
           He also challenged them to a friendly contest of teachings. 
           Ye ghosts and demons, enemies of the Dharma, I welcome you today! It 
           is my pleasure to receive you! I pray you, stay; do not hasten to 
           leave; We will discourse and play together. Although you would be 
           gone, stay the night; We will pit the Black against the White 
           Dharma, And see who plays the best. Before you came, you vowed to 
           afflict me. Shame and disgrace would follow If you returned with 
           this vow unfulfilled.(10)"

is just too long. Additionally the whole story -which to me has been the core of Milarepa's accomplishment- should be inserted into the article somehow. It is lacking.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.68.164 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the red link the four karmas still does not work.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.22.81 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In case somebody wants to produce a wikilink referring to the four karmas: Mahakala, The Mahakala and the Four Karmas of Transformation, Inviting the demon. (Milarepa, Tibetan Buddhism)(The Shadowissue) Judith Simmer-Brown, Parabola Vol.22 No.2 (Summer 1997) pp.12-18.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.253 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I humbly disagree that the demon story is at the core of his accomplishment. I do see it, however, as an excellent teaching on how tantric buddhism leans into emotional discord instead of renouncing emotionality. if you see the demons as aspects of one's own mind, there is a natural tendency to deny and push those aspects of one's self away. we don't like to see our shadow side, as jung suggested, but instead we deny it. yet here milarepa is saying to invite these aspects of ourself that we usually deny and overcome our fear of them, and low and behold they disappear on their own - it removes the energy that we've been giving them - except for the very last one which we have to put our very head into its mouth and offer ourselves up. I suspect that last demon represents ego-clinging itself, and reaching complete enlightenment requires overcoming that clinging to self. But however you interpret the story, it is a famous one and sums up quite a lot of the tantric view in my opinion concerning emotions. I don't think the four karmas relate particularly to that story though, aside from seeing activity as non-dual. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Milarepa played with himself while pitting the black against the white dharma. But one never knows. Maybe his black magic/sorcery-dharma played and discussed with his white magic/buddhist-karma. Is this tantric?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.253 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)