Talk:Terma (Buddhism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism 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 Terma (Buddhism), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? 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.

I think the plural is terma, not termas. --Walter Fordham 03:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a "referendums/referenda" point? I think that if you are discoursing in english, they are termas. If you are discoursing in Tibetan, then I don't know how you construct the plural, but I'm willing to bet that it involves some combination of particles.

BTW, my edit also included substituting "teaching" for "text" most of the way through, since what is always hidden is the teaching, and the text is really the same as any other object - just a trigger.

--MrDemeanour 21:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I have a fear that there's a lot of OR going on in this article, or at best idiosyncratic terminology. I've tried to remove instances of one term 'elementally encoded' that I, personally, have not encountered before this article. Zero sharp 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Be fearless! Just because you have not encountered this term as yet does not mean that it does not exist. It is terminology that was revealed to me through samyama. It is my considered opinion that "elementally encoded" is a true representation and rendering of the conceptual meme into English. If you are unaware of the Terma Tradition and the Whispered Lineage, best leave that which is without your ken, well alone.
Huzzah (incorrigibly voiced as Torah)
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me be less ambiguous and less diplomatic: Unless you can provide a verifiable reference (and something that was revealed to you in meditation most certainly does NOT count, unless you can get published) citing this term, keep it OUT of these articles as it is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I also see this is not the first time this sort of thing has been pointed out to you. Zero sharp 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Elemental encoding" and "Aether"

I've removed these terms, because they are seriously idiosyncratic (neither is used in conventional Buddhist discourse, nor have I come across these usages in even unconventional Buddhist discourse). The phrase "elemental encoding" could mean anything, and doesn't link to anything. It's therefore totally unilluminating. The term "aether" is linked to a classical greek definition. Aether was considered to be something that really existed, and the term has been used in this article to mean the same as what the sources referred to as "space" or "the sky" - which isn't the same thing at all. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In some Buddhist schools the only thing that exists is space (which is sometimes not a thing but a placeholder for things): which is equated with mind, consciousness, continuity, sky; in some discourse this too is non-existent. Though, the elemental process of aether in the Hellenic traditions is directly cognate with the quintessential in the Vajrayana, Tantra and Bonpo traditions. If you are versed in the various processes of terma 'encoding' "concealing" and 'decoding' "revealing" the biographical history of tertons, the terms clarify. It is my considered opinion that in the English language these are one of the more appropriate English renderings of the Tibetan.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.149.2 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you writing as User:B9_hummingbird_hovering? Please sign your remarks.
I am content with the use of "encoding" to refer to the use of non-human scripts in terma texts. However "elemental encoding" is (as I said) idiosyncratic. If you are a scholar of Tibetan, then your considered opinion may be relevant; but if you are at odds with the views of other translators of Tibetan into English (you are), then your minority viewpoint is not grounds for reverting my changes.
The view that space "is the only thing that exists" is not held among Tibetan Buddhists, who more-or-less all profess Madhyamaka views. So to conflate "space" with a hellenistic "aether" is really very misleading. Your glosses also seem to rely on some implicit understanding of this hellenistic aether, one which is not elucidated usefully under Aether.
I'm at a loss with respect to your link to Duff; it doesn't clarify your remarks at all, as far as I can see. This is just obscurantism.
I'm not going to revert your revert just yet; I'm hoping someone else will join this discussion (or revert it themselves).
MrDemeanour (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My take is that the terms do not add to the article significantly to warrant trying to explain the usage. Further, since this is an encyclopedia, the point is not to try to break new ground and draw new conclusions (WP:OR). More to summarize the general thought. I'd leave the terms out unless they really are used generally in the field as a comparison. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are we linking as an "External Website" in the article to the Unicode 3.0 proposal by Lama Duff? I'm removing that again. Please discuss here. I can see using a specific page of it as a citation source for a point in the article -- it discusses terma marks in interesting ways for example -- but a Unicode 3.0 proposal for additional marks included in the standard doesn't fit as a general external link for a Terma article. See the Wikipedia:External_links article for more on those sections. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have once again removed this aether/encoding nonsense. Please don't add it back without some discussion and consensus.

MrDemeanour (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)