Talk:Hevajra Tantra: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
And if someone needs to know why Hevajra in Sakya is non-dual, in the two-part Hevajra tantra the first section is about the father and the second about the mother (Nairathmya). I need to find the exact quotation, think it's in Sonam Tsemo's tantra commentary. | And if someone needs to know why Hevajra in Sakya is non-dual, in the two-part Hevajra tantra the first section is about the father and the second about the mother (Nairathmya). I need to find the exact quotation, think it's in Sonam Tsemo's tantra commentary. | ||
That's nice but there was already a footnote about this. Sakyas might think it is non-dual but I have been told that all the Indian commentaries classify it as yogini/mother tantra. --[[User:Hankop|Hankop]] ([[User talk:Hankop|talk]]) 06:04, 20 September 2018 (CEST)' | |||
There are many different ways to classify the tantras based on the Tibetan traditions, maybe best to avoid using just one view and explain all views to avoid confusion. Anyone with a Sakya background -- where Hevajra is one of the main practices and where the Indian lineage is intact -- would find this information in contradiction unless it was specified. We should honor and respect all five Tibetan traditions rather than leave out different views.[[User:Kent|Kent]] ([[User talk:Kent|talk]]) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:56, 20 September 2018
Is this a general page on the Hevajra tantra cycle, or is this a page on the Hevajra Root Tantra aka the Two Segment as the quotation suggests? --Gyurmé 09:27, 13 July 2015 (CEST)
- Hi. The usual pattern would be that it would start with a general page for the whole cycle, as here, and then as we add more material we could create pages for the various texts in the cycle, with Hevajra Tantra becoming a 'section'. It might be good to keep the quotation here for the moment, but we need sections on history and lineage, texts in the cycle, etc. And what complicates things here is that, as you know, the root tantra has a long 'proper' title (i.e., Śrīhevajraḍākinījālasaṃvaramahātantrarāja), or is known more simply as Hevajrarāja Tantra, or by its nickname Two Segments, or even just as Root Tantra, but all that info could go in a separate page. Additional material is always welcome! --adam (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2015 (CEST)
BTW the Lamdre literature and the Sakya sunbums has many, many, Hevajra commentaries, both creation and completion stage commentaries. If we add all this to the page it could become extremely long so yes we should think about splitting this page soon.
Also use Toh. for the Tohoku reference prefix which is nice that they were included for finding the originals. Kent (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (CEST)
And if someone needs to know why Hevajra in Sakya is non-dual, in the two-part Hevajra tantra the first section is about the father and the second about the mother (Nairathmya). I need to find the exact quotation, think it's in Sonam Tsemo's tantra commentary.
That's nice but there was already a footnote about this. Sakyas might think it is non-dual but I have been told that all the Indian commentaries classify it as yogini/mother tantra. --Hankop (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2018 (CEST)'
There are many different ways to classify the tantras based on the Tibetan traditions, maybe best to avoid using just one view and explain all views to avoid confusion. Anyone with a Sakya background -- where Hevajra is one of the main practices and where the Indian lineage is intact -- would find this information in contradiction unless it was specified. We should honor and respect all five Tibetan traditions rather than leave out different views.Kent (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (CEST)