Talk:Terma (religion)

Terma

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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.

Duff, Tony (2000). Tibetan and Bhutanese Marks and Signs for Inclusion into Tibetan Unicode 3.0.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV

I NPOV tagged this article as it currently only presents the attitude towards terma within the tradition, and depicts it uncritically as a supernatural phenomenon. Academics are more likely to regard the terma phenomenon as a way of introducing new ideas or changes into Tibetan Buddhist doctrine that is made acceptable by appealing to the authority of their supposed authors and the status of the terma discoverer. I think Donald Lopez says something very similar in Prisoners of Shangrila while discussing issues of authority in the tradition. The article should be changed so as to make it clear that what is being presented is the view of the tradition and not established fact, and more skeptical attitudes should be mentioned as well. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to meet the criteria of a NPOV problem. The article has the appropriate qualifiers ("the tradition holds"). No one is suppressing the perspective of contemporary academia or anyone else-if you have material you want to add, just add it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Quite fine to add a section on what non-adherents think of this concept, with some cites. I doubt you'll have a problem with other editors here over such an inclusion, resulting in a NPOV dispute. Well, at least not from me. I'm sure even within nyingma lineages there are plenty who think of the practice in a diversity of ways or with skepticism of the official story. or at least I'm projecting that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this need rewriting in more academic manner with less insider jargon. As presently constituted parts of this article seem to be the production of a group of devotees or adherents of the tradition making it lack both credibility and neutrality.

Opinions, opinions, opinions

All these editors have opinions, founded in what? Definitely not in sadhana. When I glance over this article, the first time in ages today, all I see are my qualitative improvements, citations. The term, as the process, is 'elementally encoded'. Why haven't these editors, edited out the errors in style and punctuation and provided citations? Why, because they are lazy, lazy, lazy.
B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual relationship to Theosophy

This concept is utilized extensively in Theosophy, in particular with respect to the Book of Dzyan. The idea of secret stores of text and knowledge hidden away from profane eyes in deep caves and underground establishments in the heart of Tibet, until the time is appropriate for revelation to humanity, is alluded to repeatedly by Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine. Perhaps some link should be established between the articles, or at least a mention.

Antitab (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terma (Buddhism & Bon) → Termas — The target page is currently a badly-formed DAB. It contains a link to Termas (buddhism), which redirects here, and definitions of the Spanish word termas and the Portuguese word thermas. If these inappropriate links are removed, only this page will remain. Cnilep (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose it's a plural form redirect to a dab page now. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the plural form is usually "terma." Besides, this would be in direct violation of WP: Naming conventions (plurals), which states, " In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 July 2010

I withdraw the nomination, per discussion above and my comment below. Given the existence of Terma (The X-Files episode), the disambiguator is necessary. Cnilep (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

On second thought: the page Terma is a proper DAB page, with four links. There is suggestion above that terma and not termas is the plural of terma. I have redirected Termas to Terma, and I'm thinking about withdrawing the nomination. Cnilep (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Terma (religion). 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.

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.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I've added a couple more citations to Tulku Thondup's "Hidden Teachings of Tibet", and removed some citation-needed tags.

Thondup's book is entirely about the terma tradition, and is a pretty comprehensive explanation. Along with the citations and quotes from Fremantle, this article is well-supported by sources. It doesn't make sense to cite each of a succession of claims to the same work; if an entire section is supported by the same source, then a citation at the end of the section is sufficient.

For some people, I guess terma is woo, so any source explaining terma must also be woo. If these sources can't be accepted as authoritative, then WP wouldn't be able to say anything about the terma tradition (nor many other mystical traditions). That would be unfortunate.

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You put citations inside a blockquote. The only citation a blockquote should have is the citation for the quotation at the end. I've removed them. Skyerise (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]