Category talk:Lamas

This category 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

Buddhism

This category 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

Style for Lamas

Some articles under this category have "Lama" in the title, and some do not. From what I have seen on Wiki, in general, honorific titles are not used in article titles, or articles, exept for use in style boxes. I'd like to have a discussion on this and try to reach consensus on use. Many of the articles under this category do not even mention the word "Lama," which might be confusing to some, since that is the name of the category.

Does anyone know if there is a style box already for Buddhists, such as monks, etc? I have yet to find one, but a style box might be helpful to indicate various terms for address. --Dorje 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By comparision with Category:Popes all the popes there seem to have Pope in the title. Dali Lama/Pancen Lama is a similiar rank so I guess it should stay, (plus they are actually suposed to be reincarnations of that particular person).

I've created a sub-category for Category:Panchen Lamas. --Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it would probably be more helpful for readers if there is use of the varius honorifics, for several reasons. One being that many honorifics are also 'professional qualifications'; use of honourific may denote from someone else with that name; also it encourages the reader to think about the similarities and differences between correlating cultural positions.Janvalphagan 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the title seems appropriate since it actually denotes a specific qualification. Also, these types of titles are used with Theravada monks, Ajahn Chah Ajahn Sumedho etc. (Ajahn means teacher, a monk who has been ordained more than 10 years.) Obhaso 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style for Rinpoche

We have the same problem as described above with the use of the word "Rinpoche." Hopefully we can reach consensus in regards to both terms, and maybe the answer we come up with will work for both. --Dorje 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less convinced here. Are they the name they are typlically refered to as. If so keep. --Salix alba (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, "precious one." Epithet for a Tulku, that is, one who has intentionally taken rebirth in samsara to benefit sentient beings on the path to enlightenment. Sometimes this title is also given to spiritual teachers, who are not necessarily Tulkus, but are held in very high esteem by their students and/or have held hight position such as Abbot of important monasteries. --Dharmaling 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other often met title: Tulku (skt.: nirmanakaya; tib.: trul.ku). Literally, "Emanation body." Tulkus are Emanations of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas and are consciously reborn in samsara to the benefit beings. It implies high spiritual realisations. One of the most famous tulkus is the His Holiness the Dalai Lama. --Dharmaling 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]