Talk:Padmasambhava

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Padmasambhava. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125123308/http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=17074 to http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=17074
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209101244/http://www.rangjung.com/books/lotus-born.htm to http://www.rangjung.com/books/lotus-born.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So many gross errors

Whats with all of the errors ?

I corrected them per qualified scholars, and the corrections were reversed.

I also corrected misstatements attributed to a source. That's even more disturbing. This is an honor system, we can't just create fictional narratives and pretend its what the source states.

Do we need to debate each point, or are the corrections self-evident? Metokpema (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi here's the topic. Respond here as an editor, and stop leaving threats and accusations on my talk page. Metokpema (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ixudi Ok, You refused. You didn't bother to answer this note on your own talk page, but went for another revert. That's hostile behaviour. I see you've been cited already for edit warring, and you're doing it again after I opened the talk topic to stop your edit warring.

I read the Padmasambhava page a few years ago, when it was well written and sourced. The lede and following paragraphs are now embarrassing for an encyclopedia, and contradict unerased facts further into the page as if those facts haven't been deleted yet. It's now junk.

Your notes on reverting my corrections are not factual, another technique of edit warring. First you complained on the 'serious changes' now its deleted sources. No sources were deleted.

van Schait is still a source, but his scholarship is questionable. His fantasy of Padmasambhava being asked to leave Tibet is unsupported by any research I have read, and I have read a lot. His POV is hostile as is the POV of the editor who wrote the lede and following paragraphs. He's the latest Chinese go-to for disinformation cloaked as scholarship.

Your reverts are supporting hostile POVs and fantasy narratives. Why? For whom?

It's clear your depth of scholarly knowledge of Tibet's history and Tibetan Buddhism is shallow. To grasp onto incorrect information so much so that you're edit warring suggests more than just shallow understanding. What's going on Ixudi ?

I am not really interested in the other aspects of your edits however I disagree with you removing the source from Sam Van Schaik. As long as reliable sources are not removed from the article and fringe theories are not introduced, I am happy with the article remaining as is.Ixudi (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here. Interestingly, van Schaik's opinion appears to be the 'fringe' opinion, according to the page's sources and according to the page's lengthy list of biographies on Padmasambhava. As such, the lede is not the place for fringe theories. Metokpema (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if you disagree with him. You cannot unilaterally remove what is considered to be a reliable source. You can include other sources that demonstrate a different viewpoint however. Ixudi (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the source is not removed, just their fringe theory that has been deleted repeatedly. A reputable scholar would not posit that nothing is known about Padmasambhava since it is really not possible that they've not noticed volumes on his life, some of which are included on the lengthy list of biographies here on the page, making van Schaik's statement, misplaced in the lede, appear rather ridiculous. And political. And furthermore, three pages of their one book is cited excessively, so claiming a source has been removed is not correct. Metokpema (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First, quite a few of the cited biographies are actually Vajrayana religious writings, which makes them unreliable; relying on them is POV. Second, you very well can write a lengthy text listing what is narrated about a person who is nonetheless non-historical - it's enough for people to have told a lot of stories about the fictitious person. Third, I see that the title of one of the texts is literally 'Padmasambhava est-il un personnage historique?', which shows that there is a controversy worth discussing; von Schaik's view appears to be an expression of one of the two sides in the controversy. Fourth, even a minority view ought to be mentioned if the source is reliable; an opinion is rarely so 'fringe' as to deserve not to be mentioned at all if a genuinely reliable source espouses it. The icing on the cake were the hints above that the other editor must be paid by the PRC - because what other reason would any person in the world possibly have for denying that the doctrines and religious narratives of Vajrayana Buddhism are literally true? It's either Vajrayanism or Maoism - there is no third option for a human being. --~2025-38000-28 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I support your view here. Please make the changes you wish to in the article and I can look to change them around if needed. Ixudi (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Funny

'Padmasambhava himself was recorded as saying he was a historical person, and his footprints left in rocks are evidence.'

That's hilarious. I'm sure Heracles, Medusa, Adam and Eve would have confirmed that they were historical persons, too, if it had occurred to anyone to ask them. And I wonder what proves that Padmasambhava's footprints in the rocks weren't actually left by Heracles, could we tell the difference? Of the two sources cited for this claim, one seems to be a religious hagiographic source; citing such a source as reliable is absurd. As for the other one, I highly doubt that it really says such nonsense at face value, unless it, too, is actually religious. I'm getting the impression that this article is written from a Vajrayana religious POV instead of NPOV. ~2025-38000-28 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I left this article wondering if it is the policy of Wikipedia for articles about religion to adopt at length a tone of credulity. Tom Haws (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Works attributed to Padmasambhava

While I was browsing some bookselling websites, I came across some books supposedly written by Padmasambhava (e.g. "Treasures from Juniper Ridge") that are not mentioned on this page. I think a "Works" section would improve this page, likely with a note on possible pseudepigrapha such as that seen on the Nagarjuna page.

I'm not too familiar with the subject matter so I wanted to ask: is there a reason there isn't a "Works" section already?

Exhailx (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)