Talk:Samantabhadra (Bodhisattva)

Untitled

Say, when Samantabhadra is described as "Lord of the Law", what sense of "law" is this? The possibilities that I can think of are dharma (often rendered as law in East Asian translations) or the vinaya. I'd like to make this more clear in the article. - Nat Krause 05:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DDB* refers to 理, which is actually different from both vinaya (律) and dharma (法). Jpatokal 09:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

* http://www.acmuller.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?66.xml+id('b666e-8ce2')

I'm not to sure about the structure of this article. Since the most common perception (that I come across) seems to be that the bodhisattva samantabhadra and the buddha samanthabadra are different enteties, would it not be better to start out with two sections. One for the buddha and one for the bodhisattva. Then, after that one may include a discussion on whether they are in fact one and the same but with different conotations in different cultural context.--Mindzpore 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article that Samantabhadra is so regarded in esoteric traditions. The majority of Buddhists either regard S. as a disciple of Buddha (SE Asia's Theravada) or a bodhisattva (Chinese, Korean and Japanese Mahayana), the esoteric traditions (Tibetan, Mongolian and Japanese Vajrayana, Shingon) being much smaller numerically. --Fire Star 火星 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing the Dharmakaya Buddha and the Bodhisattva

There should be either separate sections or pages for these two Samantabhadras. The current page makes it look as if the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra doesn't exist in Vajrayana. This is not so. The two deities are acknowledged in Vajrayana as well. Jmlee369 09:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They are unambiguously two different figures with the same name, not two aspects of the same figure. They should be discussed in two separate articles. Tritonist (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is very confusing

It confuses Buddha Samantabhadra with Bodhisattva Samantabhadra. Both exist in Vajrayana but are very different. Other points to note:

• "certain Tantric Buddhist sects (namely, the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra, rÑiŋ-ma and Bön)" - makes no sense - for one, Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra is a tantra belonging to Dzogchen series of teaching found in Ningmapa, together with dozens of other tantras where Samatabhadra is considered the main figure;
• "Among those esoteric traditions that treat Samantabhadra as the Primordial Buddha, he is always represented naked, with a dark blue body, in union with his consort Samantabhadri." - the last part is of course not true - there are plenty of single Samantabhadra images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you be bold and change it. If you can source what you are saying, why not go for it? Best of luck. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to change the article as someone may later modify it later as they want. It's a waste of time. It's better to mark the point on the discussion page, which usually is kept unmodified, so that interested people can see that the article is wrong (if they bother to check the discussion - I always do; if there is a lot of discussion regarding something, it means I should investigate more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you make the change and can cite a source, that will usually keep it from being changed. If you can't cite a source, you may not want to contribute to the article yet anyways. --87.238.84.64 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Zahorma hat

http://aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/c/ctr_ph_04_eng.php in the tradition of Chag’düd Tulku Rinpoche (http://www.snowcrest.net/chagdud/) Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche

http://www.aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/c/crx_ph_02_eng.php - Chatral Rinpoche

http://aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/c/crr_ph_11_03_making_hat_eng.php

Somewhere I've read that there also is a Dorje Zahorma hat of Padmasambhava.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.86.188 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• [1]

-- 88.72.30.46 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For Correctness, the second full paragraph should be changed "In the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, Samantabhadra is ALSO THE NAME OF THE primordial Buddha in indivisible yab-yum union with his consort Samantabhadri."

Both the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra and the Primordial Buddha Samantabhadra are represented in the mandala of 100 peaceful and wrathful deities.

Lazzara399 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

---

[..] Kunsang significa “perfecto en todo” o “siempre perfecto”. Es la abreviación de Kuntunsangpo (en sanscrito Samanthabadra), el Buda primordial, origen de todos los linajes, Kuntunsangpo se muestra iconográficamente como un buda desnudo de color azul profundo cielo. Sin embargo no representa a una persona, sino a la naturaleza búdica misma, la pureza inalterable de la mente que es la naturaleza esencial de todos los seres. Normalmente esta naturaleza esta oculta y es el maestro quien puede ayudarnos a descubrirla en nosotros mismos en su gloriosa desnudez. [..]

"Las Palabras de mi Maestro Perfecto. Patrul Rinpoche."

http://guaridadeyoguis.blogspot.com/search/label/Kuntuzangpo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.81.195 (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Esto no es correcto. Aunque el nombre es el mismo en sanscrtito, el bodhisattva es diferente al dharmakaya Samantabhadra citado el texto de Patrul. Ya que ambos tienen el mismo nombre es fácil que se confundan pero no son en absoluto lo mismo ni una transformacion del mahayana indio que ocurrió en el tibet ya que en el vajrayana tibetano existen ambos el bodhisatva del mahayana y el dharmakaya del Dzogchen. No deben ser confundidos sino que debe haber una aclaración en la enciclopedia de este error común por alcance de nombre.

Regarding Samantabhadra even though the name in sanskrit is the the same, the bodhisattva is different from the dharmakaya samantabhadra quoted by Patrul. Both have the same name and it is common to conflate both but they are not the same at all nor a transformation of the indian mahayana bodhisattva that happen in tibet since in the tibetan vajrayana both exist, the mahayana bodhisattva and the dharmakaya in the dzogchen tradition. They must not be conflated but a clarification should be made in order to warn about the common mistake due to both of them having the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.49.14 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus and not relisted. Doing a PrefixIndex search, there is no other clear candidate for WP:PRIMARY other than this. I suggest that a redirect from the redlink to this article is appropriate for now. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Samantabhadra → Samantabhadra (bodhisattva) – There are other Samantabhadra as well. Therefore, I propose converting thispage into a disambiguation -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I'm not familiar with the topic, this article seems like a WP:PRIMARY topic and should carry the undecorated name. Other articles (as can be detected via Prefix) can be listed on Samantabhadra (disambiguation), and linked by a hatnote, like I just did. No such user (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Maintain the 'talk'?

Since it s over 10 years for some talk, is it good to maintain this page during some way? Now the reading is a bit hard.Mahengrui1 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting

Samantabhadra Bodhisattva and Samantabhadra Buddha both are very different deities. I think it was confusion for earlier editors, only because there names are same. It is very confusing and wrong to give information about two completely different topics in one single article page. Is it a good idea?JaMongKut (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am against because currently the whole section called Esoteric Buddhism is supported by just one reference and reads like OR. And the ref we do have doesn’t seem to fully support the conclusion drawn from it. I think it would be premature to split when the article hasn’t yet clarified the proposed lack of any links at all between the Mahayana and the Vajrayana approaches to Samantabhadra. Would like to see a (referenced) exploration of the fact that Esoteric Buddhists are also mahayanists. Dakinijones (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and I would also like to see a referenced discussion of why the two forms of Samantabhadra are very different as it would be good to learn more about a branch of Buddhism I’m less familiar with. Dakinijones (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dakinijones: Sorry, I forgot about these and hence, don't see it. I was just wandeing, and came here and see my splitting suggestion discussion now. Sorry for being late to respond. Okay, talking about the subject, This is not just different approech of Vajrayana and Mahayana, Yeah, it's the case with Tara that Mahayana consider her as still Bodhisattva, while Tantra consider her as a Buddha. But this is not the case with Samantabhadra, both Samantbhadra Buddha and Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, are two unrelate different deities sharing the common name. Both are well known, even too the Tantra world Samantabhadra bodhisattva is still a bodhisattva in Vajrayana also, along with the different Samantabhadra Buddha, only the name is same. Searching now, as you asked for sources, I got this one, in which it is clearly mentioned. Thankyou so much. Please share your views. I'd like to have discussion on the topic,Esoteric Buddhists are also mahayanists, I've few points to tell, but let's end up this first JaMongKut (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh my god, I myself was not aware of above discussions, above also same discussions happens in history, we can take reference from these discussion also. JaMongKut (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Taipeh Longshan-Tempel Mitteltempel Halle 8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)