Talk:Mahasiddha

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I vote YES. Sure, the articles should be merged.--Klimov 09:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article should be merged with Siddha, as both of these articles have dealt with basically same subject matter.Joy1963 09:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote NO. There seems to be a qualitative difference between the terms Siddha and Mahasiddha. E.g. terms Raja (prince) and Maharaja (king) seem different. They denote different concepts. --Klimov 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote NO. I would be generally adverse to such a merger because the referents (siddha and mahasiddha) are quite different in common usage. Siddha generally refers any realized being and more specifically it is closely associated with the Tamil tradition. Mahasiddha is generally used in reference to a limited group of tantric adepts living primarily in the Pala period. Any merger would need to make these distinctions sufficiently clear and -all- the information from both entries would need to be preserved. The merger would seem only to cause unnecessary confusion and would almost certainly result in unwarranted conflation. Thecontemplative (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice that Marpa and Milarepa, while mentioned in the article, are not actually on the list of mahasiddhas. I question the validity of that whole paragraph, for that reason (I also didn't think that they were technically part of the 84 mahasiddhas, regardless of their realisation), and also because I have heard that Milarepa has his hand to his ear in order to listen out and hear the suffering of those still stuck in samsara.

Does anyone know more about this? If no one does, I think I will add at least a disclaimer. 66.222.49.191 23:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I know, Marpa and Milarepa were not part of the 84 mahasiddhas. The 84 were all from India, AFAIK. Marpa and Milarepa were Tibetans. Victor Klimov 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the entry is mahasiddhas, of whom the "caturasiti-siddha" (84 siddhas) are an important example. However, the list of 84 is exemplary and not meant to be exhaustive. Moreover, while Abhayadatta's list is an important one, other (differing) lists of the 84 mahasiddhas exist, including Buton's, Vajrasana's and Srisena's. There are other lists that contain different numbers of mahasiddhas (8, 50, 100). See for instance: http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/mahasiddha/index.html There seems to be nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that there are other mahasiddhas besides the 84 listed in Abhayadatta’s work. Some of the mahasiddhas who revealed important tantras (to the human-realm) are not even included in this list, and yet they are clearly more important to the Vajrayana tradition than many individuals who are on one of the versions of the list of 84. Thecontemplative (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best known example is of course the Tales of the EightyFour Adepts (Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus, P5091) translated by Robinson (1979) and Dowman (1985). Other later examples from the Tibetan canonical collections include five short �akhy�ana (gtam rgyud) and one pravr.tti (lo rgyus) translated by Vinaya�sr�ı(D4339–4344), and the introductory section of Laks.m�ınk�ara’s Commentary on the Attainment of Coemergence,(Lhan cig skyes grub kyi gzhung ’grel, D2261), in which the author relates stories of the liberation of five female and eight male yogic practitioners in the lineage of Sahaja teachings, and the Four and a half Verses (Tshigs su bcad pa phyed dang lnga, D2278) of N�ag�arjunas�ara, in which tales of sixteen monks, brahmins, and tantric adepts are told to emphasize various ethical and spiritual themes bridging the s�utras and the tantras. ^[1]

"Mahasiddha" is a great siddha. Siddha, in turn, means a holder of "siddhi", or accomplishments. All of the Mahasiddhas were therefore known for their great attainments - Virupa is unremarkable in that respect.

MrDemeanour (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to immobilize the sun in the sky, in order to prevent sunset, would seem to be a remarkable siddhi. There are many other siddhis attributed to Virupa and I cannot imagine why you would say he is "unremarkable in that respect". In addition to such "powers" the term siddhi also refers to realization, and once again I am baffled as to why the fountainhead of the margaphala (lam 'bras) tradition would be “unremarkable in that respect”. I hope you are not just denigrating the founder of another tradition for sectarian reasons.Thecontemplative (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: to say that Virupa was famous for his great accomplishments, means only that he was famous for being a Mahasiddha; they were *all* famous for their great accomplishments, by definition.

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intent now. I apologize for the misinterpretation as well as the implication regarding your possible motivation. Thecontemplative (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32.97.110.142 (Talk)  (remove long quote from lead, summary of essential points would be sufficient) 

There is simply now way that the lead "summery of essential points" is sufficient. The quote contains a great deal if useful infomation. Frankly, it seems pointless to even include the so-called "summary" if the quote is not included, as it contains no real information. I feel strongly that the quote should be reinstated.

Series editor Robert A.F. Thurman, in the preface to Gray (2007: ix-x), contrasts the Tantric communities which subsumed the coteries of Mahasidda with universities such as Nalanda and mentions saiñnyãsin (Sanskrit) and sadhu (Sanskrit):

The Tantric communities of India in the latter half of the first Common Era millennium (and perhaps even earlier) were something like “Institutes of Advanced Studies” in relation to the great Buddhist monastic “Universities.” They were research centers for highly cultivated, successfully graduated experts in various branches of Inner Science (adhyatmavidya), some of whom were still monastics and could move back and forth from university (vidyalaya) to “site” (pitha), and many of whom had resigned vows of poverty, celibacy, and so forth, and were living in the classical Indian saiñnyãsin or sãdhu style. I call them the "psychonauts" of the tradition, in parallel with our “astronauts,” the materialist scientist-adventurers whom we admire for their courageous explorations of the “outer space” which we consider the matrix of material reality. Inverse astronauts, the psychonauts voyaged deep into “inner space,” encountering and conquering angels and demons in the depths of their subconscious minds.Thecontemplative (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dampa Sangye included in the list of 84 Mahasiddhas? If yes, why it is not in the list in this article? If no, why has he been called Mahasiddha in the article about him? Need some clarification. Thanks. -- 49.136.245.25 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. I just added the tags for a Buddhism box on the article page. Best, AD64 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also added tags for Wikiproject Biographies and WikiProject Indian to the talk page. Best, AD64 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the wikilink to Manibhadra in the list of the 84 Mahasiddhas as it directs readers to a page on the yaksha Manibhadra, not the female Mahasiddha Manibhadra.

Anyone up for creating an article on Manibhadra? I'd be willing to collaborate. Best, AD64 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahasiddha. 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/20130201193403/http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/lamdre.pdf to http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/lamdre.pdf

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.

• 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) 10:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section should be removed.

Tibetans certainly revere the Indian mahasiddhas; but they don't group this list of Tibetan masters with the mahasiddhas. Also, if you're going to put a terton in there as a mahasiddha, then where are all the other tertons?

The section is uncited, so I'm free to remove it without notice; but I'll give people a few days to come up with citations for these masters being equivalent to mahasiddhas.

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're unable to find sources? Or that you can't be bothered to look? Skyerise (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]