Talk:Bön

Um, what is the point of this article? Am I missing it? ħuman 06:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't religion in general mission-relevant? Especially reasonably high-level information like this, an article about a whole religion. (If I was to contribute an article on the theological influence of Peter Abelard, that might not be so well received.) If you are looking for the alleged quackery angle, one could look at the popularity of Tibetan medicine, Tibetan astrology, the mechanistic and magical nature of Tibetan worship... as a former dilettante of Tibetan Buddhist, I can remember being taught "say this mantra 111,111 times... and then bow before this statute 84,000 times..." and so on we go. Of course, that was Buddhism, not Bön.... but, I think you will find that in all these elements that people here might want to criticize, Vajrayana and Bön are pretty similar. So, I think this article should be kept, as useful background information to those debates. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WP links

Are WP links necessarily wrong? Faced with a complex topic like this, it seems reasonable to expect that RW would provide a high-level overview, call out some specific issues that would be of interest to RW readers, but not go into the fine detail which WP will. So, doesn't it make sense for the RW article to link to WP for some of that finer detail? Will we ever have an article on "chorten" for instance? (Although, I'd suggest there we should clarify with the non-Tibetan term stupa, which more readers will be familiar with... and what wp:chorten #REDIRECTs to anyway...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)