text:
Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Sanskrit: लिंकावतारसूत्र, "Discourse of the Descent into Laṅkā", ལང་ཀར་བཤེགས་པའི་མདོ་, Chinese: 入楞伽經) is a prominent Mahayana Buddhist sūtra. It is also titled Laṅkāvatāraratnasūtram (The Jewel Sutra of the Entry into Laṅkā, Gunabhadra's Chinese title: 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 léngqié ābáduōluó bǎojīng) and Saddharmalaṅkāvatārasūtra (The Sutra on the Descent of the True Dharma into Laṅkā). A subtitle to the sutra found in some sources is "the heart of the words of all the Buddhas" (一切佛語心 yiqiefo yuxin, Sanskrit: sarvabuddhapravacanahṛdaya).

The Laṅkāvatāra recounts a teaching primarily between Gautama Buddha and a bodhisattva named Mahāmati ("Great Wisdom"). The sūtra is set in mythical Laṅkā, ruled by Rāvaṇa, the king of the rākṣasas. The Laṅkāvatāra discusses numerous Mahayana topics, such as Yogācāra philosophy of mind-only (cittamātra) and the three natures, the ālayavijñāna (store-house consciousness), the inner "disposition" (gotra), the buddha-nature, the luminous mind (prabhāsvaracitta), emptiness (śūnyatā) and vegetarianism.

The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra was often quoted and paraphrased by Indian philosophers like Chandrakirti and Shantideva, and it also figured prominently in the development of East Asian Buddhism. It is notably an important sūtra in Zen Buddhism, as it discusses the key issue of "sudden enlightenment". The text survives in one Sanskrit manuscript from Nepal as well as in Tibetan and Han Chinese translation.

Overview and main themes

Various scholars like DT Suzuki and Takasaki Jikido have noted that the text is somewhat unsystematic and disorganized, resembling the notebook or commonplace book of a Mahayana master which recorded important teachings. According to Takasaki Jikido, the Lanka "is, as often said, merely a mosaic collection of small parts put at random within the frame of a sutra."

The present Sanskrit edition contains ten chapters and most scholars consider the introductory chapter (the "Ravana" chapter), the ninth chapter (a dharani) and the last chapter (the Sagathakam verses) as being later additions. Furthermore, not all versions of the sutra contain these chapters (1, 9, 10). However, some verses found in the Sagathakam are also duplicates and are found within the main body of the sutra. Takasaki Jikido has argued that these verse portions might actually be the earliest core of the sutra, around which prose explanations grew.

The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra draws on and explains numerous important Mahayana Buddhist concepts including the philosophy of Yogācāra school, the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā), and the doctrines of buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha), and the luminous mind (prabhāsvaracitta). In the introduction to the sutra (the nidana), the sutra outlines some key teachings which will be expounded on, "the Five Dharmas and the Three Inherent Natures (pañcadharmasvabhāva), the Eight Consciousnesses (vijñāna) and the Two forms of Selflessness (nairātmyādvaya)." Indeed, the sutra later states that within this set of teachings is included "all of the Mahayana".

According to Nguyen Dac Sy, the most important doctrines of the Laṅkāvatāra are the primacy of consciousness (Skt. vijñānavada), the teaching that consciousness as the only reality and that "all the objects of the world, and the names and forms of experience, are manifestations of the mind" as well as the "identification of the Buddha-nature (in the state of tathāgatagarbha) with ''alayavijñāna". ''

Other topics discussed in the sutra include Buddhist vegetarianism, the theory of icchantikas, the wrong views of non-buddhists (tirthikas, especially Samkhya), a critique of the sravakayana, the limited nature of language in describing the ultimate truth, the One Vehicle, the bodhisattva path, and the three bodies of the Buddha (trikaya) doctrine.

Svacittamātra
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra often presents a mind-only philosophy influenced by the idealistic thought of the Yogacara school. According to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra "all things are only manifestations of the mind itself" i.e. all phenomena are "mind-only" (cittamātra) or "ideation-only" (vijñaptimatra). This idealistic view is explained by the Lanka as the view that "what is seen as something external is nothing but one's own mind" (svacitta-drsya-mātram)." According to Gishin Tokiwa, this is not to say that there are no independent external beings conventionally, but rather what it means is that true insight into the nature of reality goes beyond all concepts of internal and external. Gishin Tokiwa sees the theory of svacittamātra as the central message of the sutra.

The sutra often presents Yogacara theories of consciousness, like the eight consciousnesses and the three natures, as well as the "five dharmas". Furthermore, since, as the sutra states, the whole world "is nothing but a complex manifestation of one's mental activities," all phenomena are empty of self (anatman) and illusory (maya) - "to be regarded as forms seen in a vision and a dream, empty of substance, unborn and without self-nature."

Tokiwa further writes that the Laṅkāvatāra, being closely influenced by Prajñaparamita thought, also tempers this idealistic mind-only view with the idea that ultimate reality transcends being and non-being (bhāvābhāva), and is beyond all views and concepts, even that of "mind" (citta) itself. Thus, even though the Lanka presents a "mind-only" view in some passages, other sections state that the ultimate truth or Suchness transcends even mind, thought, discrimination and subjectivity itself. Furthermore, the reason why all things are beyond being and non-being is closely connected to the idea that all experiences are mind only. It is because all experiences are just reflections of the mind of those deluded beings which experience them that we can say that phenomena have no single characteristic or way of existing. All things are experienced (or not experienced) in various ways (vaicitryam) by different types of living beings, but none of these experiences are fixed or ultimately true, each one is mistaken (bhranti) in some way. At the same time, we can say that this ultimate nature of the emptiness of all characteristics is something that does not change. This ultimate reality, the dharmakaya, is also free from arising, abiding and cessation while also being the ground for the illusory manifestation of the world.

In spite of this however, the view of "mind-only" is still seen as an important way to transcend our current deluded state, as the Lanka sutra states:"Through attaining the reality as nothing but our own mind, which is the Self free from manifestation, we return to abiding in the final attainment of prajña."In turn, the view that the world and phenomena exist "externally", outside of mind, is seen as a serious error that leads to delusion and suffering. The Lanka sutra specifically cites the dualistic view of Samkhya philosophy for criticism.

The Five Dharmas
According to Saganuma, the schema of the Five Dharmas (pañcadharma), which explains all of reality in terms of five phenomena, is essential for understanding the basic worldview of the Laṅkāvatāra. Indeed, according to Saganuma, the Laṅkāvatāra considers that all Mahayana teachings are included within these five dharmas.

The Five Dharmas are the following:

 * Nimitta (images, appearances), this is what has characteristics like form (rupa), shape, distinctive features, and images (ākāra).
 * Nāma (naming), these are the ideas (saṃjñā) based on the appearances
 * Samkalpa, Vikalpa (discrimination), the distinctions and connections between different names and ideas that allow us to distinguish between them
 * Samyagjñāna (right knowledge), the knowledge gained by bodhisattvas who understand the true nature of things (i.e. Suchness) and who transcend the discriminations of worldly people
 * Tathatā (Suchness), the truth, ultimate reality, which is beyond all words, images and discrimination, beyond all duality and plurality.

The Lanka also closely connects this theory with the Yogacara theory of the three inherent natures. According to the Lanka, image, naming and discrimination correspond to the parikalpita-svabhāva (the "fully conceptualized" nature) and the paratantra-svabhāva (dependent nature), while right knowledge and Suchness correspond to the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (the fully accomplished nature).

The buddha-nature and emptiness
A major topic found in the Laṅkāvatāra are the teachings on tathāgatagarbha (buddha-nature) also called buddhagotra (buddha disposition or buddha lineage) or tathagatagotra, which is explained in many different ways throughout the sutra. The Lanka describes buddha-nature as "the purity of natural luminosity, it is primordially pure, endowed with the thirty-two major marks, and hidden within the bodies of all sentient beings...just like a gem of great value wrapped in a stained cloth, it is wrapped up in the cloth of the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, is tainted by the stains of desire, hatred, ignorance, and false imagination but is permanent, eternal, peaceful, and everlasting".

Buddha-nature is also equated with the wisdom of noble beings, "the attainment of the realization of suchness" (tathata) and the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna). Furthermore, the Lanka explains buddha-nature in a positive manner as the naturally luminous mind (prabhāsvaracitta) and also equates it with the "true self" which is realized by "those whose minds are not distracted by emptiness."

However, the Laṅkāvatāra also states that buddha-nature is not a self (atman), calls it selfless (nairātmya), and states that it is empty of self-nature. The Lanka further states that buddha-nature is merely a skillful means (upaya) of teaching the dharma to non-buddhists (tīrthikas) who cling to a self:

Mahāmati, my instruction on the tathāgatagarbha is not similar to the doctrine of the self of the tīrthikas. Rather, Mahāmati, the tathāgatas give the instruction on the tathāgatagarbha as bearing the meaning of words such as emptiness, true end, nirvāṇa, nonarising, signlessness, and wishlessness. Thus, for the sake of relinquishing what makes naive beings afraid of the lack of a self, the tathāgata arhats, the completely perfect buddhas, teach the sphere of nonconceptuality and nonappearance through the introductory instruction on the tathāgatagarbha...Mahāmati, the tathāgatas teach the instruction on the tathāgatagarbha through teaching the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract the tīrthikas, who cling to the doctrine of the self. So how may those whose thinking falls into the views of conceiving an incorrect self and those who succumb to falling into the sphere of three [kinds of] liberation swiftly awaken to unsurpassable and completely perfect awakening? Mahāmati, it is for their sake that the tathāgata arhats, the completely perfect buddhas, give the instruction on the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, this is not similar to the doctrine of a self of the tīrthikas. Consequently, in order to put an end to the views of the tīrthikas, they need to become followers of the heart of nonself of a tathāgata (tathāgatanairātmyagarbha). According to Brunnholzl, the Lanka further states that what "all sūtras of all buddhas teach is nothing but emptiness, nonarising, nonduality, and the lack of nature". The sutra also states that "all characteristics of conceptions have terminated, either through the instruction on the tathāgatagarbha or through the instruction on identitylessness". Karl Brunnholzl notes that throughout various passages, the Lanka attempts to unify the positive buddha-nature teachings and the more negative emptiness teachings, presenting them as being equivalent to each other and as non-contradictory.

The storehouse consciousness and buddha-nature
In other passages, the tathāgatagarbha ("buddha-womb" or buddha-source) is also equated with the "storehouse consciousness" (Skt. ālayavijñāna), the most fundamental layer of consciousness which contains the karmic seeds of defilement. However, in other further passages, the tathāgatagarbha is also said to be free from all eight consciousnesses and "free from the characteristics of mind, without consciousness and mentation."

As noted by Brunnholzl, this paradoxical storehouse consciousness qua buddha-nature contains both contaminated and uncontaminated latent tendencies (anusaya). Further, it is both momentary and not momentary, it is the cause of virtue and non-virtue, it is the cause of all existences in saṃsāra, and thus it must be purified. But, at the same time, this same buddha-nature is described as indestructible, free from a self, naturally pure and free from the flaw of impermanence. It is compared to a dancer who does various performances and yet also to pure gold or a diamond that is never tarnished or changed. The Lanka sutra states that this buddha-nature storehouse-consciousness is something that cannot be fully understood by those who are not Buddhas.

The Laṅkāvatāra explains this paradoxical buddha-nature consciousness which is defiled and yet undefiled as follows:"Mahāmati, the tathāgatagarbha contains the causes of virtue and non-virtue and is the creator of all births and forms of existence. Free from a self and what is mine, like a dancer, it enters [all kinds of] dangerous forms of existence...Being impregnated by all kinds of beginningless latent tendencies of the impregnations of negative tendencies of discursiveness, it is called 'ālaya-consciousness.' Its body, together with the seven consciousnesses that arise from the ground of the latent tendencies of ignorance, always operates uninterruptedly, just like a great ocean and its waves, is free from the flaw of impermanence, is the cessation of the position of a self, and is utterly pure by nature. The seven consciousnesses such as mentation and the mental consciousness, which are other than this and arise and perish, are momentary, arise from the cause that is false imagination, focus on collections of shapes, activities, and distinct instances, cling to names and characteristics, do not understand that appearing forms and characteristics are one’s own mind, do not discriminate happiness and suffering, are not the cause for liberation, arise through and give rise to names, characteristics, and rising desire, and have the [ālaya-consciousness] as their cause and support...However, if the ālaya-consciousness, which is known as 'the tathāgatagarbha,' does not undergo a change (parāvṛtti), there is no cessation of the seven active consciousnesses. For what reason? Because the consciousnesses flourish by virtue of [the ālaya-consciousness’s serving as] their cause and support, and [because the ālaya-consciousness] is not an object of any of the yogins [who are immersed] in the yogas of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and tīrthikas. Even when one realizes one’s own lack of a personal self and apprehends the specific and general characteristics of the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, this tathāgatagarbha still flourishes. It terminates only through seeing the five dharmas, the three natures, and phenomenal identitylessness....Therefore, Mahāmati, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have this special goal should purify the tathāgata heart, which is known as 'the ālaya-consciousness.'"Thus, the fundamental mind (citta) or storehouse consciousness is seen by the Lanka as neither separate from nor united with the defiled latent tendencies. Like a white piece of clothing that remains white underneath but can be dirtied by dust."

The mistaken mind and the pure consciousness
In some passages, the sutra also seems to divide the storehouse consciousness into two. In one passage these are called "the ultimate ālaya-consciousness and the ālaya of cognizance (vijñapti)," while in another passage, they are called "the true nature of the mind" (which is pure) and "the mind that arises from mistakenness." D.T. Suzuki similarly notes that according to the Laṅkā, the storehouse consciousness has two aspects "the Ālaya as it is in itself", called pāramālaya-vijñāna (the 'incessant' or prabandha aspect), and "the Ālaya as mental representation" (vijñaptir ālaya, the manifested or lakshaṇa aspect). Thus, it is the fluctuating (pravṛitti) aspect of the storehouse consciousness that gets caught up in the discrimination and craving of the manas consciousness, while the primitively pure (prakṛitipuriśuddhi) aspect of the storehouse does not.

Indeed, this pure aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also called "something that has been in existence since the very first" (pūrvadharmasthititā, or paurāṇasthitidharmatā). According to Suzuki, the most common terms for this ultimate reality include: Tathatā ("suchness" or "thusness"), as well as "Satyatā, "the state of being true", Bhūtatā, "the state of being real", Dharmadhātu, "realm of truth", Nirvana, the Permanent (nitya), Sameness (samatā), the One (advaya), Cessation (nirodha), the Formless (animitta), Emptiness (śūnyatā), etc."

In yet another passage, the Lanka speaks of nine forms of consciousnesses (as opposed to the classic eight consciousnesses of Yogacara). This passage may have been the source of Paramārtha’s doctrine of the ninth consciousness, which he termed the *amalavijñāna (pure consciousness). This distinction between an ultimate and a relative storehouse consciousness suggests that buddha-nature is not to be understood as completely equivalent with the storehouse consciousness, but rather is to be seen as the pure nature of the mind that remains once the mind has been purified of all adventitious stains (āgantukamala).

Error, wisdom and awakening
According to the Laṅkāvatāra suffering and ignorance arises when consciousness engages in discrimination, representation and conceptualization. This error leads to the egoic consciousness, the manas, which considers phenomena as being real and permanent and thus to craving and attachment. The key error of the mind is to consider any phenomena as being something other than mind.

Meanwhile, liberation and awakening (bodhi) arises when discrimination is brought to an end by a deep intuitive and non-conceptual knowledge (jñana) of suchness (tathata). Awakening is the result of the bringing to an end of various activities of consciousness, such as the discrimination of the egoic consciousness (manas) and the latent tendencies of the storehouse consciousness. As Gishin Tokiwa writes, awakening is attained when the discriminating storehouse consciousness "ceases to be the ground and object of the seven vijñanas (consciousnesses)" and when only the pure buddha-nature remains.

This radical reversal of the activities of consciousness is called the turning around of the basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti). To reach this radical transformation of the mind, the bodhisattva must purify his actions and thoughts (through Buddhist practices like ethical discipline and meditation) as well as develop insight into the nature of things (through hearing the teachings and meditating on emptiness).

The knowledge which knows the ultimate truth is a central topic of the Lanka and is variously termed pratyātmāryajñānagati (the state of noble knowledge realized by oneself), svapratyātma (inner self-realization), pratyātmagati (that which is realized by oneself), pratyātmagatigocara (the field realized by oneself) and pratyātma dharmatā (the Dharma nature realized by oneself) in the sutra. Akira Suganuma writes that this "inner wisdom" is "that which all the teachings in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra indicate to us is to realize or accomplish."

According to D.T. Suzuki, this transcendental wisdom (aryajñāna) of the Lanka is "an intuitive understanding which, penetrating through the surface of existence, sees into that which is the reason of everything logically and ontologically" as well as "a fundamental intuition into the truth of Mind-only and constitutes the Buddhist enlightenment." Suzuki notes that aryajñāna is also designated by other terms, such as pravicayabuddhi ("an insight fixed upon the ultimate ground of existence"), svabuddhi (innate understanding), nirābhāsa or anābhāsa (imagelessness), nirvikalpa (beyond discrimination / concepts). The noble wisdom stands in contrast to vikalpabuddhi, discriminative understanding, a relative and conceptual kind of knowledge based on duality and pluralities.

Sudden and gradual purification
An important passage in the Laṅkāvatāra discusses how the purification of the mind occurs, and the passage states that it can occur gradually as well as suddenly. In this passage, the Lanka states that the purification of the mind can happen "by degrees and not all at once. Like the gooseberry, which ripens by degrees," and immediately after it also states that awakening can also happen "all at once": "Or just as a clear mirror reflects formless images all at once, tathagatas likewise purify the stream of perceptions of beings’ minds by displaying pure, formless, undifferentiated realms all at once. Or just as the sun and moon illuminate images all at once, tathagatas likewise reveal the supreme realm of inconceivable wisdom all at once to those who have freed themselves of the habit-energy and misconceptions that are perceptions of their own minds. Or just as repository consciousness distinguishes such different perceptions of one’s mind as the realms of the body, its possessions, and the world around it all at once, nishyanda buddhas likewise bring beings to maturity in whatever realm they dwell all at once and lead practitioners to reside in Akanishtha Heaven."This idea was important for the establishment of the East Asian Buddhist doctrine of sudden (dun 頓) enlightenment, an important doctrine which was later widely debated and discussed in Zen Buddhism.

The Ultimate is beyond words
Another important idea found in the Laṅkāvatāra is how the ultimate reality (dharmata) transcends all language and conventional expressions and is free from verbal discrimination (vāgvikalpa). Because ultimate reality is eternal, free from arising and ceasing, and cannot be grasped or cognized (anupalabdhi) the sutra states that Buddhas "do not teach the doctrine that is dependent letters (akṣarapatita)."

Because of this, all teachings in the sutra are not the ultimate, even though they point to the ultimate, like a finger pointing at the Moon. Thus, one should not become attached to the words of the sutra, to the letters (which are only provisional, saṁvṛti) and instead should focus on the ultimate meaning (paramārtha). The Lanka thus states:"As the ignorant grasps the finger-tip (that points to the moon) and does not cognize the moon, so those who cling to the letter do not know my truth."The Laṅkāvatāra also states that even though Buddhas teach (in conventional fashion), they have never uttered even a single letter or syllable (akṣara):"the Tathagatas neither uttered nor answered even a letter (ekam apy akṣaram), because truths are beyond the letters. It does not mean, however, that (the Tathagatas) never declare what is connected with the benefit (artha) of beings. Depending upon discrimination, they declare anything. If, Mahamati, they do not depend upon discrimination, the scriptures containing all the truths will disappear, and when the scriptures disappear there will be no Buddhas, Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas; when they disappear, what is to be taught and to whom? For this reason, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva should not cling to the words or letters in a canonical text...the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva should be in conformity with the meaning (artha-pratiśaraṇa) and not with the letter (vyañjana)."According to Charles Willemen, this teaching of the Laṅkāvatāra is "the basis for Chan’s famous wordless teaching" which sees Chan as being taught "without words" (言说).

History and editions
According to Asanga Tilakaratne, "it is generally believed that the sutra was compiled during 350-400 CE," although "many who have studied the sutra are of opinion that the introductory chapter and the last two chapters were added to the book at a later period." Christian Lindtner argues that some early recension of the Lankavatara influenced the writings of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva (3rd century), basing his conclusion on several close or literal allusions to the sutra in early madhyamaka texts. Thus, the core of the sutra could date to a much earlier time. The Lanka is quoted four times in the Sūtrasamuccaya which has been attributed to Nāgārjuna (but this attribution has also been questioned by some scholars). Lambert Schmithausen has argued that the evidence attributing this text to Nagarjuna is insufficient and that furthermore, a passage from the Lankavatara seems to be a direct quotation from Vasubandhu's Trimsika (4th to 5th century CE). But the issue of the dating of the Lanka is further complicated by the complex nature of Vasubandhu's authorship of various texts and the fact that his Vyākhyāyukti also quotes the Lankavatara.

Some modern scholars like Gishin Tokiwa also surmise that the sutra may have been compiled in Sri Lanka between 411 and 435, during a time when Mahayana Buddhism was popular in the island (at sites like Abhayagiri vihara) and the island also received visits from Chinese pilgrims like Faxian.

Four translations of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra were made from Sanskrit into the Chinese language between roughly 420 CE and 704, the earliest being attributed to Dharmarakṣa in the 5th century.

Of these, only three are now extant:

 * The first is Taishō Tripiṭaka 670 (楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 Lengqieabaduoluobaojing). This is the earliest edition which was translated by Guṇabhadra in 443 CE, and divided into four fascicles. This edition by Guṇabhadra is said to be the one handed down from the founder of Chan Buddhism, Bodhidharma, to the Second Patriarch, Dazu Huike. This version lacks chapter 1, 9 and 10 from the later versions.
 * The second is Taishō # 671 (入楞伽經 Rulengqiejing). This second edition was translated by Bodhiruci in 513 CE, and divided into ten fascicles. This edition is criticized in the imperial preface to the later translation, which says that it contains extra words and sentences mixed in that detract from the original meaning.
 * The third is Taishō # 672 (The Mahāyāna Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; 大乘入楞伽經 Dashengrulengqiejing). This third edition (divided into seven fascicles) was translated by a team headed by Śikṣānanda and it was completed in 704 CE. This final translation was made at the behest of Empress Wu Zetian, after Śikṣānanda had completed his 80-fascicle translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. This translation is said to have employed five separate Sanskrit editions for accuracy.  The Huayan scholar and Sanskritist Fazang was also involved in this translation effort. Before the final edits to this version had been made, Śikṣānanda returned to India, and another Indian monk called Mitrasena came to China who had studied the Buddhist sutras for 25 years in India, and who knew the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Fazang and Mitrasena were given the task of revising and completing the translation.

In addition to these Chinese translations, there are also two Tibetan translations, and a version of the Sanskrit was preserved in Nepal. One Tibetan translation is derived from the Sanskrit original, and the other is likely a translation of Guṇabhadra's Chinese into Tibetan.

Nanjo Bunyu prepared a critical edition of the Sanskrit in 1923 based on four manuscripts from the Nepalese recension, among other sources.

According to Gishin Tokiwa, the Sanskrit edition and Sikṣānanda's translation contain various additions and errors. Tokiwa considers that "the Gunabhadra version conveys the earliest, original Sanskrit text-form whereas the two other Chinese versions as well as the extant Sanskrit manuscripts that include the Nanjio-edition did not go through any kind of appropriate text-critique." Takasaki Jikido likewise argued that the Gunabhadra edition was the closest version available to the early Sanskrit edition.

Gishin Tokiwa has also published a reconstructed Sanskrit edition based on the extant Sanskrit manuscript and the Gunabhadra translation.

The earliest translations of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra are significantly shorter than later ones, which D.T. Suzuki interprets as suggesting that additions were made to the text over time. The first and last chapters (which connect the text with Ravana, the villain of the Ramayana, and adds a dharani) are missing from the earliest translation, and the prose of the first chapter in later translations does not agree with the verse-form provided alongside it. Suzuki also suggests that the chapter on meat eating, where the Theravada 'thrice clean' practice is criticized, may be a later edition based on its different tone and content from the rest of the text. Based on the text's lack of organization, varying and sometimes irrelevant chapter headings, and expansion over time, Suzuki suggests that it may have originated as a collection of individual passages summarizing essential Mahayana doctrines, which were later shaped into a narrative.

Analysis and commentaries
According to Takasaki Jikido, because of this mosaic like character of the text, the best way to analyze the scripture has been "to divide the whole text into small parts or sections according to their subjects." The first commentator to attempt this was the Japanese author Kokan Shiren, who in the 14th century divided the text into 86 sections with titles. Most of these sections (but not all) include a prose part followed by a verse section that recapitulates the prose teaching.

Indian commentaries
There are two traditional Indian commentaries preserved in Tibetan translations:

These commentaries mainly comment on the sutra by relying on the epistemological tradition of Dharmakīrti. Jñānavajra's commentary presents a unique Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka perspective which was termed ‘cognitive centrism’ (vijñaptimadhyama, rnam rig dbu ma) and he also heavily relies on the works of Kamalaśīla, particularly the Madhyamakāloka. In this commentary, he also critiques the alīkākāravada view of Yogacara philosophy''. '' According to H. Hadano, Jñānavajra's commentary "takes the standpoint that the myriad pure and defiled dharmas are all manifestations of mind (citta), that they are not different to mind, and that they are mind-itself, in other words, the standpoint of the Rnam par rig pa tsam gyi dbu ma (vijñapti-mātrika-mādhyamika) which considers saṃvṛtti and paramārtha as two sides of the same coin, and discards duality."
 * Jñānaśrībhadra (11th century), ʼPhags pa lang kar gshegs paʼi ʼgrel pa (*Āryalaṅkāvatāravṛtti) P #5519; D #4018
 * Jñānavajra (12th century), ʼPhags pa lang kar gshegs pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen poʼi mdoʼi ʼgrel pa de bzhin gshegs paʼi snying poʼi rgyan zhes bya ba (*Āryalaṅkāvatāranāmamahāyānasūtravṛtti Tathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra nāma)

East Asian commentaries
There are also numerous East Asian Buddhist commentaries on the Lanka, like the commentaries by Huayan Patriarchs Zhiyan and Fazang. According to John Jorgensen, Fazang's commentary explains ten key themes he finds in the sutra: "1. the emptiness and existence in causation; 2.the fundamental and derived in the vijñānas; 3. the true and false in the substance of the vijñānas; 4. the seeds of the fundamental vijñāna; 5. the universality of the Buddha-nature; 6. the turning around of the minds of the two vehicle (followers); 7. the opening and closing of the stages of practice; 8. the non-obstruction of barrier and cure; 9. the freedom of pro and contrary; and 10. the eternal persistence of the Buddha-result." Fazang considered the Lankāvatāra to be one of the definitive sutras which taught the theme (zong) of "the attribute of reality" which teaches that consciousness is produced by buddha-nature.

The Lanka is also quoted and commented on in the Bodhidharma Anthology (i.e. the Putidamo sixing lun), an important text of early Chan Buddhism that contains material attributed to Bodhidharma and his students. Jorgensen also states that "there is evidence that commentaries on the Lankāvatāra Sūtra attributed to Bodhidharma reached Japan, some at least by 736." This "Bodhidharma commentary...has to date from between 445 and 740" and "shares much in common with the theories of Jingying Huiyuan (523-592) of the Southern Dilun Faction, who quoted the Lankāvatāra Sūtra as one of his authorities."

Various commentaries were written during the Song dynasty. Baochen, writing in the Northern Song dynasty era, also wrote a long commentary to the Lanka which was influenced by the Awakening of Faith and Huayan. Another commentary is that of the Chan monk Zhengshou (1146-1208) of the Xuedou lineage which provides a Chan perspective on the Lanka. The Tiantai monk Shanyue (1149-1241), also wrote a commentary to the Lanka.

One of the most important Japanese commentaries is Kokan Shiren’s (1278-1346) Treatise on the Essence of the Buddha’s Words (Butsugoshinron 佛語心論), in 18 scrolls 巻, which was written in 1324. He ignores most Song dynasty commentaries, and only cites Zhiyan's early commentary. Kokan's commentary includes extensive polemics against Tendai Buddhism and Zhanran's views on the Lankavatara. Kokan attempts to show that Zen is a superior and separate transmission of the Buddha’s realization which stands entirely apart from all other Buddhist teaching, doctrine and scriptures and abandons all relative discourse, all "words and letters." Kokan draws on the teachings of the Lankavatara on the perfect nature taught by the Dharmakaya to claim that Zen is a unique transmission of the realization of this perfect nature and that this is what Bodhidharma's transmission of “seeing the nature and completing Buddhahood” means. Another Japanese commentary was published in 1687 by Tokugan Yoson.

During the Ming dynasty, various commentaries were written, such as those by the Chan-Pure Land master Ouyi Zhixu (including 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經義疏, Commentary on the Meanings of the Laṅkāvatāra Jewel Sūtra), the Huayan master Tongrun's Lengqie jing hezhe (楞伽經合轍) and Jiaohong's (焦竑 1540–1620) Lengqie jing jing jie ping lin (楞伽經精解評林, Forest of Comments of Detailed Interpretations on Lankavatara Sutra).

English translations
The following are English translations of the Lankavatara sutra.

From the Sanskrit edition:

 * Thomas Cleary. The Lankavatara Sutra. The Heart of Buddhism. Translated from the original Sanskrit. 2012.

From the four-fascicle Chinese edition of Gunabhadra and the Sanskrit (restored on the basis of Gunabhadra's translation):

 * Gishin Tokiwa. Lankavatara Sutram. A Jewel Scripture of Mahayana Thought and Practice. A study of the Four-Fascicle Lankavatara Ratna Sutram. In a Set of Four Texts: A Sanskrit Restoration, English and Japanese Translations with Introduction, and the Collated Gunabhadra Chinese Version with Japanese Reading. Hanazono University, Kyoto. Printed by the Meibunsha Printing Co. Lts., Kyoto, Japan, 2003.

Composite translations:

 * Red Pine, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra: Translation and Commentary. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2012. ISBN 978-1-58243-791-0

The Red Pine translation is a composite translation which draws on the four-fascicle Chinese edition of Gunabhadra as well as some additions from the Śikṣānanda (652-710 CE) and Bodhiruchi translations (like the first "Ravana" introductory chapter). It also omits the "Sagāthakam", the last chapter in the long version of the sutra, which is considered by many scholars to be a later addition.

 * Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki. The Lankavatara Sutra: A Mahayana Text Translated for the first time from the original Sanskrit. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1932 (originally published); 1956 (reprint). ISBN 0-87773-702-9.

Suzuki's translation, though sub-titled as a translation from the Sanskrit, actually also draws on the Chinese translations along with the Sanskrit edition of Bunyu Nanjo (1923).

title: Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra


text:
Talk:Actor

Infobox
I've removed the infobox recently added to the article as it serves no useful purpose that I can see. If I've missed something, please feel free to explain. Thanks, DionysosProteus (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Good day, I added the "occupation infobox" to enhance this really nice B-class article. The ultimate goal is to have a uniform look and in a common format in all articles related to occupations and professions. The infobox exists in other languages and is really successful.
 * The implementation is quite difficult sometimes, especially with people that worked a lot on an article and feel that it's their way or no way. Wikipedia is for everyone and written by everyone.
 * WP:SILENCE: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident"
 * WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"
 * If you keep reverting the infobox, you take full ownership of the article and don't give any chance of exposure. Obviously, if the consensus is that this "Actor" article should not be like all other occupational articles, consensus wins.
 * Thanks, --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article with infobox is available here. My objection to the infobox has nothing to do with a sense of ownership over the article - I've contributed something in the region of a single sentence to it myself. Rather, I object to it because it makes the article look stupid. It gives undue prominence to some, let's say, "highly debatable" and at best extremely "marginal" ideas (since when has an actor anything to do with the circus? actors busk now?). The rest of the "information" presented in that way gives the article an air of self-parody. I find it difficult to imagine what need of a Wikipedia browser/reader is served by it. Who needs to be able to confirm at a glance that an actor needs "skills"? I read that "An infobox on Wikipedia is [...] in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." Neither of those aims appear to be served by this box. As far as I can see, it only serves to "diminish Wikipedia's reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia" without any compensating gain. DionysosProteus (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I do agree with Dionysos, the occupation template is too much of a stretch to be truly useful here. It ought to be removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree having looked at the infobox version it looks really dumb.Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Have removed it again.  • DP •  {huh?}

Martin Brodie Moud31 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Article protected temporarily, vandalism/blanking. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs for "actress"
I've just removed a tag because of Citation overkill. With all the points referenced (before I changed my mind) it looked like this. If it's going to be tagged frequently, perhaps I should go back to the original version. Suggestions? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That form look pretty good except the fact that it is stated twice in the same paragraph that the term actress remains "common in general usage." I would think that this could be stated once and the two refs put with that one mention. I'm not even sure how accurate that is anymore. DVD commentaries as diverse as Mad Men and Doctor Who (and these are only two examples of many that I have heard) and talk shows Like the Graham Norton Show have all switched to using the term "actor" for both genders. Even a show as goofy as Tru TV Presents the World's Dumbest relies solely on the original word. But I know that passions can run high over this so I think leaving in just the one mention would be a positive for the article. MarnetteD | Talk 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the phrasing. I don't have access to the online OED (only my shorter material version), so I can't check what the entry says for Actress. Is it possible to reproduce the entry here? Or, I seem to remember seeing a template on a talk page yesterday that said something about storing a webpage in an archive that wikipedia could then reference... Do you know about that? The contention is about whether Actress is the most common term today for a female performer in theatre/film. In my experience, it tends to be regarded as anachronistic. So if the article is going to argue that it's the most common, I'd like to examine the evidence. With the phrasing "actress became the usual term", it implies not merely an historical development that has since been superceded, but a change that is still with us today. I seem to recall that the last time I looked at this page, which was a while ago (because it brings me such pain to even look), there were sourced citations supporting the opposite view. I suspect that it's something that will come up again and again with this article. So, I'm thinking that it might be worth creating a sub-page talk article that gives the evidence for terminology.

I was going to propose that this article became the subject of the WikiProject Theatre collaboration drive, since it gets pretty much the most hits in the area: 70,000 in the last 30 days. That's about 2,500 people every day looking at this. It brings shame on my house. But the current proposal was for Theatre, so that's first.

With regards to terminology, I have tagged in the back of my head somewhere that when I do get around to trying to tackle this one, to look at Andrew Gurr's book The Shakespearean Stage. He has an interesting narrative of the shift during the Elizabethan/Jacobean era from "player" as the most common to the emergence of "actor", and how this is related to a decrease of the presentational aspects and an increase in the representational illusion, specifically in terms of the performer "becoming" the character more and more. Can't remember the exact term off the top of my head. Anyhow, worth flagging here if someone else feels brave and wants to work on this article. There's also all the actor/puppet debates in modernism arising out of symbolism and people like Edward Gordon Craig, Vsevolod Meyerhold, etc. We should certainly mention the Übermarionette. Olga Taxidou's work is excellent in this area.  • DP •  {huh?} 12:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see from DP's comment that a closer referencing of the OED quotes is needed: self revert follows. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All biographies that I have seen in the last month or so on "The Biography Channel" now use the word actor when identifying both male and female interviewees. It looks like a reference is going to be needed for actress remaining in "general usage". Please see the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition which specifically uses a female in their examples section. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some distinction needs to be made between "general use" by the public, in which old habits die hard, and the acting profession and the media. I don't know how easy or hard that will be to find but it might but I am seeing more signs of a shift towards gender neutrality as this past decade has gone by. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Date from Lizbeth Goodman added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your time and efforts. I think the addition helps to explain the direction that the usage is moving (too fast for some and too slow for others I am sure) towards. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fair enough to say that some people use the word actress to refer to a female actor but phrases like usually actress for female written on the opening line are not good unless you have some evidence for it. Never used the word actress myself, I've heard it used obviously.  Even the American Oscars uses the word female actor and that's America - not exactly the most socially liberal country!--ЗAНИA talk talk] 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-reading this I can see why you feel it jars, but we're reporting what is, and not what we'd like. The statistics are given in "Terminology", lower down. Is there way of expressing this less bluntly? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to survey
In the terminology section, the article contained a reference to a survey of a corpus of British English, purporting to show that use of the term "actor" is nearly twice as common as use of the term "actress". However, the reference noted that the survey did not distinguish between references to male actors and to female actors. That being the case, it seemed entirely irrelevant to the question of how common a term "actress" is for female actors. Moreover, it was slightly misleading in that at a glance it seemed to say that "actor" was twice as commonly used for female actors as "actress" was—the qualification was buried in the text of the footnote itself.

Because I felt that the reference was misleading and because it did not seem to support either side of the question in any case, I took it out. JudahH (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify why the reference was misleading and why it didn't really support either side: it was presented as follows:
 * "Actress remains in general use, although in a survey of a "wide cross-section of current British English", compiled in 2010, actor was almost twice as commonly found as actress" [emphasis on "although" added]

"Although" implies that the survey results tend to undermine the statement that 'actress' remains in general use, which is supported by the lack of context given, allowing the reader to assume that 'actor' was almost twice as commonly found as 'actress' in reference to female actors. However, once one takes into account that the survey ignores the gender of the referent, the numbers tell a different story. If one assumes that references to male and female actors were approximately equal, then 'actor' being twice as common overall would imply that 'actress' is twice as common in reference to female actors ('actor' would be used every time for male actors and 1/3 of the time for female actors; 'actress' would be used 2/3 of the time for female actors and never for male actors).

However, without knowing the contextual details for each reference, the survey offers at best tenuous evidence for usage in either direction, so I simply took it out instead. JudahH (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Acting awards" section
Is it time for a WP:SS spinoff yet? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing as the last couple of awards were added. Since there are wikiarticles for the awards they would seem to meet notability requirements but I don't think we need an ever expanding list in the middle of this article. Hopefully others will add their thoughts but I would be in favor (or per WP:ENGVAR favour) of you handling this in the way that you think best. Thanks for bring this up and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggestion may be superfluous: List of awards in theatre includes performances. Transfer any not already there, delete the rest, add the wikilink to "see also" section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Transferred to List of awards in theatre and List of film awards. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Problematic adverb
MarnetteD, there is an issue with how the lead sentence is worded - not on point of view, but on verifiablity and semantics. In its present form - "An actor (sometimes actress for female)" - it is synthesized original research that is unsupported by the given reference. The citation provided after the first sentence does not mention the word actress, nor mention its usage frequency. In fact, that citation in no way represents the majority of people and what the general usage is. What is the word "sometimes" supposed to mean, MarnetteD? There is no way that you can prove how often a word is used, so making the claim that the word is used "sometimes" is original research. Also, a previous revision of the article had used "usually" as the adverb, but that is also original research. Words such as "sometimes" and "usually" cannot stand by themselves without citations of studies on how often the word is used, which is impractical/unable to be determined.

Since this vagueness in wording is the problem, we can avoid the issue of determining how often the word is used by using "also", because it means "in addition to". If we use "also", that means that the word "actor" in addition to "actress" is used as terminology for female actors. So here is my compromise to avoid the issue of gender-neutrality/possible unbalanced point of view from any side: "An actor (or actress, also used to denote females) is a person who..." What do you think about this wording? Also, the "denote" in front of female should be replaced with a better verb along the lines of "describe", "label", "title", or another similar verb. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I am not sure when the ref changed over the years. At some point based on the discussion above Old Moonraker had added a ref that backed the use of the wording. Unfortunately he is no longer editing so I can't check his memory. I do know that we have numerous examples such as the names for the Screen Actors Guild Awards Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and those presented on The Biography Channel and TruTV all use the word actor for both sexes. Even though the Academy Awards retain the use of the gender specific wording for the specific awards the way the label those in the profession has changed as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of February 2012's show

 * The Merriam-Webster definition here especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here, here  and here  all of which use gender neutral definitions. Writing style guides such as this one . I would think that any or more than one of these could be used to replace the reference that is in the article now.

 * In the DVD commentaries for Mad Men those in front of the camera and behind it refer to both genders as actors. Interview shows like The Graham Norton show do the same. I would think that all of these justify the use of the word "sometimes" since they certainly show that it actress isn't used all of the time. But that is just me.

 * I know that you have already allowed for some of this in your post and I appreciate your compromise attempt - it reads odd to me (apologies of that causes offense) - what do you think of "(or actress which can be used to denote females)" - "can be" being preferable to "must be" That might be just as clunky so if you have another idea please add it when you have the time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 * TV shows such as Mad Men are notable and significant, but they are just one out of some million different examples that one can bring up where actor and/or actress may be used. There is no way that we can determine the frequency of usage by the millions of English speakers around the world, and we cannot just use our personal opinion to provide support for the frequency or tendency of usage. Again, that is original research, and should be avoided.

 * How about "(or actress which may be used to denote females)"? There is a difference between "can" and "may", and when we say "can", it implies that the word is able to be used, rather than "expressing a present possibility" of being used. I know this is all semantics, but the wording should reflect a neutral stance and suggest possibility of both or any form of usage, which again, cannot be determined without extensive studies using sources from all samples of English language such as books from the UK, Australia, Canada, or even India - not just the United States; and this example is only for books too. There is an even greater variability of usage online, which cannot be represented by a small sample "study" done by one single newspaper or source. I hope this makes sense. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Also, the ref should probably be replaced by a dictionary source.
 * Dictionaries such as Merriam Webster may/might use only the word "actor" in their definitions because the word already encompasses both male and female (or other) genders, so there is no need to use the female-specific "actress" (which in itself may have additional connotations that can be used aside from the simple connotation of an acting person). Even though these dictionaries are one source of notability and standards, they do not represent the frequency of usage by other sources and the rest of the examples. The first sentence in this article defines the definition of an acting person - an actor. However, since the role of an encyclopedia is to document/note significant examples which are also used, we have the responsibility to provide alternate forms of use - next most significant: actress, and less significant: player. And we do not attempt to categorize or comment on them in the article, but rather publish analysis done by other sources in a neutral manner. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes your new wording looks good. You should do the edit since you came up with it and I will let you pick from the relevant sources and give you any feedback if it looks like it needs enhancement. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the ref to an OED source. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "also" because it means the same thing as "which may be" (both imply possibility). - M0rphzone (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Looks good thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 04:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As opposite sex
The "As opposite sex" section seems overly long in proportion to the length of the article as a whole. Seems like either the rest of the article needs to built up, or this section needs to be trimmed. Or perhaps it could be developed into a separate article? And does it really belong under "Techniques", anyway? --Alexbook (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding theatre, film and TV acting sections
The lede notes that there are theatre, film and TV actors. I made a good faith effort to create sections that explained some of the differences between the different types of acting. Some of the content adds quite useful info, like the section on stage directions for theatre actors and the section on screen tests for Tv actors. This is a C class article, not a FA, so it needs development. When I attempted to improve the article everything I added was reverted and called POV nonsense. I believe reverting is for vandalism. A better response would be to tag these sections and to try to improve them.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an excerpt from the WP statement on reverting: "Reverting a contribution may be necessary and appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing." OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140326100456/http://www.sft.edu/tips/stage-acting.html to http://www.sft.edu/tips/stage-acting.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140326095158/http://www.sft.edu/tips/television-acting.html to http://www.sft.edu/tips/television-acting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Actor. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1534673,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CEED7153FE533A2575BC1A9669D94649FD7CF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701103558/http://www.coffeetheater.com/usr/down/2_93.pdf to http://www.coffeetheater.com/usr/down/2_93.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720195027/http://www.aftra.org:80/ to http://www.aftra.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Neziroski 2003" ref broken
The ref with the name mentioned in this section heading has a broken cite template, though I can't find anything wrong with it. Also, if it hasn't just been messed up, the link is now dead. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Money
I'd like to know more about the money. The highest-paid actors and their pay checks are well known, but what about the average professional? How much (s)he gets paid – or how much a role is worth? Here's some interesting info along these lines:

"nowadays, if you’re doing a guest starring role, you get paid “top of show.” [...] it just simply means the top amount that we will pay anyone appearing on the show. It varies from show to show, but it’s SAG/AFTRA [actor's union] rules. It depends, I guess, on what the budget of the show is but it’s never more than $9,000 pe[r] episode. And it’s usually between $5,000 and $6,000. [Editor's note: By comparison, Jim Parsons and the other stars [of] Big Bang Theory earn $1 million an episode, while Andrew Lincoln, star of The Walking Dead, earns more like $90,000 an episode.]" Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2017/02/11/hollywood-econ-101-or-why-you-should-consider-contributing-to-an-actresss-kickstarter-really/#e45734c4d3e5

Does anyone have any more information? Ideally, something like a bar chart with the amount of money on y-axis and an x-axis depicting actors from the highest-paid to the lowest-paid. Is this information available or could it be constructed with statistical methods? --188.172.219.69 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Actress
There's a very thick debate around the term "actress" and in most circles, the term "actress" is outdated and archaic. I made an edit which was reverted that I would like re-added and was hoping we could discuss this. Thoughts? Opinions? Thank you. Fazart (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 * What was your edit that was reverted?
 * You claim that “In most circles, the term “actress” is outdated and archaic.” What “circles” are you referring to? In the United States of America, it is commonly known that the terms “actor” and “actress” are the proper terms for male performers and female performers, respectively - they are equivalent terms, but not interchangeable. If Actor and Actress were interchangeable there would not be separate categories for Academy Award recipients given annually to 'Best Actor’/'Best Actress', 'Best Supporting Actor’/‘Best Supporting Actress’; there would simply be ‘Best Actor’ and ‘Best Supporting Actor’. If a transexual individual is genetically female but identifies as male, they could be considered for the awards categories of male ‘actors’, and if a transexual individual who is genetically male identifies as female, they could be considered for the awards categories of female ‘actresses’.If a performer is genetically female and identifies as such, they are ineligible for the awards categories of male ‘actors’, and if a performer is genetically male and identifies as such, they are ineligible for the awards categories of female ‘actresses’.
 * Claiming that the words ‘actor’ and ‘actress’ are synonymous is factually inaccurate and an unacceptable modification of specific, separate, distinct terms.
 * Using these terms interchangeably serves no purpose other than to blur the lines between these categorical titles and create confusion between the two. If it is appropriate to refer to females as “actors”, then by the same logic it would be appropriate to refer to males as “actresses”, yet no-one seems to mention this double-standard when attempting to change the terminology.
 * User Jim1138 said that "If the person states what they want to be called "she, he, they", "actor" or "actress" that is what Wikipedia should use” and pointed at wp:SELF-IDENTITY. My response is as follows: "People can choose their pronouns, i.e. “she, he, they”. People can NOT, however, apply proper nouns to themselves and demand that they be referred to by those nouns. This is not “shoehorning people into boxes”, it is referring to people by the appropriate, specific terminology of their chosen profession. If people are allowed to assign titles to themselves without justification, the titles lose their meaning. By your logic, if I state that I want to be called “President”, “Senator”, “Doctor”, “Captain”, et cetera, you (and Wikipedia) should be required to refer to me as such. Can you see the absurdity here?” Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Actor
An actor is who plays a character. However, the word actor / actress is usually associated with beautiful people; Beauty is often a prime factor in identifying an actor.

By antonomasia is denominated actor or actress to the beautiful people who dedicate themselves to the interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actor game
What the f**k is the actor game and why is it in wiki unexplained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.64.45 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Role of women
In the paragraph of "Role of women" they are making comparisons of salaries between men and women and comparisons between the salaries of actors and actresses according to race, comparisons between participations, that is absurd. Do actors earn more for being men? No, men earn more for being more box office, the salary of an actor or an actress is independent of their gender, race and likewise the number of shares, so that paragraph is absurd, they must correct it.Erick Barker (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The content, and the quotation, is fully and reliably sourced. The contention of the quoted and attributed source is that at least some actors do indeed earn more because they are men. The fact that you may disagree does not allow you to remove the content from the encyclopedia. This article is not about your opinions. If you can find other, published, sources that include factual information to contradict the assertion, cite them here for discussion and possible inclusion in the article.  General Ization Talk  02:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In this article, in the paragraph of "Role of women" the sources cited are the tabloid press, that the actors earn more money just for being men is something extremely absurd, it's as if they said that male basketball players earn more money than the female basketball players just for being men, ignoring the race, the years in basketball, the annotations, the matches won, the titles obtained. The following article shows that actors do not earn more money because they are men. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/12/29/why-jennifer-lawrences-20m-and-chris-pratts-12m-passengers-payday-was-a-trap/#114b3315240bErick Barker (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Forbes citation above "shows" nothing of the sort. It discusses a specific film (Passengers) and two specific actors (Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence).  It does not claim to, nor does it, offer any comment as to whether female actors of the same caliber earn more or less than male actors in general.  General Ization  Talk  03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the sources cited being "the tabloid press," the sources for the paragraph you are referring to are the self same Forbes, Variety and Slate. None of these are tabloids.  General Ization Talk  03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The general statistics for pay disparity by race and gender needs to be sourced. A "source" that simply makes that claim is not a source at all. Forbes's place as a large publication is not a strong argument for forwarding on unsourced data. 69.1.39.86 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Nia sharma
is an indian actress Halaabdlrhmn (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The part of "Pay equity"
In the part of "Pay equity" you are giving your personal point of view, Wikipedia is a place for specific information, not to give opinions, neither yours nor mine, the article is clearly implying that white men are pay more money just for being white men, that is, you are walking beyond simply giving statistics, in addition that in the given statistics you are making a comparison by race and gender. Why do not you make a comparison by age or by blood type? It is obvious that some media make such comparisons to generate scandal and thus sell, however, Wikipedia is no place for scandals or controversial things unresolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The section reflects the reporting of reliable sources, including Fortune and Variety. While you are free to disagree with these sources, we reflect what reliable sources report in the encyclopedia, not your or my personal opinions.  Your repeated attempts to vandalize the section will not be tolerated.  General Ization  Talk  17:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, you already expressed your dissatisfaction with the article in July, and your comments then were addressed above. Nothing has changed.  General Ization Talk </i> 17:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources cited are actually only "famous" sources, not "reliable" sources, although it is true that the data they have given are true, here the thing is the "insinuation", the fact of saying that a white man they pay more money just for being a white man, proof of this is the "comparison of race and gender" as I said before. Why do not these happy reliable sources make a comparison by age or blood type? Why do they necessarily have to make comparisons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick Barker (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can improve the paragraph to better reflect what the cited sources say, you are welcome to try. However, you are not welcome to vandalize the article by adding personal commentary to the section heading or any other part of the article, or by removing accurate summaries of the cited content with which you disagree. As explained in July, you are welcome to provide citations of and summarize other reliable sources that comment on this issue, as long as you do so accurately and neutrally. Since July, you have not done so, and I have little confidence that you will do so. Also, please learn to sign your comments on Talk pages. Others should not need to do this for you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 17:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 * So Forbes magazine, Forbes previously published the lists of male and female models best paid where it was seen that women were paid more money than men, Forbes magazine stopped publishing the list of male models best paid, now only publishes the list of the best paid female models. Is that a coincidence? In Hollywood Jennifer Lawrence complained and complained that American Hustle paid less than his male colleagues and asked for equal pay, however, in the movie Pasengers, she charged 20 million while his male companion charged 12 million And where is the salary equality that Jennifer Lawrence had asked for? It is clear, double moral. In addition, in other salary lists, they do not make comparisons by gender and race, in basketball, in soccer or in music, also in Wikipedia articles that talk about sports or music, there are no comparisons in salaries race and gender, comparisons are only here, where they talk about actors.

 * To improve the article, for that I would need sources, which have not been published because, according to what is seen, the media only make comparisons between the salaries of the actors and actresses, they do not make comparisons in salaries of other professions like in the of the models, I said before that Forbes stopped publishing his list of male models better paid, also apparently, the media only publish articles if the actor who makes more money than the actress, when the actress wins More money than the actor almost does not publish anything. And finally, when salaries are published in a profession, salaries are published without making any comparison except for the profession of actor, the profession of actor is the only profession where comparisons are made by race and by gender and the media take out and produce numerous articles of such comparisons, but of course, only if it is a white man who charges more, if it is a black man, a Latino or a woman who charges more, almost, almost, they keep silent.Erick Barker (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 * "To improve the article, for that I would need sources, which have not been published because ..." You have just explained why your contributions to the article would represent an editorial, not statements of fact supported by published sources.  That is not what we do here. Feel free to contact our cited sources to complain about how they have reported on this issue.  However, in the absence of an ability and intent to improve the encyclopedia in compliance with its policies, please leave its articles alone. Please see WP:ISNOT and WP:NOTHERE. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 * So it is assumed that in Wikipedia they will publish what the media publish regardless of how wrong or provocative they may be? So if the media publishes anti-Semitic articles, on Wikipedia will they also publish those same anti-Semitic articles? Well, if we lived in the era of Nazism, surely Wikipedia would be full of anti-Semitic content because during that time there was a lot of hate propaganda towards the Jews, nowadays what you see is a lot of victimization propaganda for being a woman or for being black. For what I said before, not only is Forbes, there are also many media, whether prestigious or without prestige, who think the same as Forbes "If in that profession men earn less money than women, then there is no publish anything, so other people will not have any source to support their logical versions. "Erick Barker (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 * I have explained Wikipedia's policies to you. I cannot explain the policies of any news or other online or publishing medium; you'll need to contact them for that. This Talk page is intended for discussions concerning improvements to this article, not philosophical discussions. I don't see any point in engaging with you further, except to say that if you edit this article again, your edits must be constructive and comply with the policies I have explained to avoid being blocked from editing. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could talk to those media, but will they respond? And what's more, will they respond with the truth? Will they say "is that what they sell" or "is it that we seek to promote hatred towards men"? Forbes, for example, previously published the list of the best-paid male and female models where it looked like women earned more money than men, Forbes stopped publishing the list of the highest-paid male models, now only publishes the list of the best paid female models Is that a coincidence? It is as if they made a list of the good things and bad things that the Jews do and suddenly one day they stop publishing the list of good things that the Jews do and only publish the list of the bad things that the Jews do, with an action thus it can be clearly deduced that they seek to promote anti-Semitism. There are many differences between people, however, in what are salaries of actors and actresses, the media only look at gender and race, the two most scandalous things. Is that another coincidence? Why do not they say things like "the atheist actors pay more money than the believing actors", "the actors older than 20 pay them more money than those under 20", "the democratic actors are paid more money than the Republicans, "etc? They only make comparisons of salaries by race and gender, never make comparisons for other things like religion, age, political options, etc. This page is of "actor" but if we go to the page of "model", "basketball" or "golf", in those pages there is no comparison of salaries by race or gender, likewise the media do not make any comparison of salaries by race or gender in jobs such as basketball, American footballer, golfer, swimmer, etc.Erick Barker (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC) I think we should get rid of this section and have it on a seperate page. This is really just an American issue. Also It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender for pay in the United States because of the equal pay act of 1963. [[User:holehis] 2:14, 12, May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding

April 2020: "Actress" section
The "Actress" section needed to be moved further down in the article, and I did so. Firstly, "actress" is an archaic term; today, "actor" is gender-neutral. Secondly, the section begins with historical references, which are explained in the "History" section. Thirdly, the discussion of Hollywood's gender pay gap is not of primary concern in such a general article; the subject should not be brought up early in the article, as that constitutes undue emphasis.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Craig Watkinson" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Craig Watkinson. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Joyu" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joyu. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

influence/popularity
there really should be a section about how influential and popular actors are in their periods. not just modern day actors, but even Elizabethean-era actors like Richard Burbage were well-known and had a fair amount of wealth for their period. or how they impact certain political statements... basically their influential aspect2607:FEA8:BDA0:1A8F:E5C9:D194:EDE3:273E (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pic of Shaw
As I stated in my edit summary "this article is about the history of acting and Garrick is far more notable in that regard" While Shaw is a fine actor the pic of him from The Buccaneers is not representative of the overall craft of acting IMO. MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Another picture
Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. As I mentioned above "this article is about the history of acting" and Stallone, though an enjoyable watch for many, is not notable to that history and his pic is being placed by the IP as decorative. MarnetteD|Talk 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Morrow.png

Other parts of the world?
Did actors ever exist outside Europe and the United States? From reading this article, I have no idea... —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Double Oscar winners
In the great soap opera of life all the world is our stage. Suggest bringing this article into the 21st century or redirecting to List of actors with two or more Academy Awards in acting categories. 86.136.70.179 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"American actress" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_actress&redirect=no American actress] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Actor


text:
Barry White

Barry Eugene Carter (September 12, 1944 – July 4, 2003), better known by his stage name Barry White, was an American singer and songwriter. A two-time Grammy Award winner known for his bass voice and romantic image, his greatest success came in the 1970s as a solo singer and with the Love Unlimited Orchestra, crafting many enduring soul, funk, and disco songs such as his two biggest hits: "Can't Get Enough of Your Love, Babe" and "You're the First, the Last, My Everything".

White recorded 20 studio albums during the course of his career, but multiple versions and compilations were released worldwide that were certified gold, 41 of which also attained platinum status. White had 20 gold and 10 platinum singles, with worldwide record sales in excess of 100 million records, and is one of the best-selling music artists of all time. His influences included James Cleveland, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, the Supremes, the Four Tops and Marvin Gaye.

Early life
White was born Barry Eugene Carter on September 12, 1944, in Galveston, Texas. His father was Melvin A. White, and his mother was Sadie Marie Carter. His parents never married, so his mother gave him her last name, but he later took on the surname of his father. He grew up in the Watts neighborhood of South Central Los Angeles, California. He was the oldest of two children; his brother Darryl was 13 months younger. White grew up listening to his mother's classical music collection and first took to the piano, emulating what he heard on the records.

White has often been credited with playing piano, at age 11, on Jesse Belvin's 1956 hit single, "Goodnight My Love". However, in a 1995 interview with the Boston Herald, White denied writing or arranging the song. He believed the story was an exaggeration by journalists. While White and Belvin lived in the same neighborhood, Belvin was 12 years older than White.

White attended Jacob A. Riis High School, an all-boys academy in southeast Los Angeles. White's voice deepened suddenly when he was 13 or 14. He recalled: "[As a child], I had a normal squeaky kid voice. Then as a teenager, that completely changed. My mother cried because she knew her baby boy had become a man." In a 2000 interview with Conan O'Brien, he further recalled: "I woke up one morning when I was 14. I spoke to my mother, and I scared both of us." White also told the BBC that this happened when he was 13.

White was jailed for four months at the age of 16 for stealing $30,000 worth of Cadillac tires (equivalent to about $ now). While in jail, he listened to Elvis Presley singing "It's Now or Never" on the radio, an experience he later credited with changing the course of his life. White had another moment of inspiration on his 18th birthday, which also was the first day back for his graduating year of high school. He skipped class to walk to Capitol Records headquarters in Hollywood and stood across the street from the office staring for hours. Seeing the liveliness of the area it inspired him to work in Hollywood, in the entertainment industry, despite not knowing how to read or write music.

1960s
After his release from jail, White left gang life and began a musical career at the beginning of the 1960s in singing groups. He first released "Too Far to Turn Around" in 1960 as part of The Upfronts before working for various small independent labels in Los Angeles. He also recorded several singles under his own name in the early 1960s, backed by vocal groups The Atlantics (for the Rampart and Faro labels) and The Majestics (for the Linda and Jordan labels). White had no involvement with Bob & Earl's 1963 hit single "Harlem Shuffle", a song he has sometimes been credited with producing; in his 1999 autobiography, White confirmed the song had been produced by Gene Page, who had worked with him on many of his 1970s successes.

In 1965, White produced "Feel Aw Right" by The Bel Cantos, released on the Downey label. He recorded his debut single, "Man Ain't Nothin'"/"I Don't Need It", released under the name "Lee Barry" on Downey in 1966. He also co-wrote "Together Forever", released by Pat Powdrill & the Powerdrills in 1967.

In the mid-'60s, Bob Keane of Del-Fi Records hired him as an A&R man for his new Bronco Records imprint, and White started working with the label's artists, including Viola Wills and The Bobby Fuller Four, as a songwriter, session musician, and arranger. He discovered singer Felice Taylor and arranged her song "I Feel Love Comin' On", co-written with his friend Paul Politi. It became a big hit in the UK. Other charting hits written by White and Politi for her included "It May Be Winter Outside (But in My Heart It's Spring)" and "Under the Influence of Love". Bronco issued one of White's first singles, 1967's "All in the Run of a Day", produced by Keane and White itself. White also wrote "Doin' the Banana Split" for TV bubblegum pop act The Banana Splits in 1968.

In 1969, White was signed by Forward Records of Los Angeles, a division of Transcontinental Entertainment Corporation, as a producer.

1970s as producer
In 1972, White got his big break producing a girl group he had discovered called Love Unlimited. Formed in imitative style of the Motown girl group the Supremes, the group members had gradually honed their talents with White for two years until they signed contracts with Uni Records. His friend Paul Politi told him about music industry businessman Larry Nunes, who helped to finance their album. After it was recorded, Nunes took the recording to Russ Regan, who was the head of the Uni label owned by MCA. The album, 1972's From A Girl's Point of View We Give to You... Love Unlimited, became the first of White's string of long-titled albums and singles.

White produced, wrote and arranged their classic soul ballad "Walkin' in the Rain with the One I Love", which climbed to No. 14 in the Billboard Hot 100 Pop chart and No. 6 on the Billboard R&B chart in late 1972. It became White's first million selling single as a writer and producer. This single also reached No. 12 in the UK chart. White's voice can clearly be heard in this piece as he plays the lover who answers the phone call of the female lead.

Soon after, Regan left Uni for 20th Century Records. Without Regan, White's relationship with Uni soured. With his relationship with Uni over and Love Unlimited contract-bound with the label, White was able to switch both his production deal and the group to 20th Century Records. They recorded several other hits throughout the 1970s, "I Belong to You", which spent over five months on the Billboard R&B chart in 1974 including a week at No. 1 and "Under the Influence of Love Unlimited", which hit No. 3 on the Billboard Pop album charts. White married the lead singer of the group, Glodean James, on July 4, 1974.

The Love Unlimited Orchestra
In 1973, White created The Love Unlimited Orchestra, a 40-piece orchestral group to be used originally as a backing band for the girl-group Love Unlimited. However, White had other plans, and in 1973, he released a single with "Love's Theme" (written by him and played by the orchestra), which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Pop charts. Later, in 1974, he made the first album of the Love Unlimited Orchestra, Rhapsody in White, containing "Love's Theme". White would continue to make albums with the orchestra, achieving some successes such as: "Rhapsody in White"; "Satin Soul"; "Forever in Love"; "Midnight Groove"; "My Sweet Summer Suite", Remake of "Theme From King Kong". The orchestra ceased to make albums in 1983 but continued to support White as a backing band.

1970s solo career
White wanted to work with another act, but decided to work with a solo male artist. While working on a few demos for a male singer, he made three song demos of himself singing and playing, but Nunes heard them and insisted that he re-record and release them himself as a solo recording artist. After arguing for days about it, White was finally persuaded to release the songs himself, although he was initially reluctant to step out behind the microphone.

He then wrote several other songs and recorded them for what eventually became an entire album of music. He was going to use the name "White Heat", but decided on using his given name instead. White was still hesitating up to the time the label copy was made. It eventually became White's first solo album, 1973's I've Got So Much to Give. It included the title track and his first solo chart hit, "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby", which also rose to No. 1 on the Billboard R&B charts as well as No. 3 on the Billboard Pop charts in 1973 and stayed in the top 40 for many weeks.

Other chart hits by White included:

 * "Never, Never Gonna Give You Up" (No. 2 R&B, No. 7 Pop in 1973)
 * "Can't Get Enough of Your Love, Babe" (No. 1 Pop and R&B in 1974)
 * "You're the First, the Last, My Everything" (No. 1 R&B, No. 2 Pop in 1974)
 * "What Am I Gonna Do with You" (No. 1 R&B, No. 8 Pop in 1975)
 * "Let the Music Play" (No. 4 R&B in 1976)
 * "It's Ecstasy When You Lay Down Next to Me" (No. 1 R&B, No. 4 Pop in 1977), and
 * "Your Sweetness Is My Weakness" (No. 2 R&B in 1978)

among others.

White also had a strong following in the UK, where he scored five Top 10 hits and a No. 1 for "You're the First, the Last, My Everything". Due to his large frame, facial hair, and deep voice, he was given the nickname "The Walrus of Love" in the UK and in the US, "Dr. Love", "Mr. Love", "Prince of Pillow Talk", "Ambassador of Romance", "King of Disco" "The Maestro" or "Guru of Love".

After six years, White left 20th Century in 1979 to launch his own label, Unlimited Gold, with CBS/Columbia Records.

1980s
Although his success on the pop charts slowed down as the disco era came to an end, he maintained a loyal following throughout his career. Despite several albums over the next three years, he failed to repeat his earlier successes, with no singles managing to reach the Billboard Hot 100, except for 1982's "Change", climbing into the Billboard R&B Top 20 (No. 12). His label venture was exacting a heavy financial cost on White, so he concentrated on mostly touring and finally folded his label in 1983.

After four years, he signed with A&M Records, and with the release of 1987's The Right Night & Barry White, the single entitled "Sho' You Right" made it to the Billboard R&B charts, peaking at No. 17.

In 1989, he released The Man Is Back! and with it had three top 40 singles on the Billboard R&B charts: "Super Lover", which made it to No. 34, "I Wanna Do It Good to Ya", which made it to No. 26, and "When Will I See You Again", which made it to No. 32.

1990s
A 1970s nostalgia fad allowed White to enjoy a renewed wave of popularity in the 1990s. After participating in the song "The Secret Garden (Sweet Seduction Suite)" from Quincy Jones's 1989 album Back on the Block, White mounted an effective comeback with several albums, each more successful than the one before. He returned to the top of the charts in 1991 with the album Put Me in Your Mix, which reached No. 8 on the Billboard R&B Albums chart and the song by the same name reached No. 2 on the Billboard R&B singles chart.

In 1994, White released The Icon Is Love, which went to No. 1 on the Billboard R&B album charts, and the single "Practice What You Preach" gave him his first No. 1 on the Billboard R&B singles chart in almost 20 years. The album was nominated for a Grammy in the Best R&B Album category, but lost to TLC's CrazySexyCool.

In 1996, White recorded the duet "In Your Wildest Dreams" with Tina Turner. 1996 also saw the release of Space Jam and its soundtrack, on which White had a duet with Chris Rock, called "Basketball Jones", a remake of Cheech & Chong's "Basketball Jones" from 1973.

White's final album, 1999's Staying Power, resulted in his last hit song "Staying Power", which placed No. 45 on the Billboard R&B charts. The single won him two Grammy Awards in the categories Best Male R&B Vocal Performance and Best Traditional R&B Vocal Performance.

His autobiography, Love Unlimited, written with Marc Eliot, was published in 1999 by Broadway Books.

Acting career
Over the course of his career, White sometimes did voice-over work for television and movies. He voiced the character Brother Bear in the film Coonskin (1975).

White played the role of a bus driver for a Prodigy commercial in 1995, and he also portrayed the voice of a rabbit in a Good Seasons salad-dressing-mix commercial, singing a song called "You Can't Bottle Love". In addition, he did some work for car commercials, including for Oldsmobile, and later on, Jeep. White also provided voice-over for Arby's Restaurant commercials on television and radio to promote its Market Fresh menu. White's voice can also be heard in Apple's first iBook commercial. White made three guest appearances on the comedy-drama television series Ally McBeal, as his music was often featured on the show in dream sequences.

Marriages
White was first married to his childhood sweetheart, identified as just Mary in his autobiography, by the time he was 19. They separated in 1969 and later divorced.

In 1974, White married singer Glodean James. The couple collaborated on the 1981 album Barry & Glodean. They reportedly separated in 1988, but they were still legally married until White's death in 2003, although they lived separate lives. Although estranged from White for over a decade, as his widow she was made sole executor of his estate.

Children
White had at least nine children. By the age of 16, White had fathered two children with his first wife Mary. They had four children together. In 2017, his son Darryl White from his first marriage sued his estate, claiming he was cut off financially.

White had four children with his second wife Glodean James. Their daughter Shaherah was his personal assistant. Barry Jr. played in the Love Unlimited Orchestra and was also his tour manager. White's son MacKevin worked in his publishing administration.

White had a daughter, Denise Donnell, born in 1962 to Gurtha Allen. She did not discover who her biological father was until 1988. She was accepted by White and with his help she changed her name to Denise White. In 2016, she sued White's estate after she stopped receiving money.

After White's death in 2003, his girlfriend Katherine Denton claimed her infant daughter Barriana was his biological child. Denton also claimed that she was owed money and personal items that White had promised to give her. Paternity tests revealed that he was not the father of her child and Denton subsequently lost her court case.

Health problems and death
White was overweight for most of his adult life, and apparently smoked approximately 150 cigarettes a day. He reportedly weighed up to 375 lbs.

While undergoing dialysis and awaiting a kidney transplant in May 2003, White suffered a severe stroke, which forced him to retire from public life. He also suffered multiple seizures in his last few weeks.

White's unstable health prevented him from receiving a new kidney, and he died on July 4, 2003, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles after suffering cardiac arrest. He was 58 years old. His remains were cremated, and the ashes were scattered in the ocean off the California coast.

Legacy
On September 20, 2004, White was posthumously inducted into the Dance Music Hall of Fame at a ceremony held in New York. On September 12, 2013, which would have been White's 69th birthday, he was posthumously awarded the 2,506th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6914 Hollywood Boulevard in the category of recording. The show Counting Cars paid tribute to White by restoring the last car he owned for his widow, Glodean.

In an obituary referring to White by his nickname, "The Walrus of Love", the BBC recalled "the rich timbres of one of the most distinctive soul voices of his generation, about which it was once said: 'If chocolate fudge cake could sing, it would sound like Barry White.'"

In 2023, Rolling Stone ranked White at number 56 on its list of the 200 Greatest Singers of All Time.

Awards and nominations
White was nominated for 11 Grammy Awards, winning two for Staying Power at the 42nd Annual Grammy Awards in 2000.

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * I've Got So Much to Give (1973)
 * Stone Gon' (1973)
 * Can't Get Enough (1974)
 * Just Another Way to Say I Love You (1975)
 * Let the Music Play (1976)
 * Is This Whatcha Wont? (1976)
 * Barry White Sings for Someone You Love (1977)
 * The Man (1978)
 * I Love to Sing the Songs I Sing (1979)
 * The Message Is Love (1979)
 * Sheet Music (1980)
 * Barry & Glodean (With Glodean White)  (1981)
 * Beware! (1981)
 * Change (1982)
 * Dedicated (1983)
 * The Right Night & Barry White (1987)
 * The Man Is Back! (1989)
 * Put Me in Your Mix (1991)
 * The Icon Is Love (1994)
 * Staying Power (1999)

title: Barry White


text:
User:Satsun

©Satsun is my copyrighted term for the weekend.

My major at UWO was Physics. Currently I am employed as a computer programmer in Toronto.

Current Wiki focus is a comphrensive installment on knots. I won't list all the sub-articles as I've cited over 300 different knots thus far. I will be adding pictures and article content for each knot. Each article will conform to a clear format. The format is provide in the talk:Knot page. When I first considered committing to this project I thought to myself...To be or knot to be...

title: User:Satsun


text:
Talk:Fantasy comedy

Ummm... I don't know about comic fantasy being 'low'. That suggests that it is inferior to other fantasy and it's not - it takes just as much if not more skill to produce. I was just at a panel where authors of humorous fantasy were discussing it, and one of their points was that while comic fantasy is slotted into a pigeonhole (fantasy with fart jokes) it is nothing of the sort. ~ KJ

 * doesn't matter - the merits of the definition aren't relevant; so long as some people use it, it's useful information that should be included. --AW

 * The "low fantasy" sense could use some examples or references--I do not recall ever seeing it used this way. It may come out of gaming, comics, or some other non-literary field. The sense of low fantasy as "not serious" is not supported by the only print-source definistions I can find (see the "Low Fantasy" discussion). RLetson 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy All Template
This page is mentioned in the Fantasy All Template, and Comic Fantasy is a subgenre of Fantasy. So I am going to add the template to this page.

If anyone objects, feel free to discuss it.

Zellfaze (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   11:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comic fantasy → Fantasy comedy – See how many G-hits "Fantasy comedy" renders when compared to "comic fantasy". Also, we need to maintain consistency with other articles like science fiction comedy and romantic comedy; at the former's talk page, someone said science fiction comedy is "a much more natural name for the genre" than comic science fiction. The same can be said for fantasy comedy being much more natural than comic fantasy. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Support as per the science fiction comedy move precedent. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (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.

title: Talk:Fantasy comedy


text:
Anaximenes

Anaximenes (Ἀναξιμένης) may refer to:
 * Anaximenes of Lampsacus (4th century BC), Greek rhetorician and historian
 * Anaximenes of Miletus (6th century BC), Greek pre-Socratic philosopher
 * Anaximenes (crater), a lunar crater

title: Anaximenes