Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 29 November 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yoga This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcenotice

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

April 2007

This article contained a fair amount of nonsense, and hardly anything is sourced. For the monent I've altered it to agree with Theravada doctrine, except where it specifically refers to Mahayana. I hope people who know about other schools can note any differences. Peter jackson 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed External Link: karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group

karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the article?

I'm note sure how the following quote from the page makes sense: "In Buddhism, Karma is simply there as a guide and an indication of what the reason for your present state is and how one's future can be made better by self effort. Fatalism and pre-determinism is the anti-thesis of the notion of perfection or self-conquest -- which is the primary aim of Buddhism." In particular, Buddhism never advocates any "self effort" as there is no "self" to excert the effort, and an enlightened being only observes (hence, generating no karma). There are no goals of "perfection or self-conquest" in Buddhism, only the idea of realizing the truth (since an elightened being has no clinging, it can't possibly have goals). It seems as the entire passage is wrong, but I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to modify the article.

I'm not sure that the revisions improve the article. This article lacks citations for assertions such as Karma only refers to "cause" -- and this is important because if you look at the way Karma is generally used everywhere, nobody uses such a definition in practice. This might be a place where one should talk about the different views of Karma within Buddhism rather than adding a sectarian view and not citing the source other than a personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.74.203 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Universal karma

• Seems to be important, but maybe it does not match with wikipedia's linklines.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

the article has the word arhaticide, can someone please explain what that is, word is not found in any online dictionaries, is it spelled correctly?

someone needs to explain the meaning of "arhaticide" please. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.114.107 (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a neologism for sure, but it seems like the most concise way to spell it out - it means just what it appears to mean: killing an arhat. The meaning should be clear from both the construction and the context.Sylvain1972 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Killing an arhat" would probably be a more straightforward way of doing this than a neologism. Human fella —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

AN.5.110?

This sutta is given as a source for a claim which is controversial in some circles about whether or not karma is the supreme natural law. The Theravada position seems to be that it is just one of several laws, but I'm trying to clarify my understanding. However, I can't find this sutta online; or else I did find it but didn't see how it supported the claim -- see http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/011-phasuviharavaggo-e.html linked from http://www.suttacentral.net/disp_sutta.php?subdivision_id=63&subdivision_name=Pañcaka%20Nipāta&collection_name=Pali&division=AN&acronym=5&type=Subdivision Paxfeline (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the only public English translation of it is the Pali text society edition. The sutta you linked is AN 5.11 not AN 5.110, unfortunately. You could ask User:Peter jackson for more about this. He has the PTS translation I believe, and I think he knows Pali anyway, so he could look at the Pali source too, which is online. Mitsube (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also noticed that the text is labeled "011" instead of "110" but wasn't sure if I was just missing something else. I suppose I should email suttacentral.net to let them know their link is incorrect. Thanks for the pointers on where to look. Paxfeline (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious justification for claim of non-determinism

In the section on "Karmic action & karmic results vs. general causes and general results", we find the following text: "The theory of karma is not deterministic, in part because past karma is not viewed as the only causal mechanism causing the present. In the case of diseases, for instance, he gives a list of other causes which may result in disease in addition to karma (AN.5.110)"

This reasoning is fallacious. If a given type of event can be brought about by multiple types of causes, it doesn't either: A) Imply that causation by a given type of cause (here, karma) is non-deterministic (i.e. that that type of cause "could have" failed to bring about that effect in any given case), or B) That there is not deterministic causation by the whole list of possible types of causes.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here whereby "the doctrine of karma is deterministic" is confused with "the doctrine of karma holds that karma is the only type of cause." I'm not expert enough to correct this confidently, but I would be pleased if someone who was took care of this. Human fella (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's first define determinism. American Heritage Dictionary has the following: "n. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." The Online Etymology Dictionary has "in theology (lack of free will); in general sense of 'doctrine that everything happens by a necessary causation.'" Maybe the sentence in question should read, "The theory of karma is not comprehensively deterministic"? Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure I see how that helps. The point is that the text in question implicitly presents itself ("karma is not deterministic... because..." etc.) as offering some point against the view that the karma doctrine is deterministic (the definitions you present seem perfectly workable), but in fact it does no such thing. Asserting that there are other types of causes fails altogether to bear on the question of whether the actions of karma are deterministic, or indeed whether the world view that it forms a part of is deterministic. Imagine if I were to say "The doctrine of people falling off a cliff because they slip on a banana peel is not deterministic, because people are caused to fall off of cliffs by events other than slipping on banana peels." You can see that this makes no sense, because the existence of other causes of falls off of cliffs bears neither on the question of whether banana-peel induced cliff falls are deterministic (ie brought about inevitably by antecedent events), nor on whether falls off of cliffs in general are deterministic (in that same sense). Human fella (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that what the article is trying to say is that there seems to be a sense that in theories of determinism, particularly theological determinism, everything is said to happen by a necessary causation and furthermore the agent of necessary causation is ultimately singular--an omnipotent deity. In which case, a model whereby causation can be attributed to multiple factors cannot be properly called determinism.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

9/1 edits

I reverted these because reliably sourced sections were deleted and too many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources. You may not agree with David Loy (and I myself don't), but he is an academic who is published widely and his opinions are valid in the section.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of my edits were valid, and you should not have mass reverted all of them, just because you disagreed with some of them. If you disagreed with something, you should say why, and discuss it here or re-add that part, not blanket remove everything. I've undone your removal of my edits, and we can discuss each of them here. I'll momentarily discuss each of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A few notes on my edits:

• Tagged sources -- You said "many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources". No, they were not. Academic publishers and scholarly journals were not tagged. These are "clearly reliable sources". Things like "kalachakranet" were tagged. Could you explain to me how this is a "clearly reliable source" under WP:RS? In general, we should use scholarly sources, per WP:RS, since this topic is widely covered enough in the scholarly literature, that we don't need to resort to less scholarly sources.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Loy -- I did not say that Loy's views were removed because they are not valid. I said that they were given undue weight. See WP:UNDUE. His views on Karma do not warrant 3 or more paragraphs. After hundreds of years of Buddhist studies, why do David Loy's views warrant such enormous weight? (Especially when there are plenty of higher-quality scholarly sources on the subject)

This not even close to an undue weight problem. We're talking about three short paragraphs in a relatively small section of a long article. In this particular section ("Modern interpretations and controversies") most of the hundreds of years of Buddhist studies are not relevant--they were already given a thorough airing in the balance of the article. Aside from his academic credentials, Loy is widely published and read by the general Buddhist audience and is one of the most most prominent voices on the subject.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I don't know if there is anything else you disagreed with, but that's because you didn't say what you disagreed with and why. If you have any other problems, please let me know, and we'll discuss them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that if you can't recognize Lamotte's translation of the Karmasiddhiprakarana as a reliable source, then you don't have sufficient familiarity with the field to be weighing in on what is and isn't a reliable source. You are tagging Numen, which is easily verifiable as a leading academic journal by anyone remotely familiar with Buddhist Studies, as not being a reliable source? Seriously? And to add an RS tag to a book by a tenured professor of Buddhist studies and published by a leading Buddhist publisher? That's just ridiculous. The RS tag isn't something to be added indiscriminately to articles when you have zero familiarity with what is and isn't a reliable source on the topic in question and can barely be bothered to find out.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoot for FA?

This article is amazingly thorough. Perhaps we should aim to get some recognition for this. Credit goes mostly to Sylvain! Mitsube (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the sections on East Asian and vajrayana needs substantial improvement before it could deserve any recognition. but some parts are definately good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttormng (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanissaro Bhikkhu quote

The article, directly under the Mahayana heading, contains this quote without any context:

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a Theravādin monk, speculates that the development of the karma doctrine in the direction of determinism necessitated the development of the Mahāyāna concepts of Buddha-nature and savior Buddhas (see Pure land):

n later centuries, when the principle of freedom was

forgotten ... Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it.

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Freedom from Buddha-nature", page 4. Available online: .

Now, I do not know exactly why Thanissaro Bhikkhu is being used as an expert on Mahayana, because he is certainly not a specialist in this area. He is widely respected in Theravada Buddhism, but there should be no illusions that he is NPOV regarding Mahayana. His writings often contain tinges of spite and derision regarding Mahayana or bodhisattvas, or subtle attempts to write them off as being spurious inventions. In this case, Mahayana belongs to the dark "later days" of Indian Buddhism when "freedom" had been forgotten, and all the ignorant Buddhists could do was cling to nonsensical whims about savior buddhas. Frankly, this sort of quote isn't even on the NPOV radar, so I have removed it from the article. Tengu800 (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AN 5.292

I can´t find this sutta online. Can you please offer a link or cite the original (English) quotation? Actually I am not sure if it is a good thing to cite this specific sutta at all. I think it is too fatalistic for an introductory text to karma without further explanation. Pilgrim72 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is cited in a secondary source - I've now provided the citation. Whether or not it would be perceived as "too fatalistic" by some readers, besides being entirely subjective, is not something that is a legitimate consideration in editing wikipedia articles. They are intended to be accurate and NPOV as possible, not edited to make their subject maximally appealing to the imagined sensibilities of the readership.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DN 3.217

This does not seem to be a correct reference to sutta 3 in the Digha Nikaya (DN). In a commonly used English translation (Maurice Walshe) there is no subsection 217 to DN 3. Konetidy (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is more than one convention used in citing Pali scriptures. I'll dig up the secondary source where this reference was given. But from what I can tell from the Walshe this occurs on pg 484.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

'blaming the victim'

The question of the Holocaust also occurs in the Jew in the Lotus: A Poet's Re-Discovery of Jewish Identity in Buddhist India, which describes a group of Jewish religious leaders who meet with the Dalai Lama. They ask one of the Dalai Lama's party, a Buddhist scholar named Geshe Sonam Rinchen, if the Holocaust would be attributed to past karma in the traditional Buddhist view, and he affirms that it would. The author is "shocked and a little outraged," because, like Loy, he felt it "sounded like blaming the victim."

I don't dispute the source of the above, but OTOH it doesn't suggest that there was any opportunity for a rejoinder either. I have no published source, but oral explanations from teachers of the same lineages as Geshe Sonam Rinchen have repeatedly clarified this issue as follows:

• All beings have been generating karma endlessly.
• Until we are very accomplished on the path or if we have purified or previously ripened it, the vast proportion of our negative karma is unripened, waiting for the circumstances under which it may ripen.
• This implies that anyone (not just jews or any other group) in the same circumstances would have undergone the same fate.
• The remarkable thing is regarding those for whom the karma wasn't present (and therefore didn't ripen)
• It gives us an idea of how many people in the world would survive a global disaster of similar proportions - about 9%.
• So, for any given circumstances (such as the holocaust) there is a 9/10 chance that you have the karma for that to ripen in you.

There are also all sorts of other problems about using terms like 'victim blame' - the notion of blame is not present in Buddhism, in that the agent of one's actions is not the person, but the intentions arising in a mental continuum. Instead we are, as Dennett (1992) puts it, “centers of narrative gravity.” That is not to say that persons or their actions do not exist, but rather to say that our mode of existence is merely conventional, merely imputed. (For more on this see Garfield 2006 and Newland 2009). If we are to ascribe agency and responsibility (notions that underpin the idea of both 'victim' and 'blame') then we will be ascribing agency and responsibility to the nominal entity of 'person' only.

Moreover, and this is probably the most central issue in terms of the purpose of Karma in Buddhism, is that it is used as a didactic methodology for establishing a strong grounding in responsibility for one's actions, and it most emphatically is not used for explaining historic events. The entire emphasis of Karma within Buddhism is the inevitability of consequences to one's actions. (20040302 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Main Karma article needs attention

Perhaps some of the experts who wrote this article might like to look over the main Karma article? I've tagged it as "needs attention of expert" because it says many things that are not in accord with Buddhist ideas of karma.

First, a minor point, the Karma#Buddhism section says "Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of saṃsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna" - do any Buddhists say this? I thought that nirvana was liberation from cycles of karma - how can karma liberate you from karma?

Then the Karma#Corollaries_and_controversies section attributes difficulties to Buddhist ideas of karma making many false assumptions about what those ideas are.

I don't feel able to correct the article myself. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will review the article. It may take a little while to get to. Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay great! No hurry, it's probably been like that for a fair while :)

I've found out a bit more since then, the issues in the section Karma#Corollaries_and_controversies mainly occur because it is incorrectly positioned and labelled - the source material is a series of articles about an attempt to apply Buddhist and Hindu ideas of Karma to construct a Theodicy (attempt to explain how a just God permits suffering) in theistic religions. Which explains a lot so I've suggested that it should be moved to the Western section and appropriately labelled.

However the short section on Karma#Buddhism I think also needs attention - I suggested adding the four characteristics of Karma from this article as bullet points, to permit easy comparison with the other ideas of karma on that page - just a suggestion - additionally though I think the paras already there need a review and rewrite. See Talk:Karma#Needs_attention_of_expert_in_Buddhist_teachings Robert Walker (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Storing text from the "Buddhism" section in article "Karma"

This presentation of karma looks accurate, but I have not yet found any sources that present karma in the same manner, using similar language. So I am storing this text here so that we can research and determine the source for this presentation--specifically the presentation of karma as "within the group or groups of cause in the chain of cause and effect". I think this explanation is explaining karma with the context of the twelve links, which is important to note, but it is a somewhat advanced explanation, and not how karma is typically presented to beginners.

In Buddhism, karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or "result". Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" (Pali sankhara) and "action" (Pali bhava). Any action is understood as creating "seeds" in the mind that will sprout into the appropriate result (Pāli vipaka) when met with the right conditions.

Karma is one of five categories of causation, known collectively as niyama dhammas, the first being kamma, and the other four being utu (seasons and weather), bīja (heredity, lit. "seed"), chitta (mind) and dhamma (law, in the sense of nature's tendency to perfect). - Dorje108 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Omniscience article

First, thanks so much, Dorje108, for fixing the Karma article.

Just to say - this isn't directly to do with this article like the Karma article, just a mention in the intro. Also, like karma, it is a word that's easily misunderstood by Westerners, and has different shades of interpretation in Buddhism.

So anyway - just drawing attention in case anyone wants to take a look at it. The Omniscience#Omniscience_in_Buddhist_India section is highly technical (I haven't much idea what it is about myself). And I think there are useful things that could be said there to introduce the Buddhist idea of omniscience and especially its special characteristics compared with Western ideas.

See Talk:Omniscience#Omniscience_in_Buddhism_-_needs_more_work. Though once again I don't feel at all qualified to do that myself.

So - I just wondered if you Dorje108 or anyone else would like to have a look at it also.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I agree the Omniscience section could use work, preferable a separate article for "Omniscience (Buddhism)". I hope to get to this, but again it may really take a while for me to get to it. I also plan to make further changes to the article on Karma. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have started a research page for Omniscience here: User:Dorje108/Omniscience_research. If anyone comes across good sources for this term, please add the source to the research page (preferably with the relevant quote). Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dorje, that's great! Just spotted your reply. Robert Walker (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also had a chance today to look at your Omniscience research page. Lots of good stuff there. And just to upvote your suggestion of a separate article on Omniscience (Buddhism) - I'll look forward to reading it. Robert Walker (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Western Bias in main Karma article

An RfC seems an obvious way ahead but the editor who feels strongly that the article should remain as it is has shown no interest in a RfC.

The issue is that the article has a Karma#Discussion section which is based on an article by a Western philosopher Whitely Kaufman, called "Karma, Rebirth and the problem of evil" presented to the "Revisioning Karma" conference.

It presents many conclusions Kaufman made about Karma, and presents them in objective "encyclopaedic tone" as issues with all such ideas not just in Western adaptations of the ideas but in the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma. Also it is presented before the sections on Karma in Hinduism, Buddhism etc - so at that point in the article the reader hasn't yet been exposed to the original ideas.

There is no evidence as far as I can see that her arguments have been accepted as even of interest by Eastern scholars. Those involved in the debate as far as I can see are Western theologians and philosophers. At any rate, no Eastern scholars as far as I can see in the papers submitted to the conference on "Revisioning Karma".

For details, see Talk:Karma#Western bias of the Discussion Section - summary of the issues

As you'll see there also, Dorje presented a suggestion for re-ordering the page that was supported by myself also and one other editor but it came to nothing Talk:Karma#Problem_with_recent_section_reordering

I don't know what to do next, I know sometimes on Misplaced Pages there is nothing you can do in cases like this, just drawing your attention to this. Suggestions welcome!

Robert Walker (talk)

Popular Buddhism

This article contains the same mass of popular notions as does/did the article on the four truths. Not "action", but "intention" is central to the Buddhist notion of karma. The emphasis on "action" is the Jain/Hindu understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have no idea what you are saying here - Karma involves both action and intention. Doesn't make sense to make either central surely?

To take a simple example. If you stop someone from murdering someone, forcefully, or by misdirection, or hiding their intended victim etc - then they don't experience the negative effects of completing their action, even though they may still have the intention, at least temporarily, to carry it out. The Buddha did this, for instance, when he stopped Angulimala from killing his own mother by presenting himself as a target instead. So that's an example from the Sutras where preventing the action was of great importance. How can you deny this element of the Buddhist teachings?

But on the other side, then obviously an action is coloured by the intention. E.g. whether you make a gift out of pure generosity, or do it in order to entrap someone.

To be clear, I'm not an editor of the article. I'm just someone who has found it useful, and am sad that you have deleted so much of it, to accord with your own concepts about what Karma means in Buddhism.

And now say something that seems to me to make no sense at all in your talk page comment. And as someone who has just deleted a lot of work by other editors whose editing I respect and who say things that make a lot of sense.

No citation given. This brief comment explains your reason for removing more than half the article? Robert Walker (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up

I'm sorry for the effort which was invested in collcting all those quotes - but it was really unreadable, and not encyclopedic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to protest strongly - not as someone involved in writing this article - but as someone who has used it for reference.

You've removed so much valuable material. It was an excellent article before your recent edits. Others said the same on this talk page. So sad to see such a good article destroyed in this way.

To take just one example, this section Characteristics summarizes some of the most frequent misunderstandings of the Buddhist teachings on Karma and clears them up. Current version doesn't address these points at all as far as I can see.

It was also well written. And the quotes well chosen. I didn't find it at all unreadable.

What particularly were your reasons for removing the Characteristics section, just to take one example? And - wouldn't it have been appropriate to discuss it on the talk page first before making such extensive changes?

You might have found general agreement with your proposed changes, but you might not, and that's why we have talk pages, so we can discuss changes first, especially ones likely to be controversial such as deleting half the content of an article with many citations.

If - to take an example - any of the citations were inadequate - well you add "more citations needed" tags, not delete the whole section. And explain the issue on the talk page and give the original authors the opportunity to find more citations to back up what they wrote. You don't just delete whole sections if you think they are insufficiently supported by citations.

This is exactly the kind of conduct that leads so many good editors to leave Misplaced Pages. There are many good Eastern scholars, Buddhist and Hindu, but there seem to be hardly any of them contributing here in Misplaced Pages.

My only contribution as you can check in the history was to fix one broken link. So am not at all personally involved as an editor.

But as a reader, I won't be able to use it any more in it's current form. As Buddhist editors especially tend to be non confrontational - I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them just stop editing wikipedia as a result. Which would be a great shame, in my view anyway - they did an excellent job of editing this article. Summarized a complex and difficult subject in clear, concise language, and well organized. I have backed up the last good version of the article to my user space User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism for reference as the current version is no good to me.

Why, why, why didn't you engage with the existing editors first, and ask them to back up what they did with more citations? Or challenge them on whatever the particular issues you have here on the talk page first? Robert Walker (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert, my reasons are clear: too many primary sources, too many quotes. More citations is definitely not the solution. This issue extends over several articles, and I've commented on it before, as have others. To take one example:

"In Buddhist philosophy, karmic results are not considered to be a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process."

"In Buddhist philosophy" - that's an incredible generalisation! Which Buddhist philosophy, which school, which author? To add a couple of quotes does not help here; you can't just throw 2,500 years of Buddhist history together under such a general notice.

The reason that scholars don't contribute to Misplaced Pages is exactly for this abundancy of popular notions, and a lack of reference to scholarly sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But you can with Buddhism, because they are the teachings of a single teacher, unlike Hinduism. And what's more, he taught extensively for several decades. And the very extensive Pali Canon which is now well over 2000 years old is accepted by all the schools of Buddhism. That's why general statements like that are possible about Buddhism.

I've put rest of this reply into a separate section. The citations you deleted in this section include one of the most notable Buddhist scholars in the Therevadhan tradition.

Nobody knows what this single teacher said exactly - and that's a very broad scholarly concencus. So if you think you can, you don't know what you're talking about. The Pali-canon is only one of at least 18 different canons which have existed, and is definitely NOT accepted by all schools of Buddhism, not in th past, not in the present. They are not ahistorical recording of the Buddha's sayings, but a collection of texts which have been expanded and edited over a couple of centuries, reflecting the understnding and interpretation of only one school of Buddhism, in a specific range of time.

The Buddhist literature is enormous, ranging over more than 2000 years, including several cultural regions, historical areas, and a broad range of languages. Even the western study of Buddhism ranges has a history of over more than 150 years already, and includes several schools of thought, which have produced thousands of studies by hundreds, or thousands, of scholars. Walpoha Rahula is only one of them, who can hardly be treated as a reliable source, since he was first of all a political activist, who transformed Sinhalese Buddhism to use it against the British raj. A noble goal in itself, but not a gaurantee for scholarly neutrality.

So,if you think that "general statements" are possible, yet quoting only a handfull of authors, most of them primary, who coincidentally all agree with each other, suffices, then I think you've no idea what you're talking about, or what a scholarly approach is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The citations in the Karmic results are not a judgement section which you deleted

That particular short section you deleted Karmic results are not a judgement has 5 citations by eminent Buddhist scholars including perhaps the best known of all the modern Therevadhan Buddhist scholars.

• "Karma is not a system of rewards and punishments meted out by God but a kind of natural law akin to the law of gravity. Individuals are thus the sole authors of their good and bad fortune."
  Damien Keown, Professor of Buddhist Ethics at Lancaster University
• "The law of karma is seen as a natural law inherent in the nature of things, like the law of physics. It is not operated by a God, and indeed the gods are themselves under its sway. Good and bad rebirths are not, therefore, seen as "rewards" and "punishments", but as simply the natural results of certain kinds of action."
  Peter Harvey, Emeritus Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Sunderland
• " is usually understood as a sort of moralistic system of retribution—“bad” karma and “good” karma. But karma is simply a law of cause and effect, not to be confused with morality or ethics. No one, including Buddha, set the fundamental bar for what is negative and what is positive. Any motivation and action that steer us away from such truths as “all compounded things are impermanent” can result in negative consequences, or bad karma. And any action that brings us closer to understanding such truths as “all emotions are pain” can result in positive consequences, or good karma. At the end of the day, it was not for Buddha to judge; only you can truly know the motivation behind your actions."
  Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (one of the few Tibetan lamas to have studied teachings in all four of the Tibetan schools)
• - "Buddhism is a nontheistic philosophy. We do not believe in a creator but in the causes and conditions that create certain circumstances that then come to fruition. This is called karma. It has nothing to do with judgement; there is no one keeping track of our karma and sending us up above or down below. Karma is simply the wholeness of a cause, or first action, and its effect, or fruition, which then becomes another cause. In fact, one karmic cause can have many fruitions, all of which can cause thousands more creations. Just as a handful of seed can ripen into a full field of grain, a small amount of karma can generate limitless effects."
  Khandro Rinpoche - notable as one of the few Tibetan nuns to be recognized as a reincarnation - in her case in the lineage back to Yeshe Tsogyal
• "The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term ‘justice’ is ambiguous and dangerous, and in its name more harm than good is done to humanity. The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice, or reward, or punishment meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgment on your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law."
  The world famous Sri Lankan Scholar Walpola Rahula who almost any educated Buddhist will have heard of.
• I'm sure many more could be added also if you had asked Dorje for more citations to back up his edits.

For the original citations: Dorje's 5 citations for this section

Walpola Rahula is, internationally, surely the most famous Sri Lankan scholar, who became the first bikkhu to hold a chair in a Western Institution, in 1964, when he became the Professor of History and Religions at Northwestern University. He is also the author of What the Buddha Taught - one of the most famous books in modern Buddhism, considered by many to be the best exposition of Therevadhan Buddhism.

Just about every educated Buddhist - if they haven't read his book - at least has heard of him - he is that famous as a Therervadhan scholar.

How can you consider yourself qualified to edit this article in the way you did, when you know so little about Buddhism that you haven't heard of him?

Suggestion: When you are not sure if an article is supported by sufficient sources - the first step is to add a "citation needed" template - or ask questions on the talk page. If everyone went around deleting everything in wikipedia that they didn't know themselves and with citations to sources they hadn't read and didn't recognize, there would be nothing left here.

Even if you thought it was mistaken - there was absolutely no need to be in such a rush to edit this article without giving other editors a chance to add citations, or clarify the text or improve it as needed. Especially if you are editing a long established article that has been unchanged for months. Robert Walker (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Transfer of merit

I've moved (...) "Transfer of merit" to Merit (Buddhism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of clean-up

10:22, 25 November 2014 compared to 23:31, 3 November 2014

• Lead: shortened, to give a short summary
• "Meaning of karma": "specific level"-defintion merged into "Buddhist understanding of karma"
• "Centrality to Buddhist thought": selective reading; see "Development of the concept#Early Buddhism", which makes clear that "karma" may not have been so central to early Buddhism. Also: "all of one's actions will have a corresponding result"; the notion of intention is missing here, which gives a wrong impression. It's kind of WP:SYNTHESIS
• "Karmic action and result (Karmphala)": karmaphala is an obscure term; the list with expressions is overdone
• "Interdependent origination": mere mentioning is enough; it's now mentioned in "Rebirth and intention"
• "Whatever we do has a result": one line, long quote
• "Multiple causes and conditions": idem, plus primary sources
• "Seed and fruit": Harvey is moved to "Rebirth and intention"
• "Positive and negative actions": primary sources, interpretations, generalisations ("From the Buddhist point of view")
• "Overcoming habitual tendencies": primary sources, long quotations
• "Right view (understanding action and result)": primary sources, long quotations
• "Rebirth": ""Rebirth and intention""; rest are primary sources and long quotations
• "Characteristics": essay-like; long quotations; generalisations
• "Twelve Nidanas ": part of "Rebirth and intention"
• "Three types of misunderstanding": WP:UNDUE
• "Buddha's realization of": part of "Development of the concept"
• "Within the Buddhist discourses": too long; primary sources; unsourced parts
• "Within Buddhist traditions": retained, though shortened: specific information, instead of the previous generalisations
• "Dedication of merit and rejoicing": moved to Merit (Buddhism)
• "Modern interpretations and controversies": too long; shortened
• "Contemporary glosses": WP:UNDUE
• "Etymology": moved upward; standard to place this at the start

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

These are far too many changes for a single editor to make for a scholarly article like this with numerous citations without discussion on the talk page first.

I recommend that you back up your current version to your user space, to save your work.

Then restore the last version before your edits, as edited by Dorje108. Then discuss the proposed changes one at a time here on the talk page. And give other editors an opportunity to comment on your suggestions. And in case of disputes about interpretation of Karma, or about the validity of the citations, to permit other editors to post additional citations and sources or edit the existing text for clarity.

Quite possibly some of your changes would be seen as uncontroversial improvements that can be applied right away. Others may be disputed. The best way to find out is to suggest them one at a time. It's not easy for editors to comment on a large scale edit resulting in what is essentially a new article, when there are some changes they may approve and others they may not approve.

If talk page discussion doesn't resolve the issue about whether to apply some of your proposed changes, the next stage after that, according to normal Misplaced Pages procedure, would be, to post to the Buddhist project pag. You can also ask for a third opinion if it is a dispute involving only two editors or two editors mainly.

If that doesn't sort it out, you can do a Request for Comment which gives opportunity for any interested editors to comment in a discussion that lasts for 30 days, so giving editors plenty of time to consider and discuss the proposed changes. During these discussions, typically the article is kept in its original state, to allow those involved to comment on it in a fixed state rather than in a state of flux,. Finally, if the result is no consensus, then it is left in its original state.

At least, that's how I understand the wikipedia policy guidelines on this anyway :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Joshua's edits have eliminated problems with WP:LEAD, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:VERIFY etc. and improved the article. JimRenge (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff for the two edits. Whatever anyone's opinion might be of the value of the edits, it's my understanding of the wikipedia guidelines, that such extensive changes should not be done by a single editor, to a scholarly article with numerous citations

The previous main editor worked on for over a year starting in May 2013,and it now has been replaced by an essentially new article in just three weeks, without discussing it on the talk page first. The previous editor has given up editing wikipedia as a result of Joshua Jonathan's actions on this article and the Four Noble Truths article which he also worked on in the same way.

Essentially it's a completely different article now. It might help to get further advice on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

As it stands at present we have two wikipedians in favour of the change and two against it. But whether in favour or not, surely such extensive edits need to be debated one step at a time? It is also inconsiderate of other editors to proceed in this way. He should be given the chance to answer any of the points individually, and to provide extra citations as needed to support his text, or to rewrite it in response to criticisms. There is no way he can defend his version if you just essentially blank it out and replace it with a new one, which is the final result of all these edits.

I think it might be an idea to ask for guidance on this. Robert Walker (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion of the present article is that it is very poor, leading out with statements that are treated as a wrong interpretation of the Nibbedhika Sutta by scholars of the Pali Canon - and with these wrong views presented as a "view from nowhere". That's when it says right near the start that "The cause for our rebirth in samsara are our intentions", see my commments below #New "Rebirth and Intention" section - it is just plain wrong!. If I was coming to this article new, never seen it before, I'd stop reading at that point as obviously too low in quality to be worth reading any futher. Robert Walker (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

New "Rebirth and Intention" section - it is just plain wrong!

It suggests that all you need is intention to get karmic effects. Is absolutely clear in the Buddhist teachings that you can prevent someone else's bad karma if you can prevent them carrying out the action they intended to do.

See Angulimala#Meeting_the_Buddha where Buddha saw that he was about to kill his mother as his 1000th victim. He saw that the karmic effect of this would be that he would end in hell realms. And that if he could be prevented from doing this he would become a monk and subsequently attain Nirvana. So he set out to intercept him, and so prevented him from carrying out the action.

Didn't prevent the intention. He tried to kill the Buddha also, rushed at him to kill him, so most definitely had a firm intention to kill a Buddha (which has similarly devastating immediate karmic effect in the same lifetime to killing your mother), and failed. Shakyamuni Buddha prevented the action, so saving him from its harmful consequences - the story is clear and can't be doubted.

That's also a story that's included in the Pali sutras and recognized in all traditions of Buddhism, Therevadhan and Mahayana.

It is true that "Actions, then, must be intentional if they are to generate karmic fruits" - as you say in the quotation from Harvey.

But the actions also are needed. The intention is needed, but is not enough by itself. That's how it is taught.

And, you haven't given any citation saying that intentions bear fruit without actions.

BTW I don't recommend that you try to fix this section. This is a subtle topic. No way am I going to get involved in trying to fix it myself either. It is easy to see obvious mistakes like this, but it is very hard to write clearly and accurately about Karma which is probably one of the hardest topics to write about in all of Buddhism.

Dorje did an excellent job of it. Use his text instead! Robert Walker (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The section cites Gethin, Bronkhorst, Harvey and Bowker in this respect, and the Nibbedhika Sutta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Those quotes all say that intention is necessary - but it is not at all clear that they also support the case that intention is sufficient. As I've always heard the sutras explained by the Buddhist teachers, then you need intention, the act itself, the completion of the act, and to rejoice in the completion.

Since that's the generally accepted interpretation, then to counter that you need citations that say explicitly that the action is not needed to cause the karmic effect, only intention. That say, for instance, taking the Angulimala example as a basis, that the intention to murder someone has the same effect of an actual murder of someone.

That's different from citations that say that the intention is necessary. If there are any authors that say that only intention is needed and the action is not required for karmic effects, and that the intention to murder someone has the karmic effect of murder - well that is I think is surely a minority, almost fringe viewpoint and it should be explained that that is the case.

After all, if this was the case, it would for instance cause serious issues in meditation if you can't allow thoughts to arise that might have intentions of harmful actions - which is what the situation would be if intention by itself caused karma. You'd end up having to stamp out many of your thoughts before they even arose, an aggressive approach to meditation rather than the middle way. While the way Buddhists generally meditate at least in the simple basic meditation - is that thoughts are allowed to arise, and naturally purify themselves as they pass away. Robert Walker (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, in your quote from the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

Yes intention gives rise to Karma. But intentions can also be blocked before actions leading to karma arise, as in the story of the Buddha and Angulimala. Also, in meditation, intentions can also dissolve away by themselves without causing any karmic effects. He was talking to Bikkhus who would be familiar with all that.

You need to take this to the commentaries, as it is a short statement that obviously needs to be clarified with understanding of the full Pali Canon, not just treated in isolation.

Commentary on the Nibbedhika Sutta statement

Looking up the 2003 translation of the Nibbedhika Sutta with notes by Piya Tan, this is what he says about that passage:

See: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.11-Nibbedhika-Pariyaya-S-a6.63-piya.pdf

"Bhikshus, intention is kamma, I say! Having intended, one creates karma through body, through speech, and through the mind"

This famous statement is often misunderstood. "The Buddha's utterance does not establish a mathematical equivalence between cetanaa and kamma, such that every instance of volition must be considered kamma. As the second part of his statement shows, his words mean that cetanaais the decisive factor in action, that which motivates action and confers upon action the ethical significance intrinsic to the idea of kamma. This implies that the ethical evaluation of a deed is to be based on the cetanaa from which it springs, so that a deed has no kammic efficacy apart from the cetanaa to which it gives expression. The statement does not imply that cetanaa (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma."

Bodhi Bihikku, 1998, "A critical examination of Nanavira Thera's "A note on paticcasumuppada", Budhist studies review, 1998.

By the way when it says "(in the non arahant)" - an arahant of course, has seen through the illusion of self and is no longer bound by Samsara, so no longer creates karma. But has intention and wishes and actions. So it is only in non arahants that intentions lead to Karma - and then his point is that only some intentions lead to karma in a non arahant.

On the Karma free actions of arahants, Walpola Rahula puts it like this:

Now, the Pali word kamma or the Sankrit word karma (from the root kr to do) literally means 'action', 'doing'. But in the Buddhist theory of karma it has a specific meaning: it means only 'volitional action', not all action. Nor does it mean the result of karma as many people wrongly and loosely use it. In Buddhist terminology karma never means its effect; its effect is known as the 'fruit' or the 'result' or karma (kamma-phala or kamma-vipāka).

Volition may relatively be good or bad, just as a desire may relatively be good or bad. So karma may be good or bad relatively. Good karma (kusala) produces good effects, and bad karma (akusala) produces bad effects. 'Thirst', volition, karma, whether good or bad, has one force as its effect: force to continue-to continue in a good or bad direction. Whether good or bad it is relative, and is within the cycle of continuity (samsāra). An Arahant, though he acts, does not accumulate karma, because he is free from the false idea of self, free from the 'thirst' for continuity and becoming, free from all other defilements and impurities (kilesā, sāsavā dhammā). For him there is no rebirth. Chapter III of "What the Buddha Taught"

The full quote by Bhikkhu Bodhi continues as follows - but it gets rather technical, with use of specialist Pali words like vipaakacetanaa and vipaaka and sa"nkhaarakkhandha - so this is a passage for a Pali Scholar to read:

Once again just reminder, I'm not, by saying this, helping you to fix the article. My view is that we should restore the article to the state it was when you first started to edit it, and then you, Dorje, and anyone else can then work on any issues you found case by case, one at a time, with a discussion on the talk page, and giving other editors opportunities to add new citations and supporting content where needed. Robert Walker (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Reminder of wikipedia editing policy - Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"

Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

see: Misplaced Pages:Editing policy

Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't think that's preserving the value of Dorje's edits, to copy the quotations from his version of this article into Wikiquotes! Robert Walker (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the preservation of these large amount of quotes in WikiQuote is a good solution. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of quotes.

Thank you Jonathan. JimRenge (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's edits

I support Joshua Jonathan's edits.VictoriaGrayson 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Yoga articles
• Unknown-importance Yoga articles
• Automatically assessed Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• C-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Low-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles