Misplaced Pages

Talk:Karma in Buddhism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:04, 20 December 2014 editRobertinventor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,925 edits Points in favour of authors with Tibetan as a first language← Previous edit Revision as of 17:22, 20 December 2014 edit undoRobertinventor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,925 edits Bold,revert,discuss - conclusions from the past days of discussionNext edit →
Line 901: Line 901:
{{od}} {{od}}
Robert, read carefully: Dorje's edits were not reverted, they were refined. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia; that Dorje has been working on this article since 2013 is not an argument. See ]. ] -] 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Robert, read carefully: Dorje's edits were not reverted, they were refined. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia; that Dorje has been working on this article since 2013 is not an argument. See ]. ] -] 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

: Sorry I read Victoria's remark as yours. As for me, I don't want to be an editor of this article that's what I was saying. I'm a reader of it who was dismayed to find a previously valuable and mature article turned into one that is no longer informative in the same way. That's why I feel able to comment on it and discuss it. But I don't want to be involved in processes of paraphrasing or working out new content. And I also think the first step is to roll back. So don't want to discuss how to improve an article that in my view is a step back from the old version. My discussion here was meant as motivation for a roll back, but you took all my comments as an opportunity to rewrite the present article. I never edited the old version except to fix one broken link, and don't want to edit the new one either. Because it is a subtle topic which is so easy to misrepresent. ] (]) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


== Further explanation (#3?) == == Further explanation (#3?) ==

Revision as of 17:22, 20 December 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.
WikiProject iconYoga
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Note icon
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.
WikiProject iconBuddhism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Religion / Eastern Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy


Archives


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

  • Also don't think it is right to collapse this discussion either. It is not wkipedia policy to collapse talk page discussions immediately when the issues mentioned in the article are fixed Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

The sentence "Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process" was preserved, together with Keown and Harvey as references. I've added Gombrich as a source, and removed Dzongsar Khyentse, Khandro Rinpoche, and Walpola Rahula as references. Three references suffices. The line is very clear in itself; it does not need additional quotes to make it clearer. So, done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 11 December 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!

Again removed the collapse - it discusses your previous version of the article. I don't think it is right to hide this section just because you have now corrected your mistake here. Not so soon. Can be archived eventually of course! Robert Walker (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Walker (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about the sentence right near the start of the article, originally read: "The cause for our rebirth in samsara are our intentions", it's now been rewritten as

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition."

Both are simply false. In the Buddha's teachings on this subject, scholars are agreed, there is no inevitable effect at all from intentions. And in the case of an Arhat, then none of their intentions and actions lead to karma.

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.

I've removed "inevitable". Groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Story of Angulimala from the Pali Canon - shows how by preventing an action, intention to kill the Buddha did not lead to the effects of killing a Buddha

See Angulimala#Meeting_the_Buddha where Buddha saw that Angulimala was about to kill his mother as his 1000th victim. He saw that the karmic effect of this would be that Angulimala 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. And he then did attain Nirvana in the same lifetime.

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.

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

It could hardly be clearer. By acting to prevent this murder, the Buddha showed clearly that intention does not have to lead to effects, if the intended action can be interrupted and prevented.

Intentions are necessary - but not sufficient - for karmic effects

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.

No citation given for this - as the article now says "citation needed"

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

Don't recommend a fix, please turn back to Dorje's version by a scholar who knows his subject

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)

Joshua Jonathan's reply

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 "This famous statement is often misunderstood

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.

Karma free actions of arahants

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

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:
Extended content

The Buddha's full statement should be considered first:

"It is volition, monks, that I call kamma. Having willed (or intended), one does kamma by body, speech, or mind."

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 cetanaa is 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.

In order to see that the notion of vipaakacetanaa is not self-contradictory nor even unintelligible, we need only consider the statements occasionally found in the Suttas about naamaruupa descending into the womb or taking shape in the womb (e.g. DN 15/ii,63; also #17 above). It is undeniable that the naamaruupa that "descends" into the womb is the result of past kamma, hence vipaaka. Yet this naama includes cetanaa, and hence that cetanaa too must be vipaaka. Further, the Suttas establish that cetanaa, as the chief factor in the fourth aggregate (the sa"nkhaarakkhandha), is present on every occasion of experience. A significant portion of experience is vipaaka, and thus the cetanaa intrinsic to this experience must be vipaaka. When one experiences feeling as the result of past kamma, the cetanaa coexisting with that feeling must be vipaaka too. The Commentaries squarely confront the problem of cetanaa in resultant states of consciousness and explain how this cetanaa can perform the distinct function of cetanaa without constituting kamma in the common sense of that word.

(am quoting from the online backup of his article by someone to a forum page here as I don't have access to the original: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?193-Paticcasamuppada-II-In-which-Bhikkhu-Bodhi-Debates-at-Nanavira%27s-Ghost-and-Mettiko-Bhikkhu-rebuts )
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)

Wikiquote has quotations related to Karma in Buddhism.

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)
Quotes are recommended in footnotes, to help the reader to follow up citations, for books not available to them, or in cases where they need to know which passage the article is referring to inthe source. So, there was no reason at all to remove all his quotes from the footnotes.
And in the article itself, they are recommended in cases where the quotes present the material clearly in a way that can't be improved with a paraphrase. They are also recommended as a way to prevent the article from becoming a "view from nowhere" in cases where there are differings in interpretation. There are many cases where use of quotations in articles is not only acceptable but also recommended. See Misplaced Pages:Quotations
Also there was a lot more to Dorje's version than quotes. He used more than Joshua Jonathan does. But he also summarized and introduced and explained them as well. It was not at all a "list of quotes". Was proper use of quotes in context of the article following the Misplaced Pages guidelines on how to use quotes.
All that is now gone as well, replaced by Joshua's own explanations, based on tiny snippets of text from the scholars and sutras, out of context, hard for a reader to assess, or follow up. Robert Walker (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's edits

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

  • I have removed the collapse of my response here - I don't think it is right to collapse a section that suggests that there is an issue of user conduct even if you don't agree with it. All of the things I said here down to Joshua Jonathan's "response" were collaped. Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Point of procedure and I wonder if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct by Joshua Jonathan

I'm going to look into what can be done as a point of procedure and user conduct.
I'd like to point out - that whatever anyone thinks of his version of the article - it turns out Joshua Jonathan has been editing wikipedia on these topics for a long time. And he let Dorje108 work on this article, and on the Four Noble Truths article, slowly and carefully since spring 2013. And then in a period of three weeks, destroys most of his work, in both cases removing large amounts of text, re-arranging the articles, and basically completely rewriting them as new articles - with no prior notification on the talk page first. This destroys just about everything Dorje108 has done for the last year on wikipedia.
Whatever you might think of his edits, I think there is also an issue of user conduct here. Why let someone work on two articles slowly, for well over a year, and then do this all in just a few weeks without discussion, except a brief exchange on the Four Noble Truths talk page?

Details

Here is the history page of Four Noble Truths showing many edits by Joshua Jonathan back to 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&offset=20121230030834&limit=500&action=history
Diffs for both articles showing the extent of the recent changes by Joshua Jonathan
for Karma in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477
for Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305
Can't be any doubt he has been aware of Dorje108's work here for a long time. Though he hasn't edited this article before, he must have been aware of it for a long time also, given that it is one of the central topics of the Buddha's teachings.
Understandably, Dorje108 has now stopped editing wikipedia. See User_talk:Dorje108

What can be done?

I'm not sure what can be done, but am going to investigate and see if this can be dealt with as a user conduct issue. I was hoping that he would do this of his own accord, but if not, I think that we have a case for a roll back of both articles and to ask Joshua Jonathan to propose his edits on the talk page first, and apply them one at a time after consultation rather than rewrite the entire article in one go like this.
I think also, given that it is an article with few editors, that's been essentially the same for months with few changes - and with no deadline or hurry to "fix it", that he should also apply his edits slowly and with consideration for the limited time available to the other main editor, discussing them here first. Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan please consider rolling back and doing your edits more slowly, with prior discussion, in this fashion. Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have another proposal: Dorje is going to propose and dicuss all his edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference is, that his version is the existing article as it was before you did your edits. As I understand wikipedia guidelines, then you start with the existing article when discussing proposed edits, not the suggested new version of it. But I will check this, as a point of procedure. Robert Walker (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong view of karma

Copied from Talk:Four Noble Truths#Extent of the recent changes by Joshua Jonathan

I've been following the Karma in Buddhism article more closely, and there, Joshua Jonathan leads out his new version, with a wrong view about Karma

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition."

Where, he is clearly talking about volitions at that point, not actions, or "karmic imprints", and he presents this, without citation, as a "view from nowhere", doesn't say who said this, it is just his own statement as a wikipedia editor. If I was reading that article for the first time I'd stop at that point as clearly the work of an amateur who doesn't know much about Buddhism. Just being blunt there. Perhaps he has some scholarship in other areas of Buddhism but in this topic this shows that Dorje108's scholarship is far superior to his - that he is editing from an actual understanding of Buddhist teachings.

I'm no scholar myself, but this is an elementary error that just about any educated Buddhist would pick up on, I'd have thought. Piya Tan comments "This famous statement is often misunderstood. " about this misunderstanding of the Buddha's short utterance in the Nibbedhika Sutta. It gives me no confidence at all in his edits. While Dorje108's article - I found an excellent one myself. And I don't know why you call the authors of his quotes "popular authors". Just because some of them are Tibetans who have studied Tibetan rather than Western scholarship? He choses Tibetans widely recognized as authoritative and knowledgeable about Tibetan Buddhism, not fringe popular figures whose scholarship is dubious. He mixes them with quotes from Western academics and from Therevadhan authorities. A good all round mix of sources I'd say myself of both Eastern and Western scholarship.

That's also why quotes are so much better. If you have a quote - and not just short one sentence fragments but long enough quotes to see what the author says, then you know that this is a statement by a recognized authority on the Buddhist teachings rather than some wikipedia editor.

But whatever your view on this - the pace and method is all wrong. Why let Dorje108 work on these articles from spring 2013, and then destroy his work so rapidly with almost no prior discussion - none at all in the case of the Karma in Buddhism article.

I've posted this to the talk page Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Joshua_Jonathan.27s_edits I will investigate, and see if we have any case for user conduct and rollback anyway, if he doesn't revert his edits - I don't know if we have a case here, but seems at least possible we do, does no harm to just find out what we can do. Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The line was already changed in "the basic ideas is that intentional actions, driven by kleshas (etc)". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Response

Robert, could you try to give constructive suggestions for what you think are improvements, instead of repeating "I don't like it"? Here are some responses:

  • Karma in Buddhism: yeah, maybe it might have been better to first make a list of problems I saw with "Karma in Buddhism". Well, I didn't, I started working on it. See WP:BOLD and WP:OWN;
  • User conduct & rollback: out of the question. To label my edits as a "user conduct" problem goes against the grain of Misplaced Pages. A rollback is appropriate in case of vandalism, not in case of faithfull edits, even if you don't like them;
  • Wrong view of karma: the two lines give three sources; one of them was already in the article. So this is not "just his own statement". To call this "the work of an amateur who doesn't know much about Buddhism" is inappropriate; the talkpage is meant to discuss changes, reach concensus, and improve the article. Not to make misplaced ad hominem attacks.
  • Quotes: this has been discussed before. Extensive quotes can be moved to WikiQuote. They distract the article.

I've explained my edits; you've chosen not to respond to these explanations, but to repeat again and again your objections, which boil doewn to "I like the quotes" and "you should have asked first". The way you're acting here is WP:DISRUPTIVE. You're not trying to reach concencus, you keep pushing your point, and you keep adding WP:WALLSOFTEXT, despite a long list of helpfull advice and warnings in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On conduct, since you don't agree, I'm going to ask for advice from Robert McClenon who I've found is very helpful on these matters and knowledgeable. As a matter of conduct, it is quite simply, that you let Dorje work on this article for a year and six months uninterrupted, slowly and carefully working on it just about every week for over eighteen months without a single comment on the talk page. And then in three weeks, you completely rewrote it, without any comments on the talk page first. And naturally enough - having previously done the same to the 4 noble truths article which is the other main article he has been working on for a similar period of time, he has stopped editing wikipedia.
I think that might be conduct that could be taken sufficiently improper and inconsiderate of other editors to require a rollback and apology, and to do those edits again more slowly with discussion first. But I'll see what he says. Robert Walker (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Eiteher you don't read my comments, or you don't understand them. "Since you don't agree" condences it: you don't want to reach a concensus, you just want it your way. Let me repeat: your talkpage-behaviour is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua, I have replied in detail in that section above, but you didn't respond.
  1. Your citations in this section show that volition is necessary for karma, which is not disputed.
  2. They do not say that volition is sufficient for karma
  3. You haven't given any citation that says volition by itself causes karma without action
I wonder if part of this confusion arises from the Buddha's mention of mind, when he says "through volitions one acts in body, speech and mind". Clearly volitions are not themselves acts of mind or he would say "volitions are acts of mind", not that "through volition one acts with the mind". I take it as meaning what we would now call miraculous powers, though in those days the distinction wasn't made quite as we do. So things like curses, or levitation, or manifesting things from nothing, or instantly re-appearing in another realm or in another place - they are all acts of mind certainly, so would be included. I don't know what else would be included.
Also would like to point out, I searched and found this citation in support of the interpretation.
Where is your scholarly support for the opposite interpretation of the suttra? Even one example - if you found something - that would make it a disputed interpretation. But as it is now, we only have the interpretation that I described as supported by the scholars who read Pali and are expert in the Pali canon, and you have given no scholarly sources that say that volition is sufficient for karma, without action. This is not just saying "I don't agree" or "I don't like what you say"! Robert Walker (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Note, just to say, Joshua Jonathan has now corrected this sentence in the article, see below. But - as a beginner's error, that he made this error at all, confusing volitions on their own, with both volitional actions, and also with the seeds which (according to some interpretations of Karma only) are the imprints of the volitional actions on the mind after completion of the action - that he confused three different things and treated them as if identical - this doesn't give confidence in him as someone to completely reshape the article. Dorje108 would not have made a mistake like this. Robert Walker (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Jonathan, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly, are you asserting that texts by Buddhist writers and teachers (who do not have Western academic training) should be considered primary sources? Dorje108 17:53, 30 November 2014 (previously unsigned cmt)

Yes, I think so. See WP:PRIMARY:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."'
This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much. See also WP:WPNOTRS:
"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."
Even someone like Heinrich Dumoulin, who was an academic scholar on Zen, and a professor, is nowadays regarded as a primary source! So, when possible, secondary should be used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This sounds almost as though you are saying that only those who are not scholars in the Buddhist traditions can be used as sources for articles on Buddhism. Do you think that only those who are not scholars in Christian traditions - e.g. Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist scholars can be used as sources for articles on Christian theology?
Sri Lanka has a long continuous tradition of scholarship. Tibet likewise. I don't agree at all that the likes of Walpola Rahula for instance, which you gave as an example on my talk page, should be regarded as a primary source on the Pali Canon - and that some Western academic should be regarded as a secondary source. What's the sense in that? Robert Walker (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert and Dorje108

Stop filling the articles with non-academic material.VictoriaGrayson 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, this is the nub of what I objected to in that sentence:
This is 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.

What is non academic about that? Do you question Piya Tan the translator, and Bhikkhu Bodhi as valid sources? I just don't understand your objection, sorry!
And in the other direction he hasn't given a citation for his crucial statement

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition"

Someone else has added a citation needed tag, no citation was supplied. As usually understood, the seeds or impressions that inevitably ripen are created by volitional actions, not by volitions unaccompanied by actions. Karma is always about action, as Bhikkhu Bodhi says in that quote. The article doesn't even mention that this is how it is usually understood by Buddhists.
And then it just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent with the stories in the Pali Canon. It would make the ordinary beginner's meditation impossible- if all your intentions inevitably lead to karma and bind you to samsara no matter what you do - why do you meditate? And it doesn't fit with what they say about arhats that they don't produce any karma. Western academics may perhaps have issues with some of these points - but - in an article about Buddhism - well that is the source material, the article should start by saying what Buddhist believe and what the Buddha taught, as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon - not what some Western academics would like to re-interpret his teachings to mean. Western reinterpretations can go later, if that is what this is - as no citation is given I've no idea where it comes from - and should be clearly labelled. Robert Walker (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do question Piya Tan and Bhikkhu Bodhi.VictoriaGrayson 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Why? What is your criterion for accepting some notable authors as valid sources and others not?
And how do you explain the stories in the Pali canon where intentions are prevented from creating karmic effects, and the intentions of arhats with no karmic effects? And do you think it is possible to be free from Samsara, if so how if intentions inevitably lead to karma?
BTW just wanted to say - I certainly haven't added any non academic material to any of the articles, as I haven't added any material to them at all. Except fixed one broken link on this article as you can see from the history if you do a user search. Added one tag to the Karma article, did some other minor edits to that article but they were all reverted however by another editor and I don't like to edit war so that was that.
So I have at present, no contributions at all in any of the Buddhist articles in Misplaced Pages in the main space. And as for this article, I wouldn't want to edit it - I recognize Dorje108 as having far superior understanding of Karma in Buddhism than I have :). I can only comment on really obvious things that are wrong here like this one - well seems an obvious, even "beginner's" error to me anyway with the background of the teachings I've received as a Buddhist practitioner. Just saying here how I see it - I find hard to imagine how anyone would think that this is Buddhist teaching. Robert Walker (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Bikkhu Bodhi is definitely a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, Robert: I took the patience to read through the first of your comments in this single thread. The crucial line is "cetanaa is the decisive factor in action". I've added four words: "intentional actions, driven by". So the sentence now reads "The basic ideas is that intentional actions, driven by kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind." 5 references, one note. Do you really have to make so much fuzz? The valuable remarks get drowned in it; that's a pity.
The statement "The statement does not imply that cetanaa (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma" is the kind of statement on which the various traditions tend to disagree. I don't expect that kind of nuance from soemone like Piya Tan; "Free Booklets Series - Buddhism For The Millions" says it all. See also ; the believers even disagree among themselves. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: "the article should start by saying what Buddhist believe and what the Buddha taught, as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon - not what some Western academics would like to re-interpret his teachings to mean"
  • "what "Buddhist believe": have you any idea how many different schools of Buddhism there are, and have been, and how widely divergent they are?
  • "what the Buddha taught": if you can tell for sure what the Buddha taught, you'll become famous throughout the academics. No academic dares to say for sure what exactly the Buddha taught.
  • "as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon" - like Schmithausen, K.R. Norman, Tillman Vetter, David Gombrich, Johannes Bronkhorst? That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Your dear "pali-experts" are believers, who wish to harmonise the texts; "some Western academics" are the kind of people who take a critical look at those texts.
  • And, to repeat: the Pali canon is only one of eightteen canons which existed in ancient India. It's not a verbatim report of the Buddha's sayings, but a collection of redactions by a faith-community. As early as the 1960s, Edward Conze already argued that the Theravada and the Mahayana tradition can make equal claims to preserving the "authentic" teaching of the Buddha.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the source-tag: I added that tag, to remind that this piece of info is not sourced yet. Matter of carefull editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well what you have in the article for that particular sentence is now correct as best I understand it. But how could you not see this distinction between volitions (cetanaa) and intentional actions in the first place? And how could you in your original statement confuse the seeds that are the imprints of karmic actions with volitions which precede actions and don't necessarily lead to them? And to say this is a minor point that doesn't deserve such a fuss over it - to me this just shows to me how little qualified you are to make such a major change to this article as to totally rewrite the whole thing - that this seems a subtle point to you. You may have impressive scholarship in other areas, how am I to tell, but you don't seem to have much understanding of the Buddhist ideas of Karma to make such a beginner's slip here.
As I said before, I'm not going to go through the entire article correcting misunderstandings like this. Which I'm not qualified to do anyway except for really really obvious things like this one. I think we should roll back to Dorje108's version.
As for your comments saying no famous scholar would dare to say what the Buddha taught - have you forgotten that Walpola Rahula wrote a book called precisely this: What the Buddha Taught? One of the most famous books in Buddhism.
This is how Walpola Rahula puts it

"I have discussed in this book almost everything which is commonly accepted as the essential and fundamental teaching of Buddha. These are the doctrines of the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Five Aggregates, Karma, Rebirth, Conditioned Genesis (Paticcasamuppāda), the doctrine of No-Soul (Anatta), Satipatthāna (the Setting-up of Mindfulness)....

The term Theravāda-Hinayāna or 'Small Vehicle' is no longer used in informed circles- could be translated as 'the School of the Elders' (theras), and Mahāyāna as 'Great Vehicle'. They are used of the two main forms of Buddhism known in the world today. Theravāda, which is regarded as the original orthodox Buddhism, is followed in Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Chittagong in East Pakistan. Mahāyāna, which developed relatively later, is followed in other Buddhist countries like China, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia, etc. There are certain differences, mainly with regard to some beliefs, practices and observances between these two schools, but on the most important teachings of the Buddha, such as those discussed here, Theravāda and Mahāyāna are unanimously agreed."

I'm not saying at all that you shouldn't edit this article. I'm sure you could contribute and add value to it. Just saying, you don't inspire confidence as the person to totally rewrite it when you make these "beginner's" slips in your edits. Also it doesn't inspire confidence, in me anyway, to do so, so quickly, without discussion first and without consideration for Dorje108's patient edits on this article for the last eighteen months. And it's no wonder that Dorje108 gave up editing wikipedia as a result. I haven't followed the discussions on the Four Noble Truths article, but if this is a sample of them I am not at all surprised he stopped.
Robert Walker (talk)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hans Wolfgang Schumann (1997), Boeddhisme. Stichter, scholen, systemen (Buddhismus. Stifter, Schule und systeme (1973)), Uitgeverij Asoka, p.84:

"Zelfs als iemand door uiterlijke omstandigheden van de uitvoering van een bedoelde daad afgehouden wordt, zelfs dan is de bestaande bedoeling alleen al voldoende om het corresponderende karmische effect teweeg te brengen."

In translation:

"Even if someone is withheld by outward circumstances of the performance of an intended act, even than the existing intention alone is sufficient to trigger the corresponding karmic effect."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you have a source now. But that's surely a minority view amongst Buddhist scholars. How does that make sense of the Angulimala story where it's said clearly that he had the intention of killing the Buddha but did not experience the karmic effect of doing so because he failed to do it? What also about the Jataka tale story of the merchants where the Buddha kills a merchant before he has a chance to kill the other merchants, in order to prevent him from experiencing the negative karma caused by his action? There are many stories like that in the Buddhist tradition. What is the point in mindfulness and taking the lay vows if your intentions by themselves have karmic effects even if you don't do anything? How can meditation possibly work? Are there intentions that don't have karmic effects? What is his sutra support for what he says? Are there other authors who discuss his comments and what do they say? It just raises so many questions which he would need to answer, does he answer these points? And what do other scholars think of his answers if he does? Robert Walker (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gombrich:
"The full statement in which the Buddha defines kamma (AN III, 415) has two parts and runs as follows: ‘Monks, it is intention that I call karma. By intending one performs karma through body, word or thought.’ The two parts of the statement are virtually synonymous, for the second merely provides a slight amplification. This is the Sautrantika view and I am sure it is true to the original meaning of the text. But the Vaibhasikas read more into the amplification. They separated the intention from the act, with the intention coming first. So karma became divided into two parts: intention and what happens next. Bodily and verbal action manifested one’s intention to others and therefore were called vijñapti, ‘information’.
The first part of the Vaibhasika karma corresponds to my ‘dogmatic’ karma; they regarded it as karma proper, because of the force of the first half of the Buddha’s statement. The ‘information’ of the bodily or verbal action corresponds to my ‘typical’ karma." (Gombrich, How Buddhism began, p.54-55)
This is why we need scholars. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the issue with the change of "ownership" of this article

So - the main thing is that Joshua Jonathan has taken over ownership of this article, by completely rewriting it, after Dorje108 had been working on it for eighteen months. And Dorje108 is no longer editing wikipedia as a result of these actions on this article and the Four Noble Truths article. I write this as a reader who found Dorje108's version of this article useful.

Karma in Buddhism has a reputation as one of the most difficult topics in Buddhism to explain clearly, and one that is easily misunderstood. It is regarded as far harder to expound in any detail, and to understand than the teachings on non self. To truly understand details of the workings of Karma is after all one of the four imponderables.

I think it is clear from the discussions here that none of us currently writing on the talk page have the competence to edit this article. I know that I don't.

As for Joshua Jonathan - though he may have impressive scholarship in other areas of Buddhism, he doesn't have sufficient competence in this topic, I think is pretty clear. In an earlier version of the main page (now fixed) and in this talk page:

He confused

  • Intentions (which may not be accompanied by actions) with
  • Intentional actions - where you actually carry out an action, and confused both of those with
  • Impressions on the mind caused by the completion of an action.

That last one, the so called "Seeds" - as I understand it is a later addition made by some Buddhists in an attempt to make the workings of Karma easier to understand. I don't think, from what I read in Dorje's version of the article, that all Buddhists accept that this is the way to explain it, via imprints on the mind.

Then he compounded the error by saying that this is a subtle distinction.

Also when I challenged him on the old section on "Karma is not a judgement" - he said that nobody can say this about Buddhism. But then when I simply copied Dorje108's footnote into the body of this talk page complete with the quotations - exactly as presented by Dorje108, he then conceded that this was valid and reinstated the section.

I think this shows clearly that he deleted material without first carefully reading the supporting citations.

He also removed all the quotations from the footnotes. The Misplaced Pages guidelines recommend including quotations in footnotes. It is not an adequate solution to move them into wikiquotes - as who is going to read this article with wikiquotes in another tab and search each of the footnoes in wikiquotes?

He also removed the quotations within the body. I for one found them very useful. Quotations in the article body are recommended when they express things more clearly than a wikipedia editor can hope to do - which is surely the case here in such a subtle topic as Karma. As Joshua has already shown with his own incorrect summaries. They are also recommended when it is a subject where there are differing views expressed, where you want to present the view of a particular author - often the author's own words are the best way to do that. Again in Karma in Buddhism there are so many different ideas about how to understand it in detail - that I think it is an area, of all areas in Buddhism, where quotations in the body of the article, and of reasonable length, make sense. Supported of course by explanation, not just a list of quotes, but included for a reason - but that is exactly what Dorje108 did.

So what is the way forward?

I submit that none of us are competent to edit this article. The only wikipedia editor I know of so far who is competent is Dorje108. He would not have made the basic mistakes that Joshua Jonathan did. And has shown that he has wide ranging scholarship on this subject in the Western scholarly literature, in the Therevadhan literature and the Tibetan literature on the subject.

So I submit that the way forward is to apologise to Dorje108, to revert to his version of the article, and invite him to return to Misplaced Pages to edit it.

Dorje108 has shown himself to be a courteous editor, who is good at working collaboratively with other editors and non contentious. There should be no problem discussing proposed changes to the article with him.

I am not suggesting that Joshua Jonathan is banned from editing this article or anything like that. You can see ways to improve an article, often, even if you don't yet have an in depth understanding of the subject. Indeed, since the article is written for readers who don't yet know about it, then often a reader who doesn't have an in depth understanding can see issues with the presentation that specialists on the topic can't see.

Also I think it is clear that he has good scholarship in the area, particularly, of Western Buddhist scholarship. Surely many things he can contribute. I just don't think he is the right person to be the main editor and to take ownership of this article from Dorje108.

Hope this helps, presented the issue here as neutrally and dispassionately as I can do it. Apoologies if this is too long, and I have put a couple of hours work into making it as succint as I can, it's the best I can do. These are my main points. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To remind you:
"Tillman Vetter notes that in early Buddhism rebirth is ascribed to craving or ignorance.(Vetter 1988, p.xxi) Buswell too notes that Early Buddhism does not identify bodily and mental motion, but desire (or thirst, trsna), as the cause of karmic consequences.(Buswell 2004, p.416}} Matthews notes that there is no cohesive presentation of karma in the Sutta Pitaka,(Matthews 1986, p.124) which may mean that the doctrine was incidental to the main perspective of early Buddhist soteriology.(Matthews 1986, p.124)"
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But again - none of that says that intention leads to karma without action. Is of course ascribed to craving and ignorance. So what? Doesn't mean that karma is an inevitable consequence of ignorance and craving. You work on that of course. But you also work on right action and right livelihood, mindfulness etc. If karma arose just from intention then there would be no way of doing anything about it except through intention.

Robert, please move on. Joshua Jonathan is a way better editor than you and Dorje108 combined.VictoriaGrayson 20:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, why then did he confuse Seeds - a theoretical idea from later Buddhism of impressions on our mind that result from the completion of actions - with Intentions, which happen before an action is carried out, and don't have to be followed by actions or Karma at all? How could he possibly think of that as a subtle distinction, between Seeds and Intentions, if he understood both ideas?
I agree that he seems to have read widely and know many sources. That doesn't mean however, that he is an authority who understands everything he read and that as an editor his decisions are final and always excellent. Robert Walker (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Remark on Popular Buddhism and stories from the sutras=

Victoria, BTW on your remarks before about introducing quotes from "popular Buddhism" into this talk page discussion - are you thinking of my mention of the Angulimala story? there are a number of things in the sutras that can't be fitted easily into modern scientific ways of thinking about the world, like that story. But you have that also in other religions. In Christianity, the stories for instance of the feeding of the 5,000 or turning water into wine, or walking on water. But it is valid to talk about those stories when you discuss how Christians understand Christianity. Some take them literally, some more for the ideas in them. Same here. So the story of Angulimala, whether you think it happened literally as described, or is a way of presenting an idea vividly to help us understand it - it tells a lot about Buddhist ideas of karma and the results of karma which is why I mentioned it.
Does this make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


Remarks on Karma not a science

With Karma one of the four imponderables - then though some elements are well within the purvue of science, it is not something that you can work out scientific laws and rules for in all its details.

Acinteyya

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.

..."The results of kamma..." - Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

So we need to be careful not to turn this into an article that tries to make Karma into a science in the Western sense.
Of course you can apply methods of science to study of the texts themselves, history of the teachings, and so forth. Indeed this is a case in point.
The article should say that Karma is considered by Buddhists to be one of the four imponderables, which Dorje108 says in his version. That's an essential point lest the reader thinks that Buddhists think of it as some kind of a scientific law.
That BTW is another of the many essential sections Joshua left out. One of the most important sections in Dorje108's article in my view, User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#Karmic_results_are_nearly_impossible_to_predict_with_precision
I'm not going to fight for them one at a time as I did for "Karma is a judgement", as I don't want to be an editor of this article. And it would be exhausting. I think the only way forward is to restore Dorje's version. There is so much material in it that no longer exist, as you see from the Cleanup summary.
Also, I don't think myself it had an unnecessary sentence in it, at least in the parts that were of most interest to me.
If anyone wants a reference on Karma in Buddhism I'd link to Dorje's version. Which, if not restored here, I'll back up outside of wikipedia, have already done that indeed, as is permitted so long as you attribute it properly. Robert Walker (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I think of Dorje's version, but I am troubled by what seems to be a clear case of WP:OWNER going on here.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
From which side?
Regarding the "Four imponderables": my way working with this is as follows: read the lines carefully, and notice contradictions and issues. In this case:
  • that line was unsourced. Next in the previous version of the KiB-articles follows the line "In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest." What's the relation with the first line? By the way, funny thing is: the Acinteyya] article quotes the Acintita Sutta: "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about The results of kamma." So, stating that the result of karma is imponderable, tehere follows a discussion of the results of karma.
  • The Acintita Sutta says "the results of kamma", whereas the line in the article said "the precise results". This implies that the reults of karma are ponderable; only the precise results are not. that's an issue, isn't it?
  • Two quotes from primary sources: Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states comes from Rigpa Wiki; wikis are not accepted as a source; and Bhikkhu Thanissaro's publication is self-published.
  • Next follows a Google-search, at Google Books. Only six results. That's not really much... At first sight: three books by spirituality-minded writers, one hit for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. Leaves two publications that might be interesting; they both don't give an example, only a preview. It seems to be the same text. Basic line from all the six: thinking over the four imponderables will drive you insane. Might be true...
  • Next we try Google web: 638 results. "Dharma Wheel" sounds promising; it isn't - that is, it's unusuable; it's a web-forum.
I give up here. Un unsourced line, contradiciting the aim of the rest of this section, which consists of two long quotes from self-published primary sources. If the four imponderables are to be included, I'd introduce it with "despite the fact that the Buddha called the question of the result of karma an imponderable question, the Buddhist tradition has developed views on." But that's my opinion; I'm looking forward to additional info on this.
I hope that giving this insight in my way of working and thinking is helpfull, and makes clear that I'm not just simply dropping a bomb to erase everything that I don't like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: Bhikkhu Thanissaro is preserved as a reference, despite the fact that this is a primary, self-published source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Acintya" was the magic word: 739 results. Dasgupta: "that which is to be unavoidably accepted for explaining facts, but which cannot stand the scrutiny of logic." That makes better sense than "going mad", doesn't it? I've added it to the section on karmaphala, together with "The Acintita Sutta warns that "the results of kamma" is one of the four incomprehensible issues." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism

The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This RfC makes little sense.VictoriaGrayson 23:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism without Karma?

I understand that this page is currently going through an agonizing process of consensus making. Still, I would like to divert the attention of the editors involved and point to a view regarding early Buddhism where karma and rebirth is thought to have not existed, and that these concepts were later day introduction. Here is an article which discusses this view point. The fact that it is quite old (from 1966) might mean that there are other such articles out there. But then, it might also be a fringe view. Peace. Manoguru (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Great! Something like this is already mentioned in the article, Karma in Buddhism#Early Buddhism]]. I'll read the link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Buddhist theory of karma

The last version of this article before my clean-up frequently uses the term "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" as a translation for karmaphala. It is used to structure a series of qualifications. I have several problems with this term:

  • It is a neologism:
    • The term is a neologism. "Buddhist theory of karma" is being used, though, by notable scholars like David Kalupahana and Paul Williams; but "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" is not;
    • Karmaphala seems to best translated as "the fuit of actions" , or "action-and-effect" (Gereon Kopf, Beyond Personal Identity: Dogen, Nishida, and a Phenomenology of No-Self, p.141), or "action and result" (Kragh 2011);
    • The list of terms following the introductory sentence suggests that "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" is a common term; the list lends credibility to this term. Yet, karmaphala and these terms are not all the same; at least two distinct concepts are mixed here. This Google-search gives an interesting result: "some unwary students to jump to the conclusion that the law of Karma and the law of cause and effect are synonymous".
  • It is an over-generalisation:
    • There's not such a thing as "the" Buddhist theory of karma";
    • "theory" suggests an objectively existing law of nature, which can be observed, and which allows for the development of a theory;
    • It is imprecise; it emphasizes action, whereas intention is the decisive element in Buddhist btought on "karma".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At second thought: the article might as well be called "Karmaphala in Buddism", since most issues in Buddhism are with karmaphala, not with karma. But then, the plural of "theory" should be used, and a close rendering of karmaphala: "the Buddhist theories of action-and-fruit".
By the way: it's interesting to note that the term "the law of" is being used. This is a western phrase, borrowed from physics. It shows that contemporary Buddhism is influenced by western ways of thinking, and adapts itself to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about here. As you know, I'm no specialist on Buddhist ideas of karma, but is clear from many of your comments on this talk page, you can't be either but are "learning on the job" as it were. Maybe you have unearthed some issue with the previous version, I don't know.
But can say this much, that the previous article does say clearly that Karma is not a scientific theory, or law of nature. It has a whole section on that very point. Do you not remember deleting it? Surely you read it before deleting it?
As for detailed discussion - if you want to discuss the previous version, I'd like to submit that the best way to do that is to roll back to it first. Then present your objections to it. Then perhaps Dorje and others might be encouraged to start entering into discussion about it here on the talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The previous version was a mature article that had been worked on for many years, most recently by Dorje for eighteen months, but with other editors before him. What we have now is more like a first stage draft. Probably quite credible as a first stage draft, they often need a great deal of correcting. But why go right back to stage 1. on this article? Please restore the previous mature article, and then present your concerns and invite comments on it to find out what issues there were with it, if any. Then you may get a decent detailed discussion of your points here. Dorje has shown he is a collaborative editor and I am sure would be willing to discuss this and any other points you have in detail if presented as a discussion of a restored previous mature article.
If not, well I think I'll investigate to see if this is something that can be addressed as a matter of user conduct. Whether we have a case for doing a roll back anyway. I have held off from investigating in the hope you might roll back of your own accord. But I think there might be something to be done about this situation, if a user takes a mature article and rewrites it pretty much entirely into what is more like a fist stage draft, without prior discussion, with changes so extensive the previous main editor has given up editing or commenting on the talk page. Probably this happens from time to time and I'd expect there would be some user policy about it, or the main articles in Misplaced Pages would continually get rewritten by authors who are sure they have a better way of presenting things and think most of the previous content should be removed.
I'd also like to point out that there is a RfC going on at the moment about some of the issues that Joshua Jonathan's actions have raised, about whether articles like this one should have references to mainly Western sources as he suggests, i.e. papers by authors trained as Western academics - and so present mainly the Western interpretations of these ideas - or are permitted to cite Eastern sources as well such as writings by the Tibetan and Therevadhan scholars, who are trained as scholars are trained in the Tibetan tradition, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc, as secondary sources. Robert Walker (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess you mean the "Characteristics"-section? The version of 3 november nowhere says "Karma is not a scientific theory, or law of nature". Yes, I did read that section. Condensed it, removed the unsourced parts, the obvious WP:OR, and the lenghty quotations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Here it is, the section you deleted. Don't know what you mean by "unsourced parts" or OR, as the whole thing just consists of two quotes plus intro to explain

Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision

The precise results of a karmic action are considered to be one of the four imponderables.

In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest. Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states:

Sometimes, in order to help us understand how particular actions contribute to particular kinds of result, such as how good actions bring about good results and how bad actions bring about bad results, the Buddha told stories like those we find in the Jataka tales. But things do not happen just because of one particular cause. We do not experience one result for every one thing that we do. Rather, the whole thing—the entire totality of our experience and actions—has an impact on what we become from one moment to the next. Therefore karma is not just what we did in our last life, it is what we have done in this life too, and what we did in all our lives in the past. Everything from the past has made us what we are now—including what we did this morning. Strictly speaking, therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, you cannot say that there is anything in our ordinary experience that is not somehow a result of our karma.

Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains:

Unlike the theory of linear causality — which led the Vedists and Jains to see the relationship between an act and its result as predictable and tit-for-tat — the principle of this/that conditionality makes that relationship inherently complex. The results of kamma experienced at any one point in time come not only from past kamma, but also from present kamma. This means that, although there are general patterns relating habitual acts to corresponding results , there is no set one-for-one, tit-for-tat, relationship between a particular action and its results. Instead, the results are determined by the context of the act, both in terms of actions that preceded or followed it and in terms one’s state of mind at the time of acting or experiencing the result . The feedback loops inherent in this/that conditionality mean that the working out of any particular cause-effect relationship can be very complex indeed. This explains why the Buddha says in AN 4:77 that the results of kamma are imponderable. Only a person who has developed the mental range of a Buddha—another imponderable itself—would be able to trace the intricacies of the kammic network. The basic premise of kamma is simple—that skillful intentions lead to favorable results, and unskillful ones to unfavorable results—but the process by which those results work themselves out is so intricate that it cannot be fully mapped. We can compare this with the Mandelbrot set, a mathematical set generated by a simple equation, but whose graph is so complex that it will probably never be completely explored.

What I totally don't get though is - why this radical edit?

At first I thought you must be a newbie editor to wikipedia as you hadn't done any previous edits on this page and never did any edits of the talk page either.

But then turned out, you've been editing wikipedia for years, articles on Buddhism. You must surely have been aware of this article back in spring 2013 when Dorje started to edit it - and even further back.

Why not raise any of these issues in all that time period. Let Dorje edit it for eighteen months. And then suddenly rewrite the whole thing without any prior discussion, removing much of the previous content, more than half, and in the process also producing a draft with many errors in it, and obviously, not scrutinized and corrected over the years like the previous version.

Where does all that come from? What was your motivation? It made sense at first as an edit by an enthusiastic newbie who doesn't know much about Buddhist ideas of Karma, and is perhaps not very familiar also with how wikipedia works. That I could understand.

I don't understand it as the actions of an experienced wikipedia editor and what's more one who has interacted with Dorje many times during that period and who knows that he is a collaborative respectful editor who would listen to any concerns you have about his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Robert, please tell me which of the 5,000 pages on Buddhism I'm going to edit in spring 2016, so I can already target my criticism.
Regarding the radical edit: the whole section has been summarisesd to the following:
"The Buddha's teaching of karma is not strictly deterministic, but incorporated circumstantial factors, unlike that of the Jains. Several causal explanations of behavior can be found in the early Buddhist texts. The karmic effect of a deed is not determined solely by the deed itself, but also by the nature of the person who commits the deed, and by the circumstances in which it is committed.
Karma is also not the same as "fate" or "destiny". Certain experiences in life are the results of previous actions, but our responses to those experiences are not predetermined, although they bear their own fruit in the future. Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process."
  1. ^ Bhikkhu Thanissaro 2010, pp. 47–48. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBhikkhu_Thanissaro2010 (help)
  2. ^ Kalupahana 1975, p. 127. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKalupahana1975 (help)
  3. Kalupahana 1975, p. 131. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKalupahana1975 (help)
  4. Gethin 1998, p. 27. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGethin1998 (help)
  5. Keown 2000, p. 794-796. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKeown2000 (help)
  6. Harvey 1990, p. 39-40. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarvey1990 (help)
  7. Gombrich 2009, p. 19. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGombrich2009 (help)
For the sources themself:
  • Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states (Rigpa Wiki): wiki's are not accepted as a source; it's as primary as a source can be;
  • Bhikkhu Thanissaro: self-published, primary source.
Both sources speak from a specific, contemporary perspective. Do they represent "the" Buddhist view? Secondary sources are needed to know that.
The reasons of my clean-uphave been explained before, but WP:DONTGETIT, as you admit yourself, does indeed apply to you: overreliance on primary sources is to be avoided, too many quotes simply are not to be used. Those are policies, which are also being used and enforced by regular editors.
I've raised these issues several times at the four truths page, but without avail. Other pages which have been edited by Dorje have also been tagged for the overuse of quotes and primary sources, by me and by other editors. So it's not just "suddenly", it's not just one article that's been criticised; it's an overall pattern. If pointing out the problems doesn't work, well, there comes a point when someone just does something about it. I told you before: yes, I could have pointed out once again my problems with this page. Well, I didn't. I tagged, and I cleaned it up. You don't like it, others, good editors, do. If someone can't stand that, then Misplaced Pages is not the right place to be. Articles do get rewritten. I've done so before; I'm good at it.
You've been howling about this for a month now; could you please get over it and move on now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua Jonathan. Other editors, such as myself, have long noted the problems with Dorje108's edits.VictoriaGrayson 16:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with your short summary

I see several inaccuracies in your short summary. Particularly the idea that Karma is a causal explanation of behaviour is a common Western misunderstanding. It's not trying to explain behaviour, not a form of "behaviourism", it is not a causal theory for volitions. Rather is to do with the circumstances we find ourselves in. E.g. example that one Therevadhan scholar gave, if I walk up a staircase, I can no longer touch the ground and may be somewhat tired. That's not a punishment by some external deity prohibiting me from touching the ground because of my action of going up the stairs, or making me tired because of my "wrong action" of walking up stairs.
So in this example, it is not a result of some deterministic behaviour that I can't touch the ground because I have got into some mental habit or block that prevents me from touching the ground. My past actions have an effect on what I can do, and the range of possibilities available, but in this more ordinary sense. I may decide to go back down again because I'm so tired, or decide to keep going. But it doesn't determine what I do. My decision to keep going or to go back is not forced in any way by my previous action of climbing the stairs. The very question of "determinism" is unrelated to ideas of Karma.
In other words, in many ways it is far simpler and more ordinary than many Westerners think. But then on the other hand, it is also subtle and hard to understand, especially when you look at the effects of present actions on future lives and past actions on the situation I'm in in this life, e.g. the choice of the birth that I made when I took rebirth in this world. and the conditions I were born into and how those relate to previous lives. And the idea that this is a result of continuing choices, but also external conditions as a result of these ripening "imprints" which are somehow carried into the future via the mind - although widely used idea, I'm not convinced myself that it really adds much explanatory power. You can't directly observe or experience those "imprints" and they remain a purely theoretical consturct as far as I can see. Only some Buddhists ascribe to this view. You can use "Seeds" as an analogy without subscribing to the idea that they actually exist in some sense as these latent "imprints". I've heard that analogy used often but not heard detailed explanations of the "imprint" idea.
Anyway, for Westerners I think the idea of an "imprint" can lead too easily that it is intended as some kind of behaviourism. When the imprints are actually imprints that ripen as circumstances that I find myself in, not as volitions. And are not things that we can directly observe, only notice their effects, if I understand right.
Extended content
For instance according to this idea, they ripened in the circumstances of this body and this place that I am in. But again, not in the sense of being fully the causes of them either, obviously. In the ordinary sense my body is caused by many things such as for instance, hydrogen that formed in the first few moments of the big bang, various elements formed in supernovae etc. And they don't deny that sort of causality. And my choice of parents - in some sense was a volitional choice, not just an imprint. But the options that I could choose between, my stream of awareness, when I took birth - I suppose those are due to these imprints?? Not really sure how it is supposed to work.
So, I'm not clear how this imprint idea is supposed to work in detail. But whatever they are, they are not habits of mind which are a different thing again. I think that they tend to just confuse most Westerners rather than add explanatory power.

Too short

Anyway more generally - that is far too short a treatment of several important significant parts of the teachings of Karma which each deserve to be treated carefully and fully. I see no point at all in trimming it right down like this, how does this help the reader? And why no mention of the imponderables? I think the quotes are the way to go here, rather than trying to summarize.

Paraphrasing

If we do paraphrase, it has to be careful paraphrase worked out in discussion here, and detailed, not summarizing so much in a single sentence. But in such a subtle topic it is my own view that it is far better to use quotes, as a wikipedia editor is bound to make many mistakes. As you have shown. And if I attempted a paraphrase I'd make many mistakes also.

Use of Refimprov

If the quotes given are not suitable for whatever reason, that means we need to find other ones. They can be regarded in that case as temporary "stop gaps" until we find a better citation. That is done frequently in wikipedia.
In that situation you add a refimprov tag. So alerting the reader that the citations used are insufficient, and then anyone who reads the article then is aware of this, and even if you don't have a better citation yet yourself, someone else might do. Robert Walker (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Particular citations

As for the particular citations, I think it is okay to refer to self published material if that material is by a notable scholar who is summarizing their detailed understanding to a less specialist audience. It's not really that different from using a book by that author.
But in this case, this is an actual published book also. Just because a citation links to an online page - that doesn't mean that the online page is necessarily a self published article posted on line by the author. You always have to check further as it is common nowadays for authors to make papers, and sometimes complete books, available as online web pages. Especially in the case of scholars, who are mainly interested in getting as wide as possible readership rather than in increasing sales of their books.
In this case, it is an example of a Buddhist scholar who has made his book available for free on line - a bit like the example of Walpola Rahula whose "What the Buddha Taught" is available for free online.
You can buy this book "Wings of Awakening" at amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Wings-Awakening-Anthology-Canon/dp/B000O04ZIY
ASIN (ISBN): B000O04ZIY
Robert Walker (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As for use of the Rigpa Wiki - I don't know what the policy is about using other wikis as sources. I've seen use of e.g. microbe wiki in articles on microbiology. So I don't think it is prohibited in cases where the wiki itself is a well researched one maintained by experts on their topic. It is of course explicitly prohibited to cite Misplaced Pages itself. I think therefore it would be a matter of discussion as to how reliable a particular specialist wiki is as a source. And also - that in cases where there is no other good source, and the wiki is more specialized than Misplaced Pages itself, and generally reliable, it seems a good policy to use it, but add a "refimprov" tag if necessary.
In this case it cites Ringu Tulku, a prominent member of the —Rimé movement. So I think this makes him a good source on interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism..
if anyone is not aware of this movement, check out

The movement's name is derived from two Tibetan words: Ris (bias, side) and Med (lack), which combined expresses the idea of openness to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, as opposed to sectarianism. The Rimé movement therefore is often misunderstood as trying to unite the various sects through their similarities. Rather Rimé was intended to recognize the differences between traditions and appreciate them, while also establishing a dialogue which would create common ground. It is considered important that variety be preserved, and therefore Rimé teachers are generally careful to emphasize differences in thought, giving students many options as to how to proceed in their spiritual training.

More details here: Rimé movement.
Only question really, seems to me, is - what is the original source and how can we check that this is what Ringu Tulku said? The article doesn't give sources. But if one has confidence that the Rigpa wiki authors quote their sources accurately, then it is a reasonable source for Ringu Tulku's views on this matter I think, so long as it is ascribed to him as it is in the article. And I would submit that on this topic, he is a notable source whose views on the matter deserve citing. Robert Walker (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Also just like to say - that whenever I have checked up on Dorje's Tibetan sources in detail, they are always sources like this, teachers that would be generally regarded, for one reason or another, as excellent sources to use on Tibetan Buddhism. He is discriminating in who he chooses to cite. Robert Walker (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If we accept Therevadhan sources (in this case a notable Western Therevadhan) and Tibetan sources as secondary citations, then these surely count, do they not? There is of course a RfC going on at present about this point. Where I have said clearly that in my view they are totally acceptable as sources in articles like this. Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanissaro's "Wings of Awakening" is still being used as a reference, though I still think it's a primary source. Never mind; the reference is there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting book, by the way; the author gives a refreshing interpretation. It's good, I think. Unfortunately, also "original", though it seems to be close to vetter's statements about the importance of dhyana, and Frauwallner's observations on mindfulness. I bet Geoffrey Degraff also reads modern scholars... I'm going to put it on my e-reader. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

At third thought: he refers to "insight" as the deciding element of of liberation. That's a somewhat later development in early Buddhism, and standard doctrine in Theravada c.q. "Buddhaghosa-Buddhism". At page 20 Thanissaro refers to the sasima Sutta, SN12:70. here's what Gombrich has got to say:

"I see the devaluation of concentration as originating in certain identifiable texts. One of them is called the Susima Sutta (SN II, 119–128). This is the text, de La Vallée Poussin tells us (p. 201), on which Harivarman based his position that one could attain release without entering any of the jhana, the stages of concentration. As the text stands in Pali – and apparently as Harivarman read it – it does indeed appear to support that position. However, by comparing it with its Chinese version and by scrutinising its internal coherence, I think I have established that the extant Pali Susima Sutta is a reworking of an older text – one might almost describe it as a kind of forgery." (Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, p.110-111)

So, could it be that some Buddhists teach a Buddhism that's not in line with the teachings of the Buddha? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Am I Being Canvassed?

There seems to be an attempt to drag me into a content (and possibly conduct) dispute on a subject about which I have little knowledge and no previous involvement, and to provide me with information that is too long to read. I don't plan to participate at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. It was not intended as canvasing. I just wanted advice on user conduct policies on wikipedia. This was a misunderstanding by the other editors, I hadn't explained to them clearly enough what I was doing. Perhaps I should have posted about it here first? I posted to Dorje's talk page instead. Robert Walker (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages not a paper encyclopedia

Joshua, I think this might be worth your attention. Some of your deletions and summaries seem to be just in the interest of keeping the article short. But there is no requirement to do this in Misplaced Pages. It is not a paper encyclopedia, and so there is no need to limit us to brief mentions of topics. If it is deserving of extensive treatment, there is no problem in presenting those details here.

Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Misplaced Pages can cover or the total amount of content.

So for instance, in the section we've been discussing #Karmic_results_are_nearly_impossible_to_predict_with_precision there is absolutely no reason why we can't give it a full treatment in a separate section as Dorje did. We don't have to try to trim it down to a single sentence.

It is of course appropriate to try to summarize in the more general articles. But in a detailed article like this one, the very point in them is that they permit extensive treatment, whatever the subject requires for the reader to have a reasonable grasp of the subject.

Also - in Dorje's sections like this - the quotes are not meant to be just backing up the sort intro. He is not just giving inline citations to show that "In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest. ".

Rather I think that intro sentence is meant to introduce us to the topic, and summarize it briefly. Then the two quotes are meant to give a more detailed presentation of the topic, first from a Tibetan and then from a Therevadhan perspective. Robert Walker (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision - rewrite

Perhaps a slight change of wording, like this, could make it clearer (proposed edits shown in bold below):

"The precise results of a karmic action are considered to be one of the four imponderables.
In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest.
In more detail, Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states, from a Tibetan Mahayana perspective:Karma - Rigpa wiki
"Sometimes, in order to help us understand how particular actions contribute to particular kinds of result, such as how good actions bring about good results and how bad actions bring about bad results, the Buddha told stories like those we find in the Jataka tales. But things do not happen just because of one particular cause. We do not experience one result for every one thing that we do. Rather, the whole thing—the entire totality of our experience and actions—has an impact on what we become from one moment to the next. Therefore karma is not just what we did in our last life, it is what we have done in this life too, and what we did in all our lives in the past. Everything from the past has made us what we are now—including what we did this morning. Strictly speaking, therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, you cannot say that there is anything in our ordinary experience that is not somehow a result of our karma.
And Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains in more detail, from a Therevadhan perspective:(Bhikkhu Thanissaro 2010, p.47-48):
"Unlike the theory of linear causality — which led the Vedists and Jains to see the relationship between an act and its result as predictable and tit-for-tat — the principle of this/that conditionality makes that relationship inherently complex. The results of kamma experienced at any one point in time come not only from past kamma, but also from present kamma. This means that, although there are general patterns relating habitual acts to corresponding results , there is no set one-for-one, tit-for-tat, relationship between a particular action and its results. Instead, the results are determined by the context of the act, both in terms of actions that preceded or followed it and in terms one’s state of mind at the time of acting or experiencing the result . The feedback loops inherent in this/that conditionality mean that the working out of any particular cause-effect relationship can be very complex indeed. This explains why the Buddha says in AN 4:77 that the results of kamma are imponderable. Only a person who has developed the mental range of a Buddha—another imponderable itself—would be able to trace the intricacies of the kammic network. The basic premise of kamma is simple—that skillful intentions lead to favorable results, and unskillful ones to unfavorable results—but the process by which those results work themselves out is so intricate that it cannot be fully mapped. We can compare this with the Mandelbrot set, a mathematical set generated by a simple equation, but whose graph is so complex that it will probably never be completely explored.

I.e. maybe we need somehow to make it clear to the reader that they are expected to read the inline quotes not just to verify the intro sentence, but to find out more about the ideas described, from two different perspectives. Otherwise they may just glance at the quotes, to check that they do indeed say what the intro para says, and not realize the reason they were placed inline rather than in a footnote.

Copied from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision
Both Ringu Tulku and Bhikkhu Thanissaro are internationally respected scholars, translators and authors. In the above quotes they are explaining a very subtle point (that is frequently misunderstood) extremely clearly. It is difficult to understand why Jonathan felt the need to delete this material from the article. Here is a quote from Peter Harvey emphasizing the same point:

"The law of karma is not regarded as rigid and mechanical, but as the flexible, fluid and dynamic outworking of the fruits of actions. The full details of its working out, in specific instances, are said to be ‘unthinkable’ (acinteyya, Skt acintya) to all but a Buddha (A.IV. 77). A moral life is not necessarily immediately followed by a good rebirth, if a strong evil action of a past life has not yet brought its results, or a dying person regrets having done good. Similarly, an immoral life is not necessarily immediately followed by a bad rebirth (M.III. 209– 15 (SB. 195– 204)). The appropriate results will come in time, however (Dhp. 71)." -- Harvey, Peter (2012-11-30). An Introduction to Buddhism (Introduction to Religion) (p. 42). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

And here Rupert Gethin also emphasizes the same points:

"Buddhist thought does not understand causality in terms similar to, say, Newtonian mechanics, where billiard balls rebound off each other in an entirely predictable manner once the relevant information is gathered. First, the Buddhist attempt to understand the ways of causal conditioning is concerned primarily with the workings of the mind: the way in which things we think, say, and do have an effect on both our selves and others. Second, Buddhist thought sees causal conditioning as involving the interaction of certain fixed or determined effects and certain free or unpredictable causes. If, presented with a situation, I deliberately kill another human being, this action must lead to some unpleasant result in the future; it may also make it easier for me to kill in the future, eventually establishing something of a habit; and this may lead me into circumstances—life as a bandit, say, or rebirth as a tiger—where the only way to live is by killing; and yet in some measure the freedom not to kill, not to act in accordance with established habits, remains." -- Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (pp. 153-154). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar. Dorje108 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easy to condense a longer quote into a shorter paraphrase, sometimes not. Sometimes paraphrasing improves the readability of the article, sometimes not. It depends on the context and on the ability/expertise of the editor. In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether.Andi 3ö (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
When an article contains more quotes than text, yes, paraphrasing is required. Articles simply become unreadable, and unencyclopedic. If you feel unable to do so, then ask for help. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for your response.
By the way:
Wikiquote has quotations related to Karma in Buddhism.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations. Sometimes quotes are helpful, but they should be used sparingly because using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. Quotations should be interspersed with original prose that comments on those quotations. Loosely associated topics, such as groups of quotations that can't be justified for use in an article may be better placed in Wikiquote. JimRenge (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've started; I'll give some insight into my "train of thought"; I hope that helps.

  • "the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions" - so, it's not the result of a single action, but the result of many causes? Which causes?
  • Ringu Tulku Rinpoche: "Everything from the past has made us what we are now" - so, we are not talking about "single deeds", but about an ongoing proces of interrelated deeds and results?
  • Which would give a sentence like this: "The fruits of our actions are not dependent on single deeds, but on the entire totality of our experience and actions."(RTR ect)
  • RTR: "Strictly speaking, therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, you cannot say that there is anything in our ordinary experience that is not somehow a result of our karma" - that's not correct. It's a typical Tibetan (or Kagyu, I don't know) point of view. In the sutras, Karma is only of eight factors which determine our present life-conditions. But where did I read that?... More homework to do... Ah, Gombrich! "What the Buddha Thought", p.20:
"For the middle way between determinism and randomness, there is an important sutta in the Samyutta Nikciya.' A non-Buddhist renunciate called Moliya Sivaka asks the Buddha what he thinks of the view that everything one experiences, whether pleasure, pain or neutral, is the result of what one has done. The Buddha replies that this view is wrong and goes beyond both what one can know for oneself and what is commonly accepted to be true. One can know for oneself, and it is commonly accepted, that feelings arise from eight causes. He lists them. The first five are perfectly clear and refer to the medical knowledge of those days. First there are the three humours: bile, phlegm and wind. The fourth is a combination of these three. The fifth is a change in season. (We, with our more variable climate, would call it a change in the weather.) The sixth the PED translates as 'being attacked by adversities';Qut I think the reference is still medical and it means inappropriate or inadequate care or The seventh seems to mean 'caused by an act of violence'.' Only the eighth cause, says the Buddha, is the result of karma. In other words, he seems to be saying that ascribing good or bad experiences to karma is only suitable when no medical or common-sense explanation is available."
But Gombrich next wonders if this is correct, since "karma operates on a grand scale" (p.21). Gombrich then notes that "the tendency has always been, probably from the Buddha's day until now, to see the same doctrine from the other end, backwards," (p.20) and explains that the important thing about karma is not to explain one's present condition (though that's reaaly tempting to do), but to put an end to the whole process: "So he witnessed the workings of karma, but we cannot. And what he saw convinced him that nothing could be as urgent as putting a stop to the whole process." (p.22)

So far for the first quote... I'll continue later, I've got tp pick up my dauhter from school. Please do me a favor, hold back your responses 'till I'm finished, so we don't drift off in another discussion prematurely. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've added paraphrases, and some additional info. The main point seems to be: don't get fixated on the "theory of karma", liberate yourself! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I go with Andi 3ö and User:Dorje108 - these are not easy points to paraphrase. In this case - the author has already presented it concisely and clearly.
Misplaced Pages:Quotations "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words".
And - your presentation not only paraphrased to the extent it is hard to still be accurate, but goes over things too quickly. There is no substance to it. Saying karma is not a judgement, but going into no detail at all about how and why Buddhists understand it that way, for instance.
Same for the other points. If we were to paraphrase those quotes, I think the paraphrase should be about the same length as the quotes and go into as much detail.
Those deleted sections should be at least as long as in Dorje's version, in my view. And I think it saves everyone a lot of time to just have the quotes themselves.
These scholars have spent many years of their life studying Buddhist ideas of Karma and are also good communicators, good at putting their words into writing. So - it's not going to be that easy to improve on their presentation of their ideas with a paraphrase of their words.
And also individual authors have different ideas about Karma and about how best to present it and will present it differently. By presenting a representative Tibetan Mahayanist quote and a Therevadhan quote, side by side, Dorje gave examples of different ways of presenting the ideas.
By attempting a paraphrase yourself - you are really creating a third presentation of the topic yourself, maybe a mix between the approaches, or it mibht be something totally new. And as a reader I much prefer to read the originals. In this particular topic area that is. In other topics in Misplaced Pages paraphrasing works well so I'm not saying that we should do this with all articles.
But in this case I think we should - or at least - the easiest thing to do - because
* Ideas of Karma are subtle and difficult to explain in few words. So quotes are likely to explain them better than a paraphrase unless the wikipedia editor who does the paraphrase is a genuis who has an in depth understanding of ideas of Karma similar to the understanding of the authors paraphrased
* Also there is no single idea of how karma works. Many points of detail in difference. So - it is "controversial" in the sense that - not so much major arguments about it as - that different authors will present it and understand it in subtly different ways. So quotes help the wikipedia author from the responsibility of taking positions about how karma is understoood and interpreted - by making clear attribution to an author. And when you paraphrase, the problem is, that you will almost certainly bring in some of your own ideas and interpretations into the paraphrase.
If the entire article was too long it could be split. But Misplaced Pages does have long articles, there is no hard cut off point. Especially a specialist article like this, is sometimes good to have it quite long. Robert Walker (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Vajrayana source check

The disputes have caught my attention. I would like to expand the Vajrayana section with this source His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1982), Happiness, Karma and Mind

Considering the extensive editorial attention the source has received and publication, would it be accepted here as a Primary source? What's interesting is the skilfull means distinction; which could benefit the discussions here.

Additionaly, announcing that I am investigating to elaborate on

  • A. no self

means

  • B. no karma

means

  • C. no cyclic rebirth.

Putting this in linear cause in effect terms. Hey, maybe even skilfull means can keep karma on a linear path. Scientists see to be able to figure that out.

(Please forgive me in advance, I may have difficulty in getting this articles references system to work correctly.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZuluPapa. Could you be more specific on what info from this speech you'd like to use? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rigpa Wiki

Jim: "I asked about rigpa wiki about 1 year ago at RSN" . Please share with us! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rgpawiki is used as a source in several Buddhism articles. I assumed that it is not a reliable source (editors anonymous, no experts,, no publisher known for good redaction) but I wanted to be sure and asked about it at the RS noticeboard. The red pen of doom explained that its an open wiki and not considered to be a reliable source in wikipedia (like wikipedia). Simple case (WP:SPS like http://www.zenguide.com). If open wikis were considered a reliable source, I might add my personal POV there and quote myself at wikipedia afterwards.
You may use a RS cited in rigpawiki if you can confirm its content . JimRenge (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to investigate the reliability of this source. I think it is important to verify the reliability of sources. A few clarifications in this case:
Jim, was this a recent discussion on the RS noticeboard? I was unable to find the discussion. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorje, I have no problem with the content of Ringu Tulku's statement. I understand that editing Rigpawiki is restricted to members of the Rigpa sangha but I can not verify what qualifies a member to get an account. For the reader of the wiki it is impossible to identify the author/editor of an article as an expert.
I asked about Rigpawiki in February 2014, Helpdesk: Delete unreliable sources? (sorry my memory failed, it was not RSN).
WP:SPS, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, (...) collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Maybe Ringu Tulku is a credentialed member of the sites' editorial staff?
Sorry, Joshua, please feel free to re-insert the reverted sentence/citation. JimRenge (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I appreciate you clarifying your research. This is an unusual case, and I think there are more pressing issues to address on this page right now. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd observe here - for future reference not for discussion right now - that since it is a wiki - you can look at the edit history and see who inserted the quote. In this case it is an editor called "Adam". So presumably one could contact this editor, and find out what his source was for the quote. And take it from there depending what one found out. And you could do the same for any wiki. If you found a quote on wikiquotes - well what matters is not that it was hosted on wikiquotes, all that matters is if it is an accurate quote.
So for instance, just by way of example, if we found, for instance, that the Rigpawiki editors have a policy of verifying their quotes by getting the authors to check them over before they are inserted - then we could then use Rigpawiki as a valid source for quotes generally (if not necessarily their other content). Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you cannot source from other wikis like Rigpawiki. See WP:UGC.VictoriaGrayson 07:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Words of My Perfect Teacher

I know that Patrul Rinpoche is a famous teacher, but I'm afraid I've got some trouble understanding this section ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what's the trouble? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Rongzom Pandita is the bedrock of Nyingma philosophical views. There is too much emphasis on Longchen Nyingthig.VictoriaGrayson 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Qualified views to be source attributed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph may need some rewriting, to make it clearer. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, or the student may have wrong view. Let it sit for while. Then revisit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Which student? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The one with impure karma. Thanks for the rewrite, great work. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do penance for my nasty remark, and create some good karma and a good temper, by going to sleep now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I now see what's missing in the re-write emphasis on following the guru to keep karma pure. Will address at a later time. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Bold,revert,discuss - conclusions from the past days of discussion

Joshua, I've been following all the discussions concerning your edits to 4NT and here very closely. Having seen your effort to condense/paraphrase the two(four) quotes above i want to say a couple of things:

  1. Thank you for your willingness to get back to cooperation and discussing concretely about reinserting lost content!
  2. Unfortunately, in the concrete example here, i cannot see how the two little sentences you extracted from the rather longish quotes can serve as their adequate substitute. There is much more to these quotes than you extracted!
  3. The same is true for your overall condensing into your very concise section 2: Most of the content is simply gone or condensed to such a short form that the average reader will not be able to grasp the full meaning of the thoughts you are trying to convey - which is sad, especially keeping in mind that - as i already stated elsewhere:
  4. Benefiting the reader (Please read if you haven't) should be our foremost guiding principle - after all, what else would we be doing this for?

Also, from the extensive discussions of the past few days here and there and here and on this very page, it should be clear that

  1. there is at least no consensus justifying your mass deletion of content on the grounds of WP:RS or the classification of quotes as primary sources.
  2. Also the overuse of quotes in general cannot be a justification for this massive deletion of well-sourced content. As i said earlier: In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether.

Therefore, also taking into account the time and effort it will take to discuss every little bit of content that you boldly deleted, i have come to the conclusion that at this point and at least in the case of it will be better to start the process by reinserting the content lost. Then you and Dorje108 and Robert Walker, maybe i myself and whoever else is interested in this topic can start working on it, one piece of content, one line of thought at a time and try to improve the article by removing or substituting or paraphrasing - or leaving - one quote at a time. From reading the comments by Dorje108 and Robert Walker i also got the impression that they were simply too humble and polite to revert your massive edits in the first place which would have been the standard procedure following Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. It's ok for you to be bold, but it's also ok for others to say no. So then we need to discuss. One edit or one section at a time - and over and over again, until there is a consensus - or at least a well established majority view. Andi 3ö (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorje108's edits were reverted per Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Moreover other editors including myself have edited the article. Reinserting Dorje108's edits is not following Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.VictoriaGrayson 05:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorje's edits were not reverted; a large part of his quotes have been condensed, in line with Wiki-policy. Several editors, at several pages, have voiced their concern with his over-usage of quotes. These concerns have been voiced for over a year and a half already, without avail.
Further, several of his formulations have been rephrased in accordance with the sources.
Third, additional info has been provided, from top-scholars as Richard Gombrich. For example, the fact that it's not so important how exactly karma works out, but that one should strive to become liberated from this whole cycle.
Fourth, additional edits have been amde by other editors.
A roll-back is only appropriate in case of vandalism. This is not the case here. See also WP:ONLYREVERT:
"The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text."
I've explained my edits already extensively. To state " can start working on it" is completely ignoring the discussion that's already going on. Robert has indicated that he doesn't want to engage in constructive discussion, because he doesn't feel competent to do so. Nevertheless, I've considered all his complaints, and following his remarks, re-inserted part of the info in condensed form, and adjusted the overview of how karma leads to fruits.
Regarding "readers first": providing an overkill of quotes is by no means encouraging readers to stay. On the contrary.
What's more: of the four quotes on the predictability of karmic results, Ringu Tulku Rinpoche's quote is from Rigpa Wiki, which is not accepted as WP:RS; Thanissaro's quote is from a self-published source, which gives his personal interpretation of Buddhism, but is nevertheless retained as a reference; and the quotes from Harvey and Gethin, which are WP:RS, were not in the article, but have been paraphrased and added, as a result of the ongoing discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I will add my comments to the following section, which is a continuation of this discussion. Dorje108 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to say - that Dorje's edits have been here for months. He has been working on this article since spring 2013.
Joshua, there is no way that you can call deleting those sections from the article a "revert". If you wanted to revert his edits you should have done them as he did them, starting in spring 2013. But not only did you not object to them, you never previously edited either this talk page or the article itself, although you have been editing articles on Buddhism here for years. For that matter, you didn't revert to any previous version of the article, but rather created a new article by deleting much of it and re-arranging it.
By no stretch of interpretation can your actions be called a revert in my view. Robert Walker (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, read carefully: Dorje's edits were not reverted, they were refined. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia; that Dorje has been working on this article since 2013 is not an argument. See WP:OWN. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I read Victoria's remark as yours. As for me, I don't want to be an editor of this article that's what I was saying. I'm a reader of it who was dismayed to find a previously valuable and mature article turned into one that is no longer informative in the same way. That's why I feel able to comment on it and discuss it. But I don't want to be involved in processes of paraphrasing or working out new content. And I also think the first step is to roll back. So don't want to discuss how to improve an article that in my view is a step back from the old version. My discussion here was meant as motivation for a roll back, but you took all my comments as an opportunity to rewrite the present article. I never edited the old version except to fix one broken link, and don't want to edit the new one either. Because it is a subtle topic which is so easy to misrepresent. Robert Walker (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Further explanation (#3?)

From Andi's re-insertion:

  • "Specific" and "general" level: definitions of karma and karmaphala are already in the article. None of the sources speaks of "specific" and "general"; that's WP:OR, and confusing. The "Padmakara Translation Group" (Patrul Rinpoche, The Words of my Perfect Teacher), though, notiuces that in Tibet in common language the term las ("karma") is also used for rgyu 'bras, "action-and-fruit". This kind of carelessness is typical.
  • "centrality to Buddhist thought": re-added "Karma and karmaphala are fundamental concepts in Buddhism.(Kragh 2006, p.11)(Lamotte 1987, p.15)". "Karmic actions are considered (etc)" and dependent origination are already mentioned in the article.
  • List of translations of karmaphala: WP:UNDUE
  • Interdependent origination: already mentioned in the article. NB: the twelve links don't mention "karma", but "bhava".
  • "Whatever we do has a result": mentioned in the article
  • "Multiple causes and conditions": mentioned in the article
  • "Seed and fruit": explained in the article
  • "Positive and negative actions": explained in the article
  • "Overcoming habitual tendencies": primary sources; sounds like western psychotherapy.
  • "Right view": incorporated in "Liberation from samsara"
  • "Rebirth": part of the article
  • "Predestination": mentioned in the article ("not predetrmined", etc)
  • "not a judgement": mentioned in the article
  • "impossible to predict": mentioned in the article
  • "delayed for lifetimes": not mentioned in the article - "it is believed". And Robert complained about the statement that actions will inevitably ripen into a result. Sorry, overdone.
  • "Twelve Nidanas": mentioned. And, as I said: the twelve nidanas don't mention "karma", but "bhava".
  • "Three types of misunderstanding": too much; primary source
  • "free will": mentioned in the article
  • "Buddha's realisation": mentioned under "The Three Knowledges"

The basic problem is the focus on a detailed exposition of the workings of karma, instead the simple notion that the understanding of karma as a "fact" of life urges one to strife for liberation. Those details, nevertheless, are summarised. The really important point is being mentioned in "Liberation from samsara". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you very much for your explanation! Unfortunately i do not have the time right now for a point by point response concerning the above list, but you can imagine from my earlier posts that i have some objections. I am especially grateful for your sharing of what you call the "basic problem". This makes the further discussions a lot easier, because it brings me closer to an understanding of your thinking and the overall intention of your massive edits:
I have the feeling from your edits and comments that you personally lay a lot of emphasis on trying to find out, and (therefore?) first and foremost presenting in your articles, what the "original" teachings of the Buddha were - and on the other hand tend to disregard later developments and contemporary Buddhist's views as (maybe often being mislead and therefore?) not so important. (like here: "The really important point is being mentioned in "Liberation from samsara"")
My thinking is exactly the other way round: To me it is not so important what the Buddha or the early Buddhist Sangha originally thought and taught, but what Buddists think. And by that i mean primarilly what they think (and teach and practice) about concepts like Karma and the 4NT but also - to take it one step further and illustrate my point by means of (slightly) exageratiing: For me it is even more important what Buddhists think what the original teachings of the Buddha were than what western academics think what "objectively" were those teachings.
Please think about it: After all, as our well thought out and thoroughly debated famous very first sentence about Buddhism in this wonderful digital encyclopedia states (emphasis added):

"Buddhism is a religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha "

So for me it seems quite obvious that an article about a Buddhist concept like karma should first and foremost report what the believers (of different traditions respectively) think about the concept, how it is taught and how it is incorporated into their practices. And by the way, the Buddhism article - right after the lead - continues with a traditional account of the life of the Buddha - not an historical (!)
Of course there should be room for historical critical analysis and comparative studies, which is what (western) academics seem to be mostly occupied whith. But if you think about what matters to the world, i.e. the reader? How does karma, i.e. the concept of karma, not the "real" thing, come into the world, leaving the ivory tower? It is through its workings in the minds of Buddhist believers. So it is our foremost duty to report what believers say, think, do - again: not (western) scholars!
Of course, in order to report this accurately there are many ways and one of them - undoubtedly one that Misplaced Pages actively encourages - is to use academic secondary or tertiary sources (that report those beliefs).
To conclude: there is still a lot of work to be done; i will definitely not be engaged in some kind of edit war but i will definitely also not put up with the petty rest of the "detailed exposition of the workings of karma" that you left over from the previous version, precisely because these "workings of karma" take up a very important part in (contemporary) Buddhist's beliefs and practices (as proven by the very quotes you removed alone). BTW: Wouldn't "detailed exposition of the workings of karma" be a good title for a nice little large section where a lot of the missing stuff could find its way back in? ;) Kind regards, with metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andi. Thanks to you too, for your explanation of your point of view. Yes, I am interested in what "the Buddha thought". But what I'm most interested in is: what works? That's an open invitation for subjectivity and WP:OR, of course. So good sourcing is essential, and a critical stance. But I really want to understand what's "behind" all the stories. For Zen, that's authors like John McRae and Bernard Faure. They're cool.
Regarding the "real world" and what Buddhists think: in that case the statements of teachers are not relevant, but the perception of "common people". There are anthropological studies which describe how the concept of "karma" works through in the daily life of "common people" in Asia. For example Gombrich's (here he comes again...) "Buddhist Precept and Practice", or George D. Bond's "The Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka". Asian "common people" are probably the greatest group of Buddhist "believers".
Lessons and classes from teachers probably provide very little information on this "common Buddhism". Also, the over-emphasis on teachers reflects a western bias, with it's interest in the culture and practice of "religious specialists". How many western Buddhists are integrated into an "immigrant" sangha?
For the west, the most interesting question might be: what if you don't believe in karma and rebirth? See Stephen Batchelor, for example.
Additional info on the views per tradition would be appropriate in the "Within Buddhist traditions"-section, I think. See the "Nyingma"-section, which was expanded last night.
Quotes are most relevant when a statement is disputed; see Hinduism and the socalled "Hindu synthesis", which is plain rigth offensive for orthodox Hindus. Large amounts of quotes can be stored at wiki-quote. That's the appropriate place, I think.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Karma in Buddhism.
I was thinking: maybe, just maybe, for a point of consideration, we can put back some quotes, in notes. Some. One per statement, max. As a "clarification". And provide good links in the "Further reading" and "External links" sections.
Thanks for your response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why "Some"? I can understand that you prefer paraphrases to quotes in the text body. Which is obviously a matter for discussion and differences of view, some prefer more quotes, some prefer the same material in the form of paraphrase. Is obviously a discussion that would go on and on. I've already commented on that, why I think quotes are preferable over paraphrases and maybe some time we can have a RfC on that.
But what is this objection to quotes in footnotes? I just don't get that at all. It doesn't impede the flow of the article. All it does is to make it much easier for the reader to verify the citation. And why only one quote per footnote? Sometimes it is good to have several. One of the great features of Dorje's version for a reader was the long list of footnotes - with quotes. Because when you don't have access to the original source material yourself, or even if it is online and you can - the quotes save the reader a great deal of time and make it far clearer why the citation was included - and gives you extra information. I just don't see any issue at all with quotes in the citations - as many as are considered worth adding. Robert Walker (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Andi - just to say, of course I support your reinsertion as well as the idea to turn back. I might have done a roll back right away - but hadn't got this article on my watch list - was an article in what seemed to be its final state, mature, had no idea that some editor would come along and rewrite the whole thing. So when I found it, he'd been working on it for several pages of edits in the edit history. So not a simple roll back. As well as that, I've found in the past that some editors respond to BRD with an extra R BRDR and thought that this might well be what would happen here also as Joshua Jonathan is really confident and sure that what he is doing is the way forward - and I didn't want to start an edit war.
Joshua - just picking up a couple of your comments, choosing these because we've already discussed these two sections in some detail in this talk page:
  • "not a judgement": mentioned in the article
  • "impossible to predict": mentioned in the article
As I've already said - a one sentence mention in the article is no substitute for a section that covers that topic in some depth which you remove. Readers will surely want to know details - how, why, in what way, who says this, Hardly seems a good reason for reversing Andi's insertion of the old material that your version already has one sentence mentions of some of the topics included... Robert Walker (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua I'd also like to draw your attention to a reply you made above, maybe you'd like to reconsider it?
Dorje wrote
"I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar."
Your reply was:
" ... If you feel unable to do so, then ask for help. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for your response"
Do you not think there is a possibility that a scholar who has spent most of his or her life contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English, might, just possibly, be tricky to paraphrase? Especially with your style of condensing an entire paragraph in a few words? Robert Walker (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I promised to read your comments. Quotes can be used to clarify a topic, or to verify a statement. One quote should be enough to clarify a topic. Otherwise, there are plenty of books and online resources for the readers who want the details. This is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Verification is needed in case of controversial statements - like "The four truths were later added to MN 36. Originally the Buddha's liberation practice may basically have been the practice of dhyana, for which the eightfold path prepares." That might be controversial, but the sources are esily available, so anyone can check them (I wish they did). Too many quotes simply distract, also when they are in the notes. And yes, I feel confident enough to paraphrase. Again, if you want more, read the book. And, basically: the important thing about karma is not the exact workings, but to get rid of it. That's a scholarly conclusion, and a practitioners conclusion - actually, starting-point. Liberation should be the conclusion. Overemphasising the (non)workings of karma distracts from that basic point. On your cushion! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, yes your view on this is clear that these ideas should be presented as "verified truth". For example, "your" four noble truths article says, categorically, things like "Only as late as the fifth century CE came the four truths to be identified as the central teaching of the Buddha Carol Anderson notes that the four truths are missing in critical passages in the canon,".
However, that's not encyclopedic. I already posted about Selwyn Cousins detailed examination of it which found many flaws in her arguments. His statements are just as "verifiable" as the statements in her book.
And we have other scholars saying that the Pali Canon is essentially unchanged since the time of the Buddha. If we had a section presenting Prayudh Payutto's views on this - his arguments also are just as "verifiable" based on investigation of the processes of memorization used by the Buddhist monks who preserved the canon.
When authors write a book like that, they present it as "the truth" - is just a convention. It would be awkward to keep writing "I think this, and I think that and I say this and I say that". But that an author says that something is the case doesn't make it so.
So, is an appropriate convention and style for a book by an author such as Carol Anderson or Prayudh Paiutto. But in an encyclopedia, you are not writing as an individual presenting your own views on the matter. When there are differences of opinion, in reliable secondary sources, this needs to be made clear, and it is not appropriate to present any of these as "the verifiable truth". Who verified them?
You have to attribute things like that, not present them as a "view from nowhere"! Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Very important point! And applies to Joshuas edits to the karma article as well (see my first remarks in this same section and his answer to it).
I find this policy guideline quite striking in that regard:

"Scholarship is, in every sense, fundamentally opposed to Misplaced Pages policy. The core of scholarship is original research, synthesis, and asserting that a scholar's vision of reality is in fact the correct one (some would call this bias). High quality scholarship relies on primary sources, and only engages the secondary literature in order to either acknowledge the sources of ideas or attempt to refute points made by others. Particularly in the humanities and social sciences, scholarship is little more than an extended argument."

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Carol Anderson is not a view from nowhere. I already told you: the book is published in the "CURZON CRITICAL STUDIES IN BUDDHISM", general editors Charles S. Prebish and Damien Keown; reprint in the "Buddhist Tradition Series", editor Alex Wayman, with a foreword by Alex Wayman. It builds further on Norman's and Schmithausen's research; it stands in a line of research from highly praised scholars - scholar's scholars, so to speak.
Apart form the fact that there was no canon, let alone a Pali-canon, at the time of the Buddha, it is clear from antinomies within the Pali-canon that they are not the actual recordings of the words of the Buddha, but edited texts which have been developed over time. Buddhism is, in this regard, not different form Christianity c.q. the Bible.
WP:NPOVS is an essay, not a guideline. Scholarship may be "original research", Wiki-policy is to depend on "original research" by scholars.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in the main body

Quotes can be used in many ways, I've already given my reasoning for multiple quotes per section in the body of the text - that for instance the reader will be interested to have quotes from prominent Mahayana as well as Therevadhan sources so there is often good reason for at least two quotes in the main text in each section to present those different approaches. And a section may require more quotes to cover it adequately. It is something to decide on a case by case basis, not established as a ground rule for the entire article, how many quotes to have in each section. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes

However - whatever you think about text in the body of the article, those guidelines are not about footnotes. There are no guidelines I know of limiting the number of quotes you can have in footnotes. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing - example of the Reimann Hypothesis

I wonder if I can help make the issue clearer? Perhaps a non Buddhist example would help here?

I could summarize the Riemann hypothesis for a non mathematician as "Hypotheses that all the zeroes of the Reimann Zeta function are either negative even numbers, or they lie along the line with real value 1/2 in the complex plane". For most non mathematicians that is already too technical for them, and they will ask me to stop talking most likely. But for mathematicians, this is one of the most intricate, hard to explain, and fascinating hypotheses in number theory, and that long article may well seem all too short :).

So for a non mathematician, then you can summarize this entire article: Riemann hypothesis in a single sentence. And given the technical nature of the hypothesis, you could adequately summarize it for most readers as "A famous hypothesis in mathematics".

Similarly for someone who is not interested in the details of the Buddhist ideas of Karma then you can summarize those sections you deleted in just a few sentences. But this is a specialist article, someone who comes here surely is interested to know details. For these readers your summary paraphrases remove all the interesting content from that section of the article. There is a good chance that they already know that Karma as understood in Buddhism is not a judgement, to take one example; they want to find out more than that. A brief mention of the topic is not enough.

Similarly just about anyone who has done say a first degree in maths will know as much about the Riemann hypothesis as I just said in my short summary. If they come to wikipedia, to read an article about it, they want details, and will be most disappointed if that is all that it says.

I hope that helps to clarify the issues we have with this paraphrasing, and maybe help make a bit of progress in the debate. Does it help you understand where we are coming from? Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly! I feel that the broader issue here does not so much seem to be primary vs secondary or reliable vs unreliable sources or the excessive or appropriate use of quotes but the fundamental question of what we want an article about a Buddhist concept like karma or Four noble truths to be about - and how much WP:Weight within the articles is assigned to the various aspects and perspectives.
WP:RNPOV can be an important starting point for that discussion.
WP:STRUCTURE, WP:BALANCE are also very informative and, of course, again WP:DUE (emphasis added):

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

WP:RNPOV:

NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has a section on "Within Buddhist traditions". It provides ample opportunity to add the poins of view, and practices, of specific tarditions. PapaZulu just did so for "The Words of My Perfect Teacher"; I helped him to clarify this addition further. If you've got any suggestions, I'm quite willing to help. If people still want more than that, there are a lot of books available which peple can choose and read for themselves. Some suggestions have already been given at "further reading" and "external links". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - that's not what I was talking about, but about your view of the article that it should cover certain points only superficially. E.g. just a single sentence in the entire article for subjects that are given intricate and detailed treatment in the sources, and that require at least a section to them to just cover them in an introductory way. Please re-read the example, thanks!
It's response to your reason you just gave for deleting all those sections that Andi restored. You gave as your reason for deleting them - that the subjects have already been touched on briefly in the article. You didn't give as your reason that the sections were POV biased, which I don't think they are, at all. Robert Walker (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to say that I whole-heartedly agree with the points that Andie30 and Robert are making. Dorje108 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You should read CFynn's 2 comments on Wikiproject Buddhism and 1 comment on Robert's talk page. CFynn is probably the most knowledgeable Buddhist editor on Misplaced Pages besides myself.VictoriaGrayson 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't source from other wikis like Rigpawiki

I'm pretty sure you cannot source from other wikis like Rigpawiki. See WP:UGC.VictoriaGrayson 06:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, it depends on who maintains the wiki, and who can edit it. As it says there "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." - so the issue is with the credentials of the editors, rather than the wiki format or use of collaborative editing.
But with the Ringu Tulku quote, Dorje used the wiki as a source for quotations, didn't use its editorial content. So that's a much simpler question. There the guidelines are: Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article..

So the question here is, is this a reliable secondary source for quotes from Ringu Tulku? For instance, does he perhaps verify them himself? That's something that presumably we could find out. Maybe not the priority right now, but something to look into for sure. Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations says: "the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source." Rigpa Wiki is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Please move on.VictoriaGrayson 19:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's the thing to be determined is it not? When it comes to quotations when it comes to "reliable" then all that matters surely, is if they provide accurate quotes. Do you have evidence that the Rigpa wiki has a tendency to misquote its sources? I mean - might be that they do, I just don't know. But that would need to be established either way.
At any rate my understanding is that Ringu Tulku is a good source because of his situation as a prominent member of the Rime movement to present the teachings of all the Tibetan traditions as understood within the schools, without bias. So, if that's accepted, the question is rather what is the best source of quotations from him. If it does turn out that this is not a good source for quotations, we may need to find another. Perhaps one of his books? Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Rigpa wiki have a contact page here: Rigpa wiki contact page so would be an easy matter to contact them to ask for more information about the provenance of their quotes and whether they are checked by the original authors quoted or how they make sure they are accurate. And see also the discussion of this topic above: #Rigpa_Wiki Robert Walker (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the quotes are correct or not. The truth of the info doesn't define reliability. Rigpa Wiki is not a source we can use per WP:UGC.VictoriaGrayson 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I don't get what you are saying here. You haven't really explained why we can't use it as far as I can see. If it was an open wiki that anyone could edit, then it wouldn't be acceptable. But as a closed wiki then it might be an acceptable source, you have to do further investigation to find out. One of the books that Dorje mentioned referred to it as an "excellent source" in the introduction. And in the case of quotes then what counts as reliable surely is - that they quote accurately, there is no more to it than that. Robert Walker (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
John Carter already explained to you "A wiki still is not a reliable source, even for quotations from others."VictoriaGrayson 01:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Victoria, wiki here just refers to a form of software that is designed to make collaborative editing easier to do. There is nothing in the format or the design of the wiki software that makes what is written intrinsically unreliable, or reliable for that matter - has no bearing on the matter either way surely. I gave MicrobeWiki as an example that is used sometimes for citations here in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Wikis are largely not acceptable. JimRenge (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim, in this case, it's Joshua Jonathan who removed the material. That quote has been in the article since February 2014, possibly earlier. I haven't tried to find when exactly it was introduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=596734961
In a situation like this, then the usual procedure is to add a tag to the article for this particular quote, requiring the editor to verify it or to find a better source, not to just remove it.
It is only one of numerous citations in the article, and most of them are to scholarly articles and books. This one is a quote from a suitable author, but a question has been raised about whether this wiki is a suitable source for quotes. Dorje had good reasons for using rigpa wiki as a source, which he gave himself - see above
"I appreciate the effort to investigate the reliability of this source. I think it is important to verify the reliability of sources. A few clarifications in this case:
Those seem good enough reasons so that it is a matter that needs further discussion or verification.
Note also that this article was in its mature form, essentially, in January of this year. And that Joshua Jonathan never edited it or commented on its talk page during this period that Dorje worked on it. There have been many opportunities to raise issues with this quote, he could have done so any time since January 2014. He was an active editor of articles on Buddhism during this period and before. Robert Walker (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A few issues- one, even a Wiki with restricted authorship is not in a fixed form. That makes citation particularly problematic- to actually identify the reference, you would need at the very least to also provide version information so that if the article changes later the correct reference can be followed. Secondly, given the general policy on Wikis and other semi-self published sources there really ought to be a compelling reason why this particular source is needed- karma is such a fundamental concept in Buddhism that there should easily be 100+ years of scholarly and practitioner publications on the topic in English that are in a fixed form and reflect established academic or traditional understandings. What is the compelling reason for adding this specific problematic source? --Spasemunki (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Points in favour of authors with Tibetan as a first language

Some of the other editors here have been raising points in favour of using Western academic sources almost exclusively for academic sources on Buddhism for the articles here in Misplaced Pages.

I thought it might be interesting to list some of the points in favour of the Tibetan sources. Some of these points also apply to the Therevadhan sources.

  • The Tibetan scholars are talking about texts written in their native language. For Western academics - it is a bit like Tibetans writing about Shakespeare - however familiar they are, unless totally bilingual they are talking about texts in a foreign language.
  • They are in a continuous tradition with the authors of the texts. Other editors here have said this is a disadvantage because their equivalent of a "degree" is in a different format from Western degrees, e.g. no research thesis to write. But on the other hand - they do memorize the texts, and debate them, and there is a long tradition of critical evaluation of the ideas expressed in them - and they are using similar methods to work with them to those used by the original authors of the Tibetan texts. This lineage surely also helps them as well as hinders them? Makes them easier to become closer to the original intentions of the authors when writing the texts. And writing a thesis is no guarantee that you have a broad understanding of your field - as it has a tendency for some authors to lead to a narrow focus on a tiny field of study.
  • They are working in a meditative tradition. A large part of the sutras is to do with meditation. Just as carpenters are more likely to spot difficulties and confusions in books about carpentry - meditators may be better able to spot subtle issues in books about meditation. So - not because they have any special realization necessarily - I just mean on a very ordinary level. And not just for meditation. The teachings on conduct also - are teachings that they are applying in their own lives, or should be. While for the academics who write about Buddhism as a foreign religion - some of them at least - they have not faced the many issues involved in applying these teachings to their own lives, and so again may easily miss important or subtle points in the texts. Other scholars of course are practicing Buddhists - so - this is - maybe more a general point in favour of having at least some sources that are practicing Buddhists who are working with the texts in a practical way. That's rather similar to the value of having some carpenters as sources for articles on carpentry. (While you could also have other sources that have never done woodwork). A non meditating, non practicing expert on the Buddhist teachings is perhaps a little like an antiques expert who is very familiar with the form of a table, but hasn't ever made one themselves. They may occasionally get insights in understanding the antiques they study from carpenters that they wouldn't get otherwise.

I think there may well be other points in their favour as well, if anyone has any thoughts on this do say.

Not meant as reasons to use the Tibetan sources exclusively for Tibetan Buddhism, not saying that at all. Just saying both types of sources have something to offer, and so much has been made here of the benefits of the Western sources and Western academicism, I thought it might help to redress this by mentioning some of the advantages of the Tibetan sources. Same also for the Therevadhan ones, but seems to me that the most strongly stated objections here have been to Tibetan sources.

Both sources I think help each other actually, or can do. The Western academicism does bring a new way of working with the texts, looking for textual characteristics, and brings scientific ideas and archaeology. And the best of both types of academic are learning from each other.

I think myself that a good wikipedia article on Tibetan Buddhism needs to use both types of sources. Probably in roughly equal balance. And more generally for Therevadhan Buddhism, then similar things apply. Robert Walker (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to cite for the above, else fail to see how to be of benefit to your thoughtfully originated points? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring here to the Tibetan sources used by User:Dorje108 in the original version of this article before Joshua Jonoathan removed those sections and the quotes. See: User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism and scroll down to the citations and you'll see many citations and quotes from Tibetan Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama and Khandro Rinpoche and Ringu Tulku who are all Tibetan teachers who studied in this traditional way, while at the same time also meditators and practitioners, and also, interested in Western ideas and incoroporating them into their work. They also all practice in all four Tibetan Buddhist schools, following the Rimé movement - as the wikipedia article says "It is basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with different needs. Therefore the Rimé teachers always take great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another."
So gives a good idea of the sort of sources I'm talking about here.
For the background on the Tibetan sutras, see Tibetan Buddhist canon - a large collection of sutras and commentaries all in Tibetan along with many later commentataries and additional works by Tibetan Buddhist scholars over the centuries. Which, for scholars with Tibetan as their first language, or bilingual, is a collection of sutras in their own native language.
Joshua Jonathan and a few others have been arguing that we should use such sources as the Dalai Lama etc only sparingly, as primary sources and to go to the Western academics for final reference and guidance in all aspects of the Buddhist teachings of Karma and the Four Noble Truths before presenting them here. He recently did a major rewrite of both article in accord with this vision for them, which other editors have asked him to reverse. Does this answer your question? See also the RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?Robert Walker (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To me which source is primary or secondary depends on the context, so not all are categorically one or the other (ie. middle way). It's a Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight issue. I would of course prefer the Tibetan Buddhist context to have qualified primary sources however, when attempting to secularize the views into the academic context would give weight to the academics with attribution. In my opinion, the article benefited from the re-write. The old version appears to have less references and overreliance on in-line quotes; which disrupt the reading flow. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Holy explosion Batman.. Got redirected to the discussion at the Buddhism project talk and then to here. Its an area of discussion I do feel needs improvement on Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages bias of a 'scholar' as someone who is a 'western' scholar I think is missing the point. I would consider a Geshe a scholar in the truest sense of the word. Their work is often a secondary source, too, as they are making commentaries to another text and not functioning merely as a primary source. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCE:

The word "source" in Misplaced Pages has three meanings:

  1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
  2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
  3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

  • university-level textbooks
  • books published by respected publishing houses
  • magazines
  • journals
  • mainstream newspapers.

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Search engine test.

References
  1. This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.

Publications by Geshes can be used, "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are to be preferred. Geshe's speak with the voice of their tradition, and are not necessarily knowledgeable for other schools of Buddhism, nor necessarily in favour of them (not necessarily even in favour with the mainstream within their own school...). NB: this is a Wiki-policy, not an essay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is you stating your views, fair enough. But these are not "wikipedia laws" that we have to follow, just guidelines, and that's your interpretation of them. The main thing is, what are reliable sources in Buddhism.
I just gave several reasons why the sources from the best Tibetan speaking teachers and scholars can give a valuable perspective, especially when they are talking about works written in their own native language.
And I gave other reasons as well. You don't answer that by just quoting wikipedia guidelines :). And I suggested that both types of sources have much to contribute, but we get the best and most balanced article by utilizing them both and not by excluding the Tibetan sources. Robert Walker (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Zulu Papa 5 * It may seem that it has lots of citations. But - well first that's a legacy from the old version. If you take a mature article, rewrite it, and then add some more sources to it, you are likely to increase the citation count, even if you also delete material.
And the citations no longer have quotes. So you can't verify them as you can with the old version. And in its main theses that it puts forward, it is mainly relying on a small group of academics with repeated citations of Vetter and Bronkhorst. With other sources only used where they support what they say. And - for me the lack of quotes in the main body, combined with the issue that it is a tricky subject and I'm not at all confident that a wikipedia editor will paraphrase the sources correctly, especially with the quotes not given in the citations, gives me little confidence in this new version of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Categories: