Revision as of 09:39, 16 December 2024 editJoshua Jonathan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,118 edits →Historicity: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:06, 16 December 2024 edit undoTamir Nazir (talk | contribs)460 edits →Historicity: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
Hi , I noticed you reverted my edit on . To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! ] (]) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | Hi , I noticed you reverted my edit on . To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! ] (]) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:{{yo|Tamir Nazir}} those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? ''If'' such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions ]. Otherwise, it's ] and a violation of ]. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, ] - ] 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | :{{yo|Tamir Nazir}} those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? ''If'' such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions ]. Otherwise, it's ] and a violation of ]. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, ] - ] 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks for your clarification. I see your point. There has to be such characterizations to make The Ramayana article broad and balanced according to ], ] (]) 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:06, 16 December 2024
For convenience: {{mdf|1=]|2=reason, ~~~~}}
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Regards and Thanks Edasf«Talk» 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
- Strawberries and tea... I noticed your stance on the origins of Hinduism; that was uplifting. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that’s why I was also extremely confused about why you two are fighting. Edasaf was the one who disrupted the Nanda Empire's religious narrative using your reasoning and speculative additions on another page. Edasaf also randomly attacked Chandragupta Maurya's religion. (The jealousy of the Bhim gang and neo-Buddhists toward Hinduism, Brahmanism, or the Vedic tradition is not hidden.)
- The problem is that you attacked the Maurya Empire, which is the only empire Indian Buddhists can somewhat properly relate to. Obviously, Edasaf was going to clash with you. Although the Maurya Empire, before the later years of Ashoka, had nothing to do with asceticism or non-violence. If Chandragupta had been a ascetic, there would have been no Ashoka or his edicts, and no spread of Buddhism. So, be glad that Chandragupta was not an extreme Jain ascetic and chose to take a wife.
- And don’t be overly uplifted by Edasaf's views on Hinduism. He is in your category, just Indian as well, so he will be offended if you attack the Maurya Empire. No true follower of vedic tradition would describe any stage of Hinduism’s evolution using a Christian missionary term. Leftists and communists interested in India will, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the trend of leaders around the world shows. Soon academia will be free of Marxist interpretations. It will take time. You wont be there to see it, i might be. 2409:40E3:407F:B092:7199:3821:B1F1:5146 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I hope for you it will be a world worth living in... Regarding
The problem is that you attacked the Maurya Empire
, that's an enlightening comment; the perceptions of Chandragupta seem to be quite different. I found this book, Chandragupta Maurya: The creation of a national hero in India; it seems to delve into the differences of perception you're pointing at. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- Hmmmm. I'll read it. In any case, I would not elevate anyone to hero status—no one is perfect. When even deities are flawed, humans stand no chance. Although there are many who are considered national heroes—Chandragupta, Ashoka, Samudragupta, Kanishka, Shivaji, Prithviraj, Rana Sanga, Veer Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar etc.—even Rama, Hanuman, Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna are regarded as national heroes. There are probably countless others. If we want to counter India's national hero narratives, it will take generations. However, I understand why you detest any form of nationalistic tendencies. We can agree to disagree on many things, but I have come to the conclusion that continued hostility is not a solution.
- So, I apologize to you for the many insults and harsh words I directed toward you. I hope you have a good day. 2409:40E3:407F:B092:7199:3821:B1F1:5146 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I hope for you it will be a world worth living in... Regarding
A goat for you!
Hey JJ. Hope all is well. Just saw you crossed 100k edits on Wiki. That is wild! Congrats on such a boss milestone.
Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kbhatt22: short time ago I checked your whereabouts; good to see you're still around. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- :) I always poke around but Covid really just took a lot away and haven't managed to quite get my head back right. I keep telling myself I want to get back into the mix but just need to start carving out time to read and write. Its still calming to just make my usual tiny edits and watch patterns of users in my unique weird way haha. Always happy to get a chance to send my regards. Kbhatt22 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kbhatt22: so, I took a look; utterly confusing articles. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: I agree. It read in some aspects like a marketing brochure to begin with but splitting it into two articles seemed like a bizarre stretch the way its written. Couldn't find another Hindu temple that was given such treatment. Had to do a ton of searching around just to understand what the articles were trying to convey. Kbhatt22 (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Kbhatt22: so, I took a look; utterly confusing articles. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- :) I always poke around but Covid really just took a lot away and haven't managed to quite get my head back right. I keep telling myself I want to get back into the mix but just need to start carving out time to read and write. Its still calming to just make my usual tiny edits and watch patterns of users in my unique weird way haha. Always happy to get a chance to send my regards. Kbhatt22 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
November 24
disruptive Contents going on article avatar and Dashavatar, Request for page protection and i suggest to you add this file for avatar or dashavatar suitable copyright info uploaded from users.
@Joshua Jonathan Parthann (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Don't bother; the IP-disruption is endless. The picture is nice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- No not for me, Request for Dashavatar page. Parthann (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Add this img for avatar or Dashavatar article.
- Thanks for response. Parthann (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vinayvinyill. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- No not for me, Request for Dashavatar page. Parthann (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Jhana Table : Incomplete?
Hey Joshua - I added some thoughts to your talk page section, Template_talk:JhanaFactors#Incomplete. Just thought I'd mention this here just in case you're not following that page and might be interested in following up. I hope you're doing great! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops! My bad! Based on a wrong-headed skim of A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (p.91), I had made an inference that maybe the first factor you were referencing (sampasadhana) was based on Sanskrit parallels while the existing Misplaced Pages entries were using the Pali texts. But, I now see that sampasadana (without the 'h'; or, in Sanskrit, sa.mprasaada) can be found in 322 different Early Buddhist texts according to Sutta Central (https://suttacentral.net/search?query=in:ebs+sampasada), many -- if not all! -- having to do with the second jhana. So, why do I and other WP contributers not consider sampasadana to be one of the jhana "factors"? Regrettably, it's been a decade since I've dug into this stuff so I don't recall my own sources. And, of course, my knowledge is decimated. I'll keep digging here though and, when I think I find something worthy of your time, I'll write again. (For what it's worth, I initally started the Talk page thread because I was confused by some of your edits to the table. Let's unravel this thing first though :-) ) If you want to dig together, please let me know :-) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Larry Rosenfeld: I have to read your comments yet, but thanks for reaching out. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"Adimo" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Adimo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § Adimo until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Historicity
Hi , I noticed you reverted my edit on . To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! Tamir Nazir (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tamir Nazir: those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? If such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions Itihasa-Purana. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarification. I see your point. There has to be such characterizations to make The Ramayana article broad and balanced according to WP:NPOV, Tamir Nazir (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)