Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 17 May 2021 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:12, 17 May 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda/Archive 1) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pratītyasamutpāda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

Buddhism Top‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Transcendental section

Thanks Kukku - that is better than my earlier hash. The transcendental section doesn't actually fit underneath the madhyamaka section very well, and though the facts may well be good, I am concerned about the interpretations- things like 'quanta' really seem out of place, even in metaphoric terms. (20040302 09:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Edits to the last para. were made just to attempt to make it a bit more easy to read. I also replaced the elements of causality as rather than - please revert, edit, destroy as you see fit, Kukku. (20040302 11:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Also, the Dualism article pertaining to 'eastern mysticism' needs to be edited! I had a quick hash of it, but it is still pretty dodgy. (20040302 11:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I am concerned about the very western term: Transcendental, to me it reduces Buddhist philosophy to Platonic/Cartesian/Kantian ontologies and would bring all the baggage that rests with Transcendentalism onto the Buddhist doorstep. Is there no better term? Or can we cite the school/translation school who uses it? (20040302 22:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Hmm. Fair point. Actually, do you know what the hell that whole section is about? I've never heard of it, so I don't know how to fix it. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Okay, Google helped me out a bit on this front and I made some adjustments accordingly. See what you think. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Big cheesy grin. Great. (20040302 23:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

is it a "contribution to metaphysic" ? at least, the bramajala suta should be mentionned
what about the time : past-present-future in the dependant origination ? i think this interpretation is quite "modern" , i mean not at the beginning. Per exemple, the Buddhagosa 's Visuddhimagga does not mentions this version.
-buddho

Upadana

Hi, I've redirected Upadana here, because I think it is related. We're trying to take care of every article in Misplaced Pages:2004 Encyclopedia topics, and that was one. Can someone familiar, create a sentence or so in this article on Upadana? Thanks - Taxman 15:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK I take that back, there are more facets to upadana than just Buddhism. But if someone can help with it that would be great. - Taxman 15:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have made some additions to the page adding formula tables, additional formula references and some notes. There is more to be done before the article is balanced. I will add some further text soon.

First time I've added notes to a talk page. Don't know if I have done it correctly. We will see. stray 16:08:00, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Also added some content to Upadana page. This needs more work before its acceptable. It's just a stub at the moment. Will work on that too in the next few days. stray 16:10:52, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Pali expression for paticca-samuppada

I think right Pali expression for paticca-samuppada is paţicca samuppāda. Isn't it?

lt.wikipedia.user.Gyvas (jonvit@gmail.com) 2006-March-09

Anti-Mahayana polemic pulled from technical note

All notions of self are included here ranging from the then extant views contained in the Upanishads, to the later views. Even notions that the body or the ego are not the self and that there is a higher, more refined self, whether as the Supreme Self of Vedanta or as the womb of the Tathagata of the Mahayana are essentially notions of self that fall under one of these categories. For example, the Vedantic notion is that of a formless and infinite self. The Mahayana notion is that of a formless but finite self. Some Mahayana traditions don't explicitly consider the womb of the Tathagata to be a self, but nevertheless, they consider it a persisting entity in all beings and in this sense it therefore is a clinging to self-view (sakkaya ditthi).

This article is still written by people who are only experts of their own views. In the above text, which has been excised, there are no basic citations that demonstrate any support for the assertion that Mahayana traditions as a whole cling to some form of self-view. Actually, it reveals a lack of study regarding the Mahayana traditions, all of whom assert Pratītyasamutpāda, and all of whom have faith in the four noble truths. A qualifying counter-example to the text above is the Madhyamaka tradition, which denies the objective (essence-holding) self, as well as all other phenomena; the only self that exists is the one used to indicate the difference between 'me' and 'you' - a conventional, unphilosophical, nominal self. It is true that other traditions accuse the Madhyamaka of being nihilists, but that is because for them they believe that some form of essential existence is necessary in order for Karma to function.

IMO, a lot of the technical notes and the basic text has been written over the last two years with a rather narrow, and in some places bigoted, view without much in the way of references or background to contextualise it. Buddhism is vast, deep, and multi-faceted. (20040302 (talk))

Causality

Joshua Jonathan In one of your edits you removed "causality" from the title of a sub-section and said "no, *not* causality; don't kill the dharma". Care to explain your reasoning here and provide somekind of support for it from scholarly sources? The early sources do not make a strict separate between hetu (cause) and paccaya (condition). For example, ye dharma hetu. Many sources in this article use "cause" and "causality" to refer to DO. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one example. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan lamas use cause and effect. Choong titles his chapter on DO "causal condition" in Fundamental Teaching of Early Buddhism. Also, was it really necessary to say someone is "killing the dharma"? I appreciate you have religious convictions, but lets stick to the facts here ok. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this topic, I've coincidentally noticed that this closely related article sure could use some work Causality#Buddhist_philosophy. It sites Pratītyasamutpāda as the main article on the subject, but the two do not correspond well. Teishin (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I've definitely wanted to go through some of the non-Buddhist related articles that have references to Buddhist thought and fix up some of the major issues they have. I will look at it when I get a chance. Almost every important article on philosophical topics on Misplaced Pages is biased towards Western philosophy. So this would be quite a mission. But at least I can look at this one entry for now. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, I don't think we have a good intermediate explanation of dependent origination between the bare definition of the lede and the great detail of the rest of the article. The current Meaning section tries, but is inadequate for this purpose. It may well be worth addressing Causality#Buddhist_philosophy now, as what should be said there likely would be much the same as the intermediate level of detail that I think should be added to this article. Teishin (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In the Meanings-section, you changed the nuanced explanation of conditionality ("If this exists, that exists," etc.) into a straightforward "causality"; that's not what the alinea originally said, nor what those sources say. This sentence from the lead expresses it neatly: "all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things." Arise. Not cause, but arise. Nothing stands on its own, but exists in dependence on other factors. "Causality" automatically invokes a western way of thinking, linear and instrumental, while conditionality invokes a systems-way of thinking, as in interdependence and sunyata. By changing "conditionality" into "causality," this mind-changing - liberating! - way of 'looking' at reality is lost. It's an impoverishment. That's what I mean with "killing the dharma."

I think that the original Meanings-section was better. You're so insistent on adding a lot of detail, but meanwhile lose sight on structure and comprehensibility. Writing an article is more than gathering together a lot of info; you also have to provide a structure to that info, and convey the intended meaning and "function" of that info. Providing an introduction is p

You need to take a moment. I was not attacking you personally. I apologize for saying it was a big mess, but I definitely saw a lot of problems with this article (and indeed, the article had a lot of problems!). Now, my changes were not perfect, and like Teishin said, it needed a simpler explanation/overview (which he has provided). Now that is taken care of, we can look at the rest of the article. Regarding your claim that merely using the term "causality" involves a western way of thinking, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from? Numerous sources use the term causality/causation etc, including well known Buddhist teachers. Like I mentioned above, cause is the main translation of hetu. Your claim that the idea of conditionality and the idea of causality are completely different ones has no basis in the sources. Also, there are many different ideas of causality, even in Western thought, not all of them are "linear and instrumental" (honestly, do you even know what you are talking about here? I'm not attacking you, I am just asking. Have you looked at the literature?). Anyways, just using the term causality is not a problem at all, and numerous people use it, like Bodhi, Choong, the Dalai Lama, etc. This is a weird hobby horse of yours for sure. But unless you can back it up with some sources, you're just making baseless claims. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Addentum: going through the structure now (despite my intention no tot do so): look, you really added a lot of very good, very interesting, very helpfull information. As so often before, I'm learning new things. But really, just as the four satipathhanas, the way you structure your info is not always very accessible. When I go through it, I can pick-out several subthemes, and restructure it. It's all there, actually it's quite good, but just this structuring and ordering of info... Sorry for my harsh comments, but this is something I'm good at, I think; I don't want to wade through a lot of text before I can pick-out the essentials; first hand-out the essentials, then explain the details. At least, that's what I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that either the current or the former Meaning sections successfully bridge the reader from the lede to the deep detail provided in the article. Part of the problem is that they are both so "nuanced" that one has to already have an understanding of the subject to understand them. I've taken a stab at this and will put it in the article. Teishin (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Teishin, I think that's even better than my attempt. Its simpler and conveys the basic ideas. Joshua, leave it alone, don't put the meanings back like you did before. If you think it needs some additions to clarify lets discuss. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with Teishin's summary, but "leave it alone" could have been expressed more eloquently. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I just see this: I was not attacking you personally. I apologize for saying it was a big mess. Thanks, and sorry. I've had a rough working-week; I'm mentally a little bit overfilled at the moment

You and me both (I have toddler too!). I think we are coming to an understanding. And the article is looking so much better. Thank you for all your work. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Idappaccayatā

The section on Idappaccayatā does not seem properly integrated into the article. There's no explanation about why this term is being introduced. As there is also a main article on the term, we should consider what content about the concept can be moved from this article to that one. Teishin (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As Choong notes, Idappaccayatā is unique to the Pali suttas, an equivalent term is not found in the Agamas. As such, maybe its best to not use this term per se, but just indicate how there is a basic or general principle of conditionality that is described with the general phrase "when this is...etc". ☸Javierfv1212☸ 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that the whole section on Dependent Origination lacks narrative structure. It bounces from topic to topic without connecting the topics. Teishin (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories: