Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScientificQuest

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 26 January 2015 (→In support of your edits of Anatta). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:01, 26 January 2015 by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) (→In support of your edits of Anatta)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, ScientificQuest, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello ScientificQuest. I just want to say that I like and appreciate the interesting and valuable material you have added to the 'Anatta' entry. Certain other Misplaced Pages 'editors', however, may not be so welcoming. Good luck! From Suddha.

Suddha (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anatta

Hi SQ. I found your addition to Anatta of conceiving non-self as a skillfull action every helpfull! After 26 years of studying Buddhism, this was a piece of information which clarified my understanding basically. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua Jonathan. All of the angas of the Noble eightfold path are framed in terms of actions.
  1. Formation of views and rejecting all other views in favor of one specific view is an action. sammā dițțhi is therefore the act of choosing to accept the Buddha's teaching on karma as a correct explanation of phenomena.
  2. Formation of resolves is also an action, and so is sammā sankappo. In particular, the resolve to generate good will, harmlessness, and renuciation are all related of the brahma vihāras. All these are not only actions, but even set in the framework of actions. For example, the Pali chants on metta also remind one that even if one may generate good-will for others, All beings are the owners of their actions, heirs to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.
  3. sammā vācā, sammā kammanto, and sammā ājīvo are clearly set in terms of actions.
  4. sammā vāyāmo is right effort, and it is related to both otappa, and atappa.
  5. sammā sati is related to the act of remembering or keeping something in mind. Often this is translated as right mindfulness.
  6. sammā samādhi - often this is not thought of as an action. But even this is an action.
The entire path that the Buddha taught was in terms of karma. Even the four noble truths are set in the framework of karma. How? taṇhā (or craving) is the unskillful cause, dukkha (or suffering) is the undesirable result. The noble eightfold path is the skillful cause, and nibbāna is the desirable result. So even the four noble truths are just a more refined realization of karma.

ScientificQuest (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anatta #2

Calling Kalupahana "original research" is, strictly speaking, correct: it is his (scholarly) understanding of this topic. Yet, you seem to be using it as it is being used at Misplaced Pages. And that's not correct. Misplaced Pages is based on WP:RS, such as Kalupahana. You're giving your personal understanding of the Nikaya's, arguing against Kalupahana - and that's indeed WP:OR as the term is being used at Misplaced Pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not a personal understanding, but the well-published public English translations of the Nikayas (which I had referenced) are exactly contrary to Kalupahana's original research. Kalupahana's research is not well-established, and is not accepted by the general monastic scholarly community either.
Now, the principles of Misplaced Pages, which involve the questions of consensus and authority alone do not have much value in reference to the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that while people take these 10 different sources of information to be valid, they are inadequate in helping one judge if the action should be engaged in. But even by those standards, Kalupahana's original research is far from accepted in the monastic scholarly community.
But if we were to judge Kalupahana's original research by the Buddha's own criteria:

Don't go by (i) reports, by (ii) legends, by (iii) traditions, by (iv)scripture, by (v) logical conjecture, by (vi) inference, by (vii) analogies, by (viii) agreement through pondering views, by (ix) probability, or by the (x) thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.

In this case, Kalupahana's view that the Buddha avoided taking any stand on the question of moral responsibility is being considered. We owe it to ourselves to judge if this interpretation is compatible with the Nikayas or not. If on choosing the view unskillful mental qualities arise, we should seriously question the view. And we can judge that if one seriously assumes that there is no clear indication about moral responsibility in the Buddha's teachings, then we are setting the stage for Buddhists acting in unskillful and irresponsible ways.ScientificQuest (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Information icon Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta‎, but we cannot accept original research. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Joshua tried to explain the original research in your edits twice, Victoria Grayson added an OR tag in response to your edits and several edits were reverted by JJ and Tengu800 because of OR. Please take your time to read the relevant policies and guidelines that represent the consensus of the wp community and please stop adding OR. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. Understood. I have agreed to the modification that Joshua has made to the part that was talking about Cula Saropama Sutta and how Mahayana is different etc. I removed that portion. I also modified the Kalupahana bit. Is there something else that is offending? I'm sorry, but I'm new to Misplaced Pages's editing. So I'm trying to learn.ScientificQuest (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Hi ScientificQuest. I've rolled-back your post at Anatta again. It's the third time that you add your personal analysis. It lacks indepedentent sources, and mainly represents a Theravada point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Don't give up, you're definitely on a good track. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


In support of your edits of Anatta

Hi, just to let you know that I am in process of preparing a DRN Notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits. And to support you in the discussion - I think he has treated you badly, reverting your edits without any discussion of the actual content of what you added to the article.

I've also posted to the article in support of your edits, see Again

For details of the dispute, see: Dispute overview.

Robert Walker (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, stop your WP:HARASSMENT and WP:CANVASSING. You're over the line here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI:Discussion of Robertinventor´s use of talk pages. Best regards 12:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)JimRenge (talk)

To reassure to SQ: this has nothing to do with you. Your edits are welcome; if I can help you further, please let me know. I already told you earlier that your edits were helpfull to me personally. I'm looking forward to the academic sources you've got to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, I suggest you review Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers, particularly for instance "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"." Robert Walker (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at his edits - there are some statements there that are unsourced - but - you also frequently add unsourced statements to your revisions of articles, especially with your first revisions. And many of your edits of wikipedia remain as controversial, unsourced statements right to the present day. And there is much content that seems excellent to me. It doesn't seem at all clear that the appropriate action was simply to revert all his edits, without comment, and without offering any helpful details of how you felt his edits could be improved. Instead the way to deal with it, surely, is to point out particular passages that you felt had issues with them and discuss them in detail on the talk page. And to say which statements in your view needed more citations, rather than just a blanket - "remove it all and try again when you become a better wikipedia editor" statement. Robert Walker (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)