Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 20040302 (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 24 May 2016 (→Insight). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re: Syncretism vs. Variety - NPOV

Very interesting comments! The rebirth issue keeps coming up. You really know what you are talking about. That's so rare to find here! Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

from the perspective of the awareness that realizes emptiness of self, that realization is not realization of emptiness of phenomena. that is a second realization that is "deduced" from the first. so prasanga shows emptiness of self, whereas the resulting realization of the emptiness of phenomena is a second negation not mentioned in the definition of the work that prasanga does http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prasaṅgika

tell me what you think? i hope that i can be understood... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.97.122 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC) thanks for the reply, i enjoyed that edit. maybe i can ask you if there's anything i'm stuck with in Buddhism - generally i mean. thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.97.122 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry to just jump at you asking a random question but I don't suppose you can explain the meaning of absolute truth in the separate teaching. I am thinking of Chih: what I have read says that it is "neither emptiness nor existence" or that they are "non dual" but I can't work out what that means. Any reply or help appreciated...

Paṭiccasamuppāda

A response to your message. Paticca means ground or foundation; Sammupada refers to causation. Paticcasammupada literally means 'by virtue of the fact of causation'. The Pali Text Society Dictionary gives the following:

"arising on the grounds of (a preceding cause)" happening by way of cause, working of cause & effect, causal chain of causation; causal genesis, dependent origination, theory of the twelve causes.

Most Pali translators I know translate the phrase generally with the expression 'Dependent Origination'. This is the standard phrase used in most of the literature published by the Buddhist Publication Society or Wisdom Books USA to name but two of the leading publishers of English translations of Pali (Theravada) literature. You are quite correct when you say that the phrase normally refers to the construction of the twelve nidanas. The reason this is the case is because the Buddha's principal activity was showing people the way out of suffering. He explained that suffering and incarnation exist due to the existence of other factors which are acting as causes. In other words, suffering and incarnation are dependently originated - namely dependent on the existence of causes which are giving rise to them. Remove the causes, he explained, and you remove the effects. However the doctrine of Dependent Origination actually refers to all phenomena in the universe. Everything is dependently originated. This means that everything that exists is connected to everything else in each moment. Thich Nhat Hanh calls this 'Interbeing'. Einstein was unhappy about it when Quantum physics discovered this (see EPR experiment). So properly speaking the twelve nidanas is a special instance of the dependently originated nature of all phenomena. This is not novel - many Buddhist teachers explain the interconnectedness of all things. The 14th Dalai Lama for example.

I was very sad to find the article in the state it was in. It was in much better shape last year. Someone calling himself Ormurin started meddling with it on January 5th and unfortunately it has degenerated from something that was quite passable. The article had remained more or less unchanged for the preceding year or two. Mostly I have retired from editing wikipedia due to having to deal with fundamentalists, upstarts, bullies etc. I am a published scholar and editor in the field of Theravada Buddhism. My work is respected by experts in the field. Thankyou for your understanding. 81.106.115.153 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Dependent Origination implies mutual interdependence and mutual interdependence gives rise to the phenomenon of non-local effects (an expression borrowed from quantum physics). Quantum theory implies that objects experiencing change locally cause simultaneous changes (effects) to phenomena non-locally - changes, for example, to phenomena at vast distances (billions of light years for example) from the local object (the object of our immediate perception). This leads to certain mysterious paradoxes regarding the nature of causation which I believe the Mahayana logicians were aware of. This is discussed in section four of the current article. As far as I am aware the Mahayana philosophers and scriptures go into this subject a great deal. For example, the Avatamsaka Sutra discusses dependent origination as the arising of phenomena in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect by means of the metaphor of Indra's net. Here the principle of simultaneous non-local interconnectedness is explicitly advanced by the author(s) in the beautiful descriptive passages. I am sure it is also discussed in other Mahayana literature. If, by 'classical literature' you refer to the Pali Tipitaka then it is true that the subject is not expounded at length due to Buddha's principle of 'Ockham's razor' that characterises Theravada teaching in general (See Simsapa Sutta). So either with respect to scripture or doctrine I don't understand what is contentious. Dependent origination is a general metaphysical doctrine of which the mutually interdependent twelve nidanas is a specific example that just happens to be of vital importance for understanding the path to liberation. 81.106.115.153 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Candrakirti

To answer a question you asked somewhere, he was "virtually unknown in East Asia until modern times" (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 2, 1998, page 81). Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC open now on Talk:Substance theory that you might be interested in commenting upon. Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Proposed deletion of Obyx

The article Obyx has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Very new programming language; no indication of notability yet: can't find any coverage in secondary sources. This may need to be userfied and replaced if and when it receives some third-party attention.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiftigerWunsch 11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Obyx for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Obyx, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Obyx until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiftigerWunsch 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns at the talk page, Giftiger. (20040302 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Perception

Is there any particular reason why you pointed Proximal stimulus to the section "Perception and Reality", and not to "Process and terminology" like you did with Distal stimulus? Regards, Morton Shumway—talk 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry but you cannot remove legitimate references to established and authoritative scholarly works. You are pushing an agenda which is at variance with academic consensus. 81.107.150.246 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Śūnyatā article

An addition was proposed to the Śūnyatā article here. I reverted that and asked the editor to discuss it. You seem to be knowledgeable in the Theravada tradition. Would you be able to take a look at his revisions and comment on the article talk page? My question is that whether it is expressed in a neutral and fair manner in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Sunray (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there are great rewards from editing Misplaced Pages. It is a joy to read commentary that not only accords with WP policies (verifiability, civility, and consensus), but is also in the observance of Buddhist precepts. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Gelugpa view

Karl Brunnhölzl says "First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more of less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schoools."Page 17, Center of the Sunlit Sky.Gogeta38947 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Submariners Memorial

Hi, Have you got a WP:RS using this form of the name? PamD 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Submariners Memorial

Hi, Have you got a WP:RS using this form of the name? PamD 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist Shrine Page

If all the material was unsourced, who cares if it was deleted. Is it not better to have one true statement then a whole page of unconfirmed reports? Why was an older version of Buddhist Shrines added again? If that's the case, this article will never be published. 207.6.232.78 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the article. I'm the one who got frustrated with all the regulations. I am the one who removed the bulk of the information due to lack of sources. I shortened the article so it would be easier to publish, then with time, verifiable information would be added. Please go back to the short version.

Reathomis (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Request: Gautam Buddha

I wish to request you to give a glance at the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Gautama_Buddha and its talk page.

The article is very misleading especially in the 1st and birth paragraphs with original research on Indian birth claims. There are certain edit requests too. Thanks! Seaboy123 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bundle as a Western Loanword

I aleady addressed this issue 3 times. Bundle is a direct translation of skandha. It is a very Buddhist flavored word. ProvisionalMPEP (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I really take exception to your accusation of vandalism. If you actually look at the article, this material was already tagged as being uncited. CO2Northeast (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you the one who wrote this more than 2 years old uncited material? CO2Northeast (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CO2Northeast (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stable version

I reverted to the last version by Reifingam. It is unclear to me whether some of Reifingam's edits are disputed by you. If so, we can either rv to an earlier version, or leave it as is. My preference would be to work from the last stable version. Sunray (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Your statement: "... these accounts are all new, and are all agreeing with each other. The use of blatant non-sequiturs, a tendency to misinterpret reliable sources, other similar behaviours (misspellings of simple words like 'course' for 'coarse'; a strong aversion to the idea that the Madhyamaka denies inherent existence; an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to questions that are pertinent to investigation, uncalled for lack of civility, rewrites, attempts to undermine constructive, collaborative work. Other common interests such as a shared editorial trend across Hindu texts , tantra, and the middle-way philosophy. Similar timezones (which is a late evening for me), intense editorial sessions; pretty meaningless point-scoring, etc.," probably should go to WP:SPI. Some diffs as examples (such as similar phrasing) would be helpful. I could then proceed. Sunray (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

SudoGhost 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Query

Would you be able to comment on a query I've had on my talk page, here? Sunray (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I take your point about the translation of the term. Probably a good idea to change the citation, though if you have one. Otherwise, I agree it is WP:SYN. I admire your patience with all of this. I am still considering options. Sunray (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What is your issue with direct quotes from books?

I added a direct quote from Candrakirti. You say it is disputed, but this is the first time anyone has mentioned this quote. Gooolog (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is already on the Madhyamaka talk page. Gooolog (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

SudoGhost 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

SudoGhost 05:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Essence and existence

Well, you're not alone. I put (back) some of your remarks in the article on Madhyamaka. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Misplaced Pages has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Rizongmonks.jpg missing description details

• File:Rizongmonks.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

Merge discussion for Thubten Gyatso (NKT)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thubten Gyatso (NKT), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Samden Gyatso

An article that you have been involved in editing, Samden Gyatso, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Kelsang Khyenrab

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kelsang Khyenrab, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No essential arising

Thanks. See also:

• Susan Kahn, The Two Truths of Buddhism and The Emptiness of Emptiness
• Patrick Jennings, Tsongkhapa: In Praise of Relativity; The Essence of Eloquence

No essential arising, no denying of the world, bu also no pinning it down in "things". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes - exactly. :-D. In fact, the way I generally talk it is by looking at it from the other end of the telescope - we know that it is grasping/clinging to self/things (because we identify them as sources of pleasure/pain - cf. the 12 dependant links) which we must elminate, and we do that by understanding that they have no potency (they are not effective) as sources of pleasure/pain. This lack of potency is first understood at a coarse level by understanding momentary impermanence - and then at a finer level by understanding essencelessness (the inability to act as 'carriers' of pleasure/pain), based on the three dependencies (1: they are products, therefore have no essence; 2: they are dependent designations - constructs of language and convention, and therefore have no essence; 3: they are aggregates (dependent on their parts), and therefore have no essence). So, then we also tend to conflate the event of pleasure with the cause of pleasure, and that's why understanding Karma is so important also. The "problem" with this sort of interpretation is that it's an "anti-philosophy" - it doesn't make any metaphysical assertions; it just says "watch closely, and learn". I have always been astounded by critics of Tsongkhapa when they say he is too intellectual - when he doesn't leave much to be intellectual about. Of course he is incredibly deft at reducing other peoples constructs to dust. Anyway, thanks for the sharing :-D (20040302 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Yamantaka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yamantaka is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yamantaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Insight

Hi 20040302; continuing the conversation here. I can really recommand the publications by Bronkhorst, Gombrich and Vetter. All three can be found as pdf's at the web, as far as I know. The basic idea is that the Buddha's origina teaching may have been that the mind should be calmed, and that dhyana, that is 'mindfull "absorption"', is the menas to achieve this. Insight became important later, in response to other Indian traditions. Mindfulness may have been important to keep aware of sense impressions and the resulting feelings and desires. It's pretty basic and 'logical', actually. And it explains why the Theravada emphasis on insight makes no sense (but that's personal feeling). Really, read them! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, Hi friend. Yes, I will endeavour to read them. One of the current issues is that the way the word 'Mindfulness' is being bantered around to describe all sorts of things. Once one has mastered Mindfulness of the body (normally through breath awareness) one moves onto mindfulness of the mind. If one actually undertakes the practice (rather than merely read/write it) then it quickly becomes apparent that the world as it appears is not as it is. So, with introduction, one uncovers prajna and is engaging in vipassana.Once one becomes truly proficient at mindfulness conceptual thought dissipates. There are plenty of works that describe the process from both Theravada and Mahayana sources. The academics don't have the experience or tradition to uncover the meaning of these texts. It's like expecting them (e.g. Wayman) to understand tantras by merely reading them. I have read some of Vetter. I will track down the others. So far I haven't been impressed as (in the case of Vetter) there is a huge amount of confusion regarding what is going on. (20040302 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC))