Content deleted Content added
General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Reincarnation research. (TW) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 86:
How do you recommend I get them appropriately placed and communicated?<br />
Blessings in blood<br />
NB: In the above discussion the '[[bodymind]]' (Sanskrit: [[namarupa]]) complex is my work. I am not attached to the fruit of my activity but gee it is warming to perceive activity fruitful.
Line 101:
==Merge [[Nirvana Sutra|निर्वाण सूत्र]]==
I notice that you have recently merged the Nirvana Sutra witth the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana ~ which actually seems just takes it back to where it was originally. Anyway, I have no problem with this ''per se'', but I note that in doing so you seem to have lost the entire Page History for the article in its "Nirvana Sutra" incarnation. There is a lot of important information there, so do you think you could see your way to merging the Page History as well or making it otherwise accessible ? It is important to know who has done what.
Thanks --[[user:Anam Gumnam|<b><
: — [[User:Bodigami|Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi]] 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 183:
==First turning==
Do you know much about the early schools of Buddhism? The Theravadin are only one of in excess of 18 schools. The first turning were codified in many languages not just Pali. If you are focused on the first turning then be aware of its historicity. The Theravadin like the Gelugpa have been given too much attention or have been overly favoured and foregrounded in English discourse. The Buddha taught and recommended teaching in the vernacular which most definitely was not Classical Sanskrit. Indeed he was reacting to the spiritual authority in large enshrined by the Sanskritic tradition. Shakyamuni was an iconoclast. The reasons why Shakyamuni favoured the vernacular are similar to the Protestant Reformation and the move away from Catholic High Mass in languages removed from the understanding of the people. Accessibility! Sanskrit is a control, a control in the scientific sense. A tool of calibration in a complex linguistic environment. That is how Sanskrit works in the milieu of the Dharmic Traditions as well as how it works in Western scholarship and indeed Dharmic scholarship in all languages. Sanskrit forms the nexus of orientation. <br >
==Edit to Brihadaranyak Upanishad Page==
Line 267:
Thanks for reverting the article: I left it in a god-awful state. I just needed an embedded section from the history of the article and just repasted it in the main current article for fun. Thanks for monitoring mindstream and protecting my work, it is appreciated.<br >
== 8,800 verses claim in "jaya" ==
Line 323:
If you persist on removing the cited inclusion to this article I will report you. Removing [[Desert Fathers]] just demonstrates your ignorance. I hold that your removal of my edits is not dispassionate but vindictive. What are you asking me to "please stop" by the way? Including cited and appropriate content? Instead of removing valuable inclusions your time would be better spent providing citations yourself. But you don't do that do you Mitsube? Why is that Mitsube?<br >
:Giving random translations in a highly over-written style is bad for everyone involved. Look above on this talk page for someone who came to me and had to ask what Mahamudra is. He had no idea because you had written such a terrible introduction to the article. This is what you do all the time. And don't describe parallels to other religious traditions unless you have a reliable secondary source making the claim. For example, if you claim that the "Desert Fathers" had "non-dualistic" philosophy, you should have a source that makes that claim. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Mitsube, you are mistaken. I haven't touched the Mahamudra article in over two years. Frankly, I am sure that is not all you are mistaken about either. Moreover, leave messages for me on my talk page because I don't necessarily come back to yours to receive a response. Kind of like looking for mail in the senders letterbox rather than the receivers. Back to the task at hand. What is the nature of your dispute and the justification for removing my cited Tibetan name for nonduality along with the Sanskrit in the Nondualism article?
:::
== Pandakas ==
Line 440:
* Yes, the phrase in the lede, 'credulous research into reincarnation', is surely very biased and should not feature here, if it does not appear (or words to that effect) in the quoted source. It should definitely go if the idea is not expressed in the cited text. I have added a comment on this to the 'Kurtz' section. Best regards. [[User:Suddha|Suddha]] ([[User talk:Suddha|talk]]) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:The user is also ignoring the discussion of other changes and removing reliably sourced content. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 04:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
*I've added a comment to the discussion of the 'Reincarnation' article - in support of what you say, Mitsube. I think people who refuse to allow a little more info about Stevenson in the lead are being unnecessarily stubborn. Best regards. [[User:Suddha|Suddha]] ([[User talk:Suddha|talk]]) 08:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
== buddhism ==
Line 479 ⟶ 481:
== Too many sections ==
Try not to add so many new sections in the reincarnation talk page if you're going to be asking related questions. It looks unprofessional and annoys people. If I were you, I would conglomerate those three under a single section banner.
== Verbal ==
Line 504 ⟶ 506:
:::::No, I meant a specific noticeboard geared to bringing public pressure on behavioral issues. the current note boards are designed to discuss content issues, and users are usually more interested in restricting themselves to content discussions and leaving behavioral problems to other fora. A board dedicated solely to acting on behavioral problems (without references to actual content issues) might fill that gap. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Actually, that sounds a little like canvassing, which is considered edit-warring. Of course, Verbal and the others have their Fringe board which they post on when they want to gang up on an article. But when the supporters of an article do it, they are accused of edit-warring. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.82.19.232|72.82.19.232]] ([[User talk:72.82.19.232|talk]]) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::Ludwigs, my point was that the existing noticeboards often don't work, so is there some reason to suppose this one would?
:::::::Noticeboards are an accepted part of the system & not counted as canvassing. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::dunno. {{=)}} the difference would be that participants on a noticeboard of that sort would be participants ''specifically'' because they want to use the weight of numbers to bolster consensus and civility and overcome tendentious editing; that would be be explicitly laid out in the board's statement of purpose. The hope is that it would attract a bunch of editors who are interested in behavioral problems on wikipedia, and who would be willing to discuss the correct approach in each particular case, and act collectively once they came to a decision about it. since there's no pretension that the board is trying to deal with article ''content'' editors would be less inclined to hold back because of substantive limitations (limited information about the topic, and etc). whether that's enough of a difference, though... --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 16:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::That sounds like a very good idea. I think it would be quite susceptible to false alarms, however. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::well, it would certainly have to be a discussion-before-action scenario. I'd want it to be more like a citizen's action committee than a mob of villagers with flaming torches. maybe I'll toss it out at pump proposals in a week or so, just for a lark; see what kind of reception it gets (right now is not good for me - got some people breathing down my neck). --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with much of what you say above. However, I'd point out that WP procedures already heavily emphasize behaviour over content. Administrators & arbitrators often enforce behaviour policies but not content ones. The system seems in practice to consider a quiet life more important than a better encyclopaedia. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 11:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::well, the idea (which I happen to agree with) is that a calm, civil environment will allow for thorough discussion and agreement on content, which will produce better quality pages in the long run. Unfortunately, the rules around behavior are very badly designed and easily subverted, and so the system doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could or should. that's one of the reasons I've been thinking about this - it would be an informal way to put some teeth into enforcing behavioral issues, so that proper discussion can actually start to gain ascendency. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 15:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think that would solve the problem. It's not just a matter of people edit warring, being abusive &c. Propagandists invent all sorts of spurious reasons for giving prominence to their own POVs & denying it to others, or sometimes resort to unintelligibility, or [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] &c. Unless the community is prepared to come & enforce content policy against that, or authorize somebody to do it for them, the problem will remain unsolved. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
==Your additional paragraph to Buddhism==
Line 523 ⟶ 543:
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at [[:Talk:Reincarnation research]], is considered [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|bad practice]], even if you meant well. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv1 --> ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReincarnation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=351996384&oldid=351996145]'' [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:That was an accident. You don't need to use these big notices all the time. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReincarnation_research&action=historysubmit&diff=351998352&oldid=351997123] You just removed two more of my comments. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Hopefully it is back. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 17:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
== AN3 ==
Just remember, that it would be faster for you to copy over the diffs I put in mine, instead of looking themup yourself all over again. I don't want you to spend too much time on this when we could be working on improving other articles. ^_^ Just let me know when you finish with it. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
:[[User:Bigtimepeace]] says to just add onto my report. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color:silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color:blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
== Read [[WP:REVERT]] ==
You are constantly misusing the term [[WP:REVERT]] and embarrass yourself by its overuse. A revert is a return to a previous version. Rewriting the article is not reverting. Changing it to something completely different is not reverting. There is such a thing as a "partial" revert, but your use of it in this fashion is both offensive and confusing. Please use a different word like "edits".
Also, you need to give a little more time before coming to the conclusion that I'm not using the talk page. [[WP:AGF]] would be good for you to read.
Finally, realize that a lot of your edits look spiteful and completely slanted. Try to avoid words that evoke a personal judgment.
Putting my best foot forward,
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
== Where is project Buddhism noticeboard?? (I might have put in wrong place) ==
Hey Mitsube,
I just put up a notice about Hinduism vs Buddhism differences,
as discussed by you, me, and Budhipriya, at Project Hinduism
and Project Buddhism. I put it on a clearly marked
"noticeboard" at project Hinduism, but I'm not sure I
put it at the right location at Project Buddhism. The diff is
here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism&diff=prev&oldid=354757237]
Feel free to move it if you know of a better location!
Regards -- [[User:Health Researcher|Health Researcher]] ([[User talk:Health Researcher|talk]]) 15:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
== [[Ajahn Maha Bua]] ==
Please note that per [[WP:SURNAME]], we do not repeat the person's full name every time we use it - "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix" - unless, of course, you need to distinguish him from another Bua. Also, your edit (which was basically undoing mine) reintroduced a lot of POV into an article that is already very poorly written in this (and other) regards, as well as some uncontroversial manual of style edits such as the use of the "birth date and age" template and improper English usage. Also, per [[WP:NPOV]], statements such as "revered" must be sourced and per [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] are probably better left off anyways. Instead of saying that he was revered, show it, and let the readers decide for themselves. For example, if millions of people attend his funeral (using this as a theoretical example), then you don't have to say "revered" - the readers themselves can decide this on their own. The way the article is in its current (and especially prior to my edits) state is not an encyclopedic article, it's a celebration of the life of its subject and it needs a lot of work. [[User:Canadian Paul|<span style="color:red">Canadian</span>]] [[User talk:Canadian Paul|<span style="color:orange">Paul</span>]] 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
== RFC/U ==
I'm working on a draft version of an RFC on B9 Hummingbird. There are so many diffs to go through, and I could really use someone with more knowledge of the topics he edits to help locate relevant diffs. The draft is at [[User:Beeblebrox/RFCUdraft]], feel free to add anything that seems relevant. Thanks. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry for not responding. My internet has been spotty. Is this still going on? I could come up with examples. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 06:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::He just ruined the [[nondualism]] article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nondualism&action=historysubmit&diff=360093019&oldid=358772010]. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 06:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, forgot to watchlist your page. The RFC has been certified and is at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering]]. Any input you have would be most welcome. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
== No more warnings, please ==
There really is no reason for you to "warn" me about 3RR, and please don't do it again. Actually, if you would stay off my talkpage completely, I'd appreciate it. I removed your notice for its obvious [[WP:POT|potty-ness]].
I am fine with our current attempts to iron out a compromise in the article by taking turns editing. While various word choices do oscillate back-and-forth ("scientific", "methodological", "similar") as we work to make edits to each others attempts, I do not see us as [[WP:REVERT|reverting]] each other as it were. Nor do I see that we need necessarily consider our work over the last two days to be an [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]]. I think we're heading closer to agreement.
A word of advice: Try to rewrite rather than changing back to previous wording and organization if you can. It's amazing what can be accomplished through simple word choice and organization shifts.
[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 09:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
== Your opinion on policy ==
There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of [[WP:WAX]] the final entry on legitimate usage, [[WP:BIAS]] and the current reading of [[WP:NPOV]]. I hopefully summarized my case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=1379435&diff=362223650&oldid=362223563 effectively here]. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
== WP:Essay on Scientism? ==
Hello, because of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Health_Researcher&diff=363205743&oldid=359937757 tip from a friend], I noticed what happened over at the "[[European Cases of the Reincarnation Type|European Cases...]] page. I thought [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=363162360 your reporting] of the user was highly appropriate and articulate, and and that he should have been blocked as you suggested, for reasons such as you suggested. But the administrator chose to avoid this beneficial but perhaps hard decision. Frankly, I suspect that the problematic user and his friends are able to blow enough smoke, wrapping themselves in their loudly self-professed supposed concern for good science (haha), that most administrators are somewhat intimidated, and unable to recognize their modes of operating.
So it occurred to me that we might want to bring back the earlier idea about trying to generate more Wiki-infrastructure to combat [[scientism]]. Recall that a couple of months ago, I suggested a possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=352450367 noticeboard about scientism], an idea that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=352454384 you responded to positively], although Ludwigs2 brought up some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=next&oldid=352454923 possible downsides]. Now it strikes me that the core idea of building infrastructure to help deal with Wiki-destructive scientism may be a good idea, but perhaps the appropriate initial genre would be to create an ''[[WP:Policies_and_guidelines#essay|essay]]'' that discusses the difference between science and ''scientism'' (which might be viewed in part as idolizing particular scientific theories to the point that one dogmatically extrapolates them far beyond where they have been supported by data -- in other words, the very opposite of true empirically-based science).
Such a [[WP:Policies_and_guidelines#essay|WP essay]], if developed, might be a resource that could be mentioned(linked) in complaints like the one you filed last week. It could grow over time, and could also provide resources to ''guard against its own misuse'' -- perhaps by developing lists of guidelines for detecting scientism that support the WP community in being both ''sensitive'' (able to detect scientism) and ''specific'' (able to avoid false alarms). Probably it should be developed in userspace first. Even in userspace it's something that could potentially be cited in complaints; then, if it seemed "ready for prime-time", we might explore whether it could be moved it to Wiki-space. I could put some time into this, but don't think I could spearhead it (a leadership or at minimum a co-leadership role would be needed by others such as yourself who have far broader experience in dealing with WP-administrative issues in general, and scientism-pushers in particular).
I think that part of the problem with WP-scientism is that those who push that POV may have a variety of motives. There are very likely some who are somewhat naive "true believers" in scientism (note how [[User:Dbachmann]] recently expressed frustration to one of that group about his excessive "[[WP:Randy_in_Boise|Randy in Boise]]"-ism, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGhost&action=historysubmit&diff=349410572&oldid=349368700 HERE]). But it cannot be ruled out that some of the scientism-pushers are pushing that POV for other more cynical and bad-faith motives. When all of this is combined together, it can make quite a potent cocktail, but one that is rather destructive to Wikipedia. Not uncommonly, administrators dealing with the situation can probably use all the help they can get. [[User:Health Researcher|Health Researcher]] ([[User talk:Health Researcher|talk]]) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: If a coherent and useful essay were created, then one way to disseminate awareness of it as a resource might be to create a userbox with a link to the essay. For example, the userbox might have an appropriate graphic (e.g., "<big>W</big> ≠ scientism", with a giant "W"), plus an appropriately linked text-message (e.g., "This user believes that neutrality should never be confused with scientism"). [[User:Health Researcher|Health Researcher]] ([[User talk:Health Researcher|talk]]) 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
== Upanishad citations ==
Hi Mitsube - I couldn't find the citation style you prefer in [[WP:MOS]], [[WP:CITEX]] or [[WP:CIT]]. I just want to stick to one style so please let me know the guideline/policy you are using for using this style. Also, I did provide a direct URL to the book/page eliminating the need of having the lengthy quote in the reflist section. Removing the quotes is just a cleaner and concise way of citing. Nonetheless, please let me know the guideline you prefer. [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 06:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
== Arhat ==
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. My feeling is that for the [[Arhat]] page, it might be best to leave it as one page. Perusing the current article, the role of arhats in Theravada Buddhism seems quite similar to that in Jainism. They also have a common root in the sramana traditions, even within the same geography of Magadha during the same era. There is also overlapping etymology, with some theories about the Buddhist etymology being more similar to the Jain etymology of the word. The only part of the page that bothers me is that those templates take up more height than the entire current length of the page. If we take the Jain one down, of course that is unfair to Jainism. If we take the Buddhist one down, then one of the terms in that template (arhat) is missing the box on its page. It would be nice if they could be collapsed, but I don't believe that is currently possible.
For what it's worth, I think there are some pages where it is unfortunate that the subjects are separated. For example, [[samadhi]] in Hinduism and Buddhism refers to generally the same idea, although there are different classifications and means of attaining samadhi. To have a common page for samadhi in the two traditions might help to foster understanding across those traditions and show readers the common essential methods and ideas in Indian spiritual practices. [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I should add, though, that if someone did want to make them separate articles, I would have no major opposition to that. It might even be helpful in some ways, to have a separate article for Buddhism. The above are just my own sentiments, and I'm sure everyone would have their own view. If you want to make them separate, I would help and contribute to the effort. Honestly, I don't really care so much about whether Jainism and Buddhism have the same arhat page.
Really, what I do care about is when someone takes a standard Sanskrit term that already has a Wikipedia page, makes a totally new page for the Pali spelling, and puts in a bunch of sectarian, unencyclopedic material full of original research. Of course, it's then presented as the de facto Buddhist view, which is an insult both to other Buddhist traditions and to basic Wikipedia guidelines. Those are the articles that I don't like, of which [[Arahant (Buddhism)]] is one. Proper "Arhat in Jainism" and "Arhat in Buddhism" articles would not be a problem. [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged the Buddhist information into [[Arhat (Buddhism)]], and created a separate [[Arihant (Jainism)]] page for the Jain definition. Actually, there were no Jain pages whatsoever linking to the old Arhat page, which made the choice to turn [[Arhat]] into a redirect to the Buddhist arhat page a simple matter. Then I made a few links to the Jain arhat page in some important and relevant Jain articles, and that was pretty much all that was necessary, really. Now anyone who links to, or types in, either "arhat" or "arahant" will go to one single, common, standard Buddhist page for the term. Much simpler.
The article by Bhikkhu Bodhi was good, and it is always nice to read something that digs deeper into the history of Buddhism to understand why these issues came up. I disagreed with him on some points, but everyone has a different perspective on these matters. In any case, I have added the article to a new "external links" section of the Arhat page.
For the most part, I see Sanskrit used for scholarly publications on Buddhism as it applies to the broad subject. Of course, Pali is used for Theravada Buddhism, but also there are some academics who use it for early Buddhism. Still, even in the articles related to early Buddhism, I see Sanskrit much more than Pali. Most Buddhist texts were converted to a Sanskrit form so they could be read throughout India, and Sanskrit became the de facto common language of Indian Buddhism. The only place where this didn't seem to happen was in the Theravada school, probably due to its geographical isolation. To me it seems backwards to use the prakrit used in Theravada, when discussing pan-Buddhist concepts, especially when most Buddhism and Buddhist texts came from the mainland Indian traditions where Sanskrit was used. Sanskrit is also the more neutral academic language not tied to such a specific locality. [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of the sources no longer exist, but they would have been Sanskritized as the schools spread. Remember too, that there are basically two extant main sources for early Buddhist works -- those in Pali, and those in Chinese. Those in Pali are exclusively the views and doctrines of one school. Those in Chinese belong to several schools. Those in Pali are preserved in an ancient local language. Those in Chinese are more easily datable, and easier to verify that the contents have not changed since translation. Each side has its strengths and weaknesses. It's not really the case that Pali encompasses early Buddhist works or even a large majority of them... [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does "non-sectarian" mean in this context? It vaguely sounds like a way of admitting that it's not possible to say that these works are pre-sectarian... But then still trying to make the claim that different collections of texts maintained by different schools, with different contents, are somehow miraculously non-sectarian. For example, it has been found that in the (Mahasamghika?) Ekottara Agama preserved in Chinese, only 1/3 of its sutra contents correspond with the Theravadin Anguttara Nikaya. Since that is the case, how could anyone claim that the collection of agamas / nikayas was pre-sectarian? Is there anyone who would make the claim that a sutra such as the Ekottara Agama's Anapanasati Sutta, is non-sectarian? Even the Dhammacakka Suttas, in what is supposedly the oldest agama / nikaya, exists with many differences. As for the vinayas, they certainly differ even more, with different rules for each school. In fact, the entire split between the Sthavira branch and the Mahasamghika branch was supposedly over changing the rules of the vinaya and the precepts. [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
==[[Irreducible Mind]]==
Hi. Thought that you may be interested in this new stub... [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:That is very interesting! Thanks. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube#top|talk]]) 16:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
==Barnstar for you==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:BuddhismBarnstarProposal4.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Buddhism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Many thanks for your continuing efforts with Buddhism, reincarnation, and related articles... [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
|}
== Upanishads ==
{{talkback|Talk:Upanishads#Good_news_-_Upanishads_is_now_a_GA.21}} [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
'''APPEAL TO YOU'''
Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee]
On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman]
References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482
Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/ . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/
Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last.
Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- [[User:Dralansun|Dralansun]] ([[User talk:Dralansun|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 08:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Situation at Madhyamaka page ==
Can you give your input on the situation at the [[Madhyamaka]] page? Perfectly sourced edits are being continuously rejected. [[User:GristedesEX|GristedesEX]] ([[User talk:GristedesEX|talk]]) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
==Hi==
You may be interested in the [[Reincarnation research]] merge proposal, and you are welome to contribute there if you wish. [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 02:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] ==
Hi,<br>
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692203726 -->
| |||