User talk:Larry Rosenfeld/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Happy new year to you, too!

Yes there was a semblance of some new year fireworks here (the real new year is in april). Right now I feel quite content with the content on wikipedia ;-) so I'm not doing much editing. Sometimes the reactions I receive are a bit sharp, but never mind, some people take some time to be convinced... It's amazing how strong people can hold wrong preconceptions and claim they're backed up by science, but unaware of what science says... ah well... The remedy for this is, I discovered, to use quotations. Use them enough and people start to doubt: 'Maybe there's some truth in it?' All the best for 2008 Greetings, Sacca 08:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tickling

Consider yourself tickled. — Sebastian 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

atthakavagga

hello larry,

i had a thorough go at the links-section of the atthakavagga article. i noticed you did some work before me after I finished, so have a look at the way it is now:Greetings, Sacca 06:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

gradual training

Hello Larry Rosenfeld. The problem with this article as it stands is quite simple. It is that the expression anupubbi-kathā does not mean 'gradual training'. Regardless of how many times each expression appears in the Pali Canon the point is that the word Kathā means 'talk' not 'training'. If by chance you have gleaned your interpretation from John Bullitt on the page to which you refer in one of your footnotes (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/index.html) then your mistake is understandable. Mr Bullitt has conflated two separate concepts. Either the article you have created is about a method the Buddha used of teaching Dhamma to laypeople which in Pali is called anupubbi-kathā - graduated discourse/step-by-step talk etc. or it is about a description that the Buddha used for the path of purification that is the Dhamma-vinaya patipadā explaining that it is a gradual training (anupubbasikkhā - sikkhā means 'training' in Pali) that takes time to unfold. You must decide which of these your article is about as it cannot be about both of them since they are separate concepts. However, if you have taken your interpretation from John Bullitt's article to which you refer then your mistake is understandable. Yours with best wishes. User:Langdell 19:56 GMT 14th January 2008

Hello Larry. I can understand your reticence in accepting what I say if it is indeed true that Bhikkhu Bodhi and John Bullitt both say that anupubbi-katha means the 'gradual training'. One must assume that it is Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation. Nonetheless I can assure you that what I say is true. It should be clear from the passages posted on the article's talk page that kathā means talk (look it up in the PTS dictionary) and never 'training'. There is no need to consult university professors. One can verify it for oneself. The thought occurred yesterday that perhaps the conflation of the two ideas comes from Nyanatiloka's use of the phrase 'gradual instruction' to translate anupubbi-kathā. Nyanatiloka was German and to be frank he does not always get it right though he does correctly identify this phrase as the formulaic talk (he calls it 'sermon' which is not quite correct) that Buddha gave to laypeople. It is a small step from 'instruction' to 'training' but I can wholeheartedly assure you that it is an unambiguous error to translate anupubbi-kathā as 'gradual training'. Kathā means 'talk' as Walshe, Thanissaro Bhikkhu and the PTS dictionary all concur. Sorry if all this seems like pedantry but I was intending to begin a re-edit of the introductory paragraph to the article Buddhism in which I would mention 'the gradual training' (anupubbasikha) because I feel - as John Bullitt does - that this concept is very important for a true and realistic appraisal of what the Buddha taught. As it stands the gradual training article is confused with a separate concept namely the step-by-step talk that the Buddha delivered to laypeople. There should be two separate articles dealing with the two separate subjects. Perhaps you would be kind enough to refer me to the article by Bhikkhu Bodhi in which he translates anupubbi-katha as 'gradual training'. Thankyou and best wishes. User:Langdell12:46GMT 15th January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:Buddhism

Hello. The <br> vs. <br /> was just me using XHTML vs. HTML. MediaWiki actually cleans up the output regardless, it was just bothering me. The other change was due to the new parser. If you append ?timtest=newpp to a URL, you see can how the page renders using the new preprocessor. Using {{!}} outside of ParserFunctions (#if, #ifexpr, etc.) will cause breakage. Really, the {{!}} was never needed in Template:Buddhism where it was being used. More info is available here. Cheers! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. ?timtest=newpp works with oldid's as well. To see what was breaking, see here. Look at the bottom of the template output.

Thank you for the barnstar

I hope it wasn't too soon - we're not done yet! Firstly, there's work remaining in addressing people's concern on talk:Buddha (general). (Maybe you can address Peter jackson's concern there?) Then, if the proposed name change passes, we also need to change the existing redirects. I can automatically change the ones from [[Buddha (general)|Buddhahood]] to simply [[Buddhahood]], using WP:AWB. What should we do about the others? Should we just globally change all occurrences of [[Buddha (general)|...]] to [[Buddhahood|...]], or would it be a good moment to disambiguate them, as mentioned at Talk:Buddha (general)#Whatlinkshere? — Sebastian 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny Pali translation argument

Hi Larry, I couldn't find a specific Wikipedia article, but Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates kusala as "skillful" instead of "wholesome", citing a time when the Buddha asked someone if they were kusala with a (musical) lute. He wasn't asking them if they were playing wholesome tunes! I posted this to the E-Sangha Pali forum and they said it wasn't as simple as that. Fun anyway! Dhammapal (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Sutra

I am endeavouring to progress cited scholarship on the Nirvana Sutra page as per Wikipedia guidelines. Uncited information from the main page has been transferred to the talk page. If you could please duly cite this information and transfer it back to the main page it would be most appreciated.
Blessings in the Mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zen Buddhism in the United States

I am looking for editors to come to my sandbox at User:Mind meal/Sandbox26 to collaborate on creating a first-class article on Zen Buddhism in the United States. Interested parties can contact me on my talk page. I would like to see a group of research-oriented editors come aboard. I think it may work best if various editors focus on one particular dimension of Zen in America (always backed by references) and we can add various sections, come up with section titles, and eventually bring the article to "completion." While this is a labor of love for me, I fear it will take eons to get the article right alone. With the help of other editors, however, we can make progress much faster. Please contact me before starting to edit my sandbox. I want to know the members I am working with before doing so. Thank you. (Mind meal (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Categorization of WP Buddhism articles

>> a little blurry note.. (^_^)' (where's your mailbox!?!?) I'm soooo very sorry about my diligent and arbitrary edits. I didn't realize there was a SYSTEM behind the whole thing, and I didn't know people could leave me a message this way. Silly me--people could be cleaning up after me forever!!! I mean, I thought it was a great idea to include as many links as possible. Anyway, now I know. --Rowsees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowsees (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Thanks for putting a halt to non-consensual changes of the Buddha page

You said

Jerzy - Thanks so much for stepping in and halting the non-consensual changes of the Buddha page. You are like an "invisible hand" making WP work thoughtfully, progressively. Your stabilizing influence definitely helps prevent non-admins (such as myself) from becoming demoralized at times. Thanks once again so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I noted it on Dab-cleanup, but really hesitated to dive into understanding the issues, and i felt like the least i could do, when i noticed the tag had disappeared, was to at least look at the most superficial layer of the process. I don't know that "halt" is the right word, but i'll try to keep an eye on it, and encourage working toward consensus on the talk page.
I'd be interested in your sense of whether the difficulty lies in wiki tech issues, or disagreements about which distinctions are NPoV, etc., tho i don't want to encourage you to make judgments on any but the most technical aspects. (I have done what i suspect is an unusual amount of Dab editing.)
[Some reading intervenes.]
Ah! I poked around a little, and i see that Abtract has responded constructively, and that you in turn have apparently done some valuable research yourself. But i think i'll lurk only on the outskirts for now, other than dropping a thank you for Abt. Thanks for your work and goodwill.
--Jerzy•t 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You said:

Hi Jerzy!
You wrote:
I'd be interested in your sense of whether the difficulty lies in wiki tech issues, or disagreements about which distinctions are NPoV, etc.,
If you've the time and continued interest, I was hoping you could elaborate on what you mean by "wiki tech issues," etc. Are you referring to the difference between myself and User:Abtract or the issue of why the current Buddha page does not look like a typical dab page or why it is a dab page at all?
Whether or not you get a chance to clarify, I very much appreciate once again your appropriate oversight and goodwill to all. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was clear you-all differed at least on how quickly and straightforwardly the mixture of conventional Dab and prose could be dealt with. Lingering disagreements might really be about the proper "joints" to "carve" along in order to get reasonable article sizes and comfortable routes for typical users to surf along in addressing their own interests. On the other hand, it's possible there are non-obvious details about what kinds of markup MOSDAB contemplates, which i see as more technical than content issues.
Let's see if an unrelated example helps, and if not i'll try to understand the Buddha case well enuf to answer more directly. I'm in progress on Diomedes (disambiguation), which appears on the Dab-cu Cat. Here's my draft so far (which you may want to compare to the current revision):

Draft as example

Diomedes or Diomede may be:

Mythology:


People:


Other:

See also

Comments on Example

(Note i dropped the "bottom matter" (Dab tag and inter-language lks, IIRC) to avoid screwing up your talk page any more than i am by inserting a "See also" section on it. That hdg will be two levels higher in the hierarchy of hdgs; i subordinated it to reduce the disruption.)
An example of a problem i face, not of tech nature, is that i was starting from a Dab page that had more or less two halves, one for (un-dabbed form) of the page's title, "Diomedes", and one for what i'll call an undeclared title, "Diomede". (And another undeclared title, "Diomed".) My interpretation of MOSDAB is that several titles can be Dab'd on one Dab page, in two ways:

  1. several titles that users are likely to type when seeking an article whose undab'd title really should be one of the others, can be dab'd on the same page if the resemblance is either obvious (date, dating, and dates are all forms of the same word) or the variants are explicitly declared (i usually explicitly list, say, James Hanson, Jim Hanson, and Jimmie Hanson in the first line of a Dab page titled either James Hanson or James Hanson (disambiguation).
  2. where there are titles that don't really fit the criterion for disambiguation (e.g. James Hanson would be a reasonable title for any of those Jameses, Jims, and Jimmys, if none of the others had articles -- but if you're after Jaymes Hanson or James Hansen, you've made a mistake that Dabs are not designed to compensate for), i construe the "See other" provision of MOSDAB as suitable (and AFAI can recall, perhaps primarily intended) for helping rescue such users from their errors. So i'd put either James Hansen or James Hansen (disambiguation) (but not the rd-lk Jaymes Hanson) under "See also".

Putting "Diomedes" and "Diomede" (which might be confused as single and plural -- even tho it actually ought to appear to be at most the reverse of the WP practice of avoiding plural titles) fits under case 1 just above, while "Diomed" is more clearly different, and suits case 2.
In contrast, a real tech problem in this case is the three mythological females named "Diomede". What's not immediately obvious, perhaps, is that they share a short page, one of the relatively rare exceptions to "one topic per page". I

  1. almost renamed Diomede to Diomede (mythology),
  2. started an argument with myself about whether Diomede (mythology) (disambiguation) or Diomede (mythology disambiguation) was the appropriate corresponding Dab to use as a Rdr to Diomede (mythology) (so that the unpiped lk would be visibly a lk to a Dab),
  3. settled instead on Diomede in mythology and Diomede in mythology (disambiguation),
  4. griped some about the undesirability of making the user lk from one Dab to another, when they haven't made a mistake (which would "justify" their bearing that burden), and decided that the only thing really problematic about Diomede is that the three portions of it were not addressable, and
  5. put in section hdgs within Diomede, to support the piped section lks above, one for each of the three.

That was all about the technical issues of knowing what MOSDAB is trying to rule out, and finding markup that would fit into what is left.
(In contrast, but at the risk of blundering into the non-tech issues that i'm so far trying to avoid, it occurs to me that what you wrote to Abtract on the article-talk page could hint at a problem at least as subtle (and IMO non-wiki- or WP-technical) as "How do you say 'Buddha may be: ...' without, for instance, taking the PoV that there are (or maybe there are) such things as Bodhisattvas?" That would be "non-tech" problem where IMO my opinion would be much less valuable than in a technically tough problems like the three women.)
If that's no help to you, ask me another question, and let's see where it takes us.
--Jerzy•t 07:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One more option for Buddha

Perhaps the utility that you recognize as lost from the split of Buddha into Buddha and Buddha (disambiguation) can be redressed by incorporating the relevant links from the dab back into the base name article (having them in both places) -- in a "See also" section, or "Notable groups", or some other, better section header named by someone familiar with it. As long as it's not an article and a disambiguation page. It's certainly not the goal of separating dab pages from the articles to reduce the effectiveness of the articles left behind. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm going to put this lk to CONEXCEPT on the talk:Buddha page, when i stop being completely distracted from that topic. I'm distracting myself from that state if distraction long enuf to mention it to you first (and give myself a placemark to bring me back to figuring out how to put the lk there). I didn't want to end up posting there w/o the small courtesy to you of acknowledging that it is in response to your concerns about the overriding of the (local) consensus to dispense (as i perceive it) with the limitations of WP:MOSDAB. I won't try to word (at least at the moment) what i'd call the negative implications for you of CONEXCEPT. I hope, tho, that there's at least a small positive side to your becoming aware of it: I have comfortably tolerating the bypassing of the prior local consensus; others have perhaps simply tacitly dismissed that consensus. That may, in light of this lk, seem to you less like chaos and aggressiveness, and more like progress toward integrating the insights that led to the local consensus into a larger-scale consensus.
For my part, happening to run across CONEXCEPT (in finding the right lk to use for "consensus" in another, much more mop-and-bucket, situation) was confirmation of what i believed in my gut:

  • that WP can't function solely on the basis of per-article consensuses (consenses?),
  • that it wouldn't really intend to try to, and
  • thus that even the claim that a local consensus conforms to the letter or spirit of a wider consensus-based decision remains subject to challenge.

I hope you already understood that i was not simply "talking out of two sides of my mouth" earlier on. But i think this should make clearer how it could be, that i thought what i have said in this matter is of one piece.
Thanks for your commitment to working this out, and i hope you'll continue finding it worth your efforts. (And sorry i haven't kept up since my last edit on the subject; i'll try to get back on track soon.)
--Jerzy•t 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You replied:

Hi Jerzy - thanks for the note. Honestly, I'm not sure I follow what you say. Is there something in WP:MOSDAB that would overrule the WP Buddhism group's consensus to make Buddha a dab page? As I tried to broach on Talk:Buddha, I can understand one saying that the consensually agreed upon Buddha page needed to be modified to comply more with WP:MOSDAB; but, to move the dab to Buddha (disambiguation) (which was previously a redirect) and to leave a problemmatic prose statement on Buddha seems to me to be violating WP:CONSENSUS without meeting any of the conditions of WP:CONEXCEPT. Is there an error in this reasoning? Perhaps I am missing your point? I hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld
(talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

_ _ My point was that we cannot preserve the state of Buddha that that consensus produced, bcz it included an aspect that violated the years-old consensus against prose in dabs, and i was trying to clarify for you why i rv'd when the change was made w/o discussion (and IIRC w/o even a substantive ed-summ), but not again when the same or a very similar change was made and defended.
_ _ The point you make (and i've copied above) is one i hadn't weighed; i think you're saying that whatever the status of the hybridization was, MoSDab is about Dab structure, not abt the much more nuanced question of whether the Dab should reside at the suffixed or plain title. And -- you may or not have noted this -- i urged elsewhere that the Dab be at Buddha and the prose be at another Buddha-related title, like Buddha and buddhas (just as my notion of the most straightforward of a variety of titles).
_ _ Even so, i think it is reasonable to presume (probably even after the relevant portion of the consensus has been accurately restated in the current discussion, freeing those interested from the usually herculean task of separating consensus from the discussion that produces it) that the process of arriving at consensus is contingent: that it depends on the beliefs and interests and personalities of those arriving at it, and crucially, on the options that were considered as candidates. Unless the discussion was incredibly analytical (was an attorney involved? [wink]), i would assume "all bets are off" when it turns out that the specific Dab arrived at is unacceptable. The discussants agreed that Buddha should be a hybrid Dab, and believed that would be accepted, so probably they believed (even if they said they were separately deciding "should the Dab be 'Buddha'?" and "should the dab include prose?") that they didn't need to make a choice between "'Buddha' should be a Dab" and "'Buddha' should include prose". You could offer an argument that they shouldn't have agreed to it in the form they did, unless they were sure that the apparently unanticipated restriction was irrelevant, but even individuals (let alone groups) don't make decisions that way; if you doubt me, do some reading on the trolley problem. (Yes, there can be non-paradoxical analyses of it, but for most people it's just plain astonishing.)
_ _ So i urge dropping the previous-consensus argument, and directly attacking the idea that Buddha should be an article with that prose. I think that is a bad idea, and i think others will agree after discussion. But i think focusing on the at least in some degree obsolete consensus distracts attention from the "anhistorical" arguments against it, and delays a new consensus that is probably accessible.
--Jerzy•t 08:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pali Canon

I've deleted the mention of the alternative Sinhalese transcript, as inspection shows it's not complete. Can you confirm that the alternative Thai version is free, ie the login does not reqire payment? Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:PaliCanonSamanaViews

Just noticed this, & thought I'd mention here that the Canon isn't consistent in which views it ascribes to which teacher. I can find some refs on this, but meanwhile you might like to think about how to deal with this. Peter jackson (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See MLDB 1279f & CDB 1096 for a start. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to have a detailed look at this sometime when I have time. I can't remember where I originally came across this point, & it may well be that, when you analyse it in detail, the information you've selected may be entirely correct. This isn't a topic I want to spend a lot of time on at present. I was simply alerting you to issues so you could then do some research on them yourself as this seemed to be mainly your topic. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try looking up the teachers &/or rare words in search engines of the Canon to find everything it has to say. Peter jackson (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Skandha additions

> Hi Peaceful5 - Could you help educate me on the basis for your recent additions to the Skandha article? I'm guessing
> that we're working perhaps from different traditions. (For instance, among translators with whom I'm familiar, I only
> recollect — and my recollections are frequently faulty — Thanissaro Bhikkhu using "discrimination" for, I think,
> pañña, but not sañña. "Compositional factors" sounds familiar but I can't rightly place it.) Any help you can provide
> would be appreciated. Thanks again for your thoughtful efforts! Larry Rosenfeld
> (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Larry, I added the translations I'm most familiar with to aid other people who use the same language. I study in a Tibetan Vajrayana tradition. Here are some sources that use this translation.[1] [2] [3] [4].

In general, discrimination means the ability to discern one thing from another. One definition of the aggregate of discrimination is "a mental factor that functions to apprehend the uncommon signs of an object ... and thereby to distinguish it from other objects." (Understanding the Mind. Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang, Tharpa Publications) Peaceful5 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Samyutta Nikaya

Are you sure about that? The BJT printed edn has 54 (as correctly stated by Bodhi). Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll leave Bodhi for now as he gives the correct number but the wrong details. Your details for vol 2 are the correct ones, ie SLTP & BJT agree there. So I'm asking you to confirm whether they disagree on vol 4 (details at Talk:Samyutta Nikaya. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

SLTP is supposed to be a transcript of BJT. If it's making changes here, that's very interesting, & the article should give the info on both to avoid confusion. I had noticed that it sometimes seemd to write out repetitions that were abridged in BJT. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddha Barnstar

The Buddha Barnstar
Awarded to Larry Rosenfeld for many useful contributions to WikiProject Buddhism articles, particularly in the field of Theravada Buddhism by Dakinijones (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Dhamma Vicaya incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Dhamma Vicaya to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Trailokya

I have no issues with your reworking of my edits. That said though, I am rather partial to the "Nomenclature, Orthography and Etymology" section...the progress and content of the Trailokya page does not yet require nor warrant it. In answer to your question: no I am not responsible for the Purucker and Blavatsy references.

I noticed when I was having a looksee over your recent editing history that you have had some import on the Svabhava article, we cover similar territory.

Larry, I considered and felt that you may be interested in this article: http://www.argumentativeindians.blogspot.com/2008/05/subitist.html
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Paracanonical

That's a possibility. I'm not sure what the guidelines have to say about such things (There are so many). Peter jackson (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now copied the detailed information to the separate articles. It's obviously absurd to have more detail in the general article. You might like to consider whether it should still be in the general one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dharma wheel

hi, thanks a lot. I took an image from commons and made it more like a boat's stiring wheel and added colors. It's a nice collaboration, I really like the end result. I use it mostly on es.wikipedia.org and will add it to other wikis (with unicode and knowing the order in which the "edit button" is, it is kind of easy... and funny), the dharma wheel that is most commonly used doesn't make justice (spanish saying, don't know if it's the same in english) to what it meant to us buddhists. metta--Esteban.barahona (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot. Most of my edits are on es.wikipedia; I'm new to en.wikipedia but have read a lot of this english encyclopedia (and decided to translate it to spanish). This has being a positive welcome, thanks. I'm buddhist too, haven't yet decided if becoming a monk or not (I'm 22 and with no childs)... but for now I'm more than happy learning from wikipedia.org and reading sutras from accesstoinsight.org Besides wisdom I also meditate (anapanasati, chakra/kundalini yoga and 4 jhannas) and cultivate ethics (the noble path). :)
I'm using Mac and have discovered that I can write easily in devanagari (for sanskrit and pali), and also in hiragana and katakana (for japanese) with my english-spanish-italian Mac keyboard. I think that if we're serious as buddhist practitioners and like languages we must help translating parts of the Pali Tripitaka to our native languages and help western buddhist practitioners. I also found this gem of online dictionary: spokensanskrit.de, if you're interested in learning sanskrit. There's a quote in your userpage that can be written in devanagari ;) metta--Esteban.barahona (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advices. Sometimes I forgot the "become a monk but not for a lifetime" path. It may be very useful to go where Buddhism has being practiced for hundreds of years and then come back to teach in a western-understandable way. It's very probable that I chose japanese and Zen Buddhism for this, it has being my first Buddhist vehicle and is still one of my favorites. (also I like anime and manga, so japanese is even more useful than say chinese). Just a note: currently I know ~10 words of japanese and sanskrit, but I'm very interested in learning both.--Esteban.barahona (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually marrying for me is not a "must do". I'm thinking more in where to learn japanese and in finding a work to pay for the travel. The only "but" that I've considered for not becoming a monk is the "no work no food"; basically I don't want to beg for food. And AFAIK, this is a Zen Buddhist saying. I can still study computing networking and work in that, I can also work as wood artisan, or an organic famer (see Fukuoka) anything to not beg for food. Thanks for reminding me how Japan and Zen Buddhism is a fitting path :)--Esteban.barahona (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Annihilation of such a self

"Thus, in Theravada Buddhist soteriology, the concept of a persistant "self" and the annihilation of such a "self" are done away with."

This doesn't make sense. The first part says that the very concept of a self is done away with. So how could something that is not in the realm of discourse be annihilated?

"instead, there is only the arising and ceasing of causally related phenomena.." Are you saying, "Theravada Buddhism says that instead of a self, there is only the arising and ceasing of causally related phenomena"? This is a doctrine of no-self not, as TB has it, not-self. The statement is a denial of metaphysical essence. It is the ontological view "I have no self," which was rejected by the Buddha. Mitsube (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"So how could something that is not in the realm of discourse be annihilated? "

by understanding and learning how to think in a not-discursive way? this is done with dhyaanas... it depends on how "high" you become on them, and not being addicted to dhyaana.

Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

free at last.

^_^

your veganism helps you :)

but I will keep eating fish, but no birds... just eggs :)

ksanti, virija and the dharma eye is all that is needed to become a bardo... and chose the next life.

All planes exist, almost as described on the Buddhist scriptures... but not equal to them. Jainism, the other nastik religion give 2 good advices:

  • ahimsa
  • strong ascetism is helpful in some circumstances

I lived 140 years as bardo and 14x26000 years as deva :)

Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

peace =)

the blanking was not a sayonara or farewell...

I have a lot of... teaching to do...

but first those that I know "face to face"...

an a bit of anonimity on the Net.

Your veganism... inspires me; I eated birds and fish...

now I eat only fish... and have a "beta fish" (beautiful "lone wolf"... not very much understood... fish). The name of my animal aquatic companion is Lateralius and WenWaiVar (in the astral form =)

my current eMail is: samael(dot)cero(at)gmail(dot)com

my past life was as a bardo, before that a deva (devanagari, sudavasa abodes)... got sick of "dukkha" and chosed, with ksanti, maitri and phala... this life to attain nirvaana =)

"the light/tao/darma/bodhi/truth is the space between a network of timeless and virtually infinite budas"

....sorry, too much words.... and nirvaana is understood better between laughs, smiles, silences, and so on...

World Peace should be a reality; there is already many, many people wishing for world peace.... we just have to make that mental/spiritual energies effective and have long lasting world peace ^_^_^

Esteban Barahona alias Samael Cero ^_^_^ (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indra's net

Nice work on Udumbara. Any chance you can help edit (and review) Indra's net and/or make suggestions for improvement? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas!
First, let me thank and applaud you for starting the Udumbara and related articles! I've been digesting Sn 1.1 with a local sutta-study group, scratching my head regarding a referenced "fig tree" (v. 5), and lo and behold found your excellent article. Bravo! Thanks again! (Relatedly, if you feel that any of my edits overstep, please feel free to revert & take to the talk page; I whole-heartedly support your embrace of WP:1RR :-) )
Regarding Indra's net, I've taken some time to check some on-line Pali sources and at-home reference texts and have thus far come up empty. (At one point I was hoping that there might be a link to the "Brahma Net" of DN 1, but in fact they appear to be significantly different.) I'm familiar with the concept of Indra's Net because of my former Zen practice (perhaps via Robert Aitken or Thich Nhat Hanh books??) but my Mahayana knowledge is essentially nil now. I'll check out some other at-home texts in the next two days to see if I find anything, but I'm thinking this might be outside my knowledge base (i.e., primarily the first three Pali Nikayas). If I find something of value though, I'll add it.
Thanks again for all your excellent work! If there is some article in which you think some Theravada knowledge might be of benefit, please let me know. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I'll keep my eyes open for Theravada-related articles needing improvement. Would you have any interest in contributing to a future article about Buddhism in Hawaii? Just throwing this idea on the table. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas! I appreciate the suggestion about Buddhism in Hawaii (especially if I could somehow do on-site research ;-) ) but I fear it is well beyond my knowledge and real-world obligations are weighing heavily on my shoulders now. Good for you for thinking up new and truly interesting articles though! Kudos! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. FYI... I've started adding references here. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting! Looks like you're doing a great job! Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't done anything yet, but I'm curious if what I'm reading is accurate. How did Buddhism come to the mainland United States? Was it through Hawaii? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Intriguing question! FWIW, the book I've heard most often mentioned in regards to Buddhism's earliest U.S. offshoots is Rick Fields' "How the Swans Came to the Lake." Buddhist history is definitely not my strength :-) And when we talk about "Buddhism"'s initial presence, are we talking about Buddhist doctrines, a large-scale Buddhist population, Buddhism in mainstream U.S thought, the first American Buddhist convert, the first Buddhist institution, etc.? Skimming my copies of Robinson & Johnson and of Harvey, I think they indicate that the first serious introduction of Buddhist thought into U.S. life was through the Transcendentalists in the early-to-mid 1800's followed in a more traditional though highly eclectic manner by the Theosophists in the late 1800's. My questionable understanding is that Asian Buddhist first came to the U.S. in relatively significant numbers in the mid-to-late 1800's (perhaps first to Hawaii?? perhaps as part of the Transcontinental Railroad?? perhaps as part of the California Gold Rush?) Again and again I've seen references to some kind of World Religion Conference in the 1890's (perhaps part of the Chicago World's Fair -- or I'm probably confounding two things here) where various Buddhist (e.g., Anagarika Dharmapala) and Hindu (e.g., Vivekananda) proselytizers spoke and made a signficant impact. And then there was Charles Strauss who I vaguely recall to be the first American convert to Buddhism sometime in the 1890's. Then there was D.T.Suzuki's being embraced by Western intellectuals, etc. So, yet again I pretty much have to answer: I don't know, it depends, there are better places to find worthwhile answers ;-) (Perhaps that Fields book [which I don't own] would help? Let me know if you'd like me to provide more thoughtful quotes from the intro books of Robinson & Johnson as well as Harvey ... though please give me a couple of days to do so.) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Is there an early Buddhism or Theravada userbox that you know of? Mitsube (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Mitsube (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

don't really know what to say... thank u so much for your little present :)) although i don't really know if i really deserve it, it means a lot to me! Actually, i am of course trying to somehow be helpful and use nonviolent communication styles, or let's say: i do so more and more. And i have to say, your example is very inspiring in that regard. Your kindness and generosity - as you put it - really stick out. Not many people even bother with saying thank u from time to time, or encouraging and praising other's achievements - like you do - although it's actually so much more fun than the opposite :)) btw.. you are pretty active for a "Semi-Retiree" ;) thank you so much again...and keep up the good work but never let it get in the way of other much more important things!! All the best, with metta, as you say :) Andi 3ö (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

new template

hello larry, great work on such a nice scheme. totally unexpected from my point of view, didn't know it was coming. I have a comment to make on the Theravadin line. As far as I am aware, Mahayana was present on Sri Lanka from about the 5th to the 11th century in the Abhayagiri monastery at Anuradhapura. Vajrayana might have been present in Sri Lanka in the Jetavana monastery at Anuradhapura, at about the same time it was present in india. Also in South-east asia Mahayana and Varjayana were present at that time, for example in indonesia, southern thailand and cambodia. So maybe that would be good to add to the timeline, a thin line of Mahayana and Vajrayana during those centuries?

appreciation,

Greetings, Sacca 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sacca - long time no see & I hope you are doing well.
I'm sorry you did not get a chance to participate in the discussion at Talk:Buddhism#Template; your presence was missed. In my mind, by your recent changing "early sangha" to "Early<br/>Sangha," you participated retroactively :-) FWIW, Andi had proposed something like this but I had disagreed with it because I did not want to mislead readers into thinking that "Early Sangha" was a movement, like Theravada, or a formally recognized term, like Early Buddhism; but, so be it: I know when you feel strongly enough about an idea that you unilaterally make such a change, it's not worth trying to dissuade you from doing such :-)
Regarding including Mahayana and Vajrayana in the "Sri Lanka & SE Asia" timeline, overall, in general, I think you are correct; so I'll make the change you suggest shortly with an Edit Summary pointer to this thread.
Thanks for your valuable ideas and, as always, valued feedback. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Kāśyapīya

What's your position on using diacritics in article titles? WP:HAWAII is trying to get away from it because some browsers have trouble displaying the macron and the okina. Obviously, if this weren't a problem we would prefer to use diacritics. Anyway, I read in this article that according to the Kathāvatthu commentary, the Kāśyapīya believed that past events exist in the present in some form. Isn't this essentially an aspect of karma, or are they referring to something else entirely? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas -
I appreciate your mentioning the display issues regarding macrons. In general, when I think a Pali character (such as the retroflex ņ or velar ṅ) might be undisplayable by a browser, I embed it in the {{IAST|}} macro because I've been led to believe that this macro converts the character into a pixel representation displayable by all browsers. For some reason, lately, I got it in my head that macrons must be displayable so that I've stop using the IAST-macro with them. My bad? Also, of course, there have been times I've neglected to use the IAST-function because I'm in a rush, etc., although in such cases I usually leave off diacrits as well. (FWIW, there's one WP editor who has in the past been very diligent about trackign down my diacritized words and embedding them in IAST; not sure where s/he is these days.) Please let me know if my expectations and/or use of IAST is in error. And I'll try to be more consistent in using IAST with macrons. Thanks for the heads up!
Regarding the Kāśyapīya, I do not have any significant knowledge — frankly, I just tossed together the current WP stub to resolve a red-link in Dhammapada that I grew tired of seeing. Nonetheless, for what it's worth (and, clearly, this should not be worth much!), my understanding of what is meant by "the Kāśyapīya believed that past events exist in the present in some form" is that: for most Westerners, when we think of what we percieve to be a "past event," we assume that this past event has been encoded in our mind/brain's memory and that our recall of such an event is simply a playback/retrieval of this "internally" stored event; for the Kāśyapīya, my extremely limited understanding is that they believed that the recalled "past event" actually has some kind of manifestation external to us, as if (to revert to a Western worldview) intermixed with the atoms of the present. To use a seemingly popular presumably non-scientific paradigm, it's as if our memories were "ghosts" or "phantoms" that our senses are picking up. Alternatively, perhaps more radically (and just to underscore that I'm just sharing my own questionable hypotheses here :-) ), whereas most people assume that we are bodies moving in space with our "present" moving from past to future along some "arrow of time," perhaps the Kāśyapīya were stating that we actually live in an ever-present "present" in which certain events have certain qualities (e.g., lack of detail or dimensions superimposed over some thing more "tangible") that we call "memories" and falsely project onto a never-existing "past"?
While this might seem anti-intuitive, I think such a theory actually solves some intellectual dilemmas for scholastic Buddhists, such as if there is no-self (anatta) then how could there be a "memory bank" that persists over time, across lives, etc. I think post-canonical, non-Theravadin scholastics solved this problem with the articulation of a ālāya-vijñāna or "store consciousness" (cf. Vinnana#Eight_vij.C3.B1.C4.81nas and perhaps Store consciousness) but, to the best of my vast ignorance and highly fallible hypothesizing here, this solution was not articulated in the early canon (though there is allusion to a type of consciousness that exists briefly between death-and-rebirth) and not embraced (perhaps even deemed heretical) by their Theravada and the immediate precursors. So, in effect, in my not-to-be-trusted understanding, the Kāśyapīya view solves the issue of memories without resorting to hypothesizing a (semi?-)permanent consciousness underlying experience. (Alternately, of course, their view could have been the result of certain meditation experiences they had, etc.) Does this make sense?
I think you're right that such a view has implications regarding karma. The same underlying question arises: if there is no permanent self, then how do past actions bear fruit in the present/future? I'm rusty on this – I think I at least I once understood this topic! – but my vague recall, as perhaps you already know in which please forgive my possible bombast here, is that past actions (depending on the intention [cetana] associated with them) leaves traces in our consciousness that are transmitted along with our ever changing consciousness (like, using an abhidhammic framework with a modern physics paradigm, the way falling dominoes pass along kinetic energy). Perhaps?
Well, as usual, I've probably written too much of too little consequence here. I hope this might help at least a wee bit. Please let me know if I've missed your point or if you'd like me to try again or, of course, if I've errored. I hope you're doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your teaching. As for past events existing in the present, could one experience it? Would this be comparable to hearing the tone of a bell, once struck, vibrating into the decreasing soundlessness of the present moment? Or let's say, seeing a pebble dropped into a still pond? Viriditas (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
When one recalls something, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, what does one experience? Which types of sensory consciousness (whether visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile or otherwise "mental") are used? How do these "past" sensory experiences differ from "present" sensory experiences? Are all "past" sensory experiences less "real" than all "present" sensory experiences?
I think the answer to the last question is "no." So now take a moment to look at the notion of "real" — in the tranquil present moment, aren't the "past" sensory experiences just as "real" as "present" sensory experiences? They usually differ in quality (perhaps less bright, less contextually complex, seemingly moving at a different pace, etc.) and in the associated states of consciousness (as if "far away" or tunnel-visioned, etc.), but they are all in this present moment simply objects for our conscious experiences, just like once-struck bells and still-pond-dropped pebbles.
If one can see this objective nature of "recalled" and "present" sensa, then I think one can explore (perhaps in accord with some notions of dhamma vicaya) why we believe "recalled" sensa must be of the "past" while the more vibrant, connected, clear-headed sensa are of the "present." It is such a deeply held and "commonsensical" intuition, yes? For me, the one big caveat to pursuing this type of investigation is that the metaphysics of the Pali Canon seems pretty commonsensical and did not ask that one develop non-intuitive worldviews (at least based on my readings as well as I recall [in the present] Bhikkhu Bodhi writing). But, for me, if the Kāśyapīya were advocating something like the above (and again, I really am just guessing!), I think it can have a basis in a clear perception of our experiences and a questioning of non-empircal deductions based on such and, if such helps address issues like anatta, more power to them!
Does this – at least in terms of the clear-sighted "present" reality of the so-called "past" – make sense? Child head on knee ... GTG :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Larry. I have some more questions, mostly concerning the future and whether we have a responsibility to act if we can "see" the present clearly. My understanding is that the Tibetan Buddhists would say yes, but other sects I'm not too sure about. Robina Courtin has addressed this question directly, and I seem to recall that Gil Fronsdal has touched upon it a few times, although he is careful not to impose his own opinion unless pushed. I guess I'm more interested in your take on it as it is an important question. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider myself to have reached a sufficient level of spiritual depth to answer with any authenticity; but, if you're inclined, I'd be happy to share this moment's string of thoughts, not to be taken as anything more than something akin to collegial chatter late at night over (non-alcoholic :-) ) drinks in a noisy club. I guess I see a number of ways to possibly respond semi-intelligently and perhaps even meaningfully. FWIW, I've met Tibetan Buddhists (through my wife) who have spoken of "Robina" with absolute awe and reverence, so I defer to anything she'd have to say regarding that traditon :-) My personal experience with Zen decades ago led me to understand that, through mental stillness, compassion naturally arises and thus the act of seeing clearly elicits a compassion that effortlessly gives rise to compassionate action. FWIW, my own experience has been that Zen practice, at least for me, gave natural rise to such expression and, without any analysis, I think the possibility that such an experience is generalizable can be seen in that the majority of practitioners involved with the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and other Buddhist social-action have been from the Zen tradition (whether influenced by Robert Aitken, Bernard Glassman, Thich Nhat Hanh, etc.). Tangentially, I heard a friend give a dharma talk recently in which she quoted an Australian Theravadin monk (though, forgive me, I forget which one) give a similar statement – about once the mind's dross is stilled, we automatically respond with lovingkindness and compassion – so such seems to be within the domain of both Theravada and Mahayana (including Vajrayana) practitioners.
Your mentioning the ever delightful, quite remarkable Gil Fronsdal (also formerly of a Zen practice while currently pursuing a Theravada/Early Buddhist slant, at least to the best of my limited knowledge) causes me to recall his somewhat controversial, stimulating and uncertainly resolved talk on "Compassion." Have you heard it? In it, I kind of recall (with ample paraphrasing), he says that Buddhist practice expresses itself thought different people differently and, for some accomplished practitioners, compassion is not necessarily one of the developed faculties; and, that that needs to be okay because otherwise we are imposing an expectation of compassion on another (and/or ourselves) creating a duality that certainly does not support other core path factors.
Does my hopefully-not-too-misleading-or-distortive paraphrase of Fronsdal's talk make sense? For me, there's some significant (mundane) wisdom, based on significant experience. When I had a Zen practice, Kanzeon/Avalokiteshvara/Chenrezig was one of my most significant role models, and the Mahayana twin doctrines of "Wisdom and compassion" was held close to my heart. As a Theravada practitioner, I see that compassion is an obviously core practice feature to Theravada monastics (perhaps especially Asian monastics??); but, in the Pali Canon, compassion is not given the same status as wisdom and, to the best of my 1:40 a.m. recollection is not a pre-requisite or necessary by-product of enlightenement nor is it a paramita, etc. That is, compassion is pervasive in the lived expression of traditional Theravada Buddhism, but I'm not sure Theravada Buddhism's intellectual iconography and literature gives it the emphasis that one might find in the Mahayana tradition.
As an aside, I occasionally take to pondering and attempt to invest energy into deeply and directly exploring the Mahasatipatthana Sutta's injuction to meditate on various objects "either internally or externally or both." So, for instance, when practicing mindfulness of the six sense bases, when engaging another, if I try to be mindful of such "externally," I try to understand directly/intuitively/non-intellectually what the other person is sensing (including mentally) and what the associated "fetters" are and then incline towards facilitating their letting go such fetters. I'm sure you know that such can be kind of amazing to practice. Such a basic Theravada practice seems to me to be compassionate in essence. (And then, of course, there's the very popular mettā, karuṇā ... Brahmavihara suite of practice.)
But perhaps you were not writing about "compassion" at all? Perhaps just "action"? Let me know if this comes close to anything relevent to what you were thinking about. If not, I'd be happy to give it another try if you're inclined to read such. Be well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism article's timeline diagram

Hi, Larry. Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier message on my talk page about the Buddhism timeline diagram. I was out of town with no access to the internet for quite a while after you left that message, and I didn't really have strong feelings about it after my return, anyway. I think that Newar Buddhism in Nepal is an oft-ignored and interesting separate branch of Buddhism, which might merit inclusion in more lists and tables (as opposed to Bengali Buddhism, which is interesting, too, but I think it's basically a national variety of Theravada). To the best of my understanding, Newar Buddhism derives from late Indian Buddhism, which gives it a cousin's resemblance to Tibetan Buddhism, and there's probably been some additional influence which has filtered in from Tibet in the intervening years. However, Newar Buddhists are the only traditional Buddhist group which use Sanskrit as their liturgical language. The thing is that I really don't know very much about Newar Buddhism—some of what I just said might be incorrect—and I don't feel very competent to advise others about when to mention it and when not to.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/Archive_3&oldid=1153760633"