User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Happy New Year Joshua Jonathan![edit]

Happy New Year!

Joshua Jonathan,
Thanks for the tip and for appriciating my contributions to Wikipedia. Happy New Year! Krakkos (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
The fireworks is getting better and better! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hey (and a few happy year ;) ) thanks for your addition to the discussion we had yesterday. I wonder, do you know where this source CrusadeWatch, Impact of Evangelism on Hindus WorldWide you added to this article gets its data from? I tried searching for very long, but I can't find any other link/place mentioning any number of Hindus in Iran, and as far as I see neither does the linked source do so. Sounds unreliable to me on my girst glance. Any opinion? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of unreliable, I guess. Those guys s***, of course, interfering with local religions, but my guess is that they are quite well informed on their statistics. Kind of management-info, I guess; where to go for maximal effect? Any way, I guess there are not so many Hindus in Iran. the influence seems to have been the other way round: from persia to India. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it never really had a foothold anywhere in West Asia. Anyway that site sorta sounds to me like the Joshua Project, another one of those pseudo-scnientific sites which don't mention how they calculate or how they gain their sources. So yeah not really reliable at all. Imo, lets just leave the number estimation out for the better case. (its extremely marginal in any case, like in the rest of West Asia save for the Gulf nations/Saudi Arabia). Bests - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Joshua Projecr - what's in a name?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something is better than nothing. That's why I hadn't removed that citation and estimate seems logical. He is referring to joshuaproject.net Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Blades here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was referring to the Joshuaproject.com anyway it doesn't mention how it gathers its data neither how they calculate it, so it doesnt matter. Like with the joshuaproject, there was a debate about it and the outcome was that is shouldn't be used.[[1]] There's no other source backing up this number (or any number for that part) so, imo, just leave it out. It makes no sense to "guess" at such things while there are no real sources about it. And there's no way ever that that number can be correct as there are only like 700 Indians in Iran. Assyrian, Armenians, Jews etc are all well established long-time existing groups in Iran with dozens of churches, organisations, you name it, and a number of ~50,000 Hindus would even mean there would be more Hindus than Assyrians, who are between 20,000 and 50,000 atm and very well known. (and again, no one ever heard of any sizeable amount of Hindus in Iran) Not even on April Fools day, no. So it doesn't make sense at all on this very point as well. Hindus in Iran would be no more than the amount of sikhs in Iran, which comprise 60 families, and about whom are actually numerous sources. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
68,000 seems logical and sensible.[2] Knowing that a number of Hindu missions were active until 1979, they probably attracted more than other minorities of Iran did. Now we have a reliable book citation too. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modern day sources for the amount of Sikhs in Iran are 60 families, while that source you gave says 14,000 so that just cant make any sense.[1][2] There's virtually no story about Hinduism in contemporary Iran except for some Indian settlers, so I dont see the point of hammering on numbers and theories that could or could not be true. All other numbers for religious minorities and ethnic groups are outdated per your source as well (Armenians one for example, another Zoroastrians who actually number 28,271 per 2012.[3][4][5] so that confirms my statement again. If there were any Hindus in Iran, 95%+ of them were just Indian settlers like in the rest of West Asia. This is obvious. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these citations that you have mentioned are unreliable for speculating about religious demographics. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
/facepalm. For the Sikhs you mean. That's because virtually all of them are still Indian citizens after all those years, hence they are not included in the census, neither has virtually anyone heard of them. Stop making bogus allegations that there is some kind of spiritual bonding between West Asians and Indians based on millenia old linguistic/religion ties, seriously. (you kind of did it before as well when the discussion was about Vedic and stuff) There is virtually 0.0% history of Hinduism in West Asia. It's all brought there by Indian settlers. That's why theyre not included in any of the censuses either. The same way they're bringing it now en masse to the Gulf nations due to migration related to work etc. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Iran's connection to India's Sikhs". Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  2. ^ "Gurdwara in Tehran that thrives on local support". Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  3. ^ http://www.amar.org.ir/
  4. ^ AFP: Iran young, urbanised and educated: census
  5. ^ http://iran.unfpa.org/Documents/Census2011/2011%20Census%20Selected%20Results%20-%20Eng.pdf
I was talking about religious demographics, that can be about any religion. You are using dailymail, ndtv as a citation for speculating religious demographics. None of them mentions the population of this(68,000) Hindu population figure, yet you are trying to refute it by stating about the population of Sikh. You are only wasting your efforts. We don't have to stick to Iranian Government' census for claiming the population data, because we haven't stated anything like "According to Iran census" for stating these statistics. Do you have any citation for claiming even a single sentence of yours to be well known in academia? History also tells that even Buddhism reached to Iraq, but today you there is no population of Buddhists in Iraq, doesn't means that there was no relevance before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism=/=Hinduism, so that analogy doesnt make sense. They have different histories. I can give another 10 sources of all various kinds which back up that number of 60 sikhs if you're so bothered about that. While you cant for your Hindu story. You cant change/switch religion in Iran as there's the death penalty on it too. *sigh* All Hindus in Iran are Indian settlers. There are 700+ Indians in Iran nowadays and 60 Sikh families and this is backed up by tons of sources, newspapers, you name it. A very very low amount. Ask any Iranian about any community of Hindus in Iran and he/she will stare at you. It's totally unheard of this story you're bringing, both before the revolution and after. The amount of Hindus there or anywhere in the Middle East is fully intertwined with the amount of Indian settlers. The sooner you understand this, (I know why you're precisely hammering on Iran out of all of West Asia) the sooner you will drop your pan-India rhetorics. You know you dont have any reliable sources, (I proved this for the previous one and for this one as well) yet you're hammering about displaying a bogus number specifically on this one article. Come on, we saw your comments and your editing reasons before on behalf of the history section on the same article we're talking about, but you really need to drop some of your fantasies. Thank you 94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I actually said that Buddhism = Hinduism? It is you who is making these nonsensical assumptions by claiming "Sikh/Hindus = Indians only". I have already provided source the 68,000 estimate that was added by JJ, and it is well backed by a reliable author, and reliable publisher(Oxford), yet you are only making up nonsensical speculation by providing some unreliable(for religion) weblinks that are not even discussing Hindu population. Repeating same speculation is not helpful. Wikipedia:I just don't like it clearly applies on you, it is what you are doing when you are trying to refute a book, published by Oxford University Press, with your incompetent argument. Just because I was wrong about the terms "Vedic religion" and "Indo-Iranian religion", that doesn't means that any of your original research becomes automatically true. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say it, but you used that analogy. And I corrected you on it. I told, changing religion in Iran holds the death sentence. Or you wanna state this aint true as well or what? No Iranian citizen can convert to Hinduism/whatever religion. Understand this. Yet you keep hammering on these nonsense ideas based on some third-hand sourced/outdated/dubious book that doesnt even cite/source how it got its numbers (I showed you that it was wrong for many other populations/ethno-religious groups too). It even refers on the same page you linked me a reference to Wikipedia (!) as a source. We saw your comments before on the same article. You try and tried before to link Hinduism to West Asian nations without substantial facts and even with falsification/wrong interpreting of sources, even though I busted you on it. Or you forgot that discussion? I can refresh it if you want by copy-pasting it. In fact it's not the first time you get caught on falsifying sources and intepreting things the way you want to believe them.[[3]]
So tell me, why should we even debate with a frauding person who also has extreme WP:JDL? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding my comment because you are not competent enough to understand it. You haven't corrected there, it is your nonsensical analogy that "Hindus, Sikhs = Indians only", for some reason you don't want to cite it with a reliable source, just like many other speculations that you have made here. I don't want to discuss your nonsensical speculations, furthermore you are also misunderstanding the linked argument, nowhere anyone was claiming that I am falsifying sources, did anyone? Instead they agreed that my argument is correct. You should at least learn to spell the words and consider using the words that are actually listed under the English dictionary, instead of making up your own words.
Yes there is no need for you to debate with anyone, when you are really incompetent in these matters, and avoid more when you actually misinterpret the discussion in order to make point. Any publication from Oxford University Press, relevant with the subject cannot be disregarded as "dubious, outdated". Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Hinduism in Iran#Hello Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mithra-texts[edit]

As per the books of Gavin Flood and Anthony, there's much to write about Mithra-texts and their relevance with the same theories, Pydisc has talked about. I hope you have also read about it, when we are going to expand that particular section of Hinduism? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... please refrsh my mind; could you be more precise? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this Indigenous Aryans nonsense from Frawley and the like? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These[4]-[5]-[6] there's a lot of material for inclusion. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean Mitanni! Funny, Kautilya3 also mentioned Mitanni a few days ago. See Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, and the split between Iranians and Aryans, and between the Mitanni-people and the Vedic people. Yeas, worthy of inclusion; let me ponder it over for a few days. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parsi[edit]

why is he blue?

JJ, yesterday I was looking at various responses to several different comments I placed on the talk page of the article on Parsi quite a while ago about unclear sentences. I even replied to one of them at Talk:Parsi#Prominent Parsis (Vyarawalla). I thought IP editor 77's comments showed that this editor was fairly knowledgeable and was for the most part a courteous editor (but see the last paragraph in his/her reply to Bladesmulti at Talk:Parsi#Title change), so I welcomed him/her on his/her talk page and encouraged him/her to register an account and to be courteous. Today, I saw a reply to the comment I left yesterday at Talk:Parsi#Prominent Parsis (Vyarawalla). I am a little puzzled by two things: 1) the editor seems to have misunderstood my comment, and the tone seems less courteous than in the other comments, and 2) even though it says "I" said, the IP address is different. Do you think IP 77 is simply replying from a different computer? Is that normally acceptable on WP? Also, was I wrong in what I said? CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. As for the IP-adress: that's one of the reasons why Wikipedia promotes the use of user-accounts, so it's clear who's who. As fort he tone: I'll have to read it through. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP's internet is probably dynamic. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance, Blades, but what does that mean? CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each time he's going on (at?) the internet, he receives another IP from his provider. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, he has in fact a dynamic (changing) IP address. You can check that by clicking geolocate on the user contribution page. JimRenge (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone have a dynamic IP address? Have you reviewed the exchanges and comments? You haven't yet answered the questions in my comment, above. CorinneSD (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read it now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an experienced editor, who's been in some wiki-fights before. What's triggered them might be this line: "If you have done a search and have found no reliable source, you could suggest". It probably works the other way round: if there is no source/reference provided, the line might as wellbe removed. I guess they read it as "hey, you've got to prove she's not notable, otherwise, stay away!". That's not what you meant, but I guess it's what they read.
Does this help? It makes me curious, anyway, who this is, and how experinced they are. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. All right. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to have an answer on these moving IPs. Why can anyone use them on Wiki? It is actually trolling. Hafspajen (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require editors to open an account and it is sometimes (if they are not editing disruptively) permitted to use multiple accounts or multiple IPs. Improper use of multiple IPs include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus and avoid sanctions (WP:Sock, WP:SOSP).
As far as I know, attempts to change this policy/consensus have not been successful because a majority argues that it is most important to assume good faith and make it easy to participate. They believe that the mechanisms against IP sock puppetry are working sufficiently.
Why would someone have a dynamic IP address? Most people choose an Internet service provider because he offers a good price. Some ISPs provide dynamic IPs and it is possible that your own IP is a dynamic one (I assume my IP is dynamic, I did not choose it). JimRenge (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

addition[edit]

Can I ask why you decided to change the article all of a sudden despite there was no consensus reached? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can (sorry, "Groninger humor"). Because Oxford University Press is a reliable publisher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, just ignore the long term abuser and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive. I have informed the admin, 94 is probably going to get blocked soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
The Teamwork Barnstar is awarded when several editors work together to improve an article. Thanks for your edits! Hafspajen (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great! Ehm... which article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's nice. Thank you! It's a pleasure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

Hi Joshua,

new user to wikipedia. please help mentor the writings of course will be lot of effort Protocol108 (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes, of course, but with hesitation: it takes effort, and it costs time. At the other hand, it also creates good "things", so, yes: User:Protocol108/mentorship. best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this on my userpage and write more. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are really awesome. And they look so cute! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wise man[edit]

Taiwanese temple (near Taizhong), meditation with statue
Josh dear. ping?

Hafspajen (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[1][reply]

  1. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
Meditating, or waiting for some miracle to happen? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WEll, that's difficult to know. Those are very personal things... like an empty citation - it can be all kids of things when filled.. Hafspajen (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to. Where's the coach? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now? ? Hafspajen (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Pumpkin chucking

ANI seems to be inevitable but I guess it will be very difficult (no one wants to read these walls of text) and go to ARBCOM some day. Please take your time to prepare the arguments. What might be a useful result of ANI: a last warning with defined sanctions in case he does not stop, a quantitative limit for his talk page edits, a block or a topic ban?? JimRenge (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who we are referring to? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robertinventor. See: Talk:Dzogchen, Talk:Karma in Buddhism, Talk:Four Noble Truths, User talk:Robertinventor, User talk:Dorje108, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. He is clearly entitled to voice his critique, however the amount of repetition is unbearable! JimRenge (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then ANI. He still abuses the talk(page) of Karma and later on he started abusing other talk(pages) because he believes that it is alright(as long as no action was taken). It should be addressed on ANI and first post must include relevant diffs. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so far. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an ANI-complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive talkpage behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that ANI deals exclusively with problematic behavior, not with content disputes. Can you explain why you have added this collapsed summary of the dispute? It might be perceived as a wall of superfluous text.
I will try to collect diffs of hints and warnings regarding his (mis)use of talk pages and add these in my comment at ANI. JimRenge (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did so, to explain that this has been going on for a while, and that I tried my best to explain my edits to him, without avail.
Can you provide evidence/diffs of his disruptive talk page behavior? JimRenge (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that even a short look at those talkpages suffices... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also: [7], [8] JimRenge (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted some of his latest changes on that talk(page), he was altering other user's action without making any improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for staying on top of the Mandukya Upanishad article[edit]

Thanks for staying on top of the Mandukya Upanishad article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Kayastha - Your recent edit[edit]

Honestly speaking, you played a major role during the development phase of this article on Bengali Kayastha. Please let me know your concerns as far as the last edit is concerned. Richard M. Eaton is not only reliable, the statement is also specific and relevant to say the least; and we have no reason to pick only Wink's statement. Also, Sekhar Bandyopadhyay's statement, as interpreted and attributed to him, is not acceptable, and that's the reason I have tried to improve and align it with the source. If you have any objection or further suggestion for improvement, I will be glad to hear from you (here or on the article's talk page). Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've restated some essentials sentences is a way that supports your view of the Bengali Kayastha, as before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape[edit]

File:The Lion and the Turtle Cake.JPG
The Lion and the Turtle Cake landscape
File:Богоматерь Великая Панагия. (Оранта) - Google Art Project.jp

Hello, Joshua. User:Bladesmulti, also. A few of us have been discussing a re-working of the article Landscape. See Talk:Landscape#Discussion from my talk. One, User:Zaereth, has begun the trimming that was discussed, which I applaud. I'm wondering whether you would like to write a section or two such as "Landscape in (or and) philosophy" or "Landscape in (or and) dreams". If you have any other ideas for creating a better article, please feel free to add them to the discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I know to little about this topic. The two things that do come to my mind are "artificial" landscapes, such as gardens; and this painting of "the wanderer", standing at a cliff looking out over a mountainside landscape. Somehow related to artificial landscapes; the wish to escape from modernity's grip on the surroundings. So, if I think further: the popularity of meditation may be related: also a means to escape. Just like holiday-travels.
Oh, I just read that the term comes from the Dutch "landschap". No wonder, maybe; we Dutch live in a highy "artificial" landscape. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HAve I ever said that my profession is Landscape architect-?Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I left a message for you and Sminth on Sminth's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woof. Not got that. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also thnk I read that before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was about arts, at your userboxes. Anyway, I'm not surprised. And Corinne, sorry for not helping further. If I dive into it, I could find out more, but it's not where my passion is. Sorry! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions[edit]

Thanks for the writing the recent message on my user talk(page). I am thinking to remove the unnecessary argument from there and alter your comment a bit so that HistoryofIran can be encouraged to discuss his changes. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Walker[edit]

As I have mentioned, I had no real interest in the dispute over Buddhist topics. I'm not a Buddhist; I'm a Roman Catholic Christian. My interest in Buddhism is only that I think it has excellent ethical teachings that are similar to Christian ethical teachings. I didn't want to be dragged into Robert Walker's complaints about content. The issue seems to have to do with what sources should be relied on to what extent, and I am not qualified to assess that. His complaint seemed to be that you and Victoria Grayson had made extensive edits, and he didn't like them, and he wanted to know whether making extensive edits to a previously stable article was a conduct issue. I said that the only conduct issue was his ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a reasonable editor, which may mean that you may be applying Buddhist ethics of compassion, non-violence, mutual respect, and respect for truth to your editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you also mean: "take some more care of apllying those ethics"? My responses are not perfect; I'm also responding out of anger, though I'm trying to keep up those ethics. But I don't think I've succeeded here; it could be better.
Thanks for your patience, and your willingness to help Robert. No matter how much he annoyes me, I truly wish for him to have a good life, with love and respect. I've wondered several times: what if he were my neighbor? I thin we'd get along quite well. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua is Nr 1![edit]

Joshua is Nr 1!
Joshua is Nr 1! Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Haf's! Even better than the coach. You're not my shrink, you're my elevator! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mudras[edit]

Hey. I just wanted to check in and see if you were watching the Talk:List of asanas of List of asanas. I really think mudras needs to be changed to at least match the definition on the actual Mudra page. It might make more sense to completely remove the section and make it a 'see also' since mudras are not in themselves asanas, and there is already a much better mudra page with a better list and definition (though in need of references). I put up a bunch of references on the talk page you can use if you are so inclined. Any thoughts? I'd change it back myself but I already did it once, you're a better editor, and my edits have a way of getting unilaterally reverted lately, so...Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turned it into See also as suggested above. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfying solution? Regarding the malasana: it turns out that my daughter is a natural yoga-talent; maybe I should take some pictures of her, doing asanas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More flexible than me! Looks like you guys could make your own Light on Yoga book. Everything looks good on malasana, mudras, etc... Top notch work, gents.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasangika37 making edits to lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy[edit]

Prasangika37 is making edits to lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Montanabw:.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ please take a look at this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ever thought of a gallery on your userpage?[edit]

Budai

Hafspajen (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Today. At the bottom. Do you know how? (Also take a look at the top, under the list with archives). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to do that? Hafspajen (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)File:BuddhaStatue-Chinatown-Singapore-20080110.jpg]] File:Hotei, god of happiness at Jōchi-ji temple 2.jpg[reply]

Give it a try. But bottom, you know; really floating at the bottom. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like galleries packed like the aliens or with a frame around like on my talk? Hafspajen (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise me! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's on surprise. Hafspajen (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the diffs and revert to a version you like. Hafspajen (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritic and non-diacritic[edit]

See User talk:Philg88#Page moves, what you think about these pages[9]-[10]? These are undiscussed page moves and moved from diacritic title to non-diacritic. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the diacritics. It's the difference between a flower-garland and shit ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robertinventor[edit]

Leaving it for a while would be better. I don't see any good oppose except that one from Jehochman, but I don't think that many people would support block. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right - both on leaving it for a while, and on Jehochman. Thanks. I was in need indeed for someone to tell me to hold on for a while :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Backfromquadrangle's edit history. JimRenge (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was frequently editing before commenting there, so its good.
It is too long already, I am not even reading it anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will this discussion at ANI be archived without result? JimRenge (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Won't let that happen. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won't happen indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predestination[edit]

Most Christians don't believe in predestination, but most Christians do understand what the concept of predestination is. The concept of predestination was anathematized (condemned) by the Council of Trent for the Roman Catholic Church. Approximately half of all Christians are Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches have likewise never believed in predestination. It is a Calvinist idea, and some Protestant denominations do believe in it, and some do not. So most Christians don't believe in it. However, I agree with the point that it is the sort of theological detail that non-Abrahamists simply cannot understand without the use of the techniques of comparative religion. That probably also does apply to Karma in Buddhism on the other side, so that the analogy is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had an "entrance" here, but apparently the door is locked... Hopeless. What more can I do to get trhough? Thanks anyway for responding; I've got a "Remonstrants" background, which is close to Unitarianism. "Predestination", better said, the rejection of this teaching, is an important issue there. Never knew that predestination was condemned by the Roman Catholic church. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) How very curious! What kind of explanations do studies in comparative religion give about predestination? :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know (yet?). But I figured the relation, or the difference, may be important for people with and orthodox-Protestant background. I asked Robert W. about it, and started searching for literature, but I'm afraid he doesn't understand what I'm trying to figure out: why are these characteristics important to him, and how can we relate this interest to scholarly literature? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And some fall on the rock pt. 2[edit]

Greetings! There was earlier discussion here about the label "pseudoscience" with respect to different articles[11]. Bladesmulti is familiar with the discussion over at Talk:Ayurveda, and there is now an on-going RfC at Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?.
Actually, it's more about a source (a Nature editorial) and whether it can be used for such labeling or not, but there is at the same time a very curious ArbCom case about the pseudoscientific status of acupuncture / TCM going on. Since I know that @Hafspajen, Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, and Bladesmulti: you all are experienced editors and have been dealing with the pseudoscience-related cases before, I think your opinions could be helpful with the on-going RfC. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there, suggesting what I would do. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen the environment of these pages now. I have managed to verify and standardize a few medical pages but I couldn't do with all like I have done with so many Asian, African, etc. pages. Not that I don't want to improve them, but they are not so important to me or it will just waste time. It is unfortunate that people on these medical pages are eager to promote their original(very) synthesis. Led one user to write a distinctive guide on Wikipedia, may seem true when you look at the subjects where he has mostly contributed. I am amazed because we have managed far more complicated and popular subjects without making noise. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have responded, but I did it out of sympathy for Jayaguru-Shishya. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't notified of this discussion as {{ping}} template has some defect, it doesn't work all the time. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I've struck my comment above. I don't think it's worth the trouble, especially when concerning the editors who might not be too eager to get involved, and I understand that perfectly. I still stand for my words, though, when it comes to asking for neutral comments from other editors. As to quote Rjanag, who just recently informed to withdraw from the discussion, the article is "like herding cats". Cheers! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing?[edit]

Hi Joshua, greetings of the season! Hope you are doing good. Health and otherwise. Are you still watching? . --AmritasyaPutraT 14:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am. I hope I didn't offend you too much with my comments at Satyananda. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all Joshua. Difference in opinion are common. What alarmed me was the brazen uncivil insult that Kautilya heaped on a new user. Saying things like "Better find a new guru" or "You are wasting your time and my time" to a new user with absolutely zero justification is outrageous by any standard. I only exercised my due rights to point it out. Our community needs more loving editors. More new editors. #JeSuisCharlie. Both of us. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

I think "That's a short header! Must be Hafs." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further do I think that some other people think that I'm a pedantic asshole. But some people in India will be happy with me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind the heather. [13] Who called you a*? And what do you think about the guys edits? Hafspajen (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody calls me names; they are too busy finding arguments. I've reverted the edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

were they correct, I don't think so. Hafspajen (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve-breaking, isn't it? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly. Just wanted to be sure. Could you please chech his edits? I am affraid several are weird. Hafspajen (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit by 174, in my opinion the set of words "divine", "divinely", "free will" and "chaos" are better than "godly", "God", "choice" and "confusion". They are better because they are both more common in readings on this type of topic and more academic. I would have undone all of them except that I didn't know whether you approved of the paragraph this editor added that starts, "But the Welsh scholar, Peter Clark,...". CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo. Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an editor has changed "free will" back to "choice". I don't think this editor knows that if there is to be choice -- if one has the freedom to choose between alternatives -- there must be free will -- the freedom to choose. But this editor says it's not free will but predestination. If our paths in life are predestined, then do we have free will (now I have to read the article on Predestination), and what is the point of having choices if we don't have free will? I'm not knowledgeable enough about all this to argue with that editor. CorinneSD (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAR[edit]

  • Here we go again, revert with no discussion to godhead instead of divinity, while discussing at ANI. Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There[edit]

Do you think an archaeologist does not have integrity because he is Indian? Reference? Personal bias? You may respond on appropriate article talk page clearly. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No dear, I respond here. I think that most Indians are very polite and nice people. But I've also noted that there is a certain bias among many Indians towards the Brahmanical conception of Indian history. And yes, that narrative does support social inequality. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only wanted to know if you want to consider all Indian Archaeologist lacking in their academic integrity because of their nationality? A generic discussion of all or many Indians is not the same. Pardon me, I do not understand which narrative you are referring to. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being Different#Gerald James Larson note 2 "Brahminn imaginary". A narrative is story that provides a comprehensive understanding and justification of a topic, but is not necessarily "factual correct" ("factual correct" being open to discussion). I hope this explains more; otherwise, please ask more. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe we agree that academicians who present their work in the light of scietific research in front of other community members for scrutiny are all equally credible to begin with regardless of their origin. I do not wish to buy the burden of Larson's "Brahmin imaginary", I believe I bought a better product among the many available. ☀ --AmritasyaPutraT 07:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! India has a great wealth of choises to offer here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right way of living[edit]

Way of life is more common, not right way of living for Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Buddhism#Religion. Nevertheless, just revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandukya Upanishad[edit]

Which part needs to be referenced--I had put a link in to the dating of the Upanishads (from the wikipedia itself) that shows it dates to pre 500BCE, well before Mahayana. What more reference are you looking for--this is not my personal opinion. This shouldn't devolve to a religious "competition," no one is demeaning Mahayana by pointing out the true origins and meaning of the MU Tcat64 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcat64: That Upanishads article needs to be corrected. The scholarly reference Nakamura, says Mandukya Upanishad dates to "about the first or second centuries A.D." on page 286.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is really hard to find the date of this. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishads article needs work[edit]

Upanishads article needs work.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done while you ask for it! ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Gate keeping[edit]

Joshua Jonathan seems to be gate keeping the Vedic Period Wiki. He has deleted recent edits made providing reference to research by Kazanas, Talageri and Danino unilaterally deciding it is "POV pushing". Below content was deleted by him

This view of migration of Vedic people into India after the collapse of Harappan Civilization has been contested by the likes of Michel Danino and Shrikant Talageri. In his book The Lost River - On the trail of Srasvati Danino has detailed evidence supporting his view that Gagghar-Hakra is indeed the Sarasvati river of Rigveda, maintaining that the Rigveda was written in North-West India long before the river dried up in 1900 BCE. Talageri in his book Rigveda and Avesta - Final Evidence has given evidence disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and establishing India as the land of origin of the migrations that spread the Indo-European language family over half of the Eurasian continent.[1]

This view of Iranians being older than the Vedic people of North-West India has been contested by Nicholas Kazanas. Who has proposed linguistic evidence that Avestan is more recent to Vedic Sanskrit and points to a westward migration of Vedic people from Sarasvati river basin.[2]

  1. ^ Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.
  2. ^ Kazanas, Nicholas. "Ṛgvedic Ṛgvedic All-Comprehensiveness omprehensiveness omprehensiveness" (PDF).

11:30, 19 January 2015‎ Indoscope

So, what's your point? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasangika37 is modifying lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy[edit]

Prasangika37 is modifying lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy. Pinging @Montanabw:VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centrality of ritual in Hinduism[edit]

Do you have any good quotes stating that ritual is the central part of Hinduism? I remember reading this in several places, but forget where.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, no. GavinFlood? Donnerty (that's the wrong name; that lady, you know)? Psychology of religion? Anthropologists? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Bears fighting
  • I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw(talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a lot! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In developing the SPI, I discovered that the article itself was created by a blocked sock. Then the sockmaster turned out to have many, many accounts and had edited the article as an anonIP also. So, I also added the former sockmaster too. We will just have to see. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, some days seem to be haunted by socks and the like; the past few days Hindu POV-pushers turned-up everywhere. Some Facebook-account cried for help? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one sock tanker. You cannot read anywhere in that Facebook group that even a few people are saying yes I have commented, cause it was only one person with duck accounts. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan Controversy[edit]

Blatant POV fork. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is heading for ANI, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasvati[edit]

Please do not edit for the article for some time to avoid edit conflicts. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with my edits for now. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: It is the Brahma article that needs a lot of attention, especially since it perpetuates the Trimūrti nonsense. VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VictoriaGrayson, Brahma, Vishnu both are in a mess. Let's see what can be done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A message was left on the talk, before reverting and expanded further after reverting. Why should the identification of Witzel of the Vedic Sarasvati and the Hindu Puranic belief of an mythical Sarasvati? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 A bowl of Gulab jamun for you
Here is a bowl of Gulab jamun for you. Gulab jamun is a popular cheese-based dessert, similar to a dumpling, popular in countries of the Indian Subcontinent such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. For sweet discussion. :)
Thank you.

Redtigerxyz Talk 07:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

I love cheese! Thanks!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta[edit]

What I had written on Anatta page is not my personal opinion. I have cited articles, translated Pali texts, and if you want I can provide you actual quotes by eminent Buddhist scholars in the western world such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi. and Gil Fronsdal. Yes, of course it is a Theravada perspective - but:
  1. I have written ONLY in the Theravada section of the article. I did not touch the Mahayana section. Given that there is already a section saying "Anatta in Mahayana", the article should rightfully include at least a substantial section from the Theravada perspective. Are you an expert in the Theravada perspective to be able to say that the content of my post is not generally held in the Theravada world? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?
  2. Given that Anatta is a Pali word, it merits a significant portion of this article. Can you give me strong reasons why the Theravada perspective must not be represented at all? Is there a Wikipedia guideline that says that perspectives of different religious sects should not be written, while clearly indicating that it is a perspective of that specific sect, and also citing specific sources? I am not speaking for all of Buddhism. But what guideline prevents us from writing the facts?
If this were indeed my own personal opinion, I would have surely written a blog. But this is NOT my opinion and pretending that it is would be attributing the work of many other authors to some unknown person like me. I am quoting actual scholars. Indeed I did include more citations from Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi, but that is a matter of finding appropriate reference documents from the literature. I am already attending a masters in Buddhist studies program where Gil Fronsdal is the dean, and I have clearly heard this repeated several times by many sources, and this perspective is seemingly present in most of the Theravada world in the 21st century. It is agreed that before the late 19th century the Theravada world was NOT united in their opinion on this matter and debates raged on this matter. But the scholarly record clearly shows that since 1940s there has been a greater consensus. In fact those that do NOT take this view on Anatta have now become the fringe minority! And I can cite sources for even this claim from peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and the JourSQnal of the Pali Text Society.
Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers. That being so, is it not a Wikipedia value and goal to present the generally accepted scholarly perspective?

Please enlighten me. I don't know much about the specifics of the Wikipedia rules ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SQ, you have written: "Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers." Please cite these peer reviewed journal papers. Using sutras as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them is considered bad practice. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view.
"(...) Scholarly record clearly shows that since 1940s there has been a greater consensus. In fact those that do NOT take this view on Anatta have now become the fringe minority! And I can cite sources for even this claim from peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and the Journal of the Pali Text Society." Please present the evidencence , it would be very useful! JimRenge (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion[edit]

I am amazed at your claim that Bhikkhu Bodhi would not qualify as a reliable source. Bodhi is the President of the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy Sri Lanka. He is the author of several of the most highly cited (Springer Citation index says it is more than 100, Google scholar says more than 115) translations of the various Nikayas of the Pali Canon. Citations of Bodhi include people like Richard Gombrich, D J Kalupahana and many others. Bhikkhu Bodhi's student Bhikkhu Analayo is a professor at the Center of Buddhist Studies at the University of Hamburg.

I have a MS in Electrical Engineering and also MS in Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have a full-time job in the electronics industry, and am now also doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit (distance-learning program) from Benares Hindu University. So I know very well about citing sources in academic articles. But the criteria you mention (rejecting widely read scholars on Buddhism) is nowhere understood in academia and in fact goes completely against good academic policy. In religion, those that practice the religion know much more than those who just publish to increase their h-index.

A Wikipedia article is NOT an academic Journal paper and the standards of such papers cannot be applied here. It is meant to present a neutral position of various sources, not synthesizing new material from the sources themselves.

Hence I argue that Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, or Thanissaro Bhikkhu (and any other scholar monk - which by the way itself is a very stringent criterion) would qualify as far better sources for articles on religious doctrines. University Professors may or may not have the maturity required to understand a religious doctrine. And as is the commonly acceptable criterion for religious knowledge, when there is a dissonance between a university professor or an academic (even if it is me) and a reputed scholar monk, the words of the reputed scholar monk override those of the academic. ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu indeed are not reliable sources.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion

Aryans[edit]

Jamison has a few mention on some books, but doesn't seem to have published any of her own material yet, that's why I don't think that we should insert her long quote. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be rigth; but also because I'm letting myself being dragged into a stupid conflict. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have just seen that this whole part of revisionist scenarios was misinterpreted. Go by the history of this page, you will find a lot of content that was removed because of Synth and OR, just like this. It is correct that in that book of Garrett G. Fagan, Witzel talks about the revisionism, but he was talking about how Ashokan scripts are misinterpreted by some archeologists, he was not talking about aryans or indigenous aryans. He writes 'On the contrary, the whole revisionist scenario can easily be discarded even on intra-lndian evidence. Asoka's inscriptions are written in early Brahmi and Kharosthi script, and the version at Kandahar (southern Afghanistan) even in Greek and Aramaic.'(I will remove this quote once you read it) Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
?!? Which page are you referring to? And "I will remove this quote once you read it "?!? Sounds like "The Secret Club of the Black Hand". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous Aryans. These quotes are protected by copyrights, good to read and then remove. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get real. WP:NFCCP:
"Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method."
If the quotes are too long, aprt of them can be paraphrased. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had this extended discussion on ANI, and it applies on just any quote that has been copied without permission. There is nothing incorrect with small quotations. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the question is "what is small?" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalkers: Aryan migration - time for a break[edit]

Cheers!

Time for a break, isn't it? Serving all of you a virtual drink, either beer or tea. Hafs, you're welcome too, of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I do need a real drink now! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The party is lasting a little bit longer... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. The thread is Tendentious_editing_by_some_editors_Vedic_Period_-_Neutrality_of_which_is_disputed.The discussion is about the topic Vedic Period. Thank you. —Indoscope (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.00[edit]

HOuhu. Hafspajen (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidehi! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe-Noticeboard Gang

Robert Walker[edit]

I couldn't either agree or disagree with your topic-ban proposal "right out of the box". I would like to hear from him. I don't see any evidence to implicate him in any controversies about Hinduism as such. The "out of India" theory of Indo-European languages, although supported by many Hindu nationalists, is not distinctively Hindu, and is held by a few fringe scholars elsewhere. If he has indeed been canvassing a new editor to take his "side" in content issues about Buddhism, that is a new issue.

I have requested a clarification from the ArbCom concerning the issues about "out of India" in general, as to whether a past ArbCom decision imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions applies. For background, the Arbitration Committee sometimes imposes a special rule on a topic area that has frequent battleground editing. Some of these topic areas become battlegrounds in Wikipedia because they are real battlegrounds, such as India and Pakistan or Palestine and Israel. These sanctions permit administrators to impose special limitations, up to topic-bans or blocks, for persistent disruptive editing. What I have asked is whether the India-Pakistan area extends to the ancient history of India. My own thinking is that it probably should not, that it probably should only apply to India and Pakistan during the British and the independence periods, or maybe back to Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. However, if it does apply to ancient Indian history, then it could provide a vehicle for dealing with troublesome edits about the history of India and Indo-European languages. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure it applies. The IAm took place 3,500 years ago, but the discussion and denial of it takes place now. It's a highly controversial topic. The canvassing was already a limt, but to re-open a dicussion at the Fringe Board, on such a topic, where such a clear statement was made, and to use this post to attck me again - that was the bloody limit. I'm trhough with it, to be attacked at page after page, with the repeated notificication "I;m working on a DRN". No, he's not! He's only making it worse and worse! Let him post the stupid DRN, so we can get over thsi - so he can get over it. He's an obsessed person, who doesn't know when to to stop. Anyway, thanks for responding. Sometimes one needs someone else to get back into balance. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The clarification is that the discretionary sanctions do apply, because, as one arbitrator noted, the history, even the ancient history, is inextricable from the modern states. (The early history of India consists largely of a series of invasions of the warm fertile subcontinent from the chilly hilly plateaus.) Anyway, there is no reason why he went to FTN unless he was stalking your edits. I have commented further. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Skillful action on Anatta page[edit]

Hi Joshua, I appreciate your comments. Just as information (if you don't mind me pointing out some technical matters): skillful action in itself doesn't lead to liberation. It only leads to long-term happiness. (See pg 186, chapter 7 Karma and Rebirth in Early Buddhism by J P McDermott, published in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, 1980, University of California Press) The happiness that comes from skillful action is only temporary (see pg 187 of same source) (You can also see chapter titled "Pushing the Limits" in Purity of Heart, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 2006). ScientificQuest (talk)

Hi ScientificQuest. I love this. I will read the sources; thanks. And let me repeat: you wrote before something like "thoughts are also actions"; that was really helpfull to me. I said that before, and I like to repeat it here. NB: please do have a look at User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning & Discretionary Sanctions Notice[edit]

Joshua Jonathan, here's a warning:

Take also notice of this generic warning:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Tcat64 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. I know this template. You're already been told before: don't template the regulars. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. That particular template is required. Don't template the regulars does not apply to that particular template. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage Stalkers: I need some WikiLove![edit]

Talk page stalkers: how many disputes, RfC's, and ANI-threads have we going on now? I need some WikiLove! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a toast to the host
Of those who edit wiki near and far,
To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par".
We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose,
And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows.
A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians!
- From {{subst:Kautilya3}}

To our HERO Wikipedian!


Meditate[edit]

The kind of aggressive tone you are using against anyone and everyone who is disagreeing with you lately is alarming. You need to take a break and do some extra meditation. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ --AmritasyaPutraT 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, AmritasyaPutra. Though you should check-out Blades & Vic; we're disagreeing, but don't have problems. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. You see? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I think that RfC for now would be too quick, we can decide later that what should be the RFC, and about what. First let the administrator noticeboard and the issues of ANI sort out. Hope you understand this. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has no comments yet, you can still reconsider. Because there is probably going to be no outcome and we can think of something better at this stage. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blades, may be you're right, and I'm overreacting. Please keep me sharp on this, with tender comments ;) All the best to you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See your mail. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

  • Hey I am unwatching the Indo-Aryan pages, too much stupidity going on for me to stomach. If my input is needed on specific questions, i.e. if an RfC ever pops up or there is a need of evaluation of specific sources then please contact me. I don't think that venue is going to get cleaned up before the hindu crusaders get the boot. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, why don't you go to ANI with the list of the crusaders instead of shamelessly labeling people who disagree with you here and there? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I need to be ashamed to call you and the other Hindu crusaders what you are. You, and other POV pushers, hindu and otherwise, are a detriment to the encyclopedia. ANI however is not generally a useful venue for actually accomplishing anything. It worked yesterday to get some immediate outside attention to Bladesmulti's nonsense, but it is not really a place that can handle these kinds of complex coordinated POV pushing cases. Eventually this will probably go to ArbCom and some topic bans will be handed out, but until then I will try to waste as little time as possible communicating with you and your friends about this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These personal attacks are ridiculous @Maunus:. I am a Tibetan Buddhist for example.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, cool down, all of you. I've had enough of all these arguments and fighting. Please participate in the RfC, in a civilised way. And keep this alternative in mind: Indo-European migrations is for real (sorry) science, with a link somewehere to "Indigenous Aryans"; Indo-Aryan migration theory also mentions the "Indigenous position", and Indigenous Aryans gives an overview of the Indigenous positions, with intro's into the theoretical aspects, and with the counter-arguments from the relevant literature. And please, let some proponents also do some work there, if they find it so important. Stay cool, all of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who are not attacking and remaining civil are the "Hindu crusaders". I see that maunus and the ones not liking others differing with their opinion are extremely quick to attack others? For a much dilute comment by another editor Joshua want that editor topic banned and hosts and permits name calling and extreme personal attacks on others on his talk page at the same time. I dare say Maunus deserves a ban for this outright personal attack. He cannot focus on content and immediately attacks anyone disagreeing. Anyone wants to defend Maunus's civil behavior? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amritasya, please... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: Also notice Maunus' edit summaries. There is often some nastiness in there.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Joshua. But please don't host personal attacks. It is not done. Tell him to goto ani himself with his allegations of WP:FACTION and other labels. Those are serious, very serious and deranged thoughts, not going to ani only confirms his own hypocrisy. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noticed the allegation of coordination!VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? ;) I'm also suspected to be a tag-team with Kautilya3. And probably also with Blades. Man, am I happy that I do disagree with you and Blades on the IAMt etc.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the above comment? Let it go... There's been enough arguing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Enough, gentleman, enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We badly need Maunus to double check issues on all our Indo-Aryan pages because of his expertise in Linguistics. We are all linguistic dilettantes otherwise. He has a bit of a short fuse, but I have never seen him react unreasonably. So, @Maunus: I hope you will stay and help us resolve matters. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You also made a good comment at the RfC, just like Blades, reaching for, well, avoiding extremist positions. thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Can't find anything else for remaining patient under harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very much. And sigh... Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
You deserve it JimRenge (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Good Heart Barnstar"? I didn't even know that that one exists. Thanks, Jim. And everybody else around here; after all, we can work together, can't we? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalkers: RfC on "Indigenous Aryans"[edit]

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comment[edit]

For the first time in my Wiki-career, I've removed a comment from my talkpage. I find it very unpolite to continue the back-and-forth "arguing", when I've asked repeatedly to stop it. There are so many threads and discussions open now, and so many people upset and angry. We should try to find a working-mode, both for academic skeptics and proud Indians. I appreciate the comments of Kautilya3; he's working toward a fair compromise. I also appreciate the remarks of Blades; we don't agree at all about the "facts" of the various migration theories, but we can get along, and help each other to calm down. And I also appreciate Vic's contributions; we don't agree at this topic, but I notice that Vic, with his straight-forward logic, may have a valid point too. And also with him I can work together very well. I also apreciate Maunus' commitment, standing for a clear mainstream point of view. So please, let's try to get back to editing, and solve this migration-issue in a satisfactory way. I may have been overresponding too; after all, I'm only human too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I've asked repeatedly to stop it -- exactly my sentiment, thanks for noting it. I have zero edits in those articles. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2. Not a word against the attack but these deletions... please take care in future, it hurts collaboration. This is not to further discussion, no response solicited, no deletion expected either. Regards. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


IA[edit]

Where Witzel said that[15]? Also iUniverse had not originally published that book of Kak, it was Munshiram Manoharlal publications in 2001[16]. Correct it. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Witzel (2003), Ein Fremdling in Ṛgveda, JIES vol 312003, p23, §5 end." The source is given in an article by Kazanas, nota bene. The comment on iUbiverse was not by me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a quote about living persons cannot be confirmed it should not be even used as BLP applies just everywhere, on talk pages too, that's why I asked you to correct/remove it. It relates with two living persons. iUniverse is a selfpublishing company and it was cited by indoscope so you may have thought that the book was wholly self published. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, thanks. I see your points. Regarding the second: several papers of Kak, as given by Indoscope, refer to a website. I'll check them (of course). But I'm sure about Kazanas; I already did check them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kak is an academic (albeit an engineer). He knows how to publish properly. But he would end up doing is to put the astronomy stuff in refereed papers, and add additional philosophy in unpublished manuscripts. One needs to check carefully. As far Kazanas, he was nowhere to be seen until he latched into the indigenous Aryans bandwagon. Now he is an internet star, even though the publications are meagre, and citations nonexistent. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Engineer, yes; I just noticed. He looks very friendly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

The general topic area of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If there is disruptive editing on any article in that topic area, including RFCs, then editors who have been warned of the applicability of sanctions can be the subject of complaints to arbitration enforcement. Read the guidelines. If you have any questions, email me. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Though the RfC is proceeding quite peacefull, I think. or should I say that the fighting continues elsewhere?...
But in case of allegations of POV-pushing: do we need a binding decision somewhere that OOI etc. is "fringe", to complain about such issues? I don't think so, when I think about it; I've seen the typical behaviour too many times yet. it doesn't matter if it is about OOI, IAMt, or the development of Hinduism: the pattern is almost predictable.
Anyway, I'll read the guidelines. Thanks for your good care! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, arbitration enforcement: "For all other problems, including content disagreements [...], please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process." So, in case of nasty behaviour which disupts the discussion, go to ArbCom; in case of content diagreement, which can be discussed, try to resolve it by normal procedures. Like the RfC on the "status" of OOI; toch? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that what we have here are "content disagreements." Rather, it is a failure to understand policies or failure to respect them. I have made some effort to explain it here [17]. But the user in question couldn't be bothered. I am not sure if our friend helped anybody's cause. His presence on the page seems to have egged the other user on. It would have been better if he stayed away.
For me The Lost River page was a bit of a test case of WP:FRINGE. Your footnotes wouldn't have been appropriate if it was not a case of FRINGE. But it was. So, the footnotes were needed. I would have been happy if the footnotes got added back. But the admin understood the deeper problems and the whole page had to go.
So, where does that leave us? It seems that FRINGE is a powerful policy which can be enforced even without explicit branding of pages as FRINGE. So, on that score, we don't need anything explicitly branded as FRINGE. But, if the pages are explicitly branded, there is a better chance of users like this one understanding that they have to be careful. So, I am tending towards Maunus's position. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin understood the deeper problems, which admin? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a decision that out-of-India is "fringe" to complain about disruptive editing in the area. The concept of "fringe" is really only applicable to discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience, and linguistics and history are not sciences in the sense that physics, chemistry, biology, and geology are sciences. Disruptive editing in a topic area that is subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of "fringe", is subject to sanctions. However, the editing has to be disruptive. Either edit-warring or personal attacks are examples of disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the Wikipedia concept of "fringe" has to do with how much weight should be given to fringe theories. In particular, if out-of-India is a fringe theory, that means that it should not be given the same weight in a discussion of the Indo-European languages as the accepted Indo-Aryan migration theory, just as, for instance, Lamarckian evolution should not be given undue weight in a discussion of evolution. Discretionary sanctions are only applicable in areas where the ArbCom has found that there is a history of battleground editing or other disruptive editing. In the case of either Lamarckian evolution or creationism, discretionary sanctions are applicable because the ArbCom has applied them to pseudoscience, and so their fringe status is what attaches the sanctions. In the case of "out-of-India", "fringe" has to do with balance, not with sanctions. In the case of "out-of-India", the discretionary sanctions apply because of the region (the Indian subcontinent), not the status of the theory. Do you understand the fine distinction? Both are fringe. Both are subject to discretionary sanctions. But one is subject to sanctions because it is fringe, and the other is subject to sanctions because it has to do with India. It is a fine distinction. In either case, if there are conduct issues, it is best not to go to WP:ANI, which is likely to be polarized. At the same time, do not request that ArbCom accept a case, because there was already a case several years ago. Go to arbitration enforcement to request enforcement of existing remedies. I can explain more if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Robert McClenon: We don't have edit-warring kind of behaviour (yet). I guess Joshua commands a bit too much respect for people to edit war with him. But what we have are loud complaining/protests on the talk pages, insularity, and failure to accept policies. This is "disruptive" in the larger sense, because it wastes everybody's time and energy. (The recent FTN referral on Indigenous Aryans is an extreme example). I guess people waging these battles are convinced that the fringe theory in question has been proved already and the mainstream theory is out of date and wrong. The explicit labeling of the Indigenous Aryans as a fringe theory has some chance of reducing this acrimony. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anutpada[edit]

Hi there Joshua. In general I am a fan of your contributions here. However, the article Anutpada looks very iffy to me. I see that it's lifted almost in entirety from it's submission in Madhyamaka, but I don't see any noted Madhyamaka scholars being referenced - in fact, almost to a man they are Vedanta scholars - excepting possibly Odin, who seems to be affiliated with the Sānlùn tradition of East Asian Mādhyamaka, and maybe this contribution would be better placed there?

Unfortunately, checking the sources for this article, it seems there's some sort of belief bias involved. The article stated that अनुत्पाद means 'unborn' - well, it really means something more akin to originless, or non-production. Unborn is normally referred to by अजातः

I don't want to cause trouble, but I'm not yet convinced by the substance of the article. If anything it is a Vedanta article, not a Buddhist one - and though it may include some ideas about how Vedanta perceive the Buddhists, it's not necessarily true that Buddhists share the same view about themselves. (20040302 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hi 20040302. Nice to hear you're a fan of my contributions; it's a nice break from ANI these days ;) I guess you're right about this article; as far as I remember, it had to do with Ajativada, and User:Aoclery. See the history of that page for all the fun involved there.
To be honest, I know close to nothing about anutpada, though you're translation sounds reasonable to me. "Originless" is a nice term. I bet I'd get to know more if I'd dive into, but that doesn't seem likely at this moment. Maybe you shuld tag the article for "Needs expansion", or something similar, and hope for someone to improve it...
anyway, no trouble caused here :) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great - okay, I will think about what to do next with it. It seems like maybe the Anutpada text would be better as a part of something like Ajativada - but I know nothing about Vedanta systems, so I don't want to tread on toes; just that it looks 'odd' as a Buddhism article. It's true that the word anutpada is used a lot in the prajnaparamita, but it seems to be used far less by the Madhyamikas. Hm. Thanks for your fast, and very warm, response! (20040302 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

quotation[edit]

You have got wrong quotation of Kazanas(2000) because Byrant wrote that book in 2001, and your quote is from [18](2002). Bladesmulti (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks 007! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha didn't speak an Indic language?[edit]

Buddha didn't speak an Indic language? Where are you getting this?VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, am I wrong?!? Anyway, he probably didn't speak Pali, did he? (I've forgotten where I read this; sorry) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in - my earlier comment has left you on my watch list... Buddha most likely spoke in a Magadhi Prakrit, which is proto-indic. (The wp article is a bit weird, in that it doesn't distinguish between the language and the physical epigraphy). (20040302 (talk))
I think some form of Magadhi. It is still spoken. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck[edit]

Based on the negative comments about a one-way interaction ban, I have offered a second choice of a site ban on Robert Walker. I don't like it. I would prefer a one-way interaction ban. But a topic ban isn't sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's clear already from his reply: "Well - it might be a conduct issue, that's to be determined." Incredible. I'll support a siteban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Walker is WP:BAITING you.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does "site ban" mean banning him from Wikipedia for ever? That sounds extreme. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vic, thanks for reminding. I'll take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of my comment. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VictoriaGrayson, thank you. JimRenge (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzmina[edit]

Dear Joshua, I have finished the Kuzmina section in my draft page on the Kazanas paper. Please feel free to borrow any ideas you might find useful elsewhere. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! An article on an article! I'm going to read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, there are several articles on journal articles. You can look up the Category:Academic journal articles. However, this one might be different because its notability comes from the debate following it rather than the acceptance of its ideas. I will have to make a careful case of its notability. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Succes. I like it (Oops! That's anot an argument that establishes its notability). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The circle closes?[edit]

File:Sock-tanker2.png
Sock-tanker!

Remember Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (ABISY)? Well, the Saraswati Research Centre is a wing of the ABISY and Dr. S. Kalyanaraman is its director [19]. So, this is all driven by the RSS people. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice collection. Which reminds me of... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. You should put it on the Voice of India page :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, this edit summary [20] would have been witty if it wasn't such an accurate reflection of the sorry intellectual level of our loved Wikipedians. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Well[edit]

I see that all of the remedies against Robert Walker have been closed out as no consensus, but that he has been warned. Unfortunately, I think he will be back sometime somehow somewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a case involving him goes to Arbitration, I will have to recuse from clerking the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally on his side, with regard to a controversy about space exploration, where he really was being bullied, but, even then, he didn't listen to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment.... I'm sorry that no ban was enacted. Hopefully once the epic DRN is filed (and possibly turned down as either a conduct complaint or as the opposite of concise, being a multi page document comprising nearly 65K bytes in total) you'll be left alone. I have read the revised articles and the earlier versions and I find the later versions much more readable and informative. I can't speak to the sourcing, however. Ca2james (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Happy to hear so. I've been doing some 'preparatory homework' yesterday, including reading Karma in Buddhism 25 march 2013. To my amazement, that was a really good article! What really amazed me, was that it contained info on the "relative" importance of the concept of karma in (earlier) Buddhism, among other pieces of info. Exactly the kind of info that Dorje removed, and replaced by long quotes; and exactly the kind of info that I re-inserted, without knowing this older version. So, several editors, completely independent of each other, figured out the same things. Those editors were also aware that they had a dood piece, except for the last part, which needed improvement; Dorje rewrote (and degradated, in my opinion) the good part, and left untouched the lesser part. Peculiar. So, that will also be a point to mention when I reply t this "epic DRN" (which feels more like an accuastion for a court-law. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme[edit]

Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - do you think this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least he's collected a notable amount of tags ;) I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasangika37 rewrote lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy article[edit]

Prasangika37 rewrote lead of Dorje Shugden Controversy article. Pinging @Montanabw:.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UCOR 143 edits[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to edit student work! We will be discussing in tonight's class and learning from your recommendations. I usually restrict students to Hinduism (topics we had introduced with greater attention) and to journals within the last 6 years. I tried something new this semester. We will definitely learn from mistakes made. I appreciate your kindness and willingness to engage in dialog. 2601:7:A100:B26:91AC:A16C:B5A:B960 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism? Oh my, that's a sensitive topic. Anyway, succes witht he class, and again, if I can be of any help, please contact me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot[edit]

U.S. Air Force airmen from the 720th STG jumping out of a C-130J Hercules aircraft during water rescue training in the Florida panhandle
Francois Xavier Henri Verbeeck Elegante Gesellschaft bei einem festlichen Essen
You Forgot Crisco 1492. Hafspajen (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Always something there to remind me Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly empty here. Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unity of Hinduism[edit]

Hinduism is unified under Brahmanical ritual and cosmology (Mahabharata). All the different Vedantins and "tantrics" such as Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Abhinavagupta would have went to the same Hindu temples and believed the Mahabharata. There are no separate temples for Advaitins, Vishishtadvaitas and Kashmir Saivites. VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice coincidence. I was just thinking what "unites" Hinduism, c.q. what topic may serve as an "introduction" to the secnd part of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All Hindus go the same Hindu temples. Adi Shankara would have went on pilgrimage to the same Hindu temples as Ramanuja and Abhinavagupta. Exception are the cults like Hare Krishna, Swaminarayan etc.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, what unites Hinduism is question that sounds silly to a practising Hindu. And, you made me wonder why. I think the right answer is that Hinduism is more a "culture" than a "religion," i.e., it is made up of methods and procedures (including rituals, asceticism etc.), ways of organising the society (varna, dharma etc.), as well as accommodation and tolerance of various beliefs. Hinduism also exploits the man's ability to be inconsistent. So, people can be polytheistic and monotheistic at the same time, which is kind of amazing! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right here. That's also why I moved the practices etc upwards. Compare it, again, with our Christmas trees and eastern eggs (though that's trivial compared to the richness of Hinduism). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wusun[edit]

Thanks for appreciating my additions to Indo-European migrations. Given your interest and knowledge in Indo-European migrations, particularly Indo-Aryan migrations, i recommend you take look at the article Wusun. The article has been troubled by the addition of WP:Fringe theories by User:Tirgil34, a notorious turanist puppeteer, and related accounts and IPs. Best regards. Krakkos (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I've seen his name before. I'll take a look (later). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nice overview article[edit]

Ahh, Sevilla

Hi Joshua, here is a nice insighful article to read, which touches upon all the issues we have been battling with here: Hinduism, Hindu-Muslim relations, Hindutva, and the history of all these things: Sharma, Arvind (2002). "On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva". Numen. 49 (1): 1–36. JSTOR 3270470.. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it has a nice passage on the Arab invasion of Sindh, the meaning of which is lost on our friend Ghatus. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've downloaed it, and will read it (printed, not at the e-reader, with a pen at hand to write down comments). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an interesting question that Sharma fails to ask is, why did the need to name "Hindus" arise only when Muslims became the rulers. Why didn't such a need arise when Muslims were just inhabitants? What did the Parsees, Jews, Syrian Christians and even Buddhists call the Hindus? I think Buddhists called them either sanathanis or vedics. I have also seen the term arsha dharma (ancient way of life) in Hindu sources as a self-designation to distinguish themselves from the Buddhists. (The term aasthika might have served the same purpose before the word changed meaning to theist.) It seems that the academics have been by and large too obsessed with the Hindu-Muslim issues to look deeper. Even Lorenzen didn't raise these questions. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrr[edit]

The Desert Ultra - Competitors ==Wikipedians

That's a long header to me, but now look at these contributions at sadhu. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sadhu&diff=647513917&oldid=647498591. Reverted them. Did I missed anything? Hafspajen (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an English grammar lesson: "Did I missed anything?" ;) I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, just like it was before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, just getting on the article and removing all images - slowly but surely. In the end is nothing left. And nobody reacts. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sunyata! The Big Emptiness! No Mind! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is the big E. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, every road will do, but this is better...

Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen[edit]

Our road is wide and broad

Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That took a long time! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hastiness?[edit]

Why the hastiness to revert? WP:FURTHER is not a dumping area. 21 books? Same authors repeated? And you prefer to keep it that way instead of a valid trimming? mm --AmritasyaPutraT 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Hindutva#Original research. Please discuss there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste[edit]

See Hindutva

I would prefer you do not move my comment to an active article talk page section in middle arbitrarily (without even as much as a response). I would not do it this way. You may just let me know if you want me to nuke my comment and I will oblige. I worked on the article and made several edits, there are several references, of course it can be improved like million other articles but a drive by tag saying entire article needs to go is not very helpful to other editors who are actually tidying it up. A smaller list is usually preferable and easier to maintain in Further Reading section, it should not be used as a storehouse. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AP: "drive-by tagging" is not an appropriate qualification; nor do those tags say that the entire article has to go. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, who tagged it gave that justification. After cleanup and requesting specific inputs he said entire article is OR and entire article has to be rewriteen. --AmritasyaPutraT 07:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, why do you remove the tag then? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see 42 references in that article? And then say "entire article is OR", "entire article has to be rewritten, don't try to fix anything". If the only way one can think of is to stick around tags and say "Editors, I am giving a long list of books in Further Reading section, read and rewrite the entire article"... now that isn't so helpful. I had already put the tags back. Any specific constructive suggestion is always welcome. I hope you do understand that I already did purge a lot to cleanup and specific inputs are the way to go forward. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last lead[21] was copied(violated copyrights), from [22] I was about to tell before but just remembered it. You know that wikipedia takes copyright violation seriously. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what copyright-violation means. No reason to revert wholesale. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmritasyaPutra: Please don't talk about me behind my back. Everybody can see what I wrote. I said "the entire article has to be rewritten". I din't say "don't try to fix anything." Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for owning the nonsense. You said the second part also. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutraT 02:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmritasyaPutra: Ah, I guess I used an American expression. "No bandaid" means "give me a real cure, not a bandage." It doesn't mean not to put on the bandage. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese New Year is tomorrow - Are you ready?[edit]

Lion Cub
请接受我诚挚的新年祝福，顺祝身体健康。

[Qǐng jiēshòu wǒ chéngzhì de xīnnián zhùfú, shùn zhù shēntǐ jiànkāng.]

Please accept my sincere wishes for the New Year and I hope you will continue to enjoy good health. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Fun II[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan, Hafspajen has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
lang-0This user cannot read or write any languages. Assistance is required.
Mi no comprendo, tu no comprendo? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abschied im Morgengrauen

Another warrior[edit]

Hi JJ, please check this: [23]. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's an Elst-fan, as far as I remember... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See ARE[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive165#Joshua Jonathan. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think you could talk this over with him? Eh? Hafspajen (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)??[reply]
It's a pity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. JimRenge (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea here[edit]

If questions of "close paraphrase" come up again, it might be useful to go over to archive.org and find some of the PD reference sources that are available there. I know commons has the whole "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" available as .pdf files there, and between it and the old Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia and a few other older reference sources that are still counted as generally relativel I think it might very easily be possible to find several topics which are covered in them, which may also be covered by more recent encyclopedias or reference sources saying the same thing, and use their language freely with attribution, because they are in the public domain. But, just an idea. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of arbitration enforcement request[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, you are formally advised to either use quotation marks when importing text from external sources or to paraphrase it completely. Please read Wikipedia:Plagiarism, in particular the section "Avoiding plagiarism", for advise on this matter. Furthermore, I recommend you check your previous edits for problems because they may not limited to the diffs highlighted in the AE request. MER-C 03:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks MER-C. No more importing, but reading more sources, as I usually do, and summarize them. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Robert walker is doing the preparatory homework User:Robertinventor/JJ_Copyrights, following Blades' example User:Bladesmulti/Copyrights. That's nice, though I do wonder if his only mission at Wikipedia is to follow me around? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robertinventor: It does appear that you have decided that JJ is a bad editor and that you need to follow him around. I previously advised you not to do the things that previously got you to WP:ANI, including stalking his edits. So stop it. Your stalking of his edits is toxic. Just stop it. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using his table to fix the quotations. Funny thing is, they're all sourced, and can be traced rightaway (except for one; I wonder why?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism now; this part below is very recognizable:

"Wikipedia has three core content policies, of which two make it easy to plagiarize inadvertently. No original research prohibits us from adding our own ideas to articles, and Verifiability requires that articles be based on reliable published sources. These policies mean that Wikipedians are highly vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism, because we must stick closely to sources, but not too closely. Because plagiarism can occur without an intention to deceive, concerns should focus on educating the editor and cleaning up the article."

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ as I said also on my talk page, I just took Bladesmulti's table and added extra columns and sorted with most words first, and got as far as he first dozen or so entries only before the ARE closed. Not done any original research on your edits myself. To my mind with my academic background, WP:COPYVIO is a serious matter and has to be fixed. Robert Walker (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertinventor: And as an academic, you might also know that different cultures have different ideas on how serious copyvio is and even on what constitutes copyvio. If you have read enough, you might also know that the academics themselves sometimes engage in certain amount of copyvio that we find unacceptable here. So, no need to soapbox. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I agree with you that the paraphrasing-problems have to be fixed, and in that respect, the table is helpfull. So, my thanks for that. Shall we leave it there? I'm also going to check the rest. And I'm convinced that you were upset by my response, which touches me; no matter how much I've felt upset, I wish you all the best. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon nice response JJ. Robert, I think he is right. The ARE is closed, please drop it, JJ is capable of making due correction. At the same time, the typical way I am, to Kautilya: copvio has no link to cultures and don't pounce on editors with whom you have disagreement, Robert might have been pissed and you do little help by calling him a soap-boxer. --AmritasyaPutraT 18:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon: It does appear that once again you are accusing Robert Walker of doing something that he is not actually doing. Perhaps you should not be so quick to jump to conclusions? Dorje108 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied both tables to User:Joshua Jonathan/Paraphrasing. Thanks for all the work already dome by the two of you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Back[edit]

I have just returned from a pilgrimage to an ancient city and just seen your post. (It was a lot safer than if I had gone to Jerusalem). I think that Wikipedia would be a better place if all editors would try to follow the Christian and Buddhist values of compassion, courtesy, and respect for truth. Many editors do. I see that you do follow those values, but that you have been reminded that respect for truth includes better marking of the origin of material that is added by other authors. I see two editors who don't seem to be pursuing those values very well, and you had encounters with them. One of them does consider himself to be a Buddhist. He really may think that you are a bad editor, and, if so, he does have a right to continue keeping track of your edits up to a point, as long as all that he does is to document his issues and as long as he uses discretion in then acting on those issues (and I haven't seen evidence of discretion on his part). My advice is to ignore him, which isn't easy. He really still does seem to be motivated primarily by toxic anger. (He says that his rants are not angry, in which case his anger is so ingrained that he doesn't perceive it.) The other editor isn't a Buddhist, and also should probably usually be ignored. Is this current issue finally closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're pelgrimage was peacefull... Sorry to rocket you back into the mundane world. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion[edit]

Template:Spread of IE-languages, Template:Spread of Vedic culture and Template:Indo-Aryan migration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hajme 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indo-European migration[edit]

Template:Indo-European migration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hajme 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friend,[edit]

you have a lot more patience than I do [24].....Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best to be a good Buddhist... But seriously: this world is going to end in flames if we don't try to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is called "compassion." Unfortunately, we Hindus don't have it. We only have "dharma", fighting for what we believe is right. It is surprising that our world did not end. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, JJ, and I try to keep my cool, too; I find that on Wikipedia, I struggle to do so a lot more than in real life. Kautilya, you a Hindu then? I'm not; I find little appeal in organized religions. Compassion, though, is something I have a deep belief in; I just appreciate the fact that JJ is able to translate that belief into action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Karuna" is a Sanskrit word, though. And India had Gandhi - though he was killed by a Hindu... And there must be more; I've got this book from a pupil of Sivananda, which somewhere gives a summary of Sivananda's teachings: compassion (he used a few more words). It convinced me right away that Sivananda was speaking from speaking life-experience; it takes a lot of time to summarize large bodies of teachings in so few words. I also think that "the teachings" may differ, but that essentially they are attempts to describe and to point in a direction. But essentially one has to "practice" oneself; meditation ("sitting") is a part of it, at least in "our" traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism), with the "experience" of emptiness/Brahman/God/whatever; compassion is the other element. What's the value of "liberation" if it doesn't find expression in concern with your fellow human beings? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not acquainted with those writers, but you're spot on; liberation from oppressive structures is useless if it comes without empathy, or as the social justice activists would say, true liberation can only come about if I realize that my liberation from structure X is bound up yours from structure Y. I never regularly practiced meditation per se, but I certainly spend long periods of time in silent self contemplation. It certainly helps; without that, I may have become a hermit long ago....Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Van, yes, I am a Hindu but my Hinduism mostly comes from Valmiki who, to me, stands on par with Buddha in trying to reform the Hindu society of the time. His "dharma" was a personal one: you need to look inside yourself to find the right thing to do. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, the Brahmins identified it with fundamentalist dharma again by adding the Uttarakanda where Rama was made to kill sudras and made to disown his wife all over again. This Rama is now the icon of Hindu fundamentalism. What can I say? I learnt Ramayana from age 4 and I can say quite emphatically that the fundamentalists have no clue what Rama was really about. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, you are in danger of making false generalisations. Gandhi had his own unique interpretations of Hinduism. He was probably more of a Jain than a Hindu. A case in point: Gandhi claimed that his non-violence came from Bhagavadgita. But in Bhagavadgita compassion is explicitly branded as a weakness, an attachment, which Arjuna had to overcome in order to follow his "dharma," i.e., to fight for what was "right." If you think all Hindus will read Bhagavadgita like Gandhi did, you would be sadly mistaken. At the time I grew up in India, most Indians thought that Gandhi was a nut case who came in handy to fight the British but, once the British were gone, he was no more relevant. The new found respect for Gandhi is because he is considered a man of the century in the rest of the world. People want Gandhi as a "brand" to buttress their self-image; they don't want his ideas. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I must confess I am not familiar with the original any historically prominent version of the Ramayana, but I am familiar with the story and with several commentaries on it. As I've mentioned before, I do tend to be a fan of the Buddha's version of morality. Looking within oneself for morality can be a dangerous thing though (not in your case, in a general sense); have you seen the sort of stuff put out by Ayn Rand and her cult of followers? It is indeed sad that the complex aspects of Rama as a character have been brushed under the carpet of late, but that is hardly a phenomenon unique to Hinduism; the bible and koran have been twisted and contorted in ways that beggar belief. Even buddhism, in some cases, has been used to justify horrific stuff. Gandhi is a complicated matter, god knows; his own views were complex enough, and strange enough, that most people have no idea what he stood for. And that includes his supporters and detractors, both. And I must say, I have very mixed feelings about some of his ideas, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to read the original Valmiki Ramayana to know what it was all about. There are plenty of translations around. The one by Arshia Sattar is pretty good (though abridged). I agree that, by and large, dharma is a pretty slippery thing, and quickly degenerates into either orthodoxy or self-righteousness. In Valmiki's hands, however, it was turned into rationalism. His Ramayana is full of dharmic debates, where the characters debate either with themselves or with the people around them, intricate issues of what is the right thing to do. The story of Ramayana was just a vehicle to hang these debates on. In the old days, probably even up to the time of independence, Ramayana was "alive," as gurus or sadhus went around village to village giving lectures and wandering drama troops performed them, along with the debates. All those traditions are now dead. Here is a good discussion of at least one such debate, the one between Rama and Vali, which I gave Joshua earlier. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the shortcomings of Buddhism, see Zen at War. Or read some stuff by Stuart Lachs (also interesting for those who think that I solely promote Buddhism; I don't. Hardcore Buddhists should definitely read Stuart Lachs). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opt-in, not opt-out[edit]

Wont you please say hello?

Little Joshua, please let people add selves to Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen if they wish. Do not add others. Have previously added User talk:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings, so finely decorated, after mature deliberation. Not wish have further pages added. Opt-in, not opt-out! Kindly, bishzilla ROARR!! 10:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sure! Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IIIIIIIIIH! Scary dog! [Bishzilla runs away.] bishzilla ROARR!! 23:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
EH??? (confused) Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think mice probably scare Bishzilla too. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Man Fat Tsz (Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery) , Pagoda, Sha Tin, New Territories (Hong Kong).jpg

Tandy Warnow, not Wendy Tarnow[edit]

Hi, Joshua. This researcher's name got approximately spoonerized in your editing of Indo-European migrations, and copied into Indo-European languages. See Talk:Indo-European languages#Warnow or Tarnow.

(By the way, in "smash the Buddha in the backyard, tear down the fench!", shouldn't that last word be "fence"?) --Thnidu (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Also for the fence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Je Tsongkhapa page[edit]

It looks like we have a Gelug POV pusher who is deleting all critical material of Tsongkhapa and inserting various personal opinions such as " Unfortunately, due to the paucity of translated material, many authors are unaware of the depth and complexity of this debate."VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodisation of Hinduism[edit]

Template:Periodisation of Hinduism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive box[edit]

If you were simply offering to format a box at the top of my talk page that would contain what my list currently does, that would be a useful service. Was that it? I thought that maybe you were thinking of creating an archive for yourself, but, as I said, I see no need to archive and ridicule your posts. (Your posts don't have toxic anger in them. Some people don't have toxic anger just because they don't. Other people have been able to dispel it, either by psychotherapy or by religion, and Christianity and Buddhism are good religious approaches to getting rid of toxic anger. Of course, religion has other reasons also, such as involving the fate of the soul, a matter on which Christians and Buddhists honorably disagree.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just meant a standard archive box. Regarding the fate of the soul: that's indeed a difference. Personally I don't believe there's a soul, or a concrete entity "I"; that's why Buddhism appeals to me. But I've also got a Jesus-statue hanging at the wall near my bed, to remind me of compassion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive box (more)[edit]

Thank you. I had not requested MiszaBot service, but I see that the parameters that you provided seem to be reasonable, as they won't do too much archiving. I assume that the use of Miszabot doesn't prevent me from manually archiving if I remember to adjust the bot parameters to reflect another archive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-I[edit]

If there is no soul or "I" entity, then what is it that is reincarnated, or is the reincarnation also an illusion? Of course, Abrahamists can answer the question of what is reincarnated by saying "nothing", but that is only because we believe in a soul but that it goes on to divine judgment in another world, rather than being reincarnated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry... although not an expert, I couldn't help replying to this comment :-) The relation between no-self and reincarnation in Buddhism is something that I've given a lot of thought also. On one hand, we should be able to comprehend the no-self (anatman) teachings of Buddhism, but on the other it'd be important to understand the culturohistorical background as well. For example, Conze, E. 2008. Buddhism: A short history says that:

The traditionalist opponents also stressed the foreign origin of Buddhism, which came from "barbarian lands"... The problem of survival after death aroused intense interest at the time. In their polemics the Chinese Buddhists were apt to stray away from the orthodox denial of an individual soul and to postulate some enduring "spiritual something of finest essence", which transmigrates from existence to existence. They quoted either Lao Tzu or the Yellow Emperor as having said that "the body suffers destruction, but the soul undergoes no change. With its unchangingness it rides upon changes and thus passes through endless transformations". This did not well agree with Buddhism as it had been understood up to then

I've also read some interesting discussions over the topic here in Wikipedia:[25]

Comment: I just picked up this note from Nakamura (Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes, p.64), that early Buddhism adopted "transmigration" from other Indian schools of thought, without (at first) realizing the philosophical implications. Matches my thoughts on this: early Buddhism can do without transmigration. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

and:[26]

The oldest parts of the Pali Canon which undoubtedly details Buddha's personal experience has him achieving enlightment by examining his previous lives using a psychic ability called the divine eye accessed in the fourth jhana. Indeed Nakamura says: "the existence of transmigration was presupposed, even in the scriptures of Early Buddhism." VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, if I can recall it right, there are some theories within Buddhism that try to explain the workings of "samsara". Such theories would be Yogacara: Karma, seeds and storehouse-consciousness, or Eight Consciousnesses: Ālayavijñāna. Well, maybe not theories per se, but anyway...
I am pretty sure I have discussed these things in detail - maybe here on Wikipedia even - but I couldn't find such conversation... ^^ Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, that you quote my comment. Regarding the "personal experience," see what I wrote at either Karma or Four Noble Truths, citing Tilmann Vetter and Johannes Bronkhorst: it's doubtfull whether the Pali Canon detials the Buddha's personal experience. The parts on previous lives may be alter additions, just like the Four Noble Truths as a summary of his teachings. Maybe Vetter was right, proposing that the Buddha's "enlightenment experience" was the simple realisation "This (meditation) works." Note also that "karma" was just one of several concepts which were employed at the time of the Buddha. Anyway, I don't know what transmigrates; I don't believe in reincarnation. But hey, maybe the "orthodox denial of an enduring soul" was also a later development; see Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Schayer_-_Precanonical_Buddhism#. Who knows. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Buddha is reincarnated as seen in us. Buddha seen back primordially with wisdom eyes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I saw a funny SPI today. Bladesmulti has provided c. >90 diffs (!) to prove you are a sockpuppet of Thigle  :). I think Blades is getting rather obsessed with you ... JimRenge (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's gratitude for you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we Hindus call it guru-dakshina. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We buddhist call it karma. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuts. What a repay for all the efforts I took to prevent him from being blocked. @Drmies and Dougweller: how long is this going to be allowed to continue? See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive165#Joshua Jonathan and this comment by Cailil. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, AP: you're not a Buddhist, are you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he is just being a dutiful student by putting a few words in your mouth. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've supported it. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Am. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hope your are not the one that bladesmith is saying i see some evidences you will have to prove yourself here , and yes your were right on Gaudapada influence of Buddhisim on mandukya karika Shrikanthv (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AP: "am"? That's cryptic! Please add a little bit more info.
@Shrikanthv: absolutely not. No need to "prove myself here." Though one explanation: Thigle, what I've seen from him, had a lot of, ehm, "peculiair views." A lot of it has been removed, also by me. But he was not a total weirdo, from what I've seen; he'd read a lot. So, if I restored info from him, I guess it was because I judged it to be reliable. And hey, thanks for your comment on the Buddhist influence on the Mandukya Karika. You're a fair man. The point of departure between Buddhism and Vedanta may be the "motionlessness" of the Absolute. You know this comparison with a moving wheel, and the center which is motionless (I guess you do, since you grew up in Indian culture, and I'm only a reader)? The Absolute, Brahman, Nirvana, is the center. Vedanta sees it as absolutely motionless, while Buddhism emphasises the constructed nature of everything - no absolutes. Or at least, that's what modern Buddhism says. Please read Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism, and then tell me how different Buddhism is from Vedanta, or how different it has been made to be from Vedanta.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I may reciprocate on my talk page. yes --AmritasyaPutraT 07:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism[edit]

To use the term "Hindu" for this age, 500 BCE, is anachronistic. "Hinduism", a term itself highly problematic, did not exist at that time. The Vedic religion existed, and a wide variety of local religions and traditions, such as early Buddhism. But to use the term "Hindu" means imposing a unity which did not exist at that time (and which still does not exist). Talk:Gautama_Buddha/Archive_9#.22Royal_Hindu_Familiy.22_.26_unreliable_source

If the term "Hinduism" did not exist, can we hold that Hinduism itself did not exist? The historians speak of unbroken traditions dating back to the IVC. See D. P. Agarwal here for example. Did "Hinduism" absorb the Vedic religion, or did the Vedic religion absorb "local traditions"? The reality on the ground suggests the former. The Indra is dead, but the phallus-worship lives on. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're good! Actually, what you're arguing here is also what Zimmer argued, and even more strongly Alfred Scheepers, a Dutch Indologist: India absorbed the Vedic religion. But it used the social structures of the late Vedic society of the Kuru-tribe and realm to incorporate all those various traditions (see Witzel (1995) and Samuel (2010) p.61-93). But, to call this unbroken tradition "Hinduism" is tricky, unless you use it as a synonym for "Indianism" (which is a neologism, of course). It's also, somehow, what Axl Michaels is arguing with his therm "identificatory reflex": India absorbs many traditions and influences in its fold. It has laso absorbed western influences; interesting question, then: how does "Hindutva" fit into this? Is it another branch of this inclusivism, c.q. "identificatory reflex"? Yours (not only you, Kautily3, but all the others who watch this page) is a fascinating country! But, to remind all of you: this complexity becomes hided away when you stick to modern narratives about the ancientness and singulariness of Hinduism. There's so much more to India than this. Even, but that;s my personal opinion, a "way out" for the present polarisation: India has always been a very diverse country, so why be afraid of diversity now? Be proud of it! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once we go beyond the term "Hinduism" and think about the thing it denotes, then Hinduism must be that religion of India that has this tremendous absorptive power. No other definition is possible. So, it becomes quite important to know which religion absorbed which. Whichever was the absorber was the true Hinduism. Fire sacrifice was common to both the IVC and the Vedic religion. But the Vedic people had a much more elaborate cult of fire sacrifice. So, "Hinduism" ended up adopting it, along with its language, especially at a time of hardship (cf. Dhavalikar), but as soon as the second urbanisation was established, the days of fire sacrifice were finished. Then the Brahmins were redeployed from fire sacrife to Hindu worship of the "local traditions." Remember that the Kuru tribe was defeated by their own defectors, with Krishna -- the black god -- being the architect of the war. Mahabharata says that the entire subcontinent participated in this war. That was the end of the Vedic fundamentalism. What was retained was what you call sramanic traditions and their products, which include the Ramayana and Mahabharata as well as Buddhism and Jainism.
Moving on, Buddhism was absorbed back into Hinduism despite taking a long time. Jainism wasn't absorbed in this way because Jainism never explicitly put itself outside the Hindu fold. Islam was the first religion that couldn't be absorbed. Understanding why Islam couldn't be absorbed might also give us a way to understand Hindutva. Perhaps Hindutva is an attempt at absorbing Islam. New religion, new times and new tactics! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "unbroken tradition" has to do with the sramans, the rishis, sadhus and saints. They work "under the radar," but they represent the true Hinduism. They learn from their teachers, think for themselves as to what is the right thing to do, and preach. This goes on for ever. They are not too concerned about what goes on around them in the "real world." But it appears that the "real world" comes around to their points of view sooner or later. This is the millionarianism inherent in Hinduism. Whenever new influences come around, they pick up whatever is good and discard what is bad. They condemn the bad politely but firmly. Ordinary Hindus understand them instinctively. So, despite hiccups every now and then, Hinduism keeps moving forward. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kautilya3. I had to think it over for more than a few days. Two points:
  • You wrote: "Hinduism must be that religion of India that has this tremendous absorptive power. No other definition is possible. So, it becomes quite important to know which religion absorbed which." I think this is a kind of reification. It's not a matter of A absorbing B; it's more like the Indo-Aryans absorbing middle-eastern influences in Bactria; moving into northern India and mixing with other people there; these nI-people took over the language and part of the religion, while the IA's took over nI-elements; this new culture then spread further, but was modified at different regions by regional religions, which also in some form continued to exist alongside, or within, this "Vedic-brahmanical fold," which also incorporated ascetic elements. so, it's not like one religion absorbing the other; it's like a multitude of religions influencing each other, up to the point where they are no longer completely different religions, but form some sort of a continuum with many varieties. The term "Hinduism" itself created problems: there's this huge country with all these religions; we give a name to it to label it; and then we suppose that a label also means some common characteristics, so we try to find them. Compare it to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: yhe main character realises that some of his student write really good articles; he calls this "quality"; then he tries to identify "quality", as if it was a "thing", and goes nuts. It's not a thing, it's a hermeneutical tool.
  • Siddhis: "think for themselves" betrays your personal values of independent thinking, I think. I totally agree with them, by the way, though I'm not sure if the rishis were or are the defining characteristic of "Hinduism." One characteristic, I'd say; folk-religion, state support, and societal divisions also belong to it. And conformism...
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua, thanks very much for the response, but it doesn't sway me. The Saka were an Iranian tribe and they probably brought their religion into India. Some of its elements might have been absorbed into the Indian religion, but the rest of it has disappeared. The Vedic people were similarly an Indic tribe who brought their religion into India. Some of its elements have been absorbed into the Indian religion, but the rest of it has disappered. The only reason we seem to give more importance to the Vedic people than the Sakas is that their language has been widely adopted. Hence, we believe irrationally that their religion might have also been widely adopted. But where is the evidence for it? If the "Hindus" have said from 600 BC onwards that they accept the "authority of the Vedas," they really meant that they accept the Vedanta. But do we know if Vedanta was really Vedic? (The Vedas weren't composed as Vedas. They were compiled at a later date from diverse sources.) So, my feeling is still that, while "Hinduism" might have been a fusion, the Vedic religion contributed very little to it. It can hardly be said to be the agent of this fusion. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you're going even further than I do, in your reassessment of the origins of Hinduism. It's funny, Blades thought me to be a sock of Thigle, since we took somewhat similar positions on several topics. Actually, Thigle too went further, stating that Buddhism was the dominant religion in India for centuries. I'm not convinced about that; what I've written about the history of Hinduism comes from what I've read, and those sources say it's a "fusion" of several elements, including the Vedic religion. Although, most sources also state that the actual "share" of the Vedic religion in present-day Hinduism is quote minimal. Anyway, I'm glad you're also interested in the history of Hinduism, and are willing to take into consideration alternatives to the more traditional accounts and datings. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am a sock of Thigle too! :-) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

You're not Thigle[edit]

Hi there, JJ. Sorry if I didn't sound assertive enough - but as you suggest it is plausible, but highly unlikely, that you are one and the same. Unfortunately I have a vivid enough imagination to suggest that even I may be you, somehow! I am sorry to hear that you got caught up in what appears to be a grudge-based attack. Practically, however, I know you are not Thigle. When you have a moment you may like to act as a gentle ambassador between me and Victoria - as we seem to be regularly bouncing off each other on various articles. User:20040302 (18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Oh yes, sure. Sorry, also for Vic; I was just caught-up in this. @VictoriaGrayson: I noticed your posts, but there was no mental room at the moment. best regards to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see [27]. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. SPI closed, you were cleared .... but Joshua - I would politely ask Bladesmulti to go somewhere else. You know, you are allowed to ask an editor to stay away from you. I am sorry to say but I dislike this method and the whole ANI, ARB and SPI and other instances he is dragging you into. Hafspajen (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: yes, I noticed; thanks for attending. Yet, I also noticed the case was closed two times; after the first closure it was reopened, and checked by two other administrators/clerks.
I'm going through the Thigle-archives now; it's weird, some of the similarities between Thigle and me. See this one diff, provided by CorrectKnowledge (now Amitrochates)(who wrote rightaway that he didn't think that I'm Thigle; I now see that he had more experience with Thigle); in this edit, Thigle argues that Hinduism replaced Buddhism as the dominant religion in India. I've argued the exact same thing, and even used, or re-inserted, or defended, the use of Inden as a source. So, to the defense of Blades (hit me! hit me! I know, I'm too good for this world...), I can understand that he saw similarities.
@Hafspajen: I won't. I think that that message has been made sufficiently clear now by others; and still, as long as he can refrain from this kind of actions, he's still welcome to interact with me (no, talk page stalkers, I'm not holy, and don't puke). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is funny: Gooolog, one of Thigle's socks, even posted a thread at my talkpage [28] User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2012#Sunyata edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is not to be trusted, take that from me. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that. Actually, if he is who I think he maybe is, I do trust him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. This is what we call in Sweden omotiverad optimism. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "omotiverad"! "unimotiverad" was not recognised by the translation-sites. Well, let's keep that word, ""unimotiverad", for keeping faith against all odds! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, a quintessential irony leads a confession. [29] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Omh Ah Hung motiverad Barnstar (work in progress)[edit]

The Omh Ah Hung motiverad Barnstar
An example of the "Omh Ah Hung motiverad Barnstar", for those who've tried to overcome their primal responses and shown remarkable improvement in this regard, even beyond recognition.

An example of what might be the "Unimotiverad Omh Ah Hung Barnstar". I guess "lhun grub" may also mean "compassionate action"; after all, as I wrote below, practice matters, not just belief. And I suggest we keep the h too :).
As a serious aside: if the one is hooked-up with Zen, and the other with Dzogchen, and both love academical works, of course they'll end-up at the same articles. Including Hinduism, because of Advaita Vedanta, and the history and origins of Buddhism, which is intertwingled with Hinduism. Yeah, I'm still defending myself - but I'm not Thigle. I don't curse (okay, I do. But not here. Only in private). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. From Rigpa: "Rigpa has two aspects, namely kadag and lhun grub [...] This division is the Dzogchen-equivalent of the more common Mahayana wisdom and compassion division." Well, mind you: look at my userpage for my preferred symbols (augh; still defending myself...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ZuluPapa5, from the link you provided:
"Milton uses the epic form simultaneously as a critique of an earlier tradition of heroism and as a means of advancing a new idea of Christian heroism for which the crucial virtues are faith, patience, and fortitude. Undoubtedly, this idea of heroism was influenced by Milton’s personal experience with adversity and by his public service as a polemicist and an opponent of Stuart absolutism and the episcopacy of the Church of England. Under attack from his adversaries, Milton, from his perspective, was the advocate of a righteous cause that failed."
Maybe this also applies to Thigle: he failed where he was led (is this correct English?) solely by "a righteous cause." But he started to improve when he sensed some recognition, and the willingness to reconsider his own responses. Indeed, when patience crept in.
Thigle, I expect you'll read this: how about considering some sort of "confession," and a request to be unblocked on your main account? See also User talk:Joshua Jonathan#response. If you are who I think you are, you've shown improvement, I think, and you've got worthfull edits to make, as long as you're able to withhold your anger, and act with patience. Please consider this. No guarantee, since this is only my opinion, although supported by at least one other editor (I'm not speaking here on behalf of Bbb23; I don't know what his opinion is on this). But at least I'd like to ask other editors: let's give him some time to consider this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and of course: ZuluPapa5 is not Thigle! Sorry, I'm causing confusion here! Remember Shunryu Suzuki, who said in Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness: Zen Talks on the Sandokai, that sometimes he corrected one practitioner, while he was aiming at someone else. Sorry ZuluPapa5, for taking the beating with the keisaku! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am Thingle too .... the extent we two share in the buddha nature. Non-dualism can cause confusion, I feel that language is difficult to express it, some say it is useless in a worldly view. BTW, leaving things as they are leaves a strong impression as laziness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user pledges to return to Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values.
Guess you earned this userbox. Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's highly appreciated, as you know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've adapted the title a little bit. Also check-out the music, Better get It In Your Soul (the title at yourube is incorrect), from the Charles Mingus' album Mingus Ah Um! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy[edit]

Joshua, I AM NOT trying to involve you in any mot shit, than you are in - just want an answer - do you really think that there is a such thing as involuntary celibacy? Hafspajen (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like marriage? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not like marriage - sigh. That is impossible. Check last post. I will throw up if I do it again. Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ca I have the Uunimotiverad Barnstar? Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't. You've already got the lifelong Hafspajen Award, which is irrevocable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do what? Comment on New Age authors? That's also a habit you can abstinate from, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the concept and the phrase "involuntary celibacy" that it is an oxymoron, because celibacy is voluntary, so "involuntary celibacy" is illogical. I was fighting this for two years now but there are at least five editors who ganged together, plus socks, who go and ask for new possibilities to try to recreate, add and start this all over again and again, until all editors drop down by sheer exhaustion and leave because they feel that they have said everything over and over again, but nobody gives a *** about it but just goes on with this crazy carousel - who try to insert this into the article. Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody gives a **** about celibacy? No, somehow that makes sense... But I do understand your point, that is, at least about the illogical part.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Shrikanthv's talk page.
Message added 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shrikanthv (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thigle recognition[edit]

With the absence of power vested in me, I recognize you as a Thigle's reformed mind emanation. Naming as "Joshua Jonathan Thigle". May all wikipedia dharma names be purified as such to immortality. Omh Ah Hung. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or purified by the chance to improve themselves, and show that human beings always have more sides to their personalities than one might expect. By the way, "Oh Ah Hung" is the same as "Om Am Hum" or "Om ah Hum"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be ... I just went with what is natural, and sufficiently conventional. The elaborated 100 syllable mantra is intended to purify speech. Unfortunately, typos are my natural delusion so I fixed the Om. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
Your patience, my friend, is beyond belief. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond belief"... That's a nice twist of the tongue. It's not about belief, it's about practice. Beliefs may differ, the practice is the same - or, at least, should be - I think. Thanks, very much; these days have been rough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • :D I stand corrected. Your patience is beyond my current practice; with practice, I hope that I will be able to practice patience as you practice it. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Some quick comments, JJ. I don't intend to do anything unless the SPI is reopened. Also, when someone alleges an editor is a sock puppet, the filer does not determine the remedy assuming a clerk/administrator/CU finds the account is in fact a puppet. With very limited exceptions that I won't go into here, a puppet is indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity. But someone can request a new chance, can't they? Even if the block is permanent? Oh, you already wrote you'll not go into the "very limited exceptions." Well, for those reading this: please take notice that I'd support such a request. Please take notice of this. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Do you support the puppet getting a second chance, or the master? Or both? Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Master, puppet; if it is the same person, it's one person, isn't it? I'd support a new chance. It's not about me, by the way, and also not about Blades. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bbb23 didn't say that the sock master is permanently blocked. Maybe he implied it. I don't know. But the puppet should be blocked for ever. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll provide a little more guidance. As Kautilya3 states, a puppet is normally blocked forever. The master may be blocked for a limited time or they may be blocked indefinitely but not necessarily permanently. If a sock master wants a second chance (assuming they are blocked), the request needs to come from the master and from the master account. Depending on the circumstances, the request may be granted. As an example, if the master fully discloses all the sock accounts they've used and presents credible arguments as to why they will behave, the master account might be unblocked. Obviously, everything is context-dependent. Generally, we don't unblock a puppet account, even assuming the puppet makes a request. The one circumstance I can think of off the top of my head is if the individual presents what is deemed a meritorious request and says they no longer have the password to the master account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I've also contacted Magog the Ogre; I don't know very well at this moment what to do further, and will wait for his reply. Thanks. (And let me repeat: this is not about me, but it definitely concerns me). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage stalkers, the bar's open[edit]

File:The Waterloo Gallery at Apsley House by Joseph Nash.jpg

Talkpage stalkers, the bar's opened; anybody care for a drink? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a smoke. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)
I'm up for a round of drinks, as long as it's not alcoholic! :-D 20040302 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, my dear friend. This round is on me! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One scotch, please! Hey, can you put it on my tap? I'm a little short this week... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scotch for me too. Talisker? Skyerise (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Food too
I don't drink ... wine, he pretentiously and rather stupidly said while pointing toward the 1949 Chateau Rothschild. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Breakfast-time for me now, and a cup of coffee. I'm happy with all you guys (and girls) around here; please drop-by regularly! best regrads to all of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought[edit]

some food for the "thought" here 13:14, 18 March 2015‎ Shrikanthv

Gurdjieff! Thanks; I'm surprised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contd. from Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Comment[edit]

There is no traditional understanding of the history of Hinduism. There is mythology and there is what people learn at school. Don't let this notion hold you back. Being "calm and polite" isn't always the only available response to edit conflicts with new editors. Senior editors need to guide new editors to help them become productive contributors. For instance, in the discussions at Talk:Mandukya Upanishad (keeps popping up on my watchlist) you should have asked Tcat64 to come up with a reference for his POV by now. It should have been made obvious to him by now that we (editors) don't get to contradict what is written in reliable secondary sources, only other reliable sources do. You could even have helped him find a source. It's not that difficult. For instance, Michael Coman, former faculty of Indian studies at Sydney University and author of The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, does have a critique of Nakamura and his theory on MU (pp 97-8). The book is a pretty interesting read otherwise too. If you had taken this course, both of you would have worked out a neutral wording by now and Tcat would have come out better as a result of the discussion. Instead they are still stuck at the same argument they were at two months ago and you have to spend your precious mental energy dealing with an avoidable dispute. This is not to suggest that I am an expert at dealing with new editors. Not even close. :) Amitrochates (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And a big sigh.... This is really helpful! I like this comment: "You could even have helped him find a source. It's not that difficult." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reading my own comment again, I found that line to be rude. But if it works for you, who am I to judge. Amitrochates (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good advice, and I like the little sting in it. It isn't that difficult, after all. More people should try it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitrochates: See diff, diff and diff. Would you like to have a cup of tea too? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would love a cup of tea, thanks! The solution you chose was simpler than what I had expected but is perhaps more workable. If Tcat64 doesn't agree to this, someone will have to do the dirty work of summarizing what scholars have said on the issue. Not me though, I know how controversial Mandukya Upanishad (MU) and Mandukya/Gaudapadiya Karika (GK) have been among scholars. Scholars can't agree on which of the Prakarnas of GK came first, whether Gaudapada refers to a person or school, which of the chapters of GK were authored by him and which he just edited, why GK–IV relies so much on Mahayana concepts and even which of the two, MU or GK, came first. I'd like to stay as far away from this dispute as possible. And just to clarify, this diff was mentioned only for humour. I share your opinion of Buddhipriya, you might have noticed it back then.[30] I found their reply to your comment both exceedingly modest and funny. Too bad they don't edit anymore. Amitrochates (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very good memory. I don't; I've almost forgotten already what the SPI was about last week, let alone what I did a year ago at Wikipedia (ar any other place). But that too has advantages; fights are also forgotten rigthaway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hasan Dani[edit]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan! I wonder if you would mind reviewing this edit [31] and the subsequent edit to Ahmad Hasan Dani. Also read the edit summaries. I don't know if the editor is correct or not. CorinneSD (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD: see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#British Raj Naming. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...I see that discussion has all taken place just today. I couldn't tell whether the conversation was over, or whether Zaketo was persuaded that he was wrong, so I don't know whether I should undo his/her edits to Ahmad Hasan Dani or not. CorinneSD (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

The youngling saw only the pointing hand, was amused by it, counted the number of fingers praised the firmness & beauty of it .
and screamed what could be more Beuatifull than this....
Alas he missed out the Beautifull MOON
Shrikanthv (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?!? "Suggestion"? I'm intigued; I guess the riddle is for me to solve? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it could be culture miss match on the image I have portrayed above, it is from a common painting from South of India, where a baby is shown bright full moon at night to make him to eat his meal. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding?!? I know it from Zen, "The finger pointing at the moon"! See also, for example, [32] and [33]. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day[edit]

I have no idea how I ended up here. I was originally looking at the List of Bollywood films of 2014, and shortly later I found myself spending an hour reading your talk page. You seem to have attracted quite some wiki drama, since the last time I talked to you. Anyway, I felt I had to wish you a good day. Manoguru (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. An hour... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva[edit]

Hi Joshua, here are some tentative ideas on what Hindutva is about. As I wrote on the Hindutva page, "Hindu" has three meanings: Indian (prior to the Arab invasion of Sindh), follower of Indian religions (during the Muslim rule) and follower of Hinduism (the present day meaning). The "Hindutva" project is to move backwards in time and reinstate the pre-7th century meaning. Savarkar took the first step of moving back to the medieval times. The BJP and RSS want to move back to the meaning of "Indian."
Why do they want to resusciate the dead meanings of a good word? The possible reasons are (i) they want to appropriate to the present-day Hindus the true ownership of Indian-ness (ii) they want to force the Indian Muslims to accept the ancient Hindu traditions at the pain of getting denationalized (cf. Golwalkar). It is interesting that the BJP was dissatisfied with the term Bharatiya (the choice of their founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee) and needed to bring back the word Hindutva, which didn't really exist in their lexicon until the 1980's. As Arvind Sharma says, the word "Hindu" alone has this "valence," nothing else does! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Guruji Golwalkar[edit]

Bal Gangadhar Tilak had proposed, based on his reading of the Rig Veda that the Aryans originated in the Arctic Circle. This posed a problem for Shri Guruji, who maintained that the Aryans were native to India. So he came up with a brilliant explanation (We or our Nationhood Defined, p. 45)

Isn't he a genius? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds of John Calvin: 'The Bible is true, because it's God's word, it's an ancient Book, and because everybody knows that it's true' (freely paraphrased). See James W. Fowler and his Stages of Faith, for various 'structures of thinking'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. But the analogy isn't perfect. What is going on here is that `The Bible is the sum total of truth, so whatever is not written in it is false'. Actually, there isn't a Bible here at all. Shri Guruji is writing his own. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

,,[edit]

See Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen
Lord You are my Shepherd
Lord You are my Shepherd,(9) Hafspajen (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, this guy I never decorated. ...? Drmies and Crisco yes, not him though. Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's watching... Category:Talkpages which are stalked by Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen. Shoot me, Bishzilla. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.[edit]

We don't edit others userpages. If Kelapstick deleted incorrect info, - he is an administrator. WP: Userpages Hafspajen (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP: Userpages say: In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).

Maybe you think that was helpful, but if you want to be helpful, you can point out things. After the way you edited around at Kelapstick, it is rather possible that you should restrain invading other peoples user pages, thank you. Kelapstick did not appreciated it. Hafspajen (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hafs, but actually I find this guy very funny! He may turn-out to be a pain-in-the-ass, but so far, he just seems to be kidding around. He also added Category:Talkpages which are stalked by Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen to his userpage. I'm tempted to change this into Category:Wikipedians who are stalked by Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen, but I don't dare to, of course... Stay cool, and relax; Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Sorry I am late, just got the ping. There is no restriction against minor editing and grammar/spelling on other people's user pages (although if they expressly ask you not to, you shouldn't), but if you are reverted by the user you shouldn't press the issue (notwithstanding BLP or other policy issues). Having said that, you as well would be within your rights to remove the administrator user box because, well the user isn't an administrator. I am willing to push the assumption of good faith (although I think the user in question is disruptive), and presume that they didn't know better. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ÖH. If you never met Jesus yet, take a look at Jonathan. Hafspajen (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for that one... Call the shrink! I'm bold, by the way (the hair; the behaviour is a matter of dispute, once and a while). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Kelpastick may be right; see Frederic Mellinger and Frederick Mellinger. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yo! Hafspajen (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the user is an obvious troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is this episode of Popeye, in which Wimpy (maybe the Dutch translation of an English name; he's the one who's crazy about hamburgers) wins a cow. At th elast picture, you see him with the cow, a meat grinder, and a camping cooker, baking hamburgers ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes[edit]

Michael Sweerts - Portrait of a Young Man -

Hi joshua i saw your edits on Mindfulness article.your really super on your edits.My wishes for your edit journey.:)Eshwar.omTalk tome 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What a nice surprise to find your wishes here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran PR[edit]

Hi, I am Ssven2. I had recently taken this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrwan due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most of which have been resolved. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article, but I'm afraid I'm no good in helping you there; films are not my field of interest. Wish you all the best with it! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Fort[edit]

Joshua Jonathan, I have a question about a recent edit to Amer Fort. The addition looks unsourced, so I don't know whether it should stay or not. [34] CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference, should be okay now. Amitrochates (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, sounds like Amersfoort, a city in the Netherlands. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first April[edit]

File:New-Wikipedia-explode.gif
The explodopedia effect often observable after careless button-pressing.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Which one of the many? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ÖÖÖ. Dunno. Hafspajen (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden references[edit]

Hi Joshua, I want to change 2 refs into notes in the Buddhism, Timeline section. Do you know how to access these hidden refs? JimRenge (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. Cool template, the notes and references are incorporated:
{{#if: {{{notes|}}}|<ref>Cousins, L.S. (1996); Buswell (2003), Vol. I, p. 82; and, Keown & Prebish (2004), p. 107. See also, Gombrich (1988/2002), p. 32: “…[T]he best we can say is that [the Buddha] was probably Enlightened between 550 and 450, more likely later rather than earlier."</ref>}}
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it worked. JimRenge (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it only works if there is a {{reflist|group=note}} reflist at the page. there is at Buddhism, but not at the other pages where the template is being used... Sorry. Or we have to include such a notes-list at all those pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, complex case. Why not include such a notes-list at all those pages. I just don´t know which pages use the template. Is there a way to find out? JimRenge (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: A copy of the template: "Template:Buddhist traditions timeline/Notes" might be used exclusively at Buddhism. JimRenge (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the left side, there's a column with links. One of them is "What links here". About ten pages, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created "Notes" sections and reverted the template. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for all the work you're doing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE COMMENT[edit]

Where?
nowhere, gone

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thought you made it a red link on purpose. Hafspajen (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_(7th_nomination)&action=edit&redlink=1

It was a mistake, but a very nice one! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Indo-European Controversy[edit]

Just came across this book: Asya Pereltsvaig, Martin W. Lewis (2015), The Indo-European Controversy, Cambridge University Press. Parking it here, to alert interested talk page stalkers, and to remind myself to find out moe about this book. Blurb:

"Over the past decade, a group of prolific and innovative evolutionary biologists has sought to reinvent historical linguistics through the use of phylogenetic and phylogeographical analysis, treating cognates like genes and conceptualizing the spread of languages in terms of the diffusion of viruses. Using these techniques, researchers claim to have located the origin of the Indo-European language family in Neolithic Anatolia, challenging the near-consensus view that it emerged in the grasslands north of the Black Sea thousands of years later. But despite its widespread celebration in the global media, this new approach fails to withstand scrutiny. As languages do not evolve like biological species and do not spread like viruses, the model produces incoherent results, contradicted by the empirical record at every turn. This book asserts that the origin and spread of languages must be examined primarily through the time-tested techniques of linguistic analysis, rather than those of evolutionary biology." Google Books.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.108:

"As Mallory, Anthony, and the other proponents of the Revised Steppe school demonstrate, there is nothing unusual in the expansion of languages spoken by primarily pastoral peoples into the lands of neighboring sedentary, agricultural peoples. Indeed, taht is precisely what one would expect, due both to basic demographic considerations and to the varieties of social organization that typically characterize these two forms of adaptation."

hm, reminds of the ancient Israelites, whi are said to have been pastoralists... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the book costs only $99.00. A bargain! Ehm, any Wiki-funds available to support JJ?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question regarding Wikipedia:Genetic research on the origins of India's population and Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_theory#Reviewing_the_Genetics_literature, why were only those studies chosen and others excluded? Most of the debate among geneticists in this century has been left out. For instance, take the case of R1a and R1a1, even those who accepted Migration into North India from South Russian steppes proposed at least two different migrations for R1a and R1a1 (one in 10,000 BCE and the other in 2000–1500 BCE, Klyosov 2012). And obviously Russian and Indian geneticists differ with regards to where R1a originated from. I was wondering, if there was a discussion regarding which of the studies were to be included? Amitrochates (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know! Maunus started the section at 28 january 2015 diff; I've added papers that were used in the previous genetics-sections, and paper sthat I stumbled upon. for me it's new territory, so I'm learning while I'm editing. So, no, unfortunately no discussion yet about which studies are to be included. The main point was whether these studies refer to the IAMt, and if the ANI was brought to India by the Indo-Aryans. Well, clear cut case for the opponents of the IAMt: the ANI were there long before the Indo-Aryans; and the Indo-Aryans don't seem to be traceable in the genetic record of India.

IAMt is obvious even without referring to literature on genetics. I don't approve of using sources from genetics indiscriminately. Just take a look at the following sources —

Extended content
  • Kivisild et al. 2003,[35] Abstract — "Two tribal groups from southern India—the Chenchus and Koyas—were analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asians. In mtDNA phylogenetic analyses, the Chenchus and Koyas coalesce at Indian-specific branches of haplogroups M and N that cover populations of different social rank from all over the subcontinent. Coalescence times suggest early late Pleistocene settlement of southern Asia and suggest that there has not been total replacement of these settlers by later migrations. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent. Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools."
  • Kivisild 2003 a,[[36]] Summary - Is a critique of some of the previous studies like Quintana-Murci et al. (2001).
  • Sahoo et al. 2006,[37] {It is pretty well cited[38]} Abstract — "Understanding the genetic origins and demographic history of Indian populations is important both for questions concerning the early settlement of Eurasia and more recent events, including the appearance of Indo-Aryan languages and settled agriculture in the subcontinent. Although there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India, some studies of the Y-chromosome markers have suggested a recent, substantial incursion from Central or West Eurasia. To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages."
  • Sengupta et al. 2006,[39] Abstract — "Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian regionOur data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape."
Comment — The paper refutes both Aryan and Dravidian migration. Amitrochates (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devi et al. 2007,[40] Abstract (Conclusion) — "These observations suggest that H. pylori strains in India share ancestral origins with their European counterparts. Further, non-existence of other sub-populations such as hpAfrica and hpEastAsia, at least in our collection of isolates, suggest that the hpEurope strains enjoyed a special fitness advantage in Indian stomachs to out-compete any endogenous strains. These results also might support hypotheses related to gene flow in India through Indo-Aryans and arrival of Neolithic practices and languages from the Fertile Crescent".
Comment — The paper supports both Aryan and Drvaidian migration. This paper is interesting because the methodology used is markedly different from those used in other researches. Amitrochates (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharma et al. 2009,[41] Abstract — "Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1* and confirm the present conclusions."
  • Underhill et al. 2009,[42] Abstract — "Human Y-chromosome haplogroup structure is largely circumscribed by continental boundaries. One notable exception to this general pattern is the young haplogroup R1a that exhibits post-Glacial coalescent times and relates the paternal ancestry of more than 10% of men in a wide geographic area extending from South Asia to Central East Europe and South Siberia. Its origin and dispersal patterns are poorly understood as no marker has yet been described that would distinguish European R1a chromosomes from Asian. Here we present frequency and haplotype diversity estimates for more than 2000 R1a chromosomes assessed for several newly discovered SNP markers that introduce the onset of informative R1a subdivisions by geography. Marker M434 has a low frequency and a late origin in West Asia bearing witness to recent gene flow over the Arabian Sea. Conversely, marker M458 has a significant frequency in Europe, exceeding 30% in its core area in Eastern Europe and comprising up to 70% of all M17 chromosomes present there. The diversity and frequency profiles of M458 suggest its origin during the early Holocene and a subsequent expansion likely related to a number of prehistoric cultural developments in the region. Its primary frequency and diversity distribution correlates well with some of the major Central and East European river basins where settled farming was established before its spread further eastward. Importantly, the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene."
  • Klyosov et al. 2012,[43] Abstract — "This article aims at reconstructing history of R1a1 ancient migrations between 20,000 and 3500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred sixty (4460) haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1a1 populations and timespans to their common ancestors in the regions from South Siberia and northern/northwestern China in the east to the Hindustan and further west across Iranian Plateau, Anatolia, Asia Minor and to the Balkans in Europe, including on this way Central Asia, South India, Nepal, Oman, the Middle East, Comoros Islands, Egypt, etc. This study provides a support to the theory that haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia, apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions, around 20,000 ybp. Not later than 12,000 ybp bearers of R1a1 already were in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp, and around 9000 - 8000 ybp they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Europe east to the British Isles. On this migration way or before it bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) have developed Proto Indo-European language, and carried it along during their journey to Europe. The earliest signs of the language on passing of bearers of R1a1 through Anatolia were picked by the linguists, and dated by 9400 - 9600 - 10,100 ybp, which fairly coincides with the data of DNA genealogy, described in this work. At the same time as bearers of the brother haplogroup R1b1a2 began to populate Europe after 4800 ybp, haplogroup R1a1 moved to the Russian Plain around 4800 - 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south (Anatolia, Mitanni and the Arabian Peninsula), east (South Ural and then North India), and south-east (the Iranian Plateau) as the historic legendary Aryans. Haplotypes of their direct descendants are strikingly similar up to 67 markers with contemporary ethnic Russians of haplogroup R1a1. Dates of those Aryan movements from the Russian Plain in said directions are also strikingly similar, between 4200 and 3600 ybp."
Comment — This paper is interesting because it summarizes some of Klyosov's papers, points out the problems with the methodology used in Kivisild et al., 2003; Sengupta et al., 2006; Sahoo et al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2009; Thanseem et al., 2006; Fornarino et al., 2009 and makes a bold claim that there were two R1a/R1a1 migrations into India, one in 10,000 BCE and the other close to the Early Vedic period. Amitrochates (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that editors have started using research papers in genetics speculatively.[44][45] This going to be a big problem. There might have been some merit in discussing this at Indo–Aryan migration, but using genetics to achieve some sort of historical certainty in articles pertaining to Indian history is a dubious methodology at best. For starters, conclusions of a resrarch paper in genetics are primary sources and summarising them or making any sort of a claim on them violates WP:OR. Besides, genetic reseraches into historical and linguistic areas is an evolving field. Researchers make tall claims and often disagree with each other vehemently. Analysing all that is going to be difficult for editors, if you don't believe me just look at the papers above. Finally, geneticists are not specialists in history and their claims about historical truths need to be contextualised by historians first (geneticists of course can have an opinion on the flow of genetic markers). Until mainstream historians start using their works we'd do best to stay away from them, at least on top level pages pertaining to history. Amitrochates (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you rigth-away when you state that interpreting these papers is difficult. Though it's obvious that the recent papers by Reich, Manjoori etc. do not support the idea of a large-scale migration, which is the point being made often in newspapers. That's old news, of course, but given the discussions both at Wikipedia and in newspapers, I think it's fair to mention this, but also make clear that the IAMt is not about large-scale migrations, let alone invasions.
I also noticed that almost passing reference is being made in those articles to the IAMt, and usually described then as "Aryan invasion theory," often with only one or two sources. It led me to the same conclusion, that genetists have to catch-up with historists and linguists.
Regarding our "speculations": it's an exchange of thoughts; no intent to include anything prematurely into those articles. Some things I read make me wonder, and I like to share them; some responses make me wonder even more, and lead me to new areas to read. Like the "caste"-system; I know hardly anytging about it; that they have an economic function is new for me, but sounds logical. Thanks for your reply, and best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it was just an exchange of thoughts. However, if newer editors pick up on that and start quoting some randomn genetics paper for their POV it is going to be hell. Nope, not exaggerating at all. Regards. Amitrochates (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to be carefull with that. NB: it's not about "certainties", this "exchange of thought." On the contrary; it raises only more questions. India's history is very complicated... Though I think that this complexness is also reflected now in Indo-Aryan migration theory#Genetics. And, to make a point in favor of Vic c.s.: Maunus had misinterpreted those papers as supporting IAM; this being a misinterpretation became clear (to me) by reading those papers (I've got a pile of papers next to my chaise lounge now). So, misquotes will be adressed. Thanks for the Klyosov link.
One tiny tidbit that I have to add— Romani people are the best known example of Indian–European speakers who migrated to Europe from India. People know about it, but somehow when we think about IAMt we totally ignore this. It's a fascinating (relatively) modern example of IE migration. Amitrochates (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another nice detail: I read yesterday that the Yamnaya people also have some south Asian genetic ancestry! Yes indeed, "Out of India"! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter[edit]

Happy Easter
Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions[edit]

I apologize for bringing this up some years after the discussion, but one of your posts on the talk page of Padmasambhava puzzles me a bit. English is not my second language, and i was wondering if you perhaps could help me.

My questions are:

  • Do these writings about Padmasambhava being a murderer and interested in underage girls have any historical accuracy? Or are they "historical fiction" as was said in the quote?
  • Are ALL stories about Padmasambhava transmitting buddhism to Tibet just made up by 13th century monks? What is the historical consensus on Padmasambhava? Was he some kind of master of tantra who introduced buddhism to Tibet, or a murderer who was into little girls? Or was he a regular buddhist missionary or something in between?

I dont really understand and would be glad if you could clarify these things for me.. Flowerfloater (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... I don't know very much about Padmasambhava... @CFynn: can you tell more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen[edit]

Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 07:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: Again? This has already been discussed before... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was probably unwise to rename it. It was discussed and it was a very thorough consensus. One should not challenge the deletionists by renaming it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree Hafy, but I think it is best kept on userpages, also the template above will add a category to a userpage that suggests that it is a talk page? It makes no sense to me. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it started again. Hafspajen 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi little user[edit]

Little Easter pets

Hi little Joshua. RussBot changed Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen to Category:Wikipedians whose talkpages are decorated by Hafspajen on User talk:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings. 'Zilla reverted, conscientiously explaining Bishzilla's pocket is not a user and Bishzilla's user talk is not decorated by Hafspajen.[46] But now RussBot edit warring with Bishzilla. Perhaps because little Joshua redirect category, stating "This category should be empty"? Disagree! Result of discussion was "Keep" after all. Anyway. Have complained to bot owner, and now mention matter to little Joshua. [With tremendous dignity:] But not wish make trouble. Will blank category altogether from pocket page if preferred. bishzilla ROARR!! 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

HUH? Hafspajen (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Can't explain better, little Hafspaj. Please study history of pocket talkpage and also click on this link. All surely become clear. bishzilla ROARR!! 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Aserixzilla and his friend Obelixweller.
Little Josh loves Big Bishzilla! He's totally right. I leave it up to you if you remove the catgeory altogether from your pocket. Maybe a re-redirect to Asterix? What an amazing lot of fun we've already had from this category. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the statement "This category should be empty" was automaticaaly added to the original page, when I moved it to the new name. Unexpected Wiki-effects! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "This category should be empty"-statement; maybe it works. Maybe it's illegal to do so; we'll see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thank you little user. Bishzilla and little Joshua most likely both end up blocked over all this illegal fun. Also little Floquenbeam who try to outwit bot.[47] bishzilla ROARR!! 14:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Naughty, naughty Dougweller too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love Kindergarten! Have a look at Template:Haf's decoration service! It now includes a tag for the original category! when you use the userbox at your talkpage, at a convenient place where it is not automatically archived, the category will remain at the talkpage when threads are being archived. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But userboxes usually go on the userpage, not the talk page. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mwa... I've seen several talkpages with userboxes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mmm[edit]

Category:Yogacara[edit]

Why do you add the Category:Yogacara to seemingly unrelated articles like Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra‎ or Zen? JimRenge (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I followed the links in the Yogacara article... Please correct me if I'm wrong - unless I mess-up too much. I came to Yogacara by working on Nondualism, and adding categories on Category: Nondualism and Category:Advaita (Advaita, not Advaita Vedanta). NB: as far as I know, Zen was also influenced by Yogacara; the Lankavatara-sutra plays an important role, though it may be a matter of dispute to which degree the Lanka is Yogacara. I hope this answers your question.
Ok, but where do you see the connection with the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra‎, one of the Pure Land scriptures? JimRenge (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge: Yogacara#Sutras: "Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE)." (A Concise History of Buddhism by Andrew Skilton, Windhorse Publications: 2004. ISBN 904766926). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to check the source; not accessible in Google Books. But see also University of Hawai'i Press, The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra / The Surangama Samadhi Sutra: "The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra is one of the earliest Mahayana sutras and influenced the development of Prajnaparamita, Pure Land, and Yogacara philosophies." Ah, I love looking for sources! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless Hindus, clueless secularists[edit]

One of my secularist friends got very upset when I called the Indian secularists "clueless." But one of the consequences of this cluelessness is that there is no respectable discipline of Religious Studies in India. Any talk of religion in the school or college is called an anathema. Hence, the only knowledge of Hinduism that our Hindu friends have is what their fathers told them, who in turn know... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tangut people[edit]

JJ, do you agree with this edit to Tangut people? [48] CorinneSD (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tangut state" seems to be synonymous with "Western Xixia," as may be induced from the context, so I guess it's okay. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan[edit]

Hello, Joshua - Is this edit to Rajasthan correct? [49] CorinneSD (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not according to Kautilya3. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know. But it is the responsibility of the editor making the change to make the case. It is listed in the category of states "established" in 1956. So, that is that. (By the way, I am reading the Political integration of India to understand the exact sequence of events.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A favour?[edit]

I've added the top icons back to Hafs user page but I seem to have messed up the images? On my main computer screen the icons are drifting on to the images ... would you be able to fix it, please? It's beyond my technical abilities. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it used to be, wasn't it? I think that the template has to be adapted. I'll give it a try. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless. That is, maybe it will work if everything is put an a table with variable columns and rows; but that would take a looooooooot of work. Why not just leave it this way? "Het past bij hun," doesn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.Josh I don't know what you have done, but please restore it as it was before, like Phil put it - because I can't get rid of it . I don't like those stars in the boxes. Sigh, ok fixed. Hafspajen (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for trying, Joshua; messing about with images is something I'm absolutely hopeless at - and I'm not much better with templates! At least we know that Hafs is watching over us ... ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're secretly tempting them to come back to editing...! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IVC news[edit]

Hi Joshua, check out these latest edits [50]. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... Those '7,500 years old' sites are actually simple neolithic settlements; far removed in time and sophistication from the Harappan civilisation. This fellow editor seems to be somewhat smarter than other POV-pushers; he's a POV-twister. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I fell off my chair laughing! Are you sure the Hakra ware culture is stone age? Why would they have lived in pits? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I left a note about these edits on the article article talkpage a few minutes back. Input welcome. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: no, Im not sure; it's what I remember from last year, when these 'ancient origins' were also discussed, and it was pointed-out that the Harappan Civilisation cannot be equated that easily (or naive) with the earliest settlements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verification request[edit]

Would you please verify recent changes (diff) on Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex article? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, though maybe a littke bit opiniated. @Florian Blaschke, Dbachmann, and Paul Barlow: What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the archaeology to give a fully informed opinion – although according to my understanding of these things, it is completely possible and even probable for an ethnic group to migrate and discard their material culture while adopting that of their new home, and especially in a case like this where a nomadic culture overwhelms or infiltrates a sedentary culture, it makes complete sense that this would happen (and I suspect has historical precedent in the region – the medieval Turkification of large parts of Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau). So it's no biggie, it's not a surprise, it's even to be expected, I think.
I have an issue with the following quote:

Not a single artifact of Andronovo type has been identified in Iran or in northern India, but there is ample evidence for the presence of Bactrian Margiana materials on the Iranian Plateau and in Baluchistan. It is impossible, however, to trace the continuity of these materials into the 1st millennium and relate them to the known cultures of Iranian-speakers—the Medes or the Achaemenids [1]

What does "these materials" refer to? Andronovo or BMAC materials? The syntactic content implies BMAC, but the text evidently goes on assuming Andronovo, which also makes more sense logically. Lamberg-Karlovsky simply phrased this one in an unfortunate way, I think. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (2002). Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians. Current Anthropology 43(1): pp. 63–88.

Ramachandra Guha[edit]

Hi Joshua, here is a nice talk by Ramachandra Guha, one of India's best historians: [51]. It is a bit slow going, but nice to watch over lunch/dinner. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is History literature or Social Science" - intriguing title! Thanks; I'll listen to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indic characters[edit]

Hiya. Do you by any chance yourself read Indic characters well enough to be able to proofread a work which uses a lot of them, or might you know someone else around here who does? My reason for asking is that I have just started a page listing some PD sources which are included in the bibliographies of articles in the most recent Encyclopedia of Religion, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library, and find that there are a lot of articles from old encyclopedias included in the bibliographies of Buddhist articles, many of which use a lot of such characters, or other Oriental characters. I could try to start "proofreading" them for inclusion at wikisource, in a way which would make them fairly clearly easily accessible to anyone here, but I'm afraid I wouldn't have a clue about some of the Indic characters involved, and would probably need someone else to make sure the right ones are used. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't ... Maybe you should ask at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics; several people there do read Indic languages and characters. Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harverrors script[edit]

Hi Joshua, please put these lines in your common.js file: 

 importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

 window.checkLinksToCitations = false;

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. I've followed a series of links, and I think I prefer not to install the code, but check the faults, when they appear. I so found this explanation at Template:Harvard citation documentation#How to use:
In the references section (or in an earlier footnote):
{{cite book or cite journal, etc | ref=harv | ... other appropriate parameters ... }}
or
{{citation | ... other appropriate parameters ... }} (|ref=harv is not required when using {{Citation}})
Didn't know that, about adding harv to the source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, probably my fault. I added ref=harv to the citations en masse on some of your big pages. So you probably didn't realize. The IVC page shows some errors. If all that is missing are the harv tags, I can fix them.
I am curious. How do you maintain all these references? Do you have huge bibliography files on your machines locally? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You never noticed? I'm surprised! User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Hello, Joshua. I notice you've been helping to archive Corinne's talk page, or at least that's what it seems. I wonder if you could do the same for me. Archiving is one of those things I get worse at every time I do it. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou[edit]

You took time and added neatness in my infobox, similarly guide me for my future edits, if u find any errors then point out or show me the correct path which caters to wikipedia policies Ankush 89 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do "guidances" anymore, but if you've got questions, or need any help, just ask me. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India - A Sacred Geography[edit]

Hi Joshua, I think you will enjoy this book review. Natarajan, Kalathmika. "India: A Sacred Geography by Diana L. Eck (Review Essay)". Strategic Analysis. 37 (3): 366–371. doi:10.1080/09700161.2013.782665. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim is that this "sacred geography" defined India as a nation and "Hindu" as an identity long before the advent of modern nation-states and the modern "Hinduism". One might even claim that this was the right kind of nation and the right kind of identity, whereas the modern identity gave rise to abominations like Hindutva. The reviewer, however, doesn't seem to make these distinctions. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice coincidence. I've just been watching a documentary, together with my daughter, on the Ganges. Yours is a fascinating country. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this [52] the documentary? It has rave reviews! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was "Simon Reeve's Sacred Rivers." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes[edit]

A few days ago I read the article on Hermes. I had found an error in a sentence in the etymology section and asked Kwamikagami to correct it. Today, I realized he had corrected it, so I was re-reading the etymology section and I saw an interesting sentence. It's the last sentence in the section Hermes#Etymology:

  • It is also suggested that Hermes is cognate of the Vedic Sarama.

Then I decided to look at the article on Sarama. In the section Sarama#Etymology and epithets I see that Sarama is described as "the runner", "the fleet one", and as being "fair-footed" and "quick". All of those would support the idea that the name Hermes is cognate with "Sarama". I'm wondering if you think it would make sense to include, somewhere in the article on Sarama, a mention of Hermes. I wouldn't know how to word it or what references to use, though. CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely makes sense. Indian and European mythology share several gods and mythological beings. Unfortunately, I can't recall any names now, apart from something with Mare (folklore) (nightmares). For references, just use Google, preferably Google Books. Hope that works. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reference: Debroy, Bibek (2008). Sarama and her Children: The Dog in the Indian Myth. Penguin Books India. p. 77. ISBN 0143064703.. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs also play a role with the Sravaka's (if I remember the term correctly), and are related to the Indo-Europeans. But where did I read that?... Oh, blissfull loss of memory! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha Feedback[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I read your message on my talk-page and thought I'd respond on your talk-page, you've obviously given the reversion of my edits some thought and I'm absolutely fine with that. I understand that Wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia and thus objectivity matters... All of the accounts and and quotes that I added were from the Theravada Pali Canon and I've read somewhere that those are the earliest known accounts of the historical Buddhas life... Nonetheless, your point about leaving certain interpretations to the scholars is well taken.. And I'm certainly not a buddhist scholar, just a curious person.

I find those accounts and those texts to be beautiful in their straightforwardness and in the way in which one almost gets transported twenty five centuries back in time to this very interesting period of time in India... Either way that's my subjective opinion and I shouldn't muddle my personal views and inclinations with what is supposed to be objective, encyclopedic content contribution to Wikipedia. Be that as it may, I read your message and I wish you all the best in your continued wikipedia endeavors! 16:53, 23 April 2015‎ Msundqvist

Further response to your thoughts; I've spent many, many hours in my life reading and studying the Pali Canon(although I actually don't consider myself a buddhist, just a person who likes to learn), especially the Sutta Pitaka, and some of your observations are certainly new to me... I tend to think of these different accounts (supposedly uttered by the "Sakyamuni" himself) as sort of different pieces to a puzzle that together somehow make a whole.. This is a deep topic of discussion and there's a lot of detail here that perhaps matters, it seems to me, regardless, your considerations are interesting. Out of all of the philosophies and religions that I've studied in my life, "Buddhism" or the "Dhamma" (perhaps among others) seems very open to personal (on an individual basis) reflection and analysis, and I've no doubt that people will continue to analyze it and think about these things in the future as they do in the present. Take care! 17:05, 23 April 2015‎ Msundqvist

Hi Msundqvist, thanks for your response! Really, for curiosity's sake, read Bronkhorst's "The two Traditions", chapter eight, with the Majjhima Nikaya in hand, to closely read MN 26 and MN 36. It's intriguing, how the interpolaton of the four truths reveals some crucial developments in Buddhist thought. If you like, also read Gombrich's "The Conditioned Genesis," chapter four, on dhyana versus insight. It's essential for understanding not only Buddhism, but also Yoga and Advaita Vedanta, and even neo-Advaita and pop-buddhism: does 'a flash of insight' suffice, or is there more to be discovered and integrated? Roller-coaster spirituality, aiming for a good feeling, versus real-life spirituality, aiming for a real life in which pain, failure and disillusionment can have it's proper place. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: don't forget to sign with ~~~~. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez[edit]

I was looking at the latest edits to Hafez. Is this correct [53], or was it correct to say "Persia (now Iran)"? Also, if you look at one or two edits before this one, you will see that blog websites have been added; there's a list of several. Are all of those websites appropriate? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, at Gautama Buddha we always say "Kapilavastu, present-day Nepal." So, from that point of view, the edit is not correct. If the blogs are used as sources, that may be problematic. If they are merely external links, that may be okay, if they provide correct info, or a relevant point of view. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for "brilliantly" copyediting my recent edit. Kudos! Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! "Brilliantly" means you like it, I hope? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes at Pratītyasamutpāda[edit]

Greetings Joshua! How are you doing these days? :-) Anyway, I noticed that in order to shorten the article Pratītyasamutpāda, you resorted to replacing some of the material with Notes that include sources as well. I remember there was an article with a similar solution that I edited, Oddfellows (old version, see references 1 and 2), and when I asked an experienced editor Cullen328 about the matter, his opinion was that each source should be pertained to separately (here's the specific diff, and here's the discussion in whole). This, of course, is not according to any existing policy, guideline - nor an administrative opinion - but that just caught my attention.

I'm also in a strong favor of summarizing the article, so I am not making any objections with regards to your recent edits. But citations within citations (/notes), that's what I got curious about.... :-P

Any thoughts? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over-extensive usage of quotations; most of them I moved to notes (quotes), to get them out of first sight. Of course info should be properly sourced, but that's a next step. For the moment, shortening was my main concern. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that. I recently included a quotation to the {{citation}} template at the Gyaincain Norbu article[54]. Perhaps some of the smaller quotations could be replaced that way? That's how we could kill two birds with one stone without requiring a separate Notes -reference. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osho's exclusion from you[edit]

Hi... Kindly explain the exclusion of Osho's contribution to the Ten Bulls... The reference of the book was also cited... How is it undue weight?

Dilara.adim Dilara.adim (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osho's comment "We enter on a rare pilgrimage. The Ten Bulls of Zen are something unique in the history of human consciousness... The Ten Bulls of Zen have tried in a single effort to express the inexpressible." doesn't add any information to the article, only the opinion of a non-Zen guru, which is not relevant here. See also [55]. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First - You really have some inexperience when you mention Osho as a "non-Zen guru". It is for sure that you have very little or no idea of what you are mentioning. Osho has more than 50 titles contributed to Zen. Does somebody have to be born in Japan to be a Zen master? Osho comments on many Zen masters and it is known that some current Zen people in Japan have been reading his books.
Second - His comments do add info to the article... It adds that there is more to be known about the Ten Bulls in modern understanding. Something to be done about them... Some use in daily life... Otherwise the article is just useless and scholarly.
Explain your actions... I can send you the list of titles on Zen and you can make out yourself if its needed...
Dilara.adim (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of Osho's stuff about a quarter century ago; that was enough to know that I didn't want to know more about him or his talks. And no, somebody does not have to be born in Japan to be a Zen-master - but he does have to be qualified, which means, trained and acknowledged in a Japanese lineage, which is not the case with Osho. Commenting on Zen is not sufficient to qualify, nor is being read in Japan(ese).
His comments do not add info to the article; not on the topic, not even on Osho himself. They are not even correct: the Ten Bulls are not unique; they are not an attempt to express the inexpressible (they promote the practice of meditation, and describe the wat to be journeyed; and what does "in a single effort" mean?
So, as far as I can see, your additions are, at best, aimed at promoting Osho. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer[edit]

Looks like all the students are coming back to the Wikipedia for summer holidays. Brace yourself for another round of battles... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already noticed some new accounts, though, to my surprise, they also include critical editors. Well, we'll see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian god of war[edit]

I read the article on Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski. In the section Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski#St. Petersburg to China there is a red-linked term, "Kangchendzönga, the Mongolian god of war". I searched in the article on Mongolia, then the article on Religion in Mongolia, for any information on this. From the latter article, I got to an article titled Mongolian shamanism, and from there, an article titled Tngri, about the traditional Mongolian gods. Can you see anything in these articles that might be this particular god of war, perhaps with a different spelling? If you put "Mongolian god of war" in the search bar, it mentions several articles. I don't have the energy to research those now. I was just trying to find a justifiable link so that the term doesn't have to remain a red link. CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on Kangchendzönga at the German Wikipedia; it's a mountain with five peaks, located in Nepal and Sikkim. This is what Face Music - Projects - Tsam Dance Mongolia - Traditional Dance of Buddhists - History has to say about it:
"In the Himalaya state of Sikkim there may be found a rather unique situation in regard of the masques of Lamaism. There also warriors with swords appear on stage in masques. Their God of War is the spirit of the Mountain God "Kangchendzönga", consisting of a group of five peaks (the local populations simply calls them tiger, lion, horse, dragon, and garuda). This mighty mountain god, daily presenting himself in a large scale to the population, is offered sacrifices and worship on a yearly basis."
The English article has got an section on Kangchenjunga#In myth. And here's a pdf on the mountain god. The info itself, in the article, is from this blurb, and is copied at several dozens of websites. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beckwith[edit]

I see that Beckwith is the only one claiming that the Indo-Aryan tribes were chased by the Iranians. Since it is an extra-ordinary claim and we don't have multiple sources for it, I think we should remove it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, good idea. May I leave it to you? By the way, did you read Rambachan's reply to Malhotra? Rambachan is not only a professor, but also studied three years with Swami Dayanand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will clean up the Beckwith stuff.

Advaita?[edit]

As for Rambachan, I did read at least one screenful of his response, and also some of the comments from the readers, some of which seemed well-informed. The best I can make out is that it is a factional fight between different schools of Advaita, which ended up being politicised. Though Malhotra is highly polemical and tiresome, I think his general point might be valid, viz., that an analysis of Hinduism by non-practising Western scholars is likely to be incomplete. The fault of course lies with India. It didn't develop a Religious Studies discipline of its own.
Note, however, that the cheerleaders of Malhotra are hardly interested in theology. They are simply nationalists who are happy for somebody to be shooting down the Western scholars. So, it is really a political fight, made to look like a theological one. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, "a factional fight between different schools of Advaita"? Malhotra is an admirerer of Vivekananda; although Vivekananda may have his merits on his own, his interpretation of the Advaita Vedanta tradition is not in line with that tradition. it's closer to tantra and bhedabheda than it is to Advaita. Nothing wrong wit that; actually, I prefer it above classical Advaita. But it's not Advaita. And that's what Malhotra beliefs: Vvekananda is Advaita.
Malhotra also beliefs in an artificial "unity" of the Hindu-tradition. Well, Yoga is not Advaita either; dhyana and insight are two different approaches, though they're closely intertwined. One could write a history of Indian thought & practice, both Hindu and Buddhist, based on the opposites of dhyana & insight, and "essentialism" (samkhya, Advaita, Buddha-nature, Dharmakaya) versus sunyata. If you really want to understand Indian thought & practice, you have to be aware of those strands, and of the irreconcilabilities implied in those two approaches, and of the antonomies within the various traditions, including Buddhism. After all, it's all construed by humans, isn't it? There's a famous saying by Kuitert, a Dutch theologian: "Al het spreken over boven komt van beneden" ("All statements about above come from below"). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the "unity" of Hinduism is what is at issue, then I side with Malhotra. The traditions are not as strong as the theologians imagine. They grow up around particular gurus and lines of gurus. The vast majority of Hindus don't belong to any particular tradition. Or, they might mix and match the traditions depending on what appeals to them. In this case, Ramakrishna did the mixing and matching. And Vivekananda did his own interpretation of Ramakrishna based on what he believed in. This is quintessential Hinduism if you ask me. Whether it should be called Advaita or not is not a very pertinent question to most Hindus. So, sorry, once again Hinduism confounds the theologian! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should also note that Hinduism has been "democratised" a lot since Sankara's time. I don't know exactly know how Hinduism was practised at that time, but I would imagine that an ordinary Hindu didn't do much more than go to temples and listen to gurus. But the bhakti movement that developed afterwards put the religion in the hands of the individual quite independently of the gurus. So, the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda variety of advaita is something that can be combined with bhakti and practised during everyday life in everything one does. But the underlying principle is still the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you may have a point here. Like Dutch atheists going to church ar Christmas, and buying a Christmas tree. Nevertheless, I still think that Malhotra is too one-sided in his aims, and misrepresents the Advaita-tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that. Malhotra is angry and polemical. I find him tiresome myself. However, the general idea of practitioners objecting to the scholars' views is a valid one. It can't be delegitimized. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I didn't get the analogy with the Dutch atheists (who might be an apt response to Guy Macon, by the way). The point is that Advaita is not necessarily what Sankara says it is. He coined the term, but he always maintained that he was just squeezing out what was in the Upanishads. So other people can do their own squeezing out. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the actual practice of people may be at odds with the theologians. Most Dutch are atheists; they'll reject any kind of theology. Nevertheless, the churches are packed at Christmas Eve. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thing is perfectly normal for an Indian. It is only a Western misconception that religion means 'faith'. (I am probably sounding increasingly like Rajiv Malhotra :-). Kautilya3 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Ghatus thought I was being pompous. But the point is that religion means community, common culture, sense of belonging, maintenance of social order and, of course, ideas about God and afterlife. Asians continue to understand religion in this broad sense. Post-enlightenment Westerns have narrowed down religion to 'faith' so that they can wrest control of all other aspects into the 'secular' domain. The battle in India is primarily between the secularists, who take after the post-Enlightenment ideology, and the conservative Hindutva-wadis who want to cling on to the traditions. I am increasingly thinking that the Hindu-Muslim conflict is essentially a side show. If we took the secularists out of the equation, the Hindu-Muslim conflict would have been solved by now. The real conflict is between tradition and modernity. That is a much deeper conflict. This is sort of where Ashis Nandy comes into the picture. He seems to the only one that understands this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting analysis. The interest of westerners in Indian religions has a lot to do with the "loss of tradition": a longing to go back to a lost certainty. God is gone, but Buddhism and Hinduism provide another "certainty." Ha! Nagarjuna is not well-known, and who cares to read Shankara? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar[edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
you are one of the Tireless Contributors ever.cheers.Eshwar.omTalk tome 23:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eshwar. Nevertheless, let me use the opportunity to urge you to take serious those people who are concerned about your edits. I also think that your intentions are good, but that the edits themselves are often problematic. I think you're a nice guy, and I'd hate to see you offended by these criticisms. So, myadvice: take them serious, listen to those people, and consider what's best to do. Nobody's perfect; that's a painfull truth, but it applies to everyone. And perfect people don't become wise, I guess; only imperfect people do. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example: you thanked me 12 times for my edit at Kashmor Shaivism. How come? I was just going to search for info on "performal intelligence" (I seem to have a discrepancy between cognitive intelligence and performal intelligence); the topic may be of interest to you too. Take care, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert[edit]

The revert happened by mistake. I am still trying to figure out how WP:TW works. So, it happened accidentally. I have decided not to use WP:TW till I have the full command of it.Ghatus (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. No hard feelings, of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google books links[edit]

Do chime in at Talk:Vajravārāhī. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oroqen or Oroch?[edit]

Hello, Joshua -- I was just reading the article on the Great Khingan, and in the last paragraph of the history section, there was a link to Orochon. I clicked on the link and it led to a disambiguation page at Oroqen. Since the first item was to a people, and the second and third to a language, I figured it was the first one that was meant. I skimmed that article. Then I fixed the link in the Greater Khingan article to Orochon. However, then I saw at the beginning of the Oroqen people article, "not to be confused with the Oroch", which led to an article about the Oroch people, another name for whom is Orochons. I still think the link leading to Oroqen people is right because it says that the Oroqen and Evenk people can understand each other, but why would the Greater Khingan article use the spelling of Orochon at all if that's not the right group of people? Can you figure this out? CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a spelling mistake, or a different spelling. I've corrected it, and added some info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Druze[edit]

Are you watching the article on the Druze? What do you think of this edit? [56]. CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be made by someone who knows what they are writing about. Removing "Buddhism" from the lead is indicative; Buddhism does not seem to be the most likely influence to me. What are your concerns here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cendol[edit]

Do you agree with this edit to Cendol? [57] Do you agree with the edit summary? I don't think the adjective "wormlike" is necessarily negative, do you? I think it's just descriptive of a shape. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tja... A matter of preference? You could start a discussion on it; I understand the association with worms. But if we take Wiki-policies literally, it should be sourced form reliable, secondary sources. But, Wiki-policies also say to use common-sense. NB: the source also speaks of worms. Maybe some research on the term jendol? See also Google translate.
[A few minutes later] Okay, I did; I've done some copy-editing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padmasambhava[edit]

Padmasambhava was almost certainly a historical person - Robert Meyer and others have done quite a lot of research on him based on Dunhuang manuscripts and other early documents which pre date the Padmasambhava of termas, visions and legends - Which is often said to have started with the terma of Nyangral Nyima Ozer. Also see: Herbert V. Guenther's The Teachings of Padmasambhava. Cfynn (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa[edit]

Ahimsa works [58]. Hey!

What do you think of today's massive edit at History of Peshawar? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! And: that's a very long single edit for an IP. Either someone with expert-knowledge, or someone who's already familiair with Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or, somebody that deliberately logged out to make the edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a nice bottle of champagne for our new admin [59]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OIT again[edit]

I think we need to beef up the criticism of the OIT in various places such as this [60]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koenraad Elst was cleaned-up extensively a couple of months ago. Actually, given the overwhelming support for these theories in India, it's surprising how little attempts there are at the moment to rewrite history, or Wikipedia. Though, of course, they all give up very soon, or get blocked. But yes, there probably are more places with incorrect info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan[edit]

Hi Joshua, if you want to see what I have been busy with recently, please check Battle of Rajasthan, which was essentially a Hindutva page before. It was a lot of hard work to figure out the content, but I greatly enjoyed it! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battles... That's another level of detail, yet also more concrete. Yes, quite some differences; good work! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megallurgical nationalism[edit]

So we have a yet another front of the nationalists to deal with: [61]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess before I take a look: the introduction of iron. Remember Mao and the "Great Leap Forward": everyone had to build a forge, and throw in all tools, to raise the production of metal. Unfortunately, the "newly produced" metal was of an inferior quality. Now, let's have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

THIS is an extract from the book "Authenticating Tibet".VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza threats[edit]

Hmm. In the midst of all the serious stuff that we do here on Wikipedia, here are some chuckles: I am being threatened (I think) with Pizza! - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, according to you, what will be the result of my ANI and what possible "punishment" I can get? How much days it takes usually to declare result? Because its been long since my ID is reported there. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the admins are overloaded, and they are not able to deal with issues promptly. Sometimes, issues get archived without any result. If I were an admin, I would close it with a warning to you to desist from edit-warring and from WP:POINTy editing. But I am not an admin :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But my id is not reported there for edit warring, main complains of Mar4d are "alleged hounding" and creation of alleged "attack" redirects. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 22:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway Kautilya3, you can see this. The person who accuses everyone for canvasing, see what he had done long ago. I just replied him now. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the hounding issue. It is very hard to prove it. If the other guy gave some concrete instances, the admin should be able to check whether you already had them on your watch list. If so, you should be fine. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Buddhism special?[edit]

Hi Joshua, Template:Religion_and_politics has fascism articles for all religions except Hinduism and Buddhism. Is that reasonable? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Buddhists are infallible! ;) But of course you won't believe me, and you are a reasonable man, so there must be some merit in your comment. A quick Google-search gives hits for Sri Lanka, Japan (Zen at War), Tibet, Myanmar. Let's make soem friends and create an article... I'll leave "Hindu fascism" to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the Hindus and Buddhists are good at propaganda (though I am not making an effort to equate them). And, the Western scholars treat them with kid gloves. But, my feeling is that the Hindu idea of dharma is a fundamentally fascist concept. There is no way I can WP:PROVEIT though. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may indeed be a more lenient treatment of Buddhism by Western secular academics, perhaps in part because such academics are made particularly uncomfortable by theism, find it easy to uncritically scapegoat theism, and see Buddhism as exempt from theism. The same can't be said for attitudes to Hinduism, and FWIW my sense of the relation between dharma and fascism is very different than Kautilya's, although I wouldn't deny the possibility that some late 20th century interpretations might push the construct in that direction.

But leaving that aside, if one were to try to write an article on Buddhism and fascism, a place to start might be this book by Brian Daizen Victoria (1997): Zen at War. Excerpt from Wikipedia article: "A famous quote is from Harada Daiun Sogaku: '[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]'" -- the war effort to which he is referring being the Japanese 'fascist' effort in the second world war. --Presearch (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that Jonathan was already on top of the Brian Victoria citation higher in this thread. Another potentially relevant reference (to the extent that fascism is discussed) is: Michael K. Jerryson & Mark Juergensmeyer (2010). Buddhist warfare New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press OCLC 515539074 --Presearch (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Presearch, you're following my talkpage? Nice surprise. Yes, Brian Victoria... I've seen Buddhist responses to it, crying out in denial... Just like all those sex-scandals: 'it can't be us!' Oh yes it can...
Thanks for the link; didn't know that one. The fifth Dalai Lama still stirs controversy; he must have ruined a lot.
By the way: several classical Advaita texts add dhyana to the fourfold discipline and the 'listening, pondering, meditation' series; so Vivekananda was elaborating on an already existing tradition. Point granted to you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, we've also got Buddhism and violence. Ogress is currently having some heated discussions there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Please see [62] JimRenge (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, he seems to gather a lot of support! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I don't check my wikipedia email regularly since it isn't connected to my RL email account. I do check it when I am in an active conversation but not otherwise. Amitrochates (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the coin[edit]

Now that we seem to have eliminated all the Hindu nationalists from Wikipedia, we might have destroyed the delicate ecological balance of POV pushing. So, this summer, we have to deal with the Pakistani nationalists ourselves. Here is a start: Talk:Mukti_Bahini#RfC:_Should_the_revelations.2Fadmission_by_Prime_Minister_Modi_be_included_in_the_article.3F. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa?[edit]

I thought Buddhists believed in ahimsa [63]. This is the third time! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Buddhist modernism. You should read "Taming of the Demons: Violence and Liberation in Tibetan Buddhism".VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this should be discusses at the appropriate talkpage... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I know nothing about Bhajans, but I'm getting curious of course. And Brian Victoria's Zen at War and the essays by Stuart Lachs are a nice supplement to "Taming of the Demons"; the Buddhist demons tend to be quite untamed once and a while (or on a regular base). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it should be discussed at the appropriate talk page. That is what "ahimsa" means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha[edit]

Please consider to roll back to a version before he began to edit. (pending revisions) JimRenge (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, cat: Hindu philosophers? JimRenge (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised too, but the Buddha is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu. En ach, what's the difference? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugata Buddha[edit]

See Sugata Buddha.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit war here.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger suggestion[edit]

Might I suggest that in the middle of a tremendous talk page war is probably not the best time to suggest page mergers?

Also, you need to follow protocol to suggest them; I only happened to see the suggestion because I am actively reading the talk page. Protocol exists for a reason: it enables people who aren't currently engaged in an intense talk page session to see that there is a merger suggestion. It has templates and everything. Ogress smash! 01:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ogress, hard worker! There are templates, so what's the rest of everything? Should have posted the proposal on some bulletin-boards? Regarding the "talk page war": what a fuzz... The energy should be spent on finding sources and improving the article. Nevertheless, there is discussion, instead of personal attacks and persistent deafness. Great improvement (no sarcasm here!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga[edit]

Hi, Why are you deleting the edits on Yoga page? How are my additions to Yoga page unconstructive edits. I can clearly see there is missing information so I'm adding reliable information. 1987sagarkaul (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Sagar[reply]

"Reliable" is the question here; it's non-neutral and WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are general comments on the Yoga article:

I'll have a look at is comments again; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: what's the difference between raja yoga and the Yoga Sutras? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you already gave the source. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mallinson says that raja yoga originally meant "the ultimate aim of yoga (which is usually samadhi) and not a means of attaining it". See here.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Somewhat similar to Ati/Dzogchen, qua change in meaning? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change of meaning for raja yoga was much more recent.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious. A thousand years ... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Keeping articles factual and neutral despite the efforts of enthusiasts from various camps is a thankless task, sometimes - doubly so when you get accusations hurled at you. You're doing a good job, and I admire the way you keep your cool. bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: thanks! Highly appreciated! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion involving you in ANI[edit]

Hi, I have created a discussion on the recent issues regarding Caste system in India in ANI and specifically reported suspicious behavior of concerted behavior of a group of editors including you. Have a look. Regards. ABTalk 08:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga[edit]

Please prove me wrong at Joshua !! I have attached the references too !! Yoga is not Indian as India has many religions and Yoga is only specific to Hinduism. It was later adopted by other religions however which does not make it Buddhist or Jainism. I also add proof/references can't you see. Stop editing and making it sound like Yoga is Indian as it has nothing to do with an Indian passport or any other religion of India. 06:52, 25 June 2015‎ User:Vikramadityachandel

Plenty of sources there; you're disruptive, please stop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua show me how Yoga is Indian and not Hindu ? Why are you doing this ? Please reply !! I just mentioned reference from Bahgvat Gita and Vedas the oldest books in which Yoga has been explained. Stop editing and sending wrong information !!
What? Saying Yoga is Indian doesn't mean it is "non-Hindu." There is no conflict between "Indian" and "Hindu." You would call something "Hindu" (as opposed to Indian) only if it is not shared by Buddhism and Jainism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work![edit]

Seraphim of Sarov
"You cannot be too gentle, too kind. Shun even to appear harsh in your treatment of each other. Joy, radiant joy, streams from the face of him who gives and kindles joy in the heart of him who receives. All condemnation is from the devil. Never condemn each other. We condemn others only because we shun knowing ourselves. When we gaze at our own failings, we see such a swamp that nothing in another can equal it. That is why we turn away, and make much of the faults of others. Instead of condemning others, strive to reach inner peace. Keep silent, refrain from judgment. This will raise you above the deadly arrows of slander, insult and outrage and will shield your glowing hearts against all evil." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu people[edit]

Hello JJ, I was wondering if you agreed with this edit to Ainu people. Is the addition necessary? [64] CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpfull; a lot of people may not knwo what "Russian Orthodox" refers to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbows & Amazing Grace[edit]

File:Obama Hope Poster Shepard Fairey.jpg
Hope and grace

Rainbow House * Rainbow States * Over the Rainbow * Blinded by Rainbows * Amazing Grace. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

This is a courtesy post to mention that I have commented on your editing at the talk page of Adi Shankara at ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Joshua_Jonathan Soham321 (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:DONTGETIT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also User_talk:Philg88#Appeal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the subject of an ArbCom discussion[edit]

{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette Soham321 (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hi Joshua, thanks for reverting the talk page of the Adi Shankara article to the original headers and edit placements. I would also like to apologize for reverting you on the talk page. In retrospect i should have tried to convince you on your talk page not to do what you were doing failing which i should have gone for Dispute Resolution--without reverting you. Soham321 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted; you're welcome. Take care to count to 10 once and a while (you can practice this at a meditation-cushion ;)). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Soham321: Welcome to the club of humble Wikipedians. I am sure you won't regret it! All the best. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though it would help if he didn't break 3RR at Adi Shankara. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, he's learning. That's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Samkhya[edit]

Joshua, could you take a look at the last 3 edits at Samkhya? I am irritated by the misleading edit summaries but I don´t feel competent to decide if these edits should be reverted. JimRenge (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already reverted/solved by Ms Sarah Welch. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a day, what a day... Montanabw, is this the summer-solistice madness? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, there is a working theory that "teh wiki" is imploding in a battle between content creators and trolls. Beware of geeks bearing gifts, that's all I can say! Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Etiquette arbitration case has been declined[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: see also this case: Amendment request: Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen (July 2015). The "me" is not JJ! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hindu philosophy[edit]

@JJ: What are your thoughts on reverting the template back to the time when you started the RfC? Changes there or to the proposal may confuse potential voters/commentators to the RfC. We can play with the draft in its sandbox page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Actually, I'd expected some comments at the talkpage; I was surprised nobody responded. I'll take care of it. Take it easy; Wikipedia can be stressfull. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carvaka article[edit]

Hi JJ, I am puzzled with @Mohanbhan behavior on the Carvaka article. Along with a series of reverts, he has changed my text in my edits on the talk page here. It seems related to the template on Hindu philosophy RfC, because Carvaka is in that template. Suggestions on how to best proceed? Thanks for your guidance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eithesome intervention/mediation by an admin, for example Abecedare, or WP:DRN. It's ironic, though, that Mohanbhan is not aware of the usual POV-fights at Hinduism-related articles, and seems to think that we are somehow in favor of an orthodox/Brahmanical POV. Otherwise, give it break for a while. The Tantra-article could still use a better history-section. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Is Yoga Hindu?: Pre-20th-century Islamic Yogis[edit]

JJ, this paper may interest you, and seems, at least at the moment, freely available: Nicholson, Andrew J. (15 August 2013). "Is Yoga Hindu?: On the Fuzziness of Religious Boundaries" (PDF). Common Knowledge. 19 (3): 490–505. doi:10.1215/0961754x-2281792. Here's a rather interesting excerpt from page 499:

when we look at the ways that yoga was described in texts between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries in northern India, it is remarkable how frequently we find forms of what we now think of as “Hindu yoga” mixed with the Islamic practices of the Sufis. There appears to have been impetus to traverse this boundary from both sides.... In the British census of 1891... under the heading “miscellaneous and disreputable vagrants,” 38,137 “Muhammadan Jogis” (yogis) were enumerated in the province of Punjab alone; more than 17 percent of the yogis counted in the census were Muslim. By 1921, the number of Muslim yogis counted in the census had fallen to less than 5 percent. What at first glance may have seemed a typographical error by a British official was actually more evidence for a well-established Islamic branch of yogis.

Regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's interesting. It reminds, of course, of the notion that northern India developed a HIndu-Islamic culture during the Islamic period; apparently our present-day understanding of "Hinduism" is thoroughly influenced by a specific understanding of it. @Ms Sarah Welch: you may find this paper interesting too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed. Sufi, however, were not the mainstream Islam in India from 12th century onwards. They were under the rulers from Sunni Islam, and Sufis just like Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas were all persecuted. Studying texts of this era is like studying texts of each side during the two World Wars. The word Hindu in the text of Islamic historians from the period Nicholson refers to, included Buddhist and Jaina. There is another interesting text on Hindu-Sufi interaction, if this part of their history interests you: William Pinch (2012), Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107406377. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; India is fascinating! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting quote from the paper linked by @Presearch,

[Yoga] was a project shared among diverse groups that we may retrospectively label “Hindu,” “Buddhist,” and “Jain,” along with other sects (...). As the influential historian Johannes Bronkhorst usefully reminds us, “The spiritual discipline yoga does not belong to any philosophical system, but may, or may not, get connected with a variety of philosophies, depending on the circumstances.” Neither Patanjali, nor the Buddhists, nor the Pasupatas suggested that yoga belonged only to one group. Yoga in classical India was like open-source software. It was distributed freely and modified by different authors, all competing to come up with the best version for liberation.

Nicholson and Bronkhorst are on to something bigger there. Not just yoga, their entire philosophical tradition and textual resources were "like open-source software. It was distributed freely and modified by different authors, all competing to come up with the best version for all sorts of knowledge." That may be one of the reasons why there are variations, missing text or insertions, in different Sanskrit manuscripts of the same title, over geography and over time. Just like open source software, it can be changed both ways - for polemics or for something constructive. Imagine 2000 years from now, people looking at different versions of wikipedia articles, trying to figure out who we were, and formulating what philosophies were prevalent in the early 21st century. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Yoga-comment, I feel the same is true for sunyata: it may be taught first by Madhyamaka, but it's something inherently human. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra[edit]

Hi JJ it seems that you have been making a major surgery to the article , here is some new outlook on the subject for you(page 37, second para), use it if you find it usefull! Shrikanthv (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Very kind to provide this source. It may be difficult, though, to use it directly, since it is a primary source, but is surely is a reminder of the importance of Tantra. Hinduism seems to be so much more than the Vedas, even primarily non-Vedic! Also, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan seem to be closer to Tantra than to Advaita Vedanta, as far as I can see. And, to be honest, I'd prefer a 'living, embodied tantrism' over a 'bloodless, abstract nondualism' (my phrasing). And Dakshinamurthy, yes! Both Shankara and Ramana Maharshi were regarded as incarations or avatars (is that the same?) of Dkashinamurti, right? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Tantric Hinduism is the most interesting, I must say... :3 Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, but you may have to know that both are essentially the same!, as the source claims "it is the self fullfillment of purusha through his energy" . and for that proclaim non-existence of free will and humans being controlled by outside circumstances, may be mastering/fullfillment of this outside circumstances (interms of "will") is Tantra Shrikanthv (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrikanthv: you mean that Advaita Vedanta and Tantra are the same, or that (Hatha) Yoga and tantra are the same? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different faces/sides of the same coin Shrikanthv (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrikanthv: did you ever read something about social-constructionism (Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy; Kenneth J. Gergen, chapter 1 of An Invitation to Social Construction)? The coin may be that we humans create our reality, by telling stories, studying texts and peforming rituals. Even Advaita Vedanta does do this, in contrast to what a lot of people think about it, as some sort of "spontaneous awakening." This proces is, of course, quite obvious for Tantra: performing (bodily) rituals which enact and invoke the correspondence between macrocosm and microcosm. Funnty "thing" is: social-constructionism, Advaita Vedanta and Tantra have a lot in common; they all say that our "ordinary world" is a construction. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMAC-IVC[edit]

The walking route between Altyndepe and Shortugai: [65]. Surely, they would have needed horses to cover this distance? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: great! If it's for a one-time voyage, why not walk? But for seasonal migrations, yes, horses may be very usefull. NB: did you realize that not only the IVC, but also the BMAC was in ruins by the time of the Indo-Aryan migrations?
No, apparently BMAC and IVC people were trading regularly. I don't see how the BMAC could have expanded to such a wide region without efficient transport. Shortugai was within the sphere of BMAC but apparently a trading post of the IVC. So, if the Indo-Aryans were Oxusized in the BMAC, they would then be moving to a friendly neighbouring civilization in India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moorjani et al. date the first ANI-ASI admixture event to 2,200 BC. This could have been part of the BMAC-IVC interaction. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Witzel proposes two waves of IA-migration/admixture in BMAC: a "little" one, during the BMAC, and a more massive one, at the end/after the BMAC height. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Is this mentioned in any of our articles? Which paper of Witzel? If the BMAC and IVC were already in contact before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans (or Indo-Iranians), then we need to explain how the Indo-Aryans suppressed two language families, that of the BMAC and that of the IVC. Things get more complicated. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex#Witzel's "would require". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed it was the paper, and read it during yesterday. I found it hard to understand. But the basic picture seems to be that the IE people settled at the fringes of BMAC in separate settlements, but managed to some aspects of the culture, religion and language of the BMAC. The larger influx of IE people happened after the BMAC went down around 1500 BC, and they inherited some of these aspects. Viewed in this way, it appears that the influence of BMAC on Indo-Iranians seems to be only marginal. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the idea of a "composite culture" between the BMAC and the Indo-Iranians seems questionable. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, Anthony does give a pretty clear picture of a composite culture. So, why is there an issue? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More from Anthony (p. 431-433). The Petrovka people established a copper mine at Tugai in 1900 BC, brought horses and chariots with them from back home, and probably fought and squeezed out the local BMAC people. They were also probably trading horses (with whom?) as noticed from the grave of a horse trader. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Andronovo pottery nor barrows typical of the steppe culture are found south of the line defined by the Kopet Dagh, Hindukush, and Pamir mountains. Yet, Aryan languages originally spoken in the northern steppes had reached Syria and South Asia by the middle of the second millennium.[1] So, the Indo-Aryans did the same thing to the BMAC people as they did to Late Harappans later, i.e., conquered them and assimilated them. These assimilated BMAC people would have been part of the "Indo-Aryans" that entered India. Even though nobody says it, the Iranians did apparently the opposite. If they had not split off from the Indo-Aryans earlier, they did so now, by hating the syncreticism of the Indo-Aryans so much so that their own former gods were now treated as evil beings! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parpola is great. Here it is in black-and-white: This find [the grave of the horse trader] suggests that Indo-Aryan speakers had come from the southern Urals and entered the ruling elite of the BMAC probably as early as the twentieth century BC.[2] - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parpola, Asko (2015-07-03). The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization (Kindle Locations 1577-1579). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
  2. ^ Parpola, Asko (2015-07-03). The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization (Kindle Locations 1621-1622). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Ghosts in Tibetan culture[edit]

Please see this AfD.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Hello, Joshua - I wonder if you could tell me whether reliable sources written in languages other than English are acceptable on the English Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to non-English sources are acceptable on the English Wikipedia. "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Please see WP:NONENG for the details. JimRenge (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez[edit]

These additions to the article on Hafez [66] seem to have been translated by an editor who is not completely fluent in English. Before I make an attempt to put it into Standard English, can you look to see whether it is appropriate and adequately sourced? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Hafez#Irony and sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

JJ, we're disagreeing a bit on the RM BLP talkpage, but I must say, now that Nicholson has entered the fray, I think that Malhotra's life is unlikely to be the same again. Some people can evolve through a polarized worldview to become more skilled at appreciating that there is often a good bit of truth on different sides of an issue. But other people live in a world that becomes more and more "siloed". Malhotra has shown a good bit of recognition in action of truths on other sides, but he simultaneously has a habit of demonizing people if they do certain things he doesn't like. But one can sometimes "go to the well once too often". Credibility of worldview wears ever thinner and becomes ever more difficult to deal with if angels turn into malevolent demons at the drop of a hat. While I obviously think we should still give Malhotra fair and balanced coverage, I am sorry to see his valid points be so much and seemingly increasingly obscured not merely by smear campaigns (of which there may likely be some), but also by consequences of his own mistakes. Regards --Presearch (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: goose skin... I was thinking of you last night, imagining that Malhotra's latest response might be a bridge too far for you, given your scholarly background. I'm sorry for this loss, if I may call it so.
It's good that you mention that Malhotra, in his world, is under enormous pressures, and that this may influence his responses (at least, that's what I'm also reading in your comment above). Yes, a fair and balanced coverage. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathan: Thanks. Now that you mention it, I am sure that Malhotra must be feeling under pressure, but whether it's comparatively enormous I wouldn't know. It seems that he likes a battlefield. That might be good for his cause if his manner of fighting was one that was better at winning people (e.g., opponents) over to his point of view. I have long thought he does have some valid points that do need to be asserted. But alas his manner of conducting his battle (pigeon-holing, demonizing) ends up alienating people while putting the spotlight on him, instead of the valid issues, all too often. The fact that we're doing so much work on a page about him, instead of on a page focused about issues that he is trying to highlight, is one indicator of this problem. --Presearch (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this analysis in the Swarajya magazine [67] (apparently brought in by Adiagr), surprisingly well-balanced and clear. What are your views on it? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fox explained his motivations; he was triggered by Malhotra's qualifications of Christianity and of Dalit-converts; started to study Malhotra's work; and found out that Malhotra has copied texts without correctly attributing and/or referencing them. no, Fox is not a sympathiser of Malhotra, on the contrary. But to characterise it as a "smear campaign" bypasses Malhotra's work, and his campaign against western academics.
The basic point, as far as I can see, is that Malhotra's searches for an (imaginary) unity of India, bypassing the vast differences, meanwhile defending Vivekananda's views on Hinduism. Western academics show that these views are not in accord with the facts; Malhotra doesn't like this, and attacks all and everyone which threatens his worldview. And now he has overreached, and kicks around wildly.
I think that Presearch is right: we have to mention this issue in a fair and balanced way. I think that we also have to be carefull in quoting Malhotra's responses; he's doing a great job in 'maligning' himself, and it would be very easy to use his quotes in an unfavourable way against him. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is western scholars who imagine that Hinduism is not unified. Do you think Advaitins go to different Hindu temples than Dvaitins?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which western scholars say that Hinduism consists of totally different traditions? It's clear that there are different traditions, with a lot of interplay; they are not completely the same, nor are they totally distinct. There are a thousand nuances. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that there are Advaita Hindu families and Dvaita Hindu families?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rhetorical question, and you know that. Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism is a great book. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not rhetorical. I really don't know if you believe that there are Advaita Hindu families versus Dvaita Hindu families, Advaita weddings vs Dvaita weddings etc.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are getting side tracked. Let us keep the focus on the plagiarism issue. I was quite surprised to hear that the authors that Malhotra is said to have plagiarised are amply referenced in his book. The complaint seems to be that he didn't reference them enough. So clearly this is not a black-and-white issue. The Swarajya article is indeed saying that this is a smear campaign. I am afraid it sticks. I don't see enough evidence from the other side to convince me that it isn't. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vic, I have no idea, and never thought about it. The issue at stake is indeed Malhotra and the use of texts from others. The examples I've seen seem convincing to me; at least at Wikipedia they would be regarded as copy-vios. Nevertheless, there may be more nuances to this then currenty surface. I also reckon that Malhotra is under great emotional pressure, and is responding in a way that is counter-productive for him, and therefor we should be carefull with quoting him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr. Sanderson where he says somewhere the correct term for Hinduism is Brahmanism. Hinduism is unified by Brahmin priests.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point here, tough personally I'd like to use quotation-marks for "Hinduism" in this case. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to butt in, VictoriaGrayson and J.J., but to me, it seems:
  • It is unequivocal that he was accused of plagiarism and it's notable to include in some way. I mean, even some of his allies have begrudgingly admitted as such, and both the man he allegedly plagiarised and the publisher have waded in angrily (the publisher bit is never a good sign).
  • this is one of those "two men enter, no one leaves" cagefight topics that are part and parcel of editing topics on modern India and/or Pakistan (or Islam).
The real question is how to bypass/defuse the cagefight. Everything else can't be dealt with without bypassing the cagefight. Regardless of what we want to add or not add, there's already angry, angry warriors on the page. How can we frame this discussion? I know that you two probably disagree with me about whether it is plagiarism or not, but I feel like we'd fight over it and find consensus, as would many other editors, but right now it's a lot of shrieking and explosions and I don't know how to dump a bucket of water on the talk page. Ogress smash! 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid there is no way to defuse the cagefight. RM is fighting for his reputation and so are his supporters. The problem is that the plagiarism charge is a fake one. (I say this as someone who has no sympathies for Malhotra whatsoever.) I have looked at, for instance, the supposed plagiarism on p. 160 where a passage about "two paths to final liberation" is marked by Fox. That section starts with "Andrew Nicholson places..." and mentions him again a couple of times. So it is clear to the reader that it is Nicholson's ideas that are being described in that section. Whether Nicholson should have been mentioned in every paragraph is questionable. Whether Malhotra should have used his own paraphrasing instead of borrowing direct phrases is also a minor issue. I have seen worse in refereed academic articles. But it has been made out as if he has committed a major faux pas and his detractors want to fight hard. Their objective is to destroy RM's reputation. So there is dishonesty on both the sides.
JJ has produced a draft write-up on the talk page, which is pretty decent. People should comment on it and discuss their objections, if any. If they start edit-warring after it goes into the article, they should get blocks. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orgress that the talk page of the BLP now contains "angry, angry warriors" as well as "a lot of shrieking and explosions" (metaphorically), and that key questions are "How can we frame this discussion" and "how to dump a bucket of water on the talk page". Perhaps someone should become very strict about archiving or deleting off-topic comments. It was good that Mohanbhan self-reverted some of his off-topic comments, though I thought he failed to revert a lot more. It's also good that VibrantBabhan reverted some of his off-topic statements, though probably other earlier (and perhaps later) ones remain. I don't think I have the time or temperment to give the page the kind of bucket of water or tough-love or whatever that would be involved in implementing a tight policy about off-topic comments. But I wonder if someone else in "present company" or some neutral third party could render that service? Perhaps too much to hope for, but I thought I'd mention it. --Presearch (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I'll have to read those seven instances carefully... Meanwhile I try my best to reach an agreeable text. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, RM gives the appearance of being out of depth in discussing these intricate theological issues. Being unable to paraphrase them in his own words, he had no choice but to copy the original text in many places. We can see this clearly in the "end note 2" issue (Example 6, parts 1 & 2 in [68]), where huge passages from Nicholson were copied verbatim, but Nicholson has been cited. Fox quibbles about the correct page numbers not being given and quotation marks not being used. Valid quibbles, but they are only quibbles. They don't bring down the tree in my opinion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good nuance; sounds plausible. I'm accustomed with this myself: referring to texts which are better than what you yourself can paraphrase. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar example that I remembered from the sources I have been reading:

The historian K.N. Panikkar (2004: 4-8) notes that the concept of cultural nationalism conceived and propagated by Hindutva is based on a misrepresentation of the nature of national identity. Nationalism, like democracy, is indivisible with its constitutive elements – political, economic and cultural – all intermeshed. Privileging any one of these attributes tends to undermine the holistic character of nationalism. There is no denying the importance of culture in the make-up of national identity, yet culture alone does not mould the national identity of any country (Panikkar 2004: 6). This was true of India as well where nationalism emerged and evolved as a part of anti-colonial consciousness. Culture was an integral part of this process of national reconstruction for those who were trying, by invoking culture as a tool of resistance, to develop a national culture, which was distinct from the colonial and the traditional. Yet, the struggle for a national culture during the anti-colonial period either remained an epiphenomenon or an instrument of political mobilisation. Therefore, the cultural question was not adequately addressed during the anti-colonial struggle, and Hindutva appropriated the space thus left vacant.[1]

References

  1. ^ Augustine, Sali (2009). "Religion and Cultural Nationalism: Socio-Political Dynamism of Communal Violence in India". In Erich Kolig; Vivienne S. M. Angeles; Sam Wong (eds.). Identity in Crossroad Civilisations. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 65–83. ISBN 978-90-8964-127-4.
The highlighted portions are copied verbatim from Panikkar (2004): Panikkar, K. N. (28 March 2009). "The Ways of Hindutva". Frontline. Retrieved 2015-02-25. Is this reasonable? I don't think so. We wouldn't allow it on Wikipedia. But it does occur fairly frequently in some cultures, certainly Indians among them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you've really got a good point here. Unfortunately, the dynamics of the clashes that occur between the various parties seem hardly to be controllable. Which is a good reason to try to maintain a cooperative spirit here at Wikipedia, also, no especially, when there is disagreement. Best regards, and thanks for sharing your thoughts and nuances, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is a nice comment:
"From the trajectory of the debate, this round of dirt-digging may not end till all of Indus Valley Civilisation is excavated to trace the root of all Indic wisdom." [69]
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA link[edit]

Hey, Joshua, I fixed your link, I hope you don't object to me editing your statement. (You don't actually have to find an archive for something that's slid off a page, you can pluck a permanent link right out of the history, as per the Simple diff and link guide.) Bishonen | talk 21:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: see also Amendment request: Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen (July 2015). The "me" is not JJ! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:103.244.187.22[edit]

I notice that 103.244.187.22 (talk · contribs) suddenly appears to be editing all the things Mohanbhan and Soham321 were editing. I don't want to point fingers, but I'm super sick of the shenanigans going on in Indian articles in general. I'm dealing with IP harassment on other pages, it's like a rampage recently. Do you think the edits look similar to any other editor and we should bring it to admin attention? Ogress smash! 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.......... Montanabw noticed that this lind of stuff is really problematic at the moment at Wikipedia. It probably also is an indication of the impact Wikipedia does have, though. I'll check (of course), later. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: I took a look. I don't know. Curiously broad field of interest. Might as well be a new editor, with the familiair editing-habits which so often surface in this area... I've corrected on e of their edits; see how they respond. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a WP:RPP is the best thing; make them get an account and be a bit more accountable... Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unusual for new editors to follow around other editors they like (or dislike). I wouldn't worry about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New response from Rajiv[edit]

Please see HERE.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've already incorporated it into the proposal: a quote, and I added it to the list with Malhotra's replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The humble satyagrahi speaks out again [70]. No publicity is bad publicity after all! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I have already given ample evidence to show that I did not plagiarise, and in fact I over-referenced a mediocre work because I had not fully decolonised my mind. This is articulated along with my immediate plans for a second edition of Indra’s Net at a recent blog. I hope readers will look at that compelling evidence, and think for themselves rather than being influenced by a cacophony of parrots. I might have violated someone’s convention in trivial ways but nobody I showed this evidence had any doubt that I credited my sources (more than) enough."
Yet, he skipped pp.162-163, the part where he copid Nicholson two times, replaced "Vijnanabikshu" by "Vivekananda," and gave the wrong page-number for Nicholson. Though, I have to say, it looks like the part was first solely on Vijnanabikshu, and then it was expanded with some remarks on Vivekananda, copying a note into the text (without deleting the note), and replacing "Vijnanabikshu" by "Vivekananda," yet without replacing the notes at the correct place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cites[edit]

When making cites, might I suggest https://reftag.appspot.com/ ? (be sure to check the box for ref=harv). It does all the work. All you do is plug in a Google Books link. It autoformats everything:

{{harv|Murti|2013|p=}}

{{cite book|ref=harv|last=Murti|first=T R V|title=The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mmvzSw2igPUC|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=1-135-02946-6}}

There. Now just replace harv in {{harv|Murti|2013|p=}} with sfn and you get {{sfn|Murti|2013|p=}}. That makes a ref without needing tags! Here's page 15 cited:[1]. Then stick the second one in the bibliography!

References
  1. ^ Murti 2013, p. 15.
Bibliography

Wauw! Looks awesome. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vet! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malhotra & Gandhi[edit]

Malhotra says here that "I adopted Gandhi’s method of being audacious in order to become ‘non-ignorable’ and disrupt the status quo" which I think has a good degree of truth. I think there are also genuine elements of humility in his commentary, as when Malhotra says "I do not think I am the best qualified person to do this satyagraha", and I think his capacity to say that bodes well for the eventual achievement of his legitimage objectives, which I view as important.

But I think Malhotra becomes self-serving in a way that distracts from the issues when he says "My satyagraha, like Gandhi’s, has been a non-violent disobedience of the rules set by the opposing side which we are being required to follow". Gandhi took great care to keep the focus on the issues. If Malhotra had wanted to use Indra's Net as a teachable moment to assert alternative ways of giving credit, ways that supposedly "break" certain rules, then he could and should have explained that early in the book, perhaps in its introduction. In contrast, Gandhi would often give a last appeal and an 'ultimatum' before he commenced a satyagraha. Also in contrast, Gandhi at times would emphatically assert the importance of observing legitimate legal rules. In his autobiography chapter entitled "A Himalayan Miscalculation", Gandhi asserted:

an honest, respectable man will not suddenly take to stealing, whether there is a law against stealing or not, but this very man will not feel any remorse for failure to observe the rule about carrying head-lights on bicycles after dark. Indeed it is doubtful whether he would even accept advice kindly about being more careful in this respect. But he would observe any obligatory rule of this kind, if only to escape the inconvenience of facing a prosecution for a breach of the rule. Such compliance is not, however, the willing and spontaneous obedience that is required of a Satyagrahi. A Satyagrahi obeys the laws of society intelligently and of his own free will, because he considers it to be his sacred duty to do so. It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of society scrupulously that he is in a position to judge as to which particular rules are good and just and which are injust and iniquitous. Only then does the right accrue to him of the civil disobedience of certain laws in well-defined circumstances.

Personally, I think Malhotra should be careful how he compares himself with Gandhi, lest he muddy the understanding of traditions he wants to revive and strengthen. Even if Gandhi's approach as described in his autobiography needs to be "adapted" to the current situation, the contrast is stark. I agree with Mahotra that he had no plagiarism of intent, and at most a plagiarism of form. His initial statement was that this was indeed a copy-editing error that would be corrected. Now he seems inclined to claim that instead this was a satyagraha (although he did not specify exactly what rules he was breaking, or why). A stance with these types of contradictions will not be helpful for shifting the spotlight from him to the legitimate ends he pursues. I think he will be more effective in promoting his legitimate ends if he can more effectively admit personal mistakes, even if he never admits "Himalayan Mistakes", as Gandhi did. --Presearch (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: regarding Malhotra's response (and also regarding your response here): I'n reading Indra's Net now; it does not strike me as very convincing, and it makes me wonder what the whole fuzz is about. Interested readers should try Rambachan, Nicholson and De Michelis themselves also, I think. I also don't doubt that Malhotra relied heavily on especially Nicholson, and/but copy-edited in a clumsy way. Something definitely went wrong there. It seems hard for Malhotra to acknowledge that he needed a western writer to give a counter-balance to the neo-Hindu narrative; it also seems hard to acknowledge that something went wrong with the copy-editing. This being said, yes, Young could have written a letter to Malhotra and his publisher, saying "It seems that there are some problems with your latest publications; it might be wise to correct them." Problem solved (or not), no free publicity for both sides.
Regarding Indra's Net: Malhotra's main problem seems to be that his preferred panorama of Hinduism, namely Vivekananda's, is scrutinised and deconstructed by academic research. That's painfull, as it is for any migrant who finds out that life goes on in the homeland, and the culture there changes (I know of similar stories of Turkish and Maroccon immigrants in the Netherlands, and Dutch emigrants in Canada etc.). His defense seems to focus on denying the scholarly concensus on the western influences on Vivekananda, and on Rambachan and the difference between (Shankara's) Advaita and classical Yoga. Now, he may have a point that the neo-Hinduism narrative may be too one-sided (one can also admire Vivekananda for his intellectual flexibility, and for creating a superb master-narrative), but Nicholson's observation that medieaval doxographers were already 'uniting' various Indian traditions does not mean that there was no western infuence on Vivekananda. Likewise, Malhotra's claim that "many scholars" disagree with Rambachan is covered by only three or four scholars (and I'll check if they are scholars, and what those publications say). I just started reading chapter 10, but so far, I'm not convinced. The value for me is more in treating it as a promary source, and trying to understand what's going on, what the pain is from which Malhotra writes. After all, something very important must be at stake here, and I'm trying to understand what. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating discussion! Especially Presearch's analysis of Satyagrahis, that blew my mind away! I guess I have to read Indra's Net too now. No publicity is bad publicity as they say :-) On the "painful" issue, I don't think you can usefully compare an immigrant's life in US with that of Netherlands. You might say that half the population of the US is "right wing" of some sort or another, which you won't find anywhere else (except now in India may be). So the Indians there grow to battle prejudices, while also absorbing the right wing attitudes of the wider society, which in turn reinforces their own conservative mental foundations. Moreover, the US immigration policies only allow them to import Indian technologists, but not cultural intellectuals. So we see cultural pseudointellectuals growing up from among the technologists, claiming ownership of culture. It is an entirely different dynamic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands just "deported" an Indonesian pianist, because he was not 'indispensable' fort he Dutch economy... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I try to incorporate two different approaches: a critical, scholarly appracoh to the history and 'effectiveness' of various religions, including critical sociology (Foucault and Habermas) and social-constructionism; and a "practical" approach, in applying religious teachings (and also psychology) in my daily life and my contacts with others. It leaves much room for doubt and uncertainty, but it (tries to) make[s] the best of the interaction with others. And that's the basic bottom-line, I think. I rather be uncertain but open-minded, than "secure" but close-minded. The "criterium" is: what works? When going along that "pragmatic" line, scholarly exactness is not the first criterium, but your own understanding and interpretation of the tradition(s), preferably paired to personal practice and experience. In that case, you can say (with scholarly exactness), "X says Y; I think Z, because of this and that experience."
NB1: theologians also wrestle with this problem of 'rescuing religion from modernity.'
NB2: my own experience is that meditation and insight are two different "things," which may be connected in actually practice, but which are not obviously united. See the early Buddhist tradition, in which a development took place from "dhyana" to "insight". See Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Dhyana and insight. So, the problem that Malhotra tries to tackle is a millennium older than Shankara.
NB3: see Template talk:Subschools of Vedanta#Neo-Vedanta and Bhedabheda, for a discussion on Vivekananda as bhedabheda. Malhotra soemwhere makes the same remark, that Vivekananda is a Bhedabheda Vedantin. Interesting.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation[edit]

Joshua, you saw this hair-raising BLP vio when it was fresh ten days ago. Did you consider removing it, or alerting an admin? I've removed it now, with a sharp nursery word in the edit summary. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: ehm, no... sorry, not that I remember. I guess I should have done so? I do remember, though, that I found it a very outspoken response. I was very surprised by the outspoken tone; in my nearly four years of Wikipedia the most outspoken stances I've seen were mostly with the "Vedic/nationalistic narrative" side, not with editors taking such a strong stance on the other side. Sorry; my apologies. I'll take better care next time (though I did remove another comment by Mohanbhan diff). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, I figured that since this was at his talkpage, there was more room allowed for 'personal opinions,' even though very strong. And I remember that I thought the psychological qualification to be incorrect, though that may not be relevant here. Best regards, and sorry again, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that was a good removal! "Interesting etymology", indeed. Anyway, don't worry about it, but usertalk is still a Wikipedia page. He can be more open there, but not crass like that. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A hot chocolate milk for you![edit]

Add rum.
You're making friends lately, don't you? Cheers, Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Friends and foes, both. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now we're in for a party! Who are we going to rescue? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New introduction for Valencian language. Do you agree?[edit]

Hello! I'm @HardstyleGB:. Why you changed the introduction of the article without asking anyone and without making a section in the talk page ? It was the stable and consensual introduction.

The starting of the article for some months (and the stable introduction of the article as you can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082) was:

Valencian (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain.[1] It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish.[2] A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

While you changed it on 25 July (when I've changed the intro and I've put that is the own language, without putting is a dialect/variety of catalan) and you instead of reverting it, you directly changed it to: " is the Catalan language language spoken in the Valencian Community[4] in Spain, and the name used to refer the Catalan language[5] in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish.[6] A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect. " on your revision 672980621 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621) and you made several editions one after the another changing completely the last introduction which was accepted by a lot of users which edited the article and didn't change it.

Don't revert my changes this time, I'm returning to the proper introduction which was before the last "edit war". The actual introduction is the best introduction for this article and it's saying the same as the Spanish article. Ok, I accept to not to edit to put "is the own language" and removing the catalan this time, this time I'm being neutral and I'm returning to the original article before your several editions 3 days ago.

This is the proper introduction for this article and this is how the introduction has to be, look https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 (edition 667205082) and look at what the user @JorisvS: says: rv back to stable: discuss on talk page, that's what it is for this is the stable introduction for this article. And this is how the article looks now, by the stable introduction and I also say that this introduction is the proper for this article. Thanks --HardstyleGB (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wheeler 2006, p. 186.
  2. ^ Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua, ed. (2005). "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua Agreement (AVL)" (PDF) (in Catalan). Valencia. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |urltrad= (help)
"Don't revert my changes this time" - sounds like WP:OWN. It also sounds as if you're running into big trouble. When did your block expire? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's talk[edit]

Yes pls Huzaifa Sattar (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been report due to edit warring[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Valencian. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. You are reported in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You are reverting my changes from the last stable and consensual edit of the article Valencian maded in June 2015, and now you're adding whatever you want without the support of anyone and now you want to take advantage of my situation. I will also inform EdJohnston. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported here too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HardstyleGB: go to bed; you're making a fool of yourself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage-stalkers: these are th exact locations:

Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan:in your dreams, you want to have your edition on the article and if you don't are right you try to cover my voice in the basis that I got blocked 48h ago while you are doing the editions you want without the support of anyone... You are a shame and you don't know how to argue. Please grow up. And uh, I didn't knew that you were able to insult in Wikipedia as you are doing right now. Go to sleep, for real you deserve it. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will; I'm tired. You're wasting my time. By the way, you don't have to ping me on my own userpage. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last little edit[edit]

HEY @Joshua Jonathan: do you agree with last little edit? I changed 1 phrase which was included in your last edit... Do you agree? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=673534259 --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. You just reverted again, while I agreed with ‎WilliamThweatt's edit. I also already told you that you don't have to ping me on my userpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Now this is a nice comment Shiv Visvanathan, A battle without winners:

"He claimed that he had acknowledged Nicholson’s work but conceded that some acknowledgements were more equal than others." }}

This one too Swati Dhingra, Time to join the war on the error of plagiarism:

"First, plagiarism at best means that the writer is lazy and the work is shoddy – the writer couldn’t even be bothered to reference what’s incorporated. Free flow of ideas would happen just as easily if the original writer’s name is added. Every word processing program now comes with a footnote or bibliography feature, so this is a trivial task. In fact, citing others is great because they even help you with your dirty laundry. The computer scientists know this all too well. The free software movement lets a programmer copy other people’s work and modify it. As the code references the contributors’ names, programmers can ask the original contributors for help with any unanticipated glitches with the code. My co-authors and I have written successfully to several contributors to clarify or fix issues with their code and ours, so there are organic improvements to the body of knowledge all the time.
Second, plagiarism is unegalitarian because the plagiarising self-proclaimed pundits benefit at the expense of typically junior academics. It takes two hours to re-hash a piece of scholarly work whose original author probably spent two years doing the necessary research behind it. Academic jobs are getting harder and harder to come by and basically until most young academics write a book or `become’ a pundit or consultant later in their career, they are stuck with at least ten years of stress scrambling for tenure at a job that pays relatively little [ii]. Each citation counts and plagiarism of your original piece can be absolutely devastating, especially if it happens before you have formally published your work in a journal.
To sum up, it’s painless to cite people and doesn’t really take away from the glamor of being a thinker."

And see also Eric M Gurevitch, Read the Sanskrit texts: Why both Rajiv Malhotra and his critics are wrong about plagiarism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of this sentence suddenly dawned on me:
"The central thesis which I seek to topple asserts that Swami Vivekananda plagiarized Western secular and Christian ideas and then recast them in Sanskrit terminology to claim Indian origins for them."
It's from Indra's Net p.9 (epub). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shakya hatnote[edit]

Chewing arround...

The current hatnote- “This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste).”

If I am a regular (non-history professor) reader, then I will think “Oh this article is just about the ancient Shakya people. I guess they are all dead now. And well, Kachhis are using Shakya surname now. Since North India, Nepal, Tibet are all adjacent so if anyone says he is a Shakya then he must be a Kachhi. Yeah !”

Now let’s look into some facts that there are Shakyas presently who are not Kachhis:-

1) Present Shakyas as higher caste ( https://books.google.co.in/books?id=P0RuAAAAMAAJ&dq=shakya+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=shakya )

2) Present Shakyas as priestly caste Page 42: ( http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/5413 )

3) Just search for word ‘shakya’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_caste_system

These are just a few citations. Please help us remove the ambiguity in Shakya article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.188.127 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare and Sitush: can this guy be indeffed? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two known accounts are indeffed, so the user is now IP hopping (which is why the Shakya article and talkpages had to be semi-protected). Let me know if you want your talk-page semi-protected too, or you can simply ignore their posts (as I intend to do). Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entire fight is just to make a simple one word correction. Instead of "This article is about the ancient Shakya people" change it to "This article is about the ancient history of Shakya people." Thats all. I have provided evidences. You may also research on your own. I can't believe this entire mess for just make a simple one word correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.255.29 (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither can we. @Abecedare: go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-ed for 2 days. Can shorten/lengthen depending upon on how soon the editor gets the message (thankfully not too many new/IP editors seem to post here). Abecedare (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strike! - The MiszaBot Union[edit]

I don't know if it's the pay, the working conditions, or the lack of a dental plan, but MiszaBot doesn't agree to work for me :-/ During the past three weeks, she hasn't even dared to look at the mop. I can't resign her either since I'm afraid of the Union ;-O Can you have a word with her, maybe she'll listen to you... Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Buddhist Movement[edit]

Copied (but shortened) from User talk:Mohanbhan#Dalit Buddhist Movement

I want to bring your attention to the above mentioned article. The last paragraph says:

"Ambedkar's followers do not believe that a person's conditions at birth are the result of previous karma."
  • Firstly I couldn't find the exact source of this paragraph available on Internet and I think that its a copyright violation.
  • Secondly, this sentence is very problematic and can mislead the readers into thinking that Ambedlar's followers don't believe in theory of karma which is quite untrue. In Devadaha Sutta, Buddha himself debates with Jains to the extent that some results are not due to previous actions.

I find that sentence very problamatic and its partially true and partially false because [not] all the results (Vipaka) are not due to your previous actions. According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms. They are:

  • Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
  • Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
  • Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
  • Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
  • Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.

So if you are black-skinned or white skinned then it is not because of your kamma but because of the environment conditions. Not everything is not due to your previous kamma. So that statement is partially half truth and half false. Please look into this matter as it is driving the readers into false idea about Indian Buddhism.

So Joshua Jonathan, Can you please help me? Thanks in advance. Terabar (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied (and shortened) part.

@Terabar: I will look into it, though later; I do see your point. The nuance you're pointing to, that is, the various causes for the conditions which we undergo in this life, is an important nuance. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my poor English Joshua. Thanks for correcting some of my sentences. I just want to explain my point by giving you following examples.
  • Example 1 . Imagine yourself travelling in a train. Now suppose there is a bomb planted in a train by some terrorists. The Bomb blasts and you get killed. Is it because of your previous Kamma? I think no.
  • Example 2. Imagine yourself that you are born in a Communist family in China. Is it because of your previous kamma that you are born in a communist family?
  • Example 3 . People are getting old . Should we say that it is because of your previous karma that people are getting old?

Example 3 relates to Dhamma Niyama in which the doctrines of anatta (no self) and shunyata (emptiness) and the marks of existence, for example, would be part of Dhamma Niyama.

Similarly followers of Dr.Ambedkar don't believe that they are born in low caste (just like when one is born in a communist family) because of their previous kamma. It has nothing to do with kamma. All other four niyamas are working which is a natural law.

I hope that you have understood my intention. If I am correct then please confirm my correction by your reply. If there is a mistake in my writing then please edit it and correct it. I would feel happy. Please look into this matter as early as possible. In my opinion, it is driving the readers into false assumption about Indian Buddhists. Also tell me that when you will look into this matter. Promise me the time. Thanks and best regards. Terabar (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Terabar: I think you've got a good point. I remember that, when I was working on the Karma in Buddhism article, Iread apassage which also said that karma is just one in of several factors. I'll have to check the Ambedkar-article, and to check the sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find back the source for the various processes at work in our present predicament, but I can't find it, unfortunately. @VictoriaGrayson: do you know of a source which sums up the various factors which determine our present incarnation, apart from karma? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further answer at Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement#Dalits and karma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joshua for helping and correcting the mistakes on that page. Really, you are a gem here on Wikipedia. Terabar (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohanbhan claims[edit]

Drink up your vacation...

@JJ: Please have a look at this. I am puzzled by the way @Mohanbhan has interpreted your comments on the talk page of Allama Prabhu article. @Mohanbhan continues to delete two reliable sources – one you commented on, and a new one – based on your comment, along with associated sourced content. FWIW, I had added the nuance you suggested in summarizing the Ishwaran source you commented on, which @Mohanbhan deleted as well. I appreciate your second opinion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and I'll have another look. I guess Mohanbhan is himself a Lingayatist, or any tradition that does not belong to the Vedic orhtodoxy. Might be well worthwhile to reckon with this when communicating with him, and try to find some understanding for his POV. otherwise, time may be ripe for DRN. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: Hmmm. Could be a repeat of @Mohanbhan's behavior here, here and elsewhere. I will wait for your second opinion on Talk:Allama Prabhu, try consensus approach, before DRN/ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: I came to post a note about Lingayat's Shunya. Then noticed, belatedly, the TP hat note that you are on vacation. Sorry, for distracting you with above. Have fun. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, but thanks for your concerns. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radhey Shyam Chaurasia[edit]

@JJ: Hmmm. Have you looked for his reviews? Is his book WP:HISTRS? Tried looking up info on him/her on Wikipedia and cite index. Nothing. I am fine with what you are trying to add, but consider sourcing it from publications measured on the same standards of HISTRS, that we are testing Will Durant's book with. Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. I added it for some counter-balance to the overall negative portrayal of the Islamic rulers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Using non-HISTRS to counter-balance or please either their Hindus or their Muslims doesn't feel right. If you don't mind, I will delete it and any other non-HISTRS I see. Needless to say, we are not trying to please the Hindus or the Muslims or the Buddhists or the Jains or any side. I know the heat and verbal scars you get, and sometimes I get from all sides. Cheers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ, If you want to know logically how Islam spread in India, do read it. HERE EATON TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHINGGhatus (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also, Indian culture itself is an example of that cultural exchange.Ghatus (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: sure, not a real problem. Some other sources will appear, I guess. Though, regarding "pleasing": yes, we do. Wikipedia is a collective enterprise; we do need to try to incorporate various voices, lest we end up in perpetual edit-wars.
@Ghatus: thanks. I'll read it, though later.
Best regards to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get a larger picture, read these two booklets of Eaton[edit]

I have given link to both Part-II & Part-I in PDF format.

1. http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf (Part=II)

2. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf (Part-I)Ghatus (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! I'd already printed them, but first O started reading chapter five of "Islamic civilisation." Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam[edit]

Greetings, JJ. This page is in serious need of cleanup, but I think it's far more up your alley than it is mine. Hope you can find the time to look at it. Kautilya might also be interested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do @Ghatus comments need BLP attention?[edit]

@Ghatus has posted several comments on living people within the last 24 hours. For example,

In Historians vs Pamphleteers section of Talk:Hinduism:

Can two cent Pamphleteers like ... example1

In Selective cherry picking by Ms Sarah Welch to save face section of Talk:Hinduism

You may believe in <snip>. But, truly speaking, he is a pygmy on.... example2

Do these type of BLP comments need editing/admin attention? I ask because admin @Bishonen had commented on something similar, but more flagrant, on @Mohanbhan's talk page here and made comments on it here. @Bishonen: Are we supposed to ignore these? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, he hasn't crossed the line yet, but he is surely being careless with his language and probably deserves a warning. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are indeed not nearly as bad as Mohanbhan's, but I suppose example 1 deserves a warning. Done. Example 2 ("pygmy") I would regard as merely a somewhat colourful metaphor. I mean, it's an established metaphor (though I thought it was a little old-fashioned). YMMV. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
So far, I think he's still "on board". I try my best to temper the heat. And I've seen worse too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what has this got to do with BLP? We've got standard policies on talkpage-behavior and user interaction, don't we? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Caricaturing and insulting living scholars on wiki pages is not okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sanderson says "Triadic Heart" is non-RS.[edit]

See Here.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a little less cryptic, and be so kind to tell me for which Wiki-article this is relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Eaton[edit]

@JJ: I like your choice of words and phrasing in Hinduism article. Read Eaton, but don't rely exclusively on Eaton. He is one of many who have written about this topic. See Cynthia Talbot's 1, Chapters 2-5 of Catherine Asher (2006), India before Europe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521809047, and others. Asher's 2006 reviews Eaton's 2000 papers and others on this subject. Eaton's views, you included as note, are not widely accepted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just downloaded Talbot; it's great to have access to an university library. I'll also have a look Asher. After all, I'm a "scholar" of religion, not of history, but I try my best to catch up. Best regards, as always, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the issue with Eaton has been that:
[1] he criticizes British translators (Elliot & Dowson) as in the note you added, but extensively uses the same criticized sources as reliable in his publications, such as when he prepares his tables on destruction (see page 70 for Eaton's sources and his table on 68-69 of this), and history. This means Eaton considers them reliable as well as unreliable for historical information, but it is unclear when, why, how and where.
[2] what is recorded by a Muslim court historian in a memoir or hagiography, translated by colonial era British historians, may be illustrative not exhaustive, campaigns not incidents.
That is why Catherine Asher calls Eaton's estimate, derived by him from the works of British translators, as conservative. In short, we don't know, and both sides have tried to pull the number, lower or higher, for their own political purposes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, that is the wont of the historian. He/she might dislike the sources but they might be the only sources available. Careful scrutiny and interpretation is necessary. That is why we insist on HISTRS, especially in contentious areas like this one. Elliott & Dowson, on the other hand, took everything in the sources at face value and the present day Hindutva folks do the same. So a criticism of Elliot & Dowson is also a veiled criticism of the self-appointed Hindutva historians.
There is a great book by Romila Thapar called Somanatha: Many voices of history, which basically shows that almost all the Muslim sources on the Somanatha's supposed destruction by Mahmud of Ghazni were totally fictitious. She went out and found tons of Hindu & Jain sources on Somanatha around the time period, which suggest that the temple might have been desecrated, but not destroyed. A mere 50 13 years after the raid, there were prominent pilgrimages to the temple which were recorded, but there was no indication of any damage to the temple. This goes to show how unreliable the Muslim sources are. But, throughout the colonial period, all the British historians took them at face value.
I am happy to read whatever Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot have to say, but I don't have this book available in our library. So please do give me page numbers so that I can find them on Google Books. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Library is the place, or buy the book. You need to get the context and full discussion on controversial issues. Google snippet and few lucky random pages on Google books can misinform. On Thapar, she may be pushed onto a pedestal by some in India, but scholars must and do question and doubt most of her analysis. There are no unquestionable prophets about history, in Western scholarship.

On reliability of text by medieval Muslim Indian hagiographers/historians: that is always a good question with all historical texts, but has been reasonably answered in many cases by cross referencing and critical analysis (Thapar and her colleagues, by the way, needs to ask the same 'is old Indian literature reliable' question when she makes sweeping claims on society and theology in ancient/medieval Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina/etc cultures of South Asia; for Wikipedia articles, Thapar et al views should be cross checked with other scholars).

On Somanatha: there is no reason to presume ancient/medieval Indians did not cry, remove the rubble and rebuild their building(s) just like the New York City did after the 9/11 destruction. To conclude from "pilgrimages a 'mere' (how loaded word that is) 50 years after the raid" that "it was desecration not destruction" is something Thapar or some writer is free to write, but for most scholars it is not convincing. This is not to say, everything their Hindus allege is accurate either. It is complicated. Get some recent peer reviewed papers and books on all this, at a library, for more information. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is complicated. Sorry I didn't know! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote trickiness[edit]

Hi Joshua, I find the footnotes inside footnotes hard to deal with, and expect most readers would have trouble too. There are two solutions.

  1. 1 sfn has a "ps=" option, which allows you to embed a quotation directly into the citation. So you don't need two footnotes, one for the citation and one for quotation.
  2. 2 In cases where that is not appropriate, you can use harvtxt instead of sfn inside the footnote, which puts the citation in the text of the footnote.

I am going to try and do that for the Islamic section now. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: you mean references inside footnotes? The downside of "ps=" is that notes end up in the reference section, instead og the notes-section... So, harvtxt may be preferred. Show us! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator[edit]

Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  ‑ iridescent 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator[edit]

Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  ‑ iridescent 20:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hill (theologian)[edit]

I was just looking at the latest edit to Jonathan Hill (theologian) when I noticed an open-parenthesis without its corresponding close-parenthesis. It's in the third paragraph in the section Jonathan Hill (theologian)#Books. The way it is now, it reads:

  • What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? (How It Shaped the Modern World, 2005

I clicked on the title in the reference list at the end of the article and it led to the Google books website. There, the title appears with a colon after What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? I know this has to be fixed, but I don't know whether "How it Shaped the Modern World" should be enclosed in parentheses or follow a colon. Also, should "it" be capitalized? Corinne (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: frankly, I don't know, for both questions. Personally, I find the colon ugly, and I've never seen parentheses being used for a subtitle; I think it should be just one line. As for the capital: the book-cover doens't use capitals for the subtitle; Amazon capitalizes all words, except "the"; I'd say, do what you like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joshua Jonathan! (If you don't mind my using a nickname, which do you prefer? JJ, Joshua, or Jonathan, or do you prefer both names?) I think the colon is kind of standard when writing a subtitle after the main title of a book, but I'm not sure. Corinne (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All names are fine. The combination of "Joshua Jonathan" has personal reasons, as explained at my userpage; "JJ" is a handy abbreviation, and "Joshua" is the pseudonym I like best. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ[edit]

I am still working on hercules task at integral yoga, its still in its nesense can you have a look ? and make a short review (I have done only first few para lot remains to be done! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrikanthv: that's a though one! But of course I'll have a serious look there. Thanks for asking! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esotericism merger[edit]

Good call on the Western esotericism/esotericism merged JJ! You have my backing on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: great, thanks! Looks like our areas of interest do have an overlap. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see edit war at Brahma page[edit]

Please see edit war at Brahma pageVictoriaGraysonTalk 18:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy... I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm afraid I'm already too busy with India- and Buddhism-related articles. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D. P. Agrawal[edit]

D. P. Agrawal is one of the people that Mallory invited to comment on Kazanas. I think you will enjoy reading this piece [71], published by, of all people, the Infinity Foundation! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: just read part of it; interesting indeed. And nice irony! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks![edit]

my revert was middle-of-the-night.. Thanks for assisting with all that. ;-D 20040302 (talk)

My pleasure. The editor in question is notorious, and has been active for more than a decade already on all sorts of Buddhist fora. If he shows up again, we might as well nominate hin straight away for a Wiki-ban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Kamma, Dalit Buddhist Movement and your future edits.[edit]

Hello Joshua! Few days back we discussed about the theory of Kamma in Buddhism on yours and Dalit Buddhist Movement 's talk page. I earlier stated that some results or experiences are not based on previous kamma or are not results of previous kamma. Now for that I have found a direct quote of Buddha from Pali canon marking that statement correct. Here is what Buddha has to say about.

  • "There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."
  • "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Moreover this last statement from this sutta hits the nail on the head.

"Bile, phlegm, wind, a combination, Season, uneven, harsh treatment, and through the result of kamma as the eighth." Sivaka Sutta .

Even the translator Thanissaro Bhikkhu has stated about it very plainly. I hope it may help you in your future edits. Best regards. Terabar (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Terabar: great! And I'm sure I have read this before; I think it was Gombrich who mentioned this sutra, also to make the point that karma is not "responsible" for all of our situations. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought, p.20. I've added it to Karma in Buddhism; see diff. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian mythology[edit]

Hi Joshua, as a scholar of religion, you might be interested in the debate going on at the Arabian mythology page. It is certainly fascinating to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian mythology? How did you get there? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, read it. Whats'the problem with adding "May have been..." etc? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was an editor that was edit-warring and his/her edit history led me there. But all pagans are my "friends" anyway. The issue is apparently whether the three goddesses of Mecca were the "daughters" of Allah or not. That kind of a question is very simply answered for a Hindu. But for the Arabians, it is apparently not so clear. It is also funny that we know so little about the Arabia of 600 AD, the time of Harshavardhana! - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "may have been" is that we are not saying why the doubt exists. It is WP:WEASEL according to the admin overseeing the dispute. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha and Nirvana[edit]

Josh, can you (and you pagewatchers) take a look at the proposal to merge these articles? I have my hands full at moment with a number of merge proposals, and other activities, of a new and very active contributor. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my! That sure beats calling Sikhs Hindus. :) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least they seem to be truly new: no discussion-section was created. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see some desparation at their talkpage... So, now we've got the Jain-variant again of 'mine is better than yours'? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Hindu views on Pantheism[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hindu views on Pantheism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this wasn't created in violation of a ban/block, so it isn't eligible for G5; redirecting or AfD would be the options to choose from. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; of course. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger candidate[edit]

Greetings, JJ. I just came across this thing, and it seems like a prime candidate for a merger into Hinduism. You have edited religion topics more than me, so d'you have any thoughts? @Kautilya3:, how about you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is nothing new there. I think it could be Speedy deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, it can be redirected and merged to Pantheism#Hinduism. Discussion should be started on talk page. --Human3015Send WikiLove  23:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: created by good old... I think I agree with Kautilya3: speedy delete. It's all OR, I'm afraid. It was even tagged as such, but that tag was removed. Creation by banned users is enough to delete the page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the pings don't seem to be working...no worries, I had watchlisted this page. I too had figured that the creation by a banned user blocked user was enough, but I guess Blades was not banned at the time? I will go ahead and redirect this, there isn't much info there. If the redirect is reverted, we can go to AfD. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you did it. Thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for Swami's nationality[edit]

Hi Josh,

I'm not sure how exactly my request for a citation disrupted the article? If you don't have any scholarly reference to back up his nationality then why don't we let someone find a reference and educate us? After all we all are here to learn, aren't we? Shoshanko (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoshanko. It seems that you've been discussing about this issue before. Strictly speaking, he can't have had the "Indian nationality," since Bengal was part of the British Empire at that moment. Maybe we should just remove that part? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3, Ghatus, and Sitush: which "nationality" did Indians have during the British Raj? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Indian" obviously. It is only when we give territorial descriptions that we use "British India," and the reason for that is the Partition. If there was no Partition, "India" could have also been used as the territory- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indian. And, the passports had the words "Indian Empire" on the cover and "Empire of India" inside. However, Indians could apply for British Passport and it was also easy to get. British India or British Raj , though popular, were unofficial names. Ghatus (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu fringe[edit]

Despite the fact that the sources talk a lot about the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj etc., do you realize that they are just fringe groups within wider Hinduism? They might have made a lot of impact on the colonialists and the Indologists, but their influence on Hindus is pretty much zilch. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh irony... Well, how many Hindus adhere to the kind of Vivekananda-Hinduism that Malhotra says to defend? According to those sources, Vivekananda was one of those of few Hindus who actually were influenced by these ideas. From what I've read about it, it was his acquaintance with western esotericism that made him so succesfull in, ehm, let's say "fringe milieus" in the west - and it was this succes which made him fashionable in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it another way: if the Brahmo Samaj is "fringe" within "wider Hinduism," than it's weird that Malhotra presents and defends a Brahmo Samaj-derived kind of 'New Age Hinduism' as being the authentic voice of Hinduism. There's so much more to Hinduism than just that! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here is how Hinduism works. Most Hindus just follow their family traditions, which are passed down from generation to generation. Some Hindus also have gurus (also acquired through family traditions), who again follow their own parampara (teachings passed down from teachers to disciples). The Hindus that don't have their own gurus are happy to listen to any guru, but of course listening is not practising. Innovation happens, but by only minute increments per generation. Major innovators like Vivekananda end up starting their own parampara. Did Vivekananda's parampara (Ramakrishna Math) impact the other paramparas? I don't think so. Vivekananda has however impacted a lot of educated Indians (including me), who may not care much about practising anything, but we like talking about it. So, Vivekananda is more an intellectual than a guru. The Brahmos and the Arya Samajis likewise started their own paramparas, which are a lot more practical than Vivekananda's and, so, have more adherents. But they have essentially become sects, which means that they drop out of the mainstream Hinduism. It might seem all very complicated, but in reality it is plain simple. Hinduism never changes! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say?... A very comprehensive overview! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malhotra may be right about one thing. The vast quantity of Hinduism that is out there in the paramparas is probably out of reach of the academics. To access it, they have to become part of it (i.e., go live with the gurus observe them on a daily basis, listen to what they say, etc.) If we want to know whether Vivekananda is "neo" or not, we have to ask them what they think. My impression is that very few paramparas would accept Vivekananda as an authority. They probably think of him as a great populariser. But I think they will also say that whatever Vivekananda taught is true Hinduism as documented in the scriptures, even if they might accuse him of oversimplifying it. So, for us, Vivekananda is an innovator. But I don't think they see him as an innovator. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a heavy walled garden on Ayyavazhi, all primary sourced, I think Redtigerxyz tried doing some cleanup on it sometime back but gave up (could be someone else, as I last adminnned in this area a few years back). —SpacemanSpiff 15:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda was a Christian.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, I'm still surprised with your short and surprising comments. Highly appreciated! Regarding gaining an "insiders-view", The Hidden Lives of Brahman] may be one of these few instances where an "outsider" lived and researched as an insider. Vivekananda is not part of the contents... It's a fascinating, though hard to read, book on the living Advaita Vedanta tradition. I bought it a couple of months ago; it humbles me in my perceived knowledge of Hindu-traditions, and gives me an awe-ipnsiring sense of the complexities and richnesses of this tradition. To reduce it to "philosophy", as is the case now at the Wiki-article, is a great disservice to this tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said Vivekananda was a New Age Christian.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Ramakrishna was a Christian too, and a Muslim as well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vivekananda used to carry around Christian texts with him.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Wiki-articles on Transcendentalism and New Thought, and then tell me where this idea of "God dwells within you" comes from: Hinduism or Western esotericism (c.q. New Age Christianity). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 and VictoriaGrayson: did you ever read anything on Swedenborgianism? It's eery; it's almost the same as my "vrijzinnig-Protestantse" achtergrond (= 'liberal', left-wing?!?), but also closely resembles Vivekananda and New Age. As you know, the churches in Europe are quite empty, but it looks like that "de vrijzinnigheid" is actually the laregst denomination; it's just that they are not within the church anymore, and they use other names, like "spirituality"... A real eye-opener. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esotericism[edit]

Is there no non-Western esotericism? Editor2020, Talk 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2020: see the explanation at the article itself, and the merger-discussion at Talk:Esotericism#Merger proposal: Western esotericism into Esotericism. It's a western term and tradition; the term "western" was added to "esotericism" by scholars, and seems to be the commonname. For what I know about it, it seems to be a western phenomenon, though there are of course traditions in other cultures which look, or are, the same. Especially th eidea of correspondences. But that'smy personal thought. User:Midnightblueowl may be better able to answer this question, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a simple situation, but basically there is no such thing (as recognised by academics) as a universal phenomenon known as "esotericism". What you instead have is "Western esotericism", which is recognised as a distinct Western phenomenon by academics, and then a few scattered examples in which the terms "Buddhist esotericism" and "Islamic esotericism" have been applied to certain different spiritual traditions, but these are usually better known by other terms ("Buddhist esotericism" is for instance far more commonly termed Vajrayana). Thus having a separate article on "esotericism" is misleading, because it makes the assumption that these very different phenomenon are actually part of the same thing, whereas (academically speaking) they are not. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeticism[edit]

Hi, Joshua Jonathan! I have a question for you. I noticed it months ago and then just saw it again. At the beginning of the lead in Hermeticism, Hermes Trismegistus is twice translated as "Thrice-Great" Hermes. However, a little later in the lead we read,

  • The Poimandres, from which Marsilio Ficino formed his opinion, states that "They called him Trismegistus because he was the greatest philosopher and the greatest priest and the greatest king." [italics added]

You'll notice the use of "greatest" in this quote.

Also, in the article linked at Hermeticism#History, Hermetica, we read:

  • The Hermetica are Egyptian-Greek wisdom texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD,[1] which are mostly presented as dialogues in which a teacher, generally identified as Hermes Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest Hermes"), enlightens a disciple. [bold added]

I had always heard the name translated as "Thrice-Greatest Hermes". Based on the quote from the Poimandres and the translated name in the lead of Hermetica, would you say that "thrice-great Hermes" is incorrect, and that it should be "thrice-greatest Hermes"? Corinne (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: Google gives ca. 24,00 hits for greatest, and ca 12,000 for great. I'd guess that both are acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's ...[edit]

Hi Joshua - thanks for the smile on my user_talk. Good to see all the good work you continue to do too. I wish you the best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarka[edit]

You have introduced two blog references by replacing a reliable reference verified during GA review. Please replace the unacceptable blog references with the original reference as blogs are unacceptable in Wikipedia articles --Nvvchar. 09:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a dead link... But I'll check it again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: http://www.dwarkadhish.org/little-history.aspx is a dead link... The correct link is http://www.dwarkadhish.org/jagad-mandir/little-history/. Not the only mistake on this GA-review... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karma in Buddhism[edit]

Hello Joshua! I hope that you find this message in your best of health and happiness. Earlier I quoted from Buddhist scriptures proving that not all things happen because of previous kamma. Here is another Quote of Buddha from the pali canon. I personally hope that you will add something from this to the Karma in Buddhism .

The Buddha says "Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." ~ Tittha Sutta

I hope that you add this quote. Best regards. Terabar (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Terabar: that's a very nice quote; I like it. Gombrich likes it too, I guess. I'm hesitatuing, though, to add it to the article: it's already very long, with many quotations; and it's a primary source, which we're not supposed to be interpreting. Adding too many quotes to an aryicle is also a kind of interpretation. Maybe it's best just to preserve it for personal use, and to continue on the Buddhist path, c.q. follow the Buddha dharma, with the relieving knowledge that our personal efforts do matter - not only for ourzelves, but also when sharing knowledge and insight, as you did here, inspiring a fellow Wikipedian. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian religions, modernisation, and the primacy of "experience"[edit]

Since you posted on my page, one unsolicited advice from my side, although I know that it is not your preferred way. Hinduism and its traditions have to be lived and understood and not merely read, that too from translated / misunderstood works. Taste of the pudding is in eating it and not merely reading cookery books. So visit a Vedic Ashram with an open mind and experience yourself.

As Kabir said: No one has understood the Truth by merely studying volumes. One who has understood the meaning of two and a half letters of love (Prem in Hindi), is the real Pandit.

You can never understand why in this land of India, various sects and religions lived peacefully since ages. You are focussed on religion & dogma and do not understand that Dharma is not religion.

Hinduism cannot be studied by conventional means that you have adopted. You have to come out of your comfort zone and armchair academic pursuit and make attempts to actually understand the process by undergoing Saadhna (Not in AC rooms, but in Aashrams), and not merely reading about it. But then that is the difficult route. Adiagr (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, except for "conventional means that you have adopted": reading reliable texts helps in questioning established authority and worldviews, which may be misleading, and genuinely investigating ones experience, even daring to stand on the 'unground' of not-knowing, instead of merely seeking the comfirmation of this authority and an established worldview. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adiagr: Joshua's understanding of Hinduism is way superior to most Hindus I know. (And I suspect the same for Buddhism too.) So we don't need to lecture him. Hinduism should not be afraid of scrutiny. And, I believe true Hinduism is not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Really Like your logic. A request: kindly dont use pronoun "we". Reason: my sample set of Hindus whom I know is not same as yours. 2nd point, first check the timeline and see who started giving lecture / unsolicited advice first. Refer my Talk page.Adiagr (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you people see the irony above? :-) --AmritasyaPutraT 01:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adiagr When Kautilya3 used "we", s/he meant "editors on Wikipedia". S/He was being polite in not saying "you". S/He was defending an experienced Wikipedia editor whom s/he knows well. If you read both Joshua Jonathan's and Kautilya3's responses to you, above, they are polite throughout. Wikipedia's talk pages are not a forum. They are for discussing ways to improve articles. If you have suggestions, be specific, be polite, and support your opinions whenever possible with references to reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also see WP:AGF and WP:AOBF. Corinne (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. One more from me: the saying is not, as far as I know (but I may be incorrect, of course), "Taste of the pudding is in eating," but "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Retracing my comment above, yes, I guess ashrams may give a great taste (never been there, but I've been practicing and studying Buddhism for 25 years now; so don't pretend that I don't have experiential knowledge; I do. If you want to judge that knowledge, you'll have to know me personally. And you'll first have to prove what your credentials are in this regard, before you're even admitted to pass such a judgement), but I doubt that visiting an ashram proves anything, except a confirmation of one's own expectations. First, just a visit is not enough; to take the classical stuff, Advaita Vedanta takes years of committed study and practice (see "The Hidden Lives of Brahman"). Second, what you learn there is not some objective science, like physics; on the contrary, you learn to experience the world and yourself in a specific way; your life and worldview is reconstructed. See, among others, "The Sacred Canopy," on social constructionism. "Religious experience" is not a proof of a transcendental reality. And that's exactly what's at stake here, in several ways:

  • "Religious experience," and the idea of a transcendental reality which can experimentally accessed, is a western, esoteric/liberal Christian idea, which was incorporated by the Brahmo Samaj and Vivekananda in their worldview;
  • The discourse of "religious experience" excludes critical reasoning and academic study, yet is propagated and spread by mass-printing in the English language (oh irony);
  • Supporters of this kind of worldviews don't like critical questioning, and reject academical learning. The reason is obvious: this kind of learning exposes the insufficiencies and irony in their worldview;
  • There are many, too many, stories of socalled enlightened "masters" who diplayed very "unenlightened" behavior, sexually abusing their students and misusing their funds. I know the stories of Buddhist teachers, I've also read some of those on Hindu-teachers.

So, the tasting of the pudding is not enough proof. Additional study is necessary, both of the academics and of the traditions. To read people like Robert Sharf; his approach is exemplary of the the academic approach, where the idea of an experiential, perennial truth has been studies extensively. Rejecting these studies in advance, and refusing to even read them, is mere rethorics, and a sign of intellectual deficiency.
And it's also necessary to study the traditions themselves, and to ask what's being meant with "enlightenment;" what's being meant with yoga" and how it works; and what's being with "anubhava," "prajna," "bodhi," and other, related terms. And with study I mean: real study. Reliable academic sources, and the original sources themselves (yes, in translation; academic translations, not neo-Advaita interpretations). Read only Shankara's introduction to his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, and ask yourself why the champion of nondualism makes such a sharp distinction between the external world of objects and the internal world of the observer. Is this a nondualist? Questions, questions....
@AmritasyaPutra: don't use my talkpage the way you're using it with the above comment. I've removed only one comment from my talkpage in my whole Wiki-career; I was at the point of doing it again. That's a very bad score, as you may realize.
For the rest, best regards to all of you, and have a look at the Buddha's message in the left down corner. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: as an aside: you wrote "Joshua's understanding of Hinduism is way superior to most Hindus I know". Isn't "Hinduism" the stuff that "Hindus" believe and practice? So if I, a "non-Hindu," knows more about "Hinduism" than a "Hindu," then is what I have knowledge about "Hinduism"? Just strictly logically speaking; don't take this comment too serious. Or is it just, again, that "Hinduism" is just a fuzzy label for pragmatical usage, which raises all kinds of demarcatory problems when one takes it oot serious and tries to "define" it in a exact way? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adiagr: what would you like me to read? Any recommandations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Could you explain yourself clearly? How did you interpret my comment -- that makes you so furious? --AmritasyaPutraT 05:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like "clearly," "furious." Maybe you're just not aware of it, but there is a polemical, provoking, overstated tone in it. At the comment at Kautilya3, you're continuing your dispute with him: 'See, see, what he's doing?!?' As if you are at the schoolyard, fighting like schoolboys. I don't like it, and it's not necessary, I think. So, that's why I ask you not to respond in that way. You konw, the difference between "Olie op de golven gooien" an "olie op het vuur gooien" - "throwing oil at the waves" and "throwing oil at the flames." Okay, enough preaching; cheer-up, and have a nice day (or afternoon; it's probably later, there where you are). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for my long comment above (this comment is for all readers here, not just AP), a frustrating point here it that this 'social constructionist thesis' and 'esoteric/liberal Christianity derived religious experience thesis' is well documented, with appealing arguments. But one will have to read it, and study it, to get it. It makes the discussion one-sided: I'm referring to an extensive body of literature, but when the opponent doesn't know that body of literature, and also doesn't want to read it, then there is no real discussion, only the "proof" of one's own "truth" and the perpetuation of one's worldview. And I can't force someone else to read all that stuff. Really frustrating. And such a pity; it's really fascinating. I learned about social constructionism years ago; it really changed my understanding of the world, just like "complexity theory". The thrill of such a change in outlook is amazing. And the religious experience thesis" helped me understand what Buddhism is really about. Buddhism, and also Hindus like Ramana Maharshi, merely confirmed an understanding which was intuitive, and needed a confirmation from others. The "religious experience-bias" merely muddled this understanding. That's maybe the main reason why I'm so critical about it: it doesn't clarify, it obscures. But that's my understanding, based on personal experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I still did not get you. Perhaps I am slow, perhaps you are not clear. I do not see how you interpret it as fight. My response only meant what was written, there is/was no hidden intent/agenda. All I can say is, read this after a month, and like Buddha says, not imagine more than what is there, observe, you will see my questions as questions (only). --AmritasyaPutraT 06:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good advice, thanks. Funny, I thought kind of the same when I read the first line of your response: 'maybe I'm itchy, let it calm down for a while'. And then I read your xecond line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O servant, where dost thou seek Me?
Lo! I am beside thee.
I am neither in temple nor in mosque; I am neither in Kaaba nor in Kailash:
Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and renunciation.
If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me; thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time.

Kabir says, "O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 September 2015‎

I see Him (Her, "It", the Universe) in the person next to me; in the refugee walking through the Balkan in search of a save haven; in the elderly person sitting lonely in her appartment. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not even Tagore translation does justice to the Hindi original. You can let Pandit Ajoy Chakrabarty interpret it for you.[1]

References

  1. ^ AC Bhajan Moko Kahan Dhundo Re on YouTube
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 September 2015

Mail[edit]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You are a Saint![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
In recognition of your patient kind handling of mindless accusations. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A saint or a sant? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? There is no such word in my language :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got my first SPI today [72]. It is quite satisfying, I have to admit. It calls for a beer! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that you earned this. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks John. @Kautilya3: you were accused again? - oh, now I see: you created an SPI against someone else! Quite a list... Did you see this one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: see this edit by the editor in question; I think it gives an explanation of his sensitivities. Heavy shit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalburgi and Allama Prabhu[edit]

@JJ: Just wondering if this is relevant on the talk page of Allama Prabhu article. It is a developing tragic story about M. M. Kalburgi. Have you read other paragraphs from the article published few days ago, about Kalburgi being at "loggerheads with Lingayat community members"?, and his public statements on "urinating on symbols of someone's faith such as Virasaivas / various Hindu denominations / Muslims / Christians"? (FWIW, I am in the "Je suis Charlie" camp, no matter which group acts against freedom of speech).

I do not wish to speculate on @Mohanbhan sensitivities, and have serious doubt he belongs to the Lingayat community. I sense @Mohanbhan's objections more of a pattern of objections in Charvaka article and elsewhere. FWIW, in scholarly literature, Lingayatism is one of a passionate, spiritual, assertive yet complicated (and militant) history.

Is Kalburgi story relevant to Allama Prabhu article? Have you looked into Kalburgi's publications? Perhaps, views of Kalburgi can be searched and then sourced from his peer reviewed publications, included in the Lingayatism article? Thoughts? @Abecedare: any comments? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ms Sarah Welch. Yes, I also noticed that Kalburgi was quite radical in his approsch of Lingayatism. Nevertheless, I can imagine that this story somehow reveals some of the sensitivities of Mohanbhan. It's not just him, it's a general tone with many editors at India-related articles. I suppose that there's a lot of agression in Indian society, which is perpetual, and also surfaces here at Wikipedia. It's a pity, but somehow I can also understand that editors respond too quickly with 'assertive behavior.' I don't support it, but somehow I can understand it, maybe.
I don't know if Kalburgi's articles and research are relevant to Lingayatism. I'd never heard of him. Ramanujan, another writer I'd heard about, not taken notice of, seems to be an interesting writer, worth further reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support #Hamish59[edit]

If you have twitter, please tweet #Hamish59 so that he can become MBE. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.213.184 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic Voices: Intimate Narratives of a Living Andhra Tradition, Oxford University Press 2015[edit]

Interesting book.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks more than "interesting"; it gives a voice a "traditional tradition" which has minimal access to the urban, educated discourses. @Kautilya3 and Ms Sarah Welch: this book is interesting for you too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion and politics[edit]

Considering you were the last editor to edit the above template before the recent rush of activity, I thought you might want to look over the subsequent changes and see if you think they are warranted, and, maybe, discuss them if they aren't. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: looks okay to me, although it's a long list. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I first posted this because of the recent spurt of activity which was mentioned at the WT:RELIGION page. There does seem to have been a lot of recent edits by a newer editor regarding broadly feminist topics, from what I remember anyway. Whether that should be in that template, honestly, I don't know one way or another. If you don't have any objections, though, considering you probably know the topic area better than I do, I can accept that. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes?[edit]

@JJ: On this template request, have some in the past or you recently considered creating a new template and using it in Buddhist philosophy, Jain philosophy, Hindu philosophy and other relevant Indic wiki pages? I doubt this would be prudent or useful, but perhaps there are perspectives you have which may make me rethink. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered that, yes; and I also thought it would not be prudent. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avestan[edit]

See this edit at Avestan; see Avestan: Revision history for the follow-up. See also Talk:Invading the Sacred#Sockpuppet Accusations.

Original thread[edit]

The word Iran is derived from Airya/Arya. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan didn't even exist when Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit were spoken. Zarathustra describes how God has given the aryan people 16 lands, one of them being Aryanem Vaeja, which is east of Indus river, where aryans resided. So you're factually wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. Please stop this nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who has come up with the word Indo-European anyway? What makes this word legitimate? Have you forgotten that the history of Europe has been written by christian warmakers? It's the winners of war who write the history weather legit or not. The correct name of the language group is Indo-Aryan languages, and Avestan, Vedic sanskrit and other European languages being subgroups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to correct the great wrongs in human histority, that's fine with me. But not here, in this way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good rejoinder Hvarena. You should go through his comments on pages related to Hinduism. You will be able to see the similarities. Adiagr (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, Tsk. Adiagr, if you want a bright future at Wikipedia, cheering for trolls is not the way to go. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen, Abecedare, and Drmies: for the record, please take notice of the comment by Adiagr above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some serious responses:

  • @Hvarena:
  • "it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism" - Judaism is not relevant to this topic; at least not for me. Your comments are anti-semitic, and unacceptable here.
  • "You're obviously working for christian Europeans" - no, I'm not. I'm a Buddhist, and I work for nobody. This too is unrelated to this topic, and shows your biases.
  • "[European] history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language." - I'm looking forward to see the sources for this insight. As far as I know, Indo-Aryan c.q. Indo-Iranian is one of the youngest Indo-European languages; Germanic, Italic and Greek have earlier origins. See Indo-European migrations#Spread of Indo-European languages.
  • @Adiagr: if this "rejoinder" meets your criteria for "good," that's a very bad omen. See above.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avestan-spam #2[edit]

Repetition

Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.54.62 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avestan-spam #3[edit]

Repetition

Are you an Avestan knower?? What gives you the right to edit Avestan language without having any ties to it? Why are your edits correct? You also lack info and your edits are clearly in favor of western powers who want to see Judaism as first monotheistic religion.

Nonsense? Without sources? Go and read the Avesta!! it's obvious that you don't dare to critice Judaism. In the Torah it's mentioned that the Jewish God has given the Jewish people the Land of Israel, divided between 12 tribes. If a jew uses this info to correct an article in wikipedia about Hebrew or judaism, then you wont have any opinions. But when we the Zoroastrian/Aryan people want to correct misinfo about us, then everyone stands against us. Of course you don't dare to stand against Israel and USA. You're obviously working for christian Europeans who don't want to admit that their history actually came from Indo-Aryans and not Greeks and Romans. Indo-Aryan languages have to major groups Avestan and Vedic sanskrit. These to became origins for Latin and Greek language. It's no coincidance that 7 in Greek in Hepta (Hapta in Avestan) and in Latin septa (Sapta in Vedic s.). Go and read books before you become and editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvarena (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurya Empire and Buddhism, Buddha[edit]

At the beginning of the Mauryan empire Hinduism wasn't major religion. That whole paragraph is filled of misinformation. Nanda rulers before the Mauryans were Jains as the Udayagiri inscription of Kalinga says that Mahapadma Nanda after conquering Kalinga took the Statue of Adi Jina to Magadha. That itself shows that Hinduism wasn't prevalent at Magadha not before Mauryas. It is said that original Shramanas are Jains. Herman Jacobi, etc are of the same opinion. The historical Buddha followed self mortification. It is followed of the belief that soul and Body are different. But he later left it. Wasn't it written that Buddha's uncle was a nirgrantha. Also at that time renunciation was prevalent in Shramanas only. Oldest shramana reference you find about Jains only. Ashvawiki (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashvawiki: of course there was no "Hinduism" at the time of the mauryan empire; it only started to take shape then. But the fact that the Vedic-Brahmanic modernists do push their narrative of the 'ancient, Vedic Hinduism', is not a valid reason to push your preferred narrative of Jain ancientness here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late Vedic period map[edit]

@JJ: While working on Rigveda and Samaveda articles, I stumbled into this map for "late Vedic culture". You seem to have reviewed the quality of map in Januay 2015, with this comment. I wonder if you, back then, also checked the sources? The map doesn't look right, not even approximately. For example, page 4 of this paper by Michael Witzel includes Bengal and Andhra within the geographical area of late Vedic period. But, perhaps you saw something else somewhere? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a great map. Witzel's article is good too, by the way. Recommanded reading for Wikipedians. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17
39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: The map maker claimed Witzel to be a source, but the actual drawing does not follow Witzel. Do you know some map expert who can edit the map and correct it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. I tried it myself, but the result was incomparable to this map. thas't why I was so impressed; it's very well done. Maybe you can ask at the Teahouse? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This map wowed me as soon as I saw it. What exactly is wrong with it? I see Bengal and Andhra included among the red arrows. I don't know why they shouldn't be included in the primary zone as per sources, but intuitively it makes sense to me because Bengal/Orissa/Andhra have plenty of non-Vedic elements in their culture, including the language in the case of Andhra. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: nice update! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I added those red arrows. @JJ: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neruotheology[edit]

I remember you had made edits related to Religious experiences and TLE. Here is another article I came across, might be of interest to you. Interesting phenomena it is! --TheMandarin (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMandarin: thanks! It's rather sobering, isn't it? I've been studying religion and spirituality for over 25 years now, and this makes sense (...) The Ramakrishna-info on TLC convinced me. I also think that "serious" religious/spiritual/mystical practice is not only about socalled "mystical experiences," but also about learning and practicing self-restraint, altruistic behavior, and incorporating a worldview. It takes time to learn to see and experience the world in a certain way, c.q. to restructure the way you, or your brain, structures your experience. Yeah, sobering indeed... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
more than sobering, I was quite astonished, it was something new to me. I had been reading Brain that changes itself and some of the studies are quite interesting. Now I do believe that there is reasonable probability of TLE in many cases. Tc. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already found out in my work that most people who are sick are not so much interested in God, but in their close relatives and their well-being. A menaingfull life, for most people, is in being connected with other people, and contributing to 'the larger good of weel-being'. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vedas and Buddhist texts[edit]

Three Vedas[edit]

@JJ: I have been digging into Buddhist and Jaina texts for information on when they recognized "four Vedas" instead of "three Vedas" (see Atharvaveda). Few questions: [1] Do you know the century in which Digha Nikaya was composed? source? (Book 13, the Tevijjasutta, recognizes only three Vedas) [2] Which was the first Buddhist text which mentions all four Vedas? [3] Which was the first Buddhist text that explicitly "rejected Vedas" and explained what is it that they were rejecting?

After all, the Vedic precepts, in pre-Buddhist texts such as Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, repetitively suggest "Satya (truthfulness), Ahimsa (non-violence), Daya (compassion), Damah (self restraint, temperance), etc."; rejecting Vedas cannot mean the earliest Buddhist texts were rejecting these Vedic Hinduism precepts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, nice going! Now you are trying to answer the question why Hinduism was unnamed! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pfff, I'll have to do some homework to give you some answers. Say 200-300 BCE for Digha Nikaya. I don't know if there are Buddhist texts that explicitly reject the Vedas; it's more that the Buddhist sutras use Vedic concepts, in a twisted way, to explain Buddhist concepts. What (early) Buddhism rejected was the idea that ritual can set one free from rebirth. And yes, those Upanishadic concepts were not rejected; the Brahma-viharas are another familiair topic. NB: what Buddhism also rejected was the primacy of the Brhamins; this seems to be connected to the difference between Kura-Pancala and the region where the Buddha came from. See also Witzel, Michael (1995), "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state" (PDF), EJVS vol. 1 no. 4 (1995); Richard Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought; and Johannes Bronkhorst, Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India (massive!). I'll try to give a more elaborate answer later! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: I await the detailed reply. All four Nikayas and pre-1st century Pali canonical texts recognize only "three Vedas". A 15th-century manuscript of Milinda Panha mentions "four Vedas" in the passing, but it is unclear if its original did so too and was faithfully copied. The Vedas do not declare primacy of anyone (Witzel doesn't state Vedas do), but if they do please identify which verse of which Veda, and which ancient Buddhist text asserts that this is what "rejected Vedas" meant? On rituals-rebirth theory you mention, I will need to do some re-reading; may be I missed something. I appreciate your efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ps): BTW, the early Jainism texts too recognize just "three Vedas" – Rigveda, Samaveda and Yajurveda. But I need to read a few more sources, before distilling all this into a few sentences for the Atharvaveda article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's "What the Buddha Thought," by the way. The other title is the classic by Walhola. Tilmann Vetter (1988), The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism, BRILL, is also a fine source on early Buddhism. Try a Google-search; it may be rewarding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Walpola Rahula book. Neither the word Veda nor any of the four Vedas are in there (did I miss it, which page?). Indeed, it and the Gombrich's book are good sources. Joanna Jurewicz traced the rebirth theory to Rigveda, but the ritual-rebirth connection you hint above is something I need to re-read. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: okay, homework's finished; two out of three questions are answered:

  • 1. Digha Nikaya.
  • Ah, the Tevijjasutta! Mocking the Brahmins, for declaring truths without an experiential basis. Yes, it mentions "three Vedas." Never noticed that.
  • Dating: Maurice Walshe mentions the standard story of oral transmission, and transcription in the 1st century BCE. Bhikkhu Thich Minh Thanh, The Mind in Early Buddhism, says not later than 383-265 B.C.
  • 2. First Buddhist mention of four Vedas: at alest in the Milinda Panha, says Alex Wayman, Untying the Knots in Buddhism, p.52. Same source, p.52: "the Atharva would gain the status of a fourth Veda [...] about the same time as the composition as the Svetasvatara." Pretty early; Wayman also says "the circa 80 years from the Buddha's nirvana."
  • 3. I don't know. I don't know if the Vedas were explicitly rejected; Brahmanism was rejected. But if so, already in the earliest texts, I'd say. See, for instance, Gombrich (1997), How Buddhism Began. The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. A pdf can be found at the web. See also the preceding paragraph at Wayman p.50-51, about the incorporation of Saivites into the Vedic fold.

Well, that was an interesting piece of homework. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: Thanks.
On #1 and #2 – All scholarly studies I can recall, such as by Frits Staal, place the first "written" Buddhist text in late 1st century BCE. It does not mean that the text did not exist before then, since they could have been composed and transmitted orally, just like other Indic traditions. Alex Wayman acknowledges the controversy over Buddhist text chronology, after the "circa 80 years" note. Your answer helps. Atharvaveda was recognized as the fourth Veda, even in Buddhist texts as well, many centuries after the "three Vedas".
On #3 – Gombrich is helpful, and he states Buddha "did not" reject all that is in the Upanishads. Gombrich writes, on pages 31-34 of How Buddhism Began?, "On some points, which he [Buddha] perhaps took for granted, he was in agreement with the Upanishadic doctrine; on other points he criticized it." The criticism was about the idea of "Atman, soul"; see, various pages in Gombrich, such as the last lines of page 15, "He was opposing the Upanishadic theory of the soul (self, Atman)." I like Gombrich's explanation, that the Upanishadic scholars of ancient India reduced the essence to and emphasized something like "1 = 1", while Buddha denied the essence (of soul), and emphasized the parallel equation "0 = 0". Lovely stuff. So, indeed, at least per Gombrich, Buddha did not reject the Vedas (Upanishads are part of it), but he did disagree with Vedic Hinduism scholars' premise of "Soul / Atman exists" and its monism with Brahman. But then, this raises a series of obvious questions.
Once again, thank you for your kindness, your effort and your answers above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saivism and the Vedic fold[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've got a counter-question, reagrding Wayman p.50-52 of the integration of Saivism into the Vedic fold: is tnhis a likely scenario? Also the connection with the vratyas. It sounds like a reasonable, though somewhat speculative scenario. It fits with the persistent argument that Lingayatism is not Hinduism, with the agama/nigama classification, and with my personal feeling that Saivism is different from Vaishnavism. Also, but that's my personal impression, Saivism and Buddhism seem to share common ground, more so than Vaishnavism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition: does this file seem to be correct to you, in placing Rudra-worship at the root of Saivism? I think that this file needs correction. Could the source be Gavin Flood? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: Indeed, Alex Wayman is very speculative. Wayman's theories in that chapter are mostly his opinion, his primary research and not widely accepted.
The answer to your question depends on what you include as core doctrines of Buddhism and Hinduism. If you accept Gombrich's premise, and I do, that ""Atman/Soul does not exist" and "Atman/Soul exists" is a core, ineradicable doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Hinduism respectively, then Lingayatism and Saivism are not part of or close to Buddhism, and Lingayatism and Saivism are a part of Hinduism. A core practice/path of Lingayatism, from its earliest days, and ever more with its later scholars, has been its theory of Shatsthala. It asserts "soul (self) exists" and that liberation / enlightenment / moksha at sixth stage is reaching the monistic consciousness that "Self and Shiva are one". It is this Shatsthala theory that Ramanujan refers to, in his Speaking of Siva book, before adding, "According to Dr SC Nandimath (Handbook of Virasaivism), there are philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya".
Buddhism denies Soul/Self, and there is no "Soul-Atman-Self and Everyone/Everything/Universe is One" in Buddhism. Different schools of Hinduism use different terms for Everyone/Everything/Universe.... such as Shiva / Vishnu / Devi / Brahman / Nature / Etc for their respective ideas for equivalence, and often they have no issues with celebrating or respecting the multiple manifestations / Avatars that may look different. But the core doctrines in Hinduism, beyond the visual diversity, resonate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: On your other question. That file doesn't look right, not even close, but Rudra is widely accepted as having metamorphosed into Shiva in their tradition. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the earliest text with the Om Namah Shivaya mantra?VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure anymore about 'Buddhism denies Atman/Self'. See Buddha-nature, Nirvana as unconditioned in Theravada-Buddhism, and Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vic: Frits Staal, one of the best on this subject, called om namah shivaya a Puranic mantra (Shiva Purana). Agamas and Tantrism, per others. Shiva and Om are in the Upanishads (Shvetashvara being the earliest), so its origin could be late Vedic period. The "Hello Divine Within" translation of that mantra is in 1st millennium CE texts. In Indic literature, particularly the Hindu tradition of anonymity and "just focus on the idea, not on the person behind the idea", dating any text is an adventure, convincing others even bigger. Chronology of Jaina and Buddhist texts has been easier. Harvey Alper's book Understanding Mantras is a good starting point on this, but you probably know it already. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book Vedic Voices criticizes Frits Staal. In general I don't read old scholarship like Staal.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: The first two links have practically nothing, either way, on Atman/Self/Soul in Buddhism. The third, Schayer is interesting, with Vinnana, and Keith's view, and "the Nikayas preserve elements of an archaic form of Buddhism which is close to Brahmanical beliefs, and survived in the Mahayana tradition". The claim of "absolutist tendencies in [the texts of] Jainism and [in the] Upanishads", in that wiki article section, is incongruent with those texts. The predominant scholarly view of anatta is that this "no Soul" is a core doctrine of Buddhism, and a major departure from Hinduism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Thank you.

Your comments have been noted. Futuremind123 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir Conflict[edit]

I would like to point out that none of the articles referring to the Kashmir conflict and the JKLF demonstrate a "neutral point of view" as Wikipedia demands.

Almost all of the articles are biased towards the Indian point of view and almost all of the controversial statements and comments are referenced by biased Indian media sources. There are hardly any Pakistani media sources ever quoted or even the views of the ordinary Kashmiris.

This is extremely frustrating as the India lobby operating on Wikipedia with the support of the West does not allow itself to be censored and does not itself comply with the regulations it has signed up to on Wikipedia.

Futuremind123 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Sharma again[edit]

Hi Joshua, another great paper from Arvind Sharma: Sharma, Arvind (2008), "The Hermeneutics of theWord "Religion" and Its Implications for the World of Indian Religions", in Sherma, Rita; Sharma, Arvind (eds.), Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 19–32, ISBN 978-1-4020-8192-7. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to read it (though later). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Yoga[edit]

Extremly intrigued, as i see you have started to digging into Integral yoga :), however there are some pointers this week can discuss in relevant talk pages Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the models of Wilber and Aurobindo; differentiating between Aurobindo's levels of being and Aurobindo's developmental stages.
Comparison of the models of Wilber and Aurobindo; differentiating between Aurobindo's levels of being and Aurobindo's developmental stages. Comparing with Fowler's model, which includes a turn ouward.
@Shrikanthv: yes, I started digging indeed. At first I thought it was all humbug, but the more I dig, the more impresses I am. Most astonishing fact is, that Wilber twisted Aurobindo's models, and turned it into an unlogocal model. Whereas Aurobindo describes the higher levels of being with Higher Mind etc., and spiritual development with psychisication, spiritualisation and supramentalisation; there Wilber takes those levels of being as stages of development. Weird!!! I already knew that Wilber is very inaccurate in his summaries of other person's theories, but what he's done here is almost a deliberate confusion and distraction.
An accurate table would look like the table at the right side. If we also include Fowler's work, yet another turn outward might be included, after the supra-mentalisation, as described in the second table.
Remember our fights over Neo-Advaita (of course you do)? Aurobindo's models provide the terminology to explain what's wrong with neo-Advaita: it takes psychisication to be the endpoint: realize your Divine core, and you're done. Whereas Aurobindo says that much more is to be done after that.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the basic problem with this is I seriously doubt how many of them have actually attained those states, its like if we both have not visited Paris and we just go on talking about it.. fantasizing.. writing poetry.... but still once we are there that could be quite a surprise!, and sorry to disturb you yes as Ramana says we have to find "who am I" but then there would remain "who is you" (the other side of the same coin), but let us continue our "work" Shrikanthv (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great comment, "Who are you?"! It summarizes a long, long debate about the need for compassion. Regarding Paris: having been there or not may be a fundemantal question; but incorrectly summarizing the travel-guides is yet another one, which can be avoided. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "myth"[edit]

I did that to point the bias that you and others are propogating. Why is it that mythology is associated with Hinduism (a major world religion) yet not with Islam (another major world religion)? Do you not see the bias of this? Removing the word 'myth' from certain pages removes this bias that favours the Abrahamic religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Edit Summary[edit]

Thanks for linking/noting where you copied [73] from - always attribute sources as you did.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral yoga#2[edit]

See that you are moving it with a good pase best of luck Shrikanthv (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you like the table. I love it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavan[edit]

Hi Joshua. That quote is misleading and therefore incorrect. I spotted it yesterday and couldn't figure it out. It contradicts everything else that Bhagavan says. Upon arriving in Arunachala he didn't even know what the concepts of Advaita, Dvaita, and all the other technical terms were. He had no intellectual knowledge of them and he says that on numerous occasions. In fact, it's even cited in other parts of the wikipedia article. Just read the Acquaintance with Hindu Scriptures section. It's impossible that he himself had these questions crop up when he didn't know what these things were nor had any personal need to put his experience into words. That was for other people. Please unrevert your revert. I emailed David Godman about it, to double check, when I saw it, because it was so odd. Here is what he had to say about it in an email to me. He sources a different book:

It's from G. V. Subbaramayya's book, Sri Ramana Reminsicences. The full quote is:

"The next day Sri Bhagavan made a revealing declaration about Himself. He said, “Even in the beginning I realised that I am not the body. After I came to Arunachala all sorts of questions cropped up whether I am one with the All-pervading Reality or different, whether that Reality is Non-dualism, Dualism or qualified Non-dualism etc. Even the idea ‘I am Brahman’ is only a thought and is not Atma-nishtha (Self-abidance). That one should give up all thought and abide in the Self is the conclusion of all religions. Even Nirvikalpa Samadhi is only a stage in ‘Sadhana’ (practice). It implies going into Samadhi and rising from Samadhi. For me there was no necessity at all to do any Sadhana.”"

Taken out of context it might appear that Bhagavan himself is asking the questions, but he is actually referring to questions that are being posed to him.

Bhagavan never needed or used technical vocabulary to define or explain his experience of himself to himself. He said once that he didn't even know what the word Brahman meant until he read it in a book in Tiruvannamalai. The experience was there, but there was never any desire to express it in words or concepts. It was his visitors who wanted him to express it using terminological frameworks that they had read in books.

If you really wish, I will find other sources that contradict and correct this misquote and then remove it, but it would be simpler just to revert the edit. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Ramana Maharshi#"Questions cropping up"; to be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva and Buddha[edit]

@JJ: Your History of Shaivism and Shaivism merger proposal reminds me of a resource: Anthony Reid (2015), A History of Southeast Asia: Critical Crossroads, Wiley Blackwell, ISBN 978-1118513002. It has a chapter titled, "Buddha and Shiva below the winds". Discusses how Buddhism and Shaivism co-existed in Java, from about 5th-century to pre-14th and 15th-century. In 15th-century, epidemics (Mongol plague and smallpox killed about half the population), volcanic activity and famines (which killed more) devastated the Indonesian islands, crippled the Buddhist-Shaiva spiritual leadership and above all the State apparatus. This set the stage for military invasions first from Malaya/Tai, followed by Islam.

Years ago I spent a month visiting ancient Java temples. Some of them feature both Buddha and Siwa (Ciwa, Debata Batara Guru) / Uma / Sri / Wisnu / Nandi / etc reliefs and sculpture. The 14th-century Javanese poet Tantular in his poem Sutasoma was already pondering on "differences" and "oneness" between Buddha and Shiva.

The truth of Jina (Buddha) and the truth of Shiva is one; they are indeed different, but they remain one (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika), as there is no duality in Truth.

— Mpu Tantular, Sutasoma, Translated by Santoso 1975, (Anthony Reid @ page 45)

That chapter may be an interesting read for a summary in the Shaivism article, on this influence and interaction of Buddhism and Shaivism in Indonesia. Another resource is Ann Kinney's Worshiping Siva and Buddha: The Temple Art of East Java (with nice pictures). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian Esoteric Buddhism" by Ronald Davidson and "Saiva Age" by Alexis Sanderson describe the relationship between Buddhism and Saivism in India.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vic: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfulness[edit]

Hi Joshua Jonathan! How have you been? Interesting stuff that is at the Mindfulness article. I was actually planning to look into the subject in more detail, but I noticed that the references [35] and [36] are missing (Sharf 2014). Would you mind adding those to the article? :-) Cheers mate! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It's a typo: 2014 instead of 2000. YTime for bed... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI[edit]

Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pebble101. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also noticed the IP-edits. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good source for South Asian genetics: Endicott, Phillip; Metspalu, Mait; Kivisild, Toomas (2007), "Genetic evidence on modern human dispersals in South Asia: Y chromose and mitochondrial DNA perspectives", in Michael D. Petraglia; Bridget Allchin (eds.), The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia, Springer, pp. 201–228, ISBN 1-4020-5561-7. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble101[edit]

Thanks. Not sure if you know he edits a lot from 117. range/s. He says it's because he can't login at university. Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. How about the Elam-Dravidian connection? Is it "fringe," jus because it's 'just a theory? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the dust hasn't settled on that issue yet. The Petraglia-Allchin volume is a good secondary source for these things. See p. 248. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Padmasambhava page[edit]

Please see Padmasambhava page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed... Block the page for a week? Sigh... Anyway, I'll look into it, of course, though not right now. Best regards, and don't forget to enjoy the sun, the clouds, the sky and whatever marvels of nature may be around you (serious!!!). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Board[edit]

Hi! I raised my complains about your behavior at the notice board as you suggested:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joshua_Jonathan_disruptive_editing_on_Ramana_Maharshi.C2.B4s_article

Best, Mauna22 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the talkpage-stalkers: see Talk:Ramana Maharshi#User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article

Dharmasetu[edit]

All sourced to one person. And a quick check shows that there are other povs. Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller. That's a request to take a look there, I guess? meanwhile, could you take a look at the thread above, including the involved talkpage? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page[edit]

If you find is something wrong with the expression Iddli or any other user used in my talk page, please warn him is his talk page. I cannot and should not erase them from the page due to WP:POLICY. You are getting way too personal here Mauna22 (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mauna22: Iddli didn't make any comment on your talkpage, did he? Iddli is a gentleman, and a nice person. If you think I'm getting too personal, I wonder how you feel about phrases like "Wikipedia Nazis" and "snakes." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I fell like is none of of my business. If anything is something with you, Iddli, and WP. Nothing to say about that Mauna22 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cpt.a.haddock does not want to compromise[edit]

Cpt.a.haddock does not want to compromiseVictoriaGraysonTalk 15:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Vic please. Give it it a try. We're working on it, you too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already compromised. Cpt.a.haddock hasn't compromised one bit.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vic, I'm going to read all of it. But not today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Hello, JJ - Do you remember when you added the template to my talk page to enable automatic archiving? I don't know why, but it is no longer archiving. I may have inadvertently removed the template. Could you add the template again? Thank you. Corinne (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the layout on my talk page, about two weeks ago I changed it because I wanted each of the names of the links to appear all on one line instead of wrapping to the next line, so I made the box wider, then put the picture at the left to be about the same size, but I know it probably wasn't the best kind of layout. It was just all I could figure out. I really did like the wider box, though, for the links. Corinne (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a ]] too much. I'll try again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great now. Thanks. Is there any way that you could un-hide all that? Corinne (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Can you put the painting to the left and a box with the links to the right of it? Corinne (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unhid like: no collapsed/hidden table, but immediately visible? For the alignment: tricky stuff, but I'll give it a try (later). best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean. I use the links and templates so often I like them to be visible. I want the box for the links just wide enough so that the links and templates are each on one line. Thanks for working on this. Corinne (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. D. Davies[edit]

JJ, I want to make a minor copy-edit to Note 2 at the bottom of W. D. Davies. I want to add a space between "W.D." and "Davies". How can I do that? When I look at the article in edit mode, I don't even see "W.D.Davies" there. Corinne (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff --AmritasyaPutraT 02:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmritasyaPutra: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A sideline in football when not editing wiki[edit]

Is this you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_John 

;-)

Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He'll be on my list with famous Joshuas! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ HELP[edit]

HI JJ did you notice Integral yoga page its a mess !! now even with wrong move without any discussion !! help! Shrikanthv (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shrikanthv! I'm going to take a look right-away! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm looking:
  • What's wrong with the page-move? Should Aurobindo have priority? In that case, just drop a note at Dodger67's talkpage, and discuss this with him. I'll bet that he will take any concerns serious.
  • The hatnote is correct now, isn't it?
If there are other concerns, please let me know. Best regards, as usual, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just the Wikignome who helped Joellepearson sort out the article title problem - two different variants of yoga that use the same name. I know nothing about yoga so I'm definitely not the right person to help sort this content dispute. It may be useful to take the discussion to WikiProject Yoga to get multiple opinions from subject specialists. I'm happy to assist with technicalities such as hatnotes, so ping me if you need it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorry for biting Roger (Dodger67) but I agree with you, hmm then I do not know JJ what would be the procedure for not diluting the name? , according to me I do not profess that Aurobindo has any exlusivity trademark on the name , it may also clarify for new commers on differentiating the topic, but as JJ said may be Sri Aurobindo may have priority interms of page but how it would look like then ? Shrikanthv (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pfff... There's a policy on this, Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If Aurobndo's Integral Yoga is the primary topic, then Integral Yoga shouldn't be a disambiguation-page, but a normal page, with a link tot he other article. And, as far as I know (but I'm not an expert), it's also possible to create a page with the name Integral Yoga (disambiguation). On the other hand, Integral yoga (Aurobindo) is also clear, isn't it? I'm going to ask for some help from others. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger (Dodger67) and Let's talk! - Satchidananda actually holds the trademark on Integral Yoga, for what it's worth, so if anything, he should have priority for the page. I think the way that the 2 branches are distinguished now is clear. Let me know what I need to do in order to keep this page live. Thanks! (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.49.170 (talk)

Please do not ping me unless you need help with technicalities such as hatnotes, page moves, etc. I know nothing about yoga and care even less, I'm not in the slightest interested in the content debate. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A trademark? No kidding! Oh, it's true... From Satchidananda Saraswati: "Integral Yoga was trademarked to keep the teachings consistent as the popularity of yoga increased exponentially in the West and to have duly trained instructors imparting the teachings of the Satchidananda Saraswati lineage." Well, that's also a way, instead of dogma's. Shrikanthv, it looks like the way it is now is the best way. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no: "Integral yoga (Aurobindo)" is back to Ïntegral yoga". To be continued? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HI JJ I think the trademark claim is for "Integral yoga satchidanda " BD2412 has corrected it and a hatnote addition at top pointing the things in differentiating seems fine now Shrikanthv (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! I'm confused as to why Arubindo is now the default Integral Yoga page. If Satchidananda and Yogaville own the Trademark, etc, then why does it default to Arubindo when a user searches? If it's going to stay that way, is there a way to remove the 2 disclaimers at the top? What can I do to unslate it for deletion and prove its sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joellepearson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RM fighting HAF[edit]

I have been researching into Hindu American Foundation lately, having seen an alarm by Vic. When I googled for "Rajiv Malhotra Hindu American Foundation," guess what pops up? [74] A fight on caste! - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the HAF itself also seems to be positioned at the political right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that. The HAF makes up most of RM's political constituency, and probably continues to do so. The way I look at it, it is the fight between `bourgeois Hinduism' and the `intellectual Hinduism', while the `orthodox Hinduism' stands by to watch. I wonder what will happen when California rewrites its textbooks next time. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ceasefire in this civil war, and a closing of fronts against modernity? "The invasion of the secular," so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Bourgeois Hinduism is full of colonial values. RM is nothing if not anti-colonial. No rapprochement is possible. But it would be nice if they fought more intensely! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the west Hindus are on the political left. Christians are on the political right.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The leftists don't agree. "But not a word was heard from any of these organizations on the farmers' suicides in Andhra Pradesh, on the deepening problem of unemployment across India, and on the cataclysmic child malnutrition rates across the country. These matters were not, apparently, of importance. Discussions about Brand India eclipsed the burgeoning social crises in India... Equally, these organizations remained silent after 9/11 regarding the attacks on South Asians and Arabs and on the illegal detentions of hundreds of South Asians (...). Immigration reform, "Operation Meth Merchant" (against small Indian shopkeepers in Georgia), and other such issues were equally off the radar of the Hindu Lobby and the neoliberal consumerists. None of them had anything critical to say about the imperial assaults between the Hindu Kush and the Atlas Mountains, or the massive military spending in the United States that distorts the possibility of a social agenda for the people. On all these matters, silence."[1]

Wait, there is more. "It is a mark of shame that our religious traditions, all our religious traditions, have paid so little interest to the mounting suffering of th epeople, whether it's the farmers who resort to suicide or the migrants who must leave their homes to work with little dignity in South Asia's burgeoning cities. There is no Kabir today, no Bulleh Shah, no Buddha. What we have, rather, is religion baring its fangs, not its heart." (p.181) - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Prashad, Vijay (2012). Uncle Swami: South Asians in America Today. The New Press. p. 179. ISBN 1595588019.

In the west, Hindus are not accepted by the Christian right wing. There is no such thing as a right wing Hindu politician in the west.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure JJ meant Hind right wing, which may have no relation at all to the Christian right wing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Article[edit]

Hi Joshua, Sitush is taking an absolute wrecking ball to Ramana's article. So far, I actually think it's a very good thing, as he's cleared a lot of the cobwebs and brought it down to be far less bloated and more in line with Wiki standards. However, having said that, I am concerned by his comments in the talk pages, that he is just going to obliterate the whole article, and unduly.

1. He didn't engage in a dialogue and try to find a solution when I put up that post about the sources on Ramana and yo'd a few people. Instead he simply latched onto the idea of deleting the article, when Ramana is clearly a notable personality who should be on Wikipedia, and there must be allowances within the framework of wikipedia to accommodate a case like Ramana, where so many of the sources come from devotees.

2. He instead mentioned "factions among devotees". I've no idea what he is referring to. "Debating chambers". Again? What is the debate? If both are referring to the recent talk pages about Alan Edwards, then there is something behind these words, but looking at the actual article, that's a very small segment. The rest is not a forum for debate. He also mentions "soapboxing". The article doesn't seem to me like a soapbox. It's not lecturing. It's simply information.

3. He obviously has some authority on wikipedia and knows all of the shorthand and code and protocol, which is excellent, but that shouldn't mean that he can simply whitewash the entire article as non-notable. It almost feels like he has an agenda. I'm not saying he does, but one gets that feeling when he uses extremely strong adjectives such as "abysmal", "extraordinary" etc. to knock down entries and is sweeping in his dismissal of things.

5. He talks about walled gardens on the David Godman article, but I would say Ramana is a fenced garden, and the type of fence that allows one to climb over it or under it. Ramana obviously warrants a place on wikipedia and not because I think so, but because of what wikipedia says and stands for.

Having said that, like I said, so far, I don't disagree with any of his actual edits to the article, but I just wanted to message you about this, because you are more embedded within wikipedia than I am and know many more editors, so that if he does start to completely dismantle the article unduly, you could get in touch with other editors who have as much clout as he does, so that there is a genuine debate regarding reliable sources and a solution can be found, which was what I was trying to instigate on Ramana's talk page.

Cheers, Bodhadeepika (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodhadeepika: Sitush is one of the top-editors at India-related articles. He's doing a lot of work on caste-related articles, receiving tons of shits from all sort of caste-pre-occupied editors; nevertheless, he carries on, which is highly appreciated and valued. He's rally good. Regarding the non-notability of Ramana Maharshi, I haven't seen his latest edits yet, but I think you shouldn't worry about it too much. Ramana Maharshi is notable, despite the lack of academic sources. I'm gong to have a look now! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: see also the reply by Ms Sarah Welch at the Ramana Maharshi talkpage; she provided two more scholarly sources. So, yes, notability established. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Just to say your kind thanks a year ago for my edits to Mysticism made my day today. Manytexts (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Manytexts: yesterday was Back to the Future day; how apt! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfection! :) Manytexts (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For you[edit]

And a pet
File:Glowa dga argentynskiego.jpg
Wonder what will be for dinner today? Chocolate cookies!
A Batman for you
A Batman for you! Hafspajen (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Houdini? Or the inversed Batman: how many people are watching me? All the best, and good to hear from you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia people need training in self-defense. Hafspajen (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's a sure thing. I'm not that tolerant anymor eof the POV-pushers - I'm beginning to recognize the pattern of self-aggrandisement and total disregard for other persons, and the contempt for scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Karate to be learned. Hafspajen (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like Brad Warner?[edit]

Do you like Brad Warner?VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain level. You don't, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long time Tibetan Buddhists don't like Zen stuff.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take Yoga Back![edit]

Hi JJ, you might be interested in this controversy [75]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original debate [76]. I think they are making quite valid points. I guess media distortions as usual. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: some comments here while reading:

  • Did I already recommend De Michelis' A History of Modern Yoga to you? She explains why a meditation-text came to be seen as the philosophical basis for Hatha-yoga, as in this quote from your link:
"as a tradition of colorful and harrowing wandering ascetics more than the spiritual inspiration of Patanjali, the second century BCE commentator and composer of the Yoga Sutras, that form the philosophical basis of Yoga practice today."
  • "Once yoga was no longer intertwined with its Hindu roots, it became up for grabs and easy to sell." - Hear Buddhist complain about mindfulness. Which reminds me of Ramana Maharshi, whose teachings are disembedded from its cultyral context, and reduced to asking yourself "Who am I?"
  • And how about Zen? 'Straight to the core', or so they say. 'Don't read complicated texts, just experience the core' - "religious experience is a western invention, from western Christians, who felt threatened in their beliefs by modernity.
  • "Yoga actually predates Hinduism by many centuries" - yes, it does, though it's thoroughly Indian of course. Though, The Yoga Sutras were based on Budhhist teachings.
  • "Yoga is Hinduism’s gift to humanity" - that should be, of course, Yoga is India’s gift to humanity."
  • "it offer ways to know God" - that's already a western bias; "God" can't be "known." Avidya can be removed, but "to know" implies some sort of possession, while it's got more to do with "surrender" and having no grip to hold on to.
  • "Expect conflicts if you are sold on the exclusivist claims of Abrahamic faiths–that their God awaits the arrival of only His chosen few at heaven’s gate–since yoga shows its own path to spiritual enlightenment to all seekers regardless of affiliation." - that's Universalism, a western Christian invention.

My, it's long text; I'll print it to read it at a comfortable place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's the familiair tone, at the responses: "A deeply fascist aspect of Mr. Chopra’s response is his attempt to defame Mr. Shukla by labeling him as someone with a Hindu fundamentalist agenda." They're all over the place, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, the political point is this: what makes "curry, cow, and caste" Hindu while it makes "yoga" and "vedanta" un-Hindu? How do you answer that? (Mind you that our friend Michael Witzel has come down on the side of making at least "cow and caste" Hindu.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Is that indeed the overall picture that's being painted in (American) schoolbooks? Or is t a caricature? It's not what I learned at school. We had this great magazine, Taptoe; I remember an issue on Hinduism, with a lot of nice pictures of Hindu-deities. Very impressing; I still remember it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is what the Hindu kids that grow up in America face from their fellow classmates. That fits my own experience, judging from what my friends in the grad school were saying they knew about Hinduism. I don't know what exactly get taught, but notice this passage that was mentioned in the California textbook controversy: “The monkey king Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. So look around—see any monkeys?”
Frankly, I am not comfortable with the cookie-cutting going on about what should be considered Hinduism and what shouldn't. The Europeans have decided that they have a Christian "religion" and a western "civilization." The Hindus haven't made such a distinction. As far as they are concerned, everything natively Indian is "Hinduism." If anybody has a better definition, I would love to see it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

enjoy the peace of mind
Thank you for quality articles on Buddhism, such as Zhongfeng Mingben, for quoting and explaining, for inspiring images and "enjoy the peace of mind", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1021 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: great! That's really nice. Thank you! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Maharshi[edit]

Hi. I noticed you've written in the Ramana Maharshi article. It could use a lot of copyediting. Also, "atmic power" probably needs to be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillsYourUncle (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BillsYourUncle: thanks for your message! Have you instances of the copy-editing it needs? I don't know if "atmic power" needs to de defined; these are the words of Ramana Maharshi, which he uses to further describe this avesam. There's an extended note on this term in the article, note 2. Any definition would also be an interpretation, presumaby toward an interpretation within the framework of Indian religions, leading away from a 'phenomenological' description. That is: "my self" (this avesam, "current," "force") becomes "the Self," which may seem the same, and yet has a quite different flavour to it. Other interpretations are possible, though. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look; I see what you mean. I'm Dutch. "Beatings at the body" would be my translation of "klappen op het lichaam," I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought "atmic power" was a term that most people wouldn't understand. Does Wikipedia have an article on it that could be linked? Or some other way to define it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillsYourUncle (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BillsYourUncle: Did you read the note? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Brahma page[edit]

Please see Brahma page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali[edit]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
@Dharmadhyaksha: thanks! That's nice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma theory[edit]

FYI... you created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Ajativada, so to speak. tHanks!

Diwali greetings[edit]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
@Capankajsmilyo: what a nice coincidence. Today is St. Martin's Day, also a feast of light, in the netherlands. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great Happy St. Martin's Day too :) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! This is how religions appropriate culture? Happy St. Martin's Day, JJ! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Brahma[edit]

Hi JJ. I'm sorry to bother, but you seem to have a good relationship with Victoria Grayson and we may need a fresh set of eyes to help settle a dispute that has become intractable. I have presented my argument very clearly with an abundance of sources, but nothing I've said seems to make the slightest impression with her. I feel the edit was unwaranted, presents material that is already in the article in an undue manner at the top of the article and she continues to argue about sources ignoring the only issue at hand which is the placement of info in her edit. We now seem to be bordering on an edit war which I feel is an unbecoming way for this to evolve. Any advice or second opinions would be greatly appreciated. You can see all the sources I've presented and the debate right here [77] Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'll look at it, of course, but not right now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Hindu philosophy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you mistook Ms Sarah Welch's edit for my edit, you nevertheless seem to be satisfied with my latest edits, and now you're issuing me a warning? I thrust you were just mistaken here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ya. I accept my mistake. But after my cn template is removed there is no way other than giving article part in edit summary which have enough citations and revert other edits.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன்: I'll have a look at the cn-tag. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agni[edit]

Thought you might find this interesting http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe41/sbe4128.htm It describes a creation story in which Prajapati is associated with Agni as the first created being. Don't know if it's worth adding to the article. It's just kind of neat. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iṣṭa Devatā: thanks. I think we'll first have to finish the cleaning-up. I'm sorry for that other; I do understand his point, and all the quotes gave me an impression how the understanding of Agni, in a traditional context, works. But it's really too much for a Wiki-article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For you incredible effort and discernment in cleaning up the Agni page. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iṣṭa Devatā: thank you very much! Now it's time for the fine-tuning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universalism[edit]


I have reverted your edit on "Template:Universalism" as the reason you gave was not appropriate.

It is mention in the intro of the article Universalism that, "In terms of religion, in a broad sense, universalism claims that religion is a universal human quality". This exactly matches the Jain view that "dharma" is the very nature or quality of the soul.

Another statement in the intro read, "A community that calls itself universalist may emphasize the universal principles of most religions and accept other religions in an inclusive manner". This is exactly what Jainism's most fundamental doctrine of Anekantavada is about.

Many other Jain philosophical concepts have universal applicability. I don't see even a single reason as to why "Jain philosophy" shouldn't be part of the said "Template".

Thank you. -Nimit (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Template talk:Universalism#Jainism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system in India talk page[edit]

@Kautilya3 and Sitush: Please see Caste system in India talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad an RfC has been opened. I will be curious to find out what the others say. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are adding more junk sources. The idea of Buddhism opposing the caste system is a modern Ambedkar invention.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sentences in the lead are incorrect statements, and they don't represent the contents well enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please check User_talk:Yumiko86. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate you changing it during a discussion. Especially when a discussion is still going on. This is not how Wikipedia operates. I was about to propose a new blurb (one that changes Buddhism to Modern Buddhism or similar) in the discussion page and then you change it without notice.

Even though my blurb was similar, it doesn't excuse not following Wikipedia guildlines. You can't just jump into and start editing somethings there's an active discussion on. Anyway given that the blurb is fair okay except leaving out challenged by Islam, Sikhism, Christianity from the Cohan source (I'll add it back). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone Dies In the End: see WP:BOLD and WP:LEAD. The lead summarizes the article; info that's not in the article should not be in the lead. If you want to add back Islam etc, you'll have to expand the article too. Otherwise, you're simply using the lead for a socio-political argument. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Nay Science: A History of German Indology", Oxford University Press[edit]

Pretty much debunks Indology.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we care? It is an RS not an RS anyway. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may not care, but JJ and I like high quality academic works like this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: may also be interested.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the 19th century German Indology is not an RS. So, this is only of interest if we were writing an article on 19th century German Indology. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2014 book.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They composed the Vedas?[edit]

Hi JJ, one of the things that came out of those long and tedious debates on Talk:Aryan is that Maunus convinced me that "Aryan" means the people that self-identified as Aryans (and presumably followed the Aryan culture). They are not necessarily the migrants. So, when you say "They composed the Vedas," it appears as if you mean the migrants. Better to say, "The Indo-Aryans composed the Vedas." - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've added some info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what are the views of both of you (Kautilya3 and JJ) on this:
Later Vedic Religion

The texts of this period indicate two different religious traditions: the Vedic, which is documented in the Sama and Yajurveda samhitas and the Brahmans, and the non-vedic or perhaps the folk tradition extensively documented in the Atharvaveda.

The fact that the Atharva religious tradition was considered to be part of the Vedic suggests assimilation of different cultural and beliefs into the Vedic religious system. The Yajurveda Samhita and Brahmanas document the sacrificial religion of the period. Sacrifices became very important during this period and they assumed both a public and private character. The public sacrifices e.g. the Rajsuyas, Vajapeya, Asvamedha were conducted on a massive scale, where the whole community participated. Some of the rituals performed in these sacrifices show elements of a L fertility cult. For instance the Asvamedha yajna required the chief queen to lie next to the sacrificial horse, where the queen represented the earth, and this ritual was thought to ensure the prosperity for the king. A number of agricultural rituals were performed in the Rajasuya and the Vajapeya yajna. The periodical rejuvenation of the earth and its fertility are some of the themes which were included in the ceremonial yajnas.

Priestcraft:

Later vedic texts reveal the elaboration of rituals which were complicated and needed professional men, trained in the art of performing them. Vidhis or rules for performing the sacrifices were formulated aqd the Vedic sacrifices no longer meant simple offering of food into the fire. The types of offering, types of , sacrifices etc. differed according to the needs of the patron or the yajamana. sacrifices were now endowed with mystical symbolism and every ritual act was endowed by mysterious power. A new science of priestcraft emerged because of the complexities involved in the performance of these yajnas whether private or public. Thus a class of priests became specialists in the performances of Yajnas. There were even different sets of priests for performing different stages of the same sacrificial ritual.

The Changing Gods:

Two prominent Early Vedic gods, Indra and Agni lost their importance. Prajapati the creator became important.This phenomenon also represents the importance of sedentism now, since creation myths are important in the agrarian groups. Ruddra, a minor deity in the Rigveda, became important now and Vishnu was conceived as the creator and protector of the universe. Pushan who protected cattle in the former period now became the god of the Sudras. The changing status of the deities are in indication of the change in the character of the tribes from pastoral groups to sedentary agriculturist groups. The Early Vedic gods who represented natural phenomena were slowly discarded and the personification of natural elements as divine beings became very complex. It was no longer easy to find the natural element which represented a particular god from the hymns of the Later Vedic period.

Folk Tradition:

The Atharvaveda is a mine of information regarding the folk tradition. Its contents are radically different from the Vedic sacrificial religion and it is concerned more with magic. The contents of this Veda cover different aspects of human life. The hymns deal with:

  • the cure for diseases
  • prayers for health
  • charms for the prosperity of home and children
  • cattle and fields
  • charms to produce harmony
  • charms concerned with love and marriage or conversely rivalry and jealousy etc.

The Atharvaveda thus documents the kinds of superstition and beliefs which were prevalent. The term Atharvan indicates a magical formula and the Atharvan priests officiated in this religion. Gods of the Vedic tradition were invoked but the reasons for which they were invoked were trivial and individualistic. Many godlings and spirits such as pisacas, rakshasas and so on (some malevolent and some benevolent), were invoked either to bring good fortune or to cause havoc and destruction to one's friends and foes respectively. The invocations and the chants related to the domestic and the household and were close to the daily cycles of existence of the common man.

For example, Indra was asked to kill the house robber, the worm in the body and the wolf devil. The Asvins were entrusted with the protection of agriculture and the killing of rats. Savitri was summoned to fix a place where a new home could be built. Pusan was invoked to bring harmony and safe delivery of babies, while Surya was invoked to remove demons.

Towards the end of this period, a strong reaction against the priestly domination and against the complexities involved in the yajnas resulted in the formulation of a philosophical doctrine which is enunciated in the Upanishads. These texts emphasized the knowledge of the atma or the soul as against ritualistic practices and the wasteful expenditure which accompanied sacrifices. Thus the materialistic aspect of the religion was discarded and religion was raised to the realm of philosophy. The Upanishads emphasized the changeableness and indestructibility of the soul which in a way seemed to emphasize the need for stability and integration in a period when the janapadas and mahajanapadas, i.e. republics and monarchies were emerging.

Thus we find that a great change in religious beliefs and practices had taken place between the Early Vedic and the Later Vedic period. This change was partly related to the shift from pastoral-ism to agriculture. The religious changes of this period parallel and reflect the socio-political and economic changes that had taken place from the Early Vedic to the Later Vedic phase.

How's this??? Isn't a pure social assimilation and evolution?Ghatus (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. According to Parpola, the Indian folk traditions have a continuity dating back to Harappan times. With other words, not the Vedas, but the folk religions, are the oldest part of Hinduism. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)
(ec) One of the commentaries JJ included in the Hinduism article is that Hinduism is akin to a merging of rivers. I think we have no reason to believe that this kind of merging started at any particular point in time. It had been happening throughout the existence of the IE tribes. The IEs had been absorbing gods and practices from every culture they came into contact with. Even the people they initially dismissed as anaryas eventually became part of their culture.
As for the difference between the different Vedas, I am afraid I don't know enough. But I have been reading a lot about caste, and here is what I find interesting.
  • Atharvaveda is the first time that the four varnas appear. (Prior to that there were only two: arya and dasa).
  • The Buddhist literature shows that the varnas didn't actually exist in the society. Rather jatis existed. (It is a myth that jatis came into being during the Gupta times. They were there even during Buddha's time.)
  • It is also clear that the arya-dasa distinction got renamed to the vaishya-shudra distinction.
  • That means that two of the prominent jatis, viz., Brahmana and Kshatriya, got elevated to the status of varnas. That is a kind of recognition of the "folk religion" of jatis by putting them in the varna order.
I think proving that Brahmana and Kshatriya are jatis rather than varnas can be of momentous consequence. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Atharvaveda, see also User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2015#Vedas and Buddhist texts. It is the "latest" Veda, isn't it? Regarding Brahmana and Kshatriya, remember that the Kuru Kingdom elevated the Brahmanas, while eastward the Kshatriyas were the highest class (the Buddha!). Also interesting: the Yamna culture, that is, the "homeland" of the Indo-Europeans, was made up of a mix of eastern european hunter-gatherers, Caucasian hunter-gatherers, and some elements from the Mal'ta-Buret' culture, a very ancient culture far east in Russia, which lso contributed to the Indian populations in America. And the Caucasians mixed a little bit with the Anatolians, before the last glacial maximun (>25,000 years ago). hey, we're all brothers (and sisters)! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. With my knowledge in history, it seems that Hinduism is indeed a social movement of assimilation (from social stand point). From the religious point view, it is an amalgam of several religions. Plurality and adaptability are two key words in Hinduism's history. And, for this reason it has over a billion followers now despite not being a missionary religion and survived so many onslaughts from Buddhism to Young Bengal.
  2. In Hinduism, it is very difficult to say who is the hunter and who is hunted.i.e who inspired whom.
  3. BTW, we are all the children of "the common African mother" (Mitochondrial Eve).Ghatus (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even later Vedic religion is Srauta, a tradition that only survives in certain places.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, the point of saying Brahmana/Kshatriya are jatis is to deny that they are classes. Only varnas have the appearance of classes, jatis are like ethnic groups. Jatis are not based on rank, though there might be ranking that comes into picture for other reasons (economic, purity/pollution etc.). The rank of a jati is always open to negotiation. So, if you are saying that Brahamanas were considered higher in one region and lower in another, that reinforces the idea that they formed a jati.
Ghatus, I agree with the "movement of assimilation" idea. In fact, I postulated once that even Hindutva might be an assimilation movement. (Ideologically, it seems to be, even though the militancy spoils the picture.) I didn't understand the hunter/hunted metaphor. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: even the Yamna-people, the "root-IE," were not "pure," but a mixture. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You are saying jati implies a "pure" descent of some kind. I don't think it does, but it is a valid challenge. I will have to think about that. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I wasn't referrring gto the jatis; Iw as referring to the ideas of certain groups on a "pure" Aryan (racial?) past. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I don't think anybody is talking about the racial past of any kind. But the general idea among all Indians (as if I know all Indians!) is that, when we speak of "Aryans," we are speaking of the Aryan immigrants. We think of the natives as speaking a different language (perhaps Dravidian), following different religion and culture etc., until they were subdued and taken over by the immigrants. But the reality may be that the Aryans intermingled with the natives the moment they stepped foot into the new land. They probably borrowed liberally from the native religion and culture, and recruited the natives into their own high positions. That is quite extraordinary. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: extraordinary? No, plain ordinary, according to Anthony & Ringe (2015), The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives, Annual Review of Linguistics. They argue that the strenght of the Aryan's social system was its capacity to absorb new membwes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you don't think that is extraordinary, note that it didn't happen with either European colonisers in the recent past or the Turko-Persians that came in the 12th century onward. (Ghatus might correct might correct me if I am wrong.) The Turko-Persians invented their own caste system, whereby the immigrants were labelled ashraf and the natives were called ajltaf. The two groups were kept separate. Akbar tried a little, but scholars point out that he and his descendants married native princesses, but they didn't give out their own daughters to marry the natives. That shows the limits of intermingling. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this paper is quite extraordinary too! Thanks for bringing it up! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not with "Aryans" alone, it happened with All - Greeks, Huns, Scythians, Pre Islamic Turks and Islamic Turks, Kushans etc. This is the story of India. Today you will not find a single Greek, Hun, Scythian, Pre and Islamic Turk, Kushan, Mongols in India unlike the British. Why? Because, they all mingled. BTW, you are right regarding the "caste" division among Indian Muslims. Again, Mughal Emperors did not marry off their daughters to Rajputs not because they did not want to mingle, but because of the then relative sub- ordinate position of woman in the Hindu society like Sati practice, not having property right or right to rule etc. Beneath the "Emperor leave" both communities "mingled" in many instances. Not only that, there is a Royal order in the reign of Shah Jahan prohibiting the purchase of "Muslim slaves" by Hindus. This ban lasted only a few years and things became same again. But, it proved to the historians the relative equality of the poor people ( who can be made slaves) in the "Islamic India".(I borrowed this term from a pedantic and idiotic historian who frequently used the term "Hindu India" for the time period before 1200 AD).Ghatus (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Mughals were like water- they used the battle strategy of the Turks, language of Iran and the culture of Hindustan. Hence, they were highly successful in a diverse country like India. They could adapt anything. That's why they succeeded though they did not leave a trace behind.Ghatus (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the concept of being native in India is a flawed one. India is a country of "old migrants" (except tribals in few places) like USA is country of "new migrants". The question is who came earlier and who came later, not who is the native.Ghatus (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you are being argumentative. Sudasa was the supreme leader of the Aryan tribes in the Rigveda, and the only meaning of dasa at this time was non-Aryan. I don't see a parallel to this phenomenon at any other time in history. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should always agree to disagree. But, do you really think that Aryans were the first migrants to come to India? Were the Himalayan passes not open before the Aryans? Further, didn't the Aryans came in multiple waves spreading over several centuries? Then, who is a native and who is foreigner? Aren't they the same?Ghatus (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting stuck on 'semantics'. If you don't like the term "native," you can propose some other term. But we are talking about the people that the Rigvedic Aryans encountered in India. It is the process of assimilation represented within the Rigvedic context that is under discussion. These people had non-Indo-Aryan names. Yet they became the leaders of Indo-Aryans, both politically and religiously, and they were revered and honoured. That is extraordinary. Note that Aryans didn't assimilate all the people they encountered. There were lots of other groups whom they disparaged and massacred. How did they decide whom to assimilate and whom to fight? (That is not a rhetorical question.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the basics - "Aryans" were a linguistic group, not a racial group or tribal group. Several tribes and races spoke in the language and they fought among themselves and massacred themselves. You are wrong to consider the "Aryans" as a monolithic race. Whosoever took up the language, became a part of IE language group. It was the socio-political background that mattered for assimilation, not the whims of tribal chiefs. And. it varied from one county to another. The worst battles were fought among sibling tribes like in Battle of the Ten Kings.
I beg to differ on the point that one tribe accepted people from other tribes/groups as leadeds. This is not how tribes work. You can not reach to any conclusion just on the basis of the name "Sudasa". It can only happen when they moved from being pastorals to agriculturists and territory based groups were formed, not tribe based.Ghatus (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Katz[edit]

Now that you have added all sorts of detailed criticism of people such as Ralph W. Hood and Walter Terence Stace, are you also going to add corresponding detailed substantive criticism sections for those holding opposite points of view, such as Steven T. Katz? In the past I haven't thought of you as a POV-pusher, but I am open-minded going forward... Regards -- Presearch (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: pov-pusher? Hmm... To present Stace, or Hood, without any critical remarks, is rather one-sided, and not representative of the current state of affairs in this field of research. I think you're aware that Katz represents the mainstream academic view on perennialism. The main criticism seems to come from Robert K. C. Forman, and he's got a very good point, I think, when he says that people can have kensho-like experiences (sorry for the word) without knowing anything about Buddhism. But if he's the only critic, and if Hood himself does not provide any substantial explanation or defense for his reliance on Stace, then that might be indicative for the current status of their research. If there are other critics of Katz c.s., let me know; I'd like to read them. Meanwhile, the cognitive science of religion, and researchers like Ann Taves, seem to be most promising: combining neurology, which may provide a common basis, and cultural attribution, which explains the wide diversity in tradition. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google-search on "Katz Forman mysticism" gave me several self-published essays, and The Problem of Pure Consciousness, edited by Forman, but no other substantial scholarly publications. But it's only a quick search, and not conclusive. There are also references to The Problem of Pure Consciousness, for example in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, which contains sections on Perennialism and "Pure Conscious Events"; it also says that "Stace has been strongly criticized for symplifying or distorting mystical reports." It also contains a criticism of PCE's, but also criticisms of various constructionist postitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Jonathan Shear (what's in a name?) gives a very interesing alternative to Stace. To copy myself, from Walter Terence Stace:
"Shear (2011) notes that Stace regarded extroverted mysticism to be a less complete form of mysticism, but was puzzled by the fact that there are far more descriptions of introverted mysticism than of extroverted mysticism.[72] Shear proposes a developmental sequence of three higher states of consciousness:[73]
  • the recognition of pure consciousness/emptiness
  • the stable presence of this pure consciousness/emptiness throughout all activity
  • the recognition of this pure consciousness/emptiness as the ground of all being
According to Shear, HS1 corresponds to Stace's introverted mysticism, whereas HS3 corresponds to Stace's extroverted mysticism, and is actually the more developed form of mystcism, in contrast to what Stace supposed."
In other words: not a dichotomy, but a development. And the possibility that HS1 may be experienced, and articu;ated differently, by different people, but nevertheless contains common elements. So, 'unity in diversity', so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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 Wikipedia 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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the message of thanks for my work on WT Stace. It took quite a while to research and I wondered if anyone noticed it at all. At least one person has. Hurrah! Thanks also for your improvements to the formatting of the page.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Evenmadderjon: I was very pleased to find the detailed info. I will probably add some critical notes, though, to Stace's "methodology." Stace's "Mysticism and philosophy" forms the "theoretical basis" of Hood's Mysticism scale, and I'm trying to find out if there's any criticism. Well, there is; it seems to me that Hood's scale is built on shaky grounds. But it's very interesting to investigate. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the critics of Stace themselves need context, explaining that they (Katz and Proudfoot at least), represent a constructivist philosophy. I will add this, and a bit more detail on Proudfoot's criticisms, plus which schools Belzen and Shear represent. Incidentally, I managed to save my spell check changes before I could summarise them earlier.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Evenmadderjon: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a very usefull overview on this topic of "mystical eperience," though under the common header of "mysticism." I still wonder what Forman exactly means with PCE; to my impression, he's lumped together various "experiences" and "developmental" states which should be distinguished. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in India[edit]

According to Wilfred Cantwell Smith[1] there was a Buddhist community in India, but not a "Buddhist religion." The situation would not have been too different from China and Japan, where we see that people pick and choose from a variety of traditions, without any sense of "belonging" to any of them. This kind of reification of religion is unique to the Abrahamic religions and, even there, it probably did not develop until very late.

However, the issue of "monumental temples" is interesting. Both Buddhists and Jains erected monumental statues. Hindus could not do that, because worshipping Hindu deities involved a variety of rituals that needed direct access to the idols. It appears that they found a solution by making the temple structures themselves monumental. In Somnath and Ayodhya, where we have some archaeological evidence, we see that the size of the temple structures increased over time, and wood/brick structures were replaced by stone. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1963), The Meaning and End of Religion, Fortress Press, p. 68, ISBN 978-1-4514-2014-2
Interesting, both comments. Sometimes I think that the Buddhists were some sort of elite within the cultural framwework of ancient India, like the Christian monks her ein Europe. Imagine that we don't see pre-8th century "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" as separate institutions, but as tokens of the same culture. What would the picture look like then?
Regarding the temples, I know nothing about them. But it immediately gives me the thought that religions, c.q. Indian religions and culture, are so much more complex than the pictures that we paint of them. It also raises the thought that Buddhism must have been very important in India prior to the 8th century. What can we really know, or imagine, about it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Any sources for your 2nd paragraph, particularly the "direct access to the idols" claim or that their Buddhist/Jaina communities erected monumental statues before Hindus? The earliest monumental statues from South and Southeast Asia seem to be Shiva-related predating Bamiyan by ~600 years. Blurton (2006, Harvard University Press) suggests that Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina temples/statues-related art likely developed together. Are the views in your 2nd para derived from another source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka[edit]

Old boys discussin ...
... young boys fighting.

Please chime in at WP:ANI#Book spam - the editor you reverted is even changing dates without a source. I'm not available for a few hours so have no time to clean that up. Doug Weller (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: they seem to be running into trouble. Ms Sarah Welch spotted them too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell her please 86.1.174.220 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - History of India - lead[edit]

I want to personally thank you for compromising and being mature in solving this issue. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@24.157.56.12: thank you! I'm glad that the comparison is being appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidharma[edit]

Can you please check sources on Bodhidharma page, and the image of "blue eyed cenetral asian monk preaching east asian monk" is pretty random and unrelated to Bodhidarma. I can't access the given source for the quote of his central Asian origin but i did a quick search on google-books and found this on Encyclopedia of Monasticism by William M. Johnston: The mention of him as Persian (Bosi -Fars) is mistaken, for his name is Sanskrit, and Sassanian Iran was little known for it's Buddhism. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.24.52 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GfC0TDkJJNgC&pg=PA159&dq=Bodhidharma+Persian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpiIrN3MDJAhXY1I4KHcesA7UQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=Bodhidharma%20Persian&f=false
The Japanese tradition regards him as Persian (or Afghan; anyway, blue-eyed). Broughton is a reliable source. See also Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources for an extensive overview of sources (and traditions) on Bodhidharma. And no, the picture is not random; see Indo-European migrations for the extent of these migrations; see also Silk route. I'll add the info from Johnston to the sub-article; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Indo-Aryan migration theory[edit]

See Indo-Aryan migration theory.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a sentence to lead per WP:LEAD: "However recent genetic studies have shown that both northern and southern populations of India predate the hypothesized Aryan migration by tens of thousands of years, thus leading geneticists to reject Aryan migration".VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some geneticists, actually, only a few, or one - and Victoria Grayson, but that's only relevant backstage at the Wikipedia-theatre ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geneticists published in Nature (journal). You do realize Nature is the top scientific journal right?VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the Nature-article[web 1] does not state what you are stating here; it's the personal conclusion of one of those researchers, in another publication, presenting the Indo-Aryan migration theory as an Indo-Aryan invasion theory. You mean the Reich 2009 publication? I'll look it up, if you want. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Indo-Aryan migration theory#Pre-Indo-Aryan origins. It was Singh:

"Based on these researches, Lalji Singh, a co-author of Reich, concludes that these findings show that "[t]here is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India".[web 2][web 3][web 4]"
  1. ^ Reich et al. (2009), Reconstructing Indian Population History, Nature
  2. ^ India Today, Indians are not descendants of Aryans, says new study
  3. ^ dnaindia.com, New research debunks Aryan invasion theory
  4. ^ ITBL, Aryan Invasion Theory used for Divide and Convert : Exposed by fresh Genetic research

Note the nuance: no genetic evidence. These titles are telling: "New research debunks Aryan invasion theory"; "Aryan Invasion Theory used for Divide and Convert : Exposed by fresh Genetic research." It's like saying: "Darwin's ape-theory debunked; humans do not descent from chimpansees." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several geneticists mentioned in those newspaper articles, including 2 coauthors of Reich: Kumarasamy Thangaraj and Lalji Singh. By the way, you do realize that Aryan migration is used to Christianize India right?VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which publication/source? I'm sure you get my point here: the way Singh is quoted on these researches is, ehm, peculiair, and has a lot to do with, well, you know, a specific view on Indian history, and less with the reliability of such statements. Not every statement carries the same weight... And no, I do not realize that "Aryan migration is used to Christianize India"; if so, that sucks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think people are opposed to Aryan migration? St. Thomas is portrayed as being the original source of southern Dravidian culture which is in opposition to northern Aryan culture. VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste JJ. And when theory after theory have been changed in the face of evidence the argument has changed to, uh, they are lowlife inadequate Hindutva people. Nationalism or Hindutva or Hindutva Nationalism is not the actual player, you will find it more from the opponents to dismiss any discussion against their views. It is only simple to observe that it is not fair nor academic practice to debate in such manner. This comment is about content discussion and is made in seriousness. Lord Buddha or Shankaracharya were uneducated tramp by a set of people, I beg to differ with the criteria used to come to such conclusion itself (academic degree and peer-reviewed-publication). A scholar discusses content/evidence and not the author. ... Digressing. Anyways, consider this trolling or a casual healthy interaction, your choice. Namaste again. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, you can delete this discussion. I'm done for now.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: St. Thomas as "the original source of southern Dravidian culture"? Hilarious. Same category as "Jesus went to India," or worse?
@AmritasyaPutra: "when theory after theory have been changed in the face of evidence" - that's how science works. With "opponents" you probably mean mainstream scholarship? Note that most scholars don't even bother to "dismiss" Indigenous Aryans theories; they're simply irrelevant in the academics. Buddha or Shankara are unrelated to this discussion; at least they're not mentioned by geneticists. The point is, the scholar makes a correct statement: "there is no genetic evidence for Indo-Aryan migrations." But it is represented as: "Indo-Aryan invasion theory debunked." Duh. Don Quichot fighting the windmills, while the real discussion is on other matters.
Regarding "academic degree and peer-reviewed-publication," the publication in question is:
This what this article has to say on Indo-Aryans:
  • "Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP."
  • "However, some heuristic interpretations of the ancestry proportions palette in terms of past migrations seem too obvious to be ignored. For example, it was first suggested by the German orientalist Max Muller that ca. 3,500 years ago a dramatic migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia (the putative Indo Aryan migration) played a key role in shaping contemporary South Asian populations and was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family and the caste system in India. A few studies on mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation have interpreted their results in favor of the hypothesis,70–72 whereas others have found no genetic evidence to support it.3,6,73,74 However, any nonmarginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region, we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia."
  • "Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration."
  • "Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span."
Note the terms "dramatic migration" and "nonmarginal migration." The Indo-Aryan migration theory (not "the Indo-Aryan invasion theory") does not postulate a mass-migration. Max Muller himself stated that one wandering shepherd could have been enough to introduce Indo-European languages. The IAmt, as proposed by David Anthony, states that it was their culture of creating in-group bonds which allowed for the spread of the Aryans (the "noble ones," c.q. "hospitable ones"). So, when an article uses the term "Indo-Aryan invasion theory," you already know that that part of the article is nonsensical, engaging in straw-puppet arguments and outdated models. As a matter of fact, this research even confirms this aspect of the IAmt: no large-scale invasion. The real question is: how does language shift take place, and what were the benefits of this Aryan culture? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste JJ, is B. B. Lal a scholar or ...? --AmritasyaPutraT 08:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Such a fascinating topic. I think it's the same case with my country, where a majority of Germanic origin migrated to the nowadays Finland and adopted the language spoken by the (current) Sami minority. Proto-Sami / Proto-Finnish it is referred to =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some say so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The award for the best edit yesterday goes to Pebble101 [78]. Well done, Pebble101! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affirming my action[edit]

I am talking to you, because you and Sitush are least aware of the ground facts, siding each other sidelining my community's history, and giving your own interpretations on the topic. You seem to be Christian, and I cannot guess anything about Sitush, you have a funnel vision that all the words are derived from Sanskrit, that's ridiculous. The truth is Dravidan languages is another unique language group( Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam are recognized languages from the family in India) Your undoings will mislead the people who want to learn about our community. We are unrelated to the namesake communities from other regions of India, we are basically Dravidans
You cannot revert because I am referring the term Komatis from History book pertaining to Andhra, I again quote here the book as well as page numbers for your further reference[1]: 109 : 110  We are Komatis(Kalinga). Shrine of our tutelary deity is at Penugonda and name is Vasavi. It is neither related to Jainism that was prevalent during the Vengi Kingdom of Eastern Chalukyas nor to the name of Godavari nor Gomati Please do not meddle with the article. If you need further reference tell me how can I request another user to affirm my edits because I am still struggling to get grips using Wiki.


Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Ywan Chwang who happened to visit Vengi clearly uses the term 'KOMATI' in his works to document the trading community in Eastern Chalukyan empire (a.k.a - Telugu lands Andhra/Telengana). He stresses that Jains and Buddhists as well in Kingdom of Vengi were influenced by caste system,he says that the trading community are denoted by the term 'Komatis'. Kindly note the usage of words Komatis and Jains in the reference page mentioned above PDF, they are distinct [2]: 109 : 110 


About Chinese Buddhist Pilgriim Ywan Chwang and his Buddhist study at Amaravathi [3]: 116  Buddhist Studies at Amaravati,Andhra(South India)
'In the religious sphere.Buddhism which was dominant once was now in a decadent position.It monasteries were practically deserted, when the Chinese traveller visited the Vengi country. Due to their love of sacred relics in stupas, a few might have lingered on,Ywan Chwang noticed some twenty or more Buddhist aramas in which more than three thousand Sramanas lived .He spent sometime in Amaravati and studied Mahasanghika Abhidamma with the help of two sramanas....'

References

  1. ^ http://www.katragadda.com/articles/HistoryOfTheAndhras.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.katragadda.com/articles/HistoryOfTheAndhras.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.katragadda.com/articles/HistoryOfTheAndhras.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondivadu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 7 December 2015

@Mondivadu: I'll look further into your edits. it's just that Sitush is a knowledgeable editor, who often encounters unwarranted resistance from other editors. But I'll look into it. NB: my religious background is irrelevant here, but I suggest you take a closer look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued at Talk:Arya Vaishya#Komatis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP[edit]

This is a response to your comments on my talk page: "I am sure my ISP has numerous IP addresses that it assigns to millions of its users. I have no idea why or when they change an IP address associated with a user, but I am sure you can determine from my comments that they are coming from the same person. There is no intention on my part to hide the fact the comments are the same person, but I have no interest in paying for a dedicated IP address since I comment on Wiki very rarely. Your edits stood out because I suggested to a friend to go to Wikipedia to get a general understanding of who the Buddha was and what he taught. She then reported back to me what she found, and I was totally shocked that this was considered a 'neutral' description of the Buddha and his teachings, and thought perhaps it was a joke. But after going back and forth with you for some time now, it is clear this is based on your Nagarjuna-like understanding of Buddhism, which is merely one perspective that is clearly not universal. I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the much wider and richer perspectives shared by Buddhists around the world so you can make meaningful editorial contributions from a neutral point of view."123.231.127.74 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advice you to familiarise yourself with Wiki-policies, and to update your knowledge of academic scholarship on Buddhism. The fact that you are "shocked" by this scholarship says enough. The references are given in the article, and the sources can easily be found at the internet. Meanwhile, stop being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, shocked that this so-called scholarship would be taken seriously as a 'neutral' point of view concerning the Buddha and his teachings. Yes, I am aware of the politics in academia where some young scholars feel a need to kiss-up to 'prominent' scholars like Gombrich and Bronkhorst to get published in various journals. But politics and self-promotion of particular scholars is no substitute for neutrality.123.231.127.74 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should consider the possibility that the Buddhism which you have learned is not in all aspects the Buddhism of the Buddha, but a Buddhism which developed out of his teachings. Take serious the traditional account of the Buddha's awakening: the third insight, namely the realisation of the four truths, directly results in his liberation. Hmmm... don't the four truths say that there is a road leading to liberation, namely the eightfold path? A road which you have to traverse? But the Buddha himself, by discovering this path, is liberated right away? Something's weird is going on here... Read Vetter etc, instead of disregarding these scholars as "kiss-up self-promotion." It's a really stupid and immature comment. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still aren't getting it - the Buddha DID traverse ALL of the parts of the Eightfold Path, not only in his last life during seven years in the forest as a ascetic, but in previous lives that he recalled as part of his enlightenment experience (First Knowledge). The problem with scholars such as Gombrich and Vesser is that they admit that they do not accept the idea of kamma or past lives, and this is a personal BIAS that shows up in their scholarship that is completely inconsistent with what the Buddha taught. 123.231.127.74 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.127.74 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You follow Protestant Buddhism invented by 19th century Theosophists.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I follow by own direct knowledge and experience with the teachings of the historical Buddha. You have some sort of aversion to 'religion' based on your exposure to Christianity and its interpretation by others (fundamentalists), and I understand how this has shaped your perspective; but when you do not know someone, what they have studied, or what they have experienced, it is best to stay silent rather than look foolish by trying to 'fit' someone into your preconceived idea and label. Most of my formal studies, including master's level studies, were in the Mahayana tradition. I have also spent time in-residence in Mahayana temples. My rejection of the Mahayana perspective is based on personal experience with the teachings of the historical Buddha, not a knee-jerk conformity to local conditioning and observances of Theravada Buddhists. I am now practice-oriented (my doctorate research is in psychology, not Buddhist Studies), as the deficit appears to be a lack of practice and experience with the teachings of the Buddha, which is causing a lot of human suffering. Like your friend, Jonathan, I have come to understand through experience that the 'gradual approach' works best for most people, but I also understand and accept that certain individuals like the historical Buddha have done a considerable amount of spiritual development work in previous lifetimes, and would therefore never question or doubt that work even if I had no direct knowledge of past life experience. As it turns out, I do have direct knowledge of past life experience and therefore have a fair amount of confidence in the Buddha's description of his own enlightenment. Through study of most of the 20,000 discourses given by the Buddha, I have also realized that the historical Buddha was aware that most people have not done the amount of spiritual work he had done in previous lives (Second Knowledge), but that this should be no barrier to spiritual liberation from samsara if one attempts to experience the truth of the Dhamma for themselves. This is why the Dhamma is his gift. Get out of the journals and into the Dhamma from a practice perspective would be my best advice, as most scholars in the Buddhist Studies field have no clue because they don't practice. I know the 'theory' is that this lack of practice makes these scholars less biased, but anyone who has been in the academic field for some time knows that 99% of scholars in the social sciences are biased in some way, and could not get published if they did not share some of the core biases of the editors on the journals that determine the outcome of their careers. Therefore, what we should be doing is bringing these biases to the surface so the reader can put the scholarship in its correct perspective, rather than hiding the bias and trying to pass off a biased perspective as a 'neutral' point of view. I know when I write a paper regarding Buddhism, I am completely upfront concerning my tradition and practice, as I have no interest in fooling anyone or pretending that this perspective does not inform what I write.123.231.127.74 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pali Canon is not the teachings of the historical Buddha.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'practicing' according to those teachings and learn for yourself what the truth is rather than simply parroting what others have said. First hand experience is not something you should be afraid of if you want to be a serious researcher in the field of Buddhism.123.231.127.74 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try practicing Vajrayana techniques and learn for yourself what the truth is rather than simply parroting what others have said. First hand experience is not something you should be afraid of if you want to be a serious researcher in the field of Buddhism.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried Tantic practice, and it did not lead to awakening - just more chasing of pleasant feelings in samsara.123.231.127.74 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I do have direct knowledge of past life experience and therefore have a fair amount of confidence in the Buddha's description of his own enlightenment" is indeed the kind of "transcendental truths" that I don't believe in. You've got very strong opinions, but a serious deficiency qua critical attitude. Your comment "Get out of the journals and into the Dhamma from a practice perspective would be my best advice, as most scholars in the Buddhist Studies field have no clue because they don't practice" is the ind of dogmatism I really don't like: "I'm right, you're wrong, because you don't see it and don't do it my way." Read those sources, and start doing some real work, instead of this socalled "spiritual work." Dare to doubt! And don't judge others so quickly. Doubt!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt regarding the Dhamma is the second fetter that binds beings to suffering in samsara. And if you don't have any confidence in the Buddha's own description of this enlightenment, what in the heck are your doing editing Wiki pages on Buddhism? Is Wiki your personal project to cause 'doubt' among unsuspecting readers concerning what the Buddha taught? If you don't even accept past life experience, which not only is featured in the First Knowledge of the Buddha's own awakening but through-out the thousands of discourses of the historical Buddha, then you REALLY ARE disqualified to edit any Wiki pages concerning the Buddha and his teachings. Even the Tibetan Buddhists, which is the dominant strand of Buddhism in the Buddhist Studies field, believe in past life reality - what do you think a 'tulku' means?123.231.127.74 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in past-lives as a Tibetan Buddhist. But I doubt your ability to remember yours.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure if I told you I was a dog - a rather average dog - in my immediate past life, you would believe that, right? No pretentiousness, here, or interest in impressing you - only interested in a neutral presentation of the Dhamma on a Wiki page that purports to be neutral.123.231.127.74 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said you were posting from Sri Lanka. Why do you know english so well?VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Fields[edit]

@JimRenge: Buddha Fields are created by Buddhas, not Bodhisattvas.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? I don´t remember that I claimed Buddha Fields are created by Bodhisattvas. JimRenge (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See here.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JimRenge and VictoriaGrayson: the dit was made by a student; I moved it to the correct place, and corrected some of it. Not all, obviously. The class, and their teacher, have already been notified about the problems with their edits. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the use of their favourite source was discussed some days ago at ANI. The statement:
"According to Pollard, bodhisattvas are enlightened demi-gods who create Buddha-lands where deceased beings, who were not ready yet to enter nirvana, can attain liberation." needs context. Which buddhist text, sect or teacher holds this position? JimRenge (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pure Land page should be moved to Buddha Field. Its a more accurate translation of buddhakṣetra, and just as commonly used.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) @Jim: you're right. Ehm.... what's next? @Vic: go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha[edit]

You reintroduced this: "The Ashok pillar, set up in Kapilvastu, by Emperor Ashok of Magadh Dynasty describes the place as the birthplace of Lord Buddha."[1] Sometimes (...) even reliable sources contain errors. The only Ashokan pillar describing a place as the birthplace of Buddha was discovered in Lumbini by A.A. Führer. The sources dealing with the identification of ancient Kapilavastu do not mention an Ashokan pillar, neither in Piprahwa nor Tilaurakot, describing the place as the birthplace of Gautama. I have removed the sentence, but feel free to revert me, if you can confirm this with more specific sources.

References

  1. ^ Nakamura, Hajime (2000). Gotama Buddha. Kosei. p. 59. ISBN 4-333-01893-5.

JimRenge (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: I believe you right-away! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha as a political philosopher[edit]

Interesting stuff:

- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are activists. Cite more mainstream Buddhist scholars.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I love the way you divide the world into black and white. Scholars like Rajiv Malhotra and activists like Ilaiah and Chakravarti? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want India to be broken up into smaller countries?VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is alarmist, not to mention the fact that it has no bearing on how we edit Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Katz (recopied/resumed)[edit]

recopying and resuming a section from 22 Nov 2015 had been archived HERE

Now that you have added all sorts of detailed criticism of people such as Ralph W. Hood and Walter Terence Stace, are you also going to add corresponding detailed substantive criticism sections for those holding opposite points of view, such as Steven T. Katz? In the past I haven't thought of you as a POV-pusher, but I am open-minded going forward... Regards -- Presearch (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: pov-pusher? Hmm... To present Stace, or Hood, without any critical remarks, is rather one-sided, and not representative of the current state of affairs in this field of research. I think you're aware that Katz represents the mainstream academic view on perennialism. The main criticism seems to come from Robert K. C. Forman, and he's got a very good point, I think, when he says that people can have kensho-like experiences (sorry for the word) without knowing anything about Buddhism. But if he's the only critic, and if Hood himself does not provide any substantial explanation or defense for his reliance on Stace, then that might be indicative for the current status of their research. If there are other critics of Katz c.s., let me know; I'd like to read them. Meanwhile, the cognitive science of religion, and researchers like Ann Taves, seem to be most promising: combining neurology, which may provide a common basis, and cultural attribution, which explains the wide diversity in tradition. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google-search on "Katz Forman mysticism" gave me several self-published essays, and The Problem of Pure Consciousness, edited by Forman, but no other substantial scholarly publications. But it's only a quick search, and not conclusive. There are also references to The Problem of Pure Consciousness, for example in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, which contains sections on Perennialism and "Pure Conscious Events"; it also says that "Stace has been strongly criticized for symplifying or distorting mystical reports." It also contains a criticism of PCE's, but also criticisms of various constructionist postitions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Jonathan Shear (what's in a name?) gives a very interesing alternative to Stace. To copy myself, from Walter Terence Stace:
"Shear (2011) notes that Stace regarded extroverted mysticism to be a less complete form of mysticism, but was puzzled by the fact that there are far more descriptions of introverted mysticism than of extroverted mysticism.[72] Shear proposes a developmental sequence of three higher states of consciousness:[73]
  • the recognition of pure consciousness/emptiness
  • the stable presence of this pure consciousness/emptiness throughout all activity
  • the recognition of this pure consciousness/emptiness as the ground of all being
According to Shear, HS1 corresponds to Stace's introverted mysticism, whereas HS3 corresponds to Stace's extroverted mysticism, and is actually the more developed form of mystcism, in contrast to what Stace supposed."
In other words: not a dichotomy, but a development. And the possibility that HS1 may be experienced, and articu;ated differently, by different people, but nevertheless contains common elements. So, 'unity in diversity', so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some contemporary criticism of Katz' position see Blum, J. N. (26 December 2013). "The Science of Consciousness and Mystical Experience: An Argument for Radical Empiricism". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 82 (1): 150–173. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lft073. One excerpt (from page 154) is:

In contrast to Katz’s claim about the necessary concordance between mystical experience and religious traditions, mystics’ experiential accounts sometimes do run counter to the basic tenets of the traditions out of which they arise, surprising or even scandalizing the mystics who have them (Forman 1988: 258–259; Stoeber 1992: 108).

--Presearch (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: another criticism that I found is that Katz is reasoning from his own religious background. This criticism was also stated by Hory, a Zen Buddhist. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to Neo-Vedanta#Criticism_of_Paul_Hacker[edit]

Click on this PDF. The authors of this PDF wrote a different book published by Oxford University Press. So they are top scholars.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. It's from Transcultural Encounters Between Germany and India: Kindred Spirits in the 19th and 20th Centuries. I'll print it and read it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though this "conclusion" reads like a gross generalisation, which reminds of RM:
"To carry out critical scholarship in Indology means not to examine one’s own past and one’s presuppositions critically, but to undertake a critique of the Indian tradition. Similarly, for Indians to be critical means not to engage in a refinement, a renewal, and a development of tradition (as, for example, Radhakrishnan and Amalorpavadass were attempting to do), but to share in the Western critical posture." (p.225)
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is from a review by Eric Kurlander of The nay science in Central European History (2015, vol.48, no.3):
"The authors undoubtedly succeed in making their argument that German Indology’s emphasis on historical-critical method masked an underlying Protestant theological and chauvinist agenda. But because the methods and interpretations that the authors set up and then dismantle were influential primarily before 1945, one might argue that their analysis is based on something of a straw man: it is doubtful that any prominent pre-1945 field of the humanities, in Germany or elsewhere, could stand up to the kind of methodolog ical scrutiny the autho rs deploy. Conversely, textual scholars, in German studies and els ewhere, have long since moved away from the notion of recovering an “ uncorrupted” Ur-text, making the authors’ central critique appear anachronistic." (p.433-434)
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See THIS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concise as always. I once read that the shortest Ditch name is "Co Rol" (first name + surname!). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Nicholson review. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaja samadhi[edit]

A quick glance makes me think I like much of the recent material you added to the Ramana Maharshi page in last couple of weeks with regard to topics such as sahaja samadhi. There are others who have written about sahaja samadhi, such as Swami Ramdas (though I don't know how much of that writing is online). Who knows, perhaps there would be enough to create a separate article for sahaja samadhi -- although a first step would be to cite writers about sahaja samadhi in addition to Ramana Maharshi on the sahaja page. --Presearch (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Presearch: I'm glad we've got a meeting-ground there! Ramana Maharshi made some very insightfull remarks on the course of development in "ego-transcendence"; sahaja samadhi is one of them, I think. I really like this one: "If one remains still without leaving it, even the sphurana – having completely annihilated the sense of the individuality, the form of the ego, 'I am the body' – will itself in the end subside, just like the flame that catches the camphor. This alone is said to be liberation by great ones and scriptures." As I understand it, even the amazement of prajna, the insight into "not-I," will reside, and a quite being of "things-as-they-are" will remain: drinking tea, working in the garden, nothing special (to paraphrase Zen). Or, as some Zennies say: "enlightenment" (c.q. sudden insight) is not the end of the raod; it's the start of real practice. The Zen-tradition also says: "The Buddha and Bodhidharma are still practicing." That's really nice. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Vajrayana, you recognize the conceptualizing mind.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book learning versus expertise[edit]

Please beware of confusing book learning with expertise. I'm sure it's a distinction you already know. But the kerfluffle at Ramana Maharshi, which was talked about HERE and HERE, seems a case in point. I'd go so far as to say that doubling down on a fanciful etymology doesn't pass the laugh test. I see you've now tripled down. Beware, beware, beware. --Presearch (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Indian, so don't expect too much expertise from me on Indian languages. But at least I've provided a source, and repeated what that source says. If there are better translations, it shouldn't be too difficult for you, or any Indian-language speaker, to find one, instead of changing the translation, but keeping the source which you reject. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Savitr pointed you to the Monier Williams dictionary (DIFF), which might support a word-by-word translation. Suppose the literal meaning is so obvious "on the ground" that it's difficult to find a reliable source that feels the need to explain it (to "spell it out" so to speak)? I'll bet it would be hard to find a reliable source to support many obvious assertions, such as that "7+4=11". What then? Might that underscore the difference of book-learning versus true expertise? And of the pitfalls of overreaching based on the former, while brushing aside the latter? --Presearch (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Presearch: hmm, "book-learning versus true expertise"; Monier-Williams may be the book-learning in this case, while this website which you reject may be the "true expertise," or "true experience," if you like. My point is not in the literal translation, but in the interpretation. And "not mine" is a very nice interpretation in the context of Ramana Maharshi. And that's not based on book-learning, but on my own experience. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: in that regard, the "laugh test" is not a good criterium - at least not for me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JJ: you wanted a reference for the purposes of Wikipedia; dictionaries are commonly WP:RS -- and that's how the dictionary came into the conversation. I know people who've repeated "Om Namo Shivaya" many times daily for many decades, and I know a good bit of how they think about it and interpret it. The sources or relevance of your "own experience" "in the context of Ramana Maharshi" remain unclear, however. If you are claiming that you have had deep spiritual experiences that give you special insights into figures such as Ramana Maharshi, and which give you a special mandate to interpret them, despite (to the best of my knowledge) not understanding Ramana's language or language family, or sharing his use of the Shiva mantra, or having insider experience of his tradition, then your self-assessment should be put on the table.
Stace, on whom you've worked, does give a defense of the value of work (e.g., scholarship on deep spiritual experiences) by scholars who lack profound spiritual experiences themselves. But in almost any skill domain (even leaving aside deep spiritual experiences), book-learning will inevitably have blind spots when compared to true experience-based expertise. How can one so disadvantaged probe and test for such blind spots, probing that one's assertions make sense to those who do have expertise? If not the laugh test, then some other equivalent test should be used. What test to you see yourself as using?
At least, as of now, it is good that the Ramana Maharshi page does seem to be evolving in a manner that takes into account recently asserted information. --Presearch (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the phrase "true experience-based expertise" is self-referential: "what is true experience-based expertise? My expertise. How do I know? Because I have true experience-based expertise." And you seem to state that understanding Ramana's experience is language-dependent; that contradicts the idea of a perennial truth... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I've added a source. And I think that there's a lot of discussion possible about the "obvious assertion" that "7+4=11." "Obviousness" is not always obvious, I think. Though in the case of "namah Shivaya," soit. I bow down to the living experience of you and your comrade in this respect... Best regards, as always, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheism[edit]

Pantheism Your edit is appreciated but not correct. It's not a note, it's a link to a correct translation. The cited quotes are absolutely incorrect, they do NOT reflect the contents of the letter. Therefore the paragraph is factually inaccurate. Muemmel85 (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Pantheism#Einstein-quotes. To be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: thanks Vic! Always a pleasure, never a dull moment! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it!![edit]

It's spreading all ower the place.Hafspajen (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Have you got an exorcist available? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wishes, or the green line? I've driven it out... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advaita[edit]

The lead already mentions idealism. I am merely explaining it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch insists on calling Advaita Vedanta idealist (and without explanation). Its not my idea.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: I provided multiple sources for "idealistic", with embedded quotes, peer reviewed RS. The sources explain. Aside, see Philip Renard's peer reviewed paper I sent you. His website and other publications has some Ramana Maharshi content, since you had asked for help on sources. Merry Xmas @Vic, @JJ and both your families, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Xmas to you too, and peace on this cruel world.
Yes, sure, it's sourced. But there are also other interpretations, like Nicholson. And there is this history of western interpretation, and of elevating AV to a special status. We have to mention that too. So, we're going to do that, aren't we?
Are you sure it was Philip Renard? He's a Dutch Advaita Advaya teacher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue the discussion over there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]


Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season,

and all best wishes for the New Year!

JimRenge (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: thanks Jim, you too (and all talkpage-stalkers too, of course!)

Your sources[edit]

If you are missing snow in NL

This "AV is an eliticist affair, just like Buddhism was an eliticist affair" is strange. Not consistent with what vast majority of scholars have been writing in recent decades. Please email me your list of sources that led you to this POV. I hope you are enjoying the holidays, while we cope with heavy snow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The hidden lives of Brahman," though it's my personal understanding. Although, Shankara himself considered the study of the Vedas to be restricted to the upper classes, right? As forum the Buddhists: one had to be a monk to be liberated. Therefore, eliticist.
I envy the snow; New leaves are already appearing, while some of the old ones are still thee. It's an unsettling sight... But forum the rest: maybe best Christmas ever. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: Dubois' book based on his graduate studies visit to India is interesting indeed, but hardly supportive or demonstrative of the "eliticist" theory. On Shankara, AV, Buddhism and Orientalism, I will email you something in a few days. Have you read recent translations/books on Adi Shankara by Sengaku Mayeda?... you may get surprised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know the name, so I'll look him up. Thanks for bringing him to my attention! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I downloaded Shankara's Upadesasahasri a couple of days ago. In some respects, it reminds me of Calvin: the statement that the changeless nature of the Self is "self-evident" (which is a nice wordplay, by the way, in English). Such a statement is not philosophy, but dogmatism (not the correct word, but I can't think of another term right now), I think. Calvin does the same: the authority of the Bible is unquestionable, bevause wise people say so, and because it is self-evident. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which recent publications are you referring to, by the way? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: Mayeda's translation and commentary on Upadesasaharasri is among the best (that was one I was referring to; avoid the free internet version). These ancient Indians (Hindus+Buddhists+Jaina) spent an enormous energy on the question, "can texts be a reliable source of knowledge". Those who can read Sanskrit, would appreciate it. Note that the question they asked wasn't "is Veda consistent and infallible", because everyone from the earliest times onwards, including Adi Shankara and later scholars accepted that the Vedas are inconsistent and has a lot of gobbledygook. What they asked was, "is there something reliable, if so how do we identify the reliable gems, and must we assume that these gems are to be treated as axiomatic (a few called it svapramana or self-evident) Truths"? This is a classic question, and like Godel's work on axioms and nature of knowledge, these ancient Indians argued that premises and epistemology are the foundation for any system of spirituality/moksha-jnana.

With best wishes for 2016 to you and your talk page stalkers

If everything is denied, they argued, then one gets to absolute relativism, to no morals or ethics dilemma (Charvaka), to self destruction (Ajivika), to absolute nihilism and complete hopelessness theories (a subschool of Buddhism, alleged misrepresentation?). There is a beautiful phrase that appears in their texts, "is unquestionable unquestionable?" Why is Buddha's wisdom/sutra unquestionable, but not Yajnavalkya's? In their earliest (Hindu) Dharmasutras, they ask, "wise Buddha teaches one abstract thing, wise Kapila teaches another, why is there this matibheda (disagreement) between these two beautiful souls? how do we know who is right, what is the truth, why is it truth, and how should we establish the Dharma." (Haradatta was the first, if you want to dig into it).

Fascinating isn't it. Just like their Hindu texts repeating, centuries after centuries, "know yourself, know your soul" and "knowledge liberates". With best wishes for 2016 to you and your talk page stalkers, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ps) Dubois wrote the Hidden lifes.. book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSW/Sarah; thanks for the clarification. Regarding questioning everything: that's recognisable; for me, personally, the answer is: do the rigt thing, that is, have fauth in the good and act according to it. That's a personal choice; and what is good is, in the end, a persoanl judgement. For which I may be judged, if I'm incorrect. But in the face of life's contingencies, we cannot always be sure, in a "theoretaical/rational," what to do. But we can act upon our personal feelings of compassion. So, no "absolute" or "objective" certainty, but a personal choice. Spunds like existentialism, doesn't it? But it's also Christian, and Buddhist.
Mayeda is on my wishlist now; part of his translation is also in Deutsch Essential Vedanta of course, but the intro's also seem to be very good, so still some wishes for the next birthday.
All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's really fascinating indeed, Ms Sarah Welch! Which dhamma is right, and which is not; I'd love to delve more into it if you can appoint me a nice source :-) Thanks in advance and the very best beginning for the year 2016! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaeism[edit]

Hello, JJ -- Just wondered if you had access to a text to help another editor. See Talk:Mandaeism#Access to source: Fontaine, P. F. M. 1990. The Light and the Dark: Dualism in ancient Iran, India, and China.. See previous sections on that page for other edits by same editor (if you're interested). Corinne (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne: I took a look, but I can't help him, I'm afraid. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) But that's me...! :-D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are! We're watching you! Don't touch the cookies! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND ...[edit]







Happy Belated Saint Lucia's day!

Happy New Year and Merry Christmas Joshua ![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Joshua Jonathan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing,
Terabar (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Deletion of Category:Indo-European peoples[edit]

Hello, and Merry Christmas!. I recently started editing Wikipedia again after a semi-break, and noticed that the category Category:Indo-European peoples was quietly deleted a month ago.[79] Were you aware of this discussion? Do you agree with the deletion? Any suggestions on what can be done to restore this key category? Krakkos (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: no, I wasn't aware of it. I don't know if I agree or not; I can agree with the argument that 'languages are not people.' You might ask an admin what to do about it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it got deleted either, but I am glad that it is gone. Indo-European is a language family, not the name of a people. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Wish you a Happy New Year, JJ! - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You too, righteous one! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan/Archive_2015&oldid=1162234894"