User talk:Tengu800

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template talk page[edit]

Hello Tengu800, I replied to your message at Template talk:IAST#Font selection. I'm not sure it's useful to you, but I hope it is :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Long Nü[edit]

Hey man, nice work on adding those new images for Long Nü, much appreciated. whipsandchains (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

BuddhismBarnstarProposal4.png The Buddhism Barnstar
Just wanted to say I appreciate the work you've been doing on Wikipedia's Buddhism-related content. Boundless! Thanks, and keep up the good work. /ninly(talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

East Asian Mādhyamaka[edit]

Hey there Tengu, re. our discussion at Talk:East Asian Mādhyamaka, I am not in any hurry, but if you can point me in the direction of some English language WP:RS regarding the history and tradition of the East Asian Mādhyamaka, I would be very grateful, as I hope it would further my understanding of that tradition. (20040302 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I wish I knew of some good sources myself. It is a very obscure topic in the West, though, and there is little English language material on it. I will try to add some more content to the article, but frankly nearly all the sources that I would be able to find are less than ideal. Madhyamaka in East Asia has received very little attention from western scholars so far, making it seem as though it were only a historical school, like the Chengshi (Satyasiddhi) school or the Lv (Vinaya) school. Still, I will try to add some little bits of information to the current article, to flesh it out a bit. Tengu800 02:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Tengu, thanks! (20040302 (talk))

Primary mark on Madhyamaka[edit]

Hi there Tengu, I am wondering about the mark 'primary' that you added to Madhyamaka. I would argue that the main primary source are the works of Nagarjuna - everything that follows was academic commentary. Although texts by authors such as Candrakirti maybe primary when they're the subject of a discussion, they are secondary when discussing their referent - the MMK. However, I get it that modern scholarship is preferable, and indeed my contributions tend to involve recent scholarship, like Garfield, Napper, and so on- all whom have written seminal academic articles and texts on the subject over the last ten years.

There is no escaping the traditional approaches to a text as seminal and influential as the MMK, and one of the primary issues for scholarship earlier this century was to identify RS from traditional sources, and to uncover scholarly debates and readings of the text that have been active for well over a thousand years.

As you know, Nalanda university had a strong academic heritage, as does the Geshe programme of Tibet. By the 12th Century, the MMK was the third topic of study for all Geshe students (a tradition which is not merely Gelugpa - it predates the Gelugpa), and was studied, written about, debated and discussed up to modern times. The academic level of such discussions is equable to modern scholarship, but, until the texts and the Tibetan language was made readily available, this entire corpus of study was unavailable to western scholarship.

What I find challenging on WP is that there are many misreadings - some of which are attributable to modern scholars - which are clearly misreadings, with historic provenance. For instance, the view (aired recently) that Nagarjuna's intent was to overturn a philosophical view that was contemporary. Scholars -including Candarakirti, but not stopping with him- have pointed out that Nagarjuna's intent was to assist practitioners in the method of liberating wisdom. Such a view, though published, is a minority view with very little support.

Maybe I am missing something - I would really appreciate your opinion. 20040302 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that of verifiability. For example, if a primary source is used, then it should be accompanied by a secondary source. For example, in the case of Candrakirti's views on Nagarjuna's works, Candrakirti would probably qualify as a secondary source, as long as the text being referenced is not ambiguous. If the subject where Candrakirti's interpretations of Madhyamaka, then he would be the primary source, and some secondary source would be necessary. The Madhyamaka article is a good example of editors going back and forth, never agreeing on anything, because they each have their own personal interpretations. Instead of advocating a particular view, the article would benefit from presenting all notable scholarly views on the matter. Rather than phrasing statements like, "Nagarjuna ______ [1]", the view should be attributed openly in the article. For example, "According to Candrakirti, Nagarjuna _______ [1]". In terms of Wikipedia edits, the second example is much more solid. Because it is simply referencing Candrakirti's own interpretation of Nagarjuna, it avoids using primary sources (Nagarjuna) and openly attributes the particular view being stated (Candrakirti). In my experience, such material is less likely to be argued about, changed, or deleted, which means some level of stability for the article. It is also more accurate and precise, allowing for alternative views on the matter. If some western academic like Gregory Schopen has a view of Nagarjuna's purpose, that can be attributed just as easily, as, "According to Gregory Schopen, Nagarjuna ______ [1]" It's a very safe and simple method that can allow for a variety of views to exist side by side while still maintaining accuracy. In the case of Madhyamaka, it would be possible to group these views as well, for clear organization. For example, early Indian views, later Indian views, Tibetan views, East Asian views, modern western scholarship, etc. The important thing is to use secondary sources that are not open to interpretation. As for structuring the article, a historical look at the subject is often best, treating the subject according to the time period. Tengu800 16:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Tengu800, Thanks for your good advice. I would be very interested in your (re-)involvement with Madhyamaka on those grounds. This methodology was more or less what has been followed up until recently - and it is unfortunate, but I may have been inadvertently promoting a view in the lede. OTOH, the view that I have been promoting is consistent with the vast majority of modern academic sources who, almost to a man, agree on the purpose, message, and direction of Nagarjuna. One of the challenges with your approach is that it then becomes an issue of prioritisation - and having to demonstrate which views are significant enough for an article. E.g. if Schopen does say 'Nagarjuna this/that' - if he is unable to source his claims, unable provide any provenance, and can show little awareness of the current academic environment regarding Nagarjuna - should he be cited at all? Likewise early western academic works are notoriously poor. I have mentioned this before, but more recently scholars like Napper have discussed these authors and adequately dismissed their views (eg Burnouf, Stcherbatskyk, Schayer, Poussin) - so the establishment of WP:N is particularly relevant in light of the many books and articles that have been published on Madhyamaka which are void of any awareness of existing study.

On the issue of secondary sources Napper (p70) says regarding Tsongkhapa: "Tsongkhapa ... can also be viewed as a secondary source, someone describing the writings of the great Indian Madhyamikas in a fashion comparable to that of contemporary academics.". I know Wikipedia isn't beholden to Napper's views, but she is certainly a prominent author in the field. (20040302 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

Buddhist talapoy[edit]

Maha Sakdi Polsep's 1833 funeral procession was reported on by Edmund Roberts (diplomat), where he refers to Buddhist monks as "Talapoy." Search engines could only tell me it is not a Scrabble word, but my 62-year-old Webster entry for "talapoin" gives its source as Portuguese talapão from Burmese tala poi our lord. I added mention of Robert's account of the procession with a note on "talapoy," and another at Talk:Bhikkhu#Talapoy. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Shortened Zen-template[edit]

D***! I liked it so much, this long list with quotes. But I appreciate your comments and points of view very much, so I cut it down. It's funny, somehow you feel like a schoolmaster- the ones you really take serious, because they are really good in what they're doing. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I'll take that as a compliment. In any case, thank you for all your efforts. I appreciate all the work you have put into these pages, including making the sidebars collapsible. All the best. :-) Tengu800 02:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Formatting[edit]

Hello Tengu. Just a quick note of thanks to you for your formatting of the Atman (Buddhism) article: what you have done looks great! Warm wishes. From Suddha (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Mahāsāṃghika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buddhabhadra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, friendly robot. Tengu800 00:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Early Buddhism[edit]

Nice, those clear articles on Early Buddhism. :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kensho[edit]

Hi Tehgu800. Cuold you please give your opinion on my recent edits on Kensho? They have been removed three times without adequate explanation or discussion. See also the TP of Kensho. I've also asked User:SudoGhost for advice, and taken the issue also to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yijing (monk), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empress Wu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
Just to let you know, again, that I really appreciate your combination of knowledgeability and civility. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mahayana[edit]

Hello there. In response to your reversion and accusations the following should be noted. Firstly, the explanation of Mahayana which you have reverted a second time is not from a Theravada perspective and does not represent Theravada polemics. It is a view held by leading Mahayana scholars including the Dalai Lama himself. I say this as a published author in the field who has been invited by the International Association for the History of Relgions (the most prestigious academic body of its kind) to address many of the world's leading scholars. I say this not to boast but just to let you know that I do not have an agenda. What you have removed is neither Original Research nor a 'synthesis of published material that advances a position'. In fact I would say that most of the sources which promote the interpretive structure I use comes not from Theravada but Mahayana sources. In fact, to be honest, I cannot think of a single Theravada author who I have heard promote such a point of view. Therefore I would be grateful if you would to explain to me in what way the text you have removed is 'not accurate to the actual historical information available' and in what way it 'represents a biased viewpoint'. Many thanks 81.106.127.14 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to summarize: (1) Mahayana sutras were overwhelmingly not written in Sanskrit. It is widely acknowledged that they were typically written in a prakrit, and then Sanskrit formalisms were applied gradually over the centuries (except to gathas, which retain a more archaic form since they are verse). Pali is even one prakrit language that has been sanskritized to some extent. (2) The claim that Mahayana Buddhists accepted the Pali Canon is largely unfounded, since Mahayana Buddhists in India were no doubt overwhelmingly unfamiliar with the "Pali Canon", which refers to the collection of texts used in Sri Lanka (no clear history of this collection in India, nor any history of the Pali language in India). The Agamas that were used by the other schools contained some sectarian differences by means of which scholars can now determined which sects they belonged to. Therefore, they cannot be identified with the Pali Canon. (3) The material added seems to put everything in terms of individual liberation such as that of the arhat -- either attaining it, or helping others attain it. This does not give a full or accurate summary of the Mahayana views on enlightenment and buddhahood. (4) According to many Mahayana sutras, arhats have only attained an incomplete nirvana, yet the material you have added ascribes to arhats nirvana without qualifications. In fact, there are several different types of nirvana recognized by Mahayana teachings: incomplete nirvana, complete nirvana, and the non-abiding nirvana. Of these, the arhats are often ascribed the incomplete nirvana. (5) The use of Pali terms being applied to Mahayana subject matter does not inspire confidence, since Mahayana never used Pali that we know of. Now, aside from these issues regarding the accuracy of the information, there are several major problems with the addition. (1) There are no references given, so the material is subject to removal if it is controversial. (2) The added material modifies cited material already in the article, which indicates a process of synthesis. (3) The views added seem to be the views of an individual editor rather than modern scholarship on the matter. Best regards. Tengu800 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please continue the discussion at Talk:Mahayana? This is also of interest to other editors. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Arhat[edit]

Hi tegu800. I trust you can provide one or more sources for "The Mahayana discerned a hierarchy of attainments, with Samyaksambuddhas at the top, advanced Bodhisattvas below that, Pratyekabuddhas below that, and Arhats further below." Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, and many thanks for your help in resolving the reference issues and organizing this article. Best wishes. Tengu800 00:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Our friend keeps adding unsourced content, pushing a Perennialist view on spirituality-issues. See Spirituality. I've given him a warning diff, but I wonder if more should be done. I'm becoming quite fed-up with his style of editing; actually I find it disruptive. Have you got a balanced (ah! The wisdom of getting older! Check your impulses with somebody else) view on what to do - or what not to do? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Typically editors for Wikipedia Buddhism articles are not disruptive like this. I'm not really the best person to ask about this type of thing, though. I'm not so familiar with the whole Wikipedia system and community, but perhaps User:Ninly would be able to tell you more. Best wishes. Tengu800 05:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it looks like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be a good place to start. Tengu800 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
... and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing seems very relevant as well. Tengu800 21:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI: User talk:De728631#Brahman. He's been active before, with the same splendid track-record. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I saw recently that he was blocked from editing temporarily by an admin for personal attacks and disruptive editing. The way that he misuses sources is dangerous and could lead to the corruption of a wide range of articles. Tengu800 12:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Odier[edit]

Hi Tengu800. Have you got any idea whether Daniel Odier is really a "dharma successor" of Jing Hui, abbot of Bailin Monastery? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know about this particular case, but like any such claim, if it is not clearly documented by WP:RS, then I would question whether this is verifiable information, and how notable it is. Without these things, such statements are basically unverified claims. When dealing with the topic of western Zen teachers, extra skepticism may be helpful, given the circumstances. All the best. Tengu800 01:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm skeptical too, yet it's interesting that there is a resurgence of Chán-Buddhism in China, and that there are some connections with westerners. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandhinirmocana Sutra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Sockpuppet investigations Mbrahmana/Vimutti/111.223.132.1. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Zen lineage charts[edit]

Hi Tengu800,

Can you have a look with us at Talk:Zen lineage charts#Change to Zen lineage entry? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

Hi Tengu800, Thank you for the barnstar and compliments. Writing the Geyi article was enjoyable and easy thanks to Mair's scholarship. The current version is still quote heavy and needs cleaning up. If you're interested, please start, but if not, I'll come back and revise it after I'm defamiliarized. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

East Asian Yogācāra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bhiksu
Maitreya-nātha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bhiksu

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schools of Buddhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


dubious external link[edit]

Hi. Thank you for cutting back external link clutter in the Nichiren buddhism article. 2 edits later an IP added this link Nam(u) Myoho Renge Kyo - Online Buddhism: Nichiren Buddhism, a website which requires registration to view relevant content and contains advertisement + and collects money for a wildlife project i never heard of before. Could you please look at this, it looks dubious but i am not sure if this a case for removal. JimRenge (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Best regards. Tengu800 03:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! best wishes JimRenge (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amaravati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mahasthabir Shilabhadra[edit]

Can you do anything with Mahasthabir Shilabhadra? It is another of many articles contributed by a sock farm and I'm struggling to find sources using the article title. Perhaps it is spelled in various ways - this search suggests that there may be something out there but it is mostly snippet views here in the UK & useless as such. Unless additional sources turn up, the article will be deleted as the creation of a blocked user. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure, I know old man Śīlabhadra... Tengu800 07:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shanshan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ruoqiang Town|Ruoqiang]] to the south-west of Lop Nur. It also includes the kingdoms of [[Qiemo]] (Shanshan has been suggested as the origin of the name [[Qiemo County|Cherchen]] (Qiemo),<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Śūraṅgama Sūtra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{quote|[T]he Sutra is probably a compilation of Indic materials that may have had a long literary

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Śūraṅgama Sūtra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaiyuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Kindness and Recognition[edit]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Early Buddhism[edit]

Hi Tengu800. This article may be of interest to you: Linda Heuman, Whose Buddhism is Truest?, Tricycle Magazine. You may also be interested in Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, which describes the later development of the Vedic religion(s) and the early development of Buddhism, situated in respectively the western ganges Plain and the Central Ganges Plain. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Best regards. :-) Tengu800 06:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Buddhism[edit]

Can you take a look at Chinese Buddhism? My time is already consumed with India Against Corruption. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Though, this is probably a good one. See also User talk:Wikijiahao#Chinese Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. I've been watching, but I've been hesitant to intervene until I know where the changes are headed. It's always possible to revert or re-add material. Best regards. :-) Tengu800 02:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dai Gohonzon image nominated for deletion[edit]

Hello Tengu, the image of the Dai Gohonzon has been nominated for deletion by Scandiescot : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Taisekiji_Dai_Gohonzon.jpeg. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for notifying me. It seems that he is very interested in censoring this image. Best regards. Tengu800 12:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Tengu: As I've noted repeatedly in my edits and talk pages, WP:RS (Identifying reliable sources), WP:PROVEIT (Burden of evidence), and WP:OR (No original research) are clear, and the photo does not seem to meet those standards. If you have evidence that it is genuine, then please identify your source(s).
For example, the "No original research" page states: >>Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, university-level textbooks, magazines, journals and books published by respected publishing houses, and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. ***Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable***, but see self-published sources for exceptions.<< Scandiescot (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Selecting a thumbnail image is not the same as making a claim in a Wikipedia article. As you've shown us, your initial interest in censoring this image was due to religious motivations. I would say there is a serious conflict of interest here, and I've flagged the article appropriately. Tengu800 09:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I fear that you are on your own now. Due to disputes on the Gakkai site in which I set back disruptive edits I was blocked. Going to retire now for a long time, Cheers for your help though.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō‎[edit]

Could you help me out on above mentioned article? Bit difficult to get the message across to user:93.76.30.118 why the article is on the said Mantra not about an individual school.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Apocryphal Buddhist sutra‎[edit]

I assume you might also be interested in this article. It might profit from the input of an experienced user :). English is a second language for me and I hesitate to contribute more than 1 or 2 sentences in the article space because my English is not professional. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. :-) Tengu800 06:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Request at WP:RMTR[edit]

* Ṛddhi → Iddhi (move (@subpage)) – Unusual spelling. Rarely used. Inconsistent with most scholarly use – 180.177.130.143 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tengu800. There is a request to move an article you have worked on to a different spelling. An IP editor says "Unusual spelling. Rarely used. Inconsistent with most scholarly use". If you object to this move you might leave a comment at WP:RMTR. I'm writing to you because you seem to have knowledge in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amaravati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Here is a Barnstar for your compassion towards the Buddhist community. Please carry on...... Wesige putha (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahāsāṃghika[edit]

Removed as per WP:INDICSCRIPT. By mistake, I may have removed pinyin: Dàzhòng Bù which is pronounciation, but indic scripts should not be used.--Vin09 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The major issue I see is that this policy is aimed almost entirely at resolving political and linguistic issues of modern India and Indian languages. However, the name Mahāsāṃghika is Sanskrit, and extant Sanskrit manuscripts nearly always use Devanagari, so there are no such contentious political issues. Including the Devanagari is also useful for researchers and academics who would like to search Devanagari manuscripts or old Sanskrit dictionaries for the terms in question. Best regards. Tengu800 03:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Pre-sectarian Buddhism[edit]

Hi Tengu. Is tehre any reason,a s far as you know, why there's no info in this article on the contents of early buddhism? See also [Tilmann Vetter, "The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, basically the reasons for the dearth of information on the wiki are twofold (as I understand it). The first reason is that not many people are familiar with the topic. The second is that very little concrete is known about that period, since all writings date from the sectarian era. It can also be a controversial subject. Monastic scholars have been more eager to accept received mythology as historical fact. However, western scholars tend to be much more skeptical about the matter and even question the fundamentals of the tradition. Tengu800 13:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Tangmi[edit]

Hello! I appreciate your position on Tangmi and the Vajrayana/Esoteric Buddhism thing - it's complicated. But you reverted all my edits... that's kind of annoying, you could have just fixed the Esoteric Buddhism bits instead of rolling back 2 separate edits completely. In the future, perhaps consider doing that instead? Ogress smash! 08:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the main content of your edits that I saw was your changing correct translations into incorrect ones ("vajrayana" in Chinese is a completely different term). The Chinese character "密" means secret or esoteric, nothing related to vajra (金剛), yana (乘), or vajrayana (金剛乘). The esoteric traditions in East Asia historically did not consider Esoteric Buddhism to be a separate vehicle from Mahayana, such as Vajrayana or Mantrayana. Esoteric Buddhism in East Asia is esoteric Mahayana, and this is an important historical and conceptual point. Categorizing esoteric Buddhism as Vajrayana and Mantrayana is imposing the views of other traditions such as late Indian, Tibetan, and Newar Buddhism. Tengu800 02:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to sound tendentious, but the diffs [1] show otherwise. I am not arguing against your response about the meaning of Tangmi, but rather that you undid a lot to fix a handful of words, which you could have done manually so as not to undo the rest of the work. Ogress smash! 02:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are coming across as overly sensitive, especially about such minor edits. If you contributed meaningful new content to the article, that might be different. The biggest change was the insertion of wrong translations, so I reverted the edits. Tengu800 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)