User talk:VictoriaGrayson

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

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, VictoriaGrayson! Thank you for your contributions. I am Joshua Jonathan and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Roots of Hinduism[edit]

Hi Victoria. Thank you very much for this User talk:Joshua Jonathan#2 Edit Requests on HINDUISM page this source! I'm really delighted to see support for historical facts, instead of the ongoing debates based on modern mythology. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi VictoriaGrayson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes.[edit]

You can add whatever you see in the reference or even summarize. But remember that the page is really very long right now, compare it with Christianity or Islam, you will know. Thank you for your edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism is the most complicated religion in the world. More than Christianity or Islam. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate[edit]

I really appreciate your use of sources and quotes; they invite further inquiry, instead of useless "discussions" between fixed points of view. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

anti-Bush addition to 2012 Benghazi article[edit]

Hi there, your recent anti-Bush edit to the 2012 Benghazi article lede[1] was undone by another editor here[2] with an explanation: "(I don't see Bush referenced in the source provided for this. Also, it's not clear why this belongs in the lede.)" I agree. I kindly request that you limit yourself to constructive and legitimate edits, particularly to the lede. We're working to keep the article complete and balanced and up to date. Thanks much! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mindstream[edit]

"Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

continuity of delusion.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Sounds correct, though. Suggestion for sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to pull up scholarly books on Abhidhamma, Abhidharma, Yogacara, Madhyamaka and tantra which should explain all the varying aspects on this topic.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry[edit]

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I think I checked to late. I am very infrequently here … Kt66 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra[edit]

Greetings! I hope you don't mind that I reverted your removal of sources at Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, I was actually thinking if we could discuss about that first at the Talk Page? =P I agree that Tony Page isn't a Buddhist scholar, he is merely made some English translations of the scriptures. When it comes to translations even, I don't think one should be a Buddhist scholar to qualify. Similarly we are using Philip Kapleau's Three pillars of Zen as a source for Zen Buddhism even he was a mere practicant without any academic qualifications in the subject. Cheers! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Tony Page's translation

Good morning![edit]

Good morning, Vic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What an odd message JJ.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DS Controversy edits[edit]

Hi. I've started to try and consolidate the References a little. I think wherever possible best to just use the {{sfn}} template for references and point to the "Main sources". Best to avoid named references on such a changing article as if the first named reference in a series gets deleted then the rest in the series get broken. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmananda Krishna Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. 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) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen[edit]

Can you review my recent edits to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bernis[edit]

You're right. The late Dr. Usula Bernis is not an independent source. She was a long time student and a biographer of the previous Tomo Geshe who propagated the practice of Shugden and was a Shugden practitioner herself. I understand she was also an associate of Thomas Canada, who appears to be the most virulent of contributors to pro-Shugden / anti-Dalai Lama sites and Facebook pages. Some of his comments simply seethe with pure hatred. If he is an example of what may happen to a person who has worshipped Shugden for years, it is pretty nasty. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: I agree. Also that Bernis "source" is never cited by scholars till this day, since it was rejected from publication.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

37 seems to be a popular number[edit]

Have you noticed that 37 seems to be quite a popular number? Prasangika37, Essence37, Audrey37 ... Chris Fynn (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Promotion by western adherents[edit]

Emphasising the "promotion by western adherents" aspect of things only makes the NKT/WSS and Geshe Kelsang seem much important than they actually are - and which is exactly what they want people to think they are. Of course this is the highly visible aspect which has most drawn the attention of the Western press and of some academics like Kay whose main focus is on British Buddhism. Even looking at other European countries, Gangchen Tulku may be more important in Italy and Kundeling in Switzerland. There are other prominent Shugden lamas in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam - which actually together have far more followers of Tibetan Buddhism than there are in the west (and they financially contribute far more as well) - but Geshe Kelsang and the NKT/WSS hardly make a blip in these places. The main Chinese (PRC) involvement seems to be in this area and managed through Singapore. They know this is more important than the NKT/WSS - though of course the NKT/WSS are useful to them because they give the DL a bit of a bad name in the western media and at the same time all this takes focus away from other aspects.

Carefully study some Sino-Tibetan history from the time of the 5th Dalai lama onwards. China has always used the "conservative faction" of the Gelug school to try and control not only the Tibetans but Mongyrs, Mongols, Manchus and many other ethnicities in China which historically live in a vast area of China. They have also always used the conservative Gelugpas to counter the potential power of the Dalai Lamas. Historically many of the most prominent conservative Gelugpas have also come from these non-Tibetan ethnicities or from Khams and Amdo which were not under the Lhasa Government. China obviously still has a great interest in controlling the religion in these areas - far more important to them than what westerners think of the Dalai Lama. They are also quite concerned about the numbers of ethnic Chinese (Han), both inside China and in the rest of E and SE Asia, who are turning to Tibetan Buddhism which they want to be in control of - not the Dalai Lama. Anyway please give some thought to the wider scope in which the Shugden controversy is taking place which is very interesting. Of course sources on this aspect have not yet been looked at much by Western academics - though a couple are starting to -and most material there is is in Chinese not English.

I think the NKT/WSS have their own agenda which is to make themselves seem the most important Gelug tradition in the West. Why feed it. I suspect part of this may be motivated by something as simple as Geshe Kelsang trying to become bigger than or to "get back" at the FPMT. Really they are mostly a colourful and distracting side show to the Shugden controversy.

Chris Fynn (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: Without NKT, there is no Shugden controversy. The Gelug school in the East resolved everything about 10 years ago. Can you show there is still a Shugden controversy in the actual proper Gelug school? There is not. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson:Actually there is - though it is conducted with far less fanfare as you might expect from Asians. Most Tibetan and Asian Shugden worshippers (all Gelug) are completely turned off by the tactics of the WSS. I've spent several decades living amongst Tibetans in Asia I'm also married to a Tibetan and I speak the language, so I may be in a better position to be aware of these things. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@CFynn: Even the ISC admits that there is no more controversy in the Gelug heirarchy. See the exchange between Kelsang Rabten and the Dalai Lama on youtube. Rabten admits all the Gelug lamas agree with the Dalai Lama.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The WSS/ISC don't know much about many things. How many speak and read Tibetan? Or live amongst Tibetans? How much in-depth knowledge do they have of the workings of Tibetan politics or Tibetan and Chinese history? Geshe Kelsang's followers pretty well only know what he tells them - and I think he has his own agenda. Isn't it likely that NKT will disintegrate when their leader passes on - or become no more significant to Tibetan Buddhism than say the FWBO? Some of the followers may drift to other Shugden Lamas - a few might take them but likely most won't want anything to do with them. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
My position is that there is no Shugden controversy in the actual Gelug school. Only the NKT and China.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Exactly. Do you realize how big the Gelugpa tradition is, and has been for centuries, in China outside of Tibet amongst other ethnicities? In these vast areas of China the "conservative faction" of the Gelug Tradition has always been very influential. Many overseas Chinese in Asia are now attracted to Tibetan Buddhism as well. The Chinese authorities really don't want all these people to have faith in the Dalai Lama and through that have sympathy for the Tibetan cause (or even worse get similar autonomy ideas of their own). Chris Fynn (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we add a bit about the Chinese government?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No hurry. I will write something with good sources but it will take me a while because there is a lot to go through and it is quite difficult to summarize.
BTW have you noticed that many of the most virulent pro Shugden / Dalai Lama attack sites are run by students of Gangchen and Kundeling? Both very interesting characters - and these two have clear connections to China. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche[edit]

Please can you explain why my recent addition to the Trijang Chocktrul Rinpoche page was deleted? I thought it was factual enough. Thank you. Beeflin (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beeflin: Dorjeshugden.com is nonRS. VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Beeflin (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)