User talk:VictoriaGrayson

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

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)

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)

Grinning, ducking and running[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And further, you may want to consider the possibility of a magic unicorn? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Watching[edit]

You're close at my tail! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nyingma[edit]

This is what I was afraid with Bhutanic's edits. (S)he seldom added any sources, but I wanted to assume good faith since (s)he obviously made a lot of effort with respect to that article. I totally agree with your revert though. And of course, Bhutanic has the chance to restore any paragraph as long as (s)he can provide a decent source supporting the edit! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of New Kadampa Tradition Survivors for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Kadampa Tradition Survivors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Victoria, per talk at that article, I suggest that you preserve it by userfying it in a sandbox in your own user space just in case. As it sits right now, it's under construction and is in pretty rough shape. I'd do some significant improvement and expansion on it if I were you. Where the whole article is basically one long quotation, even if cited, it is not the best way to create an article. Just an FYI (I've created over 200 WP articles and sent about 40 to DYK, so I know whereof I speak on article creation here...) Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Shambhala Training[edit]

If you have any time left over from the never ending battle with NKT pods and their NPOV edits, would you kindly look at Shambhala Training. IMO that article relies far too heavily on primary sources. The only secondary or tertiary sources cited are where the article explains some Tibetan terms and concepts. There are no objective secondary sources used in relation to Shambhala Training itself. Consequently the article reads like a subjective promotional piece - not an encyclopaedic article. I've left a note about this on the talk page of the article as well. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Shugden related articles[edit]

@VictoriaGrayson:I know it is a pretty thankless task trying to counteract the POV editing of NKT / "Shugden Buddhist" zealots - but I appreciate it even if I haven't always agreed. Even when one of them withdraws others will enter the fray so it goes on and on. I have had "debates" with them since 1997 on Usenet (you can still find those discussions by searching Google groups under Talk Religion Buddhism) - Geshe Kelsang himself even sent me some replies, so it was quite interesting, and generally much more civil back then. But after 17 years of it on and off now feeling to old to continue, so turning what energy I have to editing less controversial Tibetan Buddhism, and Tibetan language and script related articles (most TB articles are a mess) where edits have at least a chance of standing. Also writing some new articles - and contributing photos and graphics to Commons where nobody has ever objected to anything I have contributed (under the name Cfynn not CFynn there). Good luck with holding the fort against the NKT siege. You never know I may be back one day, but for now trying to avoid it and let others like yourself try to clean up their propagandising. Good luck and take care. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, all, note that I've filed on P37 at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Dorje_Shugden_controversy. @CFynn: also. Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Here is an interview with Robert Barnett. I linked it as an external link on the Western Shugden Society. I lack time to use it to improve the article. But maybe better we leave it with this external link reference? It could be also used for the Dorje Shugden Controversy, I added it there as an external link under the rubric Protests.

Kt66 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal[edit]

As requested, I have closed the merge discussion with consensus to merge. An administrator is needed to merge the histories. I have not attempted to actually merge the articles, since this is not an area with which I am familiar except by reviewing the articles in preparation for closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Kadampa Tradition of Tsongkhapa[edit]

According to Dr. Alexander Berzin, Tsongkhapa received his main Kadampa teachings from a Nyingma lama:

"There was a very famous Nyingma lama at the time called Lhodrag Namka-gyeltsen, and this Nyingma lama had, continually, visions of Vajrapani. And he invited Tsongkhapa, and they became mutual teacher and disciple. It’s from this Nyingma lama that Tsongkhapa got his main lam-rim transmissions from the Kadam tradition – two of the main Kadam lineages. There are three Kadampa lineages that had split. He got two of them from this Nyingma lama and one from a Kagyu lama. The Kadampa was divided into three: One was the lam-rim teachings, one was the textual teachings, and one was the oral guideline teachings. So he got the lam-rim and the oral guideline lineages from this Nyingma lama, and the textual tradition from a Kagyu lama. This I find very interesting. One always thinks that he got them from Kadampa lamas; he didn’t. And that Gelugpa was so separate from all these other traditions; it wasn’t. "

Source: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/life_of_tsongkhapa/life_of_tsongkhapa.html


So Tsongkhapa's lineage of Kadampa teachings, which Geshe Kelsang the NKT and other "Shugden Buddhists" claim to be heir to, came via a lineage which passed through Nyingma lamas. Today "Shugden Buddhists" criticise HHDL for taking teachngs from Nyingma lamas and mixing them with the "pure" tradition of Tsongkhapa. If Je Tsongkhapa had had that kind of narrow sectarian view there would have been no tradition of Kadampa teachings including Lam Rim passed down in Tsongkhapa's Gelugpa tradition.

Chris Fynn (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Nice info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You all (Victoria too) need to help me clarify something. (Cause I'm not a Buddhist and after a while certain texts and technical discussions begin to make my head want to explode) Isn't the Dalai Lama the head of the Gelug school? (So says the Gelug article) And isn't the problem that the Shugden/NKT folks want to claim they are the "pure" (i.e. fundamentalist, "our way is the only way," other branches within the mahayana tradition are inferior in their thinking) "Gelug" school and that the Dalai Lama is not? I am concerned, as some of the phrasing I'm running across suggests that the Shugden/NKT followers ARE the Gelugs, but that seems that they are trying to appropriate that label away from the followers of the version supported by the Dalai Lama. Clarify. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw:The NKT is just a group of mostly European people that are fake monks, per the rules of Buddhist Vinaya. Their study is strictly Kelsang Gyatso's books, particularly Heart Jewel. So no, they are not Gelugs by any stretch of the imagination. Per Columbia professor Barnett, the reason why they demonstrate is for publicity. So ultimately the "problem" is merely the fact that the NKT wants to advertise itself.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I did see that BBC documentary that focused on the cult-like aspects, and I have enough familiarity with cults in general that I picked up on that pretty fast. But I notice you seeem to occasionally interchange Shugden stuff and the term(s) "Gelug" or gelugpa" - and the editors on the opposite side do even more so. Thus my quesiton to clarify that yes, the Dalai Lama IS the leader of the Gelug school and, hence, "Gelug" is within the mainstream. Montanabw(talk) 05:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Shugden was practiced by the Gelugpas historically speaking, and is thus associated with them. But as of 2014 that is a matter of the past. Yes the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug school.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
My question is why you said (on a different person's talk page), "The Gelug school has highly unusual perspectives.. I would never read or cite Gelug Geshes." Yet the Dalai Lama is originally from the Gelug tradition and works with the Geshes ordained within his tradition, thus they are, presumably, Gelug Geshes. ( I am thinking, for example, of people such as Thubten Yeshe and those associated with the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, which I have always understood to be closely associated with the Dalai Lama and "mainstream" if there is such a thing as "mainstream" Tibetan Buddhism or "mainstream" Buddhism in general. Can you elighten me as you your position on this? Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist Discussion[edit]

Could you please explain to me on my talk page what the issue is anyway? I can see that there is an issue about whether particular Buddhist sources are primary or secondary. Other than that, I can see that I was asked, essentially out of nowhere, to look at an issue in which I had no previous involvement, and very little knowledge. I also see that another editor says that there is a conduct issue, but I have no idea what the conduct issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that he is going and looking for people who will agree with him, and canvassing people who will agree with him? In my case, he has no way of knowing whether I will agree or disagree, since I have no edit history in Buddhism and very little knowledge of Buddhism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I replied on your talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not canvassing anyone. Maybe I am being canvassed, but if so, I don't have a clue. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I expect and assume that I am out of the loop now. As I tried to explain to Robert Walker, I have no interest in being involved in an argument about which is the better version of an article on Buddhism. I'm not a Buddhist; I'm Catholic. My knowledge of Buddhism is essentially that it is one of the world's major religions, and that it has good ethical teachings that are very similar to those of Christianity. I didn't want to be dragged in, and maybe I won't be again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Refrain[edit]

Good morning Vic. I'm trying to refrain as much as possible from responding in this hopeless discussion, since every response provokes another round of miscomprehension; it's leading nowhere. People who don't understand the difference between faith and scholarship, and don't understand proper arguments, can't be convinced. "You can lead the donkey to the well, but you can't force it to drink." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)keep

When you are dealing with religion, it's tough to keep away the Mastodons. I think it's OK to focus on actual edits, Jonathan and indeed, the tl;dr is just not worth the time. Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism talk[edit]

I'm sorry for losing it on the talk page and getting myself blocked. The final trigger on my side was when you pinged fellow editors. This whole dispute has felt so acrimonious from the start that the ping looked sinister.

The block has had a silver lining. I must admit, I needed some time out. It's been a circuit breaker.

I still have the same problems with content but I hope there is some way we can eventually make headway with collaborating. Moonsell talk 01:56, 22 December 2014

Moonsell, you really don't get it, do you? People can ping any one for anything so long as it is within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You refuse to understand that material on WP needs to be sourced to third party, reliable sources that are not us! Even if you are "right" (and "verifiability" is not necessarily "truth", especially for religion articles) you STILL need a reliable third-party source to verify it. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope you use your block to read the policies and guidelines of Wikipdia and come back with a better attitude. Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Xmas[edit]

Happy Xmas! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know you, you don't encourage this ;) Anyway, best wishes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I could use your help[edit]

Feel like helping with the COI at Aro gTér? That page needs a hard woman like you, got a problem COI editor who is obviously a shill but honestly you are better at calling out problematic pages than I am. Ogress smash! 07:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Ogress: The Aro gTér people seem to be a fairly harmless bunch of hippies playing at being Tibetan tantrikas in fancy dress. Amazingly they actually do take it all very seriously and get upset if anyone questions what they are doing, their fantasy lineage and their fantasy gTér-ma (don't forget the accent). Of course they are much, much nicer than the Shugdenites, but may get almost as exasperating. I'm certain they won't be able to come up with a single with a single reliable source to substantiate any of their claims. Maybe best just rewrite the article to say the Aro gTér claim ABC; Aro gTér claim DEF; ... Aro gTér claim XYZ; Happy new year. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW The Khandro Yeshé Réma article should probably be merged with the Aro gTér article - this figure has no notability outside of Aro gTér. BTW Centuries ago there was a historic Dzogchen teacher called Aro Yeshe Jungne, but Aro gTér has no connection with him or his teachings ~ of which only one or two small texts survive. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, things are getting out of hand on the talk page again and I'm outnumbered by apparent meatpuppets. Unrelatedly, I noticed Prasangika37 show up there, is he edit-stalking you? Ogress smash! 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress:Maybe Prasangika37 is edit stalking me.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar TitoDutta 21:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker[edit]

I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Aro gTér for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aro gTér is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aro gTér until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Lily W (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

  • I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

diff: thanks! You made me laugh again, with a broad grin; that's highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anatta 'PRIMARY' deletion.[edit]

I'm always happy to see people willing to partake in the wikipedia project. However you only have to mark text as belonging to a primary source - there is no need to delete it. Deletion in these cases often denies the opportunity for editors to provide context to what is written there. In this case, there is a huge surfeit of written material that focusses on the Madhyamaka approach to Anatta - so much so that I considered it best to go 'back' to a well recognised scholarly commentary of a commentary of a text.

You and I probably differ regarding our definitions of 'Primary' vs 'Secondary' sources. I, for one, do not consider it necessary (although I agree it is preferred) for a secondary source to be contemporaneous, or written in English. I also recognise the long traditions of scholarship that are found within the Buddhist monastic universities - and I believe that they have been as subject to rigourous peer review as anything which is found in our modern times.

I also believe that a text can be both a primary source (when it is the subject of a discourse, it becomes a primary source) but also a secondary source (it can still be informative with regards to what it is commenting upon) - and indeed, I believe that this is generally accepted, if not widely understood.

Here is a reference to an old part of the RS page. (I've been here since 2004, so things do change). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.


I am begging you to tag offending text as PRIMARY where it offends you, but NOT to delete it - unless you have something to replace it that improves upon the quality of source..

If you wish to discuss this further, don't hesitate. (20040302 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme[edit]

Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - is this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Anutpada[edit]

Using Advaita Vedanta scholars to discuss the meaning and prevalence of Anutpada in Buddhism needs qualifying, Victoria. It is true that it is found used a lot in prajnaparamita literature, but it does not play a major role in the madhyamaka literature. Please use RS that belong to the context. The Anutpada article looks suspiciously like WP:SYN / WP:ORIG. 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The concept of anutpada is certainly all over Madhyamaka literature. I have a page full of quotes from Nagarjuna and Candrakirti discussing it @20040302:.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, great - in which case, why not cite these sources and the televant domain-specific scholars, rather than scholars of a Hindu tradition? 20040302 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker's DRN Draft[edit]

I suggest that you ignore it. He has been working on it for a long time and will probably continue working on it for a long time. I don't think that he has a clue how DRN works, which is that the process unfolds after a mediator accepts the case. He seems to think that DRN is a way to get content disputes resolved by a third party, rather than a way for a third party to help the editors resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You should take a look at "Karma in Buddhism" before Dorje started to edit it 25 march 2013 (pre-Dorje); it was a good article, also according to the original contributors "Shoot for FA". Then Dorje started to edit it, adding a large amount of quotes which definitely lowered the quality of the article 3 november 2014 (Dorje). It is this comparison which convinced me that there is a structural problem with Dorje's edits, and that that is the issue to be discussed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandukya Upanishad[edit]

Here we go again... This guy seems to be on a crusade. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note I am not in any crusader mission I am just expanding , if you have problem please discuss in talkpage ? Shrikanthv (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mandukya Upanishad#Re-re-revert, all of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

How do I unsubscribe from these messages?VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You can't, I'm afraid, unless they change the protocol. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I was sort of kidding around.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Clarification[edit]

With respect, wouldn't these edits be allowed under WP:PRIMARY? (as they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge") The information given wasn't interpreted and therefore wouldn't require a secondary source in this context. Helpsome (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vic isn't fond of the DL. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangtong-shentong[edit]

I think I'm beginning to understand more of your dislike of Tsongkhapa, and his fellows. They haven't been too friendly of the "essentialists," haven't they? While the "essentialist" position can't be discarded from Buddhism; it may even have been an integrral part of the earliest Buddhism, while (Prasangika-)Nadhyamaka was a later development, carrying dependent origination and anatman to a truly new understanding. Best regards, 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

No, that has nothing to do with anything @Joshua Jonathan:. All Madhyamaka negates atman and svabhava.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for responding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that Tsongkhapa disregards the main point of Madhyamaka and Mahayana in general.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is?!? Please please please, enlighten me; you know more about Tibetan Buddhism than I do, and I would really like to know what this point is. Please explain! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Karl Brunnholzl explains that "both Nagarjuna and Candrakırti emphasize again and again that all phenomena are without arising and ceasing". Tsongkhapa ignores this main point.VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Center of the Sunlit Sky p.587. So, explain to me, what's the relevance? You once replied somewhere, if I remember correct, on the question what is the connection between several lifes, that it is karmic consequences (you didn't write exactly that, but this is what I remember). So, please explain, what's the relevance? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"Everything is illusion" - isn't that very close to Advaita Vedanta? See Anutpada. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Does this have anything to do with the rejection of Svatantrikas? I can't find any info at Svatantrika on "nonarisal", but since it's not about the essentialist positions (a), I thought it might be the Svatantrikas (b), as mentioned at Rangtong#Prasangika and the rejection of essentialism. Sorry, couldn't help joining the discussion here :-) ! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Svatantrika is actually a Tibetan polemical category which is only vaguely based on Indian texts.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

JJ: "Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? VG: "continuity of delusion." User talk:VictoriaGrayson#Mindstream. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance of clinging to "me". Nagarjuna says:

"The clinging to “me” is exhausted, and thus karma and birth too."

VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am actually turning away from saying anything here, but. Victoria you are mistaken when you say

The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.

Of course he does not ignore it, and neither do many Indian scholars including Candrakirti (who is followed zealously by Tsongkhapa) - Tsongkhapa cites Candrakirti while exploring the assertion you make (not a new idea). Candrakirti says "Because things are not produced causelessly, or from causes such as a divine creator, or from self, other or both self and other, they are produced dependently". Tsongkhapa breaks this down in very good detail (Chapter 15 entitled "Production is not refuted" of the Snow Lion edition of the LRCM, pp185-194). He summarises by stating "Once again, these opponents go wrong by not distinguishing "no intrinsic production" from "no production"."
Of course you do not hear me, Victoria, as you have nailed yourself to this conflation. I believe that your interpretation of Madhyamaka is indeed similar to the interpretation used by Gaudapada as you suggest JJ - however, it is not accepted by Candrakirti and his followers, who has had much greater sway on Madhyamaka in Buddhism than Gaudapada ever had.
Victoria, before you go on and on to me about how you are talking about "arising, not production" - this is just translation semantic. Moreover, these terms, when used in their negative sense, and according to context, are considered to be synonymous with sunyata, but that doesn't lend them any more potency regarding the annihilation of the universe into 'only illusion'.
The position of Buddhists is that if you hold a view "Everything is Illusion" then, by reason of inclusion, you must accept that both samsara and nirvana are only illusion - that liberation is illusion, and the path to liberation is illusion. Cessations must also be illusion - and this is the bind. If the cessation of suffering is illusion, then there is no escape from suffering (any escape would be illusory) - So the viewholder denies Buddhism. A name for such viewholders is "Nihilist".
One of the fundamental verses of Nagarjuna's MMK starts "Like a dream, like an illusion..." The "like" being used there is what separates Madhyamaka Buddhism from a nihilist position. If you cannot distinguish between "no essential arising" and "no arising", then the Madhyamaka tradition is a powerful means of destroying any chance of enlightenment. (20040302 (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC))
Nihilism is ceasing. Nihilism is not that things are illusion. As Brunnhozl says, Candrakirti emphasizes over and over again that phenomena are without arising or ceasing. Comans and King explain the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka. Your Gelug view is often described as crypto-realist, since Gelugs don't accept that things are illusion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, could you be a little more coherent? You have a habit of making assertions with no reasoning whatsover, and then occasionally saying "someone says this" with no ability for me to see where you are talking about. It ends up being very weak for your position. What you say Brunnhozl says, is one thing, but Candrakirti himself says something else altogether. I provided you with a quote from his own work (the Madhyamakavatara) above. Secondly, Gelugpas are varied, they do not hold just one view. But I feel pretty safe in saying that all Gelugpas, including Tsongkhapa assert the existent of illusions. I also feel safe in saying that all Buddhists distinguish between an illusory piece of gold and a real piece of gold. Only one of the two has arisen as a piece of gold dependant on causes and conditions, the other one has arisen as the illusion of a piece of gold dependent on it's own (the illusion's) causes and conditions. Both of them are dependant-arisings, only one of them is an illusion. (20040302 (talk))
I already quoted Brunnhozl above. Please read the entire discussion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok - but he is, frankly, wrong. They do not. (20040302 (talk))

śramaṇa name change[edit]

Hey Vicky, it'd be better if you bolded your vote for śramaṇa at Talk:Sramana; I had set the vote to shramana but then when you suggested the IAST, I preferred it and the editor reviewing the section noted that there was no need to reopen the discussion, but merely indicate vote preference. Right now, your only bolded vote preference is oppose; if you add/change it to move to śramaṇa things might go faster? Ogress smash! 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Side comment[edit]

No question that the Human Rights in Tibet article reads like something written on behalf of the Chinese government. It's junk. But, it is best to quietly rework it in a step by step fashion, section by section, quietly, with very solid sources and keeping as much of the old stuff as possible, though sometimes reworked. (usually with a structure that meets NPOV by stating "source X says foo but source Y says oof!." ). I love BRD. You will never get consensus with a POV-pusher, all you can do is write BETTER and more balanced text, then go to 3O or wherever and get some people to agree with you. I used to have a boss at a job who said, "don't come to me with a problem unless you also have a solution." Hope this helps! Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, VG: Dalai Lama[edit]

Given your editing interests, you might want to keep an eye on the Dalai Lama article. A guy giving me serious cold-hot hostility issues is editing the crap out of it, and I'm dubious that the article is not going to need serious defragmenting and degaussing as he's openly stated on Talk that he is there on DL because he thinks it's been edited by people not "supportive" of the Dalai Lamas and that people claiming to be tulkus who aren't really reincarnates will be rightfully dispossessed of their roles by the Tibetan people (yeah, seriously, he said that).

Personally I'm fine letting him info-dump the page with cites and then picking apart problematic areas, as he correctly notes that we have wiki pages on each of the Dalai Lamas but only mention like two of them on the Dalai Lama page itself. However, he is pretty hostile to me; for example, claiming my use of the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is because I studied Korean Seon about the same time as one of its editors, Robert Buswell Jr., which is... I mean, I think you see where this is going.. Ogress smash! 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I also saw your other concern page, I have been kind of ill so I haven't waded in yet to such a hairy topic but I'm not ignoring it. I also think the advice given about quiet editing is wise. Ogress smash! 00:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)