User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:48, 23 January 2015

Userboxes

This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years, 1 month and 6 days.

This user has made over
30,000 edits on Wikipedia worldwide.

Alien Mentor collection Thanks Hafs!
Now what kind of grammar was that? Be POLITE!! Darth Vader Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them I don't like the way you do your citations... That sentence, you need to reword it. It's too near original'.

File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg

Appreciation. See also Kalacakra sand Mandala created by Losang Samten in El Paso, Texas 2012 (C.E.)

Joshua is Nr 1!

	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]

AAR

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

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. --AmritasyaPutra^T 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. --AmritasyaPutra^T 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.

--AmritasyaPutra^T 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

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

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.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 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

Upanishads article needs work.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 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

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]

^ Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.

^ 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

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

Centrality of ritual in Hinduism

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.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 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

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

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

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. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 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

Hi Joshua:

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:

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?
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. 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 Journal 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)

[The_Rigveda_and_the_Avesta:_the_final_evidence-1] Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.

[Kazanas_-_All-Comprehensiveness_omprehensiveness-2] Kazanas, Nicholas. "Ṛgvedic Ṛgvedic All-Comprehensiveness omprehensiveness omprehensiveness" (PDF).

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 I ''love'' cheese! Thanks!! [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 13:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
+== Anatta ==
+Hi Joshua:
+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:
+# 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?
+# 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. 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 Journal 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
+[[User:ScientificQuest|ScientificQuest]] ([[User talk:ScientificQuest|talk]])