User talk:Bodhiupasaka

Welcome!

Hello, Bodhiupasaka! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JimRenge (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tripiṭaka, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, if my edits seemed unconstructive. I mostly changed Tripitaka(Sanskrit) to Tipitaka(Pali). And also changed some Sanskrit terms to Pali terms. The reasoning is as follows: Buddha was against the use of metrical languages such as Sanskrit.(Cullavagga, Tipitaka). The first Tipitaka was created by the Theravada sect of Buddhism which used Pali and therefore referred it to it's Pali name(Tipitaka). I believe Buddhist terms and the names of Buddhist scriptures should be in Pali , not Sanskrit, since the Buddha was against the use of such languages and moreover the Pali Canon(Tipitaka) precedes the Mahayana Tripitaka by at least 200 years. It is also considered to be the most complete and most accurate among Buddhist scriptural collections. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is Tripitaka which defines the topic: all Tripitakas, those of the Nikayas, the Pali Canon, the Taisho Tripitaka, Tripitaka Koreana etc.). The title implies that there exists a WP:consensus that Tripitaka is the common term for the topic (see Wikipedia:Article titles. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV). In the article Pāli Canon, Theravada or Pali suttas Pali terms are used. I hope this explanation is helpful, you can start a discussion on the talk page of Tripitaka if you think the article should be renamed. JimRenge (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. So it's because of consensus ? Why not rename it as Tipitaka, given the fact that Buddha was against the use of metrical languages for writing down his teachings(Cullavagga Tipitaka) ?

Anyway there's not much I can do about it , if there is already a consensus on the term that should be used.

Thank you for your time. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia community does not prefer or follow a specific religion. Wikipedia is a project to build a general encyclopedia,in contrast to the Catholic Encyclopedia (example). JimRenge (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that 'most' of the wikipedia community do not 'prefer' a particular religion. Having said that , there are people from both sides of the political spectrum and those 'professing' various Faiths who try to edit every page to reflect their own agenda. And these spurious edits lead to vandalism, which in turn leads to many pages being locked to protect them from vandalism. Am I wrong ? I made it clear that I do not contest the revertion you have made on the article in question. I have given my reasons for the edits, that Buddha was against the use of metrical languages such as Sanskrit for writing down his teachings among other things and even gave scriptural reference to that. The funny thing is even in Mahayana texts, it is stated that Buddha was against the use of sanskrit. And the Mahayanas ironically use Sanskrit terms!! It would be odd if Islamic terms were written in Hebrew, or Jewish terms were written in Arabic or Brahmanical terms were written in Chinese . Don't you think ? Having said all that, I am not going to contest the revertion, since it seems you were only doing your job, and the larger wikipedia community seemed to have already agreed on the language that Buddha himself was against in representing Buddhist terms which seems unfortunate. Good day to you sir. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your notice on the page regarding "Dashavataras" of Vishnu. It is stated that the 9th avatar of Vishnu is Gotama Buddha. This is false. It is Sugata Buddha. The wikipedia page for Sugata Buddha says it is just an "epithet" for Gotama Buddha. This is simply wrong. For starters , Gotama Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal while Sugata Buddha was born in Bodh Gaya. They do not even share the same parents. Puranas is proof of that. I hope someone will be able to rectify the mistakes in the wikipedia pages "Dashavataras" and "Sugata". Bodhiupasaka (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sugata, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dashavatara. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were my edits wrong factually ? Can you please give Scriptural reference that proves Gotama Buddha, the founder of BUDDHISM is mentioned in Hindu scriptures instead of Sugata Buddha ? And let's not forget , that the two Buddhas do not even share the same birth place nor the same parents.

So how can Gotama Buddha be the avatar of Vishnu ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS-alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

April 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Pāli Canon, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this article:https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23839/why-did-buddha-praise-the-vedic-agnihotra-as-the-foremost-sacrifice Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Gotitbro (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my edits are disruptive ? Is this a threat ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Pali descended from Sanskrit. Which Sanskrit exactly ? Is is Vedic which is also called Chandas in Panini's book , Ashtadyayi or is it classical Sanskrit which was a language spoken by elites. And why does an image venerating Lord Vishnu , that too written in classical Sanskrit language have to do with Pali language which is the language that this article covers. Who is being disruptive here ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Burmese script(not written by me) and Sinhala script(written by me) transcription of Pali even though it is a historical fact that Pali was first written in those scripts ? Rather than pointing out any historical or factual 'mistakes' I have supposedly committed , You threaten me with blocking me from editing ? Is this behavior acceptable in wikipedia ? I believe you might have breached the code of conduct by threatening other editors. You are giving the wrong image that wikipedia is not egalitarian. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove the Devanagari transcription of Sanskrit in the wikipedia article of Sanskrit ? Why only remove the transcriptions of Pali ? Is it bias or you selectively allow some people to keep their 'disruptive' edits ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Pali, only the Latin script is universally accepted you are being clearly disruptive and vandalizing articles by adding and POVPUSHing Sinhala scripts to articles. Devanagari is universally accepted as the standard script for Sanskrit. You have also vandalized pages by removing any mention of clear Sanskrit origins/words from different articles. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding your own ORIGINALRESEARCH and disrupting long-standing stable articles. Go through and read the WP:RS, WP:EDITWARRING and WP:POVPUSH policies before continuing further. And stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you have already been notified/warned by multiple editors if you continue with your disruptive behavior you are looking at blocks. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that Pali was written in Latin Script on Sri Lanka and Myanmar because it was 'universally accepted' ? And are you sure Devanagari was the only script used in writing Sanskrit . Ever heard of Dravidian scripts such as Tamil and Kannada ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not forget that the very name 'Pali' is of Burmese origin as ironically stated im the wikipedia article itself. It is inferred that Pali was hence first written in Burmese script . Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, which 'sanskrit was written in Devanagari ? Was it classical or vedic ? Vedic language was first written in Brahmi script, not Devanagari.

Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if Latin is indeed the universally accepted script for Pali, then why did you allow the Pali term for Sangha be transliterated in devanagari in the corresponding article ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not addressing historical or regional scripts here but contemporary standard ones. You have still not read the WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:POVPUSH policies, go ahead and do that first. You clearly have no idea about either language families or etymologies; Pali is a Sanskritized Dravidian word, Sangha is Sanskrit as well. Do not add your uncited/poorly cited original research to articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sangha is not a Sanskrit term. It is Prakrit.Samgha is the Sanskrit term. Pali is not even a Dravidian word ,genius. It is a Burmese word. It is cited in the article itself. You not only know nothing about the linguistic history of Pali. You also harbour several delusions about it. There is no point throwing wikipedia rules at me. You already proved your own ignorance. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Duḥkha, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than threatening the users for making sensible edits, I suggest you read the reason I gave for making that edit. I make one small edit and that's somehow disruptive ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please state one piece of historical Pali literature that used the Devanagari script. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the change again, and instead of threatening users, try to discuss it in the talk section of that article. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shakya, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time to read the citations rather than accusing another editor's edits of being unconstructive. If they are unconstructive. Please do mention how so. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Thapar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shakya. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi - I just reverted your addition of a source at Saraswati. Put simply, wisdomlib.org is not a reliable source for any assertion, and should not be used a a reference in any article. Please take a look at our guidance on identifying reliable sources. Wisdomlib.com is one person's personal website - here is its 'About' page, which makes that clear. This is covered at WP:SPS. Now, if the author were a professor of comparative religion at an established and well-regarded university, one could make the argument that he is an expert of the type discussed in that guidance, but he isn't. Just don't use it as a source - there must be published books, written by academics, that discuss this stuff - use one of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

That "source" is already used in the body of the article long before I've included it in the infobox. Please take your time in reading the whole article instead of reverting the edits by claiming said source is a "blog". Bodhiupasaka (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]