User talk:Joshua Jonathan

October 2011

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Zen. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. SudoGhost 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi SudoGhost. I put an explanation on the talk-page. It's not my intention to atract attention from search-engines - I didn't even know thatb this might be possible. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Buddhism Barnstar
		For your much appreciated work in researching and improving Buddhism related articles, your edits are not going unnoticed. :) SudoGhost 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma protection

I had Bodhidharma semi-protected. I was pushing for indefinite, but they only did it for 3 months. This will be the third time the page has had to be protected in the last several months. I imagine that they will permit an indefinite if the page gets bad again after this one runs out.

Thank you again for the wonderful work you did on the article. I planned to do the same at some point when I got a break from school, but you did a much better job than what I could have. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Chán

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Chinese Chán, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Zen. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am creating separate pages on Chinese Chán and Japanese Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your messages. Don't worry about the confusion. I've been confused with other people before. What's really funny is when, on various online forums, I get into an argument with someone with "ghost" in their member name. Of course someone has to bring up the same lame joke about how I'm "going to exorcize another ghost." Anyway, I'm glad that you made Chan a separate page. It's silly to just have one page on Zen when both have separate histories and separate cultural impacts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting your sub-page

To answer your question "who can do the job of deleting?" - only admins can delete pages, but when you put {{db-self}} (or {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}) at the top of a page, that adds it to the list at CAT:CSD of pages nominated for speedy deletion, and some admin patrolling that list will get to it, usually within an hour or two. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FAS-society

Hi Joshua - It's a fascinating article, and deals with something notoriously difficult to describe. But did you mean to say the FAS Society is 'pan-lineage'? KateWoodhouse (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kate. That;s a very good question. I guess it should be non-sectarian. I've just changed it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links 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.

Bodhidharma's birthplace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Tamil and Telugu

Chinese Chán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Karuna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed links. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Sorry but I think I may have given you faulty advice. ClaretAsh 12:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Satori, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soto (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) 10:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

mahakashyapa

Hi Joshua, don't you think that the Mahakashyapa story might perhaps have been misinterpreted? The Zen school claim that the secret sign the Buddha imparted to Mahakashyapa was a sign of the value of pure meditation as the direct route to enlightenment. But it could equally be interpreted as a sign that cultivation of special compassion is the true route to enlightenment via the attainment of selflessness. Just an idea, please let me know what you think, thanks Peter morrell 13:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Intriguing thoughts. Kasyappa's smile can also be interpreted as meaning that (the insight into) Buddha-nature/sunyata is exactly about our human habit to use words and concepts. Is there something as mis-interpreatation in this case? The story, and the meaning it has been given in the Zen-tradition, is an interpretation. I don't think there is something like the "right" interpretation in this case; the story is being used to express some specific insight. Actually, that's what we humans do all the time, intrpreting, meaning-making. See also Attribution theory, and "The stories we live by" from Dan P. McAdams.

But it is a nice twist you give (though I do wonder if the flower felt compassion too, when it was plucked...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua, to my mind it was a transmission from Buddha to an audience, but a transmission that only one person picked up and received in its true spirit, seemingly. Question then is: what was the essence of this transmission? and as you say that is wide open to human interpretation. My take on it relies on my own bias that stresses compassion as the lead to selflessness as a 'superior path' IMO rather than a Zen-like path of pure mindfulness and meditative stabilisation leading to wisdom of emptiness. But this equally bares in mind that enlightenment requires BOTH those qualities. I have been thinking for many months now about the ingredients of Buddha's enlightenment experience and what its causes and cofactors were. I provisionally concluded that it is primarily a state of absolute tranquillity and egolessness generating ancillary bliss, joy, wisdom (shunyata) and compassion, which are not causes but effects, or offshoots. But principally it consists of egolessness and profound tranquillity as its causes. Then the question becomes: what paths lead to this fruit of egolessness and tranquillity? I do not believe that he principally attained release by the path of meditation alone, but by the attainment of egolessness combined with the realisation of emptiness. Well, that's my ten cents on this topic FWIW!! many thanks for the discussion. Peter morrell 17:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In the sutra's the Buddha's enlightenment is not so much an 'all-inclusive transcendence of al suffering', but ascertaining the insight into the cravings that keep us running and the way to containment of the passions. The Buddha as samyaksambuddha is a later development, in which the Buddha became kind of a superhero. But it seems, to me, that 'enlightenment' is not so much about becoming invulnerable, as about realizing your true human nature, which is the same human nature of others: a mortal being, vulnerable, longing for encounter. Being aware of your cravings and vulnerability makes it possible to deal with them - which does not necessarily mean you can uproot them, but at least you can be aware of their influence, and live with them consciousnessly. Maybe perfection is a childish dream. Remember, the night before his crucifixion Christ asked his disciples "Pray with me" - being the Son of God, he was humble enough to ask "Don't let me be alone, but stay with me". Keep wondering. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What you say, Joshua, seems to me to be what historians of Buddhism assert rather than the followers of the religion. It could equally be argued that historians are just too detached from their subject to know what really goes on in it. And that would be my own view too. Any revisionist account that dums down Buddha himself into just an 'also ran' makes a mockery of the entire religion. I'm sorry, but I can't buy such a minimalist version and nor I suspect could any people who call themselves Buddhists. Any such disparity between what historians of a religion choose to believe and what its followers believe is a serious issue. thanks Peter morrell 09:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To add a further point. Which do you prefer, the view of Buddhism by Buddhists or the version of Buddhism as viewed by intellectuals? The problem with the latter is that they formulate their own construction of the religion based mostly on studying the doctrines and the texts rather than the people, the practitioners. The disparity between the two versions can be quite startling. It is rather like Frederic Thrasher's classic study of gangs in Chicago: should we base our view of gangs from the viewpoint of an intellectual outsider looking in from a "safe distance," or from the viewpoint of someone mixing freely and talking with gang members? Which do you think comprises the most balanced, accurate, detailed and useful view? thanks Peter morrell 14:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope my comments, Joshua, have not discouraged you from continuing the many excellent improvements you have made to the Buddhism articles. Just because I believe that Buddhism is better understood from the perspective of its practitioners than from the viewpoint of academics, does not mean there isn't room for both views in these articles. I had assumed that you are a Buddhist but I now somehow doubt this and my previous comments about mahakashyapa were entirely based on the assumption that you would follow my meaning. The pursuit of perfection is by no means regarded in the Buddhist world as "a childish dream." But please just ignore my comments and continue your good work. thanks Peter morrell 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I think that the two are not in such a strong opposition. The "practitioners" offer the inspiration, but the "academics" provide the necessary balance, distinguishing facts from stories. This is definately necessary, given the picture of Zen that is prevalent in the west, but also given the fact that Zen-practitioners have created stories which, for example, have also been used to support war-endeavors. Brian Victoria, who made this very clear in his 'Zen at War', is himself a Zen-priest. Simply condemning this support is to easy; we also have an obligation to undertsand how this could be possible. If 'enlightened Zen-masters' can do this, then what's the nature of enlightenment?

I can also recommend the articles of Stuart Lachs, Zen-practitioner for about 40 years, and very critical. And David Brazier, a psycho-therapist and Buddhist practitioner, gave an alternative interpretation of the Four Noble Truths which gave me a really useful insight to them.

And no, I won't be discouraged to improve articles on Wikipedia. I'm glad it's being appreciated, but it's also a great way to do something useful with everything I've been reading. I hope it's useful for others too - useful on their Buddhist way, or human way.

Oh, and many great teachers were well educated in the Buddhist sutras too. See Dogen and Hakuin, as examples. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I now notice I missed part of what you wrote, about the "mockery" about the Buddha. I guess you wrote two pieces before I noticed, and I just read the second one. But what I wrote is not "just" the historians view; it's a critical reading of the possible translation of various Sanskrit & Pali words, which shows that there are different readings possible, which actually make more sense. I don't think that that's minimalist or mockery; on the contrary, it's taking serious Buddhism and it's history.

And yes, I know at least two Buddhists who also read these critical analyses, who do question the Zen-stories, and who are not satisfied with the standard answers. Please read this one. Please. Do read it. And also this one (the second part is about Ton Lathouwers).

There are more examples: Stephen Batchelor, David Chapman, Brad Warner, Barbara O'Brien.

And to give another example of the usefulness of a scholarly approach: Kochumuttom (A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience) and Kalupahana (The principles of Buddhist Psychology) have both studied the works of Vasubandhu, and given translations of the Trimsatika and Vimsatika, in which they conclude that Vasubandhu was not an idealist, but trying to explain how we/otr minds construct concepts, which we experience to be 'the real world'. This makes a huge difference! It's the difference between believing in a tarnscendent ultimate reality, or realizing that there is no ground to stand - "This very body the Buddha, this very earth the paradise" (Hakuin). And Vasubandhu was a buddhist, wasn't he?

So, still, keep on wondering and pushing - and disagreeing! That's more fruitful than mere agreement, I think. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. Though I take your point and will check the sources you give, I would also say this exchange illustrates quite clearly why Zen has tried to place itself entirely outside the scholastic tradition in Buddhism and tended to cut itself off completely from intellectuals and theorisers. No wonder they do not even want intellectualism to have any place at the same table as a practical religion that Buddhism is. The very wide gulf in comprehension is glaringly obvious. While I agree that disagreement can be fertile, when there is not even agreement on basic tenets, aims and objectives, then disagreement is more likely to be divisive. Never mind, I will leave it at that. thanks Peter morrell 08:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter, "Zen" is a tradition of 1500 years. You can't speak of Zen as a unified body of thought. It's too diverse. It has a rich intellectual and doctrinal tradition. If only you take a look at the story of Hui-neng, it's clear that Zen does not stand outside the Buddhist history and doctrines. Or the use of the Lankavatara-sutra, and the wrestling in Zen with the opposing theories of Buddha-nature and sunyata.

Trying to cut off Zen from "scholastic tradition" seems to me to try to cut it off from critical thinking. And how do you discern what "real Buddhists" practice and teach? By what standards can you judge that? Zen Buddhists themselves don't even agree - see for example the criticism of Rinzai toward Soto, and vice versa. Let alone other branches of Buddhism. Have you got any idea why Tibetan Buddhism did not endorse sudden enlightenment? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for Excellent Work on Buddhist Articles

Hello Joshua. I just wanted to thank you for your really fair-minded and balanced work on the Buddha-nature and Mahaparinirvana-Sutra articles. It is refreshing to encounter a Wiki editor who does not immediately delete the more affirmative understanding of the Buddha-nature or Self. Over a year ago, there was one 'editor' in particular who was rabidly and almost psychopathologically opposed to this kind of information getting onto the pages of Wikipedia, and s/he would delete almost everything of that kind, or so reduce it that the chief ideas were lost. I myself find lots of things on Wiki Buddhism which I personally disagree with, but if they are referenced and / or have been up on Wiki for a very long time (without dissent from other editors), I would be very reluctant to change them radically, still less delete them - without consultation with other editors. You seem to be of the same mind: in other words, you are a fair and equitable Wikipedian editor! Thanks for that, Joshua. I, for one, very much appreciate all your splendid work. Warm wishes to you from Suddha (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate this encouragement. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with what Suddha has said, it makes a big difference when you get editors who are flexible and adaptable and don't go round deleting other people's edits without any prior warning or discussion. That creates much bad feeling and even discourages people from editing anything! So it is very beneficial to have kind and open editors who encourage others rather than make them feel bad about what they are doing, and who welcome discussion and compromise. Thanks Joshua, you have done and are doing a great job just as Suddha says! your work is much appreciated. best regards Peter morrell 10:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Peter, nice to hear of you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ha,ha - Peter, I think you and I should form a 'Joshua Jonathan Appreciation Society'! Seriously, though, I do agree with what you write about how discouraging it can be to have one's work callously deleted from Wikipedia, without discussion. Sometimes in the past, I would spend literally hours (plus money, purchasing books) to add Buddhist information to Wiki - only to have an obnoxious and intolerant editor named 'Mitsube' either delete my work entirely or so quibble with every detail that editing became an utterly unenjoyable exercise. With editors like Joshua (and yourself) on Wiki, however, things have taken a huge and welcome step forward! Warm wishes to you both - Suddha (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kleshas (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) 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Response on my Talk Page

Hey Joshua. I responded to your message here. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism_and_Christianity#Merger_proposal

Hi, thanks for comment - I think at this point the next question would be "how much distinct/discrete sourceable content is there really beyond Elaine Pagels justifying more than a paragraph on Buddhism and Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More then I had ever expected... No, seriously: not much. But I guess the value of the article is more in the possible influence. There must have been influences on both sides; at least there were Greek influences on Buddhist art. As it is now, each one can draw his or her's own conclusions. Mine is, that if there were influences, one is hard-pressed to substantiate those influences. Well, no result is also some kind of a result.

About Gnosticism: personally I think that if there is one branch of Christian (in a broad sense) thinking where Buddhist influences are descerneable, it's here. One of the Gnostic stories pictures the ascencion to Heaven, in which ten gates have to be passes. At each gate a sin, or bad attitude, has to be left behind. Sounds very Buddhist to me. But that's my impression, and I have no "proof" whatsoever, so no reason to mention this in the article.

Personally, I would even prefer to split up the article in at least two separate articles: similarities, and influences. How about the opposite of merging: mention only the bare essentials in the Buddhism-Christianity article, and keeping the separate article intact? this way, the main article is also shortened. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that "possible" influence falls into WP:OR, which can't be the basis for a WP:FORK. All we can really say is that Conze made some comparisons with gnosis not gnostics and Pagels appealed to Hindu scholars to look for connections and nothing was forthcoming. Most of Gnosticism is there in Classical Greek and Jewish precedents - which are the two textual streams the Gnostics quote. Beyond this we're heading into WP:Fringe with sources like Arthur Lillie. If there was a single tangible accepted WP:RS connection between any Gnostic text and any Buddhist event/person/place/text then maybe, but as it stands all we have is Conze giving a paper in 1966. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek influences on Buddhist art would be due to Greece having attempted to invade India, not India invading Greece. We'd need a source to suggest that the Greeks brought back any specific influence. It's possible yes. But requires a source. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a substantial part of the article can be considered "fringe theories". Ans a lot more probably will be added to it in time... To be honest, I've never read the complete text of the article - both articles - too much nonsense. Maybe you're right, and "Buddhism and Gnosticism" should be merged. Why not just to do it - and edit the text right-away back to standards? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Chinese Chán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soto

Zen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Soto

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Buddha-nature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman (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) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunyata edits

You can't separate out the material like you did on sunyata. If you want to do something please merge the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras content from the Sunyata page into the main Tathāgatagarbha Sutras article. Then we can merely link to that article. Gooolog (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I put some of your content back in. Gooolog (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Equal sign in url's

What is [1] about? = is normally allowed in url's at Wikipedia as far as I know. Can you give an example where it fails and %3D fixes it? = can cause problems in unnamed parameters but I think that's an unrelated issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiPrimeHunter. The following url appears as a full url in the reflist, beside the assigned title/name, due to the = sign:

I've tried to fix it, by using %3D, but it doesn't work:

Using {{=}} doesn't work either:

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved: the url was split over two sentences... See [2] Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mountain Doctrine

Hello Joshua. Nice to hear from you, as always. Yes, you may well have a point: I think an article about 'Mountain Doctrine' would be good. I agree with you. At the moment I'm a bit too busy to prepare one, but hope to do so in the not too distant future. By the way, there is discussion at present on the 'Buddha Nature' talk page which you might like to look at. One editor does not like the fact that various interpretations of the Buddha Nature are given. I myself think it is only fair (and in accordance with Wikipedia policy) that diverse viewpoints are reflected in such an article. I don't think that there exists only ONE understanding of the Buddha Nature. It has always been a contentious and controversial doctrine within Buddhism. I shall be very happy to read any comments you might like to give to this editor, if you have the time and / or interest! All warm wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Suddha. I was just reading it, and I'll comment on it too. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Joshua. Thank you very much for your friendly comments. You are most kind. By the way, I liked what you added to the 'Buddha-nature' discussion page. I completely agree with you: Critical Buddhism is a serious attempt to probe and question the Buddha-nature doctrine (although I don't agree with the conclusions reached by these scholars), and one should not just dismiss Critical Buddhism out of hand as the work of 'modern non-Buddhist scholars who know nothing about Buddhism'. The same with Prof. Williams: his being a Catholic in no way invalidates what he writes about Mahayana Buddhism. He is, in fact, a very open-minded scholar (even towards the Buddha Nature teaching, despite his being trained in the Gelukpa tradition, which is, as you know, rather antipathetic towards the tathagatagarbha doctrines as enunciated in the primary TG sutras). Thanks again, Joshua, for all that you do for Wiki-Buddhism. Oh, no need to reply to this little message! Kind thoughts. From Suddha (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. When you recently edited Trikaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wylie (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) 11:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Buddha Nature, and Gebser

Thank you very much, Joshua, for the tidying up and improving that you have contributed to the Nichiren section of the Buddha-Nature article. Very good, as always. I was interested to learn of the ideas of Gebser, of whom - to my shame - I have never heard. I shall try to read the Wiki article on him more fully over the weekend (I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment). Certainly his ideas have some resonance with certain areas of Mahayana Buddhism. Thanks again for the info, Joshua. Warm regards to you. From Suddha (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Further thanks for your interesting and kind comments on my Talk Page and for the list of worthwhile books to read. The original teaching on the tathagatagarbha (contained in the Buddha Nature sutras) was that it is the concealed essence or Self of Buddha at the heart of all beings which has to be dis-covered (not developed or evolved - but unwrapped from mental and moral negativities). It is already perfect and complete - but we, due to our imperfect cognitive equipment, fail to see it. As you say, we have to 'actualise' it within ourselves - but the TG itself is always resting within us and is consummate wisdom, kindness and purity. Warmest wishes, Joshua. From Suddha (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Madhyamaka

Hey there Joshua J, It's great to see you on Madhyamaka - I do hope you understand that I've been sort of single-handedly defending the article from some really wild ideas, and it has made me a little defensive at times. However, I totally buy into the spirit of co-operation and hope that you will find the tolerance and forebearance necessary to put up with my rather lengthy rants. I like your ideas, and think that, if you have the time, a Western scholarship section would be very good. (20040302 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Hi 20040302. It seems to me that you've been very polite and patient in the disoutes that have been going on at the Madhyamaka-page. I met the same opponent at the Sunyata page, so I understand eventually defensiveness. Recently I've been re-ordering the Yogacara and Eight Consciousnesses pages as well, jumping to those pages from the Zen page. Well, Madhyamaka seemed to be the next page. But indeed, with a preference for cooperation. And you seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I estimate your opinions and ideas. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dharmakaya

Thanks, Joshua, for your recent work on the Dharmakaya article. You always organise the material so well. Thank you again! Warm wishes from Suddha (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I felt a little bit troubled to move your contribution to a subsection, but since you've seen my way of editing before, I expected you wouldn't be bothered too much. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Buddhist philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manas (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) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Guifeng Zongmi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manas

Tiantai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Agamas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Buddhism and Christianity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary (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) 10:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

my edits

Please see my last revision, and see if it is acceptable to you. Borakai (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I got your message. How about you incorporate some of the material, as you see fit? The existing article doesn't make clear that Madhyamaka texts explicitly and overtly negate various extremes. 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Borakai (talk)

I think you should try to do that yourself. The only quote that I see fit inthis article is the follwing:

You cannot be liberated through absolutism, nor escape this existence from nihilism. Great souls are liberated by fully understanding being and nothing.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then you need a new section then. The main thing point of Madhyamaka is about creation (arising, existence) and destruction (annhilation, nonexistence). 15:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borakai (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 03:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 03:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)