Jump to content

Talk:Karma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 112.196.141.93 (talk) at 16:15, 24 May 2014 (Needs correction, in my opinion: Made the relevant part bold). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Taoism

What about this one, "Taoism" By Eva Wong, Page 193.[1] Capitals00 (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific nature of akarma

Karma is not only a religious tropic it can fully explain by quantum physics. This explanation based on Double Slit Experiment & human body aura.

Ariyaguru (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's never a good sign when (paranormal) is in the article title. Will(B) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion in Hinduism section

I'm ok until the new edit starting "Another meaning of Karma as per Bhagwad Geeta..." Maybe it's just poor English confusing me. But even before that, the last paragraph starting " In this way, so long as the stock of Sanchita karma lasts," doesn't seem to follow from anything - this is the first mention of Sanchita karma. Looking at the history, it appears some of it was deleted, see [2] although I have no idea if Goyandaka J, The Secret of Karmayoga, Gita Press, Gorakhpur is a WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear "redirects"

I don't really think if it's necessary to put "

" above the lead, hope someone will throw some light, in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Please give historical Geographic origins of karma, i dont understand why you have not added india as the location to which the concepts of karma is founded and originated from

Also i don't understand why you wrote this bellow:

A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations.

Buddha did not become enlighten by reading his own scriptures, instead he used hindu scriptures and information from indian sages, so potent was this information that he ended his life actually in India.

I just cannot see how you can Put karma came from buddhism and claiming its to be them who are teaching the original form, or as you put it continuations,sounds like you have got a soft spot for buddhism, a hint of favoritism of somekind maybe?82.38.161.217 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)veda[reply]

Issues with clarity, missing sections and undue emphasis

This article's issues:

  1. Sources for some sections: Some sentences have 8 citations, many paragraphs have none. Several cited sources are good and reliable, but Karma enumerated by these sources is not properly summarized. Some sources used are questionable commercials/blogs, these are neither scholarly nor peer reviewed secondary or tertiary sources.
  2. Missing sections such as definition and meaning, history, controversies, etc.
  3. Clarity, the article is confusing.
  4. Undue emphasis to certain schools, while other views are missing (see Karl Potter, Wilhelm Halbfass, Bruce Reichenbach, etc.).

Parts of this article needs a rewrite, some parts need clarification. I plan to edit it, add reliable scholarly sources. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me effort. I am also adding archive bot to this talk page, as some comments above are old and irrelevant to the current version article (if someone wants the old comments, please remove bot code at the top). Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think that sources can be provided for fully re-written material? I will give a try though. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this 5th January 2014 version. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper noun

The word "karma" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalised, unless used as the first word in a sentence or in a title. It appears as if at some time in the past someone used a text editor and performed a global find-and-replace to capitalise the word; I've selectively removed the capitalisation where it is inappropriate. — QuicksilverT @ 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs correction, in my opinion

The bolded portion in the below text appearing in the article is not factually correct. For Vedanta, the nyAya pramana-s are valid.

"Vedanta school acknowledges karma-rebirth doctrine, but concludes it is a theory that is not derived from reality and cannot be proven, considers it invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality / other observable facts about society, treats it as a convenient fiction to solve practical problems in Upanishadic times, and declares it irrelevant; in the Advaita Vedanta school, actions in current life have moral consequences and liberation is possible within one's life as jivanmukti (self-realized person)."

May kindly initiate necessary changes please.

112.196.141.93 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Atanu Banerjee[reply]