This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Question about the "Mittal & Thursby (2004)" and the "Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.)" sources
Greetings! Ms Sarah Welch, I'd like to ask you two questions with respect to the sources we have at the article. First, you added David Lorenzen as the author of the book, but I wasn't quite able to verify that from the source. You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen. Second, you added to the reference on "Oxford Dictionaries" a publication year, 2012. That was neither supported by the source.
So, perhaps I did just miss something, or where did you locate those pieces of information on the sources? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source. But you are deleting what I add after doing a google search such as "the+hindu+world+David+Lorenzen", then alleging that "You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen"!! FWIW, David Lorenzen's name is on page vii, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004) source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, so you are telling me that Lorenzen is the author of this book, but it's not mentioned in the author details, nor in the book cover or the first pages of the book before the introduction? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: See page vii last two lines, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004). You will see David N. Lorenzen is the author of the relevant chapter and pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch: "Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source." Actually, I am looking at the source, but it's a Google Books source, and it isn't displaying any of the pages or allowing navigation through the pages. Perhaps you could provide the chapter in question in order to help to navigate through the book?
You know, we have this proverb in the Finnish language: "Kuin perseeseen ammuttu karhu", which'd mean in English: "Like a bear which has been shot in the ass." Please don't be one ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This page confusingly fluctuates between the sanskrit term nirvana and the pali term anatta, sometimes appearing in the same sentence together. The page should use one or the other for its main vocabulary, and mark those words that askew that standard as being in Pali or Sanskrit. Since the page is titled Nirvana, it would make sense to replace the Pali anatta with sanskrit anatma for consistency as would be expected in any academic work.
The following excerpt shows how confusing this is:
"Hinduism has the concept of Atman, which is the soul, self; it asserts that Atman exists in every living being, while Buddhism asserts through its anatta doctrine that there is no Atman in any living being. Nirvana in Buddhism is "stilling mind, cessation of desires, and action" unto emptiness, while nirvana in post-Buddhist Hindu texts is, states Jeaneane Fowler, also "stilling mind but not inaction" and "not emptiness", rather it is the knowledge of true Self (Atman) and the acceptance of its universality and unity with metaphysical Brahman."
the opposite of atman is anatman or the opposite of atta is anatta; you cannot mix and match.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iṣṭa Devatā: Why not use the most common English term used in the reliable sources for these concepts (Anatta and Atman is what the sources predominantly use)? This is English rendering, after all. Were it "Sanskrit-language wikipedia" or "Pali-language wikipedia", I would agree with you. We need to stick with the reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)