User talk:20040302

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Syncretism vs. Variety - NPOV[edit]

Very interesting comments! The rebirth issue keeps coming up. You really know what you are talking about. That's so rare to find here! Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

from the perspective of the awareness that realizes emptiness of self, that realization is not realization of emptiness of phenomena. that is a second realization that is "deduced" from the first. so prasanga shows emptiness of self, whereas the resulting realization of the emptiness of phenomena is a second negation not mentioned in the definition of the work that prasanga doesṅgika

tell me what you think? i hope that i can be understood... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC) thanks for the reply, i enjoyed that edit. maybe i can ask you if there's anything i'm stuck with in Buddhism - generally i mean. thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry to just jump at you asking a random question but I don't suppose you can explain the meaning of absolute truth in the separate teaching. I am thinking of Chih: what I have read says that it is "neither emptiness nor existence" or that they are "non dual" but I can't work out what that means. Any reply or help appreciated...


A response to your message. Paticca means ground or foundation; Sammupada refers to causation. Paticcasammupada literally means 'by virtue of the fact of causation'. The Pali Text Society Dictionary gives the following:

"arising on the grounds of (a preceding cause)" happening by way of cause, working of cause & effect, causal chain of causation; causal genesis, dependent origination, theory of the twelve causes.

Most Pali translators I know translate the phrase generally with the expression 'Dependent Origination'. This is the standard phrase used in most of the literature published by the Buddhist Publication Society or Wisdom Books USA to name but two of the leading publishers of English translations of Pali (Theravada) literature. You are quite correct when you say that the phrase normally refers to the construction of the twelve nidanas. The reason this is the case is because the Buddha's principal activity was showing people the way out of suffering. He explained that suffering and incarnation exist due to the existence of other factors which are acting as causes. In other words, suffering and incarnation are dependently originated - namely dependent on the existence of causes which are giving rise to them. Remove the causes, he explained, and you remove the effects. However the doctrine of Dependent Origination actually refers to all phenomena in the universe. Everything is dependently originated. This means that everything that exists is connected to everything else in each moment. Thich Nhat Hanh calls this 'Interbeing'. Einstein was unhappy about it when Quantum physics discovered this (see EPR experiment). So properly speaking the twelve nidanas is a special instance of the dependently originated nature of all phenomena. This is not novel - many Buddhist teachers explain the interconnectedness of all things. The 14th Dalai Lama for example.

I was very sad to find the article in the state it was in. It was in much better shape last year. Someone calling himself Ormurin started meddling with it on January 5th and unfortunately it has degenerated from something that was quite passable. The article had remained more or less unchanged for the preceding year or two. Mostly I have retired from editing wikipedia due to having to deal with fundamentalists, upstarts, bullies etc. I am a published scholar and editor in the field of Theravada Buddhism. My work is respected by experts in the field. Thankyou for your understanding. (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Dependent Origination implies mutual interdependence and mutual interdependence gives rise to the phenomenon of non-local effects (an expression borrowed from quantum physics). Quantum theory implies that objects experiencing change locally cause simultaneous changes (effects) to phenomena non-locally - changes, for example, to phenomena at vast distances (billions of light years for example) from the local object (the object of our immediate perception). This leads to certain mysterious paradoxes regarding the nature of causation which I believe the Mahayana logicians were aware of. This is discussed in section four of the current article. As far as I am aware the Mahayana philosophers and scriptures go into this subject a great deal. For example, the Avatamsaka Sutra discusses dependent origination as the arising of phenomena in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect by means of the metaphor of Indra's net. Here the principle of simultaneous non-local interconnectedness is explicitly advanced by the author(s) in the beautiful descriptive passages. I am sure it is also discussed in other Mahayana literature. If, by 'classical literature' you refer to the Pali Tipitaka then it is true that the subject is not expounded at length due to Buddha's principle of 'Ockham's razor' that characterises Theravada teaching in general (See Simsapa Sutta). So either with respect to scripture or doctrine I don't understand what is contentious. Dependent origination is a general metaphysical doctrine of which the mutually interdependent twelve nidanas is a specific example that just happens to be of vital importance for understanding the path to liberation. (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


To answer a question you asked somewhere, he was "virtually unknown in East Asia until modern times" (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 2, 1998, page 81). Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Śūnyatā article[edit]

An addition was proposed to the Śūnyatā article here. I reverted that and asked the editor to discuss it. You seem to be knowledgeable in the Theravada tradition. Would you be able to take a look at his revisions and comment on the article talk page? My question is that whether it is expressed in a neutral and fair manner in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Sunray (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there are great rewards from editing Wikipedia. It is a joy to read commentary that not only accords with WP policies (verifiability, civility, and consensus), but is also in the observance of Buddhist precepts. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Gelugpa view[edit]

Karl Brunnhölzl says "First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more of less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schoools."Page 17, Center of the Sunlit Sky.Gogeta38947 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Bundle as a Western Loanword[edit]

I aleady addressed this issue 3 times. Bundle is a direct translation of skandha. It is a very Buddhist flavored word. ProvisionalMPEP (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page[edit]

Your statement: "... these accounts are all new, and are all agreeing with each other. The use of blatant non-sequiturs, a tendency to misinterpret reliable sources, other similar behaviours (misspellings of simple words like 'course' for 'coarse'; a strong aversion to the idea that the Madhyamaka denies inherent existence; an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to questions that are pertinent to investigation, uncalled for lack of civility, rewrites, attempts to undermine constructive, collaborative work. Other common interests such as a shared editorial trend across Hindu texts , tantra, and the middle-way philosophy. Similar timezones (which is a late evening for me), intense editorial sessions; pretty meaningless point-scoring, etc.," probably should go to WP:SPI. Some diffs as examples (such as similar phrasing) would be helpful. I could then proceed. Sunray (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Would you be able to comment on a query I've had on my talk page, here? Sunray (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I take your point about the translation of the term. Probably a good idea to change the citation, though if you have one. Otherwise, I agree it is WP:SYN. I admire your patience with all of this. I am still considering options. Sunray (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Essence and existence[edit]

Well, you're not alone. I put (back) some of your remarks in the article on Madhyamaka. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No essential arising[edit]

Thanks. See also:

No essential arising, no denying of the world, bu also no pinning it down in "things". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes - exactly. :-D. In fact, the way I generally talk it is by looking at it from the other end of the telescope - we know that it is grasping/clinging to self/things (because we identify them as sources of pleasure/pain - cf. the 12 dependant links) which we must elminate, and we do that by understanding that they have no potency (they are not effective) as sources of pleasure/pain. This lack of potency is first understood at a coarse level by understanding momentary impermanence - and then at a finer level by understanding essencelessness (the inability to act as 'carriers' of pleasure/pain), based on the three dependencies (1: they are products, therefore have no essence; 2: they are dependent designations - constructs of language and convention, and therefore have no essence; 3: they are aggregates (dependent on their parts), and therefore have no essence). So, then we also tend to conflate the event of pleasure with the cause of pleasure, and that's why understanding Karma is so important also. The "problem" with this sort of interpretation is that it's an "anti-philosophy" - it doesn't make any metaphysical assertions; it just says "watch closely, and learn". I have always been astounded by critics of Tsongkhapa when they say he is too intellectual - when he doesn't leave much to be intellectual about. Of course he is incredibly deft at reducing other peoples constructs to dust. Anyway, thanks for the sharing :-D (20040302 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC))