User talk:Dhammapal

A Belated Welcome

Hello, Dhammapal, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

I noticed that no one gave you a formal welcome to Wikipedia so I am doing so now.

Why did you retract your question on Harmonious editing club? Are you still interested in advice? If so, leave me a note on my talk page and I can suggest some ways to resolve disputes.

The best place to start is with the Wikipedia article on resolving disputes.

Hope this helps.

--Richard 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moral relativism

Thanks for findinding a source for that info on the page! At some point we may need to shuffle around all of the various bits of support for and criticism of moral relativism, but adding sources makes it much easier to do the eventual reorganization the page will need. Deborah-jl _Talk 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis

Hey, Dhammapal, I guess you're hep to this point yet, but you oughtn't to make links to the other Wikipedias, such as Simple English, under the "external links" space. Instead, you should use the special "interwikis" format, which goes like this [[foo:Bu'udas]] where "foo" is the code for the language. i.e., Japanese is "ja:", Chinese is "zh:" (except Cantonese is "zh-yue:"), and Simple English, I believe, is "simple:". This makes the interlanguage links appear off to the side of most people's screens. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal!

Just thought I'd drop a line and say Hi! Seems like we're browsing around similar stuff and that you're familiar with the Forest Tradition here in the West. Hope all is well! Obhaso 06:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm looking at the re-direct you put on Renunciation and I'm thinking of removing it and putting a bit of an article there instead since it encompassses more than just Nekkhamma. Just a heads up to let you know what I'm up to.

Yepp, it's odd how so few people think of Renunciation! :) Yeah, Ajahn Sudanto told me about the new SuttaReadings site, but I just now looked at it. I'm always glad to see new stuff like this going on. I'm pretty closely conected to Abhayagiri and the sangha there but I've also been able to talk with Tan Geoff a few times and have really appreciated his talks.

I look forward to working with you! In kindness, Obhaso 07:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback on Talk:Sacca Obhaso 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Antony!

I've just added my name to the list at the Buddhism Portal. I'd like to get involved, creating, editing, whatever needs doing! If there's anything you think I could help with, please let me know, either on my talk page or by email (user dot rentwa at googlemail dot com). Rentwa 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha article

Hi Dhammapal,

I'm responding to your note here rather than on Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club because this discussion doesn't really concern that group any more.

I have the Buddha article on my watchlist but, in truth, I haven't paid much attention to it. After reading your note on Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club, I popped over to Talk:Buddha and looked at the article's edit history.

I am still unclear on what changes have been made (being too lazy to really inspect each individual edit). Based on the comments on the article's Talk Page, it appears that there is a consensus that it is important to mention the concept of the Eternal Buddha but not to let it dominate the article.

Presumably, this is a resolution that is satisfactory to you. If that's true, I'm glad that it worked out. A lesson that I've learned in the past few weeks is that things sometimes work out if you step away and let somebody else address the issue. Good lesson for real life as well.

Best regards, Richard

Loneliness

Please do not simply replace sections of an article with your own. While your addition was not unappreciated, it should not be as out-of-context and specific to one person's view as you made it. Please also have a look at the changes made to provide a wikified source citation. Cheers, MadMaxDog 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent contributions!

Hi Antony!

Seeing your prior efforts regarding the disambiguation of Buddha reminds me of how cyclical WP issues are and how, with the change of one or two people in the WP Buddhism community, a once stifled effort can later blossom (and, of course, vice-versa :-) ). Thanks for sowing so many righteous seeds.

Regarding your name, frankly, whenever I see your WP name, it causes me to smile, happily, fondly. Your intentional use of a Pali spelling can be a beacon to those of us asea in a Sanskrit world :-) Also, personally, if I may say, I would not worry that such a name betrays a "bias," depending on your intentions. For instance, if I may share from my own experience, I was initially worried when I transitioned from writing pan-Buddhist material to content that was 99% Theravada Buddhist; but, I've made my peace with this by seeing my contributions as not "Buddhist" but as "Theravada Buddhist" being added to WP Buddhism. In other words, because of our practice and studies, we have a great deal of knowledge about Theravada Buddhism and, for me at least, a deep ignorance about non-Theravada Buddhism (to the point where I often don't even realize sometimes that what I am writing is not pan-Buddhist). However, we readily welcome, try to make a place for and sometimes even actively solicit others for non-Theravada content in our articles. Thus, our information has a Theravada "bias" (or, more accurately, basis) but our contributions are done in the spirit of respecting and representing Buddhism's vast diversity. It is a bias of knowledge, but not of heart or even perspective. At least, for me, this is my intentional (though, regrettably, perhaps not always practiced) approach. I hope this makes some sense.

If I may add another stray idea: you might find yourself most comfortable following the signature policy of Clay Collier (User:Spasemunki). He signs his talk page edits with his real name (Clay Collier) but has kept his more creative WP sign on (Spasemunki) which appears on his User Page and in edit histories. This way he conveys both personal authenticity in his talks (the way you did by signing your name Antony to your post on my talk page) while maintaining his impressive edit history. Just a thought.

However you desire to go, know I applaud your admirable efforts and look forward to our future interactions. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anupubbi-katha

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anupubbi-katha, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/ati_website/ptf/dhamma/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammapal, āvuso -

I applaud your earnest desire to contribute to WP with the above article. FWIW, I know others (including myself in a way) have also been tripped up by the gap between ATI's generous "Free Distribution" policy and WP's GFDL policy. (For instance, about a year ago, I had a related conversation with my informal mentor, User:Nat_Krause, about this same issue regarding the former Uposatha article.¹). Given the policy gap, it seems one very basic approach is to focus on thoughtful summarizing and, if possible, to rely on multiple sources. (Even better is to read up on a subject extensively, understand the topic well, and then summarize what you understand, citing a reliable source for each non-obvious statement you write.)

With the latter basic procedural item in mind, in case you might still be interested in personally developing an article on the Gradual Training, I'd like to offer you a paragraph from Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words" (2005, Boston: Wisdom Publications), p. 226, that might provide an alternate secondary source as well as the basis for pursing multiple primary sources:

"The gradual training occurs in two versions: a longer version in the Digha Nikaya and a middle-length version in the Majjhima Nikaya. The principal differences are: (1) the longer version has a more detailed treatment of the observances that pertain to monastic etiquette and ascetic self-restraint; (2) the longer version includes eight types of higher knowledge while the middle-length version has thre types. However, as these three tpes are the ones mentioned in the Buddha's account of his own enlightenment [MN 36], they are by far the most important. The main paradigm for the longer version of the gradual training is found at DN 2; the middle-length version is at MN 27 and MN 51, with variants at MN 38, MN 39, MN 53, MN 107 and MN 125."

If you no longer have time or interest to pursue this at this time, I understand. Either way, I wish you happiness and peace. Be well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I may suggest, if you entitle the article "Gradual Training" you will likely get far more hits and create less of a need for future articles' use of redirection and/or wiki-piping. Just a thought. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal -

Perhaps you don't find my suggestions of use. If so, I apologize for posting here further and won't do so again without your explicit solicitation. But, I would like to try to suggest another approach (one of iterative cutting-and-pasting which, frankly, I do all the time) to the article in question. (In addition, if you would like us to try to start such an article collaboratively in a sandbox — either yours or mine or elsewhere — please let me know and I'd be happy to share in such an effort.)

Based on what you found on Access to Insight (ATI) (Bullitt, 2005), it appears that the basic skeleton of the Gradual Training could be outlined as:

Generosity (dana)
Virtue (sila)
Heaven (sagga)
Drawbacks (adinava)
Renunciation (nekkhamma)
The Four Noble Truths (cattari ariya saccani)

Simply identifying this and then adding a few tags (e.g., {{Buddhism|terse=1}} and [[Category:Buddhist terms]] and {{Buddhism-stub}}) and some introductory words (e.g., "In the Pali Canon, the Buddha discussed the Gradual Training as a means for pursuing awakening (bodhi). This training entails:") should be enough to create a stub article. (Identifying the ATI article with a citation and in a bibliography might also be good [showing integrity] at this point, although the information provided above is so generic you could probably get away without including it, if you so desired.)

Then, as time goes on, you could add information such as: identifying which discourses (as identified above in the Bodhi blockquote) discuss this training; the existence (according to Bodhi) of two versions of the training; and, for me the most fun part, summaries and elucidating blockquotes that illustrate each of the steps of the training.

Just another two cents. If you choose to ignore these posts, I'll certainly understand and I hope I have caused you no negative feelings. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making lemonade from lemons -- I love it! I also really value your synopsis: "you can’t copyright facts, only presentation." Sounds right on!

As you requested, with the text you provided, I started Gradual Training (Buddhism). Hope you don't mind but I added a few tags, prepositions, etc. (If my minor additions offend you in any way, please modify them. Thanks!) I also gave well-deserved credit to you for the text in the associated Edit Summary. Additionally, I started some discussions on the talk page, following up on some things you have mentioned; I hope my expressing the topics as I did seems appropriate to you. (If not, again, please feel free to wordsmith what I wrote there.)

I agree with you that the approaches we've discussed take a lot of work. I like to think that the work we put into such is of benefit for those who follow who do not have the time, focus or dedication that we do. (The downside is that I find myself thinking of ways to edit WP articles and mention such on talk pages but then have no time to pursue these :-( )

Please let me know if I errored in any way and I will attempt to address it in a manner you find beneficial. Thank you so much for purusing this and other topics. I look forward to our on-going collaborations. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello Dhammapal,

Welcome to Wikipedia, sorry abou the 'graduated teaching' thing, I usually read on a subject first, and then formulate the contents in my own words. The words in books are copyrighted, not the facts! Good luck with the article, it can be very rewarding to investigate the suttas for information and present it here for others, because you have to investigate it for yourself, first. Greetings, Sacca 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Hi Dhammapal -

Your intentions are obviously good-hearted and your goal — spreading the Dhamma — is the highest. These are the most important things, at least in my mind.

As for the technical issues, I'll try to look at the items you listed and see if I can help with some re-write/summarizing/paraphrasing in the next few days. If you don't want to wait that long or just are inclined to do something first, you can always just put quote marks around the material you word-for-word copied and then add a reference to the website/text from which you took the quotes. In other words, as long as you indicate the material is a direct word-for-word quote (by placing the material in quotes) and then add an appropriate citation (e.g., author, year [if available], text title and, if appropriate, web site) then there's nothing wrong. (There is some rule about not quoting extensively from a text; I'm not sure what exactly the rule is but I get the impression that one should not take more than two or three long paragraphs ["blockquotes"] from any source.) So while, stylistically, its preferable to summarize/paraphrase, the use of quote marks and appropriate citations is legally acceptable, to the best of my understanding (and decades of doing such).

I hope this helps. If I get more time later tonight or tomorrow, I'ld like to discuss with you further the skillful facts/presentation distinction you wrote about. I think you are right on target and it might be of benefit if we just discuss it a wee more.

I wish you much happiness,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal -

FWIW, over the next hour or so, I'll do a quick review of the WP articles you've identified and attempt to prioritize them in terms of which ones should possibly be addressed first. In doing such, I'll place them in different categories based on to what degree they:

currently include a citation (e.g., in an end note)
are currently in quote marks (indicating a word-for-word copy)
currently make up a significant part of the WP article

Frankly, if the material that was copied does include a citation, is imbedded in marks and does not make up a significant portion of an article, then I'm not sure any action is imperative. (For an example of such a WP article, see the current Upeksa article [which, frankly, I modified in June] — although this article can certainly use expansion!)

Text lacking citations AND quote marks AND comprising a significant amount of a WP article:

~~simple:Meditation~~
simple:Buddha

Text having citations but lacking quote marks:

Ananda (given the edits that have since occurred, this might be the most complex to fix)
Euthanasia#Dharmic_Religions

Text having citations and quote marks but comprising a majority of an article or Buddhist section or being an excessively large quote:

Text that includes a citation, quote marks and does not make up the majority of an article:

Upeksa
Nekkhamma (I worked on this in July too :-) )
Moral_relativism#Buddhism
Honesty#Buddhist_teachings_on_honesty

Article(s) you've mentioned where I don't see significant text inserted by you:

Karma in Buddhism

As time allows, I'll try to look over these (in particular the first eight identified articles), starting at the top, and see if I can help with appropriate changes. (I have to state up front that I am lousy at writing "simple English" — my brain simply is not wired to speak simply; I admit its a deficit.) As we modify the above articles, perhaps we can track the changes here (e.g., simply indicate below or above that an identified article has been changed).

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal -

I just completed significant changes to simple:Meditation#Buddhist Meditation -- a significant re-write. Assuming my changes do not get reverted, I strongly believe that that article is now fine (at least in terms of copy-violation concerns). (Please make any changes to my re-write that you think are appropriate, of course. I am not attached to what I wrote there.) I'll cross it off our list above.

Best wishes,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal -

I've taken a look at the simple:Buddhism article and I see you've added two paragraphs:

The important thing is that the Buddha was perfectly enlightened. His mind was completely at peace - completely free of any form of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; any form of selfishness or greed or craving or attachment; any form of ill-will, resentment, aversion, hurt feelings, righteous indignation; any form of delusion or ignorance which could lead to doubt and confusion; any form of conceit or any conceiving of a self. His mind was perfectly at peace, abiding in complete knowledge of reality.

If one studies the Buddhist scriptures one will see the Buddha's compassion. He taught the Dhamma to those who wanted to listen, he taught for the sake of their benefit and wellbeing. He wanted to help the listeners and did not want any misfortune to occur to them, no matter who they were. Even shortly before his final passing away he still taught the Dhamma to Subhadda who became the last disciple in the presence of the Buddha himself. This clearly shows his great compassion

The second paragraph appears to be from http://islamnatural.com/buddhist.htm. But I'm having trouble identifying the source of the first paragraph. I see elsewhere you've added "(K.Sujin)" to the first paragraph -- is he perhaps the author? perhaps in printed text? Also did I perhaps miss other verbatim material added to this article? I just ask these various questions because it would help me to know what was taken word-for-word and what was not.

I think I'm going to take a break from this right now, at least until I hear back from you. I hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dhammapal -

Feel free to move our discussion to wherever you feel most comfortable.

Frankly, I would not worry that any of this might jeopardize your account, etc. You did something in good faith, now understand that it is not appropriate for WP, and are actively pursuing correcting the situation. Moreover, at this time, each of the articles you have impacted either have a significant amount of other material, or the material that was copied is somehow cited or marked as being a quoted from elsewhere. (The only time I've seen such copying to require administrative action is when an entire article is copied word-for-word from another source with a non-GFDL-compatible license or conditions, as we have seen recently.)

Tangentially, if you could better identify the source of the simple:Buddha material (as I requested above in the immediately preceding post), I'd appreciate it.

I hope you, your family and your home are doing well. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angulimala/NPOV

I saw that you tagged Angulimala for a POV check- it would be helpful if you could specify on the article's talk page what specifically you think isn't neutral about the article, and how it might be corrected. What I noticed is that the article needs to be more specific about attributing specific claims to specific texts (or at least specifying if they are from the canon, from the commentaries, folk tradition, etc.), but there may be other things that need to be looked at as well. Thanks! --Clay Collier 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of article Buddha (general)

As you may remember, we had a discussion of alternative names, in which we gathered many. Larry and I feel it is time to vote again. Larry and I we feel it would be better to alert all people who participated in the discussion. All options are gathered in Talk:Buddha (general)#Table of options. — Sebastian 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Happy New-ish year! (2) Skandha "person" issue? (3) Gradual training churn?

Hi Dhammapal -

Happy New-ish Year. I hope you are well.

I wanted to check in with you in regards to two articles. First, in regards to your recent {{Fact}} tagging on Skandha, I was hoping you could look at Talk:Skandha#.22Person.22_citation_needed and let me know how you feel about the Nyanaponika statement and also if you could provide the URL for the Thanissaro statements you're citing.

Also, I wanted to check in regarding the recent changes to Gradual training. I tried to strike a compromise between User:Langdell's modifications and our initial intent. Was I successful? If you're inclined to weigh in on this at Talk:Gradual_training#.C4.81nupubb.C4.AB-kath.C4.81_or_anupubba-sikkh.C4.81_.3F, I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts.

I hope you are healthy and happy. Best wishes,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dhammapal -

Just FYI, turns out the standard Pali for "gradual training" is not anupubbikatha but appears to be anupubbasikkha. (See Talk:Gradual_training for more info.) So, I'm going to try to assist User:Langdell (if he desires my hand in matters further) to update the Gradual training article in that direction. If you disagree, please let us know your thoughts on the article's talk page.

I hope you are well. Best,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kusala

Hi Dhammapal - Thanks again for your thoughtful and very constructive replies on Talk:Skandha. Regarding kusala, I hear what you're saying and appreciate your reference to Thanissaro's sutral basis. Good stuff. I hope you're doing well. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dhammapal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]