- 1 3RR
- 2 WP:ANI notice
- 3 Nov 15 ANI thread
- 4 Welcome
- 5 Your Edits to Dzogchen
- 6 External links
- 7 May 2009
- 8 Karandavyuha Sutra
- 9 editing 'Emptiness' section in Buddhism
- 10 3rr warning (again)
- 11 Quotes
- 12 Reincarnation research
- 13 Yoga
- 14 Nirvana
- 15 Do me a favor
- 16 Mountain Doctrine
- 17 User Page
- 18 Gebser
- 19 Nomination of Nang Jang for deletion
- 20 Kensho
- 21 Atman (Buddhism)
- 22 Credentials
- 23 The laughing Buddha
- 24 Sorry...
- 25 Happy
- 26 Precanonical Buddhism
- Actually, remember that the rule is not an entitlement. Basically, it's a line but admins can still block you for less. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment at WP:ANI seems to involve you in some way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nov 15 ANI thread
You don't help yourself when you don't know how to provide a diff. Have a read here and try again.
I don't like to see you get laughed off by admins - at the same time though, are you sure you understand all our policies and procedures? We mostly try to get along and resolve our differences long before we go to the admin noticeboards. Franamax (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please correct your citations to the material you added; if you are directly quoting another work, use the ref tag - the format of the citations are incorrect as they are. Thanks Zero sharp (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the coment. I'm not actually sure how to do this (I'm relatively new to these things). I've just changed my references to follow the more modern style of citing (author's names, then date, then page number). But I am not sure if you would like something additional to that? Suddha (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have been saying that for months now. Just imitate the way someone else has done it. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Karandavyuha Sutra. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey there :) ...absolutely no problem. I like your edits. I did have an edit conflict, because you edited inbetween my two edits, but that's perfectly normal and asoultely not your fault. On the accuracy of the translation Buddha nature, Buddha womb, Buddha embryo, Buddha matrix i actually can't say much. I myself only knew of Buddha nature and took the additional meanings/translations from the original version, simply rearranged the section a bit. What i do wonder is if it would'nt be better to include "and creatures" into the "sentient beings" wikilink, because i think there is no actual distinction. According to sentient beings some schools apparently even include plants or even inanimate objects. Thanks for your contributions as well! With metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
hehe...strangest thing...my comment (and a couple of other ones) just didn't show up. found out it was the <ref> tag above. i disabled it with <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. cheers :)) Andi 3ö (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3rr warning (again)
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a new Wikipedia WikiProject:-
I would love to work with as many people on this new project.
Suddha - I like working with people from the whole spectrum - both secular and religious - I like to make connections with other practitioners.
The reason why I started this project is to try and provide high quality information about yoga with contributions from people that actually have an active interest in it. In terms of culture / philosophy / relevance I have been looking at the topics in the Hinduism category - but that is not able to properly hold topics about all the other traditions of yoga from other cultures - buddhism and the contemporary, western sports and fitness / fusion styles are good examples I think.
There are many others.
Yoga is so vast that it cannot be contained within one religious viewpoint or culture.
It requires specialist attention that only a project with (perhaps) specific task forces (eg. Yoga and Hinduism) that are able to deal with the many subtle and complex aspects of yoga is the only way forward.
I hope you will be able to help this project - or at least help me recruit some more editors from the most diverse sections of the community would be fantastic first steps ?
hey thanks for your contributions! your recent addition to the nirvana article - do you think that something should be said there about nirvana being ineffable? best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. Thanks for your supportive words. Yes, I agree with you that it would be a good idea to say something about nirvana's being ineffable. But I have not got a reliable source immediately to hand on this at the moment. If you have one, please feel free to include the info in the 'Nirvana' article. Thanks again! Best regards to you. Suddha (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Your recent addition  to the nirvana article is totally unacceptable. First, please prove that you are quoting Hookham, and not Tony Page, who would obviously not be an acceptable source for you to quote, according to various wikipedia policies. I have assembled conclusive proof of this. Moreover,
Second, Hookham is not a specialist in early Buddhism. Using her to contradict specialists, and even non-specialists with even a basic familiarity with the Pali Canon, is against wikipedia policies.
The Buddha never said that the goal was self. Not once. And you know this. He said that holding the view that there is no self is also wrong view. That is the whole point. Thinking in terms of self is inherently misleading. One must use the four noble truths instead. That is why right view is about. According to the early texts :
"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair."
No doctrines of self. So immediately Hookham is refuted. She probably has not read much at all of the Pali Canon. And neither, it seems have you, if you could add such material thinking that it is beneficial and informative. More:
"The Blessed One said: 'There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you."
So in the very first two suttas of the most important nikaya Hookham is refuted.
Yes, the Buddha never said nibbana is not self. But he never said it is self, either. This is well-known. These and all dualities do not apply to it. Do you understand? Mitsube (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your reversion of work to the article Buddha nature has been noted. Unfortunately, the work which you describe as 'vandalism' is the product of an internationally recognized scholar in the field who has been invited by the United Nations to talk on the subject. The existing article fails to address hundreds of years of doctrine within the Mahayana tradition and shows ignorance of the wider application of the concept of Buddha nature. Before I restore the text you removed I invite you to introduce yourself, tell me a little about your experience and credentials and what grounds you have for rejecting the new introduction. I hope that you co-operate in a mature and reasonable fashion. best wishes 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Do me a favor
Can you please consolidate the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras material from the Sunyata and Anatta articles into the main Tathāgatagarbha Sutras article, and then subsequently merely link to the main article? CO2Northeast (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Suddha. Is it an idea to write an article about Mountain Doctrine? It seems to be an inspirational book, with more interesting ideas than fits into one subsection of another article. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Somehow Gebser's "Everlasting Origin" seems to resemble the tathagatagarbha, and his integral structure the Dharmakaya, the actualized tathagatagarbha. I read hin when I was studying psychology, thanks to my tutor, a uncommon woman "marching to the sound of a different drum". And I have to thank you for your persistence on the tathagatagarbha; it directed me to the Trikaya-doctrine, and the notion of tathagatagarbha/Dharmakaya as primordial reality and "it's" actualization, which somehow filled a gap in my understanding. Thanks!
- Some other reading tips:
- Social constructionism (not the article on Wiki, it's awful, but Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion;
- Complexity theory ("Chaos Theory"), about emergent systems and the potentiality inherent in nature/reality;
- Narrativity, about the way we construct our reality, namely in stories: McAdams, The stories we live by.
- Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nang Jang until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Hi Suddha. Could you give your opinion on my recent edits on Kensho? They have been removed three times without adequate explanation or discussion. See also the TP of Kensho. I've also asked User:SudoGhost for advice, User:Tengu800 and User:Keahapana for his opnion, and taken the issue also to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho. Greetings. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding earlier, except a short notice on my talkpage. But I've been following the discussion, and I appreciate your trust in me. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Suddha, I have removed some of the credentials you added to scholars in several articles over the years. I respect the academic achievements of these scholar but its not customary to add academic titles in scientific articles/bibliographies, it does not conform with WP: CREDENTIALS policy and it gives undue weight to some scholars in an article. I hope you don' t mind that I corrected this. Best regardsJimRenge (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The laughing Buddha
|Yet another name for the essential Buddha-Nature. No, that's not true; I made that up, of course. But to laugh is to let go; that could also be called "essence", a moving essence, which can't be grasped with the hands. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)|
- Ha ha! Very true! Thanks for that heart-warming message and photo, Joshua Jonathan. I agree with your sentiment. Best regards, Suddha (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Suddha, but there's more cleaning-up to come... I'm afraid that Tony's interpretations do not count as WP:RS, in contrast to Paul Williams and Sallie B. King. His interpretation is idiosyncratic:
- "The atman never transforms. It is present within all dharmas [...] a base which never transmutes into something else. Self is - we might say - always and unchangingly itself. It is the irreducible, untransforming foundation or essence of Reality. This is the teaching of the Buddha in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. And it is a teaching that is never revoked."
You may compare this with the ambivalence contained in the Chinese understanding and use of the terms tathagatagarbha and xo fing at Buddha-nature#Etymology, where Buddha-nature is both cause and fruit - and not an unchanging "essence". Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Joshua Jonathan. It seems to me that there is selective deleting going on here. The views of Dr. Page on the reality of Atman in some Buddhist sutras and tantras are not majority-Buddhist, that is true - but they are views shared by certain noted Buddhist monks and a number of respected Buddhist scholars (Dr. Shenpen Hookham, Prof. Takasaki, Stephen Hodge, etc.) and are peer-review published. But Wikipedia is (in theory) democratic, so it is down to the editors collectively to decide what stays and what goes. I think there is a good deal of unjust bias involved here (deleting fully referenced scholarly material that some people happen to dislike - including an inconvenient quote from the Dalai Lama, no less, on the Buddha Nature as true Self - is he 'idiosyncratic' as a Buddhist commentator, I wonder?); but I, as an individual editor, am powerless to stop such obviously tendentious deletions, unfortunately. Wikipedia has long proven itself to be a bastion of purblind orthodoxy and pusillanimous group-think (rather than truth - as indeed it proudly proclaims in one of its guidelines!). Best wishes to you and all. From Suddha (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Paul Williams, in "Foundations", also mentions the Gzhan Stong and Rang Stong dispute. Seems very relevant in this respect. Seems also to explain the DL's point of view on the mind. For Shenpen Hookham, you mean "The Buddha within"? [Taking a look at that book] Ah! It's aslo about Rangtong-Shentong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- FYI: User talk:Joshua Jonathan#What is this. I'm afraid we're going to question one of your main sources. I'm sorry, Suddha. I am reading Ming-Wood Liu's articles now, though; I'm trying to make an effort to make informed edits.
- As fot my personal understanding: the main point of the MPNS, and its interpretation and impact in China, does not seem to be its presentation of Buddha-nature as soem sort of "atman", but the faith that everyone will be saved. That's what Ming-Wood Liu seems to say, but it's also in accord with my personal understanding (and practice!) of Chinese Buddhism.
- Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Suddha. There may be more truth to your opinions on Buddha-nature than I'd ever expected. See Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)