This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For convenience, I am copying the comments on peer review here from this talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anekantavada/archive1.
Ruhrfisch comments: I will review the remaining five articles on Jainism - I see The Rambling Man has already reviewed one. If I may make a suggestion, it might be better to pick one or two articles as models and work on them and apply the lessons to all of the other articles too. Also asking for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV may get some more feedback. Anyway, I found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
PS I note that Nayavāda is listed as one of "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity", but is not in the box on Jainism - there seems to be a discrepancy here.
Could also use a copyedit, especially for punctuation.
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Second look While the article has been improved further, it is not yet ready for FAC in my opinion, and at least needs a copyedit - ask at WP:LOCE or the copyeditor volunteers at WP:PRV. Here are some points to consider - these are examples and not an exhaustive list.
I hope this helps and agree it has improved, just not enough to get through FAC yet. Hope this helps too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just doing some copy-edit work on the lead atm. I should check the source claiming ahimsa is Ghandi's policy. I thought this was a very long standing principle, in Hinduism and especially Buddhism. I will be delighted to discover this is Jainism instead. Though perhaps all three religions agreed on the principle and the name for a long time.
I spelled out the meaning of the an prefix in Sanskrit, but didn't mention the sandhi in ekānta. Again I should probably check the source, just to make sure these things are covered there, or add another source to cover them.
I've just got home after a long day and will need to get back to this tomorrow. Thank you for this well-written, accurate and informative article. I am enjoying reading it already. :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahimsa is essentially a philosophical concept followed by all Indian religions, but it is probably of a Jain origin. Western world identifies it with Mahatma Gandhi not surprisingly. But Gandhi himself was influenced by Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Rajchandra, a Jain scholar who was his spiritual guru. So I guess Hinduism and Jainism had an equal impact on Gandhi’s philosophy.
The Vedas are replete with animal sacrifices and meat eating. It is only after the age of Mahavira and Buddha, that Ahimsa was accepted in Hinduism or Vedic religion. Even in Buddhism vegetarianism is not compulsory. Buddhist monks are obliged to accept whatever food that a householder may give as long as the no animal or bird or fish is specifically killed in order to feed the monk. In fact, Buddha is said to have died after eating rotten pork. Only in Jainism, the doctrine of Ahimsa enjoys an unchallenged supremacy from the beginning.
The Hindu scholar and , Lokmanya Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism and thus leading to the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has described Jainism as the originator of Ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai:10 Dec, 1904:
Swami Vivekananda [1] also credited Jainsim as influencing force behind the Indian culture:
You are welcome to ask me any sources on Jainism in particular and Indian religions in general. I own more than two dozen books on Jainism by western and Indian scholars and my friend owns a book shop of Indological books. So no Problem !!! I really appreciate your help. Please do ask me for more sources which you think that will make this article pass FA test.-- Anish ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
...is far too long. PiCo ( talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that lead is a bit long....but I dont want to compromise on the peer review comments provided by User:Ruhrfisch. But please do carry out changes taht you feel are necessary. Thanks for the comments.-- Anish ( talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Post Scriptum @ User:Ruhrfisch Gibt es wirklich, daß Fische noch im Rhein leben? Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, although I have worked on this article, I have my limitations and cannot find obvious flaws in it. So I need help and I dont believe in reverting any good faith edits. Please edit this article mercilessly if you think it will improve. That's all I want..to have atleast one featued article on Jainism. I did some homework on lead section of Anekantavada (313 words long) to put things in perspective. The length of the lead section of following featured artilces was as :
There seems to be no fixed norms for length of lead section. Ofcourse these length of lead sections is as on 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) and is likely to change with new edits.-- Anish ( talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to think logically about Jain articles too.
Do you know other Jain Wikipedians?
Some of these articles are very informative for me.
Perhaps there is a plan for all the Jain articles somewhere? Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also go through the following articles that I have either started or substantially contributed. I think they are also ready for peer review.
Would appreciate your time on these articles also. There are very few Jain wikipedians and non-jain wikipedians who are interested in Jainism. (can't blame them, sometimes it becomes too technical).-- Anish ( talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
White is worn by Svetambara monks/nuns. Digambara monks are more orthodox and do not wear clothes but nuns wear white clothes. The lay persons dress normally and cannot be distinguished as Jains by outward appearance.-- Anish ( talk) 07:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the article has the following sections:
I'm trying to think of a systematic way to order the ideas. Writing goes in a line >>>------->> but ideas go in trees. We need to turn a tree into a line. One line could be a time line: Jain scriptures > Jain doctrines > Role in survival > Gandhi > Intellectual ahimsa. But I am not sure that is actually the historical order. We could make a logical sequence: Jain doctrines > Intellectual ahimsa > Jain scriptures > Blind men and elephant. But I am not sure if that is the right flow of ideas.
Can you help me Anish? How do you see the sections connecting with one another? Are they all just perspectives on the one thing? :D Or are some perspectives closer to one another than others. Which section is the "head" of the article? Which the "ears", "trunk" and "tail"? :D Alastair Haines ( talk) 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Anish ( talk) 08:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I don't think these articles are ideal, but sin and salvation are logical despite being big, because they are concepts found in several religions. For a less common religious term, in an article I largely rewrote myself see supersessionism. I'm not totally happy with that article yet, but it does show some of my style, though my style is not ideal in everyone's eyes either. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Now checkout the new structure and changes I have made. You may like it as it is a bit similar to supersessionism. -- Anish ( talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes as suggested by you. But I have few queries -
Secondly, Can you copy edit? Also whereever you feel that citation is required can you tag it with citation needed? It would be a great help.-- Anish ( talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking three times also seems to me to be very much in the spirit of Anekantavada ;-). This is really much improved - kudos to all involved. Here are some final thoughts with an eye to FAC, this seems no problem for GA now:
I am sure FAC will find things I never thought of - good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the references and there were actually missing words in two cases. I have made the changes. Thanks for pointing out.-- Anish ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The only real concern I have with this article is the suggestion at the end of the introduction that anekantavada implies "cultural and moral relativism", which seems to say that it shows that truth is a construction based on one's point of view, that no relative truth is better than another, and that there is no such thing as a truth that is applicable to all. This statement is unsourced. Now, I admit that I'm biased, since that is not my personal view. Still, it seems to me that a more accurate representation of anekantavada would be that although there may be a correct answer, our limitations may prevent us from knowing it. On a website for a Jainism convention at California State University - Pomona, I found a couple research abstracts supporting this view, although I admit I'm not familiar with the authors or their reputation in the field. (Scroll down to Anne Vallely and Gabriel Figueroa) [1] These were published next to papers by scholars such as Jaini and Dundas. I also found an article by Nagin J. Shah called "Jaina Theory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Anekāntavāda)" in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London that supports the idea that anekantavada is not the same as moral relativism, although is also quite extreme is suggesting that the implication of relativism is caused by a mistranslation. [2] While I'm sure there have been many scholars arguing the opposite, there are at least some who believe that anekantavada does not imply relativism, so it may not be best to conclusively state that they are very similar. I think the great value in anekantavada is that it provides a path in between rigid absolutism and relativism. Also, I would like to see the Buddhist criticism and Jain rebuttal at the end of the "Criticism" section clarified a little bit. It's rather hard to follow as it is. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll chip in here to agree with both of you. It would appear that Indian philosophy and Western philosophy have both discussed this issue, in different language, with different concerns, and with different outcomes, but also with significant overlap. To a Western audience, "strong" relativism ("nothing is absolute") has been considered an irrational position since at least Plato. However, although "strong" scepticism ("nothing can be known") is also considered irrational, for similar reasons, "realism" (or "some scepticism about the unobserved") is considered the very essence of rational thought. A popular, informal phrasing of this is "confidence in proportion to evidence". The blind men are irrational to conclude an absolute about the whole elephant, because their evidence is incomplete. However, many observations and much evidence can lead to a significant, if not absolute, level of confidence regarding the whole. Indeed, parts of Einstein's theories still do not have evidence to confirm them, but so much evidence has already been found, it is believed we will eventually find evidence for the rest. So, we consider it rational to believe the theories with great, but not total, confidence.
Undoubtedly, just as "strong" relativism and scepticism continue to be argued by minorities in the West, so too in India, Anekantavada is probably quoted in support of similar views. However, as the sources above show, there is certainly scholarship of Indian philosophy that has a more complete and fair picture of what this doctrine actually represents in human thought. It is a pretty universally accepted corrective to the human tendency to jump to the conclusion that everything is known, simply because one has observed a part of the whole. As such, Anekantavada (at its heart) is an ancient and distinctively Indian articulation of an idea that has been expressed independently in many cultures—because it is true! :)
So, I repeat my wholehearted support for these wise edits. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You dont need to be a subscriber. The link is opening for me. If you cant open that link then check this link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3146628,prtpage-1.cms What the author has writtn is not flattering. If this is also a problem then check it here User:Anishshah19/Moral_Relativism-- Anish ( talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alastair. I made some edits in "Contemporary role and influence" section about pluralism and that it avoids moral relativism. I have used the sources provided by Qmwne. This article is becoming a good example of how collaborative efforts can lift the quality of article substantially. Thanks to everyone.-- Anish ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added some details of my own towards being even more precise. I'm going through references ensuring:
I've worked over the bibliography for the same issues. I've added information regarding Monier Williams (M-W for short). I'm not sure about E.B., someone else will need to deal with that. I've expressed some short quotes as text rather than blocks.
Finally, I've simplified repeat references. Where a reference is named, the name alone can be repeated in subsequent tags. This spares cluttering the source text for the article, making editing easier. It also means only the first reference needs to be modified should a typo or other error exist in it.
I imagine I'll get back to this eventually—if no one else fills in the gaps I've left—but please, anyone, plunge in and fill the gaps. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
PS I realised Wiki doesn't have an article on Mallisena, which is really disappointing. I'm sure this will be remedied soon. (Hint, hint ;)
I have done some work on references. I am starting on quotation blocks. I will try to address all the concerns of Rhurfich with next 2-3 days. And hey Alastair.......I am taking the hint soon. :)-- Anish ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I wrong here?
An is the standard prefix of negation. Eka is just the number one. Anta is a form of the verb "to be". Vada is commonly used as a suffix refering to philosophical or theological schools of thought, like "-ism" in English, only vada actually implies knowledge, where "-ism" is just an ending. The English words "video" and "wit" are believed to be related to vada, where sight is related to knowledge (like with the gaja) and cleverness and humour also.
I think we could express this more clearly. It would also clarify why monotheism would be called eka-anta-vāda. The word can be used appropriately in many different places. In fact, it's not just a word, it's a compound, it's flexible, at least in Sanskrit.
Does that sound fair? Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PS If the lead is felt to be too long, I would recommend moving the history and etymology out to their own sections. If it is still felt to be too long, I'd then move the final paragraph out to the Survival of Jainism and Gandhi sections. The parable of the gaja is so clear and helpful I think it should go before the extension to the general philosophical statement of objects and their attributes. However, these could be reversed depending on a consensus of editors opinions. Personally, I'm comfortable with the length of the lead.
PPS I'll keep visiting for a little time each day, and work through copy-editing the whole article again. I like the overall structure at the moment. Even if I am not working on the article, I am always watching. I agree it is already a good article, and look forward to hearing input from FAC reviews. Alastair Haines ( talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anekantavada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will be reviewing the article in a few days.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
anekāntavāda—the theory of relative pluralism or manifoldness; syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and; nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints" Still an OR.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
ON HOLD.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Redtigerxyz for promoting this article as GA and for all the help and comments that improved this article. However the “Citecheck” tag is still there on the top of the article. Can it be removed or what should be done to get it removed. Secondly, in your opinion, should I nominate this article for featured article status? Is it ready or still some thing needs to be done?-- Anish ( talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to see that this article now looks quite good, thanks to the contributors. I am planning to go over it carefully in the next few days. -- Malaiya ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. I have gone through the article and did not find any discrepancies or internal contradictions in the article. The article cites scholarly references and bibliographies, especially citing scholars like Dr Paul Dundas, Dr John Cort, Prof Dr A N Upadhyaye, Prof Dr Hermann Jacobi, Prof Dr Padmanabh Jaini, etc. who are top notch Indologists. I suggest that the Citecheck tag be removed and this article be nominated for FAC. --Manish Modi 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the article by Mahalanobis (perhaps India's greatest statistician, founder of Calcutta's prestigious ISI) is quite interesting. He correctly points out that the formulation of the Anekanta concept has a close relationship with modern probability theory (and I think fuzzy logic), specifically probability distributions. Since I have worked on probabilistic treatment of reliability issues, perhaps I should add something about it.-- Malaiya ( talk) 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but it looks to me as though the romanized version of Mahavira's name is incorrect throughout the article. It should have only the second "a" long, and a long "i". As is, the article has the first "a" long and the second one short. Can someone who knows how check this and correct if need be?--JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.168.151 ( talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Any guide to pronunciation would be appreciated. VermillionBird ( talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some issues with this section. Perhaps someone can address my concerns.
And about "permanence" in Buddhism, "things" are said to be impermanent. These "things" do not exist independently of the rest of reality and are given designations only; no phenomenon is stated to be ultimately existent (the question does not apply to nirvana). Thus Buddhists are happy to discuss anything but not to state that it has "own-nature," i.e. descriptions of it can only be provisional. Mitsube ( talk) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent changes Mitsube. If it has reduced the POV of the article, I am all for it. However I would like to put on record, there is no disrespect meant either for Buddhist view nor for Vedanta view. It may look slightly POV’ish as this article is about a Jain doctrine. An article of Buddhism would be discussing the concept from Buddhist point of view – you can't help it or else it would become incoherent. That is why I have also put up the criticisms section and refutations, if any to remove any minor POV aspects that would have remained. Let me give you a small example that I have always noticed, as to why philosophical articles may look POVish – The Buddhist articles describe Buddhism as a middle way – an improvement over extreme Jain asceticism which is always over-emphasized (even in most scholarly books) But what is forgotten is that Jainism itself has a middle way – the path of layman with minor vows. Out of 4 million or so Jain adherents, only 4000 are aecetics. During the history, the ascetics have never crossed more than 1% of the Lay population, the 99% who follow the middle way. But the emphasis is always on the extreme asceticism. As you have said earlier, this is a caricature of Jainism made by most people discussing Jainism and Buddhism. But it cant be helped. -- Anish ( talk) 07:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Math speaks of 3 dimension in Space, and physics adds the 4th of Time. A divine being is One that can see from 'above' these dimensions. So why don't we match Anekantavada to this 'dimensions' concept, elaborating that the early Jain philosophers said the same things in much simpler (non-mathematical?) terms, that one who can see from higher (physically or philosophically), has a more complete / holistic view. So one who is above the four dimensions will see the whole elephant, while those who are part of these 4 can see only the parts. If anyone can collaborate on this, let me know, I can help expand on this. wildT ( talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Would Jains maintain, that the principle "Every truth is relative" is itself (as it is itself a "truth") relative? -- goiken 11:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
On a holistic basis, I'm impressed by the accuracy of this article. However, there are some instances in short sections that seem to be biased. For example, I was a bit disturbed to see a description of Buddhism as "nihilistic". I removed the description, but I am still concerned about the section it was in, "Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality". I suppose it would be best to check the entire article for things that may be construed as POV. I'm very sure the problem as a whole can be fixed easily, just not by me, because I know I am biased towards Jainism. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please be able to add information on the correct pronunciation of Anekantavada? Thanks in advance. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The subjunctive still appears often enough in most dialects of English ("If only I were going too,...", "At the point that he be king,...") that it can be used to illustrate the optative, so that we're not bound by clunky and rather inadequate constructions like "Maybe" or "From a perspective". I'll make a few changes in the main text, but then I want to ask about the translations of the saptibhaṅgī, since I don't know any Indic languages, but I want to reform them into subjunctive constructions. How about:
Please let me know what you think, particularly multilingual editors and those from other major English dialects. SamuelRiv ( talk) 14:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was reviewed in 2008 and promoted in August that year. The article has added in some bulk since then, and needs a thorough cite verification check. While some source verifications check out fine, quite a few do not. The source quality also needs a check, as WP:SPS such as lulu.com and others are non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anekantavada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Content copied to Doxography from mediaeval development sub-section of history and development page of Anekantavada see Anekantavada page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd ( talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
For convenience, I am copying the comments on peer review here from this talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anekantavada/archive1.
Ruhrfisch comments: I will review the remaining five articles on Jainism - I see The Rambling Man has already reviewed one. If I may make a suggestion, it might be better to pick one or two articles as models and work on them and apply the lessons to all of the other articles too. Also asking for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV may get some more feedback. Anyway, I found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
PS I note that Nayavāda is listed as one of "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity", but is not in the box on Jainism - there seems to be a discrepancy here.
Could also use a copyedit, especially for punctuation.
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Second look While the article has been improved further, it is not yet ready for FAC in my opinion, and at least needs a copyedit - ask at WP:LOCE or the copyeditor volunteers at WP:PRV. Here are some points to consider - these are examples and not an exhaustive list.
I hope this helps and agree it has improved, just not enough to get through FAC yet. Hope this helps too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just doing some copy-edit work on the lead atm. I should check the source claiming ahimsa is Ghandi's policy. I thought this was a very long standing principle, in Hinduism and especially Buddhism. I will be delighted to discover this is Jainism instead. Though perhaps all three religions agreed on the principle and the name for a long time.
I spelled out the meaning of the an prefix in Sanskrit, but didn't mention the sandhi in ekānta. Again I should probably check the source, just to make sure these things are covered there, or add another source to cover them.
I've just got home after a long day and will need to get back to this tomorrow. Thank you for this well-written, accurate and informative article. I am enjoying reading it already. :) Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahimsa is essentially a philosophical concept followed by all Indian religions, but it is probably of a Jain origin. Western world identifies it with Mahatma Gandhi not surprisingly. But Gandhi himself was influenced by Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Rajchandra, a Jain scholar who was his spiritual guru. So I guess Hinduism and Jainism had an equal impact on Gandhi’s philosophy.
The Vedas are replete with animal sacrifices and meat eating. It is only after the age of Mahavira and Buddha, that Ahimsa was accepted in Hinduism or Vedic religion. Even in Buddhism vegetarianism is not compulsory. Buddhist monks are obliged to accept whatever food that a householder may give as long as the no animal or bird or fish is specifically killed in order to feed the monk. In fact, Buddha is said to have died after eating rotten pork. Only in Jainism, the doctrine of Ahimsa enjoys an unchallenged supremacy from the beginning.
The Hindu scholar and , Lokmanya Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism and thus leading to the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has described Jainism as the originator of Ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai:10 Dec, 1904:
Swami Vivekananda [1] also credited Jainsim as influencing force behind the Indian culture:
You are welcome to ask me any sources on Jainism in particular and Indian religions in general. I own more than two dozen books on Jainism by western and Indian scholars and my friend owns a book shop of Indological books. So no Problem !!! I really appreciate your help. Please do ask me for more sources which you think that will make this article pass FA test.-- Anish ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
...is far too long. PiCo ( talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that lead is a bit long....but I dont want to compromise on the peer review comments provided by User:Ruhrfisch. But please do carry out changes taht you feel are necessary. Thanks for the comments.-- Anish ( talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Post Scriptum @ User:Ruhrfisch Gibt es wirklich, daß Fische noch im Rhein leben? Alastair Haines ( talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, although I have worked on this article, I have my limitations and cannot find obvious flaws in it. So I need help and I dont believe in reverting any good faith edits. Please edit this article mercilessly if you think it will improve. That's all I want..to have atleast one featued article on Jainism. I did some homework on lead section of Anekantavada (313 words long) to put things in perspective. The length of the lead section of following featured artilces was as :
There seems to be no fixed norms for length of lead section. Ofcourse these length of lead sections is as on 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) and is likely to change with new edits.-- Anish ( talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to think logically about Jain articles too.
Do you know other Jain Wikipedians?
Some of these articles are very informative for me.
Perhaps there is a plan for all the Jain articles somewhere? Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also go through the following articles that I have either started or substantially contributed. I think they are also ready for peer review.
Would appreciate your time on these articles also. There are very few Jain wikipedians and non-jain wikipedians who are interested in Jainism. (can't blame them, sometimes it becomes too technical).-- Anish ( talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
White is worn by Svetambara monks/nuns. Digambara monks are more orthodox and do not wear clothes but nuns wear white clothes. The lay persons dress normally and cannot be distinguished as Jains by outward appearance.-- Anish ( talk) 07:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the article has the following sections:
I'm trying to think of a systematic way to order the ideas. Writing goes in a line >>>------->> but ideas go in trees. We need to turn a tree into a line. One line could be a time line: Jain scriptures > Jain doctrines > Role in survival > Gandhi > Intellectual ahimsa. But I am not sure that is actually the historical order. We could make a logical sequence: Jain doctrines > Intellectual ahimsa > Jain scriptures > Blind men and elephant. But I am not sure if that is the right flow of ideas.
Can you help me Anish? How do you see the sections connecting with one another? Are they all just perspectives on the one thing? :D Or are some perspectives closer to one another than others. Which section is the "head" of the article? Which the "ears", "trunk" and "tail"? :D Alastair Haines ( talk) 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Anish ( talk) 08:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
PS I don't think these articles are ideal, but sin and salvation are logical despite being big, because they are concepts found in several religions. For a less common religious term, in an article I largely rewrote myself see supersessionism. I'm not totally happy with that article yet, but it does show some of my style, though my style is not ideal in everyone's eyes either. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Now checkout the new structure and changes I have made. You may like it as it is a bit similar to supersessionism. -- Anish ( talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes as suggested by you. But I have few queries -
Secondly, Can you copy edit? Also whereever you feel that citation is required can you tag it with citation needed? It would be a great help.-- Anish ( talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking three times also seems to me to be very much in the spirit of Anekantavada ;-). This is really much improved - kudos to all involved. Here are some final thoughts with an eye to FAC, this seems no problem for GA now:
I am sure FAC will find things I never thought of - good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the references and there were actually missing words in two cases. I have made the changes. Thanks for pointing out.-- Anish ( talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The only real concern I have with this article is the suggestion at the end of the introduction that anekantavada implies "cultural and moral relativism", which seems to say that it shows that truth is a construction based on one's point of view, that no relative truth is better than another, and that there is no such thing as a truth that is applicable to all. This statement is unsourced. Now, I admit that I'm biased, since that is not my personal view. Still, it seems to me that a more accurate representation of anekantavada would be that although there may be a correct answer, our limitations may prevent us from knowing it. On a website for a Jainism convention at California State University - Pomona, I found a couple research abstracts supporting this view, although I admit I'm not familiar with the authors or their reputation in the field. (Scroll down to Anne Vallely and Gabriel Figueroa) [1] These were published next to papers by scholars such as Jaini and Dundas. I also found an article by Nagin J. Shah called "Jaina Theory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Anekāntavāda)" in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London that supports the idea that anekantavada is not the same as moral relativism, although is also quite extreme is suggesting that the implication of relativism is caused by a mistranslation. [2] While I'm sure there have been many scholars arguing the opposite, there are at least some who believe that anekantavada does not imply relativism, so it may not be best to conclusively state that they are very similar. I think the great value in anekantavada is that it provides a path in between rigid absolutism and relativism. Also, I would like to see the Buddhist criticism and Jain rebuttal at the end of the "Criticism" section clarified a little bit. It's rather hard to follow as it is. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll chip in here to agree with both of you. It would appear that Indian philosophy and Western philosophy have both discussed this issue, in different language, with different concerns, and with different outcomes, but also with significant overlap. To a Western audience, "strong" relativism ("nothing is absolute") has been considered an irrational position since at least Plato. However, although "strong" scepticism ("nothing can be known") is also considered irrational, for similar reasons, "realism" (or "some scepticism about the unobserved") is considered the very essence of rational thought. A popular, informal phrasing of this is "confidence in proportion to evidence". The blind men are irrational to conclude an absolute about the whole elephant, because their evidence is incomplete. However, many observations and much evidence can lead to a significant, if not absolute, level of confidence regarding the whole. Indeed, parts of Einstein's theories still do not have evidence to confirm them, but so much evidence has already been found, it is believed we will eventually find evidence for the rest. So, we consider it rational to believe the theories with great, but not total, confidence.
Undoubtedly, just as "strong" relativism and scepticism continue to be argued by minorities in the West, so too in India, Anekantavada is probably quoted in support of similar views. However, as the sources above show, there is certainly scholarship of Indian philosophy that has a more complete and fair picture of what this doctrine actually represents in human thought. It is a pretty universally accepted corrective to the human tendency to jump to the conclusion that everything is known, simply because one has observed a part of the whole. As such, Anekantavada (at its heart) is an ancient and distinctively Indian articulation of an idea that has been expressed independently in many cultures—because it is true! :)
So, I repeat my wholehearted support for these wise edits. Alastair Haines ( talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You dont need to be a subscriber. The link is opening for me. If you cant open that link then check this link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3146628,prtpage-1.cms What the author has writtn is not flattering. If this is also a problem then check it here User:Anishshah19/Moral_Relativism-- Anish ( talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alastair. I made some edits in "Contemporary role and influence" section about pluralism and that it avoids moral relativism. I have used the sources provided by Qmwne. This article is becoming a good example of how collaborative efforts can lift the quality of article substantially. Thanks to everyone.-- Anish ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added some details of my own towards being even more precise. I'm going through references ensuring:
I've worked over the bibliography for the same issues. I've added information regarding Monier Williams (M-W for short). I'm not sure about E.B., someone else will need to deal with that. I've expressed some short quotes as text rather than blocks.
Finally, I've simplified repeat references. Where a reference is named, the name alone can be repeated in subsequent tags. This spares cluttering the source text for the article, making editing easier. It also means only the first reference needs to be modified should a typo or other error exist in it.
I imagine I'll get back to this eventually—if no one else fills in the gaps I've left—but please, anyone, plunge in and fill the gaps. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
PS I realised Wiki doesn't have an article on Mallisena, which is really disappointing. I'm sure this will be remedied soon. (Hint, hint ;)
I have done some work on references. I am starting on quotation blocks. I will try to address all the concerns of Rhurfich with next 2-3 days. And hey Alastair.......I am taking the hint soon. :)-- Anish ( talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I wrong here?
An is the standard prefix of negation. Eka is just the number one. Anta is a form of the verb "to be". Vada is commonly used as a suffix refering to philosophical or theological schools of thought, like "-ism" in English, only vada actually implies knowledge, where "-ism" is just an ending. The English words "video" and "wit" are believed to be related to vada, where sight is related to knowledge (like with the gaja) and cleverness and humour also.
I think we could express this more clearly. It would also clarify why monotheism would be called eka-anta-vāda. The word can be used appropriately in many different places. In fact, it's not just a word, it's a compound, it's flexible, at least in Sanskrit.
Does that sound fair? Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PS If the lead is felt to be too long, I would recommend moving the history and etymology out to their own sections. If it is still felt to be too long, I'd then move the final paragraph out to the Survival of Jainism and Gandhi sections. The parable of the gaja is so clear and helpful I think it should go before the extension to the general philosophical statement of objects and their attributes. However, these could be reversed depending on a consensus of editors opinions. Personally, I'm comfortable with the length of the lead.
PPS I'll keep visiting for a little time each day, and work through copy-editing the whole article again. I like the overall structure at the moment. Even if I am not working on the article, I am always watching. I agree it is already a good article, and look forward to hearing input from FAC reviews. Alastair Haines ( talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anekantavada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will be reviewing the article in a few days.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
anekāntavāda—the theory of relative pluralism or manifoldness; syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and; nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints" Still an OR.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
ON HOLD.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Redtigerxyz for promoting this article as GA and for all the help and comments that improved this article. However the “Citecheck” tag is still there on the top of the article. Can it be removed or what should be done to get it removed. Secondly, in your opinion, should I nominate this article for featured article status? Is it ready or still some thing needs to be done?-- Anish ( talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to see that this article now looks quite good, thanks to the contributors. I am planning to go over it carefully in the next few days. -- Malaiya ( talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. I have gone through the article and did not find any discrepancies or internal contradictions in the article. The article cites scholarly references and bibliographies, especially citing scholars like Dr Paul Dundas, Dr John Cort, Prof Dr A N Upadhyaye, Prof Dr Hermann Jacobi, Prof Dr Padmanabh Jaini, etc. who are top notch Indologists. I suggest that the Citecheck tag be removed and this article be nominated for FAC. --Manish Modi 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the article by Mahalanobis (perhaps India's greatest statistician, founder of Calcutta's prestigious ISI) is quite interesting. He correctly points out that the formulation of the Anekanta concept has a close relationship with modern probability theory (and I think fuzzy logic), specifically probability distributions. Since I have worked on probabilistic treatment of reliability issues, perhaps I should add something about it.-- Malaiya ( talk) 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but it looks to me as though the romanized version of Mahavira's name is incorrect throughout the article. It should have only the second "a" long, and a long "i". As is, the article has the first "a" long and the second one short. Can someone who knows how check this and correct if need be?--JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.168.151 ( talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Any guide to pronunciation would be appreciated. VermillionBird ( talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some issues with this section. Perhaps someone can address my concerns.
And about "permanence" in Buddhism, "things" are said to be impermanent. These "things" do not exist independently of the rest of reality and are given designations only; no phenomenon is stated to be ultimately existent (the question does not apply to nirvana). Thus Buddhists are happy to discuss anything but not to state that it has "own-nature," i.e. descriptions of it can only be provisional. Mitsube ( talk) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent changes Mitsube. If it has reduced the POV of the article, I am all for it. However I would like to put on record, there is no disrespect meant either for Buddhist view nor for Vedanta view. It may look slightly POV’ish as this article is about a Jain doctrine. An article of Buddhism would be discussing the concept from Buddhist point of view – you can't help it or else it would become incoherent. That is why I have also put up the criticisms section and refutations, if any to remove any minor POV aspects that would have remained. Let me give you a small example that I have always noticed, as to why philosophical articles may look POVish – The Buddhist articles describe Buddhism as a middle way – an improvement over extreme Jain asceticism which is always over-emphasized (even in most scholarly books) But what is forgotten is that Jainism itself has a middle way – the path of layman with minor vows. Out of 4 million or so Jain adherents, only 4000 are aecetics. During the history, the ascetics have never crossed more than 1% of the Lay population, the 99% who follow the middle way. But the emphasis is always on the extreme asceticism. As you have said earlier, this is a caricature of Jainism made by most people discussing Jainism and Buddhism. But it cant be helped. -- Anish ( talk) 07:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Math speaks of 3 dimension in Space, and physics adds the 4th of Time. A divine being is One that can see from 'above' these dimensions. So why don't we match Anekantavada to this 'dimensions' concept, elaborating that the early Jain philosophers said the same things in much simpler (non-mathematical?) terms, that one who can see from higher (physically or philosophically), has a more complete / holistic view. So one who is above the four dimensions will see the whole elephant, while those who are part of these 4 can see only the parts. If anyone can collaborate on this, let me know, I can help expand on this. wildT ( talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Would Jains maintain, that the principle "Every truth is relative" is itself (as it is itself a "truth") relative? -- goiken 11:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
On a holistic basis, I'm impressed by the accuracy of this article. However, there are some instances in short sections that seem to be biased. For example, I was a bit disturbed to see a description of Buddhism as "nihilistic". I removed the description, but I am still concerned about the section it was in, "Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality". I suppose it would be best to check the entire article for things that may be construed as POV. I'm very sure the problem as a whole can be fixed easily, just not by me, because I know I am biased towards Jainism. -- Qmwne 2 3 5 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please be able to add information on the correct pronunciation of Anekantavada? Thanks in advance. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The subjunctive still appears often enough in most dialects of English ("If only I were going too,...", "At the point that he be king,...") that it can be used to illustrate the optative, so that we're not bound by clunky and rather inadequate constructions like "Maybe" or "From a perspective". I'll make a few changes in the main text, but then I want to ask about the translations of the saptibhaṅgī, since I don't know any Indic languages, but I want to reform them into subjunctive constructions. How about:
Please let me know what you think, particularly multilingual editors and those from other major English dialects. SamuelRiv ( talk) 14:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was reviewed in 2008 and promoted in August that year. The article has added in some bulk since then, and needs a thorough cite verification check. While some source verifications check out fine, quite a few do not. The source quality also needs a check, as WP:SPS such as lulu.com and others are non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anekantavada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Content copied to Doxography from mediaeval development sub-section of history and development page of Anekantavada see Anekantavada page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd ( talk) 11:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)