The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Farang Rak Tham: I'm reading over the article and noticed a lot of it is written in present-tense instead of past-tense (i.e. "Rāhula is born on same day Prince Siddhārtha Gautama renounces the throne by leaving the palace", which uses "is" instead of "was"). Since we're covering people and accounts from the past, shouldn't it be written in past tense?
@
MX:, I meant to write in historical present tense to keep a skeptical, encyclopedic tone. But I've been told before it doesn't work, so if you want me to change it to past tense, I can do that.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Farang Rak Tham: Please do. I went to the article about
Jesus and noticed they use present tense only when paraphrasing events from the scriptures. Ping me when this is done and I'll start my review. In the meantime, I'll be checking sources and continue reading the article to familiarize with it. It looks ripe for promotion as it stands. Thanks!
MX (
✉ •
✎)
21:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Some early texts such as those of the Pāli tradition do not mention Rāhula at all ... on monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Mahāsaṇghika traditions – Would it be reasonable to ask when these "early texts" were written? Like the era (example: 4th–5th century CE). It may give readers a bit of context that time.
affected the prince on his path to enlightenment. – Question: How is Gautama Buddha usually referred to? Prince Siddhārtha? Prince? Siddhārtha? Or another name? I'm asking because there are instances when you write "Prince Siddhārtha" and sometimes "Prince". I don't know anything about the subject so I want to make sure we're sticking to his most common name.
He is most commonly referred to by scholars as "Prince Siddhārtha" before attaining enlightenment, and "the Buddha" after enlightenment. I sometimes switch to the prince for stylistic reasons, to not make the writing stilted.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)12:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Pāli tradition
meaning 'A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen' – I think it should be in "quotations" but please correct me if I'm wrong.
in this version, the Buddha made everyone around him look identical to him, through a supernatural accomplishment. – Back to my original question of using "Prince", "Buddha", etc. Why don't we stick to one?
Good section here. Just a bit confused on the there would have been no sound reason for him to leave secretly at night. Did Buddha intend to leave secretly at night?
When Rāhula was seven,[13] nine[39][40] or fifteen[41] years old – Just a suggestion, but instead of doing this why don't you copyedit it to "When Rāhula was between seven and fifteen years old...", and then add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between the sources. It reads smoother and can give readers a better understanding of how the sources may differ.
—indologist Bhikkhu Telwatte Rahula argues that the child was conscious of being without father. – IMO, the sentence should end with "...and he was told." And then continue with this, though it naturally flows better as a footnote.
She told Rāhula that since his father had renounced the palace life and as he was the next royal prince in line, he should ask his father for his inheritance of crown and treasure, for his future sake when his grandfather would no longer rule the kingdom. – Run-on sentence, consider restructuring.
Tradition states therefore that Rāhula is still alive – Is this true now, or was it true some time in the past? I just want to make sure this info isn't written in present-tense when it shouldn't be, since info in Wikipedia can
easily be outdated.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Farang Rak Tham: I'm reading over the article and noticed a lot of it is written in present-tense instead of past-tense (i.e. "Rāhula is born on same day Prince Siddhārtha Gautama renounces the throne by leaving the palace", which uses "is" instead of "was"). Since we're covering people and accounts from the past, shouldn't it be written in past tense?
@
MX:, I meant to write in historical present tense to keep a skeptical, encyclopedic tone. But I've been told before it doesn't work, so if you want me to change it to past tense, I can do that.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Farang Rak Tham: Please do. I went to the article about
Jesus and noticed they use present tense only when paraphrasing events from the scriptures. Ping me when this is done and I'll start my review. In the meantime, I'll be checking sources and continue reading the article to familiarize with it. It looks ripe for promotion as it stands. Thanks!
MX (
✉ •
✎)
21:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Some early texts such as those of the Pāli tradition do not mention Rāhula at all ... on monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Mahāsaṇghika traditions – Would it be reasonable to ask when these "early texts" were written? Like the era (example: 4th–5th century CE). It may give readers a bit of context that time.
affected the prince on his path to enlightenment. – Question: How is Gautama Buddha usually referred to? Prince Siddhārtha? Prince? Siddhārtha? Or another name? I'm asking because there are instances when you write "Prince Siddhārtha" and sometimes "Prince". I don't know anything about the subject so I want to make sure we're sticking to his most common name.
He is most commonly referred to by scholars as "Prince Siddhārtha" before attaining enlightenment, and "the Buddha" after enlightenment. I sometimes switch to the prince for stylistic reasons, to not make the writing stilted.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)12:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Pāli tradition
meaning 'A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen' – I think it should be in "quotations" but please correct me if I'm wrong.
in this version, the Buddha made everyone around him look identical to him, through a supernatural accomplishment. – Back to my original question of using "Prince", "Buddha", etc. Why don't we stick to one?
Good section here. Just a bit confused on the there would have been no sound reason for him to leave secretly at night. Did Buddha intend to leave secretly at night?
When Rāhula was seven,[13] nine[39][40] or fifteen[41] years old – Just a suggestion, but instead of doing this why don't you copyedit it to "When Rāhula was between seven and fifteen years old...", and then add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between the sources. It reads smoother and can give readers a better understanding of how the sources may differ.
—indologist Bhikkhu Telwatte Rahula argues that the child was conscious of being without father. – IMO, the sentence should end with "...and he was told." And then continue with this, though it naturally flows better as a footnote.
She told Rāhula that since his father had renounced the palace life and as he was the next royal prince in line, he should ask his father for his inheritance of crown and treasure, for his future sake when his grandfather would no longer rule the kingdom. – Run-on sentence, consider restructuring.
Tradition states therefore that Rāhula is still alive – Is this true now, or was it true some time in the past? I just want to make sure this info isn't written in present-tense when it shouldn't be, since info in Wikipedia can
easily be outdated.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.