JJ and @ Kautilya3: I was just reading some sources on Bhimbetka rock shelters. There are paintings in these caves that has been interpreted by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and Kim Heuston to represent the conflict between Indo-Aryans and native central Indian population. It is on page 76 of the source. Have you seen any alternative interpretations?, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Joshua Jonathan, and Happy New Year! – If you have time, would you take a look at the latest edits to Rudaki? (Also note user name.) You know better than I do how to determine if any or all of the items were sourced material, and how the name is spelled in those sources. I had always seen the name spelled "Rudaki". I believe what is in the sources should determine the spelling, not a particular editor's preference, but I'll leave this up to you or others. Thanks in advance. – Corinne ( talk) 02:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JJ – Can you help out at Zoroaster. See this edit. It is verging on edit-warring, and the editor does not seem to understand WP:BRD. – Corinne ( talk) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Anatta is what separates Buddhism from all other religions. It is the key cause of dukkha as an attachment to the self allows for suffering, and thus it is the reason that one ought to escape samsara. There are no morals in Buddhism as there is no moral authority. The Buddha never said there are thing that you should do no matter would, he just taught how to escape samsara and why that is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, You posted about my comments not being Civil. Thanks for feedback.
Please note that my comments are exact copy of comments by [Ms Sarah Welch] at my page and at other pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Dixitsandeep&action=edit§ion=2
I am sure you have provide same feedback to him/her.
Dixitsandeep ( talk) 08:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you make of Sarah Welch's socket puppet block? Is it legit?-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Without commenting on the socking, MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See HERE. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. Noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes, which are always botched in some way. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's ironic that in the ANI-discussion which resulted in AVC topic-ban on caste-articles, their editing is compared to that of Hkelkar, an editor who has also been mentioned as a possible previous avatar of Baldesmulti... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, can you keep an eye on people wanting to mass revert MSW's edits? Some of it seems to have happened already at the Kalki article. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is probably independent: Neo-Vedanta#Colonialism and modernism section also seems to be accumulating a lot of shrubbery, starting from around here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC.
MSW used many academic sources not written by indologists. For example the tertiary source "Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities". As far as I know, none of the entries were composed by indologists. So what do you think about this? VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm not sure why my article Indianization got reverted? Do you mind explaining it to me? Nicoleedalat ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Nicoleedalat
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.
There are multiple sentences and paragraphs in the Sarasvati River article which do not reflect an open and broad minded view, but rather show an assertive and one-sided view relating to The river Sarasvati. Listed below are some of the sentences:
The last line of the first paragraph of Sarasvati River "The name Sarasvati was also given to a formation in the Milky Way" is a speculative view or theory of a single scholar and it is not agreed upon by multiple others. Hence it should not be stated as a fact but more like "Witzel suggests the Sarasvati could be the Milky Way" [1].
In the second paragraph the line "However the geophysical characteristics of the Rigvedic Saraswati river do not correspond to the Ghaggar-Hakra river" is again said as a statement of fact, but it has strong arguments against it: The Sarasvati river flows from the mountains to the Ocean but not the Helmand river [2]. The same could be said about the Helmand River section, Many scholars argued that Kochhar's theory has serious flaws [3].
The Mythical River section contains statements related to politics of India. Political views and statements should have no place in an article related to a River.
I would like to know from you the specific reasons to remove my edits and revert to the earlier. User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
References
References
Dude, click on this link. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae
I would say Bullshit is a bit derogatory, even if something is clearly bullshit people will get in a huff because you used a rude word. I personally went for "speculative pseudo-history" but I think "cruft" is quite common. :) Prince of Thieves ( talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
What's the issue? Parasparograhi1 ( talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet another Aryan controversy. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I was working on Jainism related pages for some time but faced opposition on pov grounds and independent sources. That has resulted in delaying multiple GA nominations too. While scrolling through contributions of those who opposed, I observed that using sources from Buddhism domain in Jainism article make it more authoritative and neutral and vice versa. You seem to have good knowledge over Buddhism and Mahavira has got descent attention in Buddhist history. Would you like to help? Thanks Capankajsmilyo ( talk) 06:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You are clearly not Here to build an encyclopedia to build a consensus. You are engaging in conflict with other editors and retracting their content even after multiple citations and references provided by them. You as an editor cannot judge and interpret which sources are "fringe" and which are "mainstream", but you can build a consensus with others based on authenticity of references. I suggest you go through consensus and dispute resolution.
@ NeilN: time for some tougher measures? For the talkpage-stalkers: diff and diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For diligent work done on the confusing and politically hot topic of Veerashaivism/Lingayatism. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
It all looks much clearer now. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see [5]. JimRenge ( talk) 11:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems presumptive. Other messages will be posted on that talk page years in the future. Who are you to re-arrange a deceased editor's talk page as if it were your display case? Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. The changes here match the main articles. This is indeed a mess, but it's annoying that the Mitchiner date in the article is 250CE but I can't find the date in the source. [6] I'd prefer ANI myself, and don't have time until Sunday to look more carefully as it would require a lot of checks. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
HERE MSW says "should not be seen as a social reformer" is a direct quote of Richard Gombrich. I checked the source and its a quote of Christopher Queen describing Richard Gombrich's position. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 16:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to fill in this article. Do you want to come over to help? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a view of the Hindu Kush from the Indian subcontinent. It seems to be that nobody in their right mind would attempt to cross it just for the fun of it. Rather, they would wander southwest into Afghanistan, and then, if they make it that far, try to move east again into Gandhara/NWFP.
Until the European colonization, the conquests of India always followed one and the same pattern. The invaders first established themselves in Central Asia and in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau, and then expanded their power to cover the northwest of India as well. When the invaders in India kept expanding their conquests into the interior, this group was likely to become Indianized and to lose contact with the other part west of the Hindukush. It is most likely that rhe Dãsas and the f.gvedic Aryans both in turn followed this same model in their respective Indian invasions. If this was the case, the Aryans, from whichever direction they came, would have first met the Dãsas and panis on their way in Bactria, before reaching nonhwest India. This location would be in agreement with the fact that the early Dãsa chief Sambara lived in a mountainous region. (Parpola, The Coming of the Aryans)
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense? Is that the language you use with strangers. Please show academic peer-reviewed journal or at least an academic book citation for reverting my edit. Please mind your language.
Mkv22 ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
Additionally, your signature appears to go against WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text.
Please change
[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]]
:
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!to
[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]]
:
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!— Anomalocaris ( talk) 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, perhaps you know how to access the full text of Pub Med articles such as this [7]? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Joshua Jonathan. The reason why I reverted the edits is because that article is referring to Gandhara as an historical region, not the Gandhara Kingdom, which was part of the Mahajanapada. Please revert the edits to the last accepted edits dated 7 April 2018. Thank you. -- 99.252.20.102 ( talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This Greater Magadha is fascinating. Does Bronkhurst talk about slavery? I think it was rampant there. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry. I have had the Witzel paper in my local files for long time. But none of these sources ever made the clear-cut point that Bronkhurst makes, viz., that the Magadhan culture could be entirely non-Vedic. It always appeared as if it was a modified Vedic culture which possibly underwent interaction with the local indigenous cultures. But the possibility that it could be non-Vedic opens entirely new doors.
The fact that Shakyas, Kosala and Videha etc. (the most famous of the early Magadhan cultures) are all at the foothills of Himalayas gives a strong indication that these people entered through the Himalayas. I am strongly committed to the view that the Vedic people came via Afghanistan, the Helmand-Arghandab valley. So, they circled around the Hindu Kush mountains rather than climb over them. From the Helmand valley they were driven out by the Dasas/Dahae. The Dasas, who took enormous care to protect their cattle in fortified enclosures (puras), obviously thought of these Vedic cattle raiders as nothing but a nuisance. So, I presume they drove them off. That is how the Vedic people ended up in Gandhara and then expanded into Punjab.
The Magadhans must have followed a different course. The same aridity that killed the IVC also pushed the Indo-European tribes south, in search of greener pastures. So, sooner or later, they ended up at the foothills of the Himalayas in the north and eventually they found the passes through which they could enter the Indian subcontinent. They were familiar with Indra, but they thought of him as an idiot.
The Iranians thought of Indra as a daemon, no doubt because of the cattle raiding habits of the Vedics. It was only after the Dasarajna battle, in the protected enclosure of Punjab that the Vedic people flourished and eventually took over the entire Indian subcontinent. After they developed agriculture and recruited enough local labour to do the farming, they grew enough surplus food to support the professional Brahmins, who had nothing to do other than memorising and propagating the texts. So that is how the Vedic culture managed to dominate the others within the subcontinent. But their religion is mostly dead. Nobody worships Indra. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I was the one who made those edits on the Roshi article stating that "a handful" of people in the Rinzai sect have inka shomei (I forgot to log in when I made them). The statement was in fact sourced in the body (as "perhaps 50" people), and I added an additional reference (that says "50 to 80"), and I changed the wording in the intro to say "less than 100" to capture the diversity of these two sources. It doesn't count for anything as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but this reflects my understanding of things as well. DJLayton4 ( talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have been helping with Shivaji (1630–1680) GA nomination and looking up some sources. Here is an interesting passage from James Laine:
I find evidence in the Śivabhārata that the word dharma could mean both “order or moral law” (the classical Sanskrit definition) as well as something more like the modern English word “religion.” This suggests that although Hindus and Muslims in many ways lived in a common society, they both felt that there should be distinct boundaries between the two communities; the degree to which any individual was comfortable with participation in the cultural styles associated with another group, however, remained widely variable. One might question whether there are important chronological shifts, as well as class and caste differences, in the way these boundaries of identity between Hindu and Muslim were drawn. [1]
This is of course not new. We know this from Lorentzen [2] already from the 14th–15th centuries, but Laine doesn't cite him.
This blog post reproduces another interesting passage (from p.39) where James Laine contests historians on what Shivaji's motivations were. I find it amusing when Religious Studies scholars debate history just by reading texts. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not think I am disputing the evidence Gordon adduces, but my interpretation depends on how one uses the word “Hindu.” In these matters, it seems to me there is no more clearly “Hindu” position than to exalt Akbar's policies and to patronize Muslim religious practices and persons within the context of Hindu culture. Such “tolerant” inclusivism is a fundamental structure of Hinduism, a structure that can expand to include Muslim sultans as honorary kshatriyas as long as the scope of polycentric, polytheistic Hindu culture is not infringed upon. It is for this reason that even in a text like the Śivabhārata, which ever resorts to the caricature of Muslims as demons, Shivaji's father, grandfather, and uncle can be seen as legitimately serving Muslim sultans. Shahji is even described as spreading the rule of Lord Rama in his military conquest of the Karnatak rajas while he was in military service to the Adil Shah... Similarly, the Nizam Shah can be described as dharmātma, which I translate as “man of piety.” In classical Sanskritic ideology, the king is the protector of gods, brahmins, and cows, and when he does that, even if he be Muslim, he may be seen as in service of dharma.
References
How were you able to use logos.com to peek into the source? ScepticismOfPopularisation ( talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome to make suggestions but would you actually mind to allow me discuss an editor on my Talk page? I have been around here for a while and sort of know how things work. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 09:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not promiting fringe theory. In a section about a fringe theory, I am listing the arguments that its proponents have used. Nowhere have I stated anything as fact. Kindly re-instate my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.180.203 ( talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear!please explain
Joshua Jonathan! Please explain in plain terms. Your answer is not explanation of reversion of constructive edits. Thanks. If you think that was mistake. Then feel free to tell. Smatrah ( talk) 04:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, JJ, it's been a while. I came across Hanuman Jayanti today. The page is in terrible shape. I'm out of my depth; can this be salvaged? Vanamonde ( talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Anatole Klyosov is a pseudoscientist. Better to restore your oldest revision of map. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 08:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
First, on the Pishachas, note:
If there is any truth at the bottom of this legend [of Nilamata Purana], the Piśācas must have been hardy northerners, accustomed to cold. At the present day the country to the north of Kashmir, with Gilgit for its centre, is inhabited by Shins (Dards), and the legend points to a long contest between them and the 'men' — i.e., immigrants from India—for the possession of the Happy Valley. This entirely accords with the linguistic conditions at the present day. The language of the Shins, or Shina, is one of those which Pischel has connected with Paiśāacī. The Kashmiri language itself, though in the main Indian in character, has at its base a considerable Shina vocabulary. The commonest words, such as those for 'father,' 'mother,' 'I,' 'thou,' are of Shina, not Indian, origin. [1]
So, if Kashmiri has this mixture of Dardic and Sanskrit, it gives some support to the contention of the Nilamata Purana that the Pishachas (Dards) used to swoop down on the valley during the winter months.
According to Daśarūpa 2, 60 the Piśāca or Māgadha language is especially spoken by the Piśācas, the people of lowly origin etc. According to Sarasvatik.... P. the language of the Pisāca; Bhojadeva... forbids the use of pure P. by high class characters: ... High characters, who do not appear in the highest roles, according to Sarasvatik. 58, 15, speak in a language that is Sanskrit and Paiśāci at the same time, by means of the popular play of words bhāṣāśleṣa, which is comparatively easier in Paiśāci than in any other Prākrit dialect inasmuch as P., of all the Pkt. dialects, is most akin to Sanskrit. [2]
So Paishachi and Magadha were similar, and they were similar to Sanskrit, but dissimilar to others Prakrits (Indianised variants of Sanskrit, also characterised as deshyas or local languages, by Vararuchi).
Pischel also mentions Panchala and Shaurasena versions of Paishachi. These are the central Himalayan regions. So, I am getting more convinced that these "Pishachas" came through the Himalayan passes, and not through the Arghandab like the Vedic Aryans.
But the crazy thing is that these people didn't call themselves 'men' (descendants of Manu), even though they spoke practically the same language! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
References
It is not my intention to spam the Shasta Abbey Page, I just wanted to add more information and cite the information on the page. Would you prefer I only cite one time for a source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the changes I made to the Soto Zen page were constructive. Generally, I believe it is important to put information on Soto Zen in an easy to digest, accurate form that is understandable to the western mind. I chose to delete small portions that were inaccurate and add more content. In particular, the content I added to the section 'spread in the western world' I believe will be helpful to those practicing in the West. I'd be very grateful for your willingness to inform me of what you think is not constructive and hope we can come to an agreement. I am new to Wikipedia and realize I may be making mistakes in how things are done. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The precise meaning and method of zazen varies from school to school, but in general it can be regarded as a means of insight into the nature of existence. In the Japanese Rinzai school, zazen is usually associated with the study of koans. The Sōtō School of Japan, on the other hand, only rarely incorporates koans into zazen, preferring an approach where the mind has no object at all, known as shikantaza.
Hi Joshua Jonathan,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 21:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey! As en editor interested in Indo-European topics, this deletion discussion might be of interest to you. Krakkos ( talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, apparently the page on Sanskrit doesn't highlight its Indo-European familial relationships. See the edits reverted here. Can you fix that? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, I have undone your change as you have given no reason for re-inserting inaccurate information. I've provided the reasons for my edit in Talk:Nirvikalpa. Please read my post there and discuss if you have a differing opinion. Trutheyeness ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the 4th map at User:Joshua Jonathan/Indo-European migration is OR and should be removed from articles for the same reason I removed the map at Centum and satem languages whose author has complained on my talk page. I've replied to them on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous help and encouragement. Can you please help me with the wikimarkup for linking to another WP - French or German for example. I am translating and reproducing text from the English WP into the French and German articles on the same subject, and also trying to provide links there to other articles and images in the English Wikipedia. E.g., what markup to link the English article on Slovenske novice to the French WP.
Can't figure it out and losing time trying to do so. Many thanks, MacPraughan ( talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just in case you didn´t see this already. JimRenge ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You just removed my semi-rude commentary to User Ogress on her talk page. What would you recommend? Did you read my comment?
Should I replace "You severely fucked up" with the more genteel "I believe you erred in your edits"? Cuz I can do that, and repost a slightly less vitriolic rebuke. :)
Did you read my comment? About how Ogress, in what seems to be an attempt to be academically accurate, butchered that Wikipedia page, using characters that don't seem to be available or displayable on most people's computers. Ogress also used bizarre phonetic characters that do display, but are meaningless and unpronounceable, and therefore unintelligible and unreadable and unusable to use in any discussion on the topic. As an example of the undisplayable characters, Ogress replaced the simple words of Ba and Ka (words that I was taught in my studies) with the Egyptologist-pleasing "bꜣ" and "kꜣ". On my computer, the letters following the B and K display as little square boxes, meaning my browser doesn't know what they are. As for the characters that do display but are silly (accurate, I'm sure, but ridiculous), there are many replacement words on that page: Sheut was replaced with "šwt", Khu with "ḫw", Sekhem with "sḫm", and so on. These replacements make reading this article a non-trivial mess.
To further illustrate how fouled-up this is, I typed Sheut into Google, got a link to this Wikipedia page in question, and the word Sheut now no longer appears anywhere on that page. wth.
Joshua, I pass this mess on to you. Please see that it gets fixed. Here is the link to the History difference where the damage was done:
I recommend that all those changes replacing readable English with Specialist Gibberish be undone, reverted. I nominate you, Joshua, to be the man in charge, to be the change maker. Please. Fix this. Because I'm done with this kind of Wikipedia kaka. I'm not going to try to fix this myself. I'm sure this can be resolved, but...
I'm not looking for an edit war. I'm not looking to move the problem up the problem resolution chain. I don't want to petition any overseers or WikiUberMenschen. I'm sick and tired of battling on Wikipedia. You all are a hot mess. Now I just fix typos and grammar/spelling errors here and there. But this change by Ogress was an egregious act of hubris and shortsightedness. I'm sure Ogress meant well, and my commentary to them was blunt and to the point, which they seemed to indicate they preferred.
Please. Fix this. Thank you. 2602:306:3284:3F60:3C68:DA5B:E234:491F ( talk) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
JJ, things RW wrote during his recent topic-ban appeal were strange. The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,
The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)
W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.
He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.
They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.
JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.
Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.
Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!
I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
An interesting . -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guys please develop articles of different sub schools of Vedanta and their founders Vishishtadvaita ( Ramanuja), Dvaita Vedanta ( Madhvacharya), Bhedabheda Dvaitadvaita ( Nimbarka), Achintya Bheda Abheda ( Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), Shuddhadvaita ( Vallabha). Most of the articles are written poorly with ill-sourced since you guys are expert in Hindu-related article I request you to develop these articles (no hurry take your time). Please help @ Ms Sarah Welch:, @ VictoriaGrayson:.-- 223.223.129.222 ( talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello u have reverted my edits on Bodhidharma.Could I know the reason why??Moreover I have given u the details of justifying my reason that Bodhidharma was in fact from Kancheepuram india.But yet u changed it back to him being from China. Hari147 ( talk) 06:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
JJ, Have you looked at the
Sri Ramana Ashram article? Interesting place it is, and of significance to the RM article you have done much work on. The
Matrubhuteshvara Temple (Tiruvannamalai) embedded within the ashram, next to the samadhi hall there, needs some discussion. I can upload some pictures of the RM ashram/institution and the temple if you would like, or send you more info by wiki-email.
Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
(ps) I added (Tiruvannamalai) above, because there are other Matrubhuteshvara temples. For example, one of the large temples as you climb up the Tiruchirappalli rock is also
called the Matrubhuteshvara temple and it is next to the Sugandhikuntalamba and below a Ganesha temple, a site full of interesting old Sanskrit and Tamil inscriptions. The one within the RM ashram is smaller and simpler, but built in the traditional style with the sculpture of Vedic and Puranic Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakti gods, goddesses and symbolism along with the mandapas, meditation hall, etc. It is an active house of worship.
Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See User:Joshua Jonathan/Ramana Maharshi and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. The admiration in that region is probably due to traditions of incarnation of God(s) on earth/in person; the wordlwide veneration is related to Advaita Vedanta, in it's modern, more-inclusive form, as far as I can tell. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Joshua, This is Joseph Walser and I recently changed a number of wikipedia sites: Buddhism, Mahayana, Prajnaparamita, Sunyata and anatta. I did include references to my own published work when that work provides peer reviewed evidence or argument against what was said on the Wikipedia page. I did not erase the opinion that I was arguing against, but changed it to say something like many or most scholars think x. I can now see how someone might object that this is self promotion or conflict of interest. (I actually won't profit from anythin but the Genealogies book) and did not change the pages in order to benefit personally. I thought that the general reader might be interested in up to date scholarship -- especially when it concerns basic issues in Buddhism. If academia is not to be an ivory tower, we do need to make our arguments accessible through wikipedia. If, however, the wikipedia community finds me referencing my own work to be unacceptable, I certainly understand and can remove all references to my work tomorrow (or you can feel free to delete them today -- I have to go pick up the kids now). Joseph Walser 18:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser ( talk • contribs)
Alternately, I could leave the content changes on the page and just delete all references to me. Is that preferable? --Joseph Walser 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser ( talk • contribs)
Sharf argues that the central features of Tang Dynasty tantra and Zen were labeled by at least one Tang Dynasty observer as coming from “Buddhist Veda.” He then argues that we should understand the Mahāyāna trajectory of these trends in India as a “Brahmanization of Buddhism.”
...those who objected to Mahāyāna thought that it came too close to the Brahmanical thinking referred to as “vedānta.”
( talk page stalker) Academics editing Wikipedia is always to be encouraged. It is not COI, but rather WP:SELFCITE.
JosephWalser, You are entirely welcome to write content based on other sources. If you are citing your own sources, please make sure that the material is not contentious. If it is contentious, then it is better to raise the issues on the article talk pages rather than to make the edits yourself. Wikipedia editing policies are slightly different from academic authoring, e.g., you can't make inferences which you might think are obvious from the published material. But I am sure you will figure them out as you go along. All the best! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Joshua, I noticed that a while back you gave feedback on the deletion nomination of the page "Mooji". It ended up being deleted. I was given permission to draftify it and fix the issues. It is now back in mainspace, but was nominated for speedy deletion despite having added over 10 new third party sources to show that Mooji is a notable person. I would be happy if you could take a look and give any feedback you may have. /info/en/?search=Mooji Thanks so much Sumantra1 ( talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The artical I mentioned is published in the 2017 issue of 'Sanskriti' a journal of ICHR and ASI. Wonder why you call it a unrelaible source?
182.68.136.185 ( talk) 13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Wonder why you call 'Indigenous Aryan' concept a 'bullshit'? An Aryan was defined my Manu as a 'Spiritual Person' born and brought up in spiritual environment. An Arya was not merely a noble person. Vedic people were spiritual. Swami Vivekananda had also, quoting Manu explained an Aryan who always propagated spiritualism. As per 'Brahmavarta Research Foundation' Brahmavarta was located on the banks of the oldest route of Saraswati river during the great floods, where Manu was the king and he gave Manusmriti. This fact is described in various scriptures. Even Avesta explains that Avestan people, who claimed to be decendents of Manu and Bhrigu, migrated to Iran/Afghan border from 'Vara e Prithvia', that is described as an enclosure of rivers and explains many aspects of Brahmavarta. Please consider these facts.I can give you references of everything I have mentioned above. 182.68.136.185 ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to get a link to the artical on Brahmavarta mentioned above in "Sanskriti" the journal published by ASI and ICHR. The above artical in www.sanskritimagzine.com is different. I have a copy of Journal 'Sanskriti' and can forward a copy to any EMail Id you provide. As I mentioned above, there is lot of confusion on who were the original Aryans and where was their Homeland. Brahmavarta, the land of Brahman was the original place of Aryans where they composed scriptures like Vedas and Upanishads. I wonder if word mythology should be used on description of the area of Brahmavarta. Area is for real. Expect your comments on what is written above.
2409:4043:2092:3631:79A7:7035:FAF0:C401 ( talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. [1] [2] [3]
References
Regal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Let's see how you put it. 2405:205:308A:4379:A84E:9B16:A08:A5FE ( talk) 00:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
JJ and @ Kautilya3: you might have already seen this The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia March 2018 paper. If not, see Figure 2 and 4, it is interesting and may have some bearing on the map JJ made a while ago. In Table 1, they summarize their key findings, stating "we reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians". You folks follow and watch this discussion more, will understand it better. It is WP:Primary, needs due wait or abundant caution before being cited/used. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This book
pages 492-493 has a map of the silk routes during the historical period. Since the modes of transport then were no different from what were in 1500 BC, we can take them to be the only possible routes that existed. The way to India from the north, Gilgit (21), was pretty much impossible. Tashkurgan (20) is a good oasis. You could get there from either Afghanistan via the Wakhan corridor or from the Tarim Basis via Yarkand. But in order to do that, you would need to know in advance that that was your destination. Pastoral people with herds of goats or whatever are unlikely to travel that far through narrow mountain valleys.
Rather, since there were plenty of easily reachable oases on the northern periphery of Hindu Kush mountains, I hold that that is how the Aryans went, until they found the gap in the Hindu Kush mountains to the west of Herat. There they entered Afghanistan. All the Central Asian oases would have been already occupied and there would have been the flooding of the Steppe people arriving the same way. If you climb on top of one of those hill tops and look out you find Saraswati (Helmand). Is it any wonder that the Rigveda goes gaga over it? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It is true, there are no other certain examples of a u'-stem being derived from a present stem in Iranian,[14] and there are no other traces, as far as I can see, of an Iranian equivalent to the root sidh 'to ward off' — yet, no objection based on an argumentum ex silentio could possibly invalidate the clear semantic testimony for an Iranian hindu- 'natural frontier'." ... As the great frontier river that represents the natural dividing line between India and Iran, the Indus could most easily and fittingly be called Sindhu- 'Frontier' by the Indians and Hindu- 'Frontier' by the Iranians. Indian influence on the Iranian naming is not to be presupposed of necessity, though it is possible and even probable that Iranians when hearing the Indian name Sindhu- transposed it into sounds fully meaningful to an Iranian ear, as they transposed Saptå Sindhavas 'the Seven Rivers, the land of the Seven Rivers' ... into Hapta Hindū Vd.I.18. Such a procedure does not constitute a 'loan' properly so called rather an adaptation of the words of another, closely related language which are easily understood, into their immediately recognized native equivalents. An adapting adoption like that certainly cannot be used to date the Iranian replacement of an older, inherited, s by h. [1]
References
The most amazing slide show you will ever see! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
You have reverted my revision on the Ego death page about link removal and requested an explanation on Talk, so I have provided one here. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ego_death#Regarding_Link_Removal
I hope my explanation clarifies the reasons for removal of those links.-- 198.71.112.21 ( talk) 01:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Dharani – a form of magical amulet, melodic sounds we can't understand and aren't expected to, the hymns and the chants, inspired by the Vedic literature and implemented by the Buddhists – are the oldest surviving printed texts in the world. These are dated to early to mid 8th-century prolly by Chinese/Chinese-influenced inspiration, now found in Korea and Japan about the same time (c. 700-770 CE, pp. 114-115). @ JimRenge: and JJ: perhaps, if you have the time and energy, the Dhāraṇī article could use your attention, such as with scholarly summaries from the Zen, the Theravada, the Mahayana and the Vajrayana traditions. For those talk page stalkers who might think this Buddhist Dharani and their Hindu/Jain/Christian/African/Meso-American equivalents is all superfluous, remember how you feel when you listen to your favorite music, one without words. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: well well, look what's at Thai Forest Tradition:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I don't know if it's related to printed texts, but at least it's about amulets. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I dont understand why you deleted the content? Adi Shankara, born in my native place and I know more than what you know. You people trying to prove thatAdi Shankara was born in CE 588? what a rubbish? Then what abouth the temples he built? What about the books which was written in BCE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrajesh ( talk • contribs) 6 November 2018 (UTC)
JJ: Any CFork issues with recently created Śramaṇa religion article, given we already have Sramana? The article looks like a cut-paste with strange incomplete sources (our @Diannaa spotted it). @ Ronz: another Jain-related plug? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ronz and Ms Sarah Welch: I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Śramaṇa religion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Josh, I don't edit often, but the section I did appeared to have the same sentence written twice; I took out the second instance. Hopefully I got the footnotes right. But other than affecting the readability of the section, the extra sentence did not have any impact on the topic. I trust veteran Wikipedia editors, so if you saw fit to restore it, all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.104 ( talk) 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Dubious edit. I read the cited source and I still don't understand how this one is "more accurate". Looks more WP:POV rather than representing the source. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think what the guy is trying to say is that dāsa is a BMAC word. Is it? I don't think Parpola actually said that.
But, more interesting stuff in Parpola:
This find suggests that Indo-Aryan speakers had come from the southern Urals and entered the ruling elite of the BMAC probably as early as the twentieth century BCE.
That is pretty radical! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
He is backing this up with lots of evidence:
During 2000–1900 BCE, the BMAC spread to Pakistani Baluchistan. A rich BMAC graveyard was accidentally discovered at Quetta, while other BMAC graves were found at Mehrgarh VIII and Sibri near the Bolan Pass. That BMAC people (not just traders) moved to Pakistani Baluchistan is evident from the fact that the entire cultural complex was imported, including burials (Jarrige 1991). BMAC-type seals and seal impressions have been found in small numbers in the late phase of the Indus civilization at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (Parpola 2005d; Franke 2010), and in post-Harappan times in the southern Indus Valley (the so-called Jhukar seals in Chanhu-daro) (Mackay 1943), Gujarat (Somnath, alias Prabhas Patan), and even Rajasthan, where about a hundred seal impressions were collected in a pot at Gilund (Shinde, Possehl, & Ameri 2005) (Fig. 8.5). The Gangetic copper hoards have antennae-hilted swords similar to those coming from plundered BMAC sites of Afghanistan, which dates the hoards to about the twentieth century BCE or later (Fig. 8.6; Fig. 4.4).
Gangetic copper hoards in 2000 BCE? I never heard of them! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Working recently on the Pir Panjal Pass, whose original name was Panchala-deva (according to Rajatarangini), I started wondering if the Mahabharata tribes in the northwest were the original ones and we have been fed fake geography and demography in the official Mahabharata. There are quite a few of them in the northwest, including the famous Porus the "Paurava", who fought against Alexander the Great. It seems to me that the Mahabharata may have been reworked by the Gangetic people to give themselves a greater role in the story. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm here. Hi Joshua. Did you see my comments re: Lopez on Heart Sutra talk page? Also how best to present Harada's work without back and forth argumentation? Harada's 2010 book is a 300 page + book with detailed footnotes. It gives many details that contradict Jayarava's assertions. But it is too long and technical to translate. My only goal is to show Nattier's theories are not universally accepted by academics of standing. Didn't expect to get into a back and forth argument similar to Jayarava's contributions to various Buddhist blogs - and I'm not sure whether Heart Sutra talk page should be used as an underhanded way to introduce his blog to Wikipedia readers. Hanbud ( talk) 11:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unattributed copying from other Wiki-articles; WP:UNDUE; the usual pov-pushing on the dating of Bhirrana as oldest "Harappan" site
the dating is not POV, it contains references, im just copying the referenced information from bhirrana article, why have you removed it? 202.188.53.210 ( talk) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
See diff.
See WP:DTTR. It tells that you should avoid templating the regulars especially when they know what they are doing, unlike you who adds {{cn}} tag on lead when things are already sourced thoroughly inside the article.
Furthermore, stop edit warring. You had already reverted 2 times. D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring.
Ah, sunyata. Great. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers
--
DBig
Xrayᗙ
15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
JJ and @ Kautilya3: I was just reading some sources on Bhimbetka rock shelters. There are paintings in these caves that has been interpreted by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and Kim Heuston to represent the conflict between Indo-Aryans and native central Indian population. It is on page 76 of the source. Have you seen any alternative interpretations?, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Joshua Jonathan, and Happy New Year! – If you have time, would you take a look at the latest edits to Rudaki? (Also note user name.) You know better than I do how to determine if any or all of the items were sourced material, and how the name is spelled in those sources. I had always seen the name spelled "Rudaki". I believe what is in the sources should determine the spelling, not a particular editor's preference, but I'll leave this up to you or others. Thanks in advance. – Corinne ( talk) 02:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JJ – Can you help out at Zoroaster. See this edit. It is verging on edit-warring, and the editor does not seem to understand WP:BRD. – Corinne ( talk) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Anatta is what separates Buddhism from all other religions. It is the key cause of dukkha as an attachment to the self allows for suffering, and thus it is the reason that one ought to escape samsara. There are no morals in Buddhism as there is no moral authority. The Buddha never said there are thing that you should do no matter would, he just taught how to escape samsara and why that is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, You posted about my comments not being Civil. Thanks for feedback.
Please note that my comments are exact copy of comments by [Ms Sarah Welch] at my page and at other pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Dixitsandeep&action=edit§ion=2
I am sure you have provide same feedback to him/her.
Dixitsandeep ( talk) 08:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you make of Sarah Welch's socket puppet block? Is it legit?-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Without commenting on the socking, MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See HERE. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. Noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes, which are always botched in some way. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's ironic that in the ANI-discussion which resulted in AVC topic-ban on caste-articles, their editing is compared to that of Hkelkar, an editor who has also been mentioned as a possible previous avatar of Baldesmulti... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, can you keep an eye on people wanting to mass revert MSW's edits? Some of it seems to have happened already at the Kalki article. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is probably independent: Neo-Vedanta#Colonialism and modernism section also seems to be accumulating a lot of shrubbery, starting from around here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC.
MSW used many academic sources not written by indologists. For example the tertiary source "Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities". As far as I know, none of the entries were composed by indologists. So what do you think about this? VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm not sure why my article Indianization got reverted? Do you mind explaining it to me? Nicoleedalat ( talk) 17:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Nicoleedalat
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.
There are multiple sentences and paragraphs in the Sarasvati River article which do not reflect an open and broad minded view, but rather show an assertive and one-sided view relating to The river Sarasvati. Listed below are some of the sentences:
The last line of the first paragraph of Sarasvati River "The name Sarasvati was also given to a formation in the Milky Way" is a speculative view or theory of a single scholar and it is not agreed upon by multiple others. Hence it should not be stated as a fact but more like "Witzel suggests the Sarasvati could be the Milky Way" [1].
In the second paragraph the line "However the geophysical characteristics of the Rigvedic Saraswati river do not correspond to the Ghaggar-Hakra river" is again said as a statement of fact, but it has strong arguments against it: The Sarasvati river flows from the mountains to the Ocean but not the Helmand river [2]. The same could be said about the Helmand River section, Many scholars argued that Kochhar's theory has serious flaws [3].
The Mythical River section contains statements related to politics of India. Political views and statements should have no place in an article related to a River.
I would like to know from you the specific reasons to remove my edits and revert to the earlier. User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
References
References
Dude, click on this link. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae
I would say Bullshit is a bit derogatory, even if something is clearly bullshit people will get in a huff because you used a rude word. I personally went for "speculative pseudo-history" but I think "cruft" is quite common. :) Prince of Thieves ( talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
What's the issue? Parasparograhi1 ( talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yet another Aryan controversy. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I was working on Jainism related pages for some time but faced opposition on pov grounds and independent sources. That has resulted in delaying multiple GA nominations too. While scrolling through contributions of those who opposed, I observed that using sources from Buddhism domain in Jainism article make it more authoritative and neutral and vice versa. You seem to have good knowledge over Buddhism and Mahavira has got descent attention in Buddhist history. Would you like to help? Thanks Capankajsmilyo ( talk) 06:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You are clearly not Here to build an encyclopedia to build a consensus. You are engaging in conflict with other editors and retracting their content even after multiple citations and references provided by them. You as an editor cannot judge and interpret which sources are "fringe" and which are "mainstream", but you can build a consensus with others based on authenticity of references. I suggest you go through consensus and dispute resolution.
@ NeilN: time for some tougher measures? For the talkpage-stalkers: diff and diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For diligent work done on the confusing and politically hot topic of Veerashaivism/Lingayatism. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
It all looks much clearer now. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see [5]. JimRenge ( talk) 11:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems presumptive. Other messages will be posted on that talk page years in the future. Who are you to re-arrange a deceased editor's talk page as if it were your display case? Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. The changes here match the main articles. This is indeed a mess, but it's annoying that the Mitchiner date in the article is 250CE but I can't find the date in the source. [6] I'd prefer ANI myself, and don't have time until Sunday to look more carefully as it would require a lot of checks. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
HERE MSW says "should not be seen as a social reformer" is a direct quote of Richard Gombrich. I checked the source and its a quote of Christopher Queen describing Richard Gombrich's position. VictoriaGrayson ( talk) 16:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to fill in this article. Do you want to come over to help? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a view of the Hindu Kush from the Indian subcontinent. It seems to be that nobody in their right mind would attempt to cross it just for the fun of it. Rather, they would wander southwest into Afghanistan, and then, if they make it that far, try to move east again into Gandhara/NWFP.
Until the European colonization, the conquests of India always followed one and the same pattern. The invaders first established themselves in Central Asia and in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau, and then expanded their power to cover the northwest of India as well. When the invaders in India kept expanding their conquests into the interior, this group was likely to become Indianized and to lose contact with the other part west of the Hindukush. It is most likely that rhe Dãsas and the f.gvedic Aryans both in turn followed this same model in their respective Indian invasions. If this was the case, the Aryans, from whichever direction they came, would have first met the Dãsas and panis on their way in Bactria, before reaching nonhwest India. This location would be in agreement with the fact that the early Dãsa chief Sambara lived in a mountainous region. (Parpola, The Coming of the Aryans)
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense? Is that the language you use with strangers. Please show academic peer-reviewed journal or at least an academic book citation for reverting my edit. Please mind your language.
Mkv22 ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
Additionally, your signature appears to go against WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text.
Please change
[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]]
:
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!to
[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]]
:
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!— Anomalocaris ( talk) 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, perhaps you know how to access the full text of Pub Med articles such as this [7]? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Joshua Jonathan. The reason why I reverted the edits is because that article is referring to Gandhara as an historical region, not the Gandhara Kingdom, which was part of the Mahajanapada. Please revert the edits to the last accepted edits dated 7 April 2018. Thank you. -- 99.252.20.102 ( talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This Greater Magadha is fascinating. Does Bronkhurst talk about slavery? I think it was rampant there. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry. I have had the Witzel paper in my local files for long time. But none of these sources ever made the clear-cut point that Bronkhurst makes, viz., that the Magadhan culture could be entirely non-Vedic. It always appeared as if it was a modified Vedic culture which possibly underwent interaction with the local indigenous cultures. But the possibility that it could be non-Vedic opens entirely new doors.
The fact that Shakyas, Kosala and Videha etc. (the most famous of the early Magadhan cultures) are all at the foothills of Himalayas gives a strong indication that these people entered through the Himalayas. I am strongly committed to the view that the Vedic people came via Afghanistan, the Helmand-Arghandab valley. So, they circled around the Hindu Kush mountains rather than climb over them. From the Helmand valley they were driven out by the Dasas/Dahae. The Dasas, who took enormous care to protect their cattle in fortified enclosures (puras), obviously thought of these Vedic cattle raiders as nothing but a nuisance. So, I presume they drove them off. That is how the Vedic people ended up in Gandhara and then expanded into Punjab.
The Magadhans must have followed a different course. The same aridity that killed the IVC also pushed the Indo-European tribes south, in search of greener pastures. So, sooner or later, they ended up at the foothills of the Himalayas in the north and eventually they found the passes through which they could enter the Indian subcontinent. They were familiar with Indra, but they thought of him as an idiot.
The Iranians thought of Indra as a daemon, no doubt because of the cattle raiding habits of the Vedics. It was only after the Dasarajna battle, in the protected enclosure of Punjab that the Vedic people flourished and eventually took over the entire Indian subcontinent. After they developed agriculture and recruited enough local labour to do the farming, they grew enough surplus food to support the professional Brahmins, who had nothing to do other than memorising and propagating the texts. So that is how the Vedic culture managed to dominate the others within the subcontinent. But their religion is mostly dead. Nobody worships Indra. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I was the one who made those edits on the Roshi article stating that "a handful" of people in the Rinzai sect have inka shomei (I forgot to log in when I made them). The statement was in fact sourced in the body (as "perhaps 50" people), and I added an additional reference (that says "50 to 80"), and I changed the wording in the intro to say "less than 100" to capture the diversity of these two sources. It doesn't count for anything as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but this reflects my understanding of things as well. DJLayton4 ( talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have been helping with Shivaji (1630–1680) GA nomination and looking up some sources. Here is an interesting passage from James Laine:
I find evidence in the Śivabhārata that the word dharma could mean both “order or moral law” (the classical Sanskrit definition) as well as something more like the modern English word “religion.” This suggests that although Hindus and Muslims in many ways lived in a common society, they both felt that there should be distinct boundaries between the two communities; the degree to which any individual was comfortable with participation in the cultural styles associated with another group, however, remained widely variable. One might question whether there are important chronological shifts, as well as class and caste differences, in the way these boundaries of identity between Hindu and Muslim were drawn. [1]
This is of course not new. We know this from Lorentzen [2] already from the 14th–15th centuries, but Laine doesn't cite him.
This blog post reproduces another interesting passage (from p.39) where James Laine contests historians on what Shivaji's motivations were. I find it amusing when Religious Studies scholars debate history just by reading texts. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not think I am disputing the evidence Gordon adduces, but my interpretation depends on how one uses the word “Hindu.” In these matters, it seems to me there is no more clearly “Hindu” position than to exalt Akbar's policies and to patronize Muslim religious practices and persons within the context of Hindu culture. Such “tolerant” inclusivism is a fundamental structure of Hinduism, a structure that can expand to include Muslim sultans as honorary kshatriyas as long as the scope of polycentric, polytheistic Hindu culture is not infringed upon. It is for this reason that even in a text like the Śivabhārata, which ever resorts to the caricature of Muslims as demons, Shivaji's father, grandfather, and uncle can be seen as legitimately serving Muslim sultans. Shahji is even described as spreading the rule of Lord Rama in his military conquest of the Karnatak rajas while he was in military service to the Adil Shah... Similarly, the Nizam Shah can be described as dharmātma, which I translate as “man of piety.” In classical Sanskritic ideology, the king is the protector of gods, brahmins, and cows, and when he does that, even if he be Muslim, he may be seen as in service of dharma.
References
How were you able to use logos.com to peek into the source? ScepticismOfPopularisation ( talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome to make suggestions but would you actually mind to allow me discuss an editor on my Talk page? I have been around here for a while and sort of know how things work. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 09:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not promiting fringe theory. In a section about a fringe theory, I am listing the arguments that its proponents have used. Nowhere have I stated anything as fact. Kindly re-instate my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.180.203 ( talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear!please explain
Joshua Jonathan! Please explain in plain terms. Your answer is not explanation of reversion of constructive edits. Thanks. If you think that was mistake. Then feel free to tell. Smatrah ( talk) 04:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, JJ, it's been a while. I came across Hanuman Jayanti today. The page is in terrible shape. I'm out of my depth; can this be salvaged? Vanamonde ( talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Anatole Klyosov is a pseudoscientist. Better to restore your oldest revision of map. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 08:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
First, on the Pishachas, note:
If there is any truth at the bottom of this legend [of Nilamata Purana], the Piśācas must have been hardy northerners, accustomed to cold. At the present day the country to the north of Kashmir, with Gilgit for its centre, is inhabited by Shins (Dards), and the legend points to a long contest between them and the 'men' — i.e., immigrants from India—for the possession of the Happy Valley. This entirely accords with the linguistic conditions at the present day. The language of the Shins, or Shina, is one of those which Pischel has connected with Paiśāacī. The Kashmiri language itself, though in the main Indian in character, has at its base a considerable Shina vocabulary. The commonest words, such as those for 'father,' 'mother,' 'I,' 'thou,' are of Shina, not Indian, origin. [1]
So, if Kashmiri has this mixture of Dardic and Sanskrit, it gives some support to the contention of the Nilamata Purana that the Pishachas (Dards) used to swoop down on the valley during the winter months.
According to Daśarūpa 2, 60 the Piśāca or Māgadha language is especially spoken by the Piśācas, the people of lowly origin etc. According to Sarasvatik.... P. the language of the Pisāca; Bhojadeva... forbids the use of pure P. by high class characters: ... High characters, who do not appear in the highest roles, according to Sarasvatik. 58, 15, speak in a language that is Sanskrit and Paiśāci at the same time, by means of the popular play of words bhāṣāśleṣa, which is comparatively easier in Paiśāci than in any other Prākrit dialect inasmuch as P., of all the Pkt. dialects, is most akin to Sanskrit. [2]
So Paishachi and Magadha were similar, and they were similar to Sanskrit, but dissimilar to others Prakrits (Indianised variants of Sanskrit, also characterised as deshyas or local languages, by Vararuchi).
Pischel also mentions Panchala and Shaurasena versions of Paishachi. These are the central Himalayan regions. So, I am getting more convinced that these "Pishachas" came through the Himalayan passes, and not through the Arghandab like the Vedic Aryans.
But the crazy thing is that these people didn't call themselves 'men' (descendants of Manu), even though they spoke practically the same language! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
References
It is not my intention to spam the Shasta Abbey Page, I just wanted to add more information and cite the information on the page. Would you prefer I only cite one time for a source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the changes I made to the Soto Zen page were constructive. Generally, I believe it is important to put information on Soto Zen in an easy to digest, accurate form that is understandable to the western mind. I chose to delete small portions that were inaccurate and add more content. In particular, the content I added to the section 'spread in the western world' I believe will be helpful to those practicing in the West. I'd be very grateful for your willingness to inform me of what you think is not constructive and hope we can come to an agreement. I am new to Wikipedia and realize I may be making mistakes in how things are done. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The precise meaning and method of zazen varies from school to school, but in general it can be regarded as a means of insight into the nature of existence. In the Japanese Rinzai school, zazen is usually associated with the study of koans. The Sōtō School of Japan, on the other hand, only rarely incorporates koans into zazen, preferring an approach where the mind has no object at all, known as shikantaza.
Hi Joshua Jonathan,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 21:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey! As en editor interested in Indo-European topics, this deletion discussion might be of interest to you. Krakkos ( talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi JJ, apparently the page on Sanskrit doesn't highlight its Indo-European familial relationships. See the edits reverted here. Can you fix that? Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joshua, I have undone your change as you have given no reason for re-inserting inaccurate information. I've provided the reasons for my edit in Talk:Nirvikalpa. Please read my post there and discuss if you have a differing opinion. Trutheyeness ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the 4th map at User:Joshua Jonathan/Indo-European migration is OR and should be removed from articles for the same reason I removed the map at Centum and satem languages whose author has complained on my talk page. I've replied to them on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous help and encouragement. Can you please help me with the wikimarkup for linking to another WP - French or German for example. I am translating and reproducing text from the English WP into the French and German articles on the same subject, and also trying to provide links there to other articles and images in the English Wikipedia. E.g., what markup to link the English article on Slovenske novice to the French WP.
Can't figure it out and losing time trying to do so. Many thanks, MacPraughan ( talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just in case you didn´t see this already. JimRenge ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You just removed my semi-rude commentary to User Ogress on her talk page. What would you recommend? Did you read my comment?
Should I replace "You severely fucked up" with the more genteel "I believe you erred in your edits"? Cuz I can do that, and repost a slightly less vitriolic rebuke. :)
Did you read my comment? About how Ogress, in what seems to be an attempt to be academically accurate, butchered that Wikipedia page, using characters that don't seem to be available or displayable on most people's computers. Ogress also used bizarre phonetic characters that do display, but are meaningless and unpronounceable, and therefore unintelligible and unreadable and unusable to use in any discussion on the topic. As an example of the undisplayable characters, Ogress replaced the simple words of Ba and Ka (words that I was taught in my studies) with the Egyptologist-pleasing "bꜣ" and "kꜣ". On my computer, the letters following the B and K display as little square boxes, meaning my browser doesn't know what they are. As for the characters that do display but are silly (accurate, I'm sure, but ridiculous), there are many replacement words on that page: Sheut was replaced with "šwt", Khu with "ḫw", Sekhem with "sḫm", and so on. These replacements make reading this article a non-trivial mess.
To further illustrate how fouled-up this is, I typed Sheut into Google, got a link to this Wikipedia page in question, and the word Sheut now no longer appears anywhere on that page. wth.
Joshua, I pass this mess on to you. Please see that it gets fixed. Here is the link to the History difference where the damage was done:
I recommend that all those changes replacing readable English with Specialist Gibberish be undone, reverted. I nominate you, Joshua, to be the man in charge, to be the change maker. Please. Fix this. Because I'm done with this kind of Wikipedia kaka. I'm not going to try to fix this myself. I'm sure this can be resolved, but...
I'm not looking for an edit war. I'm not looking to move the problem up the problem resolution chain. I don't want to petition any overseers or WikiUberMenschen. I'm sick and tired of battling on Wikipedia. You all are a hot mess. Now I just fix typos and grammar/spelling errors here and there. But this change by Ogress was an egregious act of hubris and shortsightedness. I'm sure Ogress meant well, and my commentary to them was blunt and to the point, which they seemed to indicate they preferred.
Please. Fix this. Thank you. 2602:306:3284:3F60:3C68:DA5B:E234:491F ( talk) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
JJ, things RW wrote during his recent topic-ban appeal were strange. The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,
The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)
W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.
He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.
They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.
JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.
Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.
Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!
I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
An interesting . -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guys please develop articles of different sub schools of Vedanta and their founders Vishishtadvaita ( Ramanuja), Dvaita Vedanta ( Madhvacharya), Bhedabheda Dvaitadvaita ( Nimbarka), Achintya Bheda Abheda ( Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), Shuddhadvaita ( Vallabha). Most of the articles are written poorly with ill-sourced since you guys are expert in Hindu-related article I request you to develop these articles (no hurry take your time). Please help @ Ms Sarah Welch:, @ VictoriaGrayson:.-- 223.223.129.222 ( talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello u have reverted my edits on Bodhidharma.Could I know the reason why??Moreover I have given u the details of justifying my reason that Bodhidharma was in fact from Kancheepuram india.But yet u changed it back to him being from China. Hari147 ( talk) 06:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
JJ, Have you looked at the
Sri Ramana Ashram article? Interesting place it is, and of significance to the RM article you have done much work on. The
Matrubhuteshvara Temple (Tiruvannamalai) embedded within the ashram, next to the samadhi hall there, needs some discussion. I can upload some pictures of the RM ashram/institution and the temple if you would like, or send you more info by wiki-email.
Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
(ps) I added (Tiruvannamalai) above, because there are other Matrubhuteshvara temples. For example, one of the large temples as you climb up the Tiruchirappalli rock is also
called the Matrubhuteshvara temple and it is next to the Sugandhikuntalamba and below a Ganesha temple, a site full of interesting old Sanskrit and Tamil inscriptions. The one within the RM ashram is smaller and simpler, but built in the traditional style with the sculpture of Vedic and Puranic Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakti gods, goddesses and symbolism along with the mandapas, meditation hall, etc. It is an active house of worship.
Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See User:Joshua Jonathan/Ramana Maharshi and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. The admiration in that region is probably due to traditions of incarnation of God(s) on earth/in person; the wordlwide veneration is related to Advaita Vedanta, in it's modern, more-inclusive form, as far as I can tell. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Joshua, This is Joseph Walser and I recently changed a number of wikipedia sites: Buddhism, Mahayana, Prajnaparamita, Sunyata and anatta. I did include references to my own published work when that work provides peer reviewed evidence or argument against what was said on the Wikipedia page. I did not erase the opinion that I was arguing against, but changed it to say something like many or most scholars think x. I can now see how someone might object that this is self promotion or conflict of interest. (I actually won't profit from anythin but the Genealogies book) and did not change the pages in order to benefit personally. I thought that the general reader might be interested in up to date scholarship -- especially when it concerns basic issues in Buddhism. If academia is not to be an ivory tower, we do need to make our arguments accessible through wikipedia. If, however, the wikipedia community finds me referencing my own work to be unacceptable, I certainly understand and can remove all references to my work tomorrow (or you can feel free to delete them today -- I have to go pick up the kids now). Joseph Walser 18:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser ( talk • contribs)
Alternately, I could leave the content changes on the page and just delete all references to me. Is that preferable? --Joseph Walser 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser ( talk • contribs)
Sharf argues that the central features of Tang Dynasty tantra and Zen were labeled by at least one Tang Dynasty observer as coming from “Buddhist Veda.” He then argues that we should understand the Mahāyāna trajectory of these trends in India as a “Brahmanization of Buddhism.”
...those who objected to Mahāyāna thought that it came too close to the Brahmanical thinking referred to as “vedānta.”
( talk page stalker) Academics editing Wikipedia is always to be encouraged. It is not COI, but rather WP:SELFCITE.
JosephWalser, You are entirely welcome to write content based on other sources. If you are citing your own sources, please make sure that the material is not contentious. If it is contentious, then it is better to raise the issues on the article talk pages rather than to make the edits yourself. Wikipedia editing policies are slightly different from academic authoring, e.g., you can't make inferences which you might think are obvious from the published material. But I am sure you will figure them out as you go along. All the best! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Joshua, I noticed that a while back you gave feedback on the deletion nomination of the page "Mooji". It ended up being deleted. I was given permission to draftify it and fix the issues. It is now back in mainspace, but was nominated for speedy deletion despite having added over 10 new third party sources to show that Mooji is a notable person. I would be happy if you could take a look and give any feedback you may have. /info/en/?search=Mooji Thanks so much Sumantra1 ( talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The artical I mentioned is published in the 2017 issue of 'Sanskriti' a journal of ICHR and ASI. Wonder why you call it a unrelaible source?
182.68.136.185 ( talk) 13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Wonder why you call 'Indigenous Aryan' concept a 'bullshit'? An Aryan was defined my Manu as a 'Spiritual Person' born and brought up in spiritual environment. An Arya was not merely a noble person. Vedic people were spiritual. Swami Vivekananda had also, quoting Manu explained an Aryan who always propagated spiritualism. As per 'Brahmavarta Research Foundation' Brahmavarta was located on the banks of the oldest route of Saraswati river during the great floods, where Manu was the king and he gave Manusmriti. This fact is described in various scriptures. Even Avesta explains that Avestan people, who claimed to be decendents of Manu and Bhrigu, migrated to Iran/Afghan border from 'Vara e Prithvia', that is described as an enclosure of rivers and explains many aspects of Brahmavarta. Please consider these facts.I can give you references of everything I have mentioned above. 182.68.136.185 ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to get a link to the artical on Brahmavarta mentioned above in "Sanskriti" the journal published by ASI and ICHR. The above artical in www.sanskritimagzine.com is different. I have a copy of Journal 'Sanskriti' and can forward a copy to any EMail Id you provide. As I mentioned above, there is lot of confusion on who were the original Aryans and where was their Homeland. Brahmavarta, the land of Brahman was the original place of Aryans where they composed scriptures like Vedas and Upanishads. I wonder if word mythology should be used on description of the area of Brahmavarta. Area is for real. Expect your comments on what is written above.
2409:4043:2092:3631:79A7:7035:FAF0:C401 ( talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals. [1] [2] [3]
References
Regal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Let's see how you put it. 2405:205:308A:4379:A84E:9B16:A08:A5FE ( talk) 00:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
JJ and @ Kautilya3: you might have already seen this The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia March 2018 paper. If not, see Figure 2 and 4, it is interesting and may have some bearing on the map JJ made a while ago. In Table 1, they summarize their key findings, stating "we reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians". You folks follow and watch this discussion more, will understand it better. It is WP:Primary, needs due wait or abundant caution before being cited/used. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This book
pages 492-493 has a map of the silk routes during the historical period. Since the modes of transport then were no different from what were in 1500 BC, we can take them to be the only possible routes that existed. The way to India from the north, Gilgit (21), was pretty much impossible. Tashkurgan (20) is a good oasis. You could get there from either Afghanistan via the Wakhan corridor or from the Tarim Basis via Yarkand. But in order to do that, you would need to know in advance that that was your destination. Pastoral people with herds of goats or whatever are unlikely to travel that far through narrow mountain valleys.
Rather, since there were plenty of easily reachable oases on the northern periphery of Hindu Kush mountains, I hold that that is how the Aryans went, until they found the gap in the Hindu Kush mountains to the west of Herat. There they entered Afghanistan. All the Central Asian oases would have been already occupied and there would have been the flooding of the Steppe people arriving the same way. If you climb on top of one of those hill tops and look out you find Saraswati (Helmand). Is it any wonder that the Rigveda goes gaga over it? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It is true, there are no other certain examples of a u'-stem being derived from a present stem in Iranian,[14] and there are no other traces, as far as I can see, of an Iranian equivalent to the root sidh 'to ward off' — yet, no objection based on an argumentum ex silentio could possibly invalidate the clear semantic testimony for an Iranian hindu- 'natural frontier'." ... As the great frontier river that represents the natural dividing line between India and Iran, the Indus could most easily and fittingly be called Sindhu- 'Frontier' by the Indians and Hindu- 'Frontier' by the Iranians. Indian influence on the Iranian naming is not to be presupposed of necessity, though it is possible and even probable that Iranians when hearing the Indian name Sindhu- transposed it into sounds fully meaningful to an Iranian ear, as they transposed Saptå Sindhavas 'the Seven Rivers, the land of the Seven Rivers' ... into Hapta Hindū Vd.I.18. Such a procedure does not constitute a 'loan' properly so called rather an adaptation of the words of another, closely related language which are easily understood, into their immediately recognized native equivalents. An adapting adoption like that certainly cannot be used to date the Iranian replacement of an older, inherited, s by h. [1]
References
The most amazing slide show you will ever see! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
You have reverted my revision on the Ego death page about link removal and requested an explanation on Talk, so I have provided one here. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ego_death#Regarding_Link_Removal
I hope my explanation clarifies the reasons for removal of those links.-- 198.71.112.21 ( talk) 01:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Dharani – a form of magical amulet, melodic sounds we can't understand and aren't expected to, the hymns and the chants, inspired by the Vedic literature and implemented by the Buddhists – are the oldest surviving printed texts in the world. These are dated to early to mid 8th-century prolly by Chinese/Chinese-influenced inspiration, now found in Korea and Japan about the same time (c. 700-770 CE, pp. 114-115). @ JimRenge: and JJ: perhaps, if you have the time and energy, the Dhāraṇī article could use your attention, such as with scholarly summaries from the Zen, the Theravada, the Mahayana and the Vajrayana traditions. For those talk page stalkers who might think this Buddhist Dharani and their Hindu/Jain/Christian/African/Meso-American equivalents is all superfluous, remember how you feel when you listen to your favorite music, one without words. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch: well well, look what's at Thai Forest Tradition:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I don't know if it's related to printed texts, but at least it's about amulets. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I dont understand why you deleted the content? Adi Shankara, born in my native place and I know more than what you know. You people trying to prove thatAdi Shankara was born in CE 588? what a rubbish? Then what abouth the temples he built? What about the books which was written in BCE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrajesh ( talk • contribs) 6 November 2018 (UTC)
JJ: Any CFork issues with recently created Śramaṇa religion article, given we already have Sramana? The article looks like a cut-paste with strange incomplete sources (our @Diannaa spotted it). @ Ronz: another Jain-related plug? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ronz and Ms Sarah Welch: I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Śramaṇa religion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Josh, I don't edit often, but the section I did appeared to have the same sentence written twice; I took out the second instance. Hopefully I got the footnotes right. But other than affecting the readability of the section, the extra sentence did not have any impact on the topic. I trust veteran Wikipedia editors, so if you saw fit to restore it, all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.104 ( talk) 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Dubious edit. I read the cited source and I still don't understand how this one is "more accurate". Looks more WP:POV rather than representing the source. -- Wario-Man ( talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think what the guy is trying to say is that dāsa is a BMAC word. Is it? I don't think Parpola actually said that.
But, more interesting stuff in Parpola:
This find suggests that Indo-Aryan speakers had come from the southern Urals and entered the ruling elite of the BMAC probably as early as the twentieth century BCE.
That is pretty radical! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
He is backing this up with lots of evidence:
During 2000–1900 BCE, the BMAC spread to Pakistani Baluchistan. A rich BMAC graveyard was accidentally discovered at Quetta, while other BMAC graves were found at Mehrgarh VIII and Sibri near the Bolan Pass. That BMAC people (not just traders) moved to Pakistani Baluchistan is evident from the fact that the entire cultural complex was imported, including burials (Jarrige 1991). BMAC-type seals and seal impressions have been found in small numbers in the late phase of the Indus civilization at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (Parpola 2005d; Franke 2010), and in post-Harappan times in the southern Indus Valley (the so-called Jhukar seals in Chanhu-daro) (Mackay 1943), Gujarat (Somnath, alias Prabhas Patan), and even Rajasthan, where about a hundred seal impressions were collected in a pot at Gilund (Shinde, Possehl, & Ameri 2005) (Fig. 8.5). The Gangetic copper hoards have antennae-hilted swords similar to those coming from plundered BMAC sites of Afghanistan, which dates the hoards to about the twentieth century BCE or later (Fig. 8.6; Fig. 4.4).
Gangetic copper hoards in 2000 BCE? I never heard of them! -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Working recently on the Pir Panjal Pass, whose original name was Panchala-deva (according to Rajatarangini), I started wondering if the Mahabharata tribes in the northwest were the original ones and we have been fed fake geography and demography in the official Mahabharata. There are quite a few of them in the northwest, including the famous Porus the "Paurava", who fought against Alexander the Great. It seems to me that the Mahabharata may have been reworked by the Gangetic people to give themselves a greater role in the story. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm here. Hi Joshua. Did you see my comments re: Lopez on Heart Sutra talk page? Also how best to present Harada's work without back and forth argumentation? Harada's 2010 book is a 300 page + book with detailed footnotes. It gives many details that contradict Jayarava's assertions. But it is too long and technical to translate. My only goal is to show Nattier's theories are not universally accepted by academics of standing. Didn't expect to get into a back and forth argument similar to Jayarava's contributions to various Buddhist blogs - and I'm not sure whether Heart Sutra talk page should be used as an underhanded way to introduce his blog to Wikipedia readers. Hanbud ( talk) 11:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unattributed copying from other Wiki-articles; WP:UNDUE; the usual pov-pushing on the dating of Bhirrana as oldest "Harappan" site
the dating is not POV, it contains references, im just copying the referenced information from bhirrana article, why have you removed it? 202.188.53.210 ( talk) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
See diff.
See WP:DTTR. It tells that you should avoid templating the regulars especially when they know what they are doing, unlike you who adds {{cn}} tag on lead when things are already sourced thoroughly inside the article.
Furthermore, stop edit warring. You had already reverted 2 times. D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring.
Ah, sunyata. Great. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers
--
DBig
Xrayᗙ
15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)