User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2012

File:KalachakraSera.jpg

Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list

Thank You for Excellent Work on Buddhist Articles

Hello Joshua. I just wanted to thank you for your really fair-minded and balanced work on the Buddha-nature and Mahaparinirvana-Sutra articles. It is refreshing to encounter a Wiki editor who does not immediately delete the more affirmative understanding of the Buddha-nature or Self. Over a year ago, there was one 'editor' in particular who was rabidly and almost psychopathologically opposed to this kind of information getting onto the pages of Wikipedia, and s/he would delete almost everything of that kind, or so reduce it that the chief ideas were lost. I myself find lots of things on Wiki Buddhism which I personally disagree with, but if they are referenced and / or have been up on Wiki for a very long time (without dissent from other editors), I would be very reluctant to change them radically, still less delete them - without consultation with other editors. You seem to be of the same mind: in other words, you are a fair and equitable Wikipedian editor! Thanks for that, Joshua. I, for one, very much appreciate all your splendid work. Warm wishes to you from Suddha (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate this encouragement. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with what Suddha has said, it makes a big difference when you get editors who are flexible and adaptable and don't go round deleting other people's edits without any prior warning or discussion. That creates much bad feeling and even discourages people from editing anything! So it is very beneficial to have kind and open editors who encourage others rather than make them feel bad about what they are doing, and who welcome discussion and compromise. Thanks Joshua, you have done and are doing a great job just as Suddha says! your work is much appreciated. best regards Peter morrell 10:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Peter, nice to hear of you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ha,ha - Peter, I think you and I should form a 'Joshua Jonathan Appreciation Society'! Seriously, though, I do agree with what you write about how discouraging it can be to have one's work callously deleted from Wikipedia, without discussion. Sometimes in the past, I would spend literally hours (plus money, purchasing books) to add Buddhist information to Wiki - only to have an obnoxious and intolerant editor named 'Mitsube' either delete my work entirely or so quibble with every detail that editing became an utterly unenjoyable exercise. With editors like Joshua (and yourself) on Wiki, however, things have taken a huge and welcome step forward! Warm wishes to you both - Suddha (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Response on my Talk Page

Hey Joshua. I responded to your message here. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism_and_Christianity#Merger_proposal

Hi, thanks for comment - I think at this point the next question would be "how much distinct/discrete sourceable content is there really beyond Elaine Pagels justifying more than a paragraph on Buddhism and Christianity? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More then I had ever expected... No, seriously: not much. But I guess the value of the article is more in the possible influence. There must have been influences on both sides; at least there were Greek influences on Buddhist art. As it is now, each one can draw his or her's own conclusions. Mine is, that if there were influences, one is hard-pressed to substantiate those influences. Well, no result is also some kind of a result.

About Gnosticism: personally I think that if there is one branch of Christian (in a broad sense) thinking where Buddhist influences are descerneable, it's here. One of the Gnostic stories pictures the ascencion to Heaven, in which ten gates have to be passes. At each gate a sin, or bad attitude, has to be left behind. Sounds very Buddhist to me. But that's my impression, and I have no "proof" whatsoever, so no reason to mention this in the article.

Personally, I would even prefer to split up the article in at least two separate articles: similarities, and influences. How about the opposite of merging: mention only the bare essentials in the Buddhism-Christianity article, and keeping the separate article intact? this way, the main article is also shortened. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that "possible" influence falls into WP:OR, which can't be the basis for a WP:FORK. All we can really say is that Conze made some comparisons with gnosis not gnostics and Pagels appealed to Hindu scholars to look for connections and nothing was forthcoming. Most of Gnosticism is there in Classical Greek and Jewish precedents - which are the two textual streams the Gnostics quote. Beyond this we're heading into WP:Fringe with sources like Arthur Lillie. If there was a single tangible accepted WP:RS connection between any Gnostic text and any Buddhist event/person/place/text then maybe, but as it stands all we have is Conze giving a paper in 1966. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek influences on Buddhist art would be due to Greece having attempted to invade India, not India invading Greece. We'd need a source to suggest that the Greeks brought back any specific influence. It's possible yes. But requires a source. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a substantial part of the article can be considered "fringe theories". Ans a lot more probably will be added to it in time... To be honest, I've never read the complete text of the article - both articles - too much nonsense. Maybe you're right, and "Buddhism and Gnosticism" should be merged. Why not just to do it - and edit the text right-away back to standards? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunyata edits

You can't separate out the material like you did on sunyata. If you want to do something please merge the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras content from the Sunyata page into the main Tathāgatagarbha Sutras article. Then we can merely link to that article. Gooolog (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I put some of your content back in. Gooolog (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Equal sign in url's

What is [1] about? = is normally allowed in url's at Wikipedia as far as I know. Can you give an example where it fails and %3D fixes it? = can cause problems in unnamed parameters but I think that's an unrelated issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiPrimeHunter. The following url appears as a full url in the reflist, beside the assigned title/name, due to the = sign:

I've tried to fix it, by using %3D, but it doesn't work:

Using {{=}} doesn't work either:

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem solved: the url was split over two sentences... See [2] Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mountain Doctrine

Hello Joshua. Nice to hear from you, as always. Yes, you may well have a point: I think an article about 'Mountain Doctrine' would be good. I agree with you. At the moment I'm a bit too busy to prepare one, but hope to do so in the not too distant future. By the way, there is discussion at present on the 'Buddha Nature' talk page which you might like to look at. One editor does not like the fact that various interpretations of the Buddha Nature are given. I myself think it is only fair (and in accordance with Wikipedia policy) that diverse viewpoints are reflected in such an article. I don't think that there exists only ONE understanding of the Buddha Nature. It has always been a contentious and controversial doctrine within Buddhism. I shall be very happy to read any comments you might like to give to this editor, if you have the time and / or interest! All warm wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Suddha. I was just reading it, and I'll comment on it too. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Joshua. Thank you very much for your friendly comments. You are most kind. By the way, I liked what you added to the 'Buddha-nature' discussion page. I completely agree with you: Critical Buddhism is a serious attempt to probe and question the Buddha-nature doctrine (although I don't agree with the conclusions reached by these scholars), and one should not just dismiss Critical Buddhism out of hand as the work of 'modern non-Buddhist scholars who know nothing about Buddhism'. The same with Prof. Williams: his being a Catholic in no way invalidates what he writes about Mahayana Buddhism. He is, in fact, a very open-minded scholar (even towards the Buddha Nature teaching, despite his being trained in the Gelukpa tradition, which is, as you know, rather antipathetic towards the tathagatagarbha doctrines as enunciated in the primary TG sutras). Thanks again, Joshua, for all that you do for Wiki-Buddhism. Oh, no need to reply to this little message! Kind thoughts. From Suddha (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Buddha Nature, and Gebser

Thank you very much, Joshua, for the tidying up and improving that you have contributed to the Nichiren section of the Buddha-Nature article. Very good, as always. I was interested to learn of the ideas of Gebser, of whom - to my shame - I have never heard. I shall try to read the Wiki article on him more fully over the weekend (I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment). Certainly his ideas have some resonance with certain areas of Mahayana Buddhism. Thanks again for the info, Joshua. Warm regards to you. From Suddha (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Further thanks for your interesting and kind comments on my Talk Page and for the list of worthwhile books to read. The original teaching on the tathagatagarbha (contained in the Buddha Nature sutras) was that it is the concealed essence or Self of Buddha at the heart of all beings which has to be dis-covered (not developed or evolved - but unwrapped from mental and moral negativities). It is already perfect and complete - but we, due to our imperfect cognitive equipment, fail to see it. As you say, we have to 'actualise' it within ourselves - but the TG itself is always resting within us and is consummate wisdom, kindness and purity. Warmest wishes, Joshua. From Suddha (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Madhyamaka

Hey there Joshua J, It's great to see you on Madhyamaka - I do hope you understand that I've been sort of single-handedly defending the article from some really wild ideas, and it has made me a little defensive at times. However, I totally buy into the spirit of co-operation and hope that you will find the tolerance and forebearance necessary to put up with my rather lengthy rants. I like your ideas, and think that, if you have the time, a Western scholarship section would be very good. (20040302 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Hi 20040302. It seems to me that you've been very polite and patient in the disoutes that have been going on at the Madhyamaka-page. I met the same opponent at the Sunyata page, so I understand eventually defensiveness. Recently I've been re-ordering the Yogacara and Eight Consciousnesses pages as well, jumping to those pages from the Zen page. Well, Madhyamaka seemed to be the next page. But indeed, with a preference for cooperation. And you seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I estimate your opinions and ideas. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dharmakaya

Thanks, Joshua, for your recent work on the Dharmakaya article. You always organise the material so well. Thank you again! Warm wishes from Suddha (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I felt a little bit troubled to move your contribution to a subsection, but since you've seen my way of editing before, I expected you wouldn't be bothered too much. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.19 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

my edits

Please see my last revision, and see if it is acceptable to you. Borakai (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I got your message. How about you incorporate some of the material, as you see fit? The existing article doesn't make clear that Madhyamaka texts explicitly and overtly negate various extremes. 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Borakai (talk)

I think you should try to do that yourself. The only quote that I see fit inthis article is the follwing:

You cannot be liberated through absolutism, nor escape this existence from nihilism. Great souls are liberated by fully understanding being and nothing.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then you need a new section then. The main thing point of Madhyamaka is about creation (arising, existence) and destruction (annhilation, nonexistence). 15:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borakai (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 03:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 03:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism in Japan

Hi, I started a new section on the talk page for Buddhism in Japan, but no one has yet responded to my comments. Could you perhaps take a look and see what you think? Thanks —Zujine|talk 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tilopa

Hi, your shortening of the Osho-quote on Tilopa is good because as you said that it does not add additional information to the article. However, the one line you have chosen seems to be out of context. You can remove that too. It also does not add anything to the article. It seems that you have little information on Osho and that your mention that he is a teacher who has little to do with the Tibetan tradition is based on insufficient information about Osho. As i have read him, he has probably everything to do with it. I would recommend that you read his book on Tilopa and then choose any line to make the article richer. Regards. Dilara|talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi Dilara. I know a little about and from Osho, but has been a long tome since I read anything from him. I think that, if Osho is to be mentioned, it would be better to use a secondary source, which explains how Osho uses various traditions, and how he interprets Tilopa, and what this adds to our understanding of Tilopa. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And then if a secondary source is to be mentioned then we need a tertiary source which explains how the secondary source uses his mind. This leads to an absurd infinity. We cannot ask for secondary sources all the time. If Buddha mentions something which is included in Buddhism we take it as it is without asking other sources. So please read and then decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilara.adim (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Using secondary and tertiairy sources, instead of using primary sources, is a basic rule of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

And also:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.

First thing, the Osho book on Tilopa is a published source. It is not a research paper. Second, we should never interpret the content of primary sources for ourselves but then on what basis did you chose that line. It is an interpretation. My only point through all this is that just including that one line is out of context. It does not enrich the article in any way. The content which i had provided gives a glimpse on Tilopa and his way. It was provided very considerately. It enriched Tilopa. Made him juicy. I understand that this might be my interpretation. But the one line you have chosen is your interpretation. So probably we need a secondary source as to whose interpretation is correct. It leads nowhere. And again you seem to have not read the book. I am really very new to wikipedia and when i read your page, i thought that you could be a person of research and reason on these topics. But it is now doubtful. Remember that you are editing the content with insufficient knowledge and that cannot be a basic rule for editing.--Dilara.adim (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilara.adim (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to be continued at Talk:Tilopa. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I know I already gave you a barnstar above, but I've been seeing your name on my watchlist way too much, and not just for minor edits but for quality content. Your efforts on Buddhism-related articles are greatly appreciated, thank you. SudoGhost 03:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Though I hope I'm not overresponding, when I don't agree with other Wikipedians. I like the differences in opinion, they're stimulating. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:ZenBuddhism

By the way, because of the small amount of content each individual article had, about a month ago I merged them all into The Five Houses of Chán, so it might be better to just have a link to that article instead of five wikilinks that all redirect to the same article, although I don't know where it would go (practice maybe?) - SudoGhost 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I'll fix it right away. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For being cool with the new user and discussing on the talk page , the article looks great now, good work. cheers ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you like to have a biscuit with the tea? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• DBigXray likes this. certainly Why not --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Reflist

Beats me, but somewhere a reflist is missing, and those red warnings don'r look attractive... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• yeah indeed, they seem to be specially designed to look offending --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dharma Transmission

I'm happy you found out about Muho Noelke. I think he's a great teacher. I've been considering going to study under him for a while now, as it turns out. Anyway, I'm glad if my comments turned out to be helpful and I apologize if the way that I wrote them seemed at all unfriendly. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I was quite stingy too. But it helps when someone put's a pin on me (or questions something I wrote); it drives me

to find out more, which I like.

Cool that you considered studying with Muho. I ennvy him a little bit; he's a year older than I am, and when iwas in my twenties, I also considered to go to Japan (though not very serious). He's a bit like "Man, it could have been me". Well, it isn't, and any way, he also somehow relativizes (is that z correct?) what he is doing. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued edits of a living persons page with out references will get you blocked.

Joshua Jonathan,

The follow is one of the reasons that you can be blocked from editing a wikipedia page. Per the blocking policy

Protection A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: persistent personal attacks; personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); actions that place users in danger; actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection; personal information disclosures (whether or not the information is accurate); persistent copyright violations; persistent posts that are unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons; and an account that appears to have been compromised (as an emergency measure), i.e. there is some reason to believe that the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account. When blocking in response to personal information disclosures or actions that place users in danger, consider notifying the Arbitration Committee by email (arbcom-lwikimedia.org) about the disclosure or danger and contacting someone with oversight permissions to request permanent deletion of the material in question.

Unfortunately your continued edits of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Merzel constitute defamatory information. Often times your posts contain unreferenced material gossip and are only single source references.

As in the Policy on Living Persons Subsection Public Figures. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN

You have repeatedly violated this policy.

Your edits are constantly creating an sense of gossip A violation of this policy on living persons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPGOSSIP

If you feel that the current page does not meet the standards set forth in the following policy on Living Persons the I suggest you request a third party review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSTYLE

At this time if you continue to make gossip and post defamatory information while editing the afore mentioned page a formal submission will be made you have your account blocked for posting to at least the afore mentioned page. Please keep in mind that this page is simply a reflection of a living individual and while you may or may not agree with that individual ideals or ideas that does mean that the information provided on the page is not of quality. As you will see by the current postings the page is clearly referenced with multiple valid media sources. From official news stories as well as press releases from not only Dennis Genpo Merzel but also the Big Mind organization. Again this is a final request for you to cease and assist all postings that could be and are in violation of the Policies on Living Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttbakiatwoam (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue eyes

Joshua, I appreciate your interest in this history of Central Asian Buddhism and in the Silk Road transmission. Regarding the bit about blue eyes, that detail will probably remain deleted, and that's okay. Some people are more interested in modern politics than in the actual cultures and history of the region. It's not worth it to get entangled by people who will misrepresent others' views or accuse them of racism. The fact is that pages like Buddhism and Gautama Buddha tend to be frequented by this type of person. That is just one reason why I have tended to specialize in subjects which are also important, but tend to attract more informed editors (e.g. early Buddhism). You seem to have found that specialization in the Zen pages, and I'm glad to see that. All the best. Tengu800 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. When you mentioned Bodhidharma as the "Blue Eyed Barbarian," that reminded me.... Among the Thirty-two Marks of a Great Man, traditionally present in buddhas and chakravartin kings, is this: "29. His eyes are intensely blue" (DN 30). According to some scholars, though, these marks were ascribed to chakravartin kings even before they were assigned to the Buddha. Tengu800 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gassho Tengu, for your wisdom, and your politeness. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita talk page

Your input is appreciated at the Bhagavad Gita talk page regarding dating the Gita. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Zen, the lack of, removal and

Hi. I noticed that you somehow unexistified my Siddhartha Gautama quotation, dated 12 [insert month] 2011, in reference to the self-nature of Zen, that it is both is, and is both not is. I'd like to ask, WHEN did you un-incorporate this essential material, and more importantly, why? I look forward to your global electrobiofeedback response. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi AstroHurrican001. I removed the quote at 13 december 09.50 [3], when I changed the lead to make it more "general", that is, historically accurate. The quote an sich was nice, but the function of it in the lead was unclear to me, and while trying to give referenced information, it seemed appropriate to remove this quote. Before this change, and later on, there have been quite some discussions on this article, focusing on a more 'romantic' (my phrasing), or a more historically accurate, description of (the history of) Zen. These discussions also asked for referenced info. Nevertheless, it does not mean that I didn't like the quote, it just seemed not so clear what the function of the quote was.

I hope this answers your question. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: what also mattered is that the 'tetra-lemma', as far as I remember, is more specific for Madhyamaka than it is for Zen, or Yogacara. A quote which points to the Buddha-nature doctrine, such as "Luminous is the mind", would be more appropriate. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding, now I don't have to find the diff. I added the quotation to provide a direct, clear example of Zen, because the article was too heavy toward the history of Zen, which I was not interested in when visiting the article. You don't get a sense of Zen while reading the article on Zen, and for such a self-referential concept, I felt this was very wrong. Also, another important segment to the article was removed in its entirety: Pick up flower, subtle smile. This concept is another example of Zen, rather than just expounding its history and evolution like a closed book. The meaning to the sermon is very simple. However, the article as it stands now merely describes Zen, without creating it, which in fact is very easy to do in an encyclopedic manner. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point has been mentioned by others as well. It's complicated, I'm afraid. I totally agree with you, and others, that it would be good to give an impression of the "feeling" of Zen. But then, what is this "feeling", according to whom? Present-day Japanese Rinzai-Zen? Twelfth century Caodong? Eight century Northern School? Or, even worse: wartime pro-war Zen?

And should such examples emphasize kensho, "one-ness", et cetera, as often happens to be the case in our western understanding and writing? Or should they emphasize "awakened living", post-satori training, the integration of "the absolute" and "the relative", which is easily overlooked in the west?

I'm afraid that we westerners have got a specific idea of what "Zen" is. The fact that the study of (the history of) Zen discloses a broad range of aspects and ambiguities is discomforting for many. But this may be exactly the function of an encyclopedy: providing background-information, which broadens our vision. Providing examples may be better suited for Zen-groups, and their websites. Those are very, very easy accessible, and can give a specific description, not hindered by historiographic methodology. But those who wish to know more - and will have a hard time to find initial information! - those are at the right place right now at Wikipedia to find more info. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

By the way, to "prove" my credentials: I started reading about Zen when I was 18, and started practising Zen-meditation when I was 21. I'm 43 now. John McRae, to begin with, provided me with more than just the 'basics'. Reading him was exciting. Reading Victoria's "Zen at war" was discomforting. But for me, that's also Zen: looking through the neat stories, "seeing through Zen". To quote Elie Wiesel: "No faith is so whole as a broken faith".

Best wishes, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Om mani padme hum hri om mani padme hum. The point is, you know, to experience the subject hollistically and let it immerse you and then regurgitate it out so that the public can understand. This doesn't violate objectivity/NPOV if you has no ego. (cogito ergo sum, but cogito ego not so sum, but division) ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to make this less undense and more liturgically recognizable: are you what they call a mereological nihilist, or not? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I'll have to read that one carefully. But I do like social-constructionism, if that helps as a hint. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read it, carefully. Eh... are there only two choices? I think I'd say: it depends on how you look at it. Of course there are tables, conventionally and practically. But they are made up of molecules (ha! chemistry!), structures, etc. And of course, one could also say that the basic building blocks are atoms, or even smaller parts. But even those smallest parts don't exist forever as such. So (and then we touch on Buddhism again), best is to say: yeah, sure, there is a table, temporarily. Shall I put some cups of tea on it, so we can have a drink?Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the flower sermon is still being mentioned in the Chinese Chán article. But in respect to "recreating" Zen: is that what the article ought to do? And what exactly should be recreated? Beat-Zen? Several Zen-teachers acknowledge that "Zen" is also a narrative, which creates it's own reality, and power-claims. I think my point is that this myth of the all-knowing Zen-master, or awakened person, has done enough damage yet. See Zen at War by Brian Victoria, and Lachs, Stuart (2006), The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves Brian Victoria is Soto-priest since the 1960's, the same period that Stuart Lachs started with Zen. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is to say whether the world of forms is or is not edible, and is or is not permanent? If zen is self-creating why can't mirror-zen be self-referential? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This self-creation (and self-referencing) is an sich great; it shows that Zen is not different from other religions, or human meaning-making in general. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lotus

Hoi Joshua Jonathan, eigenlijk heb ik afstand genomen van Wikipedia, omdat ik nu al 2½ tot bijna 3 jaar gestalkt wordt. Daardoor is het voor mij niet langer houdbaar, want ik begin de stress in mijzelf op te slaan. Ik zag niettemin je reactie op mijn overlegpagina op nl.wiki en wil jou nog wel graag antwoorden. Ik had zelfs de IP-nummers verzameld waar ik nog niets mee gedaan heb. Waarschijnlijk valt het in de categorie "Ponkel in Griekenland"; hij zal daar wel op vakantie zijn geweest. De Ip-nummers die hij gebruikte, waren: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] (je noemde al [13] en [14]). Misschien zou je met je kennis over het boeddhisme kunnen kijken wat teruggedraaid kan worden. Van die twee die jij noemde, is eigenlijk alles teruggedraaid zal ik al. Met vriendelijke groet, Davin (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dank voor het overzicht. Marrakach was het ook al opgevallen. Ik ben ze allemaal langsgegaan, maar het is teveel om allemaal te controleren... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Williams on Nirvana

I figured he was a Buddhist scholar, but I've never heard of him, and even if I had, it doesn't make sense to mention his name in the Nirvana article. My teacher is also a well-known Buddhist scholar, but I wouldn't mention him by name in an article on Buddhism unless it was an article about him or about teachers of his lineage. Also, the point that you quote him on is a very obscure scholarly point, and its inclusion here seems to give his opinion on the topic undue emphasis. Abhayakara (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I didn't quote him. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (I copied this exchnage to Talk:Nirvana

Joshua Jonathan/Buddhist Paths to liberation

Hi there! Just wondering if you meant to have this in your userspace or in article space (or something I hadn't imagined). I was going to move it to Buddhist paths to liberation but then I thought you might not be finished with it. Regards, heather walls (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Not finished yet, but might be ready quite soon. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Paths to liberation

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Buddhist Paths to liberation, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Joshua Jonathan/Buddhist Paths to liberation. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I created the page in my userspace, and copied it to a normal page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually they were both in article space, one just had your name in front, which is why I left you a note. It's all a bit tricky! Cheers, heather walls (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Joshua Jonathan/Buddhist Paths to liberation

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Joshua Jonathan/Buddhist Paths to liberation. Which is a copy of your article - Buddhist Paths to liberation. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. heather walls (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to put "User:" before it. Joshua Jonathan/Buddhist Paths to liberation can be deleted. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neo-Advaita

The article Neo-Advaita has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Balant hoax not such thing as neo-advaita , reference qouted never even cites this word

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Neo-Advaita for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-Advaita is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Advaita until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not take matter personnely , The only Idea is to meet the wiki criteria for notablity , and it would be wrong to accuse some one of belonging to such and such a group .

2) articles like this also dilutes the concepts and information from the real concepts , so please do not dilute and desolve the concepts which is already complicated Shrikanthv (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrikanthv. i think we're at the same ground, actually. Neo-advaitains are severely critisized exactly for "diluting" the concepts. That's a good reason to have an article about it, isn't it, so people may get informed about the other side - about an ancient tradition which values preparation and practice, instead of "instant-enlightenment".

With respect to the notability: neo-Advaita is quite popular in the west. I bet the books by Andrew Cohen or Eckhart Tolle are not at the bookshelves in India (you've got Motilall Banarsis! That's great, I love that publisher), but they are in the west.

Please do read a few of the links, to get an impression of the impact of neo-Advaita in the west.

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Daruma doll

Hi, thanks for letting me know the trimming I did worked out alright. I'm not very familiar with the subject so I wasn't entirely sure I went about it accurately. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Messages

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Lova Falk#Neo-Advaita's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Lova Falk#Neo-Advaita's talk page.

A new barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your work on Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Advaita. Lova Falk talk 14:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 03:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at SudoGhost's talk page. - SudoGhost 06:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kensho

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I've added a few comments on the 'Kensho' Talk Page. Basically, I think it was wrong for your contributions to be expunged. They should stay! Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Buddha birthplace

Thank you Joshua for your effort. Information is much clear now. I did not dig into the cited sources, but here is some additional information that might help to clarify additional confusion. Current revision is definitely valid based on the sources, but gives an impression that Lumbini and Kapilavastu are different places. Lumbini is a small 'town' about 5-6 minutes drive from current administrative boundary of Kapilvastu. Most recent administrative division of districts in Nepal kept Lumbini just outside of Kapilvastu district, but it is still in Lumbini zone. It might be something for future consideration. Source could be any standard map. Once again, I appreciate your effort. BikashDai (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response! I'll try to adjust and refine the page further. The source I've used is not the ebst source on Lumbini; I took the first book I found on Google... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the continuous improvement to that article. I understand it is a very rigorous task to dig into the credible sources and find the correct information-BikashDai (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidharma's Birthplace

Excuse me.I have sound knowledge in that field related to bodhidharma.Please recheck your work.IT has be confirmed by many scholars that bodhidharma is and always been a south indian prince..He is the 3 son of King Janaka of India.The period between the time bodhidharma was on this earth is the same point of time of many kriya yoga masters.He was thought by one of the 18 siddhas of south india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKveeru (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Excuse me.I have sound knowledge in that field related to bodhidharma.Please recheck your work.IT has be confirmed by many scholars that bodhidharma is and always been a south indian prince..He is the 3 son of King Janaka of India.The period between the time bodhidharma was on this earth is the same point of time of many kriya yoga masters.He was thought by one of the 18 siddhas of south india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKveeru (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma's Birthplace (oct. 2012). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Zhongfeng Mingben

If I find any interesting tidbits, should I relate them here, or on the userdraft talk-page? They may or may not be useful, but... E.g.: I found 2 separate portraits of him - but now I'll have to dig through my browser history to find them. And should the Japanese-Romaji name be: Chûhô Myôhon - see:[15] - (bottom of list). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a good portrait from WP commons (Rumania):[16]
  
• Another portrait:[17], from here:[18] - Great, but lo-rez
  

Btw, I believe these are in addition to the other 2 found earlier; still looking...~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The userdraft talk-page would be better, I think. Thanks! Regarding the Japanese-Romaji name: I have no idea... That's a question for people like User:Tengu800 and User:Keahapana. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

> Link to userspace draft talk page (or whatever it's called). ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Great job on the article! Clear, concise, and reasonably complete; yet done so quickly - you know your [stuff]. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thnaks! I've got some more; an article on Zhongfeng and "illusion" (c.q. Maya). It's funny; differences of opinion with other editors stimulate me to give the best I can in writing, but this is also stimulating. Thanks for the cooperation! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Image fit problem

An image of yours has a problem with fitting in its section, and (at least in my browser), instead of displaying in the section intended, it drops down to the next section and partially overlaps text. My attempts at fixing were non-productive.
Image: File:Mahakasyapa.jpg
Section: Chinese Chán / Kasyappa and the Flower Sermon
Note: it looks fine in 'Show Preview', but not when saved. ~Eric the Pest 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you on that one... There are other examples of such 'mistakes', for example listings which overlap with pictures. maybe you can post the problem somewhere at the help-pages? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Though, maybe it helps to make the picture smaller. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tried that (among other things), for some reason it wouldn't let me reduce to 80px, from 100px. Anyway, I copied this discussion > Talk:Chinese_Chán#Image_fit_problem - Feel free to delete the discussion here. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your "mu window" typo was probably one of those 'inside jokes' most readers on that page already get - and I simply overstated the obvious. ~Oh well ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It realyy was a typo, which I noticed after I saved the page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Next

<<< Over there ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Zen

You have done wonderful work on the subject. The article was a bit messy before you got to it so thanks for the dedication! I don't remember where but there was a discussion somewhere which quoted that any article where a paragraph is completely unsourced cannot be given GA status. At Zen, you are doing great and you are not far away from getting it to GA. The article is well detailed and presented. Just take care of the basic issues of my review and make sure that everything is sourced. This is all that is needed and once you are done, you can re-nominate it and it won't be a quick fail then. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment (spiritual)

I did get involved. I hope you'll add your thoughts when you're back from your day(s) off! Lova Falk talk 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I haven't encountered any of those accoutns before, though some of them are obviously socks. I noticed that Minerva20 showed up. She's mentioned by me in this SPI, which unfortunately didn't go so good, despite the evidence: [[19]].

Fringe proponents love to sock and meat, and also canvass off-site. I'm sure a mix of all three is at work here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the names when I read the Talk Page of User talk:DeltaQuad and followed the link of your message about Logical 1. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Surreal

My 1st Barnstar! ~Thanks! :) ~Eric the Surreal 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Users: → User:

I noticed the subpage you misplaced in article space earlier, so I went ahead and moved it to User:Joshua Jonathan/Xuefeng Yicun 2 (you already had a subpage with that title apparently, so I appended the 2). Just wanted to let you know. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mistake, sorry; User:Joshua Jonathan/Xuefeng Yicun 2 can be deleted. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism templates

Joshua, I believe these template are being misused. First off, they are navigation templates. Wikipedia has always had a standard that navigational templates should be bi-directional: see WP:NAVBOX, last sentence in the main section: "Finally every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Second, the templates themselves say "Part of a series on ...". This suggests that the article linked in the templates are "the series". How then can articles not linked in the template be part of this series? Quite frankly, this appears to be a form of religious proselytism, actively encouraging readers to read other loosely-related articles on Buddhism rather than being used as navboxes are intended to be used. This is completely inappropriate, and seems to be part and parcel of a number of breaches of Wikipedia policy on the part of WikiProject Buddhism, such as repeatedly including titles and honorifics such as "Geshe", "Lama", and "Rinpoche" against Wikipedia guidelines. All these issues need to be addressed and WP Buddhism needs to understand that these policies and guidelines should not be overridded by a consensus among Buddhist editors. And, by the way, I am a Buddhist, so this is not some sort of anti-Buddhism campaign. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The correct method for doing what is intended is the use of the {{Portal}} template in the see also section. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a clear answer! I'll read the guideline, and the portal. Thank you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Ship's steering wheel

Dharmacakra

...is there any connection between a Dharmacakra, ("Wheel of Dharma") and a ship's steering wheel? No mention in the article, but hard to believe it's purely coincidental. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know. But... somehow I do remember that the steering wheel is being used for a rudder which is positioned in the middle of the ship. And that's a relatively recent technological development, as far as I remember; maybe end of the middel-ages. While the dharmacakra probably is much older. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Things like this tend to drive me nuts until I find an answer, but there might not be an answer (check your mu window-ledge). One can imagine a symbolic analogy: instrument of guidance - path of enlightenment - sea of existence - dissemination - turnings, etc. The history of the rudder can be traced to the ancient Chinese, with possible parallel development elsewhere (Kelts, for example). The history of the steering wheel is another matter. There was a mutually-beneficial period of interchange between Eastern and Western marine technologies, when the steering wheel seems to have developed. One can wonder if there was a connection, since engineers of that time tended to include mystic or archaic symbology in their designs. ~Anyway,...~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To be driven nuts by questions like is a great character-trait for being a scientist or researcher. Keep on wondering!! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Entire 'Atman (Buddhism)' Article Been Removed!

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I wonder if you could assist with the restoration of 'Atman (Buddhism)'? To my horror, I found just now that someone has very recently 'merged' it with 'Atman (Sanskrit)', but that they have actually removed the entire content of the original article and simply directed the reader to 'Anatta' - which is a different article entirely! This is outrageous behaviour. I have tried to restore 'Atman (Buddhism)', but have evidently failed: when one types in 'Atman (Buddhism)' into the Wiki search engine now, it still brings up the substituted article, 'Atman (Sanskrit)'. I am not sure how to restore the original Atman (Buddhism) article successfully. Any suggestions and input? The original article is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism). Thanks for any help you can offer. Best wishes to you from Suddha (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't panic! Somebody moved it, to Ātman (Buddhism), then redirect got pointed to the wrong place. It was never merged or deleted that I can see. In any case, I have fixed it. Yworo (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see talk page at Ātman (Buddhism) article.Merigar (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning everybody! Busy traffic around here. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Joshua Jonathan! Best regards - Suddha (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are SO welcome

You are so welcome to interfere - I am out of energy for wikipedia discussions tonight... Lova Falk talk 19:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Tao of Spider

Spider

Mind in the center
Radiates to eight legs,
Creating a supreme web
To sift Tao.

— Deng Ming-Dao

For some reason I've been doing a total re-vamp of the Cultural depictions of spiders article, and am currently trying to do a 'Philosophy' section.
Can you think of any reference to spiders in Buddhism? (Or anything else useful) —— This is the closest I could find →
Unfortunatly, that "meditation" (Zen poem?) isn't notable enough for the article, at least not without some foundational material relating spiders to Tao.

Btw, speaking of coincidence, I recently also did some editing on that Rolling Stones song article.
~Thanks for the photo, ~Eric F 20:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Last modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Unfortunately, I've got no suggestions for 'Buddhism and spiders'... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Though, some Google-search:

• The Spider's Thread
• The Myth of the Spider
• Spiders and karma
• Indra's net

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

~Thanks again, I'll check out the links. ~∑ric F ^Talk Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

... Now all I need is a proper place to link Interpenetration. ←That is a disambiguation - This→ Interpenetration (Buddhism) goes to Buddhist philosophy

Regarding the Jeff Shore Addition To Shinge Roshis Page

Hello, I was wondering if you could provide the cited documents in regard to the lineage of the Eido line that you keep posting and I keep removing. Once you provide adequate proof of this...I would be inclined to stop editing it. But until then, it is fraudulent and I will be deleting it every time I see it. Thanks Chimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to be continued at Talk:Sherry Chayat#Hear-say emails (Third opinions are welcome)

Editing dispute at Sherry Chayat

Hello Joshua. Please see Talk:Sherry Chayat#Fully protected, where your name recent edit has been mentioned. I have considered the possibility that the cited emails are not legit. Anything negative about Eido Shimano should come from a reliable source, such as a book, newspaper or magazine with a named publisher and a reputation for fact checking. The website at www.shimanoarchive.com is anonymous and even the name of the owner of the domain is hidden. It should not be used as a source of biographical information about Sherry Chayat or Eido Shimano, per WP:Biographies of living persons. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you aren't the person who first added this. The reference to the emails was recently added to the Sherry Chayat article by an anonymous editor. You merely restored the IP's material. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for interfering. If The Shimano Archive is not accepted as a source, then it may take a while to add this info. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychology

Hello Jonathan. The Unconscious is not the monopoly of Freudians. It is common to all psychodynamic psychology. However, it was the Yogacarins who invented the concept of the unconscious not Dr Freud. Keep the chutzpah up old man. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As usually, you don't provide sources. To the list of WP:42, WP:IAC, and WP:OR, you can also add WP:CIV. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Zen lineage charts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DanS76 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Indra's net

When tagging unsourced material in an entire section, it is best practice to place a single maintenance-section tag at the beginning. Generally, there is no need to use multple tags in the same section. It is not yet clear if the IP who added the content is engaging in scholarly research supported by actual sources or original research, although I suspect the latter. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism

Sorry for my mistake. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Better try than stay safe. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Losang Samten Biography

Thank you!

I got a bit carried away on the Mandala page, only intending (at first) to add the name of one of my teachers (Losang Samten) in the section called "Notable Artists". By the time I'd gotten turned around, completely inside out and backwards, trying to pin down some increasingly nitpicky details as to the origins of Namgyal Monastery, the history of the Phags-pa script, the various incarnation lineages of the early Dalai Lamas and more Mongol Khans than anyone with any sense would ever shake a stick at, I had long since lost my view of the forest -- only, not so much for the sight of the trees, as for the hypothetical calculation of how many toothpick barens might be crafted for making xylographic prints at home if the entire forest were quite simply clear-cut and transformed, wholesale, into toothpicks! This analogy for describing my state of mind is, in fact, very slightly overstated for the purposes of facetiously making clear to you my state of mind in putting together and posting what I did, but just to be completely clear (because I know facetiousness sometimes does not work out so well with strings of written text): my gratitude to you is no less absolutely sincere for that fact.

I did, in fact, get up to check one date mentioned -- not even on the Mandala page, but on a *related* page (which I somehow just *knew* wasn't right) -- and by the time I finally clicked the "Save Page" button for the Mandala page, nearly two days had passed, and what I finally managed to write out absolutely, positively did not belong where I wound up posting it. And the date I'd gotten up to check? I still haven't gotten around to editing that other page where I saw it -- though very probably, I should, and sooner rather than later.

At any rate: by the time I finally got around to posting my "little edit" (long since gone completely haywire), someone else -- possibly you? I honestly have no idea -- had already edited the Mandala page, thereby completely removing what I considered the likely outdated piece of personal self-promotion which had previously comprised the entirety of the aforementioned section, and which had (at least) served to annoy me enough to bother attempting my first Wikipedia edit in several years' time. (I wouldn't have dared to remove it myself; but I *did* feel the fellow I knew should at least be mentioned, along with at least some of his actual qualifications, given that the person who had been mentioned previously in that section was.) Somehow or other I wound up posting what I did where I thought it maybe-sort-of-kind-of-probably-almost-more-or-less belonged, and probably some of it does (though very certainly a great deal less that what all I did post where I posted it); and maybe -- *just* maybe -- I will get around to going back and putting it in, somehow, someday. Then again, maybe it doesn't, and maybe I won't. Only time will tell, for sure. And I have got a lot to learn. But there is no denying that somehow what I did just did not feel right -- it was entirely too much of the wrong kind of thing in the wrong place, and worst of all, it even made it look (structurally speaking) like all these other schools of Buddhism in completely different countries had somehow come from this one guy and blah blah blah blah -- but by that time, I honestly had no idea what to do and just kinda figured "OK, Wikipedia editors: have fun!" My brain was fried. And what I wound up posting was (largely because of where I'd posted it) in fact a *worse* example of *exactly* the sake kind of error I'd gone in, not to correct, so much as to counterbalance, in the first place!

THANK YOU for taking my work seriously enough not to simply delete it.  :^) :^)

THANK YOU furthermore for taking the time and putting in the effort to move it to where it really *does* belong. For whatever it's worth, I do have some sources to cite, but haven't quite figured out how all of those things around here work just yet, and am reluctant to make corned beef hash out of footnotes and references precisely because I understand why they are important. I shall try to restrain my enthusiasm at least to the degree that I will use a lighter touch in editing pages around these parts until such time as I am fully confident as to my skills regarding the actual workings of this place.

THANK YOU for leaving a comment on my talk page showing me how this sort of thing is *properly* done! I hope this comment to your talk page isn't out of place.

THANK YOU for considerably improving what I wrote -- not just stylistically -- though that as well -- but most importantly, with other links the exact likes of which I would have been more than glad to provide if I had not been so completely overwhelmed while writing it.

I am sincerely sorry to have made that extra work for you, but very much appreciate your taking the time in effect to *show* me *how* I should have done what I actually did. I am delighted to make your acquaintance and consider your actions an emanation out of skillful means to help me in attempting to traverse the labyrinthian ocean of Wikipedia upon whose waves I have already been far more unkindly tossed.

File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg

Kalacakra sand Mandala created by Losang Samten in El Paso, Texas 2012 (C.E.)

Since offering a mandala to ones' teachers is considered auspicious in the Tibetan tradition, and because you have taken the time and made the effort already to improve upon my work asking nothing whatsoever in return, I have no doubt that this will be accepted in the spirit in which it's offered.

Xeltifon (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate the mandala; thank you! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your editing history

The section on Padmasambhava you removed was actually up for a few years and the translator of that, Erik publisher of Rangjung, was very happy about it. Your editing history is mainly bitter and negative. Secondly you have messed with things you don't understand and since you're not an expert on Tibetan Buddhism which is the ultimate intent of Shakyamuni & completely alien to your middle class passe fad of westernized Japonisme. I would advise not meddling further in areas you don't understand.

See diff for my reply. Discussion to be continued at Talk:Padmasambhava (when technical problems have been solved). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The1973onez: I replied to your friend you involved on his talk page and pointed out your editing of Tibetan Buddhist contents you have embarked upon is in ignorance and furthermore in bias and has to be constantly monitored. Thank you and best wishes. See details here: User:The1973onez [20] (UTC)

You have been nominated!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Lova Falk talk 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)