User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2013

You are entitlet to you point of view but you should argue not just revert

You start reverting without arguments, to say it is "not constructive" is insulting. Do not behave as an AUTHORITY, since we are equal. Also the "please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" is impolite. There is chapter in 'Article Talk' you can express you view, and according to you writings you are not familiar, n fact, what is constructive and grounded. I provided you modern resources there. Counting is simple and different than can be made over 20 decades before done in favourable History2007 book. I proposed erasing conflicting old numbers 15-18 and do not introduce any. Since you conspire with History2007 I will report you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.176.24 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about sources, not arguments per WP:V. IP needs to read WP:V. End of story. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sayadaw U Tejaniya

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the proper way to contact you but I wanted to respond to some of your comments on my proposed article which I found a bit curious and ask for some clarification.

JJ - Hi Iguana0000. Thanks for responding. I'll try to answer your questions.

"and there is indeed very little information besides his own website. " "You're only using his own website now as a reference." I cited five sources, two _full articles_ in two prominent english-language journals about meditation and one in the leading Polish newsweekly. For some reason the latest note by 'Bonkers The Clown' seems to have undone my citations, I'm not sure why that is or what can be done to undo it.

JJ - I see your point diff. But it seems that most "disappearances" are replacements by links to the same articles at Tejaniya's website. One source seems to be disappeared (Fabjański, Marcin (2009). "Nirvana: Access Code". Polityka. 13 (3): 73–75.) Only Tricycle seems to be really acceptabel - and that's an interview, not a secondary source...

"No matter how much his teachings may be valued by his students, the question for Wikipedi is "Who cares (besides his students)?" His students number in the tens of thousands on five continents, not counting the heads of monasteries in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Burma who see themselves as his disciples and claim his lineage. May I ask what the operative standard is by which 'who cares' should be judged?

JJ - The operative standard is notability WP:N. Is he being mentioned by reliable newspapers etc? I believe right away that he's got tens of thousands of students, but Wiki-policy asks for mention in newspapers etc.

"Newspaper articles, or mentioning in scientific studies, would help" I understand this is all well intentioned but I'm not clear by what you mean by 'scientific studies'. Regarding newspaper articles, those are likely to be not in English but rather in Burmese, Korean or Vietnamese.

JJ - Maybe you should try to find Burmese, Korean or Vietnamese sources, and give translations. Are there Wiki-pages on him in these languages? Aks for help there too. "Scientific studies" are articles in scientific journals which mention him.

I should mention that I reviewed other articles on living Sayadaws and Ajahns (Thai equivalent) and found that most have no references or citations whatsoever. The most that any article has is 2. Thus I'm struggling a bit with the opacity regarding what standard it is I'm trying to meet.

JJ - I'm afraid you may be right here. But the problem is, you are the one to convince others. Take a look at Talk:Neo-Advaita what "fun" I had to convince some other editors on a new article I'd written.

Iguana0000 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ - Succes! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page.
Message added 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Oddbodz (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki POV

Oops! You're right, sorry! I'll do that right away. Pikolas (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi. Re your question in this edit summary, check out Template:Uw-tpv1 (and Template:Uw-tpv2 and so on). Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hi, the formal channel for third opinion is WP:3O, for if you ask a specific user, they may say you picked a like-minded user. And you can also post on the project talk page, e.g. WikiProject Religion. If you post on WP:3O someone will answer. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Joshua, I responded to your comment on my own talk page. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at CorrectKnowledge's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Ninly's talk page.
Message added 6 February 2013. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a little encouragement in case you need something really, really sweet... Lova Falk talk 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajativada

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME 'EDITING' MY WIKIPAGE AS YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ IT THROUGH OR UNDERSTAND OR FULLY GRASP THE CONCEPT ONLY 1 IN 10,MILLION DO...TONY O'CLERY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajativada is not advaita as it is above advaita para advaita..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know john le kay put you up to 'editing' ajativada that is why i exposed it on my facebook and elsewhere..................................Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC) So you can sit around all day stroking your own egos....if you do not understand the concept you cannot edit it....even if it on behalf of a friend of yours that wants to attack the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new barnstar!

		The Purple Barnstar
		For staying true to yourself and to Wikipedia in spite of recurrent harrassment. Lova Falk talk 06:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate the offer, but I had to wean myself off compulsive wikipedia editing last year. It messes with my peace of mind after a point! This short burst of editing is a relapse, something I've been wanting to do for a long time for this article. Hopefully will control my urge to edit articles (and stay awake until 4 am) in the future. Cheers!108.214.13.148 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-addiction? Never heard of... ahum. Wish you all the best, and peace of mind. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Octavious88 to level-two warning for disruptive editing

Dear Joshua, I write in response to the comment you left on my talk page...I am not very familiar with Wikipedia so didn't know where to respond to you. IF this is the wrong place do let me know. I do sincerely feel that while you have done a great job in presenting your point of view on the page on enlightenment, the contents do not cover what I feel is a valid point of view--that of mainstream science. Simply attempting to cut of discussion with accusations that I am being disruptive do not seem to me to be useful. I have not done any of the things your post implies. On the other hand, your post seems to be an effort on your part at intimidation and censorship and smacks of an authoritarian and controlling stance. My objection is simple and clear--the contents of the page do not reflect an important point of view and I will confine any future discussion on this topic to the page in question itself going forward, so kindly do not make comments I feel are unjustified on my talk page, but confine them instead to the page/issue in question. best Octavious88 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read your comment at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual), and responded. Thanks for your reply there; it makes it clear what you've got in mind. I found them very interesting. Let's try to keep to continue the discussion there; it's interesting. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turiya

Dear Joshua,

Your page does not mention something called Turyia. It is empirical confirmation that pure, non-phenomenal consciousness with "aham" exists. It is attainable through deep meditation.

How do I know this? A Dr. Paul Joseph visited our satsang and gave us a lecture a few months ago. He has apparently achieved this Turiya state through meditation. He is extremely knowledgeable on Buddhism and it struck me that you and he are very similar. He also presented his theory of re-feeding. Apparently it is much misunderstood. You should contact him...he claims he answers all emails, and his email id is pjoseph@cs.uml.edu. I think you and he have much in common. In fact when writing to you I had this eerie feeling that you are Paul Joseph...!

Octavious88 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul (can I call you so?) Turyia, Sahaja, Ajativada, Anutpada, Rigpa, and there must be some more names. So, what exactly is it that you want? Trying to understand "turiya", or just trying to push your point of view on refeeding? It looks to me like you did gain some understanding about "non-I", but this playing around with usernames is weird. Please be straight and honest, and stop the masquerade. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I like your (?) review of Jed McKenna at Amazon. It's really good. No need to hide behind puppets, on the contrary. "Enlightenment" is not the same as instant perfection - unfortunately... Krishnamurti, in his "Diary", describes how "it" comes and goes. Have a look at Kensho, especially "Post-satori practice". Read Zen at War by Brian Victoria. Give yourself time to broaden and deepen your understanding - the rest of your life, to be precise.... Be patient, go on diligently. You've definately got the drive. But stay honest. "Sila" is necessary too! And contact Ton Lathouwers, a Dutch Zen-teacher. Mail him. He recognises the contradiction of "enlightenment" and Auschwitz. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua...you are right. I apologize...the reason is that this can be a rough place. There is much I'd like to talk to you about. I am NOT claiming that enlightenment is instantaneous--far from it. I am saying the insight was so radical that it was not possible for the Buddha to make, till his mind had been freed up to make looser associations and think the unthinkable. Any way, if you could contact me or give me your email, I think we can have a very productive discussion. I don't think wiki pages are the right format for wide ranging discussions. The person you mention seems to be a "professional zen teacher." I have had enough of those and seek to find my own way. Also, I don't know his language (dutch?) and he doesn't seem to know english either. Octavious88 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider doing so. Thanks for the honesty! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Ton is very critical of this "professional Zen". And he knows English. And he supports independency. But feel completely free to find out your own way; that's good. Regarding my criticism of your article: use is as useful feedback. And consider writing a sequel, on the questio if the Sutra-stories of the Buddhas's enlightenment are phenomenological or mythological. Might be better for your future credentials; you never know how this publication in later years may be interpreted by critics - say, academic employers, or fellow scientists. For that part, a mentor might be useful. You seem to be a higly talented person, and it would be great to see those talents flower! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the book, though it does seem a bit surprising (all the better!) from the blurb. Re. the paper, it may not come as a surprise that among certain scientists (particularly those in the pharmaceutical area!) and also (again perhaps unsurprisingly) biomedical engineers it has been well received. Re. the stories that accompany the B's enlightenment, I agree with many that we don't know what was true and what was added on later and what was "metaphorical" and so I stick with a reductionist approach. (That being said, I am not sure though what stories you have in mind exactly). Thank you for your other comments, but as you and I know, I am basically a moron. Anyway, I would like to discuss much more--I recently experienced Turyia for ex and have thought much on it, but don't feel this is the place to discuss my tentative understandings--to put them out here would be premature, but I'd very much welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you via email or phone.

Also, I will search first for any writings by Ton to educate myself. It would not seem that I would get very far if I were to suddenly send him an email without first taking the trouble educated myself about his general views...going by Jed's books these big guns don't usually read their profuse email and I can easily see why.

Octavious88 (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, I read "Zen at War" and found it to be simply outstanding! Thank you for recommending it to me. Kudos to Brian Victoria! Octavious88 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Octavious. Good to hear (read). Did you receive my email? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, my apologies, but I have not got your email...I do hope you will try again...maybe at my private email: pjoseph@gmail.com Also, thanks to your request, I have added some info. on myself on my user/talk page. Re. the user who wrote about Jesus's lost years...this is a theory my father and uncle used to hold dearly, but I am deeply skeptical (Occam's razor) brgds Octavious88 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

→ English course

Hello, again! (New message) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

◄▬ Added more [stuff]. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monism Copyright Problems

I very much appreciate what you are doing to edit MONISM but I have had to mark the section on definitions as a possible violation of copyright since it follows Mastin's web page much too closely. By the way, I doubt that he is a reliable source. Sorry! Jpacobb (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're probably right. What a pity; Mastin gives an extensive overview. Well, at least it gives a bechmark, and an incentive to search for acceptable sources. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Monism

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Monism, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Monism and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Monism, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Monism with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Monism. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Monism saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jpacobb (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puttingfacts

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I'm Qwyrxian, an admin here. I saw that you have, over the past month, reverted a number of edits by User:Puttingfacts. I just wanted to let you know that that account is the latest incarnation of User:Krizpo, who's been making sockpuppets for over half a year, always trying to add that type of unsourced or unreliably sourced edits to religion related articles. I only watchlist a couple of his targets, but he finally went back to Religion in Africa today, where his edit was unmistakable. If you see similar editing again in the future, feel free to let me know directly so that we can determine if it is Krizpo. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for the message; I'll store your name and report it, if I encounter the same kind of editing again. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Transmission

The comments that were removed refer to scandals of practitioners and the general institutions of Zen. I do not see what baring this has on "Dharma Transmission". These comments should be on the general Zen page, the SFZC page, or the page of Richard Baker. Manfrog39 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Dharma transmission#"general" gossip and slurs about past misdemeanours

CfD nomination of Category:Dharmic writers

Category:Dharmic writers has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Yworo (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Charismatic authority

Hi I read your comment of reverting my edit at Charismatic authority, it's not clear in the article that part of text is a quote. I've talked about it more at Talk Charismatic authority I would welcome you input. ?oygul (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bls:Ashin Jinarakkhita picture

Hi Joshua Jonathan, thanks for the message. I got the picture from the indonesian website of buddhayana gabveg.wordpress.com/budhhayana/ for a limited use only. You might want to ask them permission to put in the english language wikipedia..? And sorry I could not find the information you looking for regarding the ben qing / chen ping lineage.. greetings, Ennio morricone (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ennio morricone. Thank you very much for your reply! I will contact the Buddhayana-organisation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for cleaning up Java/Indonesia articles - the long list of to dos that I keep offline so as to not embarrass myself includes returning to some of these articles and trying to cleanup the articles and make sure they have proper cites - thanks again sats 09:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thanks! I cane across Java via Ashin Jinarakkhita, the teacher of "my" teacher Ton Lathouwers. I'm impressed by what I've come across so far - the openness to a intergrate various traditions from both east and west. Heartwarming and encouraging! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malhotra's Being Different

(To make sure you see it, I'm copying here a comment that I just now put at Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers) Joshua, I'm glad you find those articles interesting. Based on the fact that there are multiple reviews, the book itself is sufficiently notable for its own article, and I've now created one, here: Being Different. However, the reception section needs a lot of expanding by giving highlights of what each reviewer says (as well as Malhotra's response). Since it sounds like you are reading some of those review articles, I'm sure we'd all benefit if you did any expansion of the reception section that you could do while it's fresh in your mind. As an example of what such a section looks like, you could see, for example, the reception section of The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Handbook of Religion and Health, or Seeing with the Eyes of Love. (note: The other parts of the book article also need work, but that's a separate issue that is not as time-valued in terms of what you are now reading...) Best regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature permissions

Hey Joshua! Well, I like your signature, and came here to get permissions for using it, As you know we have to be carefull about copyrights! :D, Can I use this Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 11:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) ?[reply]

Go ahead!!! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 12:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanbo Kyodan

Since the Yasutani lineage is given in full at the entry of Yasutani, I would prefer to remove it from the Sanbo Kyodan entry. It would be reasonable to leave the Yamada lineage here, though even that would be misleading as failing to take account of the teachers who have formally left the Sanbo Kyodan organization. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying in Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from Unitarian Universalism into Universalism in religion. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. Until this is done, that content is a violation of our licensing policy and hence our copyright policies. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for noticing. It may take some time for other copies, though... I've been doing a lot of editing on spirituality/nondualism/Neo-Vedanta etc. related articles, using the same info in several articles. But I'll keep it in mind when working on those pages, and try to attribute in retrospect. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

buddhism.2be.net

Right now this site cannot connect. I don't know how long it has been down and I have never seen the site. Is it a good site? It is listed as an external link in numerous articles and I just wondered if you knew anything about it. Helpsome (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's been down for years, but here's an archived copy if it helps. - Sudo Ghost 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't open the archived copy either. So, if the links are dead, they may as well be removed, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found it while cleaning up links in other articles. The archived version from the 2be.net link in Gohonzon seems to be a copy of the wikipedia article itself. If the others are the same, they don't really serve a purpose. Why update dead links to archived links of copies of the wikipedia version? Helpsome (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for removing the comments on my talk page! It's a friendly gesture. However, I put them back on because as long as it's not vandalism or clearly insulting, I find it is better to acknowledge that I read what is written to me than to remove the communication. Warm regards, Lova Falk talk 15:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!! I've give him a warning, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is a supportive environment then please remember to remind User talk:Lova Falk who is making revisions that they need to remain objective in the comments that are made. This user has continuously belittled others attempts to make contributions. For example, when corrected about the use of homosexual as a noun, she suggested that the entire population was narrow minded and plead ignorance (there's only one way to interpret that kind of statement). When making editing changes to Wikipedia's Jean Piaget (and associated) articles, she removed a person's legitimate attempt to bring seminal work to our present day understanding by claiming that particular author's work was "insignificant", rather than simply stating it was not appropriate for the section. Then she left the above paragraph about a math program claiming to be based on the work of Jean Piaget -- (marketing motivated?)

And, if you have something to say about someone else then please post it, rather than embedding it in the code. Thank you! 2 May 2013‎ User:168.190.80.40

Acholi People

Ngunalik (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Hi please do you know any administrator who could help stop two users who are vandalizing the article Acholi people. They remove sources before edition is complete and bearing in mind that getting article for African history is not easy. Majority of the time the history is oral, therefore when one struggles to find sources, they should not be deleted based on bias. This article is being vandalized by so called Zionists. You cannot believe the way these two users are behaving one is Anonymous44 and another is Parkwells. If you know any administrator that can help step in it would be very good. RegardsNgunalik (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Left you a message on the Christian mysticism:talk page, please do not change things without discussing it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do be careful

And pay close attention to the contents of categories. "Buddhist writers" may not be the same as "Writers on Buddhism". The former may include novelists who happen to be Buddhist, but who do not write about Buddhism. That being the case, it may not be appropriate to put it under "Religious writers". Yworo (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Dharmic" is driving me nuts... Thanks!

Which would mean that Indian novelists do not go under the category "Hindu writers"? Yes. So Hindu politics may be precarious too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics belong to the state. There are Indian politicians, but we do not typically further categorize politicians by religion (I think this is actually forbidden), so there should be no such category as Hindu politicians, nor should political works be confused with religious works. Yworo (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention whatsoever. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template talk:Religious pluralism

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha

You have to do your research before you undo contributions based on PRIMARY sources from the Pali canon or you end up looking grossly uninformed. The Itivittika was one of the earliest texts in Buddhism and even pre-dates the Pali Nikayas, and the quote from Itivuttika 22, Group of Ones is IDENTICAL to the language used in the Anguttara Nikaya 7.59 from the Māpuññabhāyi Sutta. And the Group of One language from the Itivittika is identical to that in the Chinese Agamas, removing the sectarian issue altogether. You really can't get better sourcing than that for a quote given that is attributable to the Buddha. If you personally don't like this quote, then this is your POV rather than a serious attempt to contribute to this article. Wiki is not the place to air your POV about Buddhism but to describe the subject as accurately as possible using primary sources if available, and then secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Joshua Jonathan is that YOUR point of view on the reliability of the Pali suttas is NOT authoritative at all. In fact, it sounds like sectarian Mahayana nonsense from your use of the Sanskrit word 'sutra' instead of the Pali 'sutta' that was used in the edit, and used by all Theravada Buddhist scholars. You are certainly free to include the Mahayana perspective on the Pali suttas, but this should not be the ONLY point of view that we see on Wiki regarding the Buddha and Buddhism. After all, Mahayana Buddhism was a MUCH later addition to Buddhism and was dramatically adapted to local Asian cultures and practices as it moved eastward to China and Japan. This makes the 'sutras' not very reliable, but you can't say the same thing about Pali sources without EVIDENCE. The evidence we have here in Sri Lanka are palm leaves dating to the First Century BCE directly from the Fourth Buddhist council whose sole mission was to preserve the Pali oral tradition so we have - as close as we can - a record of what the Buddha actually said. The actual quote I use is the same language we find in the Chinese Agamas that many Mahayana Buddhists now claim as the primary source material for what the Buddha said.

The fact that you have no problem with Andrew Skilton's quote from the Pali suttas (Majjhima Nikaya) in the same Wiki section, but have a problem when the Pali suttas are used to extend further the point made by Skilton shows some sort of personal bias on your part that has no place on Wikipedia if you really are interested in neutrality. You sound like far too many so-called editors on Wiki of Buddhist material that disguise their Mahayana bias to edit GENERAL material about the Buddha and Buddhism that really does need neutrality or have both the Theravada and Mahayana (and Vajrayana) perspective fully represented. The Pali suttas as a whole - not just the quote offered - reflect the divine nature of the Buddha from the time before he was reborn as Siddhattha Gotama, and throughout his 40-year ministry. To omit this fact from Wiki is a GROSS distortion of the Buddha and Buddhism, and does a disservice to the Wiki reader seeking to understand who the Buddha was and his divine nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrahmana (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Buddha". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 June 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Buddha". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 June 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Buddha, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism

Hi Fellow editor, O have noticed you appear to be having some issues with a particular editor who keeps deleting references from that article. Do you think I may need to take it further? Thanks SH 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some?... Looks like a matter of WP:ROPE; several editors are at his tail. Go ahead, though I'll keep on eye on him too. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transcendentals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaedrus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tenali Ramakrishna

I feel you edits have been biased.
Why do you say the names are in Tamil before the begining of sentence where all names follow, while you added only two new names? It gives meaning as if all names are Tamil, I have removed that term Tamil as there are other names also.
You manage to find sources which say Tenali was part of tamil traditions aswell as Telugu, You find sources claiming there is no record of his historicity, but you cannot find sources that his name includes Vikatakavi, there are several books printed with the name Vikatakavi Tenali ramakrishna, also You cannot find sources which say he was a Telugu Niyogi Brahmin.

The Note 1 in the article is written in a biased tone, though the specific words were used in the book the rest of the words have been omitted, so the meaning the Note 1 conveys is wrong, as it is not entire.

RTPking (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Tenali Ramakrishna#Bias

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. On the Tenali Ramkrishna Article you have deleted sourced information which says that he is a Poet and writer in Telugu language. Your edits have been biased. The information has been restored. RTPking (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:RTPking#July 2013:

Calling good-faith edits at Tenali Ramakrishna vandalism, as you did with this edit, is not WP:GOODFAITH, especially not if those good faith-edits are directed against your repeated removal of sourced content, which you did despite repeated explanation at the Talk Page of Tenali Ramakrishna [1] [2] and two warnngs at your Talk Page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilakam

Please check into the article's talk page.--CuCl2 05:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Buddhism

Hello, given your interests and recent edits, would you like to get involved in mediating/editing this dispute, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later (work is waiting). By the way, did you already try Visual Editor? I just did; I find it very disappealing. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah I did try it, I don't think Ill use it for now. I am a bit bit worried it might be easier to vandalize now though.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pseudophilosophy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/ernest-newman/pseudo-philosophy-at-the-end-of-the-nineteenth-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tamilakam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

ref>}}, contains several references to ''centamiḷ nilam'', "land of refined [[Tamil people|Tamil]]").<ref>{{cite book |last=Zvelebil|first=Kamil|title=Companion studies to the history of Tamil

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkyu

Hello. You have a new message at Nishadhi's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hinduism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maharaj Ji and Agama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Zen lineage charts entry

So, I'm not all that familiar wtih the behind the scenes at Wikipedia. How do we avoid going back and forth changing each other's changes? John McRea is wrong when he uses the word "created" except in the very technical sense that the whole Zen lineage did not appear in written form until the Tang. However, the lineage up to Vasubandu did appear in written form in the Sarvastivadin writings way before there was even a transmisison of Buddhism to China. So it is definitely a misrepresentation to say the lineage was "created" in the Tang when the evidence showse there was lineage before the Tang. I am at a disadvantage at Wikipedia because I don't know how these infighting changes are resolved. It looks from above that you are involved in several mediations due to unilateral changes. Can we work this out without having to go to a formal mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Wonderwheel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Zen lineage charts#Change to Zen lineage entry

Explanation sought

Please explain on what basis have you reverted 6 OF MY EDITS on Tamilakam now that I have added both reliable sources and did not tone down any content without one. And btw you are the one supposed to discuss, since you were with the revert. I placed my revert only after 6 of my edits were reverted at one go without explanation under WP:TW. --CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 09:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Tamilakam#Reverts at 21 july 2013

Post-Vedic

Hello Joshua Jonathan (I like your user page)......just to say that looked at your latest edit and change from post vedic hinduism.....there is a ref to same in first sentence in that section......unless I'm missing something. Iztwoz (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Obviously you did not miss something. It's a specific view on Indian history, in line with Neo-Vedanta and Being Different. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there, Can you please get back soon on Talk:Tamilakam, now that we have somewhat sorted out our earlier misunderstandings and can work up a solution sooner? I know you're being a little deal preoccupied maybe, but it'd be at least more of help, if you would suggest me how to go about writing a neutral article at least now that the ban on the page has expired. Thanks.--CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 16:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check the edit I have made at Tamilakam, At first sight it may look like I have just re-instated most of my last revision but I have used lots of caution and discretion this time around, anyways please go through this edit; and bring any objection to my notice if you might have any. I would always will be willing to collaborate to present the best version accepted by all parties around. Thanks.--CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 06:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thrust you show in me; it's encouraging, with al these discussions going-on at India-related pages. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spirituality

Hi Fellow editor, I think we have collaborated on several other articles before. I have tagged the Sikh section here for several reasons. The editor in question who has written it, means well but I fear lacks WP:Competence from several other articles I have edited. I do not want to discourage him, but he's falling into several classic traps of Indo based wikipedians. Namely google search references which are not WP:Reliable, WP:Common and presenting WP:Fringe rather than consensus. Your help and aid, particularly on citations and grammar will be most valuable. The key thing missing in that section are the central principles of Sikhism based on the Spiritual being linked to the Temporal, mirrored in Miri Piri, Shakti and Bhakti etc. I will try and update in the next few days. Thanks 07:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history. Thanks for your trust, and for the remark "several classic traps of Indo based wikipedians". Editing Buddhism-articles is fun; editing India-related articles is quite different... I'll have a look, and see what I can do, though I'm quite busy at the moment. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow editor take a look at my latest effort. Does this read well to you? Thanks SH 10:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Maharshi

1. Since we both disagree on a single paragraph, have requested other editors to also review and comment. Let us wait till we have more opinions and then make decision. If we still unable to get agreement, we can go to the admin, etc, Till then then the disputed paragraph can stay deleted.

2. I have also included some important information about Ramanashram with historical documents. It is relevant to this section. If you want to delete that, you need to give me clear opinions. Not just delete without any explanantion. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply removing the discussed info as you like it, without reaching WP:CONCENSUS, is immature and unacceptable behaviour. Iy you had any interest in Wikipedia, or a feeling for proper behaviour, you would have given arguments instead of oushing your point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are making a mountain out a mole hill. This is a very minor issue. The sentence removed is redundant and not required to be highlighted in this section. The information is already detailed in Notable students and in the other page Neo-Advaita Prodigyhk (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zen lineage

Dear Joshua Jonathan. Do you know of another source than the Denkoroku for Zen lineage? I am working on a 5x expansion of Buddhamitra for Did You Know. It seems to be about time that somebody acknowledges that the Patriarchs could be women. (If I remember right, Dogen said gender equality is the "most wondrous" Buddhist truth, and Keizan also believed in supporting nuns.) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ton Lathouwers, a Dutch Chán-teacher, said so too. Bu that's in Dutch, and only in MP3's from teishos. Maybe that one of the books of Bernard Faure contains more info. And John Ford has written on at least one female Zen-master, Houn Jiyu-Kennett, in Zen master who?. Otherwise, I'm at odds too.... Wish you succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for your counsel. Best wishes to you, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffna beckons!

Greetings friend, It seems to me that User:Blackkinght12 has trifled with one of your contribution with obvious intention to vandalize, in the article the Jaffna Peninsula. I have twice been able to revert his edits, but never the less, I want you to take note of his Anti-Tamil instincts and the blatant aggression with which he is attacking all sorts of meaningful edits anybody who disagrees with his opinion(even knowledgeable and experienced neutral editors) is likely to make. I would like your advice.Thank you.--CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sry, my bad. I didn't go through the 'Toponymy' section where he has shifted most of your wordings to. Sry for disturbing you for a dumb fault of mine, greetings.--CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 06:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detached

“

Oh let us live happily! Freed from attachment,
ever free from longing, disentangled, released
among those, who are entangled, involved,& always longing.
Among those hoping and longing, let us live free from all yearning.

”

— Dhammapada Chapter XV

Enjoy your Wiki-break and have fun, gonna miss you though...

Thanks,

Nishadhi (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, attachment... in so many subtle ways. Thanks for your response! The house is great; the RSI is still there, though. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Salutations Joshua Jonathan! Recently you may be aware that this happened in Ajativada, and I've browsed through the talk and history; If I'm not mistaken this IP is most likely a close friend of yours and you both have a past together :) Need help and I'll be watching it till you reply, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same. I'll post another SPI. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll watch that too. Also I must say, I found some links on your userpage quite informative and helpful (in the subpages: Sources and Tools). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad it's helpfull to others. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ged UK 20:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History2007

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Does anybody know what happened to User:History2007? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like their account was renamed to VanishedUserABC (talk · contribs). I'm assuming that they vanished... past that I haven't a clue. I marked it as "helped" but feel free to re-add {{helpme}} if you're looking for more assistance. Cheers, — dain omite 05:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What a pity that he left. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ravana etymology

You might wanna consider these two as well.

[3] - "one who causes crying for others"
[4] page 90 - Howler (the one who cried)

Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The second link took me too long to open, though. But I've used the first one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Harvard Study DISproves Aryan Migration

Can you please add this information where relevant? One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper (abstract, longer abstract, comment) said:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently. (Breaking India Appendix A)

He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A)WrongConclusionfrom2009Study (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theories#You guys have the opposite conclusion from 2009 Harvard Study for my reply. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord siva

hi Joshua could you look at the article namely called Shiva. Because i seen more edit wars on that.I hope you could monitor that.Thank you.--Eshwar.om ^{Talk to}^me 07:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Thanks for your thrust in me! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ai. If you have a dispute with User:SpacemanSpiff and User:Abecedare, the burden of proof is probably at your side, because they are very good editors, and you are reverted by two editors. I'll have a further look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you validate your accusation of "ownership" by Abercedare? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your accusation of "edit warring" is ungrounded, since you seem to be edit-warring. Use the Talk Page, as adviced by SpacemanSpiff. You're only creating new problems for yourself now. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JoshuaEshwar.om ^{Talk to}^me 05:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Naga People

Thanks for your recent edits on Naga people (Lanka). However when you had reverted part of my tweaks, you actually duplicated the lead which was already shifted to under a different header. You might want to have a look at it. Regards --CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 09:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same message twice? Anyway, the article still needs a lot of work to be done. The source I've added may be of interest of you, though it's rather old, and maybe not reliable to Wiki-standards. But I didn't check that out. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that, was working on multiple tabs. Which one? The one called the Sundayobserver? The article does need a lot of development, and I'am certain that none of the Sri Lankan editors would let me edit the article(or any article for that matter) without calling for a disruptive and meaningless 'discussion'. You could help expand hopefully with less disruptions, in terms of cultural aspects like Religion, cuisine, language and architecture etc. I find your edits to be generally neutral and well-written(something I need to work on), though a little single-minded in nature. So, besides just the disputes you are asked(i.m.o deceived) to mediate, I would appreciate if you got involved in historic and cultural articles of Tamil Nadu where quite a lot needs to be done, but lacks the editors with caliber to do so. By the way, have you any experience regarding spoken articles on Wikipedia? Regards --CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)--CuCl₂ ^(talk ^. ^contr ^. ^mail) 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my main interest is on (Zen)Buddhism and modern spirituality. I got involved in Hinduism & India because of Advaita vedanta & Neo-Vedanta; Vivekananda has had an enormous influence on modern spirituality, yet I found this modern syncretistic understanding of spirituality very one-sided. It's the same one-sidedness which makes a bit favourable toward the Tamil point of view, because neo-Vedanta tends to emphasize the supposed unity of Hinduism, and of the Vedic share of it,a nd ignore other influences, like Tamil-culture. So, not much energy left for the Naga-people... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism: Undid revision 579153646 by Druksoogs. Unexplained removal of sourced content

Hello Joshua, I think the addition of the picture (with this text) by Tobby72 did not aim to illustrate the article but to introduce a critique (welcome!) which does not really fit into the main text of the article. It seems strange that the text does not describe the image content (original description: Monks in foreground with the southern portion of the dzong visible across the Mo Chhu). The critique is also redundant: the same sentence was added to the article "Criticism of Buddhism"/ accusation of violence (where it does fit). I do not know why Druksoog changed the image description but I think the result was not so bad. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:BUddhism#Buddhism: Undid revision 579153646 by Druksoogs. Unexplained removal of sourced content . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note 10 in Hinduism article

I was reading your last few edits to the "Hinduism" article and I found two typographical errors in Note 10 but I don't know how to access the note to correct the errors. (I clicked on Edit in the Notes section and saw almost nothing in the edit mode box.) Perhaps you would like to correct the errors. They are:

ont instead of on, and
eight century CE instead of eighth century CE.

Cheers. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just corrected them. The notes are in the article itself, with the make-up tag {{refn|group=note|........}}. Thanks for notyifying! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, it's "notifying". Also by the way, you forgot the final left-facing carat, so your user name did not appear, and mine didn't either. I changed double curved brackets to left-facing carat (or whatever it's called) after "nowiki" near the end of your comment, but I don't know what happened to your user name. It's not there. CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your report at WP:ANI

Hello, I saw your report at WP:ANI here. I would like to inform you that you should report vandals to WP:AIV instead, as WP:ANI is more suitable for complex abuse, while WP:AIV is for reporting definite vandals after receiving a level 4 or 4im warning. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 12:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism

Hi Jonathan, I hope you are well. I noticed that you added a new reference to the article on the FNT here: Four_Noble_Truths#First_truth:_dukkha

The complete reference is: Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism, p.57 Kumar Rantan and B. Rao, Discovery Publishing House, ISBN 81-7141-653-5

Could you possibly provide the full quote that you are referring to in this reference? I'll try and work the quote in to a footnote if possible. The text itself is very expensive to purchase in the U.S.

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dorje108. The reference was added by User:SafwanZabalawi with this edit. Hopefully he can help you further. The book can be found at Google Books, though; can you approach it in the USA? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jonathan. I was able to find the info that I was looking for. I moved the reference to the article on Dukkha and added a cross-reference from FNT. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dorje and Jonathan.

As for the reference ( Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism, Kumar Rantan and B. Rao, Discovery Publishing House, ISBN:81-7141-653-5) – it is on googlebooks. The page I referred to (number 57) was available on the web but now it is not - while other pages are screened instead! However, on the same subject, here is a quote that can be an equivalent replacement on ‘perception’ or impression about the First Truth; it is from book : ‘Death, Contemplation and Schopenhauer’ page 68, Raj Singh ISBN-13: 9780754660507 Ashgate Publishing Ltd:

“The literal meaning of dukkha is sorrow or pain,…, the repeated use of the term and its literal meaning create the impression that the Buddha takes a gloomy view of human reality..” .

I take this communication as an opportunity to ask, why the section I added about ‘Perception and Criticism of the Four Noble Truth’ was deleted? The article seems to be tightly controlled to give a certain view – each view repeated in each and every school of the ten thousand or more Buddhist temples and sects!. This makes the article a study competition not encyclopaedia presentation. Why not have Theravada definition & Mahayana views in a simple short and clear presentation – and also the Perception and Criticism section? Criticism is not negative - it is a perspective to complete the article.Namaste.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SafwanSabalaw. Most of the info in the section that you added was actually about the Nichiren POV, and Jonathan has kindly moved that info to the section on the Nichiren tradition. The point about the perception of pessimism is covered in the article lead and in the section on the First Noble Truth. I've also included a section on this topic in the article on Dukkha. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. The preception of pessimism comes from variety of sources and deserves wider mention, and so is the teaching of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Buddhism - which deserves also counter perspectives if any. What I sense here is that the words " Perception and Criticism" are somehow deliberately avoided and its contents is widely scattered in a lengthy article in unrecognisable patches. This does not serve a better editing and presentation of the article, but I'll leave it as a comment. Wikipedia is developing, and there may be an intention in the future to add the section "Perception and Criticism" to all articles of philosophical nature.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Four Noble Truths#Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism. To be continued there! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

Could I have your assistance at the above article? I'm trying to get some consensus there. There's an editor who seems to lack WP:Competance who keeps adding daft edits. Thanks SH 22:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again?...Did you already try Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics? Otherwise, I'll take serious look (though not tonight; it's time for bed here in Holland). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bed is calling out softly "Come here, come here...", yet I took a longer look, but still think: take it to the notice-board. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I'm in the UK so not too far away. Been having a Marathon Lord of the Rings session . :) SH 09:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subschools of Vedanta

Hi Joshua, Thanks for your updates on the template. It seems to me that Neo-vedanta of Vivekananda is a type of Advaita. Look at 3rd paragraph of Sooklal in p34. Also, by Radhakhrishnan, did you mean Ramakrishna? Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chapeau. Neo-Advaita gives prominence to Advaita, yet it gives its own intepretation. See Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press. Sooklal:

By the Neo-Vedanta of Swami Vivekananda is meant the NewVedanta as distinguished from the old traditional Vedanta developed by Sankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD). SanJcara's Vedanta is known as Advaita or non-dualism, pure and simple. Hence it is sometimes referred to as Keva[a-Advaita or unqualified monism. It may also be called abstract monism in so far as Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is, according to it, devoid of all qualities and distinctions, nirguna and nirvisesa. According to Rathna Reddy (1984 : 18-19), Neo-Vedantism is a re-establishment and re-statement, reconstruction and revaluation, reorientation and reinterpretation of the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara with modern arguments, in modern language, suited to modern man, adjusting itself with all the modern challenges.
The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second, elwmevadvitiyam. But as distinguished from the traditional Advaita of Sankara, it is a synthetic Vedanta which reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism and also other theories of reality. In this sense it may also be called concrete monism in so far as it holds that Brahman is both qualified, sag una and qualityless, nirguna (Chatterjee, 1963 : 260).(Sooklal 1993 p.33)

And by Radhakrishnan, I definately mean Radhakrishnan. Rinehart:

The hegemony of neo-Vedanta was achieved by a long, circuitous, and ultimately international pathway. That pathway featured local attempts by colonized intellectuals to defend Hindu culture from Eurocentric and Christian denunciation; with time it featured the attempt to transform the previously embattled worldview of Vedanta into a kind of aggressive missionary message. In figures such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan we witness Vedanta traveling to the West, were it nourished the spiritual hunger of Europeans and Americans in the early decades of the twentieth century (a hunger with its own fascinating history). During its sojourn in the West, Vedanta was in turn nourished with both financial support and the increased intellectual prestige that came from being associated with the like sof Aldous Huxley and Christopher Isherwood. Some would argus that it was, in fact, this refashioning of Vedanta in the West that allowed it to assume a veneer of genuine "Indianness" that it might not otherwise have had. Returning to India under the banner of India's spiritual wisdom, Vedanta could be compared to pizza - an "authentic" Italian meal created in America (bharati 1970). Thus Vedanta's international prestige helped further cement its position of cultural leadership in India. (Rinehart 2004 p.199-200)

Rinehart:

Though neo-Hindu authors prefer the idiom of tolerance to that of inclusivism, it is clear that what is advocated is less a secular view of toleration than a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of of Vedantic truth. Thus Radhakrishnan's view of experience as the core of religious truth effectively leads to harmony only when and if other relgions are willing to assume a position under the umbrella of Vedanta. We might even say that the theme of neo-Hindu tolerance provided the Hindu not simply with a means to claiming the right to stand alongside the other world religions, but with a strategy for promoting Hinduism as the ultimate form of religion itself. (Rinehart 2004 p.196-197)

Interesting to note: Radhakrishnan was a Smarta, the branch of Brahmins who give special reference to Shankara, and who see the various gods as manifesttaions of the One. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Advaita is not synonymous with Sankara. The diagram shows the Bhedabheda class of philosophies as Advaitic too, besides Shankara's philosophy. Ramanuja's philosophy is called Visishta-Advaita, just as Shankara's is called Kevala-Advaita. All the Bhedabheda class of philosophies have tried to reconcile relationship of the jiva with the atman---they are same and yet different. And this is what Vivekananda did too, and should be classed under Bhedabheda. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think, but that's based on my own understanding, not on sources, that Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan are closer to Bhedabheda than to Advaita, despite their 'public adherence' to Advaita. That's revolutionary to state, isn't it? But since I don't know of sources underscoring such an understanding of Neo-vedanta (though Nicholson might be interpreted in that way), while I have read several sources which state that Neo-Vedanta is a novel interpretation & understanding of Hinduism, it seems saver to me to present it as a fourth stream. Would you know of sources which justify a Bhedabheda-classification? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Template talk:Subschools of Vedanta#Neo-Vedanta and Bhedabheda - to be continued there!

Yoga

Dear Joshua Thank you for your comments about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga#History. I cannot remember where I saw the best reference to yoga having ancient origins, but I have added a couple of quotations and hope these are satisfactory to you. With best wishes Shyam Mehta (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyam Mehta. Yoga is ancient, for sure! Info which is likely to be disputed deserves goud sources; but direct quotes from primary sources won't help. Have a look at *Samuel, Geoffrey (2008), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-69534-3, maybe there's some relevant info in there. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua It is kind of you to respond. Western scholars seem to look at the 'scientific' evidence but seem not to place credence on what the primary texts say. There are quite a lot of quotes from primary texts that I have seen elsewhere on wiki, so why could we not have quotes here? Then those who believe in the views of Western scholars could dismiss what the texts say if they wish and those who have a more traditional point of view would also benefit from a different point of view. I have quite a few copies of the Yoga Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita and there really is not much doubt about what they are saying. I have been studying these and other texts for 40 years and have been practising yoga for 57 years. I do not have a sectarian view but wish to get at the truth, not just in relation to the history of yoga/Hinduism/Vedanta, but also as to its content. Anyway, enough of my rant! I look forward to hearing your views. Best wishes Shyam Mehta (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long time. Great! I understand your wish to present "traditional" views. The problem for Wikipedia with that is that this is an encyclopedia, which has set as a firm rule to use secondary sources, instead of presenting primary sources. Ideally, it's not up to us editors to interpret those sources, only to present an overview of what the relevant secondary sources say. You can present traditional views, but in the format of "this-or-that tarditions says this-or-that about this topic". See also WP:RS. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Re. User talk:Ringbang#Ajativada - FYI. Saved me a lot of hassle. Ringbang (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The topic is very dear to Tony; I've often felt a little bit uncomfortable about interfering with it, but the Buddhist influence is too clear. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Buddhism

Dear friend,

I came across this collection of articles. Since your are engaged in Buddhism related articles you might wanna have a look. You can download the pdf versions by clicking on the red 'P'.

Buddhist Publication Society [5]

Put them to good use.

Thanks

Nishadhi (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immense, what a collection! Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inproper use of warning template and personal attack ("vandalism"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dhyana in Hinduism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ashtanga Yoga

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve this section

This section, needs to be improved, the first line of the section is really unsourced, and if i removed it, the section will start lacking it's real meaning. You probably know about it, give your try :) . Bladesmulti (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book[6] has gave the same 100% text that has been given in the section Hinduism#Diversity and inclusivism, and blamed on court, although i couldn't find if court provided that definition. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Hinduism#References needed

Edit Requests

In the Yoga article, picture of Shiva is duplicated twice, when there used to be a picture of Buddha. Again in the Yoga article, Bhagavad Gita section is too lengthy. In the Bhagavad Gita article, there should be mention of Buddhist influence since one of the books used already is specifically about that topic (Early Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita). Lastly, the Buddhism and Hinduism article needs a complete rewrite.178.170.111.154 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, that's quite a list! I'll take a look and have a try later; thanks for your trust. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a few looks; the picture should be easy; the BG-section could be better, but is not very long; the book is very interesting, and deserves closer attention; the Buddhism and Hinduism article is hopeless. So far, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book also has a section on 'allegorical interpretations of the battlefield'. this is also a large section in the article. The book also gives countervoiews, stating that the battlefield is exactly that: a battlefield. Interesting to add to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism#Yogi
I noticed a group of edits to the article on Yogi just now. I saw some problems with syntax (sentence structure) and verb forms. Normally, I would go ahead and either correct them or just revert, but since there were changes to the content of the article by this last editor, a few edits from the last one, I thought I would ask you to take a look at them and see if they constitute an improvement to the article. I know you are quite knowledgeable regarding Hinduism. If and when you determine what content should remain, you can either correct syntax and verb errors, or let me know and I will work on it. If you don't want to work on it, I will wait and see what happens. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look; thanks for asking. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. He may have a point, but it's completely unsourced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why are you behind this one since I'm a Hindu and I know my culture very well. I was changing all those only because the sense that are using are not approved by Hinduism. I've noticed some of my western friends repeatedly use the word Yogi, and even call themselves as Yogi as they practice yoga. But this is certainly wrong since Yogi in Hinduism has nothing to do with yoga. Some Yogi may practice Yoga. That's it. What you are showing as references are the western writers and it seems they even don't know about Indian rather Hindu culture. This are misinterpretation of truth. Please stop conveying wrong messages.

I gave some sources but you didn't accept those, but why? Hinduism related texts are in Sanskrit and they are not digitized, so how would you get references in English. The websites which were cited are some of the very few source available in web which has a clear and true interpretation of Hinduism and those may not in the wiki's trusted lists since such websites were not sited very much.

Smaj23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smaj23 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Yogi#Yoga - Siddha

Hi Jonathan, I appreciate your interests in Yoga and Indian culture. I never engaged in editing content and this time I'm also not doing this. But I have to make a message that some tag of war has been going on between you and Smaj23 on Yogi content. I feel that Smaj23 is correct in his point. Any Hindu origin will agree with him in this issue. The way you are changing the content is making meaning elsewhere. So, please take a look on it... Thanks...

Hindu_lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindu lead (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Smaj23, stop this nonsense. Read WP:SOCKPUPPET, in addition to WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonathan, I made some changes in the texts with references of Gita which you should read and increase your knowledge in the this regard... Thanks...

HIndu_lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindu lead (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism

Understood. Whatever you regular editors of that article think is best. Thanks for the polite message. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita - Wikisource

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi Joshua, thanks for your attention to my edit re:wikisource. The problem with the template as corrected by you is that it links to the English wikisource. What I added was a link to the Sanskrit Wikisource; now the link comes up dead (there's no sanskrit on en.wikisource). I thought maybe the sa link could match the en link at the very bottom of the page; only I didn't know how to do that. Any ideas? Devadaru (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm sorry; I'll take a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't fix it either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it and made the article display links to both the Sanskrit and English versions. The template you need to use for non-English Wikisource is Template:Wikisourcelang. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks. Good work. 06:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devadaru (talk • contribs)

Criticism of jainism..

"Hindu nationalism" is appropriate? When we add the criticism by Richard dawkins or chritopher hitchens, do we add like "Atheist ideology"? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Dawkins is an ideologist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sam harris, so now it's "criticism by source".. As we got multiple critics on the page. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshua, Sorry to have been a little heavy handed with the deletions. I didn't realize it was you who was adding the material, since I assumed you wanted to see it delete. I want to look a little at the history of the page. Will post here again. Again, apologies. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind at all! I wa sjust taking a look at how to propese a merger. I've merely read the whole discussion, just skipped through both threads; took a look at the history, and then at the page. Simple conclusion: stupid, meaningless, non-contextualised quote, definitely POV. But, at least, parties are discussing! I've seen worse. By the way, my note on the 'grand narrative' and the exclusion/inclusion of Buddhism and Jainism into the Hindu-fold is correct, isn't it? The two narratives are incompatible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are saying is true, but with an important caveat: the incompatible narratives don't necessarily lead to social exclusion. I think many Jains in urban areas are thought of "one of us" by the Hindus. Jains and Hindus share many gods, mythological tales, religious festivals, etc. So, it's a little tricky. But, yes, philosophically, they do differ and are considered outside (and sometimes "after") the Vedas by the Hindus. I'm not an expert on this either, just read a bunch of books to help sort out an earlier Wikipedia crisis involving Jainism. See my user:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of interest.[7] The religious identity has been fluid in India historically when it comes to Jainism and Hinduism. There was no "all or nothing". However, sometime during the publication of Herman Jacobi's kalpasutra introduction (in 19th century?), Jains started demanding a separate identity for followers of Jainism. At present the community is divided on this issue. Some Jains would say that they are Hindus while others would like to be called as Jains and nothing else. We have a (ridiculous?) article on Legal status of Jainism as a distinct religion in India. Theologically and Philosophically, however, Jainism has always been different from Hinduism --Rahul (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also trying to create two articles, User:The_Rahul_Jain/Jain and User:The_Rahul_Jain/History_of_Jain_studies. I think they are also somewhat related. --Rahul (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: deja vu User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism

@Rahul: thanks for the link. The more I get to know about India and Hinduism, the more those issues of "identity" come to the fore. I'll read the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu revivalism and Jain identities

The content you recently added solves the POV problem.[8] However, I do not think it should be present in the Criticism of Jainism page. It seems to go a bit off-topic. Wouldn't the same content be more appropriate for the article Jainism and Hinduism? --Rahul (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure

But respond first at the talk page of "criticism", so thers can engage too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Rahul (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the section to the article Jainism and Hinduism [9]. Hope its all right. --Rahul (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Criticism of Jainism

Would it be better if this article (Criticism of Jainism) is deleted? Would you support its deletion, if I nominate it for AFD? --Rahul (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your rationale, I guess. But the whole category "Religion x and religion y", and "Criticism of religion x", seems to be collection of disputable articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.

Joshua Jonathan, don't you think that that mysticism article is a bit crowded with templates? Isn't there any way of making them kind of smaller or what, mini templates... or something... well, you know what I mean. Hafspajen (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice point - both, the point you're making, and the summary in the header. Yeah, I know what you mean. How about replacing them by {{Main|Sufism}} etc? By the way, I've changed the Jewish Mysticism template into a smaller format. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. Appreciate that you left Francis of Assisi alone. Like that picture. If you want change them, yes. Who is making those templates? Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can make them. See WP:SIDEBAR. By the way, nice pictures at your userpage and talkpage.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joshua. Are you into mysticism yourself?

JJ - Yes, both theoretically and practical. When i was 18, I realised that the "I" does not exist, that "I" am some sort of "emptiness". A thrilling insight, but also very frightening. Since then, I've been trying to understand this "insight". It makes me very critical of popular descriptions of "mysticism" and "spirituality"; they tend to lump together everything, searching for commonalities while ignoring the specifics, the differences, enad the historical contingencies. "Mysticism" is not just an experience; it's also collections of practices, and frames of reference which direct those practices. And "mysticism", and related traditions, are not just about "union"; they are about a way of life, self-purification, and care for others - about life on this earth, instead of transcending c.q. escaping it. If you really want to be spiritual, stay with the other, especially when he or she is in deep trouble, and there is no solution. See Shin'ichi Hisamatsu and "the impossible question". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but this is very simple. You are enlightened. Whatever you do, it doesn’t work. What will you do? YOU don't have to do anything. Everything is there already. Hafspajen (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ - Unfortunately, "enlightenment" doesn't work either. Shit still happens

. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens? I was saking what happened to you... if you don't want to tell, it is OK: OK?Hafspajen (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the reasons which are there to stay with others when they are in trouble. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me - what were you telling me now? I don't understand...Hafspajen (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JJ - It means that normal life just goes on. Inight is one thing, becoming a Buddha something different. There's a nice Zen-saying: "The Buddha and Bodhisharma are still practicing". Those are wise words. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Well, yes and - no. Things will happen sometimes when you let them go and not force them to happen. Hafspajen (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surat

I wonder if you could look at the latest edit to the article on Surat. An editor deleted some information that had been there for a while, including nicknames for the city. Regarding the nicknames, the first three I remember seeing when I reviewed the article (correcting errors, improving clarity and sentence structure) a few months ago. The last one, "elora country", I don't remember seeing before and do not even know when it was added. I don't know what it means, but since it does not resemble the other three nicknames, perhaps it doesn't belong there; I don't know. Perhaps you or someone who knows the topic could review this latest edit. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The info is/was unsourced; I've no idea if it's important or not. But given the never-ending "disputes" at India-related articles, if someone finds it important, it will appear again. And then we get a clue if, and why, it is important. But personally I wouldn't bother to find out. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note on vocabulary

Hi, Joshua Jonathan -- I've been reading the discussion on the Talk page of the Hinduism and Yogi articles. I've noticed that you have used the word "representant", or its plural, "representants", several times. It didn't sound right to me; I've never heard it used as a noun. I looked it up on Wiktionary, and I see that I was right. As a noun, it is obsolete – it hasn't been used in a long time. It is still an adjective, though, although not even common as an adjective. So you can't say, "they are representants of...." Some words you could use instead are, "a representative/representatives", "an exemplar/exemplars", "an example/examples", "an instance/instances" (for things and occurrences, not people). There are probably others I cannot think of right now. You could also change the sentence so that you use a verb instead of a noun: "they represent..."; "they symbolize/ise", etc.CorinneSD (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne. Thanks for your feedback. I'll read it again, and try to memorize it. I read the text you submitted to and removed from your userpage; it's astonishing. so complex, and yet flowing. Funny thing is, it's the kind of language I use in Dutch. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New page for Vedas

You think, that it would be good idea to create a page like "Legacy and impact of Vedas" ? The current Vedas article has hardly talked about such different and needful subjects. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh!!!!! NO! Man, you're going to build a reputation at Wikipedia as "The long-quotes man". Somewhere in the same league as a certain editor with a great enthusiasm for the Jain-legacy.

Okay, now for a friendly response: what exactly have you got in mind? I mean, the first and major theme is the impact on Indian society - or the 'symbolic' reference paid to the Vedas, as some sort of 'pledge of allegiance' to the Indian heritage. Sorry, my skepticism again. But I do think you should try to avoid more pages like Influence and legacy of Dayanand Saraswati. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page needs a lot of summaries. This page Influence of Bhagavad Gita needs the similar changes too. I think i should start with the sandbox this time, instead of direct creation.. ? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, yes. Actually, I think you can wait for someone to tag your Dayanand-page. I've created a page on the sources for the birthplace of the Buddha, as a resource for the ongoing discussions on this topic, and it wwas also tagged (and eventually I put it back into my userspace). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hinduism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Puja

Indo-Aryan migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Reading tip

Thanks a lot! Bladesmulti (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Criticism of Jainism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of Jainism 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/Criticism of Jainism 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 notice from the top of the article. --Rahul (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mysticism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Prajna|insight into reality]], the cessation by [[dukkha|suffering]] reaching [[Nirvana]], and [[Bodhicitta|, [[Karuna|compassion]] for the benefit of all [[Sentient beings (Buddhism)|sentient

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

I know your main field of interest is Hinduism, but I thought you might also be interested in the article on Bangladesh. I just saw a few edits to the article. There is at least one grammatical error, but besides that, they do not seem to be an improvement. I thought I'd ask you what you thought.CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

FYI, you're crossed three reverts already: 1 2 3 4 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchoctober (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two, actually:

This edit (15 dec 18.31) was reverted by you (16 dec 09.35), where-after I paraphrased (16.26)and then shortened the quote (16.33) as a compromise;
this one (16 dec 16.12) added a break;
Which leaves two reversions, namely the re-insertion of the Templeton-note (16 dec 16.18) and the removal of your unreliable sources (17 dec 07.03)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan again

Yes, that person was basically saying about Radhakrishnan "i love him, like i hate him"... Funny though, doesn't change that he's highly acclaimed. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hs grudge is against me; we've had quite some clashes before. He's even been blocked for personal attacks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, seriously wikipedia gets funnier than it could be, many times. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're really funny; this guy's been driving me mad, and you see the fun of it! Thanks, that's good! It helps me to let of it

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Joshua, my thanks to you for your appreciation of Gk verbs :) Manytexts (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sramanic background for Upanishads?

If the Upanishads have any sort of Sramanic background, why isn't this mentioned on the Shramana or Upanishads pages?JedisvsSith (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is a "work-in-progress", just like my (and your) understanding and knowledge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha not born a Hindu?

Although Lal Mani Joshi fully agrees with you here, then why does the Buddha page still say he was a born a "royal Hindu"? Why was that edit request ignored? JedisvsSith (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying; I've removed that misinformation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu views on Buddha

The opinion varies. I have got to read many different opinions about this one. Buddha's teachings are not matter here. I don't think buddhism or hinduism had any conflicts. And China's civilization wasn't iconic, until buddhism became prevalent. So buddhism probably had great popularity in China, so it basically revived. Maybe there were many other religions in those days, but buddhism happened to become 2nd most popular indian religion.

Even though Hindus consider Buddha as an Avatar, except for an idol of Buddha in every temple, Hindus seldom worship Buddha. To some extent, Hindus attitude to Buddha is similar to the attitude of Jews to Jesus Christ. - Suresh Chandra, Encyclopaedia of Hindu Gods and Goddesses (Kindle Locations 508-516), (2012-08-15).

Is he reliable? I found it in wikipedia myself. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... I don't know (yet). But this quote does not provide very much context. There must be better sources. I'll come back to it later; I've got to cook dinner now. Maybe this one: [10]? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it; it looks acceptable, but I think there are better sources, which provide more context and history. Oh, and there is a whole Wiki-article on the subject: Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link and Talk page

The talk page of Buddha is pretty much flooded with raging, clearly contradicted Notaforum guidelines, but it's fine if you wanted it. And i clearly forgot that bracket could lower the link.. My bad, but thanks for correcting.

I did Enneagram test much before, like 1-2 years ago, but the subjects varied, thanks for the link, this one was new to me. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know the threads are stupid. But they are informative; they remind everyone how much nonsense goes around at India-related Wiki-pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Happy Holidays!!
	From Hafspajen (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Same to you. Nice picture, as usual! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one :)

Thanks for the link. Appreciate it. Generally what else you prefer to read? Other than philosophies of buddhism, hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; actually that's what I mostly read. I also like history; the bold publications, with macro-history. No novels; I'm a typical male... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, history is the best subject, of just anything, sometimes even 1 day old story is part of history. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At upanishads, you made a nice edit. But i changed it into "some of the earliest description about the concepts of world religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism" as there's vast agreement if Vedas(much older text) had it all, ahimsa, karma, reincarnation, etc, 3 core concept of these 3 religions/theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll have to provide sources for this "vast agreement". As far as I know, the "vast agreement" is that those concepts did not originate with the Vedic religion. Michaels:

"The legacy of the Vedic religion in Hinduism is generally overestimated. The influence of the mythology is indeed great, but the religious terminology changed considerably: all the key terms of Hinduism either do not exist in Vedic or have a completely different meaning. The religion of the Veda does not know the ethicized migration of the soul with retribution for acts (karma), the cyclical destruction of the world, or the idea of salvation during one's lifetime (jivanmukti; moksa; nirvana); the idea of the world as illusion (maya) must have gone against the grain of ancient India, and an omnipotent creator god emerges only in the late hymns of the rgveda. Nor did the Vedic religion know a caste system, the burning of widows, the ban on remarriage, images of gods and temples, Puja worship, Yoga, pilgrimages, vegetarianism, the holiness of cows, the doctrine of stages of life (asrama), or knew them only at their inception. Thus, it is justified to see a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions." (Michaels (2004), "Hinduism", p.38)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of the things this writer has written. See, there's huge explanation.. "Yoga" is practice, probably invented by Shiva, or whoever depicted him, written him down. Pilgrimages became important for those, who wanted to see the location, wherever deity is noted to have been engaged in some special task. Holiness of cow is written in Vedas, in "agnya(Ng. II.11.1)" has regarded "cows, sense organs, earth and cattle should be increased not killed", Burning of widows was never sacred, it was formality for those who wanted to save themselves from the invaders, this practice stopped only by 1947, after independence, not before that. Vegetarianism is obvious Vedic doctrine, in the sense that Veda forbids killing of animal, either for product, weapon or meals.. Caste system wasn't organized or had any legitimacy until it was observed by the outsiders, british had legalized it and since then people would think that castes are unchangeable, while we do have List of Shudra Hindu saints, like Dadabhai Naoroji has pointed that caste system was being hyped/promoted by the british and missionaries. "Remarriage of widows" was forbidden by society, not by scriptures, as per dharmsastra re-marriage of widows are allowed for the present age. That's how. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism talk page

please see Hinduism talk page. 107.16.116.72 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAC

I'm sorry but I've reverted all of your edits at India Against Corruption. The change in citation style made a right mess of things and you introduced quite a lot of unnecessary sources (eg: Britannica). I'm sure that it was by no means all bad but working out what was ok and what was not is a nightmare. Can we perhaps start over with your additional sources etc and determine which ones are needed? - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I gave it a try, and spent enough time on it already. I'm fed-up with those people and their diva-behavior. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about spelling

I noticed a word in the article on Hinduism which I did not recognize as a word, but I am not sure what the word really is. It is in the section on "Inclusivism", third paragraph, in the block quote beginning "As a counteraction to Islamic supremacy...." It reads "hitorizing". Should it be "historicizing" (although I'm not sure that's a word, either)? What do you think it should be?CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is "historicizing" third line from the bottom (not correct English too, I guess?). Thanks for noticing & asking! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thank you for the link, but I could not find the word.CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to correct the quote in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]