User talk:ScientificQuest

Welcome!

Hello, ScientificQuest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hello ScientificQuest. I just want to say that I like and appreciate the interesting and valuable material you have added to the 'Anatta' entry. Certain other Wikipedia 'editors', however, may not be so welcoming. Good luck! From Suddha.

Suddha (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta

Hi SQ. I found your addition to Anatta of conceiving non-self as a skillfull action every helpfull! After 26 years of studying Buddhism, this was a piece of information which clarified my understanding basically. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua Jonathan. All of the angas of the Noble eightfold path are framed in terms of actions.

Formation of views and rejecting all other views in favor of one specific view is an action. sammā dițțhi is therefore the act of choosing to accept the Buddha's teaching on karma as a correct explanation of phenomena.
Formation of resolves is also an action, and so is sammā sankappo. In particular, the resolve to generate good will, harmlessness, and renuciation are all related of the brahma vihāras. All these are not only actions, but even set in the framework of actions. For example, the Pali chants on metta also remind one that even if one may generate good-will for others, All beings are the owners of their actions, heirs to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.
sammā vācā, sammā kammanto, and sammā ājīvo are clearly set in terms of actions.
sammā vāyāmo is right effort, and it is related to both otappa, and atappa.
sammā sati is related to the act of remembering or keeping something in mind. Often this is translated as right mindfulness.
sammā samādhi - often this is not thought of as an action. But even this is an action.

The entire path that the Buddha taught was in terms of karma. Even the four noble truths are set in the framework of karma. How? taṇhā (or craving) is the unskillful cause, dukkha (or suffering) is the undesirable result. The noble eightfold path is the skillful cause, and nibbāna is the desirable result. So even the four noble truths are just a more refined realization of karma.

ScientificQuest (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta #2

Calling Kalupahana "original research" is, strictly speaking, correct: it is his (scholarly) understanding of this topic. Yet, you seem to be using it as it is being used at Wikipedia. And that's not correct. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, such as Kalupahana. You're giving your personal understanding of the Nikaya's, arguing against Kalupahana - and that's indeed WP:OR as the term is being used at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal understanding, but the well-published public English translations of the Nikayas (which I had referenced) are exactly contrary to Kalupahana's original research. Kalupahana's research is not well-established, and is not accepted by the general monastic scholarly community either.

Now, the principles of Wikipedia, which involve the questions of consensus and authority alone do not have much value in reference to the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that while people take these 10 different sources of information to be valid, they are inadequate in helping one judge if the action should be engaged in["Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas" (AN 3.65), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html]. But even by those standards, Kalupahana's original research is far from accepted in the monastic scholarly community.

But if we were to judge Kalupahana's original research by the Buddha's own criteria:

Don't go by (i) reports, by (ii) legends, by (iii) traditions, by (iv)scripture, by (v) logical conjecture, by (vi) inference, by (vii) analogies, by (viii) agreement through pondering views, by (ix) probability, or by the (x) thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.

In this case, Kalupahana's view that the Buddha avoided taking any stand on the question of moral responsibility is being considered. We owe it to ourselves to judge if this interpretation is compatible with the Nikayas or not. If on choosing the view unskillful mental qualities arise, we should seriously question the view. And we can judge that if one seriously assumes that there is no clear indication about moral responsibility in the Buddha's teachings, then we are setting the stage for Buddhists acting in unskillful and irresponsible ways.ScientificQuest (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta‎, but we cannot accept original research. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Joshua tried to explain the original research in your edits twice, Victoria Grayson added an OR tag in response to your edits and several edits were reverted by JJ and Tengu800 because of OR. Please take your time to read the relevant policies and guidelines that represent the consensus of the wp community and please stop adding OR. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Understood. I have agreed to the modification that Joshua has made to the part that was talking about Cula Saropama Sutta and how Mahayana is different etc. I removed that portion. I also modified the Kalupahana bit. Is there something else that is offending? I'm sorry, but I'm new to Wikipedia's editing. So I'm trying to learn.ScientificQuest (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hi ScientificQuest. I've rolled-back your post at Anatta again. It's the third time that you add your personal analysis. It lacks indepedentent sources, and mainly represents a Theravada point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Don't give up, you're definitely on a good track. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In support of your edits of Anatta

Hi, just to let you know that I am in process of preparing a DRN Notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits. And to support you in the discussion - I think he has treated you badly, reverting your edits without any discussion of the actual content of what you added to the article.

I've also posted to the article in support of your edits, see Again

For details of the dispute, see: Dispute overview.

Robert Walker (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, stop your WP:HARASSMENT and WP:CANVASSING. You're over the line here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:Discussion of Robertinventor´s use of talk pages. Best regards 12:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)JimRenge (talk)

To reassure to SQ: this has nothing to do with you. Your edits are welcome; if I can help you further, please let me know. I already told you earlier that your edits were helpfull to me personally. I'm looking forward to the academic sources you've got to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, particularly for instance "Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong"." Robert Walker (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look at his edits - there are some statements there that are unsourced - but - you also frequently add unsourced statements to your revisions of articles, especially with your first revisions. And many of your edits of wikipedia remain as controversial, unsourced statements right to the present day. And there is much content that seems excellent to me. It doesn't seem at all clear that the appropriate action was simply to revert all his edits, without comment, and without offering any helpful details of how you felt his edits could be improved. Instead the way to deal with it, surely, is to point out particular passages that you felt had issues with them and discuss them in detail on the talk page. And to say which statements in your view needed more citations, rather than just a blanket - "remove it all and try again when you become a better wikipedia editor" statement. Robert Walker (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, shall we go back to ANI? Harassment, canvassing and disruptive talkpage behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten you

Hi SQ. You asked me tell more about what to do. The answer is quite simple: menton the sources you've been using, with specific pagenumbers, so others can follow and, when they feel so, check your info. Threat Wikipedia as an academical paper: what would Fronsdahl want to see in such a paper? I hope you will share your info; I appreciate your info, but it simply needs more and better sourcing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. So you would only need page numbers? Please remember that all academic Journal papers also only cite the paper. When citing the translation of a particular Sutta, they simply cite just the Sutta title and mention the author. They usually add a footnote on where to find it in Journal papers, but here on Wikipedia I give the actual link to those translations. That said, I can definitely try and make it easier for people to understand the sources of my articles. Now I shall post on your page a short write-up on acceptable sources so that we have a common understanding.ScientificQuest (talk)

Joshua, his latest edits had been in place for less than 24 hours when you deleted them. It is not at all a requirement that wikipedia editors should fully source all content on the day that it is added to the encyclopedia. He also had citations for his content already, and said he was going to add more. The way you treated him should only be reserved for spammers. Newbie editors need to be encouraged, and I simply can't credit it that out of those 47 edits there wasn't as single sentence you could say something positive about. That's irrespective of the question of how good or accurate the edits were - as he is someone studying the subject at graduate level I would assume that they are reasonably accurate. Robert Walker (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove to me that what I wrote is original research, for if it is, then I will send it to peer-reviewed Journals instead of wasting my time here. Did you even get a chance to read my edits before saying that it is original research. It had citations for almost every single sentence from the translations of various Canonical sources, as well as essays and articles written by well-read and highly reputed scholar monks. To name a few: Handful of Leaves, A Vol. V by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Ñanamoli. Remember scholar monks have the dual power of scholastic understanding of their literature and simultaneously steeping themselves in Buddhist practice that no tenured academic at any university would match. All the translations, and essays and journal articles are freely accessible on the Internet, published by reputed publishing houses and distributed freely (except one source by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Ñanamoli) across the world. The translations as well as essays and articles themselves have been cited by many peer-reviewed journal papers as authentic sources. Both translation works Handful of Leaves, A and The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha are used as textbooks at UC Berkeley for a graduate level program in Buddhist Studies with a Theravada emphasis, as well as the Sati Institute of Buddhist Studies. Hence the translations themselves qualify as published sources. Can you cite any reasons to claim either that a) the sources are not acceptable (because they are widely accepted in academia and all peer-reviewed Journals on Buddhist Studies), and b) that I have gone beyond the scope of what exactly these sources say and have synthesized my own ideas based on those materials? If you cannot, then please stop your WP:HARASSMENT.

Just to say - for more background - this has been a subject of a long RfC (Request for Comments) on the Buddhism talk page here: RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources? so you have got caught up in a larger controversy. Many editors here are in support of what you say. But the opposing editors such as Joshua Jonathan claim that even articles and books by the Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula and Prayudh Payutto are secondary sources and should only be used as sources for articles on Buddhism if they are backed up by writings by western scholars. That makes no sense at all to me, I must say! As you say if they are used as textbooks at university - how can they fail to be acceptable as secondary sources on wikipedia? The RfC got roughly equal votes in favour and against, with many strong opinions stated. But there was also an issue in the statement of the RfC so it probably needs to be restated and run again to resolve the question. Robert Walker (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are PRIMARY SOURCES.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some flowers for you!

Thanks for the replies; highly appreciated.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: how about adding some info to your userpage? The red link is so unappalling. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]