User talk:Tcat64

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist influence

The information in the article is 100% correct. The reference does say the Mandukya Upanishad itself was influenced by Buddhism. There is no confusion with the Karika's, which were also influenced by Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well...then the reference is wrong. See (for example, the [entry on the Upanishads] for details on the dates of the Mandukya Upanishad (MU). The upanishad considerably predates the Mahayana. I don't think you will find a serious historian who thinks otherwise. The state of "turiya" was known even to earlier (750 BCE?) Sankya philosophy. So yes, while the KARIKA may have been influenced by Buddhist teaching (I doubt it though and think it is the reverse), the MU itself predates Mahanaya by centuries. Note that the reference you mention is written by someone who appears to be a Mahanaya Buddhist.

Olivelle is recommanded literature for you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite absurd...why is one reference + another flawed one, more credible then the other three mentioned in the Vedanta article, i.e., Deussen, Ranade, and Radhakrishan. I think this is a big mistake, a blunder. Sankhya, Vedanta, and Theravada were well aware of 'turiya' or 'shunyata' around 500 BCE. Thus in Theravada, there is the concept of Shunyata, so that itself predtes the Mahayana--see for example Bikku Bhodih's translations of the earliest Pali Scripts. You are being very authoritarian making changes without first discussing them. Further, if you read the actual upanishad, it uses a different concept than shunyata. It uses the concept of turiya. It is like a half full glass of water. The pessimistic Buddhists saw the glass as half empty (the void/shunyata, the absence of any phenomenal content) while the Theravadists saw it as the glass half full (Pure Consciousness, the Brahman). This is quite absurd and very frustrating. Sorry for the emotions.

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Mandukya Upanishad are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of warnings & Discretionary Sanctions Notice

Tcat64, here's a couple of warnings:

POV-pushing at Mandukya Upanishad diff diff
Misusing userpages diff

Take also notice of this generic warning:

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? You are pushing a reference (Nakamura) that doesn't meet [WP:RS] (references cannot be authenticated and you want to give me a warning? Tcat64 (talk)

January 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly

This is silly. This too. As Montanabw already told you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of tea

Let's have a cup of tea; see diff and diff. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]