| Revision as of 15:05, 1 September 2010 editJrtayloriv (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,855 edits →9/1 edits← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:39, 13 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,285 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (633 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Buddhism| |
||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=top}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|eastern=yes|religion=yes}} | ||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{find sources|karma|Buddhism}} | |||
| ⚫ | ==Western Bias in main Karma article== | ||
| == April 2007 == | |||
| This article contained a fair amount of nonsense, and hardly anything is sourced. For the monent I've altered it to agree with Theravada doctrine, except where it specifically refers to Mahayana. I hope people who know about other schools can note any differences. ] 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An RfC seems an obvious way ahead but the editor who feels strongly that the article should remain as it is has shown no interest in a RfC. | |||
| == Proposed External Link: karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group == | |||
| ] 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The issue is that the article has a ] section which is based on an article by a Western philosopher Whitely Kaufman, called "Karma, Rebirth and the problem of evil" presented to the "Revisioning Karma" conference. | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| I'm note sure how the following quote from the page makes sense: "In Buddhism, Karma is simply there as a guide and an indication of what the reason for your present state is and how one's future can be made better by self effort. Fatalism and pre-determinism is the anti-thesis of the notion of perfection or self-conquest -- which is the primary aim of Buddhism." In particular, Buddhism never advocates any "self effort" as there is no "self" to excert the effort, and an enlightened being only observes (hence, generating no karma). There are no goals of "perfection or self-conquest" in Buddhism, only the idea of realizing the truth (since an elightened being has no clinging, it can't possibly have goals). It seems as the entire passage is wrong, but I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to modify the article. | |||
| It presents many conclusions Kaufman made about Karma, and presents them in objective "encyclopaedic tone" as issues with all such ideas not just in Western adaptations of the ideas but in the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma. Also it is presented before the sections on Karma in Hinduism, Buddhism etc - so at that point in the article the reader hasn't yet been exposed to the original ideas. | |||
| I'm not sure that the revisions improve the article. This article lacks citations for assertions such as Karma only refers to "cause" -- and this is important because if you look at the way Karma is generally used everywhere, nobody uses such a definition in practice. This might be a place where one should talk about the different views of Karma within Buddhism rather than adding a sectarian view and not citing the source other than a personality. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| There is no evidence as far as I can see that her arguments have been accepted as even of interest by Eastern scholars. Those involved in the debate as far as I can see are Western theologians and philosophers. At any rate, no Eastern scholars as far as I can see in the papers submitted to the conference on "Revisioning Karma". | |||
| == Universal karma == | |||
| * Seems to be important, but maybe it does not match with wikipedia's linklines. | |||
| :Austerlitz -- ] (]) 10:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For details, see ] | |||
| == the article has the word arhaticide, can someone please explain what that is, word is not found in any online dictionaries, is it spelled correctly? == | |||
| As you'll see there also, Dorje presented a suggestion for re-ordering the page that was supported by myself also and one other editor but it came to nothing ] | |||
| someone needs to explain the meaning of "arhaticide" please. thanks <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I don't know what to do next, I know sometimes on Misplaced Pages there is nothing you can do in cases like this, just drawing your attention to this. Suggestions welcome! | |||
| :It's a neologism for sure, but it seems like the most concise way to spell it out - it means just what it appears to mean: killing an arhat. The meaning should be clear from both the construction and the context.] (]) 05:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| ::"Killing an arhat" would probably be a more straightforward way of doing this than a neologism. ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == |
== Too much == | ||
| This sutta is given as a source for a claim which is controversial in some circles about whether or not karma is the supreme natural law. The Theravada position seems to be that it is just one of several laws, but I'm trying to clarify my understanding. However, I can't find this sutta online; or else I did find it but didn't see how it supported the claim -- see http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/011-phasuviharavaggo-e.html linked from http://www.suttacentral.net/disp_sutta.php?subdivision_id=63&subdivision_name=Pañcaka%20Nipāta&collection_name=Pali&division=AN&acronym=5&type=Subdivision ] (]) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the only public English translation of it is the Pali text society edition. The sutta you linked is AN 5.11 not AN 5.110, unfortunately. You could ask ] for more about this. He has the PTS translation I believe, and I think he knows Pali anyway, so he could look at the Pali source too, which is online. ] (]) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your reply. I also noticed that the text is labeled "011" instead of "110" but wasn't sure if I was just missing something else. I suppose I should email suttacentral.net to let them know their link is incorrect. Thanks for the pointers on where to look. ] (]) 09:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{yo|ZuluPapa5}} I think that is becoming too much. The article is on Karma in Buddhism, not on Karma in Nyingma. Maybe you can move it to a better-suited article(s)? Best regards, ] -] 04:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Fallacious justification for claim of non-determinism == | |||
| :Ha ha ha, I sensed this was coming. Maybe wikipedia should have these individual Nyingma sections put into a combined summary, and drop the direct lama attributions here? I could draft a combined paragraphs and drop the lama attributions. Alternatively, ] could be an article following the ] and ] example. I have about 3 or 4 other Vajrayana Nyingma Buddhism references to add. What I am seeing is that causality literature originates with karma and as technologies advance the so do the human experience metaphors. Feedback appreciated. ] (]) 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| In the section on ], we find the following text: | |||
| "The theory of karma is not deterministic, in part because past karma is not viewed as the only causal mechanism causing the present. In the case of diseases, for instance, he gives a list of other causes which may result in disease in addition to karma (AN.5.110)" | |||
| : BTW, I just found an essene of the issue source, I believe it's pointing to sutra. Not to go against your concerns; but, plan to add it in to the top. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| This reasoning is fallacious. If a given type of event can be brought about by multiple types of causes, it doesn't either: | |||
| A) Imply that causation by a given type of cause (here, karma) is non-deterministic (i.e. that that type of cause "could have" failed to bring about that effect in any given case), or | |||
| B) That there is not deterministic causation by the whole list of possible types of causes. | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| There seems to be a misunderstanding here whereby "the doctrine of karma is deterministic" is confused with "the doctrine of karma holds that karma is the only type of cause." I'm not expert enough to correct this confidently, but I would be pleased if someone who was took care of this. ] (]) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::Well, let's first define determinism. American Heritage Dictionary has the following: "n. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." The Online Etymology Dictionary has "in theology (lack of free will); in general sense of 'doctrine that everything happens by a necessary causation.'" Maybe the sentence in question should read, "The theory of karma is not comprehensively deterministic"? ] (]) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: | |||
| :::Hm. Not sure I see how that helps. The point is that the text in question implicitly presents itself ("karma is not deterministic... because..." etc.) as offering some point against the view that the karma doctrine is deterministic (the definitions you present seem perfectly workable), but in fact it does no such thing. Asserting that there are other types of causes fails altogether to bear on the question of whether the actions of karma are deterministic, or indeed whether the world view that it forms a part of is deterministic. Imagine if I were to say "The doctrine of people falling off a cliff because they slip on a banana peel is not deterministic, because people are caused to fall off of cliffs by events other than slipping on banana peels." You can see that this makes no sense, because the existence of other causes of falls off of cliffs bears neither on the question of whether banana-peel induced cliff falls are deterministic (ie brought about inevitably by antecedent events), nor on whether falls off of cliffs in general are deterministic (in that same sense). ] (]) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm | |||
| *Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.surajamrita.com/yoga/hidden/box3/ABHIDHARMAHRDAYA.pdf | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
| ::Well, it seems to me that what the article is trying to say is that there seems to be a sense that in theories of determinism, particularly ], everything is said to happen by a necessary causation and furthermore the agent of necessary causation is ultimately ''singular''--an omnipotent deity. In which case, a model whereby causation can be attributed to multiple factors cannot be properly called determinism.] (]) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ==9/1 edits== | |||
| I reverted these because reliably sourced sections were deleted and too many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources. You may not agree with David Loy (and I myself don't), but he is an academic who is published widely and his opinions are valid in the section.] (]) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of my edits were valid, and you should not have mass reverted ''all'' of them, just because you disagreed with ''some'' of them. If you disagreed with something, you should say why, and discuss it here or re-add that part, not blanket remove everything. I've undone your removal of my edits, and we can discuss each of them here. I'll momentarily discuss each of them. -- ] (]) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| A few notes on my edits: | |||
| * '''Tagged sources''' -- You said "many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources". No, they were not. Academic publishers and scholarly journals were not tagged. These are "clearly reliable sources". Things like "kalachakranet" were tagged. Could you explain to me how this is a "clearly reliable source" under ]? In general, we should use scholarly sources, per ], since this topic is widely covered enough in the scholarly literature, that we don't need to resort to less scholarly sources.-- ] (]) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Loy''' -- I did not say that Loy's views were removed because they are not valid. I said that they were given undue weight. See ]. His views on Karma do not warrant 3 or more paragraphs. After hundreds of years of Buddhist studies, why do David Loy's views warrant such enormous weight? (Especially when there are plenty of higher-quality scholarly sources on the subject) | |||
| ==Nichiren's view of karma== | |||
| Anyhow, I don't know if there is anything else you disagreed with, but that's because you didn't say what you disagreed with and why. If you have any other problems, please let me know, and we'll discuss them. -- ] (]) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to add Nichiren's view of karma to the list. There are many millions of Nichiren followers.] (]) 21:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:39, 13 February 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karma in Buddhism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Western Bias in main Karma article
An RfC seems an obvious way ahead but the editor who feels strongly that the article should remain as it is has shown no interest in a RfC.
The issue is that the article has a Karma#Discussion section which is based on an article by a Western philosopher Whitely Kaufman, called "Karma, Rebirth and the problem of evil" presented to the "Revisioning Karma" conference.
It presents many conclusions Kaufman made about Karma, and presents them in objective "encyclopaedic tone" as issues with all such ideas not just in Western adaptations of the ideas but in the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma. Also it is presented before the sections on Karma in Hinduism, Buddhism etc - so at that point in the article the reader hasn't yet been exposed to the original ideas.
There is no evidence as far as I can see that her arguments have been accepted as even of interest by Eastern scholars. Those involved in the debate as far as I can see are Western theologians and philosophers. At any rate, no Eastern scholars as far as I can see in the papers submitted to the conference on "Revisioning Karma".
For details, see Talk:Karma#Western bias of the Discussion Section - summary of the issues
As you'll see there also, Dorje presented a suggestion for re-ordering the page that was supported by myself also and one other editor but it came to nothing Talk:Karma#Problem_with_recent_section_reordering
I don't know what to do next, I know sometimes on Misplaced Pages there is nothing you can do in cases like this, just drawing your attention to this. Suggestions welcome!
Too much
@ZuluPapa5: I think that this is becoming too much. The article is on Karma in Buddhism, not on Karma in Nyingma. Maybe you can move it to a better-suited article(s)? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, I sensed this was coming. Maybe wikipedia should have these individual Nyingma sections put into a combined summary, and drop the direct lama attributions here? I could draft a combined paragraphs and drop the lama attributions. Alternatively, Karma in Vajrayana Nyingma Buddhism could be an article following the Karma and Karma in Buddhism example. I have about 3 or 4 other Vajrayana Nyingma Buddhism references to add. What I am seeing is that causality literature originates with karma and as technologies advance the so do the human experience metaphors. Feedback appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, I just found an essene of the issue source, I believe it's pointing to sutra. Not to go against your concerns; but, plan to add it in to the top. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Karma in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.surajamrita.com/yoga/hidden/box3/ABHIDHARMAHRDAYA.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Nichiren's view of karma
I would like to add Nichiren's view of karma to the list. There are many millions of Nichiren followers.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class Buddhism articles
- Top-importance Buddhism articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
- Low-importance Eastern philosophy articles
- Eastern philosophy task force articles