| Revision as of 05:15, 27 August 2014 editJarble (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users149,694 edits Linking to sources for this article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:39, 13 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,286 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (613 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes }} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | ||
| |importance= | {{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=top}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} | |||
| |auto=yes | |||
| {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|eastern=yes|religion=yes}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{WikiProject Buddhism|class=C|importance=top}} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=Top}} | |||
| |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== | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{philosophy|importance=low|class=C|eastern=yes|religion=yes}} | |||
| == 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Proposed External Link: karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group == | |||
| ] 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Errors in the article? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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". | |||
| 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--> | |||
| For details, see ] | |||
| == Universal karma == | |||
| * Seems to be important, but maybe it does not match with wikipedia's linklines. | |||
| :Austerlitz -- ] (]) 10:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ] | |||
| == 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? == | |||
| 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! | |||
| 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--> | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Too much == | |||
| ::"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--> | |||
| {{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) | |||
| == AN.5.110? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Fallacious justification for claim of non-determinism == | |||
| : 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) | |||
| 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)" | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| *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}}). | |||
| :::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) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::This not even close to an undue weight problem. We're talking about three short paragraphs in a relatively small section of a long article. In this ''particular section'' ("Modern interpretations and controversies") most of the hundreds of years of Buddhist studies are not relevant--they were already given a thorough airing in the balance of the article. Aside from his academic credentials, Loy is widely published and read by the general Buddhist audience and is one of the most most prominent voices on the subject.] (]) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::My concern is that if you can't recognize Lamotte's translation of the Karmasiddhiprakarana as a reliable source, then you don't have sufficient familiarity with the field to be weighing in on what is and isn't a reliable source. You are tagging ''Numen'', which is easily verifiable as a leading academic journal by anyone remotely familiar with Buddhist Studies, as not being a reliable source? Seriously? And to add an RS tag to a book by a tenured professor of Buddhist studies and published by a leading Buddhist publisher? That's just ridiculous. The RS tag isn't something to be added indiscriminately to articles when you have zero familiarity with what is and isn't a reliable source on the topic in question and can barely be bothered to find out.] (]) 18:33, 3 September 2010 (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.] (]) 21:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think that the sections on East Asian and vajrayana needs substantial improvement before it could deserve any recognition. but some parts are definately good. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Thanissaro Bhikkhu quote == | |||
| The article, directly under the Mahayana heading, contains this quote without any context: | |||
| ], a Theravādin monk, speculates that the development of the karma doctrine in the direction of determinism necessitated the development of the Mahāyāna concepts of ] and savior Buddhas (see ]): <blockquote><nowiki>n</nowiki> later centuries, when the principle of freedom was | |||
| forgotten ... Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed | |||
| no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that | |||
| could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it.<ref>Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Freedom from Buddha-nature", page 4. Available online: .</ref></blockquote> | |||
| Now, I do not know exactly why Thanissaro Bhikkhu is being used as an expert on Mahayana, because he is certainly not a specialist in this area. He is widely respected in Theravada Buddhism, but there should be no illusions that he is NPOV regarding Mahayana. His writings often contain tinges of spite and derision regarding Mahayana or bodhisattvas, or subtle attempts to write them off as being spurious inventions. In this case, Mahayana belongs to the dark "later days" of Indian Buddhism when "freedom" had been forgotten, and all the ignorant Buddhists could do was cling to nonsensical whims about savior buddhas. Frankly, this sort of quote isn't even on the NPOV radar, so I have removed it from the article. ] (]) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == AN 5.292 == | |||
| I can´t find this sutta online. Can you please offer a link or cite the original (English) quotation? Actually I am not sure if it is a good thing to cite this specific sutta at all. I think it is too fatalistic for an introductory text to karma without further explanation. ] (]) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It is cited in a secondary source - I've now provided the citation. Whether or not it would be perceived as "too fatalistic" by some readers, besides being entirely subjective, is not something that is a legitimate consideration in editing wikipedia articles. They are intended to be accurate and NPOV as possible, not edited to make their subject maximally appealing to the imagined sensibilities of the readership.] (]) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==DN 3.217 == | |||
| This does not seem to be a correct reference to sutta 3 in the Digha Nikaya (DN). In a commonly used English translation (Maurice Walshe) there is no subsection 217 to DN 3. ] (]) 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, there is more than one convention used in citing Pali scriptures. I'll dig up the secondary source where this reference was given. But from what I can tell from the Walshe this occurs on pg 484.] (]) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 'blaming the victim' == | |||
| ''The question of the Holocaust also occurs in the Jew in the Lotus: A Poet's Re-Discovery of Jewish Identity in Buddhist India, which describes a group of Jewish religious leaders who meet with the Dalai Lama. They ask one of the Dalai Lama's party, a Buddhist scholar named Geshe Sonam Rinchen, if the Holocaust would be attributed to past karma in the traditional Buddhist view, and he affirms that it would. The author is "shocked and a little outraged," because, like Loy, he felt it "sounded like blaming the victim."'' | |||
| I don't dispute the source of the above, but OTOH it doesn't suggest that there was any opportunity for a rejoinder either. I have no published source, but oral explanations from teachers of the same lineages as Geshe Sonam Rinchen have repeatedly clarified this issue as follows: | |||
| * All beings have been generating karma endlessly. | |||
| * Until we are very accomplished on the path or if we have purified or previously ripened it, the vast proportion of our negative karma is unripened, waiting for the circumstances under which it may ripen. | |||
| * This implies that anyone (not just jews or any other group) in the same circumstances would have undergone the same fate. | |||
| * The remarkable thing is regarding those for whom the karma wasn't present (and therefore didn't ripen) | |||
| * It gives us an idea of how many people in the world would survive a global disaster of similar proportions - about 9%. | |||
| * So, for any given circumstances (such as the holocaust) there is a 9/10 chance that you have the karma for that to ripen in you. | |||
| There are also all sorts of other problems about using terms like 'victim blame' - the notion of blame is not present in Buddhism, in that the agent of one's actions is not the person, but the intentions arising in a mental continuum. Instead we are, as Dennett (1992) puts it, “centers of narrative gravity.” That is not to say that persons or their actions do not exist, but rather to say that our mode of existence is merely conventional, merely imputed. (For more on this see Garfield 2006 and Newland 2009). If we are to ascribe agency and responsibility (notions that underpin the idea of both 'victim' and 'blame') then we will be ascribing agency and responsibility to the nominal entity of 'person' only. | |||
| Moreover, and this is probably the most central issue in terms of the purpose of Karma in Buddhism, is that it is used as a didactic methodology for establishing a strong grounding in responsibility for one's actions, and it most emphatically is not used for explaining historic events. The entire emphasis of Karma within Buddhism is the inevitability of consequences to one's actions. (] (]) 11:36, 26 September 2013 (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