Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 20040302 (talk | contribs) at 11:59, 2 February 2015 (→Madhyamaka - Primary deletion.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Religion / Eastern This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

Archives

/Archive1/Archive2

Original research

The following pargraph, which I removed from the lead, is WP:OR:

"The ancient Indian word for essence is atta (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often misunderstood as refering to the denial of a self or essence. But if there is no essence for anything, one could argue that even the Noble eightfold path has no essence at all, i.e., no essential or central teaching at all. In the early texts however, this view is criticized, and nibbana is the essence of the teaching, and every experience or mental factor has an essence to the extent that it leads to nibbana.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). In Mahayana however, this view and the explicit denial of self are found."

• The first sentence is acceptable, though unsourced; but it fits better in the article than in the lead, since it gives an introductory explanation;
• The following three sentences ("Hence"; "But"; "however") develop an argument;
• Next comes a quote to "source" this argument;
• Which is WP:OR.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was the one that posted the above verbiage, and I agree that the present form is much better. ScientificQuest (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Horrible

I don't know what happened, but the article looks horrible now. All these recent additions read like a personal narrative or opinion. Lets leave out all the meta commentary about what Buddhism "is" or "isn't", or how Buddhism or anatta is "misunderstood". It simply adds fluff to the article. I could remove entire sections that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. My suggestion is to summarize and condense the article. Like most forms of writing, the key to a good article is knowing when to leave things out. 75.108.159.239 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nibbanna and anatta

This section used to be a lot better. Instead of fixing it, I just removed it. There's no reason for it to be more than a couple sentences long. Nobody cares about different Buddhist philosophers and their personal disagreements with each other. I recommend a simple summary of the two or three viewpoints present here, without reference to any of these disputes between academics, or any argument whatsoever for why one view is better than the other.

Remember that there are multiple viewpoints, and that they all need to be given equal weight in the article. Do not list two contrasting opinions and then present an argument for why your opinion is better than the other. 75.108.159.239 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Again

Again a long post by @ScientificQuest:. I don't think it's nonsense what you write, but it reads like a personal analysis, from a Theravada point of view. Why don't you start a blog or so? This is the third time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua: This is not my personal opinion. I have cited articles, translated works, and if you want I can provide you actual quotes by eminent Buddhist scholars in the western world such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi. and Gil Fronsdal. Yes, of course it is a Theravada perspective - but:

1. I have written ONLY in the Theravada section of the article. I did not touch the Mahayana section. Given that there is already a section saying "Anatta in Mahayana", the article should rightfully include at least a substantial section from the Theravada perspective. Are you an expert in the Theravada perspective to be able to say that my post is not generally held in the Theravada world? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?

1. Given that Anatta is a Pali word, it merits a significant portion of this article. Can you give me strong reasons why the Theravada perspective must not be represented at all? Is there a Misplaced Pages guideline that says that perspectives of different religious sects should not be written, while clearly indicating that it is a perspective of that specific sect, and also citing specific sources? I am not speaking for all of Buddhism. But what guideline prevents us from writing the facts?

If this were indeed my own personal opinion, I would have surely written a blog. But this is not my opinion. I am quoting actual scholars. Indeed I did include more citations from Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi, but that is a matter of finding appropriate reference documents from the literature. I am already attending a masters in Buddhist studies program where Gil Fronsdal is the dean, and I have clearly heard this repeated several times by many sources, and this perspective is seemingly present in most of the Theravada world in the 21st century. It is agreed that before the late 19th century the Theravada world was NOT united in their opinion on this matter and debates raged on this matter. But the scholarly record clearly shows that since 1940s there has been a greater consensus. In fact those that do NOT take this view on Anatta have now become the fringe minority! And I can cite sources for even this claim from peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and the Journal of the Pali Text Society.

Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers. That being so, is it not a Misplaced Pages value and goal to present the generally accepted scholarly perspective?

Please enlighten me. I don't know much about the specifics of the Misplaced Pages rules.ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

HI SQ. I appreciate your efforts, and I don't think it's nonsense. But it reads like a personal opinion. I'm happy to read that you attend a masters program; it also means that you know how to work with sources. So, use them! Threat Misplaced Pages as an academic research article, and use those sources, and use the best you can find. I know that Harvey wrote a book on this theme; Gombrich and Bronkhorst may also have info. And I guess there may be more. Then, other editors may still be critical, but at least you can refer then to those sources. WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV give further clues on working with sources. Succes!

@JimRenge: @Tengu800: Any additions or helpfull comments here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: Bikkhu Bodhi is not an academic source; you can use him as an additional source, but academic sources are preferred. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScientificQuest, just to say, that Joshua Jonathan has done many major edits of articles on Buddhism recently that have been contentious. In particular major rewrites of Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Nirvana (Buddhism) and Dzogchen in some cases without any prior discussion. I am in the process of preparing a DRN notice about his activities, and found this through your post to his user talk page. I plan to mention this article also, for his reverts of your edits, and for his major edits in July 2013 removing all the material on the anatta debate in Thailand -and other sections. For our draft notices, see Dispute overview. I don't know anything about your topic area, but seems to me that given my experience of his previous actions on other articles, and given that you are doing a masters in Buddhist studies, that it is unlikely that his reverts of your many edits of this article were justified. His views on acceptable sources for articles on Buddhism are contended by other editors, so I wouldn't take his remark on Bikkhu Bodhi too seriously - this is part of an on going dispute about what counts as acceptable sources in this topic area and he is presenting his own view in this dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, stop your WP:HARASSMENT, and contribute to Misplaced Pages in a constructive way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is harassment. I'm in process of preparing a DRN notice on your activities and it is reasonable to investigate other edits by the editor concerned in the context of a major issue like this. I found out about this through his post to your talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of all your other behavior, it is harassment.VictoriaGrayson 11:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What I see here is that ScientificQuest did many edits of the article which you reverted without discussion. He said he could find more citations to back up his content. Following the wikipedia guidelines, it was not correct to just delete his content and not give him the opportunity to add citations to it. The reversion was also done without any discussion of the actual content removed. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There are so many problems with that statement, I don't know where to begin.VictoriaGrayson 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to Misplaced Pages:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems as best I understand it. Robert Walker (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He's been reverted two times before, with the support of Jim and Vic. SQ can reinsert his info any time, with sources. I'm looking forward to it, because I've good hopes that he's a valuable editor, who's able to use the sources he's been reading in a useful way. And now please stop here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

SQ, you have written: "Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers." Please cite these peer reviewed journal papers. Using sutras as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them is considered bad practice. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view.

"(...) Scholarly record clearly shows that since 1940s there has been a greater consensus. In fact those that do NOT take this view on Anatta have now become the fringe minority! And I can cite sources for even this claim from peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and the Journal of the Pali Text Society." Please present the evidencence , it would be very useful! JimRenge (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion

I am amazed at your claim that Bhikkhu Bodhi would not qualify as a reliable source. Bodhi is the President of the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy Sri Lanka. He is the author of several of the most highly cited (Springer Citation index says it is more than 100, Google scholar says more than 115) translations of the various Nikayas of the Pali Canon. Citations of Bodhi include people like Richard Gombrich, D J Kalupahana and many others. Bhikkhu Bodhi's student Bhikkhu Analayo is a professor at the Center of Buddhist Studies at the University of Hamburg.

I have a MS in Electrical Engineering and also MS in Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have a full-time job in the electronics industry, and am now also doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit (distance-learning program) from Benares Hindu University. So I know very well about citing sources in academic articles. But the criteria you mention (rejecting widely read scholars on Buddhism) is nowhere understood in academia and in fact goes completely against good academic policy. In religion, those that practice the religion know much more than those who just publish to increase their h-index.

A Misplaced Pages article is NOT an academic Journal paper and the standards of such papers cannot be applied here. It is meant to present a neutral position of various sources, not synthesizing new material from the sources themselves.

Hence I argue that Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, or Thanissaro Bhikkhu (and any other scholar monk - which by the way itself is a very stringent criterion) would qualify as far better sources for articles on religious doctrines. University Professors may or may not have the maturity required to understand a religious doctrine. And as is the commonly acceptable criterion for religious knowledge, when there is a dissonance between a university professor or an academic (even if it is me) and a reputed scholar monk, the words of the reputed scholar monk override those of the academic. ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu indeed are not reliable sources.VictoriaGrayson 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

SQ, I've got a MA (theology) and a MSc (psychology of religion & sociology of organisations); I've been editing Misplaced Pages for three years now; and I'm practicing Buddhism for more than 25 years now; so, I know something about scientific citations, about how Misplaced Pages works, and about Buddhism. This being said, let me repeat: you've got very interesting information to share. I'm looking forward to more of it. But just simply cite your sources.

Regarding "religious knowledge": Misplaced Pages is not about religious knowledge, it's about verifiable information. Please do read WP:RS. If you think that "the words of the reputed scholar monk override those of the academic", then don't edit Misplaced Pages, but do start your own blog. As a Dutch administrator stated: "Being enlightened is not a criterium for Misplaced Pages; reliable sources are." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In this Joshua Jonathan is stating a personal opinion in a topic that has been subject of RfC here: RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?. The RfC was equally balanced with strong oppose as well as support votes. In such a situation Joshua Jonathan's view on this matter surely shouldn't be taken as wikipedia poliy! I would argue myself strongly that scholar bikkhus are of course acceptable sources for wikipedia articles on Buddhism, and indeed, more reliable sources, generally, than many of the Western scholars. There are also Western academic scholars that are excellent or course. And surely will be scholar bikkhus surely who are not so good. It is on a case per case basis and not on the basis of whether they are a bikkhu or the country or tradition or method of study by which they learnt their scholarship. And your arguments for your sources to be accepted seem excellent to me. I'm fully in support of your views here!! Robert Walker (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ScientificQuest: If someone like Bhikkhu Bodhi is cited by as many scholars as you say he is, then why do you need to directly cite Bhikkhu Bodhi? You can probably just cite the works of those scholars where they summarize, explain and analyse what Bhikku Bodhi says. Citations or quotes by scholars in secondary sources does not mean that the sources they are citing qualify as good secondary sources. Secondary sources are those which critically analyse what primary - and other secondary - sources say, so naturally they quote or cite the sources they are examining.

Now I don't think we can say that all books or articles by scholars who are also Buddhist monks, nuns or religious teachers are poor or unreliable sources as some seem to be trying to argue. Of course where scholar who is also a Buddhist practitioner is primarily writing in his/her role a Buddhist teacher or for a publisher of Buddhist books they will likely be presenting only, or mainly, the Insiders view which may (at least for outsiders) be one sided or biased, but if that same scholar is working in a modern academic setting and writing an article for a peer reviewed journal or a book for a serious academic publisher, which have different sorts of standards, then they may be presenting a more neutral view. By the same token just because a person is a prestigious professor doesn't mean that everything that person writes on a subject is balanced and neutral - sometimes such people may write very opinionated pieces. Some academics, based on their research and interpretations, write books with controversial, contrary or novel views or interpretations not widely shared by other academics - of course if those views on a subject are significant, they should be included in any WP article on that subject - but not in a way which implies those views are the norm or widely held.

You are right when you say that Misplaced Pages articles are NOT an academic Journal paper and the standards of such papers do not apply here. Of course - the main job of academic journals is to present original research by academics in the field - while the job of an encyclopaedia, such as Misplaced Pages, is to have articles which summarize and represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of the article.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you Chris. If there is a Misplaced Pages article on Einstein's theory of relativity, we do quote and cite Einstein himself, along with other sources. The number of citations is so many that there is really no doubt about the validity of Einstein's theory, and his own work is directly read, instead of reading later citations of his work. Furthermore, if a text is used as a textbook in a world-class university at a graduate level, (which is clearly listed as a valid reliable source on ) then I don't see why one wouldn't cite the work itself. In any case, as you can see below, it is not that I cannot cite peer-reviewed journal papers. But I strongly feel that citing them on a religious matter is empty - it doesn't indicate that the people actually practicing the religion really believe what these academics are writing in Journals. Hence I hold the view that peer-reviewed Journal publications would NOT be as reliable as the those practicing the religion itself. If this were an article about the culture of the country, or the history of the religion, I would concede fully that peer-reviewed academic Journal papers would weigh more than a religious person, because out of enthusiasm for their own religion, a religious person might make tall claims about its history. But when it comes to understanding a matter of religious doctrine, the people of the religion themselves matter more, because they are less likely to misrepresent the actual religion - obviously they want their religion to be well-understood by others. But academics writing about a religious doctrine are less likely to spend the time required to fully grasp a doctrine and may do a superficial analysis.ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: Sure if an article is about Einstein or his theories you can directly quote Einstein, and if the article is about Bhikkhu Bodhi you can quote him. It is easy to verify what either wrote - and where they wrote in English, it should need little or no interpretation. As far as what the Buddha taught or said we don't have anything we actually know he said ~ or even what language he used. We just have compilations of texts representing what different groups claim or believed he said. On any subject like Annata, based on what they believe the Buddha said, there will also be many different interpretations amongst Buddhists of just what Buddha meant when he purportedly talked about Annata. Then different scholars of Buddhism will likely have different views of what these different (contemporary and historical) groups of Buddhists actually believe or understand on the subject Annata. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's the whole point here. Why does him being a Bikkhu disqualify him as a secondary source in this topic area? Why say that you can only use Bikkhu's as sources when the things they say are backed up by Western sources. It just makes no sense to me. Try doing it the other way around, that theologians can't be used as sources if they are Christian? Robert Walker (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Fynn - you're 100% right about the fact that we only have compilations of texts representing what different groups claim or believed he said. And indeed on subjects like Anatta there are clearly differing opinions. That is precisely why, authors of peer-reviewed Journal papers are no more accurate than a Buddhist monk in interpreting what the Buddha really meant by Anatta. However, given that Buddhist monks come in a tradition of people that practice and believe in Buddhist doctrines, even if their opinion is not evidence of what the Buddha taught, it is definitely a representative of the active opinion of several practicing Buddhist communities. On the contrary, the opinion of some academic author is just his own personal analysis or synthesis of the doctrine - which may or may not accord with how the doctrine is actually practiced in the religious community. Hence citing those authors could sometimes mislead people about the actual beliefs of a religious community. ScientificQuest (talk)

Note however, that on matters of history I would NOT admit Bhikkhus as relevant sources. For example, Bhikkhu Bodhi in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha claims that "...these words were surely from the Master's repertory...", while Gil Fronsdal is very careful to point out the fact that there is really no evidence that what we have today as scripture was what the Buddha actually spoke, or even that these were exactly what the original compilers of the Suttas collected. So matters of history definitely deserve to be cited with empirical evidence, but on matters of doctrine, we have to get it from the right source - which is the one that has mastered the doctrine and put it into practice - or at least try to do so.ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Sources on Anatta

Alright! Here are some of the sources that I shall be using. I shall mention them here so you can examine them right-away. When I do use them, I request the following:

1. I should be allowed a reasonable amount of time to word, quote, and edit the article properly and provide the right sources.
2. Even if I agree to present these sources, I insist on presenting the fact that the statements I make on the Anatta page will be supported by these sources as well as sources like Thanissaro Bhikkhu etc. The reason being that it must be very well known that these ideas about anatta are not the personal opinions of some academic quack, but are actually adopted and practiced by monks in the Theravada world as well.
3. In case there is a statement that is not properly sourced, I request that instead of arrogantly reverting all my edits, someone that is sincerely concerned ask me directly for secondary sources. It is important to help me understand what that means in Misplaced Pages since I am clearly new to this process. Is this acceptable?

Now some of the sources (this is not all, but since I'm not editing the article right now, I'm picking these off-hand):

1. Albahari, Miri. "Against No-Ātman Theories of Anattā." Asian Philosophy 12.1 (2002): 5-20.
2. Fontana, David. "Self-assertion and self-negation in Buddhist psychology", Journal of Humanistic Psychology 27(2), 175-195, 1987
3. Yozan Dirk Mosig. "Conceptions of the self in western and eastern psychology", Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1-2):39, 2006
4. J. Perez-Remon, Self and non-self in early Buddhism, vol 22, Walter de Gruyter, Mouton Publishers, the Netherlands, 1980

ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ScientificQuest: A better way to proceed - particularly if your edits are likely to be challenged by other editors of this article - might be to make a copy of this article in your own userspace and make the changes you want to there. Then, on this talk page, you can invite other editors to look at those proposed changes or additions and comment. Once there is some sort of consensus that your changes or additions should be included in the article you can migrate those changes here. This way avoids confrontations and edit wars. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bah! I have a full-time job and I'm working on multiple graduate degrees. If you want to make editing a page this hard for me, I'd rather not do it at all! Misplaced Pages editors are not worth so much of my time. I'd rather spend that time more constructively than argue with mindless Misplaced Pages editors and try to win their consensus. Please remember that facts are facts - they don't change based on the lack of consensus. I refuse to care about the opinions of editors who themselves have no credentials in Buddhism, unless they too present equally strong evidence.ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: That was only a suggestion of one way to proceed if you think your edits are likely to be controversial. Reaching some sort of consensus, or at least agreement from a few other editors involved in this article, may in fact save time over making controversial edits which might descend into an edit war which could go on and on for ages. Of course if your edits are well sourced and attributed you can just go ahead an make them. BTW Please don't be so dismissive of others, I've been studying Buddhism for 45 years, living in Buddhist countries for more than 25 years, am fluent in Tibetan language (written and spoken), and have been editing Misplaced Pages articles for almost 10 years. Like you I also have a full time job. I'm sure some other editors are at least as qualified as you or I and are just as busily engaged outside Misplaced Pages. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I'll consider your suggestions. But can I first know if the sources I have mentioned are acceptable? If I present such sources, would it be fine?ScientificQuest (talk)

They sound Yummy!!! Go ahead, I'm looking forward. I'll give comments at the talkpage. Chris, thanks for your friendly reply. Nevertheless, I've given my credentials above, so I'd prefer not be called "mindless". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from the details you have provided they look perfectly acceptable. If the views of these writers present may be controversial, just present them in a neutral way and clearly attribute them to the particular scholars - and avoid presenting them as if they are widely held if they aren't or that they represent some kind of definitive "truth". Try to present all the significant views on Annata in a summary style (without giving minority views undue weight because you happen to like their arguments) and leave it to the reader to make any judgements they want to. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris - that's a totally unreasonable request and also counter to the Misplaced Pages advice on forking articles. By the time his version is ready the mainspace version is likely to have changed - and then you have the problem of the history trail. Robert Walker (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Constructive comments

Hi SQ. I'll try to give some constructive comments to your last series of edits, which I reverted:

• Lead: "In Buddhism recommended" - then folows already the Theravada perspective, instead of a "general" (if that exists) perspective.
• Nikayas - Theravada: apparently you changed "Nikayas" into "Theravada." Theravada is not the same as the Nikayas or the oldest Buddhism; it's a certain interpretation of the Nikayas.
• "Anatta is not a rejection of a self, but is a strategy to see things differently. At the same time, beliefs in the existence of a self are not compatible with the Buddha's teachings either." - unsourced; reads like an essay.
• "Because most philosophers focus on asserting or rejecting a self, (Many Indian philosophers before, during, and after the Buddha propounded various theories of self. Even the philosophy of Romanticsm involved the assumption that the self is one with the universe, which is a form of self-view.) when people approach Buddhism, they assume it is answering the same questions. Thus they approach the Dhamma with the assumption that anatta is the basic framework, and wonder how karma could ever fit into such a framework. (For example: "If there is no self, then who or what is reborn?") But this brings assumptions that have no bearing on the Buddha's way of teaching. The Buddha's central teaching framework was karma, which details the strategies of skillful action that can lead to long-term happiness." - was this text yours? I don't know. But this too reads like an essay.
• "The Buddha's central teaching framework was karma, which details the strategies of skillful action that can lead to long-term happiness." - sounds very nice, and yet... karma does not "detail", on the contrary; it was one of several terms being used in the oldest Buddhism. And skilful action is not supposed to lead to "long-term happiness", it's supposed to lead to liberation. "Long-term happiness" sounds like modern well-being jargon.
• "In early Buddhism, a view or a belief was also considered an action, because views do have consequences. For example, if one believes that there is no moral impact of actions then the consequences can be very harmful, causing one to behave very dangerously. Another example from modern history is the Nazi belief in racial superiority, which led to the Holocaust and the Second World War."

• "a view or a belief was also considered an action, because views do have consequences." - great sentence! Though I do question the "because"; what's the source? The examples are problematic, I think; at least they should be attributed.

• "The gradual path of the Buddhist practice can be seen in two different parts: one leading up to concentration, and one proceeding from concentration. The path leading up to concentration depends on the other seven path factors (Anupubbikatha) (source: Ganakamoggallana Sutta: The Discourse to Ganaka-Moggallana" (MN 107), translated from the Pali by I.B. Horner. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.107.horn.html)" - this is a Theravada view. it's quite ancient, but not the oldest Buddhism. See Vetter, "Ideas and practices of earliest Buddhism", and Bronkhorst "The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India".
• "progressively subtler happiness" - you may be right here, but you're giving an overview, c.q. interpretation, of primary sources. Is it relevant, is it WP:UNDUE? I don't know... Do you?
• "Although all of these levels of happiness are skillful, and recommended on the way to liberation, they still do not match the happiness of complete liberation from samsāra " - Is this relevant, such a long section on the Theravda-view of the Path? it seems too long to me.
• Identity-view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) - interesting section, but again, reliance on primary sources, and no attribution.
• "But this does not mean that the perception of self is totally destroyed upon liberation. There are parts of the Pali Canon," - ai... interpretation of primary sources; and again, essay-like.
• Existence and Non-existence - interesting, but no context.

1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#micchaditthi
2. See Introduction of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, by Bhikkhu Ñānamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications

I hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Pudgalavāda in Tibet?. One important aspect this Misplaced Pages article currently lacks is the views of the Pudgalavādins who did believe in some kind of self and were an important orthodox Buddhist school at one time. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks! I'll copy it my e-reader. You know, anatta, "non-I", is the reason that I'm a Buddhist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: There is also a wide divergence of opinions on "non-self" amongst different Mahayana authors of Tibet. e.g. Tsongkhapa and his followers (the Gelug) place a strong emphasis on the validity of conventional reality/truth including a conventional self, others completely deny the validity of conventional reality, and then there are the Shentongpas whose critics claim are Atmavadins. Some Tibetan writers also make a clear and important distinction between the Indian Cittamatrin and Yogacara schools and their views in while others (like much western scholarship) lump the two together. Actually the whole topic of Anatta / Anatman in Buddhism is vast. It might be better just to briefly summarize the different views in this article and then have separate articles that individually discuss each of the main views. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind - that he had had only one day to work on it. When content is first added to a wikipedia article it typically does have many errors. So - it's not a reason to revert all his edits that you found a few issues in them. And what's more this is just one wikipedia editor finding issues in another editor's content. With no particular reason to suppose that you are better qualified than him, except that you are more experienced at editing wikipedia.

And you have many errors in your early drafts of your articles also. I discussed a few of them in Talk:Karma in Buddhism and then gave up when it was clear you weren't going to roll back. But your writing on Buddhist topics is certainly not error free when you first post, and often these errors persist right to the present. So it seems rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me. Robert Walker (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Constructive Feedback

Hi Joshua, Chris, Victoria, and Robert. Please don't mind my personal note - since I made some bad personal remarks here earlier, I figure it is only right for me to write a personal apology. And again, instead of writing on your individual talk pages, I decided to own it up in public.

Joshua, thanks a lot for your very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this line-by-line feedback of exactly what went wrong in my post. It keeps it to facts, and states exactly what the problem is with the style. Coming from a background of writing for academic Journals, I can see my tendency to write original research - because arguably that's what academics do (unless perhaps they're editing Misplaced Pages pages). So I acknowledge your criticism and I stand corrected. When I first saw you roll back my edits, I did not get a detailed line-by-line analysis of my post or a clear explanation for why it was reverted so drastically. Instead I got short a message on my talk page saying "I have reverted your changes...this is the third time...blah blah..." This led me to believe that I was being victimized. And I also believed that someone had started believing that the Anatta page on Misplaced Pages belonged to them. In my own little story you were the villain and I was the victim and I therefore may have said personal things about you. (I hope I got the facts so far.) I apologize for using dismissive words or perhaps even getting a little indignant. But I appreciate the criticism - especially because it is fact-based and says exactly what you find is wrong with each part of it.

Since you took the pains to do this for my write-up, I will respond back and write a short set of edits and propose them on the main Anatta page. Feel free to correct the language and style if you want - I might be new to that. So please, let us make this a collaborative effort. I really feel that this page needs some edits, and they can really make the page constructive in the long run. But I am not an expert at editing Misplaced Pages and will need your help here in ensuring the wording is good. I agree to try and keep my statements unbiased - but if you spot something wrong, please point it out on my talk page (with exact line and citing what exactly you find wrong with it) and we can work on it together.

Is that agreed? Shall we all start afresh and forgive our excesses? If I have hurt anyone else, please accept my sincere apologies.

All that said, I would like to still record my disagreement with some of you on one matter. I do NOT think that authors of peer-reviewed Journal papers would necessarily have a good understanding on matters of religious doctrine. I can say this being a person in the field, and being an academic myself. There are a lot of quacks out there in academia and it is not worth the time and energy of a serious researcher to rebut the poorly researched Journal articles of some other quack. And if a good researcher does write a rebuttal, his rebuttal would be published as citing the first crappy article!! This is not the case in the sciences - there if an experimental result is not verifiable, a Journal can retract a paper. But in areas like philosophy, where each philosopher is himself/herself allowed to interpret another philosophy, it is next to impossible to get papers retracted. Instead, both the poorly researched paper and the good paper get published as two different points of view! I know this first-hand because I have to sift through the crap for my master's thesis.

But more importantly, when we talk of doctrinal matters, we are talking about what people in the religious community actually believe - not the history or socio-political context of the scriptures or anything. For the latter, I agree that peer-reviewed Journal papers would be better to cite. But for an encyclopedia to present a truthful unbiased fact on matters of religious doctrine, it should take into account what the practicing religious community actually thinks about that doctrine, rather than solely relying on academic quacks who don't really practice the religion. And Anatta is a matter of doctrine - not history or science.

I agree that sources like Bhikkhu X or Bhikkhu Y shouldn't be used exclusively, that is, I believe they can be used, along with other secondary sources if available - but if not available, then used along with other primary sources to get a proportionate balance of views in the article. But I feel that their scholarship does have an overriding effect on doctrinal matters - not on historical or socio-political matters. This is especially because they're world-wide reputed, cited widely by other scholars, and their written works are actually used as textbooks in universities - now that fact alone potentially qualifies such a source as a secondary source by own standards. I know that Chris asked me to cite those that cite Bhikkhu X and Bhikkhu Y. But many of them cite them in a way that doesn't represent the actual religious idea, but proposes some of their own novel ideas which the religious community at large doesn't believe! Not all secondary sources are like that, some are good - and that's why I have agreed to produce secondary sources too.

However, if it is a matter of the history of a religion, or the history of a religious text, then I fully agree that peer-reviewed Journal papers are more reliable on the average.

ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the apologies! They are highly appreciated. I understand your point on "academic" versus "practitioners"; I think you can use both. Though academics are preferred, "insider sources" can also be used. Just be carefull to contextualise them. When you've got doubts about academic sources, please share your doubts; most people around here love a good academical discussion. Maybe you should take a look at Kensho; it's a mixture of academic and "insider sources", which gives a critical account, but also uses "illustrations" from inside. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi SA, thanks for your reply, and some things you said were very helpful. I will not say any more at this point and will leave this conversation because JJ took me to ANI with a proposal of a topic ban, and then an interaction ban with him, with this conversation as one of the two main reasons for the proposal. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre Buddhist Upanishads?

The section Relation to Vedic and Hindu philosophy talks about the "Pre Buddhist Upanishads" and then goes on to mention the Chandogya Upanishad, which current scholarship seems to date to around 500 BCE - about the same time as the Buddha. Is this work then strictly speaking "Pre-Buddhist"? Chris Fynn (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No (I guess). As far as I know, only two Upanishads seem to predate Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the introduction to a book of translations of the Sutras as a source

User:ScientificQuest and User:Joshua Jonathan - this came up in a facebook discussion of this debate and thought it would be helpful. Of course a translation of the sutras is a primary source. But SQ's citation wasn't to any of the translations, but to the introduction' to the translations.

His cite says: "See Introduction of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, by Bhikkhu Ñānamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications".

For the introduction, see The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha.

An introduction to a book of translations by a famous translator is of course an excellent secondary source. Another example of an excellent secondary source in a discussion of a particular sutra would be a footnote to a translation of that sutra by an expert scholar translator. Robert Walker (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Madhyamaka - Primary deletion.

I note that today the entire contribution to the Madhyamaka section was deleted for being a primary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anatta&oldid=645294568

I'm not impressed. Secondary sources are better sources that Primary sources, but something is better than nothing. Moreover, there is a very rich commentarial tradition within the Himalayan tradition, with established monastic universities following academic rigour and peer review that matches current western scholarship. The conclusions of this analysis has been repeated by many modern sources. cf. Jay Garfield, and others.

If you do not like to see primary sources, then do something about it, rather than just delete. (20040302 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Buddhism articles
• High-importance Buddhism articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Unknown-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• Start-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles