Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 26 August 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Mayasutra/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Archives

/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

August 2016

• Adding: You have been warned enough about personal attacks, you must know that attacks such as "your statement is intentionally ambiguous or misleading," (my italics) or "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??" as here are totally unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

Is the additional statement by Sarah Welch not intentionally ambiguous (in other words using weasel words) and misleading? How would you rate Sarah Welch constantly repeating the same thing; such that there indeed seems to a certain inability in following what is expected of her; wrt to use of sources to make claims which the source does not state as explained here as also the introduction of the additional statement (also explained in the same link)? How would you rate the use of stfu on a noticeboard, as this? No blocking required for RexxS for that? Does that mean some are better placed in wiki than the rest? How about intentionally deleting the statement on the metamorphosis of the asura Kapila associated with the transformation of the Samkhya from atheist to idealist; and the transformation of female Kapila to male Kapila, both of which are supported by the Vaikunta inscription description of Chaturvedi source taking the Kaśmirāgama Pån᷈charatra philosophy, iconography, and other works into account?

BTW, Bishonen, this is our heritage; that of the natives. That Kapila is rooted in antiquity with Asuri (of the brahmana tradition) 'converting' to Sankhya simply means atheism was an offshoot of the vedic people; though Kapila was probably not a vedic period sage. Unfortunately English language uses 3 major words - theism, atheism, agnostic - for epistemological representation of orientation towards divinities. People of the subcontinent were far more complex than that. While Sankya is comparable to agnosticism; it is not agnosticism. I have read the Sankyakarika innumerable times. But have never made major contributions to the Sankya article despite there being sufficient works on similar lines in print from reputed Indian scholars (bcoz i know what to expect here). Also, the transformation of the female Kapila into male Kapila is nothing different from the yamala tradition; a tradition which incidentally is also Sankhya-like in the purusha-prakriti union with gradual transformation. The yamalas are well-preserved in the agama tradition something which the western mind does not take into consideration while interpreting everything 'vedic'. Perhaps bcoz they dispel certain notions of a certain western mind which looks down upon such practices and are hence not well received in certain parts of the western academia as mainstream ??? Well, whatever it may be. Also, everything cannot be perfect in any tradition (most of us accept as is, some of us learn to do so).

What am trying to say, is that deliberately deleting statements, disrupting my edits, such that I cannot continue to proceed with a sentence or two to represent a concept of Kapila, is something I cannot appreciate. Nor do I appreciate claiming things for POV-pushing (as explained above). It is nicer to have an honest representation of both sides (those who claim vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC) without being conclusive ourselves. I would appreciate if am guided on how much inline text in notes is permissible, or have someone working together to delete larger content to make into concise few sentences, to improve article. My mistake was to put all the text into one citation and use it as a reference for multiple sentences. I should have just used multiple citations instead (with trimmed inline text in notes). Obviously, the lady just does not permit me to work an additional day. The very day I started working on the article, she had to come on board to edit as well; thus leading to the issues. Seriously, I believe there is something not OK about the way she works. The ruse of claiming WP:Primary, assuming it is small cause, asking totally irrelevant things (like was Kapila disciple of female teachers), deliberately making it tenuous, deliberately repeating herself, is plain ?????(what to say). This despite the fact that whenever she makes an edit which is useful, I have clicked on thanks. So, seriously, I have no idea what to make of this. I will have to agree with Kashmiri on the fun of reverting.

Anyways, after the 48 hour period, I would like you to moderate the talk page and let me know if suggested changes are acceptable. Thanks --Mayasutra (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm afraid I'm not the right person to do that; I'm pretty ignorant of the subject, and thus of the subtleties of sourcing. I do recognise a personal attack when I see one, though. You would really do yourself a favour by studying the policy No personal attacks, and learning to avoid them. I can't believe you have done so, especially since you suggest "stfu" is a personal attack. What's personal about it? Nothing. As far as moderating the talkpage, it's unfortunate that the admins knowledgable about Indian subjects tend to be either on on lengthy breaks, or "highly irregular" in their editing, such as SpacemanSpiff. I suggest you appeal to User:RegentsPark. He's being fairly active. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen, appreciate this. As for stfu, sorry you find nothing in it, for a personal attack. Am taken aback you consider these phrases are personal attacks -- (i) "intentionally ambiguous/misleading" and (ii) "Lady, there is a certain inability in you??". Glad you say you cannot believe I said those two phrases. Sincerely request you to go thru Kapila talk page thoroughly and see to what extent Sarah Welch has been deliberately repetitive, asking/stating irrelevant things, deliberately misconstruing things (even claiming I used hate language/attack against the Asians particularly the Indians!!); just to make it contrived and difficult to move on. Her latest response too is classical. See this response -- why does she do this (?) when I always made it clear both views should be admitted, those who say vedic sage and those who date him to 7th century BC in a neutral way. Besides statements which already say that in a neutral tone; why does Sarah Welch introduce an additional statement claiming, "This places him in the late Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE), and he has been called a Vedic sage" -- that is deliberately additional to be ambiguous/misleading (weasel words) and certainly WP:ASSERT. How does it place him for sure in the vedic period when there are authors who date him to 7th century BC? Why those senseless comments on Max Muller's representation? Why does she use WP:PRIMARY sources but does not let others do the same? Where is the need to put publishers like Oxford Uni Press on high pedestal and put down Indian publications (as this one)? At the very start; just for questioning Dronamraju and Haldane (as acceptable sources); she started the usual rant of not having ---- "forum-y discussion or picking a side based on @Mayasutra's "wisdom, prejudice, opinion, original research, interpretation, reasoning". Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:TPNO" ---- a carryover from the Maya (Illusion) article. Sorry Bishonen; but I think this is deliberate. Ironically it happens to be so despite the fact that I kept clicking on thanks for her edits with sources and contributions. Wiki is doing no justice either. Anyone can look up google books and write things here. If the book is from oxford uni press, it becomes acceptable. You can have junior highs doing that. Its takes a discerning mind to put things in the right neutral perspective. Can't help mentioning here that losing Kashmiri's expertise in this subject matter (sanskrit/religion) is wiki's loss; just bcoz some editors are using wiki policies as they wish; with bullying thrown in, with words like stfu. Please, hope good sense prevails and all versions of Maya and Kapila get their due representation; though some may not be accurate.--Mayasutra (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't know much about the subject either but, after reading the suggestions made by Mayasutra, am willing to moderate the discussion in terms of fealty to sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. Appreciate your initiative. Thank you. Please go through these suggested changes -- whatever you approve will put into the article. --Mayasutra (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi Mayasutra. I'll need to wait for Ms Sarah Welch, or others, to respond to your suggestions first. --regentspark (comment) 16:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. I would like to have Kashmiri's guidance, since want to create pages for Asuri, Panchashika, lesser known names in sankhya like Jaigisavya, Vodha / Vodhu, Varshaganya, Devala, Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatana, expand on existing article for Janaka (for samkhya role as in the conversation sulabha-janaka-samvada), and either create separate articles or put other teachers/early pupils of Sankhya like Bhrgu, Prahlada, Bali, Gautama, Garga, Narada,Shukra, Kashyapa, etc in one article. Also to expand on Kapila article, need Kashmiri's guidance for 2 reasons. One it is often thot the Buddha was the first to oppose sacrifices and create a new religion. Apparently, Kapila did that a little before him but is very less known. So, need to bring out as much info as possible on this personage. Secondly, it is often thot (in popular belief) that Pancharatra has popular origin while Vaikhanasa has vedic origin. But Pancharatra also may have vedic origin as its early teachers were so (but deserted the religion of sacrifices moving into a philosophy school). The Vaikhanasa on the other hand dissuade the path of renunciation of Kapila in Baudhayana Dharmasutra but reconcile with Vaikhanasaaagama instituting Kapila's imagery as embodiment of the vedas himself. So it may seem both, pancharatra and vaikhanasa have vedic origin but the point of divergence was Kapila (meaning, it was just ideological difference which is possibly why Ramanuja approved of both Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa). I would like to have Kashmiri's guidance in this; on the transformation process, sources, and on the wording. Other too, with subject knowledge on this, please help. After we write out on the talk page and seek common approval / consensus / changes from all involved, will put on main article; or will leave it to Kashmiri and others, to put on main article; in the right/neutral way as it should be. Thanks. --Mayasutra (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Mayasutra