User talk:Robertinventor/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Robertinventor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please:

"Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.

Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link.

Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, is strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.

Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." WP:TPNO

Thank you JimRenge (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of this issue, am being as concise as I can. But some things, I just don't know how to say them in few words. It is not at all an attempt at winning a discussion by exhaustion. Just being thorough in my answers to people's points. The problem is, that short messages are also frequently misunderstood too.

At least I'm not a disruptive editor. The worst anyone can say about me is that I write too much on talk pages. Robert Walker (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Gelug school has highly unusual perspectives, which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. I would never read or cite Gelug Geshes.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay - is this for the New Kadampa Tradition - if so I totally agree, but they are not representative are they? More generally, the main thing I know about the differences of the Gelugpa's is that they deny Buddha-nature and have differing views about the subtlest stages of understanding of emptiness, and that they are especially fond of that rapid hand clapping style of debating :). While some teachers are accomplished in all the four traditions of Buddhism, such as the Dalai Lama. Who surely is not regarded as a controversial source to cite in Tibetan Buddhism. I haven't myself heard anyone say that the Gelugpas as such are controversial sources, outside of the New Kadampa Tradition.

BTW I trimmed my comments on Kelsang Gyatso right down, too much of a digression, just say now that he is also considered controversial for his methods of ordination. And left out that commment on his learning - as I understand that there are some people who question whether he got a Geshe degree or not. I've no idea of the ins and outs of that, but on the talk page of his article, they decided not to say anything either way, as nobody there knew anything about it for sure. So I thought best to use the same policy and just not mention, and have also dropped the title in my reply as I just don't know for sure if he completed his degree, nobody seemed to know. Some seem to think it is just an honorific affectionate title in his case. Robert Walker (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In all this I'm a practitioner primarily, my scholarship is rather in philosophy and maths. So am familiar with scholastic discipline but never been encouraged to become a Buddhist scholar myself. And approach this as someone who reads the articles on Buddhism rather than edits them, but has enough background in the scholarly discipline that I feel qualified to be able to recognize good scholarship when I see it. Also, because I read the articles as a practitioner, it may sometimes help to spot issues that arise from fundamental misunderstandings of the teachings like confusions of a Seed with an Intention. Robert Walker (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about ANY Gelug Geshe. And the Dalai Lama. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay why, say more? I've never heard this point of view. And what's your source for it, or is this a personal opinion? Robert Walker (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh interesting hadn't heard that. It may relate to what I'd learnt, that they have different ideas from the other schools on the subtler stages of emptiness that I mentioned above, but didn't know that anyone thought of that as dubious, not just, a difference of views - of course you have many such differences in the various Buddhist schools.

I'd like to hear the other side of the account. The article just has a "criticism" section. Surely the Gelugpas are aware of these criticisms, so what do they say to them? Just did a bit of a web search but it didn't turn up much, so far, lots of copies of that wikipedia page mainly. Also to know, what is it about his teachings particularly that they regard as dubious, and not just, a difference of view? And why? Does it go counter to one of the Buddha's central teachings in some way? ... I mean - when they say "inspired by a demon" - in less colourful language I think that is essentially what it means, in Buddhism - an inspiration that goes counter to the Buddha's teachings and inspiration, as to whether there are such interfering external spirits or demons as real beings, well I keep an open mind but I think myself it may be just one way of looking at things. With the Dorje Shugden controversy, is easy to see why he is regarded as a demon by the Dalai Lama, his point of view is explained clearly. But here, no explanation just a statement. Maybe the Tibetan source says more? Robert Walker (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Read Karl Brunnholzl HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I read that thanks, when you first posted the link. But it just says things like "All critics of Tsongkhapa, including the Eighth Karmapa, agree that many features of his Centrism are novelties that are not found in any Indian sources and see this as a major flaw.". But none of those quotes say anything at all about what those novelties are. So doesn't have the information I need to understand what the issue is about. And what do the Gelugpas say in return? It just alerts the reader that there is a controversy but there is no way to know from that section of the page what that controversy is exactly as far as I can see. Except presumably something to do with teachings on emptiness. I supposed it could be a matter that is too subtle to explain easily? Robert Walker (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Gelugs admit their views are deviant. Read Thupten Jinpa, who is a Gelug, HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I read that also. But I was none the wiser about what the debate was about and what the issue was. Just that he was someone of that opinion. But one Gelug saying this doesn't mean all Gelugs say this. Any more than one Westerner saying something means all Westerners do.

The thing is, for a reader not involved in an ancient debate like this, then - you start from the position that either side could be at fault or neither, could be a misunderstanding. Just because one notable source says another notable source is wrong - what do you conclude? Without knowing details, I think, nothing yet. They could both be wrong. Or both right and don't understand each other. Or the one that thinks the other one is wrong could be the one that has made a mistake. Or could be that the other one is wrong. By deviant here I assume they mean "non Buddhist" as what else could it be in the context? But in what sense? Do you see, I'm just left with lots of questions, no answers. All I can say for sure from reading that page is that there is some kind of controversy, but what exactly, I have no idea. Robert Walker (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I read all of the section (am a quick reader) and re-read it. Robert Walker (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You have to read the books cited in that section obviously.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay - well I don't have access to a library at present - live in a remote Scottish island, so that's not a possibility sadly. Robert Walker (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have even a basic understanding of Tibetan Buddhism, how can you proclaim Dorje108 as an excellent editor?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not having access to a library doesn't mean that you can't recognize scholarship. I can also follow up the citations available on the internet, and there is a lot of content available on Buddhist scholarship, and that pans out. And also I can test what he says against my own understanding. Which comes from my teachers originally, not from books. But they were scholars and the books and the sutras - they confirm what they taught me. He doesn't make mistakes such as confusing Seeds with Intentions. Clearly someone who understands what he reads, unlike Joshua who though he has read a lot, doesn't seem to understand what he read.

BTW on that section - there will be other readers in the same position as me, who don't have easy immediate access to a library. Or who don't happen to be in a library while reading the article. And in any case you are asking them to read books in order to understand what an article is about. Is it not an idea to provide them with some summary of what the controversy is about? Or is it too complex to explain? If so - some hint, about why it is controversial? E.g. - what part of the Buddha's teachings does it contradict, if that's the issue, if not in detail why? Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And he uses the correct methods and practices of scholarship also. Accurately summarizing what the sources say and not paraphrasing into his own words, or framing articles around ideas of his own to make some eccentric point. When I follow up, he accurately represents what the sources say. Robert Walker (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you can't recognize scholarship. Dorje108 is just a beginner Tibetan Buddhist, who simply stuffs articles with junk. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well - that's rather my impression of Joshua Jonathan. At least in the field of Karma, he made one mistake after another in the talk page conversations. This is from the Karma article, which I felt was excellent before his interference with it. I haven't been following Four Noble Truths in the same way, but his actions on Karma in Buddhism give me no confidence anyway. And why such rapid edits to the article? Giving nobody any chance to comment on them first? It doesn't give me any confidence in him as an editor, to do that.

On "junk" - if I understand you right, you have already said you think all the teachings by the Dalai Lama are "junk". If so, it's not too surprising that you'd think that his articles are also. But I've not heard anyone else say that. And whatever the controversy you brought up is about - at any rate my understanding is that the present Dalai Lama is regarded by Tibetans as gifted in the field of scholarship, and understanding the four schools of Buddhism, bright, intelligent, widely learned, and scholarly. Which of course was not true of all past Dalai Lamas. Which is why I see him as a valid source to cite. And the other sources he used in the article were similar - including notable Western sources as well, but also the Tibetan sources were ones generally regarded as reliable and good sources as far as I could tell, not the likes of e.g. the New Kadampa tradition or whatever. Robert Walker (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama's perspective is Gelug, the newest school of Tibetan Buddhism. This is not representative of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. And if you did want to cite Gelug views, there are plenty of academic books available. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying, he received the teachings, and had teachers, also transmissions, in all the schools. For instance in the Nyingmapa school, the one that I am in myself, he regards Dilgo Khyentse as his principal teacher in the teachings of DzogChen and Nyingmap, see Dilgo_Khyentse#Buddhist_studies. For the likes of you and me it is highly confusing to do that, but these, they are able to do that, to fully comprehend these incompatible views and schools. So saying he is a Gelugpa doesn't mean he is not also a Nyingmapa with the transmission and understanding of the Nyingmapa lineage as well. And similarly he is also a Sakya and a Kagyupa, has received their teachings and lineages also. Which makes him especially qualified to teach about Tibetan Buddhism - as few teachers have that background and understanding and capability. Robert Walker (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dilgo Khyentse is actually a Sakya. All Khyentses are Sakya. But this is a common error.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What's your source there? It says in the article that he was head of the Nyingmapa school. Which was also my understanding from my teacher who had him as one of his own teachers. Robert Walker (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to just say something about the Tsong Khapa vision of Manjushri. Probably you know this but just to say that in Tibetan Buddhism there's the idea that new teachings can arise spontaneously, just as in the Zen tradition. Also the idea of termas, hidden teachings that are uncovered, from distant past. So the idea of a teaching arising in a vision could be either of these - a hidden "mind terma" or a new spontaneous teaching as in Zen. And the vision method of description - needn't be taken as "visited by an external spirit" - it is rather - a way of indicating that it came from something outside of his ordinary self. Which is often experienced as a vision as if taught by a living being other than yourself, but understood in this way, if it is of that type, as neither your ordinary self, nor truly a separate entity. In this case would be, wisdom itself, somehow so direct and vivid that it is experienced as a living presence. So, that he saw Manjushri as a vision - that's not controversial, as I understand it. The controversy would be, that what he saw wasn't Manjushri - i.e. not direct wisdom, but a demon instead. Or - something that is a manifestation of your self, fighting back against the teachings, and corrupting the teaching of the Buddha as we might perhaps express it. That of course would invalidate the teachings and so that is controversial. Robert Walker (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You made some good suggestions. Unfortunately, as far as I know, I don't know many scholars who are familiar with the specific topic of karma in hinduism. The Brahma Sutras is an authoritative post-Vedantic test regarding karma in Hinduism, but other than Swami Sivananda, I am not aware of academic sources (Swami sivananda was a respected teacher, not a professor) who is knowledgeable on the subject.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this information :). Robert Walker (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. The academic study of religion is like literature. The best in religion are popular teachers unlike academics, similarly to writers vs academics in literature. Raj2004 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well put. After all, who truly understands the teachings, those who try to put them into practice, or those who write about them? Of course, the best scholars do both. But for some academics, it's a bit like reading extensive treatises on the culinary virtues and drawbacks of chocolate by someone who has never tasted it :).

However, the article does quote some academics when it can such as Reichenbach, Bruce R. (April 1989). "Karma, causation, and divine intervention". Philosophy East and West (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 34, by Vraj Kumar Pandey, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, p. 87. and Krishnan, Yuvraj, "The Doctrine of Karma," 1997, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. It appears that the Google link for the Krishnan resource is dead due to Google's decision to stop allowing links based upon a court decision. Raj2004 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to say, I'm happy with the article as it is myself. The reason I was asking was because of a dispute on the Karma talk page; more scholarly sources could have been useful.

But I've given up on that discussion now, and the main Karma page still says "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment."

I think it is abundantly clear that Swami Sivananda thinks Karma requires a judge to carry it out (counter to the views of most Hindus I gather) as one of his proofs of the existence of God. Also abundantly clear that he had many followers and that the Divine Light movement is historically significant and notable. Yes is more properly a primary than a secondary source, but use of primary sources is not totally prohibited in wikipedia, especially in absence of good secondary sources, which we don't have yet.

From your article, seems some other (minority) Hindu groups have this "Karma as a judgement" view. But I've given up on it now, the other editor on the Karma article talk page in this discussion did not accept my reasoning there and has kept this sentence, and nobody else has supported me there. So leaving it at that for now. I don't edit war, especially on this subject.

It is all rather weird actually, as later in the Karma page he strongly supported some Western academics who seem to treat Karma as a judgement, pretty much anyway, in their criticisms of it.

But the other editor was adamant about keeping the article in this state, with these somewhat contradictory sections, immediately reverting what I thought was a non controversial qualification of his statement there. And I had no support from anyone else on the talk page, so I have given up for now. Maybe it will be sorted out some time in the future, if more editors get attracted to wikipedia with knowledge of these topics. Robert Walker (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Karma as a judgment dependent on a supreme being is the view of Vedanta, the major extant school of Hinduism to which Swami sivananda belongs to. All sub-schools of Vedanta teachers of Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita are required to comment on the Brahma Sutras, which has a major discussion on karma and is a major Vedantic commentary on the Upanishdads There are other minority schools of Hinduism, which are not really currently in existence. I wish that there were other experts on karma but it ironically is not a topic frequently studied in universities of where we can get source information.Professors focus more on customs and other theological matters. Raj2004 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean Divine Life Society not Divine Light movement. thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) N

Yes that's what I meant, sorry! Oh so you'd say that Karma as a judgment dependent on a supreme being is the majority view in Hinduism? I was just going by Kautilya3 who commented on the talk page "I would say that karma is generally understood by Hindus to be an automatic causation of action-reaction without any divine intervention" Talk:Karma_in_Hinduism#All_sources_in_the_.22The_role_of_Divine_sources.22_section_have_just_been_marked_unreliable

Kautilya is wrong and does not have any basis as he does not cite any academic sources or even teachers. You can say that it is a majority view in Hinduism as Vedanta is the dominant extant school in Hinduism. But it is safer and non-controversial to say that this view of dependence on Ishvara or God is a Vedantic view. Raj2004 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, good to know, as point of information. I won't attempt to suggest this on the talk page for Karma as the other editor there wasn't interested to discuss it further and they say I write too much on the talk pages - but am interested to know personally, thanks for clearing that up. Robert Walker (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. You have to realize that most Hindus are versed in popular Hinduism and are not versed in intricacies of philsophy and theology so I am not surprised about Kautilya's statement. It's like asking the average Catholic about being knowledgeable about Thomas Aquinas. Raj2004 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, yes that makes sense also. Robert Walker (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what makes you think that I confused "seeds" with "intentions"? See diff, in which I changed

"Karmic actions are compared to a seed that will inevitably ripen into a result or fruition"

into

"Karma refers to the intentions (cetanā) of actions [...] the seeds of which will inevitably ripen into a result or fruition"

As far as I know, the action itself is not the impression or seed, but leaves an impression or seed. See also John Bowker. VictoriaGrayson, am I correct here? It was your beloved Dorje who wrote "Karmic actions are compared to a seed that will inevitably ripen into a result or fruition", without giving a source diff. Apparently he relied here on Harvey, who wrote

"Karma is often likened to a seed, and the two words for a karmic result, vipaka and phala, respectively mean 'ripening' and 'fruit'." (Harvey (2012), An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, p.40).

Harvey's stement is imprecise. Compare Dennis Hirota:

"Sarvastivadins argued that there exists a dharma of “possession” (prapti), which functions with all karmic acts, so that each act or thought, though immediately passing away, creates the “possession” of that act in the continuum of instants we experience as a person. This possession itself is momentary, but continually reproduces a similar possession in the succeeding instant, even though the original act lies in the past. Through such continual regeneration, the act is “possessed” until the actualization of the result.
Such views were rejected as contrary to the Buddha’s teaching of impermanence by other schools, notably the Sautrantikas, who insisted that each act exists only in the present instant and perishes immediately. To explain causation, they taught that with each karmic act a “perfuming” occurs which, though not a dharma or existent factor itself, leaves a residual impression in the succeeding series of mental instants, causing it to undergo a process of subtle evolution eventually leading to the act’s result. Good and bad deeds performed are thus said to leave “seeds” or traces of disposition that will come to fruition." (Dennis Hirota, "Karman: Buddhist Concepts. In: Lindsay Jones (ed.)(2004), Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.8, p.5100)

Could it also be that you misread "impressions" for "intentions"? See also diff and diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume your comment may be of interest to all readers of Talk:Karma in Buddhism. JimRenge (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, yes perhaps I didn't describe what you said quite accurately sorry. First of all, I'm talking of course about the version as you had it before I raised the issue on the talk page.

Reviewing it just now, you didn't say that the seeds are the volitions. You said that the volitions create seeds, just by themselves, without any need for action. And in discussion on the talk page made it clear this wasn't just a textual slip but your understanding, that volitions inevitably lead to karmic results, without need for action.

Here is your original version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=636145804#Buddhist_understanding_of_karma

""The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition."".

But this is an equally wrong view, that the cetanā by themselves immediately create seeds - or at least an unusual view that would need to be described as such and given a source.

I.e. the view thhat just the volitions by themselves inevitably create seeds in the mind. No mention of need for them to lead to action, and for the action to complete for them to become seeds. And no mention that this idea of a seed is a later idea that only a few Buddhists accept.

You later found a source for this view, a citation by a German scholar. But it is surely a minority and unusual view, as I think you surely now agree as you later corrected the sentence after I raised the issue. Robert Walker (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference from Dorje's version is that he talks about Karmic actions creating seeds - i.e. completed actions, not cetanā or volitions.

Also he attributes it to a particular author, here Peter Harvey so is summarizing what Peter Harvey says, which is the scholarly way of proceeding with a statement that is not universally accepted. He says "the process of karmic action and result is often compared to a seed and its fruit", giving Peter Harvey's statement as an example. Not as a "view from nowhere" simply stating that "Karmic actions produce seeds". That is how scholars should proceed in a situation like this. Robert Walker (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So what you have there is still non scholarly actually but I distinctly do not want to get involved in becoming an editor of this article!! So I don't want to comment in any detail about your version as my comments may get taken up as revisions of the article which I do not feel qualified to do. Robert Walker (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

---

This is how Dorje108 describes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#Seed_and_fruit

The process of karmic action and result is often compared to a seed and its fruit.^[a] For example, Peter Harvey states:^[2]

"Karma is often likened to a seed, and the two words for karmic result, vipaka and phala, respectively mean 'ripening' and 'fruit'. An action is thus like a seed which will sooner or later, as part of its natural maturation process, result in certain fruits accruing to the doer of the action.

What determines the nature of the karmic 'seed' is the will or intention behind the act: 'It is will (cetana), O monks, that I call karma; having willed, one acts through body, speech, and mind' (A.III.415). It is the psychological impulse behind an action that is 'karma', that which sets going a chain of causes culminating in karmic fruit. Actions, then, must be intentional if they are to generate karmic fruits [...].

Ken McLeod states:^{[web 1]}

Karma, then, describes how our actions evolve into experience, internally and externally. Each action is a seed which grows or evolves into our experience of the world. Every action either starts a new growth process or reinforces an old one as described by the four results.^[b] Small wonder that we place so much emphasis on mindfulness and attention. What we do in each moment is very important!"

And later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#D.C4.81r.E1.B9.A3.E1.B9.AD.C4.81ntika-Sautr.C4.81ntika

The Dārṣṭāntika-Sautrāntika school pioneered the idea of karmic seeds (S. bija) and "the special modification of the psycho-physical series" (S. saṃtatipaṇāmaviśeṣa) to explain the workings of karma.^[1]

---

Do you see what I mean? Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a big deal if this was a brand new article, new articles on Wikipedia often have such issues. And it is okay for a wikipedia editor to start off with a partial understanding of a topic and for that understanding to develop as they edit the article and get new criticism. Something is better than nothing, as it gives material for other editors to improve.

But what makes it a big deal is that you took an existing article that was already accurate, and had been worked on for many years, including eighteen months of patient work by User:Dorje108, and had none of these issues, and turned it into an article that is basically at the condition of an early stage draft, removing most of the useful content of the previous article in the process. And did it without prior discussion on the talk page, which could have identified and corrected such issues as these before they arose in the article itself. Robert Walker (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And not saying that I understand the topic well enough to write an article either. I understand enough to spot some obvious errors, that's all. But would be sure to make numerous mistakes of my own.

That's why I say nobody posting on the talk page is eligible to rewrite the entire article either, except Dorje108, because clearly none of us have the specialist understanding needed for this topic - one of the hardest in Buddhism to present clearly and most easily misunderstood. Though of course anyone is able to contribute extra citations and help with their understanding of particular details, or suggest better ways of organizing and presenting material which sometimes a newbie can see more easily than a specialist on a topic, etc.

The reason I say that clearly nobody watching the page apart from him has this understanding is because neither you or anyone else watching the page spotted this error before me. And it is just the first error I spotted on the page, right near the start of the article, didn't bother to check any further after that.

Dorje108 understandably has just ceased involvement in the article talk page discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I edited the article, merged a couple a sentences, and you noticed something that could be improved. Previously, Dorje had reduced "karma" to plain action. An obvious mistake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See diffs for the extent of your rewrites of the articles.

For Karma in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

For Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305

Robert Walker (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spot any errors in Dorje's version. And yours was a fundamental confusion such as you'd only get in an early stage draft, not in a mature article. If what we had there was a first draft of the article, newly written, I might feel I could mention some fundamental issues with it, perhaps, like this one. Or more likely, I think, faced with an article like this, I'd just add a template "attention needed by expert in Buddhist views of Karma". But why replace a mature article, worked on for years, by such an "early draft full of mistakes" type article. Including also that you left out the section on Karma not a Judgement, and on Karma as one of the Imponderables, and many other significant sections that are essential for understanding the topic. And stripped all the quotes from the footnotes, etc etc. And why do all that with no prior discussion on the talk page either?

Do you see the point? Perhaps see that there might be some reason behind my suggestion to roll back, and go through the issues you found with it one at a time giving Dorje108 and others time to respond and discuss them one at a time? Especially since he is a collaborative style editor, always considerate in his dealings here as you remarked yourself, and who does not engage in any disruptive editing behaviour. Robert Walker (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be involved as an editor myself as I'd make numerous mistakes like yourself. My first act if I was asked to edit the article as i please would be to restore Dorje's version - which is not just his version incidentally - he is just the latest editor - is the version that it arrived at after editing by several editors for many years - and then ask for help. Robert Walker (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the Dalai LamaVictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he is one of the better sources on Tibetan Buddhismmyself. But understand you don't see him this way. But I think you'll find that we continue to discuss him as he is a notable writer on Tibetan Buddhism, who you can't ignore. I've commented on the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Wording_of_RFC

Thats because you don't know anything about Tibetan Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked whether there was a conduct issue in taking a mature article and rewriting it without prior discussion on the talk page. No, there is not. See WP:BRD. Edit-warring is a conduct issue. Personal attacks are a conduct issue. Discuss the changes on the talk page, or use dispute resolution. In this case, I see that there is a Request for Comments in process. Let it run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I know you've answered already but just for point of information, the problem here with WP:BRD is that nobody reverted his edits when he applied them. I noticed after he had completely rewritten the article - and it would have meant reverting several pages of edits in the edit history to get back to the original. I wasn't checking wikipedia that often at the time and hadn't thought to put this article on my watch list, just thought it was a great article but didn't think it needed watching. As for Dorje108, he spends less time on wikipedia than most, and he had stopped editing anyway as a result of the bold rewrite of the 4 noble truths article. (I'm also rather hesitant of doing the R of BRD because of several past experiences here on wikipedia where that has just lead to the other editor ignoring the D and doing another R). Robert Walker (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Don't accuse me of racism: "Your only reasoning for calling these scholars primary seems to be their ethnic origin" [1] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean it like that. But how else to describe your views? I mean not as racist, but your view that academics trained in Tibetan or Thailand or Sri Lankan places of learning are primary sources and not suitable as secondary sources? Is it not because of their ethnic origin as traditional Buddhists that you object to them? Ethnic doesn't need to have anything to do with race, and I didn't mean it that way, you could be European but brought up as a Thai and then you'd be ethnically Thai I'd say. I will have a go at editing it to be clearer. But I didn't for a moment mean to accuse you of racism, sorry that it came over that way. Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just made this reply there:

Sorry, didn't mean it that way. By ethnic origin I didn't mean anything to do with their physical characteristics. All I meant there was their origins as traditional Buddhists educated in traditional Buddhist establishments of learning. As wikipedia puts it: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience" see Ethnic group. So, you have identified a particular ethnic group, in this sense, and said that none of them are suitable as secondary sources in articles on Buddhism - if I understand your position correctly. If this is not what you mean, do explain so I understand your views better.

Once more sorry for any offence and it was totally not intended. Robert Walker (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, of course. Sorry for the hards words. Robert, once again: I love Buddhist teachers. I love Ramana Maharshi. I love Krishnamurti. I love Hakuin. They saved my soul. But I also love those critical, academic westerners, wh are not satisfied with traditional beliefs. John McRae's "Seeing through Zen" was a liberation; Bronkhorst, who noticed that the four truths are a later addition to MN36; and Tillman Vetter, who noticed that originally the Buddha's basic message & practive may have been as simple as: "Be compassionate, be mindfull, and practice meditation. It works, it brings to rest the unrest of the heart, I've really experienced this myself". So simple, so basic. And the funny thing is: this is also what all the Buddhist teachers say.
Robert, it's time to close this whole fuzz. I work hard to read, comprehend, and give back those sources, primary and secondary. I hope that removing the dust from the treasure may help people in their practice. And serious, I love those teachers. But I also love those critical academics. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I envy your remote Scottish island. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First thanks for accepting my apology. To answer the other things you say.

So, first, the discussion is not about popular teachers. It is about Thai scholars and Sri Lankan scholars and Tibetan scholars who are recognized as erudite and knowledgeable about their subject. And there is a long tradition in Sri Lanka and Tibet - going back eventually to C6 India of critical scholarship, qestioning everything. Which they have brought into the modern age using modern methods.

I've already agreed that there are also popular teachers, just as you have in Christianity, who are not erudite and not suitable as secondary sources. Same is true for Buddhism. That's not questioned. But it doesn't mean, because there are some popular teachers of that type, that all Sri Lankan scholars for instance, educated in Sri Lanka following traditional methods of scholarship there are invalidated as secondary sources. Or in Thailand or in Tibetan traditions etc. Robert Walker (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also - the idea that the Buddha only taught a middle way and some simple teaching about mindfulness and compassion - well some western scholars think that yes. But you need to discriminate between what are the views of a particular scholar, and what is "the truth" in some objective sense. Because someone says this, doesn't mean that "this is the truth". There are other scholars who say that the Pali Canon preserves the Buddha's teachings pretty much as he taught. And they have excellent reasons for believing that, since the monks are able to memorize the entire Pali canon and recite it, all 16,000 pages, without a word wrong. As now recognized in the Guiness book of records. So previously monks surely could do the same. And in the past when things were not written down there was a lot of emphasis on memorization. And the internal evidence in the sutras says that Buddha's disciples, that when they discovered that the leader of the Jains died and that his students disagreed about his teachings, then they started to memorize the sutras while the Buddha was still alive. And then after he died, collated and rehearsed all the teachings, deciding on a final version of each sutra after comparing their memorized versions and then reciting the selected final version in unison. And this has continued ever since, and they eventually wrote them down 450 years later, may seem a long time but with monks able to remember the entire canon word for word for 16,000 pages, is reasonably plausible that this happened.

These western scholars want to have Buddhism without nirvana, and Hinduism without moksha. Okay - let them say that, that is their view. But to say that all Eastern practitioners have to share these views - that's where it goes over the top. Wikipedia when describing Karma in Buddhism should talk about Karma as it is understood by the Buddhists on the ground. Not Karma as a group of Western academics have decided is the way that Buddhists should interpret it. Well that's how I see it and you haven't persuaded me otherwise. And we are currently divided three : three in the RfC so you can't say you have won your case there. Robert Walker (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not interested in your personal New Age views.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so rude? I've read most of the recent discussions between you and JJ and Robert and Dorje on the other side and i see a recurring pattern of you being short and rude in your answers and Robert or Dorje being polite elaborate.Andi 3ö (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana and Moksha are hardly New Wave! These are the views of 20% of the World's population. See List of religious populations. I think they would be rather astonished to learn that a small group of Western academics consider that they should not have these views. Robert Walker (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What is New Wave?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know but surely not a religion that is 2500 years old and with teachings about Nirvana going back at least over 2000 years - nobody doubts that - these academics are just challenging whether they go back another 450 years before that, I think on not very strong evidence. But whatever, how can a 2,000 year old teaching be "New Wave"? Robert Walker (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read as to the Buddhist issues. Please summarize it, rather than providing me with a long complaint of your issues with Joshua Jonathan. On the one hand, I think that I agree as to the nonsense of dismissing Buddhist scholarship from the status of secondary sources simply because it is Buddhist scholarship. That is no different from saying that only non-Christian scholars can comment on Christianity. However, I don't know what the conduct issue is, because your post was too long. Reply on my talk page, not here, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to comment, what talk pages should I look at, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose Robert McClenon as a "neutral" party.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that I am a neutral party, but I am not a knowledgeable party, and don't know why I have been canvassed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, I didn't mean it that way, hope what I said on his talk page now makes it clearer. There is a process of third party resolution yes but that's something we would all need to agree on in advance as you rightly say. I think it is not usually used when there are many editors as there are now. Anyway I wasn't attempting this. As far as I know, the process of RfC is the way to go. If he did have other suggestions, such as third party resolution then I'd take it to the rest of you for decision as to whether to follow that up.

But I'm not asking him about the RfC or justification for Joshua Jonathan's edits. But about the rapid editing without prior consultation on the two pages. That only.

If there was some other procedure for us to follow e.g. roll back, I'd take that to Dorje first see if he wants to go ahead. All of this is just preliminary question about appropriate procedures. Is that clearer? Robert Walker (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a clue why I have been canvassed here. I have not edited in Buddhist-related discussion and have very little knowledge of Buddhism, other than that it is one of the world's major religions and has good ethical teachings. I see that there is a content issue. I see that there is a Request for Comments open, which is a good way to resolve content issues. I see claims that there is a conduct issue, but the statement of the conduct issue, if any, is too long, difficult to read. At this time I have no plans to get involved. If you really want my involvement, other than advice to follow dispute resolution, be clear and concise, and don't rant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just posted about this on your talk page. I'm not looking for a neutral party. Just for advice on user conduct and procedure because you have been helpful in the past. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, you've been howling now for a couple of months over karma; could you please get over it and move on? See also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are being just as rude as youre colleague, Victoria. Why? Do you think this is the best way to win disputes on WP?Andi 3ö (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if we are talking about numbers of words written I think you've written as much on the topic and done it just as strongly as i have. And what's more have totally rewritten a couple of articles also. While i haven't touched a word of the articles, just protested against your actions on the talk pages. ~

As I've said on the talk page for Karma in Buddhism I think the next step is to investigate to see if this is considered a user conduct issue - your actions rewriting these already mature articles so radically, not actions on talk pages of course. So - I plan to do that, will find out what the situation is and if we have a case for a roll back. Robert Walker (talk)

I've already alerted you to WP:BOLD. A rollback is only appropriate in case of vandalism. Be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Your edit-history, and your talkpage, speaks against you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And this? Is this some kind of psychological tactic? Subtle threats of Boomerangs... not polite either!Andi 3ö (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked about it here purely as a matter of information. I am not going to take any action right now. Robert McClenon has been very helpful in hte past, and an experienced wikipedian who hopefully can put us straight on this. I.e. whether or not it is a user conduct issue or we have a case for a roll back. I have worded it neutrally, just asked for advice. User_talk:Robert_McClenon#User_Conduct_issue_for_Karma_in_Buddhism_and_Four_Noble_Truths Robert Walker (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think that another editor essentially destroyed an article by boldly rewriting it and leaving out scholarly information, then my advice would be start another Request for Comments on whether to restore the stable version of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay yes that is exactly what I think indeed my words exactly. I blogged about it here at the time:

"Recently Destroyed Wikipedia Articles on Karma in Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths by Dorje108"

I'll report this to User:Dorje108, thanks! As the previous main editor he is the one most affected. Any other thoughts be sure to say, Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But on reflection - do we have any chance of success? After all it is 3 : 3 in the RfC at present and probably would be the same. If it was equally balanced, what is the outcome in a case like this? For sure Joshua Jonathan is going to vote to keep his version no matter what. Is it just a gesture? Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I know from previous experience that sometimes there is nothing you can do, so would also want to know if this is a situation like that. Robert Walker (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, there's a better solution for reaching a compromise: which parts did you really like? A lot of info is still there, Djlaiton4 just reinserted some info, and I'll have to look again at the Theravada-part, if some of it should be restored, but shortened. So, what are you missing now? Also, simply reverting would also "destroy" all the work I have put into the article, trying to be as carefull as possible (and please, don't start another argument over that; stick to this proposal). Be specific; not "all the quotes", but specific parts and sections. Maybe we can work it out that way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are guidelines on Wikipedia article length. See WP:SIZERULE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I've taken the liberty to add MiszaBot to your talkpage, so your threads will be archived automatically. Please revert if you don't approve, and my apologies in that case. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, that's fine, hadn't thought of adding an archiving bot. Thanks for doing this. Robert Walker (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh Robert, we really have to stop now! Our calendar has a great text today: "The most important joureny you're going to make in your life is meeting people halfway." A great reminder. My Buddhist practice is worthless when we get stuck up here. Let me repeat my proposal: which parts of the "old" version did you really like, and would you like to preserve? A lot of the info from the old version is still there, but condensed; Djlaiton4 jsut reinserted some info; and I'll have to look again at the Theravada-part. Please make a list at the talkpage of "Karma in Buddhism", and let's try to wrok this out together. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that suggestion. But I'd want to ask Dorje on that not use my own judgement. Because - whatever you say, to my mind he has a far better understanding of all this than any of the rest of us. And I don't like to be an editor of the article myself even to the extent of proposing what to include. Because I am well aware what a very subtle and difficult subject it is to present clearly. And how very easy it is to get things wrong. One of my teachers once remarked on that - that the teachings on emptiness are hidden, but the teachings on Karma are extremely hidden. Or some such. You slipped a couple of times. I am absolutely certain that if I tried to help as an editor that I'd get numerous things wrong. It is just way way way out of my depth to write an article like this or help edit it. But Dorje can help put you straight there. If he is interested in this proposal. He is an easy editor to work with as I remember you remarked yourself. Robert Walker (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorje108 is a new Tibetan Buddhist. He does not have a better understanding than me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, you're the one who's got a big problem with these edits of mine, so you're also the one who's got to say what you want to preserve. Your opinion matters as much, so if we can work this out together, let's try. My, and now it's really time for meditation. Robert, get your cushion, then we can sit together! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NB: see also WP:ONLYREVERT:

"The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text."

And now, "Sit down and shut up!" ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria - why then didn't you correct the error equating seeds to the impressions caused by intentions without action - or mentioning seeds as if it was generally accepted by all Buddhists that karmic actions leave impressions on the mind? Nobody else corrected that. And that is a mistake Dorje wouldn't have made, as he makes those very points clearly in his version of the page. Similarly for the section on Karma not a judgement and on Karma one of the imponderables. Deleting those sections without discussion first shows that the editor did not have a prior in depth knowledge of Karma in Buddhism. Seems I'm always first to point out those things. And I know my knowledge in this subject is limited

And there is much in the article that I don't know anything about - but by following up what Dorje says and reading his citations it says just what he says it says (in the cases where I can read it, i.e. available online). And previous version didn't have any of the issues that I can spot easily in the present one. As you can tell from my previous talk page posts - before Joshua Joanathan's edits, my only posts were to ask for knowledgeable editors of the article to help with other articles.

By methods like that I can confirm that it was a good article before. And see that the present version is flawed. And see that the present editors do not, collectively, have an in depth knowledge of this particular subject in general. I.e. the proof of the pudding is in the cooking, in this case, the article that results from the actions of the cooks. You may of course have an in depth knowledge of particular areas. Robert Walker (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we go through the last version before my edits, only one section at a time, or even only a subsection. And skip the lead for last. You've already made some comments; I promise I'll read them. Right now, dinner is waiting. NB: I was thinking of you this morning when I was doing my meditation; I hope I did send some good intentions towards you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! Finally a constructive proposal to move forward with. Good to see this! Must be due to your sitting 'n stuff, eh? :) Andi 3ö (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorje108 stuffs articles with nonacademic material. And I am opposed to that.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You are perfectly within your rights to do so. And you already expressed your view loud and clear. You might also have recognized by now that other editors, like myself, hold differing views on the subject. Last not least i assume you also know, that you will always be welcome to continue contributing to the debate in a constructive manner. Andi 3ö (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson - Expect you've seen it but just to mention, Andi 3ö has put things in an interesting way in his Support vote on the RfC, thoughts arising out of considering what the typical reader of wikipedia is here to read about.

Joshua, thanks for thinking of me and best for you also. Cold, wet and windy here on West coast of Scotland, good time to be indoors and have lit the log stove, which is a cheery heart warming thing to do somehow :). Please, the comments on the Karma talk page are just for information, I'm not suggesting edits for your article. It is more like - to help appreciate why Dorje included that material, and why I thought myself it improves his version of the article that he goes into those things in some detail.

I'd like to follow Dorje's lead here, especially as he is the main previous editor of the article. My own only ever edit of the page is to fix a broken link. So, as you can see on his talk page, he thinks the way forward right now is to continue with the RfCs. And that also makes a lot of sense to me also, on reflection. And after all, Robert McClenon also said we are on the right track there, that RfCs are the way to go.

So I think that's the direction I want to go right now, mainly, to contribute and help with the RfCs as much as possible, and see how it goes. It's only a few days into a 30 day RfC after all, so maybe I'm being a little impatient here. Hopefully we will get more editors contributing as time goes on. So once we have a clearer idea there, it may be easier to see a way forward for the two articles.

As for the previous article just to say that many of the sections go way beyond my knowledge on matters of Karma in Buddhism, discussing topics I had never heard of before I read his article.

So, if it did some time come to detailed per section debate, I think about the only way I feel I could really help might be in minor details of presentation of the ideas. Such as my suggestion just now, which was just an idea, that it might help to say "In more detail ..." when introducing the quotes in the sections in Dorje's version to indicate to the reader that they are not just quotations to just glance at to make sure they support the text before them - but are meant to be read in their own right, as part of the article, for further understanding of the topic. Also saying also "in the Therevadhan tradition" or in the "Tibetan Mahayana tradition" about the sources, again in case reader doesn't immediately identify them as such by the names of the authors. Many (not all) of the sections include a quote each from Mahayana and Therevadhan sources.

I also wondered if that might be part of the issue. That's how I took it, straight away, that's how I understood the structure of the article, that the quotes were the main body for many of the sections. But another reader perhaps, could easily think of them as just "inlined citations", just a thought. Because many do just "glance over" quotes. So if another reader were to read the intro para of each section, and just glanced at the quotes just to check they supported the intro para, as if they were just citations that happened to be included in the body - it might be part of the reason for differing opinions? Just a thought.

So, not sure I'll be much involved in editorial decisions, but may be able to help more in discussions and RfCs etc. :). Thanks, and kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we finally seem to be at the same track here. I was also wondering about Theravada, Mahayana, etc. Regarding yoyr comments or suggestions: you did comment on specific sections, it already helped to clarify a few issues, so I'll use them and work through them. One at a time! Here in Holland it's raining too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad that what I said helped clarify some things for you. But, please be aware, I'm no expert on this. I am not a scholar. I haven't studied any of the original sutras in Sanskrit or Pali or Tibetan. I haven't studied the secondary sources. I haven't ever done any courses in oriental studies or done any of the traditional courses either.

So - am fine discussing ideas on a talk page - but I am totally not qualified to help edit this article, not when it has been previously edited by people who clearly know the subject thoroughly.

Just am a Buddhist practitioner who was taught by good teachers, who were themselves scholars. If I can spot a few inaccuracies from what I remember of what they taught me, it's because of their teachings - but I was listening to them as a practitioner, with the intention of applying their teachings to my own situation, not as a scholar. When it comes to editing the article, it would be far better to ask Dorje for clarification not myself! I think you need to find some reconciliation with him somehow. And his article already covers the Mahayana and Therevadhan ideas with separate quotes. Robert Walker (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are as welcoem as anyone else's are. Don't worry if they make sense or not; I try my best to make the best sense of it possible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, don't. Please try and find some reconciliation with Dorje instead. Please don't "make the best sense you can" of what I wrote and try to use that in the article. It is not intended for the article at all. It is talk page meta discussion. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully what I said to you makes sense. But, just about everything I've said to you on the talk page is in Dorje's version of the article - in the sections you deleted. If you find what I say useful, then that should be a reason to go back to his version and read it more carefully. Rather than rewrite based on your understanding of what I've said :). Robert Walker (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also edited both articles.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after Joshua Jonathan rewrote it. It's not your edits that are the issue here. I haven't been following what happened after he edited away most of the previous article. But if you don't roll back I think it will be several years before you get back to an article as good as the one that was there before. Robert Walker (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article was absolutely crap before.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Rude again. Why? Andi 3ö (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to your views of course. But you have said several times that the Dalai Lama's books are not valid secondary sources for articles on Buddhism, and you think that Nirvana should not be treated as a central concept in Buddhism, if I understand your comments above, regarding that as a "new age concept". So, obviously you are going to assess the article a bit differently from someone who regards the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist scholars traditionally educated in Eastern establishments as valid sources, and who considers that the four noble truths are central to the Buddhist teachings as well as the sutras.

The thing is though - that your views here are a minority view, as far as I can tell, and Wikipedia is not out to find out "what is the truth" as perceived by a small group of western academics. It should just present the views and findings of everyone, and with preference for the majority view beliefs, when describing Karma in Buddhism. Surely? Your views can be presented, I mean, not as "your views" but because they are the views of some academics who are notable enough to count as secondary sources on the topic - but - just because they are minority views - surely shouldn't frame the entire article and be used to exclude sources that contradict them? I don't think, surely, that the majority of Buddhists think that Gelugpas are in some way deluded and that the Dalia Lama is not a valid secondary source. So - there you are using your own personal views to shape how the articles are presented - are you not? However right you might think you might be - that's good reason to write a blog or article about it - but - to write an encyclopedia article based around those ideas? Robert Walker (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Your personal views on these subjects are New Age.
• All knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhists understand the uniqueness of the Gelug school. You can ask a knowledgeable Tibetan Buddhist editor @CFynn:.
• Should I quote basic Tibetan history books on the subject?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this because I said that Nirvana is central to Buddhism? That seems to be what started this whole conversation but that is an ancient Buddhist idea that is at least 2000 years old, and plenty of people think, probably 2500 years old. It is what several % of the world's population believes to be the Buddha's teaching.

Do you agree with that? That most Buddhists consider the four noble truths to be central teachings, and that only a few Western academics (by no means all of them) have a differing view there. Do you agree this is a minority view - whether "right" or not - that it is a minority view? Robert Walker (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana is not the goal of Mahayana Buddhism. The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood. Nirvana is arhatship. This is basic Mahayana, which you seem not to be aware of.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's called Nirvana in Mahayana Buddhsim also. Nirvana_(Buddhism)#Two_levels Robert Walker (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana is not the goal of Mahayana Buddhists. This is the most basic fact.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends how it is taught perhaps. And how you understand "goal" too.

After all, Shakyamuni Buddha attained Nirvana - and then after death then he entered paranivarna. So a Buddha can attain Nirvana. To be a Buddha you have to see through the illusion of self. So have to realize Nirvana. But that may not be your aim, true. Your aim may be for all beings to be free from Samsara indeed. Not even to be a Buddha yourself, if you are on the bodhisattva path - then your aim may be to become Buddha to help all beings, or it may be, for all other beings to become Buddha first before you, and you just don't care what happens to yourself.

Still, it would happen at some point as a result of that aim. That's how I've heard it taught. But there is a difference here between the mahayana path, and the path of mahayana Buddhists. Most mahayana Buddhists are probably following mainly a hinayana type path as in their main focus, understandably, is in dealing with their own day to day problems. That's where we all start, though we may have the wish or aspiration to follow the Mahayana path. There isn't this distinction, for that matter, Therevadhan Buddhists are not "hinayana" I think is generally agreed, just an older style of teaching by the Buddha. Of course can have bodhisattva Therevadhans. Robert Walker (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bodhisattva#In_Therav.C4.81da_Buddhism

At least that's how I've understood it. Robert Walker (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of Mahayana, Shakyamuni was an emanation of Vajradhara. So Shakyamuni did not attain nirvana. He was an emanation.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think that must be some particular school or way of thinking. I've come across that. But - has the difficulty that then he isn't really showing the path to freedom from Samsara. I was taught that he was a bodhisattva but not a Buddha until he became enlightened. Though another way of looking at it, we are all Buddha already :). Buddhas see us as already enlightened if we could just link into that ourselves. So, in that sense when you become enlightened - you find out that you always have been enlightened. So that's a bit like, so in that sense he would be enlightened already, never has been unenlightened. So was taught that that is something you can link into, as well, and that there are practices to do with that. I think Zen Buddhism works a bit like that, is a practice along those lines somewhat. The so called "sudden enlightenment" school, idea you can link directly to it in every moment. Robert Walker (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There's another difficulty also. If he was already enlightened, and always has been, how is it that we are able to interact with him - that his disciples were able to do that? How did that connection get started to permit any ordinary being to see him, if he has always been enlightened, no concepts, no illusions, never caught up in Samsara in any way? Because I was taught again - that the reason we are able to interact with Buddhas in the ordinary sense as beings in this world is because of the actions they did in the past before they became enlightened and our connections we developed with them then. Otherwise we'd only be able to relate to them in some kind of very subtle formless fashion and never meet them in ordinary bodies like ourselves. If I remember those teachings rightly - was a fair while back, that is the gist of it as best I remember it now. Robert Walker (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nirmanakayas (emanations) can be seen by ordinary people. Other nirmanakayas are Garab Dorje and Padmasambhava.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. But I thought, the reason we can see nirmanakayas is because at some time in the past they were ordinary beings also like us so we have that kind of an interaction. Doesn't of course mean they are still caught in Samsara, just that at some point maybe in the very distant past they were ordinary beings like us.

Or can you get a nirmanakaya of the primordial Buddha who never was unenlightened, in some traditions, i.e. Samantabhadra or Vajradhara? Might be wrong here. The way I've understood it was that you only get nirmanakayas through past interactions as ordinary beings first. That in some way the nirmanakaya is a kind of manifestation of that connection you made with them some time in the distant past as a present day person you can relate to. That it's because of our past karmic connections, and because of the way we are caught in Samsara right now, but also this past connection with them when they were in the same situation, that we experience them as nirmanakayas that are doing various things, maybe teaching, maybe playing very active roles in society. Robert Walker (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert - above you wrote that "Wikipedia is not out to find out "what is the truth" as perceived by a small group of western academics. It should just present the views and findings of everyone, and with preference for the majority view beliefs, when describing Karma in Buddhism." Actually Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and articles are supposed to be based largely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Where good, peer reviewed academic sources are available these are preferred - and there are literally thousands of academic books and articles available on all aspects of Buddhism. Generally Wikipedia articles should reflect the current consensus and position of the community of scholars in a particular field of study (in this case, Buddhist studies) and any significant dissenting academic views. Wikipedia is certainly not here to "present the views and views and findings of everyone, and with preference for the majority view beliefs" - the preference is actually for what the majority of academics say. So yes, Wikipedia does have an academic bias - and those are the rules of the game on Wikipedia. Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true. If you want to include what the majority of Buddhists believe, then there are many academics who have studied the beliefs of ordinary Buddhists and practitioners - and there are now many good academic sources available written by them reporting those views and beliefs - so, in a Wikipedia article, you can summarize what those reliable third party academic sources say about those "majority view beliefs" - rather than using primary and secondary sources. Incidentally native Tibetan Buddhist scholars (lamas, khenpos and geshes) say that although the doctrine of karma and its results appears very simple, it is actually the most difficult thing in Buddhism to properly understand. It is usually taught that only a fully enlightened Buddha completely understands karma and its results - and, if that is the case, I think highly unlikely that anyone editing Wikipedia comes close. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I think background may help here.

There is an RfC going on about this at present on the Buddhism project talk page, so I suggest you take a look at that.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#RfC:_Are_texts_written_by_Buddhist_writers_and_teachers_that_explain_basic_Buddhist_concepts_reliable_secondary_sources.3F

And the reason for that RfC is due to an editor who removed a lot of content from a couple of articles recently on the grounds that the sources were Eastern scholars and teachers rather than Western academics.

So - is not a case of whether we should write articles based on our own or popular opinion. It's about whether it is okay to use the likes of Prayudh Payutto or the Dalai Lama or Walpola Rahula as sources in articles on Buddhism. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, you already posted there and I replied. But these are many of the points we are making also. For instance a big issue at the moment on the wikipedia talk page for Karma in Buddhism is that Joshua Jonathan wants to paraphrase the quotes, and trim them down to a couple of sentences. And we are arguing that - just as you say - it is one of the most subtle areas of Buddhism, it is not easy to explain, and it is not likely that a wikipedia editor can summarize the main ideas in a few words. That's the very reason that we want to have lots of quotes in the article. And - a reason for having quotes from both East and West. You can't say either, surely, on the same reasoning, that Western scholars understand Karma better than Eastern ones? Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First, you complained about the results of a Request for Comments which is currently at no consensus, but the RFC that you mentioned is the existing RFC, about primary and secondary sources of Buddhist scholars. I was advising you to post a different RFC about whether to restore the article to a previous stable version. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I understood that, that you meant a different RfC. I wasn't meaning to complain about the existing RfC - an RfC is an RfC. That one is currently tied and not looking likely to be resolved in the near future.

The thing was though that on reflection at least two of the editors who voted in that RfC have already said clearly that they want to keep the present form of the article. That's User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson. And then there are two editors who clearly will want the old version restored, myself and User:Dorje108.

So - we have some votes where it is already clear in advance which way they will vote even before anyone posts an RfC. It starts off with two votes against it and two in favour . Also, there is no chance of any of those votes changing. So, how is an RfC like that going to resolve the situation?

Maybe I misunderstood something there?

I do want to do something about it. But when you see as a certainty from the get go that there is no possibility of a consensus emerging, sometimes it is better not to start the process, is it not?

Second, you did it again. You are a well-meaning but very annoying requester of assistance. You asked for my help, and then, when I gave you advice, you said that maybe you can't do it, that maybe it is hopeless, that the RFC is running neutral rather than for you. You wasted my time and wouldn't even help yourself. Why? Why? Why do you ask for help and then say that you won't follow through? Do you really want other editors to hand you results on silver platters? This is a warning. In the future, if you request assistance, and I then see that you have first asked for help, and then blown off the help because you decide that you have already lost, I will ask to have you blocked as a troll. You really have pushed my patience. I am a patient man, and you have pushed my patience. Do not post to my talk page again if you will then blow off my advice by saying that other editors are working against you. Do not ever blow off my advice again. You owe me an apology. If you really think that he has destroyed the article, then post the RFC about restoring it, rather than walking off and saying that the world doesn't agree with you. Do something. Or don't do something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he has destroyed it indeed. Really sad to see such a good article destroyed. But he obviously doesn't think this. Is there any way you can win an RfC against two definite opposes right from get go, and when you know they won't change? If it is possible to do that, then I will take it to Dorje who has to decide on this I think, whether to go ahead.

But if it is flat out impossible to win against two votes, which is what I thought must be the case - then why put everyone to the hassle of trying to fight a battle you can't win? That's where I'm coming from. I didn't know what you would advise so didn't know this was going to happen when I asked you the original question. Robert Walker (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Third, you initially asked the Help Desk for an issue that I was interested in. I responded. You then dragged me into an issue in which I have very little interest, except as to Wikipedia itself. Don't drag me into issues unless you are willing to champion your own cause. Don't expect me to champion your cause if you get cowardly (which appears to have happened). Don't ever ask me to come in if you get out. Don't ever do that. Do you really want me to ask to have you blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I misread the situation. And, you can call me coward, perhaps I am, but I am not keen on fighting battles here. Especially if there seems no hope. I was hoping for something like perhaps an automatic roll back pending outcome of the RfC or some such. And - fighting, here on Wikipedia, has only got me into trouble, so it is not something I'm keen to do for that reason. Last time I tried to fight my cause you told me that I came close to being banned from editing the Mars section of wikipedia. I never understood the reason for that decision.

So, there's clearly quite a risk of something like that boomeranging, in a situation where I feel I don't understand the rules and why things happen and am well out of my depth, which is why I'm very cautious about such things also and why I wanted advice before attempting anything. Robert Walker (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is some flaw in me, I don't know. Don't seem to have much luck with the processes here. Though I am grateful to you for preventing the merge of Interplanetary Contamination with Planetary protection when it got to the point where that was about the only remaining material left in Wikipedia on planetary protection last time. Without your help they might have both gone by now, certainly interplanetary protection would be gone as that had already happened when you stepped in, and Planetary protection had already been rewritten and re-arranged and I think would soon have been reduced to a stub.

So that was a great help. But I can understand now, that this was a mistake to ask you to help on this other issue. Sorry about that. Robert Walker (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I realize now, the right thing to have done first in a situation like this, is to posted first saying something like

"Thanks for your help in the past. I have a question about user conduct, nothing to do with Planetary Protection. It is just guidance in wikipedia user policy, since you are expert on this. It is about an editor who has, as I see it, destroyed a mature article that I thought was excellent, and I wonder what the wikipedia policy is. Is it okay to ask this question? Or do you have any recommendations about where to go". So giving you the opportunity to accept or decline the question, and then leave it to you to ask for details if you were interested to follow it up. Robert Walker (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Sort of thank you for the sort-of explanation. Your post was too long, difficult to read and you didn't clarify what you wanted until I researched the history of articles in which I am not really interested, because they go into more detail about Buddhist teachings than make a difference to a Christian. (I know that Buddhist ethical teachings are similar to Christian ethical teachings.) If your real question was whether the bold rewrite of the article violated Wikipedia policy (it does not) or whether it could be rolled back pending RFC (it can, but that is discouraged because it is likely to lead to edit-warring), you could have said so without giving me all of the details. More generally, if something can't be said concisely, it may not be worth saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay yes - that's exactly what I was asking, and all I was asking about. Indeed no reason at all for you to be interested in all those details of Buddhist teachings. I see now that it wasn't clear at all, but didn't realize at the time.

When I posted the links, it wasn't with the idea that you'd familiarize yourself with the subject or debate. The intention was just to show the extent of the changes, and to show that the original article was mature in status, lots of cites etc, also an old article that's been here for many years with a fair number of past editors. The idea wasn't to get you involved in the discussion, had no reason at all to expect you to be interested in the subject matter. You wouldn't think it but I did try to express it concisely. But now I see how it could have been presented with far fewer words. I know I do have a major issue in this area, learning to express things concisely. Apologies again and also thanks for your help. Robert Walker (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I think you have been extraordinarily patient throughout this process. I am amazed at how patient you have been! Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorje , thanks for the encouragement. Actually helped a lot a few days back when you reminded me about taking the long view and that it's okay to take a few days off from commenting here. I feel I've been impatient at times actually, and that was a good chance to slow down a bit and collect my thoughts. But it's a great chance to relate to the teachings that our opponents are our greatest spiritual friends, by giving us the opportunity to practice patience. It's the only way isn't it? Been listening to Tenzin Palmo on patience :) , and reading Shantideva Bodhisattvacharyavatara on patience - after reading that one wonders why anyone would be impatient at all, after reading that it seems nonsensical, the way we behave. Perhaps the inspiration can help a little. And - I've seen nothing but patience in your own responses myself. Way to go! Cheers! Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, sorry I just realized today, I never gave Dorje an opportunity to comment on your suggestion. It's also obvious and understandable that you wouldn't be keen to overview and help with such an RfC beyond just giving it as a suggestion, as the subject doesn't interest you. So, anyway, I've mentioned this on his talk page and also suggested the help desk as a place to look for support if we did go for it. Whether he wants to take the idea any further then is up to him.

See User_talk:Dorje108#Future_RfCs.

Once again, I don't know why I am being cited here. I never really wanted to offer a third opinion on karma. If the topic were purgatory, that might be different. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just talking about your suggestion that an RfC about whether to roll back to the latest mature version of an article as a way to go if I feel that an editor has essentially destroyed a previously mature article which is what I think.

It's not a third opinion, and I never asked you for a third opinion. It was Joshua Jonathan and Victoria who for some reason thought I was asking for a third opinion and posted saying so on your talk page immediately after I posted there with my question. But I have never said anything to either of them about going to you for a third opinion.

The only thing that happened before posting to your talk page is that I told Dorje that I had found your advice useful in matters of user conduct and you seemed expert in the way that Wikipedia works in this area and I suggested you might be a good person to contact, asked him what he thought on his talk page. He said to use my own judgement. So - after a while, I thought I'd ask you. The others were not involved at all. And seems my first post to you on your talk page didn't explain the reason for posting there as clearly as I thought. But I never wanted a third opinion from you.

Hope that is clear. Sorry for the confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've told you before that a rollback is only appropriate in case of vandalism. This is not the case here. See also WP:ONLYREVERT:

"The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text."

Already in january 2012 issues with the Four Noble Truths article have been adressed diff diff, a fact Jim reminded us of at 16 october 2014 diff. I've explained my edits extensively, and in detail, at the talkpages. I've offered you to go through these edits again.

You've indicated a few times recently that maybe we could go through these quotes again, and have a further look at some of your preferred sources. I think that's more constructive than a RfC for a rollback. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This post is a wall of text about another poster's walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't true that revert is only appropriate in cases of vandalism. It is true that reverting should be kept to a minimum, and that content disputes should be worked about by discussion, or by dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've shortened it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, please re-read what I said in response to your suggestion " I don't like to be an editor of the article myself even to the extent of proposing what to include. Because I am well aware what a very subtle and difficult subject it is to present clearly. And how very easy it is to get things wrong....You slipped a couple of times. I am absolutely certain that if I tried to help as an editor that I'd get numerous things wrong..... But Dorje can help put you straight there. If he is interested in this proposal. He is an easy editor to work with as I remember you remarked yourself."

Also: "if it did some time come to detailed per section debate, I think about the only way I feel I could really help might be in minor details of presentation of the ideas. Such as my suggestion just now, which was just an idea, that it might help to say "In more detail ..." when introducing the quotes in the sections in Dorje's version"

At most I can help with very minor typographical type details, may be able to help a little there. That's about it. Because the subject is so subtle, so easy to get wrong.

I.e. you need to work with User:Dorje108. He is the editor with an in depth knowledge of the sources here.

And in your version of the article you made many mistakes. How could you delete the statement that karma is not a judgement in Buddhism from you rewrite in the first place - with all those quotes clearly supporting it? Just one of many sections you deleted.

I see no reason at all why that material was deleted - the sections and the quotes you removed. After conceding that the section was supported by quotes after all, you then say that the material in the "Karma is not a judgement" section has been restored with your one sentence paraphrase,. No way do I want to be involved in a process of "restoring" the old mature article one section at a time in this way! Hope this is clear! Please don't try to involve me in this way in your version of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also there is far more to the dispute than deleted sections. Your rewrite is based on the view presented in your version of the articles as "the truth" that the four noble truths and Buddhist ideas of karma were not present at the time of the Buddha but introduced later.

So, first, that just can't be the only view on the matter. After all in that case, who did introduce the ideas? Why isn't the author of these ideas recorded as a significant new historical figure at some time after the Buddha? Is it not more likely that he was the one who introduced the four noble truths, ideas of non self, ideas of karma as one of the four imponderables etc and that the older material was there already when he taught? The two articles in their present form are silent on this point as far as I can see.

I've already mentioned Lance Cousin's review finding many flaws in Anderson's book. Her book is the main basis for your rewrite of the article + her interpretation of earlier scholars which you just present as she understands them. Also, Prayudh Payutto's paper where he puts forward the view that the Pali Sutras record the teachings of the Buddha as memorized during his life and after his death, essentially unchanged, of course incorporating earlier teachings. If you include a summary of Anderson's views on this matter, you should include also relevant criticisms of her ideas, and also alternative views.

I think you did quite probably have enough extra material to add a new section to the previously existing mature article about Anderson's ideas on this subject. I don't think your material justified deleting many sections of the article and doing a major rewrite. In those circumstances, restoring the last mature version of the article seems the way ahead to me. Robert Walker (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, can you read this site from Krishan's summary of Vedanta's view on karma at pp. 154-158: http://books.google.com/books?id=_Bi6FWX1NOgC&pg=PA155&dq=Ramanuja+karma&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Ramanuja%20karma&f=false

Clearly both Sankara of the Advaita school and Ramanuja of the vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta believe that karma's administration is dependent on God, although individual souls have free will to choose good or evil.

I think that Mark.muesse is completely wrong but beholden to Professor Wilhelm Halbfass who is completely incorrect on the point of karma dependent on God as a theistic administrator.

Mark Muesse in the talk section of the Karma article incorrectly states that I am "cherry picking, pushing a point of view approach that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. Neither Krishan nor Reichenbach conclude anywhere, your strange theory, 'it is safe to argue that the majority of Vedanta thinks karma as dependent on a supreme Being'" Please add your rebuttal as well.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004 Okay had a look clearly Ramanuja is saying that Karma's administration is dependent on God:

Ramanuja in his bhasya 2.2.3 clarifies that the distinction between good and evil karma is also of divine origin... In the bhasya on sutra ibid. he observes "The souls... endowed with all the powers imparted to them by the Lord and with the bodies and organs bestowed by him... apply tmeselves on their own part, and in accordance with their own wishes, to works either good or evil. The Lord, then, recognising him who performs good actions as one who obeys His commands, blesses him with piety, riches, worldly pleasures, and final release; while him who transgresses his commands he causes to experience the opposites of all these"

Karma in Vedanta

Seems to me though that Samkara has another view, as it says that he considers that Karma is acetana, lacking in consciousness. So, is that chapter not, perhaps, covering two views, first the view according to Samkara, "Karma as a causative force", and then the view according to Ramanuja according to which it is of divine origin? Or have I misunderstood something? What do you think?

Yes I think he went way over the top in his comments about what you said. I already said that in my comment on the page. And - yes there are a few here who are apparently learned in scholarship in the sense that they have read many books and papers. But I think that reading a lot of books doesn't always mean you understand what they say. So, I think - here on wikipedia especially it is good not to be too over impressed by someone else's apparent scholarship. I've come across a few cases where, backed by dozens of citations, an editor will say something that an expert in the field can immediately see is absurd. Because it is sometimes easy to see what you hope to find in a book or paper.

As an example (nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism, just prior experience of workings of wikipedia) - the article on Life on Mars says that cosmic radiation sterilizes the surface of Mars and says that this makes all present day life impossible in the top few meters. With an impressive list of citations until you read them closely and realize they don't say this but are talking only about long dormant life. I've posted several citations and quotes to the talk page citing scientists saying that any life there would only be sterilized if dormant for many thousands of years. And citing scientists who think there is a possibility of present day life on the surface of Mars in microbial form, in the top few cms of soil. But they just get hidden immediately as "spam". So, I have given up there, there is nothing I can do. I tried taking it to the project talk page, but that didn't help either. Robert Walker (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So - this might turn out to be a situation like that. If so might be nothing can be done. Except edit war of course, but I don't want to do that!

Anyway I support you on this as far as I understand it, and will say so in the discussion, but thought best to check up this point about Samkara first.

At any reate, it is abundantly clear that at least some Hindus in the Vedanta school have this view! And Ramanuja's views seem clear from that quote, don't see how they could be read any other way, just a clear direct and simple statement of his beliefs. Which takes the idea back at least to the early C12. What do you think about Samkara? Robert Walker (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Krishnan article is incomplete about Sankara's view and the Google excerpt does not have everything about his views. Yes, he considers karma insentient but considers dependent on God, as explained by another text which I had argued with Mark:

Professor Bruce R. Reichenbach; see Theistic Explanations of Karma, pg. 146 of Causation and Divine Intervention by BR Reichenbach at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm citing Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sutras,III, 2, 38, and 41. In fact, Professor Reichenbachstates on p. 146 of that article "

Sankara argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can supersensuous, nonintelligent qualities like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, God (Isvara).(13)

So I am not off the wall on my points, as Mark suggests?

Raj2004 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay that's what I needed, thanks! Have posted those two quotes to the talk page in support now, seems clear to me! And - yes surely you are the sensible level headed one in this discussion :). Hope it helps! Robert Walker (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you for your support, Robert I relate to your situation regarding the Mars article. Some editors such as Mark are so beholden to their views so that even if you show a well-supported view, they won't agree to agree to it. This has happened to me several times! This is a problem of Wikipedia. Some editors are so arrogant and engage in edit wars that many get discouraged about putting a valid point of view.

Raj2004 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Raj, yes glad you relate to that also. Yes - this editor - he wouldn't read the citations I posted, just hid them and accused me of deliberately falsifying the information just as Mark has been doing with you. I think that usually when an editor does that, it's a red flag that they are probably the one in the wrong actually :). At least Mark doesn't hide the posts on the talk page, so the discussion is there for anyone to see. So maybe some time in the future it may help a future editor, if it doesn't lead to any conclusion right now. Or maybe not, who knows, one can but try to improve wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Robert I agree with your points. The good thing about Wikipedia is that one can present validly supported views that may not be espoused by academia who may be ignorant (problem especially with religion professors who are not practitioners, such as Wendy Doniger, who applies a Freudian approach to every aspect of Hinduism). But the bad thing is that there is no quality control, and one rogue editor can keep an article hostage literally. I had tried to put some serious criticism of Doniger but there was one rogue pro-Doniger editor who shot down any criticism. You can't apply Freudian approach to religion. Otherwise a crucifix can be distorted into a non-religious symbol.

Raj2004 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, yes on both points, I agree. Advantage and disadvantage. Especially, single editors here can have far too much power over an article. One editor can easily keep several others at bay, and there is almost nothing you can do to stop them. The system seems to reward the more aggressive styles of editing also, other types of editors eventually give up or move to less controversial parts of the encyclopedia.

I don't know what can be done about that though, within the context of what wikipedia is trying to do. Robert Walker (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, it seems that you had a dispute with Mark on very same topic that I had a dispute!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karma#Dubious:_The_law_of_karma_operates_independent_of_any_deity_or_any_process_of_divine_judgment

Regards, Raj2004 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj, Yes I did, sorry I just assumed you knew. The history on that talk page is that I was originally talking about how Karma is not a judgement in Buddhism, so objecting to the placement of this section Karma#Discussion before any of the other material before it is presented as understood in Hinduism or Buddhism - why give such preference to views of a small number of academics in the Revisioning Karma conference - and so much so that they get more space for their ideas even than the entire section of Karma in Hindusim? And their ideas based firmly on Karma as a judgement. So I was saying that Karma is not a judgement in Buddhism.

So Mark was attacking me on that giving lots of Buddhist sources that he claimed showed that Karma is a judgement in Buddhism.

Then in the middle of that discussion he then added a sentence in the intro section saying that Karma is not a judgement. Just flat out stating that with a couple of citations, as in - that in all religions it is not a judgement.

So in the middle of that discussion I then disputed that - because though it is not a judgement in Buddhism, it surely is in some forms of Hinduism.

So then - he challenged me on that and said it is not a judgement in Hinduism. And when I came up with the example - he said that the example was not acceptable as a citation in wikipedia because it is "popular Hinduism".

So you end up with this very confusing talk page discussion where he is simultaneously suppporting what to me seem to be contradictory statements - that Karma is not a judgement, that at the same time the Revisioning Karma material needs to be included which says that Karma is a judgement - pretty much anyway - and then at the same time also arguing on the talk page that karma is a judgement in Buddhism, and arguing on the talk page that Karma is not a judgement in Hinduism.

So - that makes the talk page rather confusing to read. I eventually gave up. He seems to be an editor capable of arguing strongly simultaneously for contradictory ideas while at the same time not able to see that they are contradictory. At least - that's how it seemed ot me for whatever. And very aggressive in his editing, even with several other people on the talk page saying that this discussion section belongs later in the Western section of the article, he is not willing to move it because in his view it belongs where it is.

So anyway if you find him a tricky person to debate with on the talk page, you are not the only one :). Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But Mark's views about karma in Buddhism as allowing for judgment but not in Hinduism does not appear to be supported. Judgment implies a judge, e.g., a supreme Being. Since Buddhism is silent on the existence of God, then logically karma is not necessarily a judgment, but simply a a natural law of "what you sow, you reap" to paraphrase Biblical notions. Raj2004 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, oh there are plenty of citations to support that also. See User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#Karmic_results_are_not_a_judgement - especially User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#cite_note-45 with a long list of quotes compiled by User:Dorje108 supporting this - one of the sections Joshua Jonathan deleted from the most recent version of Karma in Buddhism. I mentioned that to Mark in the discussion but to no avail. His only comment was something to the effect that I shouldn't cite wikipedia articles :). This is just in a talk page discussion, so that was a non sequitor.

Mark's view seems to be that the Buddhas and the Yidams function as the supreme beings in Buddhism to administer the results of karma. But of course in Buddhism, Buddhas do not function as deities and is absurd to talk about them administering karma and as for Yidams - they are best understood as a way of representing the unbounded qualities of compassion wisdom etc themselves, again totally absurd to think of yidams as administers of the fruits of karma in the context of Buddhism. But he found some quotes that seemed to support his view (I answered explaining how they were actually talking about something else in each case). It was one of the more frustrating conversations I've had here.

But at the same time his view is that in Hindusim Ishvara does not play that role, despite the obvious evidence that for at least some Hindus he does. And also, in separate discussion, that Karma absolutely is not a judgement at all. What can you do?

(That's a rhetorical question obviously) Robert Walker (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's very frustrating. From my understanding, the Buddhas and the Yiddams are like emancipated teachers/saints who help mankind to attain nirvana, but are not any concept of a supreme Being. Hence they cannot render judgment.

Since most Hindus are adherents of Vedanta (either knowingly or in ignorance of their tradition), we can safely argue that for most Hindus, karma is dependent on Ishvara.

When I mean "ignorance of their tradition," the concept of worshiping many "gods" while acknowledging that they are merely different aspects/forms of the one God is a concept from Advaita Vedanta. For Advaita, like Islam and Judaism, the ultimate Absolute has no form. However, unlike those religions, for Advaita, in order for God to become personal for man, it adopts a form because it is easier for embodied human beings to concentrate. By contrast, Ramanuja believed that God can only be a personal God and for him, that was Vishnu alone. Keep in mind that Ishvara from the Vedanta concept is the generic concept of God (without defining him as one of particular form, while followers of Shiva consider Ishhvara to be the same as Shiva. So the meaning of Ishvara depends on who and in what context.

Raj2004 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right. What's more, the wishes and aims of the Buddhas are to free all beings from the sufferings of samsara and help them to whatever is true happiness for them. So even were it possible, for them to render judgement would go against their own wishes and aims. Payutto gave an example to show his understanding of Karma in its simplest form to explain to a modern audience - of walking up a flight of stairs. As a result of walking up the stairs you can no longer touch the ground, and you may be somewhat more tired. So - a kind of much simpler approach. I think the translation as "cause and effect" however is a poor one because after all it long preceded any idea of modern physics and there is no sense at all in Buddhism, and I expect also in Hinduism that when talking about Karma we are trying to work out the physical laws that make the universe work. You don't need to have physics to understand things like, that going up a flight of stairs will have consequences that your situation is different from the one you would be in if you didn't do that. And Buddha taught that it is one of the four "imponderables" that we can't expect to figure out how it works in our samsaric linear thinking way of understanding things, it would make us go mad to try.

I think perhaps "actions have consequences" is a better way of expressing the concept for Westerners. Something we can all see to be true in simple situations and then it's taking that idea and saying - well what about longer timescales and effects we can't see so easily?

What slightly confuses that there is - first the iconography which shows them like deities. There's the idea that there is a kind of form that is like a body of light that is another aspect of their being, in Tibetan Buddhism anyway. It is like a more refined way of encountering them, in visions, and meditation, and - is thought - actually in some sense is "more real" than their ordinary physical bodies. It's a mahayana concept, part of the Trikaya. And even before Buddhahood practitioners also can attain these "bodies of light" too so they say. So the iconography in the tankas often depicts the Buddhas in that form. So then in that form they look rather like deities in the tanka paintings. That's the Sambhogakāya. But still not deities. Just refined forms of beings who were originally caught in samsara like everyone else and then at some point they found a way to enlightenment, and this is a manifestation of that.

I don't think this idea of the Sambhogakaya is in the older forms of Buddhism (not sure).

And - confuses it even more, in some forms of Buddhism there is the idea of Samantabadhra the "primordial Buddha" who has always been enlightened. Never had any confusion. But still even then, he is not a deity and not involved in rendering judgement. Has never got caught up in Samsara.

So is an understandable confusion - especially when you encounter this in the Mahayana tradition you can understand how this iconography - and also some of the ways that Buddhists talk about them - could confuse people into thinking that Buddhas worship deities and then making one step further and thinking they must also adminster karma.

Thanks for clarifying the situation with Ishvara, so I understand, in Advaita Vedanta with an ultimate absolute with no form, while in Ramanuja a personal deity who is Vishnu. One thing just like to check. As I've understood it, in Hinduism, then Ishvara comes into being just before the universe and then creates it? And dissolves away once all beings attain moksha? Is that true? Or is it just one particular view in Hindu thought, or not present at all and I just didn't get the idea? Robert Walker (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Sambhogakāya, the earliest form of Buddhism (Hinayana or Theravada) had no concept because belief in any deity would be antithetical to Buddha's teachings (he was very logical for his time). But for ordinary people, philosophy was not enough. Just like Catholics with saints, the Mahayana Buddhists adopted this concept. No, let me clarify. Ishvara is always immortal and transcendent. Ishvara is never affected by creation and dissolution of universe. Ishvara creates and destroys but transcends time. There are many creations and destructions. When humans get rid of karmas by work and grace of God (which Ramanuja argued like the Calvinists in Christianity), then only humans attain moksha. Hindus don't believe in eternal damnation (with the exception of Madhvacharya. That's why God gives you multiple births and rebirths to get rid of bad karma. I hope this clarifies. Also, Mark, as someone who was not raised in the tradition, may have half knowledge and as you know, half knowledge without a full understanding is dangerous. You can read about Christianity, for example (e.g., Eucharist, by several books, but practicing the faith is much different!

Raj2004 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)]]

Also note that Advaita does believe that God can be personal like Vishnu or Shiva, but they state that the personal form is dependent on a devotee's choice, because ultimately, God is formless. Now Ramunja believes that God has no form too, but for liberation (moksha), we have to focus on the personal form alone.

Raj2004 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that clears up a few things for me about Vedanta Hinduism. So - you have the same idea we have in Buddhism, that this universe is just one of many cycles of creation and destruction? And Ishvara continues through them all? If so I think some of the wikipedia articles may be a little confused on this (no surprise) but I forgot where I read that. And - what about the other deities - do they arise in particular cycles or do they also continue through them all?

Just interested. I approach this with the Rime type of approach - that it's good to understand other religions, without the idea that we need to try to merge them together or to find points of agreement or try to fit them into a single picture or make them consistent with each other. Just respect each religion as it is, in its own right, as it is understood by its practitioners.

And, to recognize that it is good we have all these different religions and paths and approaches for beings for whom this or that religion is their path or dharma that they need. And after all how could one ever know any of these things for sure :).

In Buddhist teachings as traditionally presented, we have devas also - but they are thought of as beings with an immensely long but finite life span during which everything is wonderful for them, but beings that will die eventually just like us. So possibly part of my confusion is due to that.

In Buddhism, the Sambhogakāya is not a deity in Mahayana Buddhism either. It's rather in Buddhas, an intermediary between the Dharmakaya which corresponds to mind, and the Nirmanakaya which corresponds to the body in an ordinary being, it has a connection with speech, as I was taught. It's what happens to your speech, perhaps you could say, when you get enlightened - though of course they can still talk in the ordinary sense as nirmanakayas. My teacher talked a bit about that at one point, the three kayas of the three kayas, making nine kayas in all. Anyway- so all that it is just language for talking about what happens when you become enlightened. Which as you say in the older teachings - is far simpler they just don't talk about this sort of thing at all, if I understand it right. So just as Shakyamuni Buddha was not and is not a deity, if you start using these ideas of the three kayas to talk about Buddhas and represent them in tankas etc - still - that doesn't make them deities. Just another way of thinking about and representing enlightened beings.

Yes - it is easy to get confused about ideas that to someone practicing, at a very ordinary level, you wonder how anyone could confuse such things. I've come across that a few times in the talk page discussions. I gave an analogy in the talk page discussion that it's like - in articles on carpentry, would probably be an idea to find sources written by people who have engaged in carpentry / cabinet making - not exclusively of course, but they are likely to be good sources to use - the best sources of that type, books written by people who are also skilled with their hands and engage in carpentry. Same in books on various religions. It didn't seem to work well as an analogy in the talk page discussions for the other editors there, though, but I still think myself that it is a reasonable point. Robert Walker (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism, like Buddhism, believes, that this universe is just one of many cycles of creation and destruction. Yes, we have devas too who have long life span but they die during different cycles of creation and regeneration. These devas are good but have not yet attained moksha. Your points are excellent!

Raj2004 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would reword the comment about "Hinduism, like Buddhism". It should probably be "Buddhism, like Hinduism". Buddhism is like Hinduism, which is older, except when it is not like it. Buddhism preserves those beliefs of Hinduism that the Lord Buddha did not alter or correct, and the belief in cycles of creation and destruction in Hinduism is ancient. This is the same as Christianity is like Judaism, except when it is not like it. It retains any of the teachings of Judaism that Jesus did not alter, abrogate, or revise. Buddhism is like Hinduism. Christianity and Islam are like Judaism. There are two great families of religions, the Abrahamic religions and the dharmic religions. To any Christians reading here, Merry Christmas on Wednesday evening and Thursday. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but unlike Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism is non-theistic (i.e., belief in a supreme God, contrary to Hinduism) and does not accept Vedas as revealed scripture Śruti like the Bible is for Christians. By the way, Robert, if I may ask, are you a Christian who has some interest in Buddhism? In any event, merry Christmas to you! Raj2004 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right, Raj2004, of course non theistic, and Buddhism does not accept the Vedas or anything else as revealed scripture. The Buddhist sutras are respected, because they give us a connection to the teaching of the Buddha but he said clearly that we shouldn't take anything on his say so as revealed truth but rather examine it for ourselves. And he said there is no value in saying that e.g.. "I believe in non self". A buddhist just need an open mind that it is something worth investigating to follow his path.

Also - another difference from the relationship between Christianity and Judaism - at the time of the Buddha, modern Hinduism didn't exist. Rather - better to call its precursor it Vedic religions. I.e. a precursor to both religions, which I think no longer exists in the same form. I think that's much more so than with Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is more closely linked to what the Jews believed at the time of Christ, than you could say for modern Hinduism and the Vedic religions, where you could say that all three religions, Jainism, Hinduims and Buddhism are quite a bit developed from the Vedic religions that preceded them.

For instance, I'm not sure that you had the idea of Moksha at that time, and this was the time when the ideas of rebirth were developing.

The wikipedia article on Hinduism has a section on this: Hinduism#.22Second_Urbanisation.22_.28c._500-200_BCE.29. And according to that, then the main concepts of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism arose in the middle of the first millenium BCE, with this article giving more details: Sramana.

I was Christian until my mid to late twenties, and have been Buddhist ever since. All my relatives are Christian. I'm the only one that ever became a Buddhist. My father was interested in Buddhism as well as many other religions but remained a devout Christian for his entire life. So I celebrate Christmas with them. I wouldn't for myself particularly, as it's not a Buddhist celebration of course. But it is a great time to be with my relatives and can of course sincerely celebrate the birth of Christ :). I am with them right now writing this.

So Happy Christmas also to everyone who celebrates it. 01:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your comments. Thanks for your comments on the talk page. Modern Hinduism may not have existed in paper at the time of Buddhism. But don't forget that much of early Hinduism was only by oral tradition and that is not easily transmitted unlike the Torah in Judaism. So we have an incomplete picture. Also, there were some pre-Vaishnavite and Shaivite cults. For example, the Rudram is a Vedic hymn to Shiva, which was in existence at the time of Buddha.

Regarding your comments on Buddhism, I don't think Buddhists believe in Hindu deities, although they may believe in some lower deities such as Indra. Raj2004 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I've heard of Indra's net, as a Buddhist metaphor for the interconnectedness of everything. Also MahaBrahma. Didn't have much by way of teaching on either though, and not as much detail as in that article about Brahma in Buddhism.

I think the main thing, in Buddhism, is that we go for refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, rather than to any long lived or eternal deities (in some traditions add fourth refuge of the guru or teacher - in this case, in broad sense of any teacher who is helping you rather than any idea of a vajrayana guru particularly). Where that is understood on many levels, starting as the historical Buddha, his teachings in the sutras, and the Sangha of those who keep to the Vinaya i.e. monks and nuns, more generally all of those who are supporting you on the path, not necessarily Buddhists. But also awakened mind, the teachings that arise from it and the activity arising from it. And where refuge means to have an open mind rather than to affirm any creed.

So then deities (as understood in Buddhism of course) - they could support you and help you, perhaps, if they exist. But - if they are long lived deities caught up in Samsara like everyone else, which is how devas are presented in Buddhist cosmology - then - not a final refuge - at some point they also will die, even if that's many kalpas in the future. Myself, brought up with strong maths / science background - well - I can't say I believe or disbelieve in these long lived deities. Seems possible that there could be beings that have much longer lives than us, even just physical beings like us but with very advanced technology could have lives almost like deities. Seems possible also that there might be more than the world as we see it including realms of light, or pure mind realms etc, why not? But - it's like - if you keep to the three refuges, as best you can - well there is no creed, so no need to believe in things unless you are sure they exist. So I have no direct evidence either way, so, following the path of the Buddha, I just keep an open mind about them.

Thanks for your Merry Christmas, did have a good time, not posting here much, but back home now. Robert Walker (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this: "Also want to make it clear, I don't think of Joshua Jonathan as a terrible person for deleting this content." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you also see it the same way, it is a dispute over content, not a dispute about the motives of the editors. I think we can both assume good faith here, hopefully.

As I see it, you've become convinced by Carol Anderson's book that the historical Buddha did not teach in the way that most Buddhists think he taught and that this is your main motivation for the rewrite. While, I don't think there is anything like enough support for her views for more than addition of a new section to the existing articles, at most. Most Buddhists haven't even heard of her, or the scholars she cites, or her thesis - and her book has only 18 refs in Google Scholar. And your edits have removed much material that is of use to Buddhist readers, and presents this one particular view as "the truth" without mention of criticisms of it (the review by Lance Cousins and I'm sure there must be more if one searches), and of alternative views (Prayudh Payutto's thesis that the older material identified by some scholars predates the Buddha and was incorporated into the teachings when the monks memorized the sutras after he died). So that's my issue - purely with content. I'm assuming good faith that you consider your edits to be an improvement of wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So am just saying - that perhaps that book is not quite as revolutionary as you think it is. It might be that the real reason it wasn't mentioned in the Buddhist articles here in wikipedia before you discovered the book with a google search is that the book and her thesis is a bit obscure and rarely cited. I know one of the reviews of her book which you gave said it was a "must read" for any course on Buddhist studies, but a single review saying that doesn't make it a "must read" just means one reviewer thought that. Also, it certainly doesn't mean that it is an "only read" that you shouldn't read other books or papers that come to other conclusions or that criticize her. It is very common in subjects such as religion, history, philosophy etc for the various "must read" books and papers to come to contradictory conclusions - saying something is a must read doesn't mean it is "true" in any absolute sense.

And that in any case whatever the significance of Anderson's book as regards Buddhist scholars, as Andi said, an article about Karma in Buddhism should provide the material the readers of wikipedia want to find. And mainly they are interested to know what it is that practicing Buddhists think are the teachings of the Buddha - of course also interested in what some academics think the Buddha taught originally - but - would want to hear all views on that, including criticisms, not just one selected point of view on what he taught originally - and - main focus of such an article surely has to be the Buddha's teachings as they are understood by contemporary Buddhists. Which then makes it absurd to ignore material by the most well known and widely renowned scholars in the Eastern traditions themselves, rather, what they say about their own religion surely should be a significant part of the article. Just as we have theologians in the West who are perfectly capable of a reasonably objective view of Christianity - same is true in the East for Buddhism. And - there is no prohibition of quotes here in wikipedia. If a section has too many quotes, well, that can be discussed, but they are not "verbotten". They don't have to be instantly deleted without prior discussion. And there is no rule saying we have to remove all the quotations from the footnotes in Wikipedia. The rules are all meant to make wikipedia more useful to the reader. Removing quotes from the footnotes makes it less useful and harder to use and harder for the reader to be sure what the footnote is referring to - so surely that's a consideration. Do think all this over, does what I'm saying here not have some merit?

I'm still hopeful that you might see the value in a roll back to the mature articles and to do a section by section discussion of your suggested changes.Robert Walker (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that a content dispute is being discussed on this user talk page. I have already posted my suggestion to two article talk pages. I am not really interested in the content dispute, which is about the details of a religion to which I do not belong, although I mostly agree with its ethical teachings. My suggestion is that, since there are significant content issues, you should request assistance from a volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If there are specific questions as to whether particular paragraphs are appropriate, those can be resolved by Request for Comments. However, there seem to be multiple issues, and a moderator may be able to help identify those issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just posted to Dorje's talk page linking to this section. Since I'm only involved as a reader of the two articles affected (all I have ever done by way of editing is fix one broken url using a link to the wayback machine), and he is I think just about the sole contributor to Karma in Buddhism during the last year before these changes, then I think it is probably best up to him what to do next, so will see what he says. Thanks for the help and suggestion! Robert Walker (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Update, Dorje thinks it is worth doing, and suggested I fill out the notice myself as I have more time for this, which I agreed to do, and am working on it here: User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice Robert Walker (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive talkpage behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are not angry when you post the excessively lengthy posts that seem to be ranting, then you should consider that other editors will think that they are angry rants. In that case, you can at least use all of your rationality to refrain from going on at excessive length. If you think that Wikipedia is wrong for not liking lengthy posts when Facebook likes them, then maybe you can use Facebook to maintain a blog. The purpose of Wikipedia article talk page posts is to improve an article. If the post is a page long, it takes too long to figure out what you think should be done to improve the article, if indeed you really are discussing improvements to the article. Maybe other editors who agree with you find your lengthy posts to be useful because they agree with them. However, editors who disagree with you, e.g., support changes to the article that you consider destructive, do not find a wall of text to be helpful. I know that editors who do not have an opinion on the article find walls of text to be unhelpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the comments that you write on your talk page, such as complaining about censorship of Wikipedia, are not written in anger, then you need to revisit your whole concept of what is writing in anger, because many of the statements that you make, that you say are not written in anger, read as if you are angry. Consider whether maybe you are so angry so often that you don't even know anger when you have it. (Both Buddhism and Christianity can provide spiritual advice about putting aside toxic anger.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay - well part of it is that I've been brought up to say my mind, and e.g. if I feel something someone else said is wrong, or I have another view on a matter, I tend to just out and say it. And I expect them to do the same back to me. Which can seem like anger on the page with only the printed text without any other context. I have sometimes got irritated for sure, but not furious. When I talked about censorship of wikipedia - well that's what it feels like, when an editor removes all the content on a particular subject from the colonization articles in wikipedia, I think it is a fair analogy. I mean, what is the reason why there is no mention of planetary protection at all in Colonization of Mars and only a couple of one sentence mentions in Human mission to Mars? You can say that as a simple matter of fact, without expressing anger. It's much more frustration and sometimes despair in that case. Also - I'd express it differently now - that's an old post from ages ago. It's censorship really by a single editor for one thing, but without enough support amongst other editors to roll back to the previous situation, sort of like those things that are in two states, push them and they pop into the other state and is hard to get them back to the way they were before.

On facebook I had a recent very long series of conversations with a Muslim friend about Buddhism and Islam - and if you didn't know that we were friends you might think from the things we said perhaps that we were extremely angry with each other, indeed sometimes others reading our conversations thought exactly that and stepped in to try to get us to "make up" as it were. But we weren't angry with each other, just long term friends for long enough so that we both know it is okay to speak frankly and the other one won't mind.

So, I don't do that with most people. I don't do that here on wikipedia, it might not seem so perhaps but I could speak my mind here far more frankly and directly but know that it would upset people so don't. And there are things you can do there, e.g. to be sure to start by underlying points of agreement with whoever you are speaking to, things like that.

As for ways of dealing with it, if I do get a bit irritated, the best thing is to take a break from wikipedia I find. Just log out, for a few hours, or 24 hours, or several days, and get on with other things - I have a full life with lots of other things I need to do. Soon forget about all the debates and issues here and they recede and get into perspective. I think that's where I went wrong in that big thing over a year ago now that I asked for your help in - that I never took a really long break during that whole thing several weeks, because it seemed like just one "emergency" after another to deal with. I've learnt to take a longer term perspective now, though, and that helps a lot! And yes of course, we have loads of techniques to deal with issues such as irritation, anger, despair etc in Buddhism as in other religions and I do use them :). Without the Buddhist teachings I don't know what I'd have done. Robert Walker (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Censorship" is a loaded word in Wikipedia, and its use is very seldom if ever useful. Most editors who complain about censorship are complaining about the removal of content in a content dispute either due to questions of sourcing or to questions of undue weight, in cases where they have little if any valid complaint. Sometimes editors are using the term "censorship" when they should be complaining about either bullying or article ownership behavior, in cases where there is a valid complaint, but it is badly stated by use of the word "censorship". Your complaint appears to have been about article ownership behavior. However, posting a lengthy complaint at the top of your talk page about censorship that is really too long to read and is out of place, being at the top rather than the bottom, is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you complain about various sorts of behavior, such as large-scale changes to articles (not a conduct issue) or article ownership behavior (a conduct issue) and then receive advice, and then ignore the advice, with a bizarre comment such as that following the advice would be going on the Charge of the Light Brigade, you get a reputation as another chronic complainer who just wants to vent about how bad Wikipedia is. We have too many of them already. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

SHORT SUMMARY OF PORTION BELOW JUST COLLAPSED Ownership - yes was other editor taking ownership of 2 articles temporarily, merging another two, then left wikipedia. Ended though with only these two sentences (see 8. and 9.) in the whole of wikipedia AFAIK on the need for planetary protection for human missions to Mars - and that presented as a "challenge" to be overcome. Wikipedia was like that for some time - only two sentences on this topic AFAIK in entire encyclopedia for human missions (as opposed to robotic missions) - until I got courage to add a section to Interplanetary contamination on the topic.

Title of that post was written ages ago. Ended at top of this talk page by accident when Joshua Jonathan added the archive bot - probably because it was originally unsigned so the bot didn't know the date of the post.

SHORT SUMMARY OF PORTION BELOW JUST COLLAPSED - going to arbitration seems a scary thing to do still. Less so after re-reading the old debate. But did find that one of the arbiters voted topic banning. The scary thing for me at the time as that he had the power to do that. The scary thing was - just a name, no qualifications in the field as far as I know, using this power to vote to topic ban me, without reading any of the citations for it such as the NRC, ESF reports, COSPAR workshops or whatever. Was just doing it on the other editor's say so that my content was fringe and his own "gut reaction" or whatever. That's scary! And there was no "good outcome" suggested in the debate as far as I was concerned, just this very "bad outcome".

MY take home message there is to ask for a road map in future, or some suggestion of where any action is going and how it might help, to have a reason for it. So - to ask for help still, but to go forward carefully, not to rush into anything - and if there is no prospect of a positive outcome from it, to just stop no matter how much others want me to keep going.

SUMMARY OF NEXT SECTION - This post, though long, was done in a happy relaxed state of mind. So is a case in point about the long posts not meaning I'm angry.

Just done some editing to make it shorter for those who prefer short posts. Robert Walker (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, if a DRN is a way to "ask for help", you could also do so at a talkpage. I've already given the answer: explain at the talkpages what parts you would like to see re-inserted, and then we can discuss it. I think you should also consider to let it go now, and accept that this is how it is. See also Wikipedia:How to lose. It might be better for your peace of mind (as well as mine, of course). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, that doesn't work. Going by the "Karma is not a Judgement" the end result would be that after long debate you might add a single sentence to your version of the article which to your mind summarizes the deleted section - and then call it a wrap. Also you have shown with your edits that you are not willing to engage in BRD but do the extra R of BRDR. It is because talk page discussion is getting us nowhere that I am going to take this to DRN. At this stage it is for advice.

I want to do this because to my mind you have ruined the articles with these to my mind over-hasty edits. Indeed, your new versions when I read them have many errors, not too surprising with such hasty edits of mature articles. Old versions have no errors at all that I can spot. So wish to try to do something about that, if it is possible. Best regards, Robert Walker (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan: In general, I agree that a way to ask for help can be at an article talk page. I respectfully disagree if you are saying that Robert Walker can reasonably ask for help in improving an article at an article talk page. He has already shown that the way he uses article talk pages is to post at great length such that it is difficult to separate specific issues with generalized complaints, so that other editors dismiss his specific issues along with the general complaints (and the general complaints deserve dismissing). Thank you for trying to be constructive, but he doesn't use article talk pages constructively, and hasn't heeded the advice of other editors to use them constructively. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, you've already said that you don't know much about Buddhism, and no reason why you should. How can you say that the general issues I raise, and request for a rollback deserve dismissing? I am doing what I can to keep talk page posts concise. Please check out my most recent talk page comments on Talk:Nirvana_(Buddhism). In future if I need to do a longer post as for Talk:Dzogchen one possible solution I came up with just now (today or yesterday) is to put the full response in my user space, and a short summary in the talk page with a link to the longer response for those who want to read it, e.g. if the post goes over 500 words or some such. I will probably do the same for the DRN notice when it is ready, maybe a few days from now, or a week or whatever depending on my other commitments.

I've just done that here: Talk:Water_on_Mars#Stream_water_speed - where - incidentally, other editors are hiding my comments to the talk page, legitimate posts, just putting forward a suggestion that they say the same thing that Encyclopedia Britannica says in its article on the same topic. I think they are doing this based on that informal topic ban of me in the Mars section of wikipedia by that editor over a year ago, which as you have said several times, was just a threat on a talk page, and he had no legitimate right to impose this ban. My first post there, yesterday, was rather long, but the latest version (of the actual suggestion itself) is just 119 words (excluding signature) - which I achieved by putting the rest into a subpage of my user space. Robert Walker (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That might be a reasonable solution, to use your user-space for drafts, and use them for a short summary. I think you should create subpages to do so, so your talkpage will keep short too.

Of course, this is only the first step. The next is to respond to the issues raised by others, and not to repeat your own point over and over again. WP:ICANTHEARYOU, as pointed out before. And WP:CON. And also WP:LOOSE.

As far as I can see (yeah, I do read your posts, and I do try to comprehend them!), you've raised four concerns:

• You objected to my clean-up, which I did in response to concerns which have been raised for three years now:

• You like the details and the quotes, and you want them to be re-inserted; other editors don't, following Wiki-policy; those details have been condensed, and the quotes have been removed or put in notes;
• You disagreed with the statement "Intentions lead to further consequences" (or something like that); that sentence has been changed;

• You also object to some of the new information that I added:

• You object to Anderson; I've explained that she's been published by solid publishers, and builds on the work of Norman, Schmithausen, Gombrich and Bronkhorst, who are the best scholars available of Buddhism;
• You object to the statement that "karma" was a minor concept in early Buddhism; this statement is voiced by multiple scholars, including Schmithausen.

So, of your four objections, only no.1 still stands. The detailed info is still available, but appropriately condensed; if you want some more quotes included (preferably in the notes), point out which quotes, so we can discuss them.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I will present a summary of the issues when I do the DRN. But will also make it clear that the DRN notice at this stage is just to ask for help, not to start a discussion of all the numerous issues involved. Because the problem has been all along that there are so many issues to discuss and it is impossible to cover them all. If we discuss the issues themselves in this first DRN notice, then the debate there will probably never end. So I'm going to do a new draft to make that clear.

As for your editing process - the main issue there is that you are not willing to engage in BRD but do BRDR. And that you rapidly edit an article that has been mature for years, over a period of days or weeks, without any or hardly any discussion. It is not surprising that this introduces many errors, same would be true for anyone who did this, as you can't possibly be expected to be expert in all the details of these articles - which between them cover much of the entire field of Buddhist scholarship.

Also, those are just some of the mistakes that crept into your articles. And if I can spot them so easily, there have to be many more I haven't spotted. I gave up mentioning them when you made it clear it wouldn't be a motive for a roll back but just reason for you to co-opt me into trying to "fix" your rewritten articles by adding an occasional sentence here and there to deal with some of the worst mistakes in them. Robert Walker (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained my edits over and over again, so it's complete nonsense to say "you are not willing to engage in BRD but do BRDR". Also, you're accusing me of making errors, but you don't provide diffs, and you don't want to discuss those supposed errors. Clear case of WP:IDONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, BRDR is when another editor reverses your edit and asks for discussion, and you then revert back to your own version and continue editing. You did that on four noble truths, early on when Dorje tried to stop you to discuss your edits first, with a revert with the comment "Please discuss proposed changes on talk page before making major edits."

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=629940742

You immediately reverted his revert, and continued making more substantial edits to the article, on and on, one after another.

Also Andi tried reinserting some of the deleted content from Karma in Buddhism see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=637862465 but it was immediately reversed by VictoriaGrayson

On the mistakes, I'm saying they are inevitable with such rapid edits of mature articles that have been in stable form for many years and scrutinized by many editors.

Robert Walker (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Dorje did one attempt at WP:OWN with this edit, meanwhile also removing sourced info, as I explained in my reversal. There is no way that the addition of reliable info, with good references, is going to be discussed before insertion, not is it acceptable to remove it with a request of such a discussion. That's WP:OWN. Prior to this, we had already started a discussion on the talkpage on the other changes. So, instead of discussing these changes further, Dorje simply reverted to his preferred version. The insertions by Andi were reverted by VictoriaGrayson.

And if you think I make mistakes, you either provide diffs and discuss them, or you refrain from insinuating comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's just not true, that all you did was to add new material. Look at the diff, you made substantial changes throughout the article, deleting many sections, rewriting others, many major changes to the article, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=629944002&oldid=629940742 That is not WP:OWN, it is you who is doing that by taking over ownership of the article and not letting existing editors work on it any more.

Dorje was definitely within his rights and following wikipedia good practice, to revert your edit, and ask you for discussion after such a major edit. Robert Walker (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: this was after Dorje's edits had been criticsed for three years, without avail, and Jim had tagged the article again. No, Dorje was definitely not in his right to revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course he was! There was no RfC or anything like that to justify your action. Nobody made a collective decision that you should rewrite the articles, you just went ahead and did it. Just user talk page comments, and to me reading them, they don't seem like a heated dispute. It is not justification for BRDR that the editor who did the first R was criticised in the past by another editor on the talk page - if we had a rule like that you'd almost never be able to use BRD. Robert Walker (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking the opportunity to write a few posts to my talk page and elsewhere while I still have permission to do this.

Obviously - if the decision goes ahead - then with this limit of 1500 characters a day, per talk page, including to my own talk page, and 3 edits a day per page, it will be impossible to submit the DRN notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits, and will be impossible to communicate effectively with other editors here for collaboration with such a thing.

The notice itself would be likely to take me over the daily threshold for that talk page, leaving no more words for that day to engage in discussion of it.

If anyone else wants to try to take it up, the draft for the DRN Notice is here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice

But I warn anyone who tries, that attempts to deal with things like this, from my experience here, can seriously boomerang, take care! Things can blow up from apparently nothing at all. Yesterday, 1.22 am on 7th Jan, everything seemed fine (post above). Today seems I'm going to be pretty much expelled from wikipedia.

You really have to take great care if you get involved in arbitration - that's my take home message. It is risky and chances are it won't help your case. Indeed based on my experiences here - if you have issues with other editors on wikipedia, and they don't get resolved through RfC and BRD, probably best thing to do is to simply give up! If any of my friends get involved in a similar dispute, this is what I will recommend to them - just forget about it and go away before things get worse.

All this would never have happened, am pretty sure, if I hadn't tried to do something about those articles Joshua Jonathan rewrote.

Anyway are lots of other places on the web where my contributions are welcome.

Robert Walker (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).