User talk:Peter jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Peter jackson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Vinaya Research

Hi Peter. Hope you don't mind me beginning your talk page. I'm grateful for your work on the Buddhist cannon articles. We needed clarification and editing on many. I'm beginning to add {{cn}} tags where citations are needed. I'm also trying to bring NPOV to articles that reference gender (usually by adding the feminine terms, e.g.: samaneri, bhikkhuni, to articles that only discuss male monasticism), especially in preparation for any changes after the 2007 International Congress on Buddhist Women's dialogue w/ HHDL and possible renewing of lineages. This lead me to research sources on the vinaya, precepts and rules. Of course, there are many sets of vows amongst the six schools and many traditions, not to mention level of ordination and gender. And I'm not familiar with them all... or their origins. Do you know enough about this to help me navigate the academic literature and find reliable sources that aren't biased or bunk? Thanks! Deebki 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous, Peter! I'm very glad you're willing to help with this research. I'm just beginning to sort out the relationships amongst the many articles that mention Buddhist precepts (articles enumerating them, listing them, etc). Unfortunately most do not cite any references, even where (as far as I can tell) the info is correct. That's where you could help. Rather than reading and verifying every article, what do you think about finding/citing references for each of the six schools' precepts and then creating a navigation box that links to pages/sections about the precepts for each school/tradition? I'm willing to customize the nav box, if you'll help with the content. The box could also be used as an organizing tool on other buddist articles, if editors are interested. --Deeb 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(blockquote below copied from User:Deeb)

The division of labour you suggest sounds sensible in principle. Certainly I'm not up to the technical stuff (yet). By "six" schools, do you mean those with a complete surviving Vinaya Pitaka? I'm not sure how much detailed information there is available about them. I'll have a look around, but that may take some time. Peter jackson 11:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Yes, I was thinking about the six w/ a complete vinaya. I'm happy to teach you how to create a navbox, if you're interested. It's fairly simple. I'm also happy to help with the vinaya research, if there's something I can do. My original thought was simply to create a taxonomic-based navbox of the Vinaya Pitaka, a visual overview of vinaya in currently practiced tradtions. --Deeb 02:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abhidhamma

Hello Peter, Abhidhamma is mostly an interprative tradition, the schools each had their own Abhidhamma which provided the 'proof' for the specific view of those schools. For example the Sarvastivada Abhidhamma explains why past, present and future all exist, and the Theravadin expains why only the present moment exists, and that it is actually composed of mind-moments (which are static?).

The way it is written now is more NPOV. The previous description claims that the Abhidhamma (composers) were succesfully able to distinguish the deepest underlying principles of the Sutta-pitaka. The NPOV way would be that it claims to have succesfully done this. I can find you some quotes for this, ut you could probably do this yourself more easily (I suspect you have access to many book?)

Only a small part of the abhidhammas (parts of the first book) is common to the schools of Theravada, Dharmaguptaka and Sarvastivada. This portion is thus probably the oldest part. The rest is specific to the schools, and thus interprative. Greetings, Sacca 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Peter, thanks for your reply,

I believe the methodology is significantly different from the Sutta Pitaka. I know quite a number of people who cannot read the actual Abhidhamma because it gives them headaches. I've never heard this about the Sutapitaka. I would have the read it again, but as far as I remember, the earliest parts of the Abhidhamma are from about the same time as the later parts of the first four Nikayas of the Suttapitaka. So the thesis is that a early version of the methodology of the Abhidhamma can be found is in some later suttas of the Tipitaka. These suttas are very small in number, I think there is just one.

The article is about the scriptures of the Pali Canon, methodology can be mentioned but is not a major part of it: the major parts are the contents of those scriptures, and the scriptures themselves. I think you can mention in the part of Abhidhamma something about this original Abhidhamma-type sutta (or suttas). Greetings, Sacca 11:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I don't agree with deleting the info on the relationship between the two pitakas from the article. What you say about 'The Abhidhammapitaka doesn't claim to be a systematization of the suttas' is true, and if you read the article the article does not claim this. The information you deleted is a very common opinion, and can be presented as such. There will always be people who disagree, the Abhidhamma scripture is sometimes a heated subject amongst Theravadins (have a look in some forums and you will see). We should present both sides here in an objective manner.

I think it is proper to give some historical background to the Pali Canon in this article, and the common opinion on this is that the Abhidhamma is from after te Buddha's lifetime, since this is very important information, it should also be mentioned in the article. But we can put the history in a seperate section, but the part on a collection of texts which attempt to identify the underlying doctrinal principles presented in the Sutta Pitaka, and rework and reorganize these into a systematic philosophical description of the nature of mind, matter and time can still be included in its old place, since it deals with the content of the scriptures also.

I notice that the books you mention as references are all pretty old. Things are happening in this field, beliefs and opinions of 10 and 20 years ago may not be like that any more. Maybe you could use references from newer writings? Greetings, Sacca 10:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. to find the correct character,maybe you can find these in another article on wikipedia?Greetings, Sacca 10:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lamaism"?

Hi, Peter. In this edition [1] you wrote "Northern Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhism, sometimes called Lamaism". But, look on wikipedia definion: "In the past, Tibetan Buddhism was referred to by some as "Lamaism" (Teaching of spiritual teachers) but by many this is now considered inappropriate". Correct name for this teachings is Vajrayana. I think it would be better to add info "in the past and erroneously" (or sth like this) or delete this inappropriate world at all. Tadeusz Dudkowski 16:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pali literature - nice!

Based on timestamps, I see that this comment is a month overdue but I just came across the article Pali literature that you created and just wanted to say, Thanks! Well done! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Udana

Hi Peter- I was looking at the Udana article, and it seems like you started to add a footnote regarding opinions on the chronology for the Udana, but the note itself is MIA. Is there a reference that you wanted to add in for this one, or should the footnote just be culled? Thanks for all your work on filling in some of the Pali lit topics recently- I just knocked a few of them off of the Buddhism Project open tasks list. --Clay Collier 10:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Dear Peter, I would just like to say that I appreciate your knowledgeable contributions to Buddhism related articles, as well as your calm and constructive comments on the Talk Pages. Are you by any chance the Peter Jackson at ANU ?--Stephen Hodge 22:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Visuddhimagga part of the "Pali commentaries" ?

Hi Peter! I've started a thread on this question at Talk:Atthakatha because recently the Visuddhimagga has now been deleted both from that article (Atthakatha) as well as from the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template, by you and User:Sacca respectively. I'm explicitly asking you, User:Sacca and User:Stephen_Hodge to respond given your all's expertise, intellect and thoughtfulness. Thanks for any help, as always, if you get a chance. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abhivademi

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your consistently excellent, tireless work in the pursuit of making Wikipedia an unsurpassed English-language web-based free resource for Pali literature information, I humbly offer you this barnstar. The proximate causes for this well deserved praise are your edits to the Atthakatha article in which you provide superior, more meticulous information than that provided by the justly acclaimed "Access to Insight" and provide an awe-inspiring list of relevant translations. I bow to you, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Vesak

[edit] Penguin Handbook date

What is the date of the edition of the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions that you used to reference the Buddhism article? Since no 1996 edition exists, I removed some of the references, but will restore them when you confirm the edition. Please respond on the talk page. --Gimme danger 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pre-sectarian Buddhism, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cundi 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notes

Hello Peter, could you put some more effort in the notes you made to the Buddhism article? I read in the talk-=page there that you do things from memory, so maybe that's why you don't give the pagenumbers. But they are very important. How am I going to check these references? For example: this is notes 21 to 24 in the article.

1. ^ Penguin Handbook
2. ^ Penguin, Harvey
3. ^ R & J, P & K
4. ^ Penguin, Harvey

Also R&J, P & K is off course also not a good note. Year? Name? Where does Harvey say these things? Greetings, Sacca 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] khuddaka nikaya

Hello peter, I added some info on what are the early and late books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, based on a scholarly investigation/publication of the Khuddaka Nikaya. You might want to use it for Pali Canon, also. Greetings, Sacca 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

hello peter jackson, I think it's just fine, it's not really long actually, just look at the article. Some detail is necessary here, especially since we want to include Gregory Schopen's opinions too, and give the reactions his statements have brought. Previously, the detail was almost non-existing, now it's been brought into balance. Note that the page is 35 kb long, well within the limits, and that the section on scholars's opinions is only a small section within the article.

If you want to cut, maybe cut the section on Selections? All these books are old anyway, and hard to get. Why is there no mention of Bhikkhu Bodhi's and Maurice Walshe's translations? These are best-sellers, and in the PTS catalogue!

Have a nice day, Greetings, Sacca 03:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I will add some more info on the history of Abhidhamma, later on. This is currently missing. Greetings, Sacca 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to say hello? Hello! I was just going to include a line or two concerning abhidhamma, that seems appropriate, especially with a collections in which it is often thought that everything can be ascribed to Buddha, while large sections of it cannot, so it's relevant information.

If you only include 'selections that are neither broader nor narrower than the Pali canon', then you might indeed end up with this list. The word selection already implies that not akk publications are given - it's a selection. It doesn't mean you can only include 'selections', and not a book which contains the Majjhima Nikaya - which in itself is just a selection, too. I suggest you at least include Bhikkhu Bodhi's anthology of the Sutta Pitaka (newly published last year), it's a selection, too. And remove the one which are too ancient.

An section called 'Sources for Early Buddhism' could be included in pre-sectarian Buddhism, actually something like that already exists. But now we're talking specifically about the Pali Canon article, it needs this information, seeing it's very essential information. you can't just mention one controversial scholars' name and then leave everything in the air. Detail needs to be provided. It's not much when you look at it the paragraph, it fills only part of the screen, while the article is quite long in total, so this amount on the history of it seems very appropriate. Greetings, Sacca 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, just a mention on Adhidhamma-history will be enough, it doesn't need to be long. Greetings, Sacca 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am a bit concerned that you did not state any source for you main conclusion on scholars' opinions on the origin. Greetings, Sacca 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This piece of text:This position also does not seem to have attracted much support. Most scholars hold that much, being shared with other schools, goes back before they separated (fourth or third century BCE), but are not prepared to go much further. They either hold that much of this material evolved over the century or two following the Buddha's death, or regard the Buddha's original teaching as unknown.Greetings, Sacca 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Please also fix up our notes in the article. Al lot of Gomrich, page 23'-type notes, these are not acceptable. Also, I would very much appreciate it if you could actually mention the specific sentence on which you base your notes. If you do not do this, it means it is very difficult to verify the correctness of your notes, and I might add other quotes to rectify, deleting your old quote.

For example, when I researched the note you made about R. Gombrich's internet-interview, I discovered you actually subtly added some of your pov to the quote, changing from 'other scholars do not say' to 'other scholars do not believe'. That's quite a difference, you know. So please make the notes properly, and open for other people to verify, as I myself always do - and I am not exaggerating here. Greetings, Sacca 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't speculate so much... 'not saying' is something very different from 'not believing'. Anyway, we'll just continue and see what happens. Greetings, Sacca 09:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

hello again, I had to change some of the text, the three scholars actually quite agree, they all use statements like 'probably' , 'might', 'no evidence that it is anything else than', so they all leave the option open and say it could (very well) be the case.Greetings, Sacca 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] apparent

my position, my position. Just forget about my position, I added scholarly quotes, that's it. Don't be so suspicious. Greetings, Sacca 10:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good enough

Hello. Actually, it's enough now. I am just working to remove biases. Some wikipedian don't like that the PAli Canon can legitimately be attributed to the Buddha. The only solution that has historically proved to work in wikipedia to solve these kinds of conflicts is the includion of scholarly quotes. The book on 'life of the buddha' that you included contains stuff from the pali canon, commentaries, and current opinions. It's mostly vinaya pitaka and stta pitaka. An extremely good book, by the way (i've read it), but not to be included on this page. The list of 'selection' adds nothing to the page but clutter, in my opinion. The Pali Canon editions are already mentioned, if you want to add 'selections', they should provide useful information for people, your list does not offer useful information, I think. I wouldn't delete a list with good translations: currently available books. The recently published anthology by Bhikkhu Bodhi is an example. No need to expect new additions by me to the 'attribution to buddha' section. Greetings, Sacca 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you're a bit hypocritical here. First I did just what you said (one statement which covers all), and you deleted it and said the statements are too distinct. You were obviously angry and bitter about something, what I don't know, but then I knew I had to things differently. So this is how it is now, and you caused it to be like this. I like it now, I don't want to change it again because you changed you opinions again. Sorry. Greetings, Sacca 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the additions you made the 1st time because you ascribed to them the views of Gombrich, which they don't hold (though Harvey does). You then put the same quotations back with better text, but then the views they hold seem no different from Lopez' agnosticism. I'm not sure I was being consistent, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time on it. The last revert was simply to save time. However, on reflection, I think the matter is more complicated than i thought, so I want to reconsider what I said & restart discussion in Talk:Pali Canon in the hope of getting contributions from others. On anthologies, I suggest you comment on my entry on the project talk page & we'll see whether other people have any thoughts. Peter jackson 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

You're very funny, Peter, accusing me of vandalism. You're like a small kid, you know? This is what you put on my page: I don't want it, please keep your garbage on your own grounds. Greetings, Sacca 11:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Peter jackson 10:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking

Peter, think a bit: what does you addition say? What is it's content?

The late Professor Nakamura[3] uses the term early Buddhism in this sense, and subdivides it into two periods:

1. original Buddhism

2. this period Nakamura also calls early Buddhism

Is this logical content? what are the 2 periods? Are they really subdivisions? What is subdevision number 1? What is subdevision number two? How are they different?

No good answer means you're a vandal, by the way!

Greetings, Sacca 11:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] angry old Vandal

Peter, I won't bother with you any more now. For other people:

1. Peter has not succeeded in deleting pre-sectarian Buddhism. Nobody agreed with Peter's standpoint.
2. Peter is a historical vandal at pre-sectarian Buddhism (please have a look at Peter's talk page where the vandalism is properly documented).
3. Please have a look at the addition Peter has been making: it's obviously nonsensical. who can understand it? there's no meaning to it. Peter is bitter and angry, that's it. I don't know what he's doing in the pre-sectarian buddhism article other than trying to make trouble. Greetings, Sacca 11:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vibhanga chapter title corrections

Hi Peter -

Thanks for the excellent corrections! I was meaning to put a note on Talk:Vibhanga asking for help with the translations, especially with "appammanna" and "khuddhaka vatthu" -- sorry for not having done so already. (I applaud your ability to correctly identifying the basis for my erroneous translations as well!) Any corrections to case number (whether in terms of the actual Pali or, if you think appropriate, finding the best mapping between Pali and the English translations) are appreciated as well. Thanks too for educating me regarding the Vibhanga's use of sikkhapada and appammanna (-- I knew I had seen the latter term before but couldn't place it and I didn't find the on-line PTS PED of particular use); I'll update the wikilinks accordingly.

As always, you've done a great job. I hope you are well. Thanks so much again,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Udana

Hi Peter -

Thank you so much, once again, for the thoughtful, meticulous review and gentle prodding regarding my recent additions to the Udana article. Come Monday, I'll re-read the relevant portions of Hinuber and add a post here (and, of course, make the appropriate changes to Udana); if this delay causes you any concern, please feel free to revert or modify my edit in any way you see fit. I certainly trust your expertise.

Thank you too for citing Cousins and elaborating on Pataligamiya. As always, your knowledge and resourcefulness are a wonder.

With metta,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter -

Thanks so much again for kindly identifying (and, in the past, correcting) my intellectualy sloppiness. I tried to correct my current error by changing:

Hinuber identifies this collection ....

to

Hinuber identifies this type of discourse (although not necessarily the existing collection itself) ....

and by adding a specific quote from Hinueber in the end note.

Is this correct now? If not, please prod me again and/or make whatever modifications you think best.

Thanks so much again. I hope all is well,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutta arrangement within nikayas

Hi Peter (again) -

Could you possibly shed some light on a Hinuber (2000) statement for me? On p. 25, §49 (continued from p. 24), Hinuber writes:

There are, however, two completely different principles of the arrangement of the Suttantas. In the first three Nikāyas it is the decreasing length of the texts. In the Aṅguttaranikāya, on the other hand, sets of persons, things or concepts occurring once, twice, thrice, etc. are grouped together in separate divisions.

My question is about the application of the first principle to the Samyutta Nikaya: Is he saying that the five different vaggas (i.e., Sagatha-vagga, Nidana-vagga, Khandha-vagga, Salayatana-vagga and Maha-vagga) are ordered based on their overall size (e.g., number of words)? (He can't be saying that they're ordered based on intra-vagga samyuttas since the Maha-vagga has more samyuttas than the Nidana- and Salayatana-vaggas.) Or is he saying that, within a samyutta the discourses are arranged according to decreasing length (although I thought I've seen otherwise but this might be due to ellipses)?
I ask this really just out of vague curiosity. Any knowledge or intuition of yours that you could share would be appreciated. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is clearly superior and undoubtably correct. Thank you so much Peter! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Buddha article

Hi Peter - I was hoping you might be inclined to formally cast a vote at Talk:Buddha#Renaming_vote in regards to what to rename the current Buddha article. I know under Talk:Gautama Buddha#Naming you mentioned that your preference at the time was for Buddhas but I wasn't sure if that was still true, especially in light of the increasingly popular Buddha (general) title. If I may be plain: a large part of my desire for a formal vote on Talk:Buddha is that I think that the greater the number of significant WP Buddhism contributors (such as yourself) that vote, the greater the chance we could avert subsequent controversy when I attempt to actually move the current article. If though, for any reason you're disinclined, I can certainly understand. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter -

Thanks so much for the quick action and thoughtful point. For what it's worth, the Buddhahood link is currently a redirect to Bodhi (which, as perhaps you would agree, Nat has suggested is problemmatic). So, for instance, if Buddha (general) turns out to have the most votes, then I think I'll simply re-redirect Buddhahood to Buddha (general) (unless perhaps you foresee a better solution?).

Thanks so much again. I hope you are well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Larry and I gathered many more facts on talk:Buddha (general), and we feel it is time to vote again. Both Larry and I now favor "Buddhahood", which was your choice in the first place, but we feel it would be better to alert all voters. — Sebastian 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there ...

Not even a Thursday. How are you getting on here? Charles Matthews 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samatha

Hi Peter - I've replied under your related statement on Talk:Buddhism. Also, I cleared out User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox3 in case you want to use that for an on-going discussion. I've a lot of thoughts on this matter but instead of sharing them here and there, I'll follow your lead as to where to continue the discussion (if at all). As always, thanks for your insights. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abhidhamma redirect

Hi, I reverted the redirect you made at Abhidhamma, because you pointed it to Abhidharma, which in turn redirects right back to Abhidhamma. I suspect that you intended to redirect somewhere else, but I am not entirely sure since I don't know anything about the subject. Can you re-check the target? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it was a four-minute gap. However, what you have done is called a "copy paste" move, and should generally be avoided since it splinters the article's page history. I realize that your target had a previous (and trivial) history, and that stopped you from using the "move" function, for those situations you are generally better off requesting admin assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks for your work on this subject however! Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth Biddhist Council

Dear Peter, thank you for your input on Sixth Buddhist Council: Thai edition of the Tipitaka canon discussion. Dhamma society fund's edition puzzled some of the Burmese Sanga scholars that I have enquired about. Regards and best wishes. --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, but no thanks!

Hello Peter Jackson. Your parents probably never taught you about manners and other such elementary features of human interaction but assuming you attended school i'm sure someone must have told you there never to introduce yourself to someone with the phrase 'Rubbish' as you did on my user page. Also, there is something else I would like to explain to you. The Buddha taught that it is a great demerit to practise what he called dhammantaraya which means 'obstruction of the dharma' as I hereby assert that you are guilty of in endorsing the existing introduction to the Buddhism article. If you have the humility to ask any senior figure in the Buddhist world what Buddhism is, they will give you a clear and unambiguous answer and these answers given by each representative of the various denominations, Mahayana or Theravada, would not contradict each other. The current introduction suggests that we do not know what Buddhism is or that it cannot be said to be more than a vague umbrella term for a plurality of teachings and practises so heterogeneous that one cannot give a singular or concise definition of what Buddhism is. That is only a reflection, however, of the lack of knowledge of the self-appointed editor-in-chief of this article. It is embarrassing to encounter the continuing inferior quality of articles relating to Buddhism on wikipedia compared to, for example, the articles on Judaism. Perhaps you are not a practising Buddhist yourself but my own feeling is that we are letting our beloved and reverend teacher down by confounding people's understanding of the wonderful teaching that he left us. Your deletion of my article on the grounds that it is just one person's view does not stand up to scrutiny if you take the time to interview the most senior representatives of the buddhadharma whether Mahayana or Theravada. There is nothing there that would be contested by a Shingon priest, a Zen monk or the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand But, I suspect that you have never set foot inside a Buddhist monastery nor possess more than a cursory acquaintance with the teachings. If you take it upon yourself to familiarise yourself with these teachings - after which you may come to be be qualified to contribute to this article - you will find that Buddhism is a clearly definable entity - far more than any of the other living religious traditions of humanity. The clarity of exposition that characterises the Buddha's dharma has been one of its selling points across the centuries. There is nothing vague about it at all. Therefore you do Lord Buddha a great disservice by presenting his teaching in such a way. Langdell (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book?

Q: Are you the same Thanissaro who appears as the 3rd author in the 5th edition of Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions? Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) A: Sorry to disappoint - the one you want is Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[edit] My message to Beijing 2008!

[2]

Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Why this edition? --Miotroyo (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Very scholarly answer. Thanks. --Miotroyo (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pali Canon

I've been using BUDSIR free for several days now. First register with your first and last name. Then login. When you login, for some reason, it often gives you a message saying you must login. In response, simply login again and it works. Don't know why there's a glitch (at least on my platform) but it is free. Hope this helps, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PaliCanonSamanaViews

Perhaps as more information becomes available we could consider whether or not to integrate/prune/modify? For now I'll just emphasize that it's based on DN 2 specifically. Thanks for any additional clarification. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the pointers. I'll take a look at the material in the next few days and will reply further here then. (If you'd like a more urgent response, please just let me know.) Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You mention two pages (MLDB 1279f and CDB 1096) filled with end notes. On these pages, I've read all the end notes as well as the suttas they are associated with (MN 74, SN 24.8) and cursorily scanned a sutta to which an end note alludes (MN 76). I don't see anything in these pages that explicitly contradicts the material of the template. This is especially true regarding your reference to "MLDB 1279f."

Regarding your reference to "CDB 1096," n. 258 explicitly confirms what is in the template. N. 260 suggests that Makkhali and Pakudha may have shared a cosmology and at some undefined later date their schools "coalesced," but I do not see anything that explicitly contradicts or requires the editing of information in the template (though some informaton would be pertinent to the individual WP pages of these teachers).

Given the effort I put in above, I hope you could understand my very much appreciating and hoping that, if you see a specific problem or shortcoming with the template, you would provide a thoughtful and detailed articulation of such. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to keep my eyes open for such information. I appreciate the thought. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A. K. Warder

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A. K. Warder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of A. K. Warder. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism in the UK

• Oh dear! I think I must drink a cup of coffee now. Thanks for your helps. Good luck!Angelo De La Paz (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha page

Dear Peter jackson, I was surprised to see this reversion. Was just trying to clarify what a plurality was (it was hopelessly confusing to me). I agree that the current version is really wordy and unclear so am willing to work with it on you in good faith. Are you game? Windy Wanderer (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Message for you here. Windy Wanderer (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Response here. Let's move further discussion to talk page. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahayana Canon

Hi there. I just categorized Mahayana Canon. I strongly considered to revert it to a redirect, since Mahayana sutras has a similar section of a better quality than the article. "Mahayana Canon" does have the potential to be the main article for that section, but I think that unless You plan to improve it, it is better to redirect. What's Your opinion? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Your point. Styling it as a disambig will in it self, show the ambiguity of the subject. I'll have a go at it. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tipitaka

Thanks for catching my mistake and for the info on the other Luis Gomez. I had no idea he existed. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks -- perhaps I was being overly sensitive. I can definitely understand the frustration of creating an article that's well sourced and then seeing some Bozo come in and revert it for no apparent reason. Thanks for the message.Windy Wanderer (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Worship page

Peter,

I've made a stub entry for buddhist worship over at the Worship page Worship#Worship_in_Buddhism. I think you know a lot more about this than I do, so I thought you'd be the guy to give it some content. are you up to it?  :-)

and don't stress about the Buddhism page - I'm dead set on hammering out something we can all live with. please keep participating, because I think your insights are valuable.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sects

I agree that the words "sect" and "cult" are both very problematic, and have actually tried to avoid using either, except in rare cases of phrasing like "cults, sects, and new religious movements", and in those cases only using them to make it clear that all such newer religious groups are being discussed. That's one of the reasons why I've tried to use the neutral phrase "new religious movement" for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It would help to know if you have any particular cases in mind. In many cases it is true that even, for instance, a Roman Catholic archbishop or cardinal might make statements which are only personal beliefs, despite his official standing, but in most cases for the larger groups that is more or less obvious. I do agree that a work by a member of a church is not necessarily going to reflect the official views of that church, and myself try to rely on the works of individuals like J. Gordon Melton and other neutral sources like that first. If for whatever reason you want to communicate on this matter privately, my e-mail is enabled. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)