Talk:Tathātā

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Buddhism Mid‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Untitled comments

it seems we're having a "revert war" now...can't we discuss the issues here before unilaterally deleting one anothers text?

Lesotho 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine idea. I'll post some comments when I have a chance.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"gnosis"

is the phrase "the gnosis of the true nature of things" really necessary? this really sounds like an inflated, meaningless expression to me. encyclopedia entries should be pedagogical in nature, not recondite. i would guess that few of the wiki readers can extract any sense out of that phrase.

and i will reassert that we are having a "revert war" here...can we find a middle ground? or at least discuss things here?

It would be intereting to see where the middle ground between "The Eightfold Path it the path to union with Brahma" and "it is not that path" was. I assume that you've followed his other similar edits to the Buddhism article (and others)? BTW, sign your posts. --- Andkaha^(talk) 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, i don't think "middle ground" is perhaps the best choice of words. but i'm still not convinced that both sides are entirely irreconcilable. there should be a way to expand the article and include some broader perspective.

yes, i forgot to sign my post, but you needn't admonish me, as i said "reassert" wrt the "revert war" and 3RR rule, it would be a natural conclusion to think I was the original poster who made that point (i.e. Me...lesotho) Lesotho 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being able to convey the right tone in "please sign your posts"... One could possibly include both views instead of one or the other, making it clear that one view is in common use within Buddhist circles today (even if all Buddhist circles are currently based on "secular conjecture", as some say), and the other is Vedic. In the meanwhile I will revert the article again, because the Buddha did not teach the Noble Eightfold Path as a path leading to the union with Brahma (why would he? Brahma is as limited by Samsara as everyone else). --Andkaha^(talk) 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea

excellent solution Andkaha! i only wish that Mr. Krause were as creative and flexible as well. I believe you're a bit more knowledgable than I on this topic, but if you need any help please give a shout. great idea for a tricky problem! perhaps now we'll be free of all of the impassioned reverting :-) Lesotho 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely convinced that Nat is more knowledgable than I on this subject. This (showing both sides) is, by the way, what the shorter version of the article (as it looks right now), does. It divides into two views. The problem comes when you delete one of them. --Andkaha^(talk) 16:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Tathâta

I came here on my way to looking for information about Sri Tathâta. I understand this article is not about him, but for someone like me who knows nothing, would it be useful to mention him? In other words does his name indicate a particular link to this topic? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the topics are unrelated - well, not totally unrelated, but the topic is not about this person. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to make the article about the person, but it's that "not totally unrelated" I'm interested in. Is Sri Tathata a renowned exponent of Tathata/Dharmata? Or is this just a common name for gurus? etc. Thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd never heard of him before. The similarities, to my opinion, are in the name and partly in the message (I like the "Love is the message"; suchness as a doctrine seems to be more 'cognitive'). The difeerence is that tathata is a 'doctrine' while Sri Tathata is a person, and tathata is a Buddhist doctrine while Sri Tathata is a Hindu. How about writing a short article about him? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tathatā or Tathātā?

Hi folks.
This page has been requested to be moved from Tathatā to Tathātā.
I'm happy to do it, but there probably should be a discussion first.
What do you think? --Shirt58 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: Er, did you check out who asked for the page-move before you started this discussion? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I did not. Your point being?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was @Ogress:, which pretty much guarantees it would be right. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please, Pete AU.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I do respect you and appreciate your contributions, sometimes you really do have shit for brains. You know that, right? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. I have my finger poised over the block button, dude.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People constantly move IAST pages to the wrong spelling, and I routinely fix them to the correct spelling with template after confirming with sources. This is housekeeping, why are you freaking out? Ogress 20:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest abandoning the section on Ch'an...

...at least as it stands. The first part of this article seems to to do a good job of addressing the topic of the article. The Ch'an section however begins to drift into equating Tathātā with emptiness, impermanence and even miracles. If these were the same we wouldn't need different concepts. Once one is enlightened of course all these are One (sic) but before then, we have WikiPedia. --50.68.134.51 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-orientation

I read this article quickly and started to feel as though I was reading something out of 70's feel-good literature. Surely "suchness" was not an attempt to move people away from a warm-fuzzy place based on unreality towards a warm-fuzzy place based on reality. It was intended simply to move people towards reality (and whatever feelings they had as a result of that). --70.79.82.190 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]