User talk:Andkaha

Howdy!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Okay, I'm a few years late. --Grouse 13:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thanks

You're welcome. I'm actually obsessed with maintaining citations. You're additions are good (they do not conflict with the source, but they weren't taken from the source). Hyacinth 09:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(That was in response to a comment made by me to User Talk:Hyacinth#Quick thanks --- Andkaha^(talk) 11:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Refuge

Yeah, that sounds good. I've been through my Buddhist books, and i think i've found where i got my idea from. I baught a book years ago now, 365 smiles from Buddha by Robert Allen. On page 343, he says: 'A Catholic friend was quite shocked to find that Buddhists have no special ceremony in which they join the religion, nor do they have to swaer to uphold particular doctrines.' However, since our discussion i have been doing research, and the stuff i've read contradicts this. Can you tell me if this guy's just plain wrong, and getting some quick money from writing these books, or if i've misunderstood what he ment by this. I'm afraid that i might have been wrong after all. The Halo 17: 53 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(replied at User Talk:The Halo#Regarding refuge --- Andkaha^(talk) 11:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(replying to User Talk:The Halo#Regarding refuge) Thanks for the reply. After doing extensive research, i think that you are right about refuge. Though I still have doubts about taking refuge, as regards to how much an indervidual should work stuff out for themselves, it is now clear to me that the consensus is what you have written. Sorry for the trouble that this confusion of mine has caused, and i hope that you can see that i tried to act in good faith. Once again, sorry for my stupidity (I'm going to check and double check stuff before i discuss now), and thanks for your time. The Halo 12:16 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(replied at User Talk:The Halo#Regarding refuge --- Andkaha^(talk) 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nikaya Schools

(My part of the conversation is at User Talk:Ig0774#Nikaya schools. --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There's no particular contradiction here... the Sautrantika and Vaibhashika (better known for the Sarsvastivadin school) schools have simply vanished from existence. In fact, traditionally, there were "18" Nikayas schools (though textual evidence for at least 20 exists). Nevertheless, the a number of their texts (or at least texts purporting to refute their doctrines) have survived, and thus are interesting in Buddhists studies because they show non-Theravadin interpretations of early Buddhist teachings. I am not quite sure what the author of that passage had in mind; both the Sautrantika and Vaibhashika schools are regarded as part of the Sarvastivadin tradition... I would have included a reference to the Theravada. But, on the other hand, the Madhyamika and Yogachara have also ceased to exist as independent schools, though, of course, all four of these traditions have an influence, mostly on varities of Mahayana and Vajrayana. Hope that clears up some of the confusion I caused... Ig0774 16:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the tense is probably a good solution, but it would have to be done for all four schools (Buddhism all but vanished in India around the 12th century CE). Ig0774 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A smile

Th e Halo has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Lumbini

Andhaka Lumbini was in eastern India. What is POV about it? Tatra 08:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tatra. The location of the birth of the Buddha seems to be a highly flammable topic. There are two main issues: Where is Lumbini located today, and where was it located 2500 years ago? Some people will reply "India" on both questions and some will say "Nepal". These two types of people usually have very strong fixed views about this, and they will not meet half way. I am personally in favour of keeping modern day political borders out of this paragraph as much as possible. This is why I reverted the edit with a POV comment, it was unnecessary and potentially provocative to (it seems) a lot of people. --- Andkaha^(talk) 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you changed it back. I modified it to say Indian subcontinent rather than India. --- Andkaha^(talk) 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andkaha. Your change makes it more clear. Tatra 08:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen priority tag

Why did You remove the priority tag (!) from Zen.Regards! V1^t 14:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. It's fixed now. --- Andkaha^(talk) 14:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Directed Metta, etc.

Hallo dear Andkaha. I hope you are well and that all is going well for you. As I suggested a couple of weeks ago, I have inserted a little comment on the "metta" and "brahma-vihara" pages to the effect that self-directed metta, etc., is not specifically recommended by the Buddha in the suttas. Shall we see what happens now? It may be that some other editors will share you uneasiness about mentioning this and will write in to complain. If they do, I shall be happy to remove the sentence. All best wishes to you. Yours cordially, Tony. TonyMPNS 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attasarana's fulminations

"Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]-Gotama Buddha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attasarana (talk • contribs) .

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that Attasarana is citing his sources incorrectly. Here is the sutta he is quoting (look at the verses following "Great king, these persons are evident in the world"). The passage is clearly talking about how one shouldn't faithlessly obstruct the work and livelihood of mendicants, and doesn't say anything about believing or not believing in the soul.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nat, for restoring my user page! I'm not sure what to say about this guy... I admire the energy he has. Pure conviction, obviously. --- Andkaha^(talk) 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing through Access to Insight, I found this interesting and relevant article: Vedanta and Buddhism. Another article (or compilation of quotes with comments), by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, kinda kills the whole self/soul-view problem (or at least the debate): The Not-self Strategy. --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im so very sorry you suffer the delusion that conjecture for a sectarian theravadin trumps doctrine itself. Rather a blantent fallacy. This is on par with heretical Catholics, some of which think the views of the Pope trump the very bible. Sola Scriptura, all religious debates are centered IN dotrine, never commentary.

I'm thankful for your concern, but I can assure you that it is not needed. Wherein lies the fallacy? What do you mean by "trumps"? --- Andkaha^(talk) 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa)-i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”.

Vimanavatthu #1252-1253 “My name was Piyasi, I held sway over the Kosalans; I held the view of a nihilist (natthikaditthi), was of evil habbit and was miserly; I was an anti-foundationalist/annihilationist then (ucchedavada)….[#1253] “…a recluse Kumarakassapa gave me a talk on the Dhamma and drove from me those (previously held) evil views! (annihilationism/nihilism).”
natthatta'ti (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]” has only 5 occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha (even the worthless Abhidhamma). Anatta’ is not “no-Soul”, but natthatta’ which is deemed, by Gotama, to be Ucchedavada annihilationistic heresy. Sutta states explicitly that natthatta’ (no-Soul) = natthika (nihilism) = ucchedavada (Annihilationism). If you do hold the view that there is "no-Soul", you are a Natthika (nihilist); i.e. a Ucchedavadin.
Petekopadesapali 40 Ucchedavada=Natthika
SN 1.96 Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”. What Bhikkhu Bodhi failed to realize is that SN 4.400 Natthatta (no-Soul) is = Ucchedavada (Annihilationism) which is = natthika as per (petekopadesapali 40, etc.). If Bhikkhu Bodhi knew that these three were synonymous with each other, he would certainly reconsider his translation of natthika as “nihilist”.
To hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).
[SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])’”.

Since you are ignorant of buddhism and Vedanta, might i remind you the Upanishads and Samkara use the term ANATMAN as well. Attasarana

Along with quite a number of other terms as well I assume. What difference does it make? One of the Buddhas great contributions was to give existing terms new interpretations. Andkaha^(talk) 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I wonder what Vedanta and the Upanishads has to do with all of this? --- Andkaha^(talk) 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I wonder why you are unaware that the term "buddhism" doesnt exist in any of the Nikayas. "I teach Brahmayana (path to Brahman)"- SN 5.5, Gotama. "Gotama is a Vedasotthim (expert/sage in the Vedas)".-MN2 Buddhism is yet another among many schools of thought upon the meaning of the Upanishads (and Vedas).--Attasarana

Look at what you wrote under the heading "Attasarana" further down on this talk page: [...] in a futile attempt at sectarian and non-doctrinal propagation of a non-buddhist position. Are you writing about Buddhism or not? I am fully aware that the term Buddhism was coined in in the 20th or 19th century by people in the west and that some prefer to call it the Buddhadharma. I'm also aware that the Buddha was probably well versed in the Vedas and the Upanishads, and that's probably the reason why he rebelled against the ways of the Brahmins. If he hadn't, what would have been the point? He would have become just another Brahmin. Andkaha^(talk) 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmavihara & the AN Metta Suttas

Hey Andkaha - you made your very pertinent and interesting modification of my new text within 9 minutes of my first post. Very impressive ;-) . Well done. LarryR^(Talk) 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replied at User talk:Larry Rosenfeld#Brahmavihara comment --- Andkaha^(talk) 10:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Andkaka -

And thank you for your kind words as well!

For what it's worth, I feel a little foolish not having read Nanamoli's translation through in the first place. If I may just explain the order of my edit process in this case: I've been reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words" (Wisdom Pubs, 2005) and it is in this text that I first encountered the unexpectedly cautionary "Metta Sutta" (pp. 216-218 -- here the sutta is translated without ellipses). Here's an excerpt from Bodhi's translation:

"The [metta-practicing] worldling remains there all his life [in a heavenly realm], and when he has completed the entire lifespan of those devas, he goes to hell, to the animal realm, and to the domain of spirits. But the Blessed One's disciple remains there [in the heavenly realm] all his life, and when he has completed the entire lifespan of those devas, he attains final Nibbana in that very same state of existence. This is the difference, the disparity, the distinction between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling, that is, with regard to destination and rebirth." (Bodhi, 2005, p. 216)

When I saw this, it was the first time (at least in my recent feeble memory) that I had seen an actual sutta articulate the primacy of wisdom over metta (if I may abbreviate my understanding of the above and related texts), although I've seen secondary sources (such as Sharon Salzberg) mention this prioritization elsewhere. And, since in my own current practice, I'm allowing more and more for the possibility of rebirth, etc., I thought the Metta Sutta's statements would be worthwhile tacking onto either the Metta or Brahmavihara articles. After all, I'd hate for my lack of action to actually cause someone a future unfavorable rebirth.

When I found time to do some WP editing, frankly, I decided that it was better to use an on-line reference instead of Bodhi (2005) for two reasons: (1) it would be easy for anyone to verify an on-line translation thus enhancing the edit's credibility; and, (2) I was downstairs in my home at the time and Bodhi (2005) was somewhere upstairs. So, I went to ATI and saw the Nanamoli and Thanissaro articles. I scanned both quickly (not seeing the difference in verb tense) and quickly decided to go with Thanissaro because the Nanamoli version was an "excerpt."

So, when I saw your edit, I felt a wee dumb for being lazy. But, it's one of the beautiful things of WP that other conscientious editors — such as yourself — will set the record straight (or at least straighter ;-) ). So, thanks once again for doing so.

FWIW, I know a couple of dozen Pali words, mostly from Pali chants (e.g., see http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/vandana02.pdf), that allow me to navigate through the Romanized Pali texts. (For instance, a Romanized Pali version of the Metta Sutta is at http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara2/4-catukkanipata/013-bhayavaggo-p.html, scan for "4. 3. 3. 5" or "Tatiyapuggalasuttam." This same site provides an unattributed English translation similar to Bodhi's at http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara2/4-catukkanipata/013-bhayavaggo-e.html, scroll down to "5. Pathamamettàsuttam - First on loving kindness.") Then, in case this might be of interest to you, with the aid of the on-line PED [1] as well as other resources, I'm able to pick out key Pali phrases that help me at times construct articles. So, for instance, quickly checking out the aforementioned Pali text and using the PED, I see the following Pali phrases:

Tiracchānayonimpi gacchati. Pettivisayampi gacchati.

Using both my knowledge of chants (e.g., think of the Taking Refuge chant: Buddham saranam gacchami — "I go to refuge in the Buddha"), my recollection of Warner's primer on Pali, and the PED, I know:

gacchati[2] means "he goes"

tiracchānayoni[3] means "the animal realm"

pettivisaya[4] means "the world of petas (or hungry ghosts)"

However, I also know enough Pali to know (when I'm being rationale) that I shouldn't try to figure out verb tenses myself ;-) . So, whose tense here is correct: Bodhi or Nanamoli or Thanissaro or www.metta.lk? I've no idea, of course :-)

So, while I'm cautious about your "'spirit of the text'" interpretation — since, if that were the intention, I believe the text would have mentioned the possibility of rebirth in the human realm — and I don't see the text as "oddly punitive" (to paraphrase and, if you forgive me, somewhat distort what you had indicated) but as possibly "wisely cautionary," as attempting to impel metta-practitioners to also pursue and achieve Buddhist wisdom, or perhaps even true (!) — for instance, if one clings to the necessarily transitory/contingent feeling of metta; nonetheless, the texts we all are referencing allow for both interpretations. So, once again, kudos! :-)

With metta,

LarryR^(Talk) 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attasarana

Hi, thanks for helping keep an eye on things at anatta. I'm going on an extended wikibreak, so, if you get a chance, do me a favour and check Attasarana's contributions if and when he shows up again. Sometimes he messes with other articles, too. Thanks in advance. Peace out, Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, Nat has asked you to 'keep up' the nihilistic and totalitarian guard over the buddhist lexicon here on wikipedia, in a futile attempt at sectarian and non-doctrinal propagation of a non-buddhist position. "Like reveals itself to like"--Attasarana

I'm keeping a look at the quality of articles relating to Buddhism, nothing else. Your contributions are often hard to follow and to make sense of and they contain references to sources that are hard or impossible to check. That's all. Andkaha^(talk) 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWBO

I've rewritten the article now. 80.2.20.68 has tweaked my edit a little and says that it is now neutral. Would you mind coming over to read it through and let us know on the talk page if we're ready to take down the banners? Rupa zero 08:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]