Humanities desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16

Significance and use of Buddhist bead bracelets?

I read the article on Buddhist prayer beads but it does not directly discuss the Buddhist bracelets I see from time to time. They appear to be smaller versions of the prayer beads. Are they one of the standard bead counts - perhaps 19, 21, or 27? Is there a proper wrist to wear them on? Must they be taken off during certain activities or can they be worn always? Is any special reverence attached to them? Or are they seen as less significant than a large 108 bead mala? I realize different flavors of Buddhism probably have different guidelines, so I'm just looking for some general info on wrist-worn bracelets... The Masked Booby (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are known as wrist malas, or in Japan, juzu. It's a pity they're called prayer beads in the article as they have nothing to do with prayer. As the article says, they are used for reciting mantras in meditation. The wrist mala is just a cut down version of the full 108-bead mala, and the number of beads varies. We usually have 27 in our form of Buddhism, so that four times round the mala gives you 108. They are not intended to be worn as decoration, so it makes no difference which wrist you put them on or when they are "worn"; they are simply a meditation tool. They might have special significance for the user if they were a gift or are made of precious stones or human bone (intended to remind the user of impermanence), but wood is the most common and comfortable material for practical purposes.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, isn't reciting mantras the equivalent of praying? 88.8.66.196 (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. A Mantra is one of a number of techniques that support and enhance the meditative experience, whereas Prayer implies a conversation with $deity.

ALR (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only difference between meditation and prayer (not implying, but pretending that you are talking to god, aka as the God delusion), then, they still look pretty similar to me. 88.8.66.196 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending implies the practitioner believes they aren't praying to God. It may be, in your unsupported opinion, a delusion (just as the existance of God may also be an unsupported opinion) but that doesn't mean that the religious are not earnest. --Jayron32 13:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not question the seriousness of religion. To pretend is not exactly what I meant. To believe would be better appropriate here. Christian meditation might be of value here. Equally, Prayer#Buddhism is of some help. I still recognize a psychological effect ãnd formal similitude on both, even if Christians certainly won't admit it. Can a historical common origin be tracked down?88.8.66.196 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be Wilde to deny the Existance[sic] of Being Earnest. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation doesn't involve a conversation with anyone, it's an entirely internalised experience. That's fairly fundamentally different, whether one accepts that someone "talking to $deity" may be doing something useful or not.

In Buddhism there is no deity to converse with. Equally a Buddhist is unlikely to make a value judgement on whether that conversation with $deity is "pretend" or otherwise.

ALR (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Regardless of whether you see it, a Buddhist in meditation is not propitiating to, talking to, or praying to any god figure. Dawkins' book that you mention is irrelevant to mantra practice. Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. - Richard Dawkins. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the God delusion is associated with the belief on God, not with mantras. (no matter how similar they are to prayer). 88.8.66.196 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is '$deity' a typo? Quest09 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

$x is the programmer version of "insert your x here" 200.144.37.3 (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Especially the Perl programmer version. Perl is not the only prog.lang. that marks variable names with $, but it's by far the most important, or so I gather. —Tamfang (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generic deity for those who believe in such things. A Buddhist doesn't have a belief in any deity.

ALR (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism itself does not have such a teaching; but many god-believers are Buddhists, as are many agnostics and many atheists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which starts to get down to how one might define Buddhism, is it a religion or a philosophy?

That's occupied the time of far superior Buddhist scholars than me, and nobody has come to a conclusion. fwiw my view is that one can't be a Buddhist and believe in a god, noting that some english translations of the teaching do use "god" to define certain avatars.

ALR (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can't? Seems rather prescriptive. What if I claimed to believe in God and also claimed to be a Buddhist? Would you say I was deluded about one of these claims? Or lying? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would wonder how you interpret the philosophies, and wonder what you meant by "god".

ALR (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to track down the God in Buddhism article, that captures the issue.

ALR (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some branches of Buddhism do have deities - check out Dainichi Nyorai. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard answer about whether Buddhism is a philosophy or religion is mu. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Christian meditation, mental prayer or spiritual experience. The original philosphies and cultural constructs are likely quite different, yet the result is...the result is... ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result is what? Quest09 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comdemned criminal sueing the government in a civil court

It is known that civil courts normally require less evidence than a criminal court. So, could it be that someone is convicted of a crime and sues the government in a civil court for false imprisonment? Quest09 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If the civil court needs less evidence, it will also come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty. A completely different scenario would be if a civil procedure produced completely different and unpredictable results. 88.8.66.196 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "less evidence" is confusing. In US courts, what it means is that the standards for guilt are different. It means that you are more likely to be considered guilty in a civil court than in a criminal court, because the standard for guilt in a criminal court is higher. The only asymmetric result possible in such a system is that you could be not guilty from a criminal point of view, but guilty from a civil point of view (as with O.J. Simpson), not the reverse. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear; we need to use the correct terms. In the OJ Simpson case, the civil trial did not find him guilty. The civil court found him Liable for Nicole's death. This is NOT a finding of guilt. Criminal courts determine guilt or innocence, civil courts determine if someone is liable or not liable. These are distinct legal concepts with distinct (though overlapping in some cases) definitions; that is the standards of legal liability are not 100% identical to the standards of legal guilt, which is why you can get someone who is liable for something, but not guilty of a crime. Neither of these standards is completely congruous with "committed an act" either; one may, for example, actually commit an act which causes someone's death and still not be guilty of a crime nor liable for their death. One could also be liable but not guilty in that case. Ideally, all people who are guilty are also liable; and all people who are liable actually commited the act, but one should not assume that chain works backwards. --Jayron32 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal courts determine guilt or innocence: as we're talking about correct terminology, I don't think this is right either. Criminal courts (at least in the UK and US) may determine guilt, but not innocence. A "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean "he didn't do it", just "we're not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did it". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is no longer used in the UK (at least for some crimes) although the idea stands. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy we've got a lot of unnecessary bolding here, do we not? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Legal burden of proof may be of use here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And incarcerated persons often have very little to do, so I would not be a bit surprised to see that at least some have sued the government over this. Of course, any judge would spend 2 minutes looking at the merits before rubber stamping denied on the file. Googlemeister (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a language note: In English, a condemned criminal is one sentenced to death. I mention it because the cognate words in many languages do not carry the same implication, and you'll often see someone whose native language is, say, Italian, use condemned when the correct English word choice would be convicted. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a note about the tactic that Quest09 envisions. Some countries' governments enjoy sovereign immunity, so they can't be sued unless they consent to be sued; so in some countries this tactic is a non-starter for this reason alone. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no standing to file a civil suit in regard to a criminal verdict per se. What appeals are available are often limited by law. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A much promising strategy would be to file a civil suit about an aspect of the incarceration. There's certainly something in prison to complain about. 88.8.66.196 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Jonathan Lee Riches — he's probably tried it, since he's sued Nostradamus, the not-a-planet Pluto, various Norse gods, and Three Mile Island. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring the burdon of proof issue that you have kinda got backwards, it is a defense to False imprisonment that the imprisonment had lawful authority. And a person convicted in a criminal court of a crime and duly sentenced to gaol is lawfully imprisoned.Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering why that's a red link, try burden of proof. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that in English law and US federal law to claim compensation for being wrongly imprisoned (e.g. following a miscarriage of justice), the legal burden required is the stronger requirement to prove your innocence, and not merely to show the unsafeness of your conviction.[1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you really meant I think by your question has been answered quite adequately. One aspect has not been touched upon really—what you actually asked without reading between the lines, which is whether one can sue the government in a civil court for false imprisonment after being convicted. The answer is yes. I can sue you for your choice of shoes. I can walk into court tomorrow and purchase an index number and file a complaint that says "his shoes offend me aesthetically; award me ten trillion dollars in damages" and my money will be accepted, an index number issued and my complaint filed. To that extent, the answer is "yes". Such a suit is of course frivolous, and could easily result in sanctions but there would be no problem at all in suing you (or the government on an equally ridiculous basis). Note that such a suit would not generally need to be defended. After you or the government's default, I could try to enter a default judgment but it wouldn't probably work. I have seen incredibly lazy judgment clerks though, who might not read anything and just enter a default on any application. But that would be opened up in a heartbeat upon motion and doubtless, sanctions issued upon the dismissal that would issue (if not a reference to the bar committee for professional misconduct). The other route would be for an inquest, which would get it in front of a judge (or possibly a referee) with similar results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One point I haven't seen touched on (which could mean that I'm just wrong about it) is that I kind of think that, in some formal sense and at least in some jurisdictions, habeas appeals are exactly what you asked about. You file suit, formally, against the warden of the prison holding you, alleging that he is doing so wrongfully, and asking for the remedy of a writ mandating your release. It's not a criminal action (because you, rather than "The People", are the plaintiff), so perhaps in some sense it is a civil suit. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are wrong about this. When you file habeas, you are not in prison, but in jail. And convicted criminals cannot do it. Quest09 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see habeas corpus. Habeas petitions can definitely be filed on behalf of convicted criminals in prison. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I stand corrected. Habeas corpus is for any prisoner who want to be brought to the court for having the legality of the imprisonment examined. Quest09 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some technical difference between a prison and a jail, Quest09? Or a gaol, for that matter? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legal difference, although technically both could feel more or less the same. You await trial at a jail, but serve time at a prison. I am sure most countries have a similar separation between potential criminal and convicted criminals. Quest09 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, while this may vary from state to state, the typical situation is that you have county jails and state prisons. There may occasionally also be city jails.

The jails hold persons awaiting trial, as Quest09 says, but also misdemeanants, whom he omits. I'm a little unclear on whether inmates are ever sentenced to prison for misdemeanors only — I have the vague notion that it can happen, in cases of serious security risks, or possibly in the case that the convict has several consecutive misdemeanor sentences adding up to multiple years.

The federal penal system has only "prisons", as far as I'm aware.

I'm sure these distinctions are discussed in our jail and prison articles, though I have not looked recently. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Library book cover

What would you call the clear plastic jacket libraries place over a book's original dust jacket? μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are called book jacket covers. You can buy them from any library supply company, like this one. -- kainaw ™ 20:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am selling some books and needed to know that term, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

chart for sum total of income

Where can I find a link to a chart that shows the sum total for each division of income for income amounts separated in $1,000 increments and ranging from $0.0 to the highest known income per year for the USA? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

This quotation is attributed to John Steinbeck but the only citation I could find was in wikiquote, which marks it as disputed and notes "As quoted in A Short History of Progress (2005) by Ronald Wright, p. 124; though this has since been cited as a direct quote by some, the remark may simply be a paraphrase, as no quotation marks appear around the statement and earlier publication of this phrasing have not been located."

Can anyone shed a light on the actual source? Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely not an American quote since an American quote would more likely read that the poor are too well kept. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, do you know who John Steinbeck was? --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were Steinbeck's writings more influenced by what he read and the strike-it-rich California gold rush and migrant worker thinking than rubbing elbows with industrial workers of the North and sharing the experiences of descendents of slavery in the South? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? The point is that it's easily something an American like Steinbeck would have said. I've heard variants of it elsewhere too. It's stupid to claim that all Americans would claim the poor are too well kept, especially during the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, and other periods in which Steinbeck wrote. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbeck assumed that all Americans came from better circumstance that socialism would not restore. African Americans, however, had already experienced socialism from which employment and/or Capitalism offered the only means of recovery. African Americans were certainly not temporary embarrassed millionaires but embarrassed to find themselves rich in one case I know about in the South where they acquired thousands of farmable acres following the civil war. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I am adding a note to say that the following is a quote from Steinbeck, as this isn't clear from the layout). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: "After the revolution even we will have more, won't we, dear?" Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property.
I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves.

America and Americans.[2] Trying to find a page number. —eric 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty interesting, in that it's actually quite different than the misquote. Instead of being about how Americans imagine themselves, it's about why members of the Communist Party were frauds. Pretty interesting! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations appear to describe human capital (or potential) as relating to the relatively poor of American society. See also affluence. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

taxes based on relative poverty/riches

What would be the overall consequences (aside from encouraging an increase in the designated poverty level) of dividing the amount of income and assets by the amount of income and assets considered to be at or below the poverty level and using the result as the percent of tax on income and assets? For example, if the poverty line is set at income under or equal to $10,000 per year and assets equal or less than $50,000 then the income tax percent on income of $250,000 per year and the percent tax on assets of $500,000 would be 25% and 10% respectively. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is known as a progressive tax. It is what many countries use for income taxes. Our page on it has a lot of the pros and cons of it, as argued by economists. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sort of. With a progressive tax, you pay (say) 0% on your first $20,000, then 10% on your next $15,000, then 20% on your next $25,000 or whatever, and so on. It sounds like DeeperQA is asking about a system where someone who makes $50,000 would pay a flat rate of 5% and someone who makes $500,000 would pay a flat rate of 50%. I don't know what would happen to someone who makes $1,000,000. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--DeeperQA (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (after doing a chart to verify my intuition) this method of taxation guarantees that actual income difference between the rich and the poor can not exceed a certain multiple. The idea is that social conflict arising from whatever the difference can be controlled by taxes. Get tired of all the rich snobs treating like trash - no need to riot - just increase the level designated to define poverty. While doing so lowers taxes for everyone it provides greater funding for and more people that qualify to receive the welfare check--DeeperQA (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend is:

original income = 900,000 to -32000 (step - 1000)
poverty line = 10000,50000
percent tax = original income / poverty line
tax = percent tax * original income
actual income = original income - tax

The first chart shows the results of a $10,000 poverty line while the second shows a $50,000 poverty line.

What does the X-axis represent? I'm not sure how to interpret your graphs, but they seem to show scenarios in which earning an extra £1 could reduce your post-tax income. That would be a very flawed system, since it would discourage people from earning more, thus reducing the productivity of the country. Alternatively, it would increase tax evasion by high-earners (see Laffer curve for more information on this). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Income is like cocaine or heroin. Sure, you never want to run out of supply but you can only use so much per interval of time.

Of course there would be little point in going to work if the government collected 100% of what you earned unless the government compensated you with services and merchandise in return.

The logic of a higher tax for those with a higher rate of income is that those with a higher rate of income can afford to pay more tax.

This method takes this idea a step further by using the poverty income line and the multiple of that line to determine how much income tax must be paid. If the poverty line is too low then high income producers may find themselves having to dip into assets to pay their tax. If the poverty line goes higher then the tax rate will be relatively low for high income producers.

It is a mathematical means of keeping the gap between the income of the rich and the poor acceptable to society as perhaps might be the case in a government and society like the Star Trek Federation. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "X" axis represents $10,000 decrements (increments and $25,000 poverty line for this chart) of income from $900,000 per year to -$32,000 per year. It reveals the majority of scenarios. The numbers along the axis are the percent of tax for the corresponding original income. The idea is that the closer the poverty line to the amount of income the lower the tax and that the higher the poverty line is to the maximum income the less tax maximum income producers will have to pay. So long as you do not insert a constant or variable to further extend the tax percent then maximum income and poverty line income will be kept within a multiple of 100. It is up to society to decide where the poverty line is located or what dollar value it should have based on prices and how large a multiple of income deference can be allowed between impoverished members of that society and members with the highest income. --DeeperQA (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It must be tough to get people to work for -$32,000 a year. Googlemeister (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If an individual or company signs a contract to finish a job in a certain amount of time or pay a penalty the best way to express that penalty while still working is by negative income. Negative income tends to make the receiver work a little faster. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]