User talk:Aryah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Aryah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- infinity0 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the welcome! Frankly, Im afraid to stay, cuz I feel the event horizon of this fascinating singularity called wikipedia approaching; soon I wont be able to break free again :-D Ill browse around, thx for the links, and the help! Aryah 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Citat

Hi! Heh, zanimljiv citat :) Mogu li pitati, ciji? --Aryah 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Citat je od Camusa. Btw, ne pisi po naslovnici, nego po stranici za diskusiju. Odakle si? -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, tek se upoznajem s wiki obicajima. Iz hr sam; iz Zadra. yourself? Ovaj, revertao sam ti POV oznaku na Anarchist FAQ clanku; cisto si se pojavio i dodao oznaku; proveo sam vecinu noci googlajuci za idejama kako da bolje balansiram taj clanak, i posljednji edit je bio jedan takav pokusaj. Ako je nezadovoljavajuci, ok, stavi POV oznaku, al plz ne bez da objasnis u cemu je problem u diskusiji, jer ovako nemam ideje kud da dalje krenem, niti priliku da argumentiram. --Aryah 12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah vidim, al ipak, taj clanak cini mi se kronicno nedostaje zainteresiranih ljudi, koji i sudjeluju; nemoguce da imas identicno misljenje, karakter, argumentaciju etc kao RJII, a svako sudjelovanje bi bilo dobrodoslo. Osim toga, vidis da sam upravo napisao poduzi odgovor RJIIu, posto je vise puta propustio dogovoriti na protuargumente njegovoj argumentaciji; bilo bi svakako od pomoci kada bi se ukljucio u tu duskusiju. Ne znam koj mi je k* bio da se uopce toliko angaziram oko tog clanka; prosto sam nabasao na njega browsajuci, i noteao sto sam vidio kao POV clanak. Then got dragged into discussion. A dodatna je blesavost sto je tekst prakticki stub, stvaraoc ne dodaje nikakav daljni sadrzaj tamo, a bogme mi nije bila namjera napisati taj clanak; konacno nemam niti potrebnog znanja. In any case, its a mess; help us out! --Aryah 12:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stavio sam kompromisnu verziju, pa reci sto mislis. Inace, ja sam iz Splita. Sto je svijet mali. :-) -- Vision Thing -- 08:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, indeed! Hm, ustvari, nije los pokusaj; mozda bi se citat kako misle da bi individualisticko drustvo revertalo u kapitalisticko, kako si ga prezentirao moglo ostaviti. Ipak, ostajem pri, jos neodgovorenim prigovorima frazi 'they reject'; al reformulacija toga bi mogla proci. Postoji li neki relevantni prigovor 'they criticise' ili 'they present critique' ili 'they consider' ? Ili ako inzistirate na koristenju rijeci reject, onda 'they explain how social anarchist reject individual anarchism..'? Ili prijedloga alternativnih formulacija? Takodjer, prethodno sam prigovorio tome i da ispada da je individualni anarhizam singled out for critique, sto prosto nije slucaj, iako je ta kritika opseznija; 'some anarchist tentencies, such as individualist anarchism, which they consider to..' ? il 'some anarchist tendencies, particulary individualist...' ?

--Aryah 08:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Individualni anarhizam nije izdvojen za kritiku, ali je njegova kritika, uz kritiku anarhokapitalizma, najopseznija. Sto se tice formulacije "the authors reject individualist anarchism" ona logicki slijedi iz onoga sto pise u FAQ-u (socijalni anarhisti odbacuju IA, autori se deklariraraju kao SA). Mozda se to moze ublaziti kakvim dodatnim objasnjenjem. To je ono sto sam ja pokusao napraviti dodavanjem onoga da autori unatoc kritiziranju IA smatraju da je on vazan dio anarhistickog pokreta. -- Vision Thing -- 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tocno, jest najopseznija, no bitno je da se u formulaciji osjeti kako nije i jedina, othervise it seems as an agenda; u obije formulacije naglasena je iznad ostalih - jedina imenovana, ili cak rekavsi 'pogotovo'. Hm, pa nisam siguran kako ti logicki izvod stoji; prvo, autori se deklariraju tek sa 'place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism', sto je ipak drugacije nego da jednostavno kazu 'we are social anarchist' ; opcenito, nisam vidjeo da se ljudi u anarhistickim krugovima slijepo drze bilo koje ortodoksije. I upravo zato postoji razlika izmedju prezentacije klasicnih kritika jedne skole, kojoj mozda i naginju, i osobnog odbacivanja; te naravno pogotovo stoga sto ovako ispada da tek oni osobno odbacuju IA, dok je 'odbacivanje' koje opisuju opcenito odbacivanje u citavom SA. Takodjer je bitno primjetiti kako jedinu podrecenicu koju u cijelom tom fragmentu izgovaraju iz 1. lica je upravo ona u kojoj objasnjavaju kako ga i smatraju dijelom anarhizma, te kako je u svojem povjesno-geografskom kontekstu bio prikladan. Ublazio si to primjereno, no jos uvjek slightly bi promjenio formulaciju samog pocetka te recenice da prikazuje te dvije distinkcije. --Aryah 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Ovo sto je bi po mom misljenju trebalo ostaviti ovako, medutim sadrzaj (Content) bi se mogao prosiriti tako da daje prikaz cijelog FAQ-a. Onda se kritika IA ne bi tako isticala. Sto se tice odbacivanja IA od strane autora, ono se moze logicki izvuci i iz njihovih tvrdnji u cijelom G.4. poglavlju. Tamo stalno pri kritiziranju koriste "we", a na samom kraju za IA kazu da je forma anarhizma s "many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now". Jedini kompromis koji mi pada na pamet je da kazemo da autori odbacuju ideje individualnog anarhizma (the authors reject individualist anarchism's ideas), a ne sam individualni anarhizam kao takav. Bi li to bilo zadovoljavajuce rjesenje? -- Vision Thing -- 09:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pa, slazem se, glavni razlog zbog kojeg bi mi se ovakav izgled tog clanka cinio problematicnim i jest upravo sto nema nista drugo znacajnog receno u tom clanku, osim contraverzi; formulacija, iako bi ostao pri gore iznesenim kritikama, je ipak priznajem u usporedbi puno manji problem. A imamo takodjer i misljenje Libertatia kako je primjereno reci 'they reject'. Svakako odbacivanje ia ideja izgleda manje tendenciozno od odbacivanje ia kao takvog, i cini mi se da takva formulacija stvarno ne bi, uglavnom, ustvarala znacajno krivi dojam. U prosto principjelnoj situaciji, ostao bih makar pri prigovoru da treba biti i receno kako to nije jedini anarhizam (uz anarho-kapitalizam), cije su kritike iznesene, tj da u nekoj mjeri kritiziraju i neke oblike SA, ali stvarno nema razloga da oko toga u neku duljinu cjepidlacim, ne cini mi se da stvara bitno razliciti dojam nego korekcija koju ovdje predlazes, a svakako bi bilo nezgrapnije formulirano.
Tocno, na samom kraju govore upravo taj citat, sto pokazuje da makar osobno smatraju da vide takticke, premda ne i principjelne mane u ia, koje mozda i ne bi dosle do izrazaja u nekoj drugoj socijalnoj situaciji (nastavlja govoriti o situaciji u americi i kako je u njoj bio pravilno usmjeren), no sada ga cine, well, flawed; (btw imao bih definitivno prigovor manje kad bi 'they reject' -> 'they consider .. to have many flaws', iako stvarno ne osjecam razliku u konotaciji) no zar koriste 'we' igdje osim u toj recenici? Morat cu to ponovno procitati.--Aryah 13:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, cini se da se slazemo u osnovnim stvarima. Ako budes imao jos kakvih primjedbi samo reci. Pozdrav... -- Vision Thing -- 08:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII RfC

Hi. I'm thinking of starting an WP:RFC on RJII for his recent behaviour at An Anarchist FAQ and other articles. Are you willing to participate? -- infinity0 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I dont have any experience on wiki to comment anything about RJIIs behaviour, but it definitely seemed like he was intentionally disruptive, especially in his constant changing of the issues and incredible uncompromising stubborness, regardless of the suggestions and arguments... But, again, I really dont know how out of the ordinary that is; only that it made me quickly disinterested in having much to do with wikipedia editing..--Aryah 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian, tibetan formal debate

Hi! Do you have any information about Indian and Tibetan debating? It would be really nice if you could create maybe a page about it, and then put a summary of it on the Debate page. Check Wikipedia:Help if you need anything.

I would love to help, and because diversification is very important, it would be great to have such info - the only problem is that fewer editors have such knowledge. I do not know much. May be you could help? -- Chris Lester talk 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ive heard much about it and its importance in those cultures, and of its colorfullnes, from many lecturers on tibetan buddhism, but I dont know much about its rules - ive only seen this text, linked to wikis page on tibetan buddhism talk - http://www.thdl.org/essays/dreyfus/rules.html. I know it decided the fate of tibet many times, that monasteries and individuals were really competitive in debating, and also that its a primary way of learning for students, along with memorizing texts, and that it had maybe even greater importance in ancient india (think it was largly simmilar in structure, but dont know to what extent), where debates in front of a king decided religious denomination choices of those entire kingdoms... Ive also just seen an avi of a student debate - it looks chaotic, with a lot of clapping, shouting, jumping and pushing around, really lively, though with a quite formal structure - I could attempt to write a little something about it, but I need to research the topic. I think I also heard there being a debate tradition in Rabinic education, but I know absolutely nothing about that.. --Aryah 22:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andres Manuel and the electoral systems

True, that was my point: You don't need second rounds under parliamentary systems, that is why I didn't understand why you said you would need a second round in Europe, where almost all countries operate under a parliamentary system and where the head of state (president or king) is not elected directly. If the president is elected directly, then were are not talking about parliamentary systems, but semi-presidential systems, which are similar to full presidential systems, but given the plurality in the legislature, these countries will never gravitate towards a 2 or 3 strong party systems (as it would be the case in full presidentail systems) and second rounds might (I don't know) be used. And true, a second round would be a second chance to express who they would rather support, but like you said, it is still subtoptimal. Besides if the voters that chose the 3rd and 4rd candidates decide not to vote on the second round because they rather vote for the 3rd and 4rd candidates and not for the 1st and 2nd candidates, and voting is NOT compulsory, then the second round was useless. There was no rather candidate they would choose, and they get a president they explicitly chose against (in the first round). If voting IS compulsory, then second rounds make more sense, but you are forcing voters to pick from two candidates they dislike and they would rather NOT have, they might even turn in a blank or null vote (but they "voted" anyways) and again you might get the same result. There is no better or worse system (you assume a priori that the Mexican system is worse, since you believe that second rounds are better). I think whatever the country likes better is better, and whatever seems to work in every individual country is good, and if it's not, they can always change it to something they deem better. --Alonso 17:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, its typically used in semi-presidential systems, though there are parliamentary countries with a direct (two round) ellection of the president - i live in such a country (croatia); probably due to the fact that we migrated from a semi-presidential into a parliamentary system.. It is concievable that none but the voters who voted for the top candidates would choose to vote on the second round, cuz they dont like either of the candidates at all, but though concievable, thats quite an unlikely scenario - tactical voting is about compromises anyways, and it is especially present in the first past the post systems, so its probable that many would be ready to choose 'the lesser evil', whatever they deem that to be - also, such scenario is empirically unfounded; people mostly, typically do use the opportunity to express who they support in the second round, and lower voter exit is typically not the case. Well, ellections systems can indeed work well enough for a country, but there are mathematical criteria for deeming what systems are better - so for instance, usually, Condorcet variants (like Schulze and Ranked pairs) for choosing a single winner and (CPO-)STV variants for (proportionally) choosing multiple winners (the parliament) are considered superior to other voting systems. Arent used widely, and some are relatively new, but many organisations, and some countries (like Ireland, New Zeland, Australia..) do use them on some levels. And since in both those systems voters vote by ranking, not just choosing their candidate, a two round is bit closer to these systems (indeed a suboptimal variant, IRV, is approximated as a multiple rounds vote)...--Aryah 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theravada/Sarvastivada

That edit was per information provided in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, although the information there is not very clear, so maybe there is some mistake. Under Sarvastivada it says that Sarvastivada divided into several subschools, one of which is Vibhajyavādinaḥ. Vibhajyavādinaḥ, or Vibhajjavada, is apparently the parent school of Sri Lankan Theravada (as Wikipedia says, Vibhajjavada "was introduced to Śrī Laṅkā by the Venerable Mahinda, son of Emperor Asoka, who brought with him the Pāli Canon. Vibhajjavāda is an ancestor of the school known today as Theravāda"). The Digital Dictionary doesn't mention this specifically, but, under Vibhajyavādinaḥ, it does say, "The Abhidharma Piṭaka 'as we have it in the Pali Canon, is the definite work of this school', Keith, 153", which implies a close connection to the Theravada as we know it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That Vibhajjavada is predecessor to Theravada is true. However neither Vibhajjavada, nor, as the article says, Dharmaguptaka are subschools of Sarvastivada. Dharmaguptaka branched from Mahisasaka, that branched directly from Sthaviravāda, originating from the period after the second council; before the Sarvastivadas even were a distinct school. For instance, Berzin [1] says that sarvastivada broke with Theravada (probably meaning Vibhajjavada, of which teravada is a successor, explained here [2] as follows "In these works, however, the name Theravada is replaced by Vibhajjavada, the "Doctrine of Analysis" or the "Religion of Reason" though the two terms are identical." - identical from a Theravada perspective, of course), which would be nonsensical if Theravada was its subschool. Also, Theravada and Sarvastivada dont even share a common abhidharma, and it is said to have been essentially fixed on the third council. here: [3] - sorry not on english - it also says that Sarvastivada and Vibhajjavada broke after the third council, and Theravada history maintains that Sarvastivada, 'realist' ideas were rejected on the third council.--Aryah 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we should probably change it. I agree that Theravada as a derivative of the Sarvastivada does seem a bit odd on the face of it. Perhaps DDB contains some sort of miswording.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic Tibetan Buddhism article (Phende)

Hi. I noticed you have edited other Tibetan Buddhism topics. I spent some time on this article, but it still remains a wretched piece of unencyclopedic writing. If you get the chance, can you look at it? I've left some comments on the talk page.
Thanks,
--A. B. 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed another article, Ngor, linked to the Phende article that seems to share the same style and the same problems.--A. B. 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Buddhist Movement

The anti-Buddhist Brahmin people say that there are no Buddhist people at all in India also they argue that there is no Indian Buddhist Movement. They say only few Ambedkarites are writing the article. To PROVE the point that there is a very strong BUDDHIST MOVEMENT in India I gave them the actual and practicle Data Available on official CENCUS web site of India. There are millions of Ambedkarite all over India and world but all are not converted to Buddhism by taking 22 vows. So the people who are denouncing Caste based Hindu Religon and CONVERTING to Buddhism are Buddhist. Rest of the people in Govt. cencus is FORCIBLY and Cheatingly calculated as Hindu. To prove our point finally we have to give official data. So lets convert more people to Buddhism and show the world that Indian Buddhist Movement is alive and wrowing faster.Don't waste much time with debating hypocrate people but give PROPER REFERENCES and PROOFS and shut the mouth of such people. Take my inputs as positive manner. Gather more information about Indian Buddhist Movement.Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since you're so agog over Neo-Buddhists and the cultural genocide of India

Here is a nice article for you to read. Enjoy:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/25/india.lama/index.html

Hkelkar 08:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural genocide? what? Again Im far from suprised that HH Dalai Lama took a subtly pro-Hindu stance in its issue with Islam and Christianity; being born a Christian I would however break one of HHDL's very good advices if I elaborated on this further (see below). You should note I answered this on the I.B.M. talk page, where you put the same argument to some buddhist missionaries. And its not quite correct; or at least it hinges on the assesment of conversions in question as thoughtless, change of fashion, not taken seriously by the converts etc. Indeed HH Dalai Lama said clearly in a quote I gave there that people that come to seriously feel Buddhism is more effective for them are right to choose it for their religion. But should be damn sure of what and why theyre doing this. I also just cant believe you said Bodhidharma would be frowned upon by HH Dalai Lama because he, like Padmasambhava and qute a lot of other buddhist masters, was a missionary. This is basicly an insult to so many East Asian Buddhists who trace their lineages to him. Only bad and agressive missionary politics of conversions at any cost and without any substance to the conversions, simply to enlarge ones flock, so to speak, is frowned upon. So currently, a master I attempt to find a way of following, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, is quite active with speading his networks of Gars on all continets of the planet, quite obviously open to, though not actively seeking for, people interested in practicing in his community. And he is a renowned Dzogchenpa, and an active terton no less, and a lineage holder of Trul khor, of course very loyal to HH Dalai Lama. Hes certanly not interested in mere formal enlargement of his 'following', however (and it would be quite difficult to do this with his kind of level of envolvement)..

Heres the quote in question and from another link: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/advice_to_buddhists_in_the_west.htm

for those who are seriously thinking of converting to Buddhism, that is, of changing your religion, it is very important to take every precaution. This must not be done lightly. Indeed, if one converts without having thought about it in a mature way, this often creates difficulties and leads to great inner confusion. I would therefore advise all who would like to convert to Buddhism to think carefully before doing so.

Second, when an individual is convinced that Buddhist teachings are better adapted to his or her disposition, that they are more effective, it is quite right that this religion be chosen. However, human nature being what it is, after their conversion and in order to justify it, such a person may have a tendency to want to criticize his or her original religion. This must be avoided at all costs

Note how he doesnt discuss possible motivations of conversion (but in the most broadest 'better adapted to his or her disposition' and 'more effective'), just emphasizes it not being done lightly. Though this in general absolutely correct advice (which was specifically given to western buddhists) could maybe, if arguments by Ambedkar of a historical connection of Dalit predicament and Brahmanism (i suppose that would be a more correct term, since hinduism i saw was sometimes interpreted broadly) as a belief system are accepted, be slightly modified in that it would be strange to demand no criticims of this particular aspect of that belief system if this indeed was part-motivated by that very predicament; simply such an attitude would lack self-consistency, IF Ambedkars arguments are accepted.

Heres an interesting refference to conversion politics on TibetNet: http://www.tibet.net/en/prelease/2001/051001.html - if I understand correctly, this is in response to an accusation of involvement by a Hindu leader? But also at least neutral, and possibly unsympathetic clear though deliberatly vague reference to the Neo-Buddhists? I wold be very interested in any direct comments, even as diplomatic as this one by HH Dalai Lama, however your general stance that HHDL is just anti-conversion is just not completely true, and so not completely relevant--Aryah 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Hindu religion is sanatan and your small so-called Indian Buddhist Movment will not hinder it. Study religion like a Brahmin. Holybrahmin 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect hinduism, though am personally not drawn to it. I have no connection with the Indian Buddhist Movement, but for the fact that I have read a book by Ambedkar and found it an interesting (social) perspective on Buddhism, though I was not quite convinced on what he spoke of hinduism (his interpretations of myths were particulary unprobable); he gave buddhism a twist not unlike liberation theology in catholicism. In any case, I study with a tibetan guru in Italy, and have no connection with neither Indian Buddhist Movement (though of course Im supportive of a revival of buddhism in India, and wish it to prosper and deepen in quality, not due to animosity of hindusim but through personal attraction some people Im sure could find in it there too) , nor wish to study hindusm. --Aryah 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi,

I'm writing to you because I noticed that you contributed to the article and talk section of "Indian Buddhist Movement". I saw the article on the RFC page, then read the article and the talk page. I posted a lengthy analysis of the article on it's talk page and have watched it since.

I would like to invite you to read my analysis and post your opinion. This is a noteworthy topic, but it's currently incomplete and needs reorganization. The effort to improve this article has boiled down to two editors, dhammafriend and hkelkar, who are both engaging in edit wars and attacks on one another. There has been no substantial progress on this article since I first came upon it, so I'm hoping that you and other folks can come back an engage in a refocusing.

I greatly appreciate in advance anything you have to offer.

Sincerely, NinzEliza 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/y/User_talk%7EAryah_3d5f.html"