User talk:Mahaabaala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Useful Stuff.

  • Use this at the bottom of stubby articles: {{msg:stub}}
  • How_to_rename_(move)_a_page
  • Dispute resolution]


[edit] Mantra

Re: mantra -- Rather than deleting it, its far better to edit it. I agree with your statements, but mine also have some validity. Note that I wrote "spell" (in quote marks), and perhaps "prayer" might be somewhat valid -- that is to say, while these are not spells, they may appear similar to the reader. Likewise, you are correct regarding issues of pronunciation and such; but, I am also correct that the pronunciation is seen as very important to some groups. I have edited the page to try and address the issues you noted. LirQ

still not happy with this as an introduction to mantra - focused on specific issues on mantra (pronuciation) which would be better dealt with further down - ie in the section on Hindu mantra you might want to add something about pronounciation being important. I've already mentioned the effect of the movement out of India in my section on Mantra generally. Also it is not true that Mantra's are religious verses - they are often used for entirely mundane, not to say profane purposes such as getting wealthy, and killing ones enemies!

I'll have a go at something more general Mahaabaala 13:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is worth noting that, prior to my edits, the mantra article had no introductory paragraph. Now that it does, I would agree that a specific discussion of pronunciation is not needed at the opening. LirQ

So noted, and thanks. A note for you is that before I wrote this article, a couple of days ago, the mantra entry was two short paragraphs of absolute rubbish and a 'see also' to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder! :-) I suggest we transfer this discussion to the talk:mantra page if you want to go into it further - I've copied our exchanges to there. Regards Mahaabaala 16:21, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

made some edits to mantra -- I do not think it is NPOV to insinuate that the pursuit of wealth is un-religious. LirQ

How do you justify that? IN what religion is the pursuit of wealth seen as religious. I familiar with most of the them and they all have some variation on "the desire for money is the root of all evil".

It has been quite some time since my last edit or glance at Sarnath. I'd like to convey my appreciation and joy after viewing your major contributions at that specific article, and as well as many other related Buddhist articles. Well done. Usedbook 16:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've just been there and really enjoyed it. I must see if anything needs updating on the basis of actually visting the place - places to stay and eat? :-) Mahaabaala 10:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have seen your helpful recent reversions of user 200.101.75.10 in the Buddhism article. For your information, administrators can revert articles to their former version in just one click. Do not hesitate to ask me to do so in the future. Thanks! olivier 22:04, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - Buddhism seems to atract plenty of cranks.Mahaabaala 10:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hinayana

Moved this discussion to Talk:Hinayana mahābāla 13:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha nature

I'm very glad that you are editing the Buddha nature article. I stumbled into the article after creating the Masahiro Mori page (after Uncanny Valley) and found the page was a mess. I spent a good day's effort looking through books trying to arrive at a definition that seemed like a traditional "correct" one (that basic opening sentence was mine), but I don't really have the background to know what is the "correct-correct" one. It seems like you do. By the way, one thing I discovered which I didn't put in was that the doctrine seems to be a part of Tibetan Buddhism as well as Mahayana. I read this is in one source, but I didn't include it because, as I said, it is not my field of expertise nor my practice. Again thanks. -- Decumanus 17:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes Tibetan Buddhism inherited all the major Mahayana doctrines including Madhyamika, Yogacara, and Tathagatagarbha. Their attempts to mash all of them together, along with the Vajrayana to make a coherent system of thought make Tibetan Buddhism quite interesting.

[edit] Three Jewels

Hi Nat, When we're talking about the three refuges/jewels then Sangha does refer only to the Arya-Sangha. We don't go for refuge to the monks and laypeople, but to the Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and actually to anyone from Stream Entrants up - ie those who have "seen things as they really are". I think this distinction is important, and you could easily mention that Sangha also has a broader, more general use. mahābāla 14:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a citation on this? I am a little concerned about this issue in part because I have taken refuge on many occasions and it couldn't hurt for me to know exactly what I'm doing! I left the old wording in the last time I was revising the article because it was buried in the text, but now that it has been moved to the front I feel uncomfortable with it being so wordy. - NYK 14:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nat, I'd have to go through some books, but this is just how I've understood it after ten years of study. The three jewels are transcendental, else why would one go to them for refuge from the sufferings of the phenomenal world? To be a refuge from the phenomenal world, the refuges must in some way go beyond phenomena - and the monastic Sangha clearly don't fo this. In the case of Tibetan Buddhism one is encouraged to see one's guru as enlightened, in which case, to the extent that a. they were enlightened, and b. you were able to see them as enlightened: then they would consitute a true refuge. Otherwise in what way is an ordinary person going to offer you refuge from suffering. If you think this through in these terms it occurs to me that a reference may become unnecessary. I always find it valuable to reflect on what I am taking refuge from, and what I am taking refuge in. mahābāla 16:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting point. However, after thinking about it, it occurred to me that, even if you convinced me, because this is at odds with what I've heard from other sources, I would still have a problem with including it in the article. You and me might be the only ones that think this way! I remember reading Yin Shun, one of the "grand old man"s of Taiwanese Buddhism, say that the third refuge meant that laypeople shouldn't interfere in the business of monks (the Chinese word for "monk" is an approximation of "sangha"). I certainly object to his interpretation, but it shows that there are different opinions. I would think that the current "Buddhist community" is sufficiently vague, and the specifics could be discussed on a "sangha" page. - NYK 06:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well I disagree very strongly that this is simply a matter of interpretation. It is fundamentally important that the part of the entry that refers specifically to the three refuges makes this important distinction. One cannot go for refuge to anything mundane - in fact going for refuge to something mundane is the definition of samsara. Anything which is subject to impermanence, insubstantiality (ie anitya, Anatman) cannot provide you with refuge from suffering, it can only be a caused for more suffering. References be damned on this one, this is something one has to work out for oneself. While the article does not make this distinction it is a serious distortion of the Dharma - unless you feel confident in making the claim that the monastic Sangha is somehow beyond the three marks of conditioned existence. What you are in effect choosing to do is to say that the monastic sangha is transcendental! mahābāla 12:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I can't agree that this is NPOV, because there seem to be a lot of people who disagree with you. However, I'm not really concerned with disputing it, so you can edit the entry as you see fit. I think it would be best to have some kind of acceptable weasel term in the main article and then discuss things more clearly in the sangha article. - NYK 17:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
your last suggestion is good. I'll try and come up with something suitably weasly :-) mahābāla 13:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I also said to User:20040302, editing user pages without their permission is not OK. Please stop doing so, and follow the principles of Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Dori | Talk 15:02, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was just a little confused, and wasn't purposefully editing 20030402's user page, I had meant merely to leave a comment - albeit a somewhat reactive one. I apologise if that has caused anoyance. mahābāla 16:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a big deal when you don't do it on purpose. Just move it to the talk page once you realize it though. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a tit-for-tat kind of deal. Dori | Talk 16:31, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

If you're still having problems with User:20040302, check out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation regarding the edit war, and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress regarding him editing your userpage. Good luck! --zandperl 18:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mahaabaala, I see you added "Buddhist texts" to the list again on the Buddhism page. I think it is a mistake to re-add everything that was moved to List of Buddhist topics, since that is the first link in the list, and was intended to de-clutter lists such as the one you just added to. Is there a reason why you think "Buddhist texts" to be an exception, or was this just an oversight on your part? heidimo 16:09, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again? I created the article yesterday, and added links to and from the most relevant pages. I don't remember adding it twice. But it seems to me that a link from Buddhism to Buddhist texts is pretty fundamental isn't it? mahābāla 17:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents, but it seems to me that "buddhist texts" belongs in that list more than some other things that are currently there. Texts seems like one of the 3 or 4 most important Buddhist subtopics, so that should justify its inclusion separate from "list of buddhist topics". - NYK 17:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The point is that it is redundant to list topics here that are also on the List of Buddhist topics since the page links there directly. Negates the point of having such a list. heidimo 23:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy is an important principle to maintain in structurting any info-scape. Believe me, the more links the better. Your list does not obviate the requirement for the same link in other places. Pages should be massively interlinked in order to be most accessible. Tidyness is good, but you have to ask, is that the best principle for organising information, and at what point does one let tidyness over-ride such important factors as user-friendliness, accessibility, minimum clicks to reach information and a whole bunch of other factors. You list is a very useful addition to this process - good thinking, and well down for creating it. But it's not the be all and end all of links to and from the Buddhism page. Regards mahābāla 12:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Redundancy is good?" "More is better?" Is your interest in Buddhism purely academic? And no, the List of Buddhist topics isn't mine, I'm just the major contributor so far. Your link stands. 'Bye. heidimo 17:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heh, let's not get ad hom here. - NYK 18:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Heidimo, I have been a practising Buddhist for about 10 years. However I am also a professional librarian, with a post graduate qualification and 15 years of experience. Those comments were made with that hat on - 15 years of working with, organising, structuring, and creating, information, about half of that promoting the internet revolution, writing webpages etc. So my credentials are pretty good actually! And my considerable experience, plus my knowledge of library science research tells me that: hypertext works best when there are many links; and that users want the maximum info for minimum clicks.

If you have a rationale beyond being "tidy" for defeating these two essential principles of web based user interface design, then I'd certainly be interested to hear it, and would take it under advisement when adding, or subtracting links to the many other Wikipedia articles I've written and contriubted to. mahābāla 15:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding Mahabala's claim that Shingon is NON-Mahayana

http://www.asunam.com/buddhist_schools.htm "The Shingon (Tantric) tradition of Mahayana Buddhism arose in India in approximately the 6th century AD, although its roots go back many hundreds of years before that."

http://www.koyasan.org/nckoyasan/discipline.html "The Jukai (full monastic precepts) ceremony is held in June only at Koyasan Headquarters, Japan. It takes three days and prostrations to the 1,000 Buddhas of the past, present and future (Butsumyo-e) is held each day. During this ceremony you will receive precepts of Mahayana, Theravada(sic) and Esoteric lineages. You should proceed two petitions to the headquarters through your master before and after." (Also note the lay practice of the ten perfections of a Bodhisattva).

Limiting ownership of the concept of "Tantra as belonging to Mahayana" to the Gelugpa you are making such an amazing faux pas that I can't believe you are serious. I recommend you read the Lam Rim Chenmo (ISBN 1559391529) as a point of reference before making further claims. You will enjoy the read, and may get a lot more out of it than you think.

If you have learned even a little about Tantra, you will know about the three gates. These are the three gates required for tantric initiation (obviously none of this may occur in FWBO who seem to have their own ideas about initiations) The three gates are the Vinaya of Tantra and are as follows:

1) The vows of a Buddhist. You must be a Buddhist

2) The vows of a Bodhisattva. You must be a Bodhisattva. 3) The tantric vows. (there are several subclasses of these)

Lastly, you seem to want to deny the world by just telling people "You are wrong". But all that indicates to me is that you have some particularly reified ideas about truth.

Mahabala. Open your eyes. Free your mind. Really. Wake up. 20040302 14:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More on Shingon as Mahayana

(I do not depend upon google for references, but they are there to share)

We seem to be at cross-purposes here, Mahabala - I do not dispute the distinction between Mahayana and Vajrayana as different vehicles (your points 1,4,5), however just as the Mahayana depends upon most of the Hinayana practices, methods and texts, so does the Vajrayana in turn depend upon the Mahayana practices, methods and texts. This is indicated by the three gates. Points 2 and 3 (in my opinion) do not by themselves contra-indicate Mahayana, but I would say they are doctrinal and possibly special to Kukai.

Of course I think we may have fallen into a previous misunderstanding - for me Mahayana indicates motivation, not school. Mahayana is the Bodhisattva-Buddha path. To suggest that Tantra is not Mahayana suggests to me that the result is not a Bodhisattva-Buddha. To suggest that you can practice Tantra without taking the Bodhisattva vow as a part of your practice goes against every tantra that I have studied (including the Mahavairocana Sutra, which I have read parts of).

My personal view of Kukai, based on reading "The Weaving of Mantra" by Ryûichi Abé (ISBN: 0231112874 - I recommend it if you are not familiar with it) is that a lot of his motivation was political, which is understandable in context. Moreover, doctrinally, I find his position on the nature of mantra and practice to be no longer relevant to the practitioner, in that they represent a reified position which is hard to justify.

At about the same time that Kukai was returning to Japan with his Tantras, Nalanda was still developing and enhancing the tantric methodologies. I guess this is why the Annutarayoga tantras (especially the Guhyasamaja - which was written down around 600-700.) never reached Japan, which would have helped shed light on the context and significance of the Mahavairocana Sutra in the tantric movement. In the end (from a scholarly perspective) Tibet was able to inherit a more complete set of the tantric lineage from Nalanda, solely due to proximity. So Japan's tantric heritage was to be with the Yoga tantras. On a purely personal note, I find that the Madhyamaka schools are a fantastic entry into understanding the perfection of wisdom; and of course they do not claim to be the final truth. I highly recommend Huntington to you (ISBN: 0824817125) - I really believe you would get a lot out of this, regardless of our differences. To me as a practitioner, the very notion of acontextual truth seems to undermine the specific purpose of the practice of tantra. This view does not seem to accord with Kukai.

I recently had the fortune to visit Alchi monastery in Ladakh - which is resplendent with 11th century depictions of Vairochana mandalas - unfortunately slowly ruined by water damage. It is a distress to Western Europeans to see how India's ancient culture is being washed away.

Obviously we have our differences, Mahabala. But let us not hold that against our purpose. 20040302 18:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abe's book is a good one, which I have studied in detail, but of course it gives everything a political spin because Abe's thesis is a political one. However Kukai does seem to have been an astute politician amongst other things. I agree on the difference in our approaches that you are highlighting: you seemed to be saying that the Vajrayana is simply Mahayana, whereas you obviously do see the difference. And it is that difference which I was concerned to preserve. I agree that almost every synthesis of Buddhist teachings is conservative in that it retains everythig that has come before, although it tends to treat it as provisional.
I would like to continue a dialogue over your ideas of provisionality, Mahabala; I would certainly maintain that the lineages of Tantra (not all of which are Tibetan) do not consider the works of Nagarjuna (or the Madhyamaka in general) to be provisional. There are plenty of texts that refer to this issue; primarily the distinction (between exoteric Mahayana and Tantra) is identified as the type of consciousness that perceives selflessness, rather than the object of meditation itself. (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))
Sangharakshita seems to me to be the only person in history who has come up with a hermeneutic for understanding the various manifestations of Buddhism without relegating most of them as provisional.
On this we differ so wildly that I doubt we could ever reconcile our views. Not only do I disagree with your premise, but also I disagree with nearly every claim he has made about his relationship with the Tibetan tradition. These issues of course are very well-known and dealt with elsewhere by others. However, rather than getting agitated by each other's opinions on this, I would prefer to let the issue not get between other discussions that may be of mutual benefit. (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))
part of the reason that the later tantras never reached Japan was the collapse of tantric Buddhism in China afer the Tang Dynasty. After that there was no direct route for the long journey from Nalanda to Nara.
There is plenty of historic and archeological evidence to show that Tantra was active in China well after the Tang Dynasty, although there may have been an interregnum between Tang and Yuan as there was with Buddhism in general (with a major persecution in 845). Certainly the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties were deeply involved in Tantric Buddhism. (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))

As an aside the Japanese seem to consider the later tantras, and the practices associated with them, as an abberation - there is an interesting polemic (though it is not given much emphasis) in Wayman and Tajima's book on the Mahavairocana Sutra. Tajima considers Tibetan Buddhism to be "far from the Buddha's teaching".

Yes. Well. What does Tajima know that Tibetans don't? (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))
One of the things I would like to achieve here is a differentiation between Japanese and Tibetan Vajrayana which do have features in common, but are also quite distinct.
The intention is appreciated, but IMHO it would require many years to be able to achieve such a goal: The entire corpus of Tibetan literature on the Mahavairochana Sutra/Tantra (which is considerable: The text is held to be key for all four schools) is almost entirely untranslated to date, and there are many different approaches and interpretations. This means that one would have to choose specific sub-schools of both the Japanese and the Tibetan traditions, and there is enough work to be done in terms of differentiating different schools of thought within the respective cultures. Personally, I consider such a broad approach to these distinctions would require such a vast and profound understanding of both cultures (and all the schools of thought) that any derivatives would change the nature of the subject in question. (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))
On a personal note it would help if you stuck to the issues and did not make personal comments about me. I don't think you are particularly insightful as to my understanding, my character, nor my motivations, and your opinions just get in the way of trying to sort out some of these knotty issues. mahābāla 12:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well spoken - and as Nat Krause pointed out - it takes two. Neither of us know much about the other, and you know less about me than I know about you. (20040302 17:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Request for comment

Hey, Mahā, what do you think of the tathagata page? I had originally made it a redirect to buddha, but then someone came along and put in a jargony definition about the buddha-mind and a bunch of quotes. Yet, I am hesitant to revert it unilaterally. I thought maybe you could put your eyes on it. - Nat Krause 04:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It looks like crap to me. Sometimes these Zen people really talk a lot of nonsense. Axe it. mahābāla 09:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Comments anonymised and moved over to Talk:Tathagata (20040302 10:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Welcome back

Hey, welcome back to the 'paedia, Maha. Hope you'll stick around a little. - Nat Krause 02:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nat. Yeah I've had a lot going on and little time to write anything - still have a lot of stuff floating around on Shingon that needs work. I've had a change of jobs which is taking a lot of assimilating and meaning that I spend a lot less time online. mahābāla 09:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cantus IMBB

Nice write-up. I see you are a fellow fan of Pärt (and apparently also a fellow devotee of the Buddha). I think all of Pärt's pieces deserve articles! Antandrus 20:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A Request

Over at Culture of the United Kingdom one of the main things that is stopping us from putting it forward as a featured article candidate is the fact that the art section is so small (one small paragraph). You have listed yourself on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest as someone with an interest in art. Would you be able to pop over there at some point and help us to expand the section please? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 07:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/h/User_talk%7EMahaabaala_37d9.html"