Talk:Anekantavada/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will be reviewing the article in a few days.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "According to person name or XYZ explains by example," is needed in blue BMW example in Nayavāda. Else may be considered OR.

Y Done Added the necessary citations along with the persons name.

• Sometimes IAST notations are not followed correctly. e.g. Siva should be "Ṣiva" in IAST or Shiva in normal Indian English. others include Saiva, Vaisnava, Visnu, calukya.

Y Done Atleast in almost all cases....I don't know if some ofthem have been missed out.

• WP:OR in case of Hemachandra. Ref does not say: "Anekāntavāda was effectively used by Ācārya Hemacandra to convert King Kumarpal of Gujarat to Jainism" The term "Anekāntavāda" is not used in the entire article.

Y Done 1) Changed the sentence so it does not violate the OR policy esp. the "conversion to Jainism" part. 2) The article does not say Anekantavada, but he used the principles when he bowed before the non-Jain God shiva. Still if you feel that it is OR, then we can remove this incidence. But I feel that although its not a widely known incidence, it may add some value to the article.

If you find a ref to support that Hemachandra followed Anekantavada, then the whole para is justified else the mention of Hemachandra is OR too.

Actually, in the next para, I have mentioned the incidence of Hemacandra with Kumarapala's predecessor, King Siddharaja where he uses Anekantavada. John Cort in "Intellectual Ahiṃsā revisited" criticises the comparison of Anekantavada with "Intellectual ahimsa" and says that Hemacandra used Anekantavada extensively to praise as well as criticise other religions. Hence I request you not to see this particular para in isolation.

• ref 40, about Prof. John Cort. page nos. are mentioned, book is NOT.

Y Done A good piece of detection by Redtigerxyz. Thanks!

• Personal views: OR "In anekantavāda, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or violence, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us" form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political, religious and social conflicts"

Y Done Added the necessary citations.

• "(Adi Shankara) He fails to take into consideration that the affirmation of the existence of an object is in respect to the object itself and its negation is in respect to what the object is not, giving an object positive and negative attributes at the same time without any contradictions." personal view, OR?

Y Done A good point and thanks for pointing out. But it is not OR as this is mentioned by the author Pandya. I have added citation with I had forgotten previously.

• Primary sources used ? Were the English translations provided or are they by the author of the article? Original language of text? Please provide quote in original language in ref, if the ref is for a quotation in the article.
  • Bhagvatisūtra
  • Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara: Vardhamana Dvātrimṣikā, 6/2
  • Ślokavārtikka of Ācārya Vidyānanda, Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, verse 116
• ref 6 of Ronald, speaks about Jainism in general. I failed to find the word "Anekantavada" once imn the ref. Please quote the exact sentences on which foll. sentences are based:
  • "Proponents of anekantvāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy, even Jainism, that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view."

Clarification: Ronalds article contains this sentence - "The Jain doctrine of syadvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that Jainism is the right religious path." The article does not contain the word "Anekantavada" but does contain "syadvada" which is a part of Anekantavada. I trust that this addresses your concern.

The statement above contradicts the meanings here: "Jains have three doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning:

anekāntavāda—the theory of relative pluralism or manifoldness; syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and; nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints" Still an OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion as Ronald mentions only Syadvada. But let me explain. Ronald has also used the phrase “multiple viewpoints” instead of the word “Anekantavada”. Another thing I have noticed, certain authors (not all) tend to equate Anekantavada with Syadvada and tend to ignore nayavada all together. I guess this happens in any philosophical concept or theory with many authors having different views. So I guess that Ronald is not contradictary, with the statement that you quoted, which is again a well referenced statement. We do need to consider a very broad base of authors and scholars in discussing concepts like Anekantavada etc. to ensure that all views by different authors are addressed....in spirit of Anekantavada of course!!! :)

• • "According to the Vedānta conceptual scheme, the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism, and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme, the advaitas were wrong in denying the reality of change. The two positions were contradictory and mutually exclusive from each others' point of view.[6] The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda."

Y Done U are right. It was a mis-citation....it was not Ronald but Koller.

ON HOLD.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and putting it on hold to make further improvements. This is an excellent review that will help improve the article.--Anish (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)