Talk:Karma in Jainism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
Karma in Jainism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Karma in Jainism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
This article is exactly the same one as Jain Karmic Theory (Theory of Karma in Jains) (word for word), so I would recommend that one be replaced with the other or something to that effect. This may explain why there are so few links to the page :) Rhino loupe 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are observant to notice this, but in fact this page is Jain Karmic Theory (Theory of Karma in Jains). I moved the page to this new title so that it would be more concise, as well as more consistent with similar pages for other religious traditions. The old page has a redirect in it. Thenavigator1 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Tagging of article, review changes
This article does not meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment standards for A-class articles. It has many grammatical errors, poor structure, bias in that it holds Jainism above other religions, citation problems and bias, and relatively low useful content compared to other A-class articles. These also explain the two tags I added. To alleviate this, I suggest that writers with poor grammar add stuff to the talk page for review before inserting it, and that unbiased sources be used. I also suggest that more detailed content be added, and that unverifiable information be deleted. --queso man 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Each of the latter traditions, however, developed practices in basic contradiction to such belief. In addition to sradhha (the ritual Hindu offerings by the son of deceased), we find among Hindus widespread adherence to the notion of divine intervention in one's fate, while Buddhists eventually came to propound such theories like boon-granting bodhisattvas, transfer of merit and like. Only Jainas have been absolutely unwilling to allow such ideas to penetrate their community, despite the fact that there must have been tremendous amount of social pressure on them to do so.”
Dr. Jaini is not the best source to use. There is clear bias here.
Thanks for pointing out one specific issue on account of which you have disputed an entire article itself. You may not realise that Dr. Jaini is the most respected Scholar in Jainism and Buddhism Studies. His brief Bio is as under :- He has taught at the Banaras Hindu University, the School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and at the University of California at Berkeley, from where he retired in 1994. Professor Jaini is the author of several books and papers. Perhaps his best known work is the Jaina Path of Purification (1979). Some of his major articles have been published under titles: the Collected Papers on Jaina Studies (2000) and Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies (2001). Currently, he is Professor emeritus of Buddhist Studies in the Department of South Asian Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
Let me quote Paul Dundas, another scholar on Jainism and Sanskrit on Jaini - ".........It effectively took over 60 years with the publication of The Jaina Path to purification by Prof Jaini....for English speaking reader to gain an accurate sense of what Jainism involves". Paul Dundas, The Jains page 9.
I hope that credentials of Dr.Jaini are not doubted. Hence do not pass any Judgment on views of scholars in any biased manner.
Secondly, the above sentence quoted by you nowhere suggests that Hindu / Buddhist theory of Karma is inferior to Jainism. In fact Hindus are proud to combine divine will with Karma to create a unique and middle path. Dr Jainis comments indicate how Jains have rigidly stuck to theory of karma thereby often wrongly been labelled by Hindus as atheists.
If there are any more issues please point out. I request you to be more objective on the issues that you may not agree with.If there are a few grammatical mistakes help me correct it. --Anish Shah 05:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not deny that Dr. Jaini is respected. He is, in fact, one of the most respected Jain scholars (though to say he is the most respected is an opinion). However, he is still a biased source and should be countered with an opposing but supported viewpoint. As for the quotation given, the addition of the phrase "boon-granting bodhisattvas" may in fact be true, but it is a very small part of the entire Buddhist view of the theory. However, in this section, this particular point is emphasized, which it should not be.
It is ironic how, when editing Shrimad Rajchandra before it got ruined, I was notified that I was partial towards Jainism. Now you say that I am against Jainism when I am, in fact, a Jain.
As for some more minor formatting problems, which can be fixed more easily but I don't feel like fixing today,
"Tattvarthasutra identifies the following elements in the process of attachment of karmas-
Activity (Yoga) attracts the karmic matter to our consciousness i.e. asrava[5] Negative emotions like anger, pride, greed and manipulations produce the bonds i.e bandha between the karma and our consciousness.[4] The nature and intensity of our emotions determine the strength of these bonds i.e. nature, duration and quantity of the karmas so attracted.[4] The karmas are attracted to the consciousness of the soul by combination of the following four factors [4]:-
1. The instrumentality of our actions i.e. we act by either through
a. body i.e. physical action, b. speech i.e. verbal action, or c. mind i.e. thoughts 2. The process of action i.e. whether we
a. only decide or plan to act, b. make preparations for the act e.g. like collecting necessary materials, or c. actually begin the action 3. The modality of our action i.e.
a. we ourselves carry out the act, b. we instigate others to carry out the act, or c. we give our silent approval for the act 4. The motivation for action i.e. the action is motivated by any of the following negative emotions i.e.
a. Anger b. Greed c. Pride d. Manipulation or intention to deceive others Thus a karma is attached to a soul in a combination of any one element of the above four factors. Eg. Karmas can be attracted by thinking (1c) of making preparations (2b) to instigate someone else to carry out some act (3b) motivated by anger (4a). Hence there are 108 ways with which the karmas are attracted."
There is a problem with proper nouns, and this should be converted into an asterisked list. Usage of latin abbreviations should be greatly reduced as well. Parts of the list of karmas later in the article do not follow WikiProject Jainism spelling guidelines set by Zhang Guo Luo.
One cannot deny that the clean-up tag and lowering of the rating are justified. The neutrality tag, on the other hand, is debatable. However, all it takes is one user to dispute neutrality, so you cannot technically delete that tag until the matter has been resolved. --queso man 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Jaini is not only an Jaina scholar but he is an an Sanskrit and prakrit scholar and an Indologost and main focus of his studies is Buddhism and not Jainism, so he should be knowing what he is saying. Just Check google books, he and his books are cited in hundreds of other books and any western scholar doing study on Jainism acknowledges his help. Many of his papers are published in Californian University press and other forums. I have personally met Paul Dundas and other scholars who speak highly of him. You said “should be countered with an opposing but supported viewpoint.” I hope you know what you are talking, because Jaini’s quotation itself provides a point and counter-point of two opposing views on Karma. Lets not argue for the sake of arguing. With regards to boon-granting bodhisattvas being a very small part of the entire Buddhist view of the theory – 1)Being small or Big part is not the criteria for being mentioned. It is necessary to bring out the differences. 2)This point is not "emphasised" rather mentioned only once as a counter point. 3)By the way, varada mudras is one of the popular pose for boon granting for bodhisattva. The Theme of boon granting bodhisattva is quite a popular concept. Just do some research before commenting.
No one said you are against Jainism and you seem to be taking it personally. However why has there been only one featured article from Project Jainism? And no A class articles? What is every one esp. project members doing? Let us all try to bring at least one article a month to A class level rather than wasting time on talk pages and casting aspersions on respected scholars and resorting to frivolous arguments on Bodhisattvas. I am not aware of any WikiProject Jainism spelling guidelines set by Zhang Guo Luo but I have sent a copy of this article to a Jain scholar for correction of any mistakes. You said Srimad Rajchandra article got ruined. Hope this does not happen to other Jainism articles. I am taking your points in good faith and I don’t intend to remove class and tags as I am looking for consensus and valuable inputs. Thanks to you inputs I intend to add a section of “Criticism of Jaina theory of Karma” In this regard, Jaina and Dundas are very objective. --Anish Shah 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, one of the things of the utmost importance is to work out a compromise. I need to know what YOU think so that we can do this.
- Do you think there is bias in this article?
- Do you think the grammar in the article could be improved?
- Are you a Jain? If so, would you consider yourdelf to be partial or impartial towards Jainism when editing articles on Wikipedia?
As for having only one featured article (Swastika) and no A-class articles, I agree that this needs to be fixed. Two of the main problems with the WikiProject are the lack of participants and poor grammar of those who do participate. Also, Shrimad Rajchandra, an article which I created, got ruined when a member wrote a bunch of completely POV stuff with horrible grammar, ruining it. I think that you may have a good shot at partially fixing it, if you try. I haven't quite yet tried myself.
As for spelling guidelines, I can't find them, so we can ignore them for now. I could find the naming conventions, but those aren't for much use. For now, let's just say that we should spell all words the way that the article on that topic spells them. For example, Svetambara should be used instead of Shvetambar, though I doubt that either of those are found in this articles. Also, more words on this page should be linked, and the same word should not be linked more than once. --queso man 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. It has improved the article and I have no other problems, but I have one concern. I have quoted in verbatim what Hermann Kuhn and Robert Zydenbos have stated in their books. Are we allowed to change what has been quoted in the books? To be more objective, I have relied more on Western Scholars rather than Indian.
I intend to add “Criticisms on karmic Theory” as follows – 1) Short Comings in Jaina Karmic Theory (This has been culled from Jainis papers) 2) Criticisms discussed by Vedic, Buddhists and Christians
As for answers to your questions - 1) Do you think there is bias in this article? – Could be because 95% of the article is written by me. That why I want it to be peer reviewed and improvements to be made. 2) Do you think the grammar in the article could be improved? – Of course even featured articles need improvement 3) Are you a Jain? If so, would you consider yourdelf to be partial or impartial towards Jainism when editing articles on Wikipedia? I am a Jain and have tried to be objective. I am not interested in projecting Jainism greater than others or making any unverifiable exuberant claims. --Anish Shah 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be improper in my opinion to change what is written in the books, I guess. I like the plan to add separate sections for criticism, as opposed to mixing it into the other parts of the article which may cause organization problems. --queso man 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We may change the wording to remove the POV in article, but then quote the original citation in footnotes as reference.--Anish Shah 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "A critique on Karmic Theory" added
A new section called - A critique on Karmic Theory - has been added which discusses the criticisms levelled by the Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. It also discusses the short comings from a scholars point of view as well as popular misconception from western point of view. This should hopefully more or less take care of biases in the overall article as well as provide a balanced approach. An interesting observation by dundas - As to the general attitude of Jains themselves towards the doctrine, he states that few study the intricacies of the doctrine and familiarity with it would not be regarded as of any real relevance to most Jains. Pg 102 but I am not shure it will come in which section --Anish Shah 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I fixed most of the grammar-related problems. I also made very subtle changes to improve neutrality slightly, but this section seems to be well thought out, and instead of asserting a statement without doubt, it seems to reflect only what scholars say. Very nice. --queso man 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I think the "Disputed Neutrality Tag" can be removed and we can revise the rating. Or take a stock to pending stuff necessary to revise the ratings.--Anish Shah 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Disputed Neutrality" tag can be removed, even though there is bias, because there is not really enough to dispute the neutrality. I will do so soon. However, do not revise the rating unless this article reaches GA status or without a proper discussion with the feedback of more than just a couple people. There is a big jump for B to A class. --queso man 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More inputs are required
This Articles can be expanded to include more stuff on Karmas in Jainism.--Anishshah19 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complete overhaul of the Article
I have completely re-written the article on Karma in Jainism. However the references have not come properly. Can someonne format it ?--Anishshah19 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contribution from other Project members requested
Hi, Thanks for your edits on Karma_in_Jainism.
- However before putting disputed neutrality tag please discuss as to why you are disputing the neutrality on the talk pages.
- Please discuss where cleanup is required.
- Please discuss why it has been put as Class B Article and not Class A as put by me.
For any changes please discuss on talk pages first or else it would be considered as POV and reverted back. I would appreciate your contributions a lot. Looking forwarding to constructive contribution to ensure that this article(in fact all jainism articles) is rated as featured article.--Anish Shah 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I rated it down to B-class because it does not match the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment standards for A-class articles. I realize that not all WikiProjects add Good Article status to the B-A-FA continuum, it is also important to remember that a poorly written page with many grammatical errors and clear, or even disputed bias cannot be A-class. I also added a POV tag because it seems to hold Jainism above other religions in its principles, saying that it is the only religion which does a certain thing, when that is not necessarily true (though technically I could delete such claims under WP:V, I would not due to the fact that some of these may be nominally true). I will copy this down on my talk page for record-keeping purposes. --queso man 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with you and your way of functioning. Either you do some constructive contribution and not be a member of Jainism Wikipedia project for name sake. I said point out the cases which require the necessary changes and we will make the necessary changes. As the name of article suggests it provides the Karmic theory from jainism point of view. I have taken all the sources from respected authors who have researched jainism deeply. So kindly do not impose your POV on others. If you see the tag taht you have put, it requires "more specific message" and "discussion on talk pages". If that is not forthcoming I will have to revert back. However i am open to making substantial changes wherever required.I am copying this on the talk pages of Karma in Jainism so that it stays on record. I am inviting improvements from you and other members of this project. If there are no contributions then I will rate the Article as per the wiki guidelines. Thanks--Anish Shah 04:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but not agreeing with me is not a good nor a valid reason to change something. The WikiProject Assessment guidelines clearly show that an A-class article must meet some guidelines when it comes to referencing, NPOV, and grammar. It is debatable whether an A-class article must be better than a Good Article, but in this WikiProject, GA status is necessary before promotion to A-class. I suggest you study these guidleines. Also, just because something is above Jainism, it doesn't have to be written from a Jain point of view. All Wikipedia articles MUST be written from an objective viewpoint. Just because Dr. Jaini is a respected author, the source is not automatically unbiased. Even Acharya Sushilkumar is biased, no matter how respected he is. The constant referencing of biased sources (the Tattvartha Sutra being one of the few ones that is not used in a negative way) is one of the main shortcomings of the article. Wikipedia articles are not designed to support their subject; they must instead simply shed light on the topic. As for any lack of constructive edits about Jainism I have made, I am quite an old-timer on this WikiProject as the second person to join. By looking at my contributions and articles I have edited or created on Jainism, it is quite clear that I have not added my name to the Jainism WikiProject just for the status. --queso man 03:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your Statement “Sorry, but not agreeing with me is not a good nor a valid reason to change something” applies to you also. Practice what you preach. By putting a disputed neutrality tag on entire article rather than some disputed sections, you are proving that you are imposing your POV. You did not even give reasons which you were supposed to give on talk pages. After advising me on Wiki Guidelines you yourself did not follow it. You started discussing only when I asked the reasons. Your statement “The constant referencing of biased sources” once again shows your prejudice. Even I am a member and editor of Wiki since last one year. Being an old timer does not give anyone authority to impose his own POVs and biases. This article is simply shedding light on Jaina theory of karma and not advancing that it is the only right way. This article is written in an objective manner. Certain elements like critisims to this theory are missing which I intend to add.--Anish Shah 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old statement and we resolved this already, but I can't resist replying to it. Now that a Criticism section has been added, I think it is fit to be considered mostly NPOV. Previously, there were many sections that were biased, and opinions against Jain karmic theory were not expressed. Therefore, I tagged the entire article to avoid tagging each one separately which is discouraged due to the fact that it clogs up the page. I did, however, give reasons and examples, and more examples can be found by looking at the page history to before my twenty-or-so edits. Also, I never used the excuse of being a long-time member to make unsupported edits, as I am in fact not a long-time editor. I have been a long-time member of this WikiProject, but I only mentioned that to counter your ad hominem argument that I joined the WikiProject for the title only. I hope that the changes that I have already made, as well as the new criticism section have alleviated most of the problems I identified. --queso man 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
