Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:28, 3 May 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 2, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

2006 – 2007

Title

It seems to me that the title could be more descriptive, such as "Buddhism and Hinduism in Comparison" or some such thing. Sylvain1972 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this article is bound to be confusing and messy, as it is similar to 'Apples and Oranges'...rudy (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some commentators assert

I removed the following statement from the article: "However, some commentators assert that the Bhagavad Gita predates Buddhism." It is sourced to P. 109 Bhakti Karuna Agape with Raimundo Panikkar By Marko Zlomislić. The source is fortunately available online here: . What it actually says is: "The Bhagavad Gita presents a conversation taken from the pre-Buddhist, sixth century epic of Great India, the Mahabharata." This is different from saying that the work itself is pre-Buddhistic. I have read in other works that the Bhagavad Gita is post-Buddhistic, and hope to add more sources later. Mitsube (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the source is clear that Bhagvad Gita is taken from a Pre-Buddhist text. This leaves nothing to interpretation that the author believes it to be pre-buddhist. The editor had not made an assertion but cited a properly sourced third party assertion which was legitimate. Contrary to what you might have read from orientalist and Buddhist sources, millions of Hindus regard Bhagvad Gita to be Pre-Buddhist. I think the editing out of a legitimate third party assertion, properly sourced, shows a little lack of neutrality. The right approach should be to allow assertions from both sides and leave the judgement to discerning reader.--Satyashodak (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"conversation taken from the pre-Buddhist, sixth century epic of Great India, the Mahabharata" clearly implies that the conversation existed in that pre-Buddhist text.

How can something be taken from something else unless it exists in it?--Satyashodak (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Literary works present situations that are not necessarily true. Mitsube (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See also here: "The Bhagavad Gita is an interpolation". Mitsube (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. If that is a 'literary work', it can be made clear to the reader. There is no point in suppressing a published opnion. I have tagged the section. Suppresion of properly cited opinions is against wikipedia rules. Let us seek the help of other editors to resolve this. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading it. The Bhagavad Gita is an interpolation into the earlier Mahabharata, that's why the Gita is said to present a conversation there. There is no scholarly dispute on this. Mitsube (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what an interpolation means. It is merely an opinion of scholars of particular persuasion that it is an interpolation. You cannot state with such categorical affirmation that it is an 'interpolation' like the way you have done. At the best you can cite it as opnion when a competing claim is available from another tradition. This is an encyclopedia which means all favorable and unfavorable opinion from published sources need to be adduced to give widest possible coverage to a subject.

Secondly how can Bhagvad Gita in the Mahabharata 'present' a conversation unless the conversation exists there in some form in first place. I think some liberties are being taken with the meaning of the sentence to arrive at the prejudiced conclusion that suits one's own thesis. Let us resolve this by involving other editors. I think you and I have reached a stalemate on this. Please do not remove the NPOV tag before a third editor has looked at the dispute. Thanks --Satyashodak (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You said, "You cannot state with such categorical affirmation that it is an 'interpolation' like the way you have done. At the best you can cite it as opnion when a competing claim is available from another tradition." You have not provided a source contradicting the claim that it is an interpolation. Your entire argument thus far has been "millions of Hindus don't believe this so it is POV to include it." That is not a valid argument. Mitsube (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No that is not my argument. You are twisting it around. My argument was the the reference provided by the other editor cannot be construed to mean that Bhagvad Gita is post-Buddhist. I have added two more references as follows.

However, some commentators, notably Georg Feuerstein and Ken Wilber , consider it very conceivable that Bhagvad Gita is Pre-Buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyashodak (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem quoting Worthington: who has an interesting summary. This is the first I have heard of a scholar thinking that it is pre-Buddhist; note that she doesn't name anyone specific with this view. You have completely misconstrued the second source: who is only saying that Krishna sang something to Arjuna on a battlefield in ancient times, but that the text we have now was written between 500 and 400 BC. In fact the last paragraph on the page notes the Buddhist influence. Mitsube (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets agree that is a controversial subject and scholars on both sides of the divide have something to say about it. Without suppressing either viewpoint, it is best to provide coverage to both competing commentaries and agree to disagree. I do not think I have misconstrued the second source. Ken Wilbur says that "original song was probably imparted by Krishna on the battlefield of kuru-ksethra two millennia before Buddha" which clearly means Bhagvad Gita as it literally means "Song of Divine". It cannot mean just "something". It is a clear reference to Bhagvad Gita. To say that entire Bhagvad Gita is interpolation, as you are trying to assert, is not supported by Ken Wiber's reference. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The word Nibbana or Nirvana is also Pre-Buddhist

One editor has made the following assertion:

"The word nirvana (Pali: Nibbana) was first used in its technical sense in Buddhism"

Please explain if Buddhism was the first sect to use this word , how is this word found in the Jain texts and tradition which pre-dates Buddha by many centuries?

The fact remains that the idea of Nirvana existed in wider Indian religious context much before Budhha spoke about it. This needs to be made clear in the article to enhance its authenticity and neutrality--Satyashodak (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The material is directly quoted. If you disagree, you must find a source that disagrees, then include both opinions with attribution. Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'conensus' as claimed on the dating of Bhagvad Gita

It was claimed that there is an "academic consensus" on the dating of the Bhagvad Gita. With so many well-known scholars diverging including Ken Wilbur et al. It is utterly preposterous to claim an 'academic consensus'. I have edited the artcile accordingly to reflect the lack of consensus in the scholarly community. Please discuss here on discussion page if somebody has an objection. Thanks.

The text of the edit is provided as follows for discussion and consensus building as per Wiki norms:

Eminent Indian scholars such as Tilak, Radhakrishnan and Bhandarkar et al believed without any reservations that Bhagvad Gita is pre-Buddhist.

Don't have access to the third source, but the first two are not directly describing the dating of the Gita; furthermore, in response to comments re: Ken Wilbur, my impression is that dating an ancient Sanskrit text falls outside of his area of research. We would need to know what source he's using in order to assess. Here's what the Gale Encyclopedia of India has to say about the Gita. It's recent (2006), it's authors and editors include lots of modern scholars of Indian history of politics, and the Gita article itself is written by Hartmut Scharfe, who is an expert in the field of ancient Indian literature. These encyclopedias attempt to synthesize current primary research in the field, so they're exactly the sort of source that should be using for Misplaced Pages, rather than trying to synthesize the primary research ourselves:

Part of the gigantic epic

Mahabharata, the Gıta was composed sometime around the third or second century B.C. Whether it was an early or later episode in that epic as it evolved in the oral tradition, it is now a central element of that entire work. Attempts by some scholars to show it as an interpolation are now generally regarded as oversimplifications, attributed to a lack of appreciation for the character of

oral literature.

However, my feeling is that this discussion of who predates what is going off on a tangent with respect to this article. Why is it necessary to catalog every text that did or didn't predate the Buddha? The article is about the relationship between the two traditions. That being the case, it seems better to stick to a few basic facts: certain teachings in Buddhism are believed to be reactions to early teachings in the Vedic/Hindu tradition (site which scholars and which teachings). Certain Hindu scriptures make references to the Buddha (site which ones). Certain Hindu teachings may have been constructed as a response to the teachings of the Buddha, though obviously in cases where the Buddha is not mentioned explicitly this belief will not be universal (again, cite which teachings, who believes so, and who dissents). For the purpose of this article what use, for instance, is multiple lists of which Upanishads might pre-date the Buddha? If they don't mention the Buddha, Buddhist teachings don't reply to their message, or they don't reply to Buddhist teachings, than they aren't relevant to this article, regardless of where they are in the chronology. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, could you please edit? Mitsube (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Clay, thanks for this insightful opinion. I agree with you that part has gone off tangents somewhat but excerpting of dissenting and consenting views had become necessary because theoretical speculaton and subjective opinons of scholars of particular persuasion was presented as consensus or as a necessary fact. This is highly objectionable and showed that the previous editor failed to satisfy NPOV guideline. Wiki guidelines do not permit synthesis or dissection/questioning or disparaging of source....so we can just quote Updhayaya, Zaehner,Radhakrishnan, Ken Wilber et al without questioning or dissecting them ad hominem. Ken Wilber is perhaps the most renowned contemporary scholar on Eastern religions and his neutrality and methodological approaches are generally considered unimpeachable. Secondly, he shows full knowledge of Upadhayaya's paper in his response to this convroversy, which shows that he had considered all divergent opinions on the subject before articulating his own. I think it would be arbitrary and not in keeping with wiki guidelines to place the authority of a relatively obscure scholar lik Hartmut Scharf over such a reputed scholar on Eastern religions like Ken Wilber, . It would only reflect subjectivity and bias on the part of the editors

If we were to go that route of questioning the sources ad hominem then Upadhaya is a product of partisan Sri Lankan pro-Buddhist scholarship (he got part of his education in Sri Lanka) and Zaehner was linked with Chrisitian evangelists. All of these persuasions are known to be anti-Hindu with a clear agenda to disparage Hindu sources. But we cannot dissect them like this within the wiki guidelines and same would apply to Ken Wilbur, Radhakrishnan, Bhandarkar et al. The latter two were quoted because Upadhaya wrote this paper in response to them. If the references to these authors is problematic ...so should be reference to Upadhayaya because he polemicizes purely in response to them in his paper alleging Bhagvad Gita as an interpolation.

Let us discuss these issue and try to reach a consensus amicably. I will get back to this issue as I get time. Meanwhile let us all refrain from any radical edits in this section without establishing a consensus on the discussion page first. Regards.--Satyashodak (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV Policy

Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterise disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. --Satyashodak (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to make is that we want to be summarizing positions in general, rather than rehearsing the positions of particular scholars because it inevitably degenerates into who trusts who. In particular, we should be looking at summaries prepared by the academic community as statements of where most scholars stand on these issues, as we're not trying to produce a literature survey. I've re-edited the section in question to present what I think is a reasonable compromise; it retains most of the cited sources except where it was departing from the focus of the article, and cuts down the passage significantly. I think it's easier to present what I'm talking about rather than try and describe it, which is why I took the step of editing. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is acceptable and constructive. I have just restored Ken Wilber's citation in the footnote which should not been deleted as it was very significant, given he is precisely responding to the polemic after reviewing Upadhahaya's work which has also been cited in the forgoing text. thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vedic schools (Upnishads) as originators of the concept of reincarnaton which was adopted by other South Asian traditions (Source:The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology)

This article has a clear anti-Hindu bias. The way it has been edited till now has been by supressing anything favorable or objective about Hinduism and parading theoretical speculations/opinions favorable to other traditions, Buddhism in particular, with a semblance of necessary fact or consensus. I will get into those issues in detail later as I see clear violation of saveral Wiki guidelines. This has got to stop now.

The following edit is based on the very reputable source like Oxford Handbook of Eschatology and it is clear about the fact that the idea of reincarnation was "Fundamental contribution of Upanishads to Hindu - indeed, South Asian- eschatology". The only implication of this statement is that vedic schools/Upnishads developed the idea of reincarnation, independent of any external influence, and that other South Asian eschatologies, namely, Jainism, Buddhism, etc borrowd this concept from Upnishads. I don't see why anybody can have any objection to quoting of this claim , especially since it has been quoted in third person merely as an opinion from an extemely reputable source. The exact quote and the reference has also been provided for the discerning reader to make their own judgement. Let us us show some respect to the reader as well here and not try to spoon feed them. Please explain your objections before editing or modifying it. Thanks.

Some other scholars , however, see the evolution of idea of life after death into a more specific and concrete idea of reincarnation, i.e, rebirth in the same world, as internal to the unfoldment of thought and exegesis in the vedas over time, without any external influence. The Rig Veda mentions life after death in heavens. The ritual system of the vedas was central to Vedic life and thought and depended 'on the notion of constant sacrifice, the reintegration of multiple elements into a moment of unity before a new dispersal into being'. According to this view, by the eighth-seventh century BC , Vedic schools had fully refined the idea of transmigration or reincarnation, which was a contribution of Upanishads not only to Hinduism but to all other eschatologies developed in South Asia. An obvious corollary of this view is that it precludes the notion that vedic schools integrated the concept of reincarnation from any external source

Neutral point of view (Lets not forget these with regard to this article)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

• WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterise disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

No one denies that the Brahmans came to believe in reincarnation. That is all your source is saying. We are maintaining NPOV, and it is important to exclude your unsourced interpretations or misinterprations. You are inventing the opposing points of view. Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is Upnishads had promulgated reincarnation before it occured to any South Asian spiritual tradition (according to Oxford reference). This is clearly indicated in the source without any need of interpretation and synthesis. Needless to say that I disgree with you and will be left with no option but to reverse all of your edits which are in violation wiki guidelines. --Satyashodak (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this accumulation of sources and counter-sources has departed entirely from the point of the article, which is not to explain where the concept of reincarnation entered into Indian thought. Reincarnation certainly exists in the Upanishads, and might exist in some form (or at least be implied) in the Vedas. No controversy. Buddhism broadly accepts the idea of reincarnation presented in the Upanishads (a series of lives in various realms of existence) but modifies the metaphysical details to fit with Buddhist views on (an)atman. No controversy. Presenting competing theories of how the idea of reincarnation developed is outside the scope of this article. It tells the reader nothing about the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a great extent. The entire section is written in a destructive polemical style. Since I did not wish to remove Mitsube's edit I think the citation about the development of reincarnation within vedic shools and their contribution of it to all other South Asian eschatologies had become necessary to restore the balance and neutrality of the article ( Ref: "Fundamental contribution of Upanishads to Hindu - indeed, South Asian- eschatology"). I am ready to work with you re-edit this entire section. For starters remove the text that insinuates that vedic scriptures co-opted reincarntation from external or imaginary aboriginal sources. If you would retain that then it becomes necessary that Oxford reference which contradicts this view is also given same space and weight.

Also, I must caution other editors not to use this article for sectarian propaganda or to advance positions which are controversial as 'consensus'. I have a slew of reputable citations from reliable sources to counter each one with the actual facts and will be left with no option but to go through this entire article with a fine toothcomb and remove/edit/augment those edits which are patently biased , or insiniations, or half-truths or comprising undue weight, or other clear violation of wikipedia rules . Regards,--Satyashodak (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are writing "an obvious corollary to this is" and that is your own original research. The Rig Veda says that there it no reincarnation. That is undeniable. Scholars say that reincarnation, samsara etc. came from non-Vedic proto-shramanas and then the ideas were adopted by Brahmins. Mitsube (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have included the sentence that you are relying on. Let us accept things as they are as a compromise acceptable to no one, and so probably a good one. Mitsube (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

References

1. A History of Yoga , By Vivian Worthington, pp 47, Published by Routledge, 1982 , ISBN 071009258X, 9780710092588
2. However, it is just conceivable that the teachings of Gita were actually given in the brief in the morrow of the first battle and then were elaborated on subsequently...The original "Song", of course, was probably imparted by Krishna on the battlefield of kuru-ksethra two millennia before Buddha. The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice, By Georg Feuerstein, Ken Wilber,pp 251-252, Published by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2002, ISBN 8120819233, 9788120819238
3. "The Bhagavadgita is the result of development of the religious and philosophic speculation that prevailed before the rise of Buddhism." Bhandarkar, Collected Works, Vol. IV, p. 39; cf. Telang, op. cit., p. 27
4. "the elements of the Gita are not borrowed from the Buddhist religion." Tilak, op. cit., p. 585
5. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 527
6. "At the same time , it is apparent in the early Samhitas that a personal replacement body is not without meaning. Whether asu, manas, prana, jiva or atman survives the body that is buried, cremated, exposed on a height, or "scattered" (in case of someone lost and never found), there is expectation of finding in heaven a new body (tanu), variously described as radiant, splendid , perfect. Rig Vedic funeral hymns 10.14.8 and 10.16.5 mention unison of the deceased body with new body...Indeed ritual system central to Vedic life and thought depends on the notion of constant sacrifice, the reintegration of multiple elements into a moment of unity before a new dispersal into being." The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, Jerry L. Walls, Chapter 9- Hindu Eschatology,The Early Vedas - Surviving the Death of the Body, David M. Knipe, pp 173-175, Oxford University Press US, 2007
7. "By the eighth-seventh century BCE, the Aryanakas and Upanishads, further explorations by Vedic schools in a quest for immutability and the defeat of death produced a coherent eschatology that became the classical statement statement of Hinduism. Fundamental contribution of Upanishads to Hindu - indeed, South Asian- eschatology may be summed up in three interdependent developments. First, a doctrine of transmigration (samsara) clarified the destinies of the deceased. Second and concomitant to the notion of serial rebirths, a revalorization of the notion of Karma from ritual work taking effect in human and cosmic life to include all action effective in determining either rebirth in samsara or release (moksha, nirvana) from samsara. And third was refinement of what the Rig and Atharva Vedas, described as paths taken by the dead to the other world, with clarification of the three discrete human destinies according to laws of Karma." The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, Jerry L. Walls, Chapter 9- Hindu Eschatology, The Later Vedas- Aryanakas, Upnishads and Esoteric Insights - Surviving the Death of the Body, David M. Knipe, pp 177, Oxford University Press US, 2007

Meditation

"The sages of the Upanishads did not derive their insights from meditation." then where would have they received them from? i just hope the referred author knows what he is talking about. Twipley (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be slightly reworded. He is deducing this partially from the fact that the old Upanishads do not discuss meditation. Mitsube (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

From WP:RV: "Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." (emphasis mine) This article has long been the scene of something approaching WP:BATTLEGROUND. The mis-use of reversion has been a major portion of this problem. Please avoid removing sourced material through reversion, or reverting a lot of work to the article because you disagree with a particular change. This article would benefit greatly from the addition of neutral sources comparing the two traditions and stating their positions clearly, and by the removal of unsourced material. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We have time and again requested neutral moderation for this article. Unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears with the result that his article has been abused for hostile propaganda by Buddhist chauvinists against Hindu/Vedantic sources. A large amount of the edits you were referring to did not show any respect for NPOV. I have restored a lot of edits by humming bird which were well-intentioned and properly sourced. Others will be restored progressively.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute : Do not remove POV tag untill dispute is resolved

A dispute tag has been placed. Please do not remove the tag. Kindly do not try to hide the dispute. This article needs neutral editors. Unfortunately neither Clay Colier nor Mitsube have shown that they are neutral. Clay Colier is only a subtler and sophisticated version of Mitsube who has been criticized and challenged by a number of other editors for hostile propandisitc edits against Hindu/Vedantic sources. The rules are being subjectively and arbitrarily being used by them to push a highly opinionated agenda using strawmen and selective application of editing rules.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have confused me. Mitsube (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the dispute tag there. I do, however, think that you should identify the specific material that you object to rather than making a large revert that removes sourced material. It's very difficult to address your concerns without you identifying what, exactly, the problem is with which content. I'm worried that in the meantime, good addition to the article will be removed because it is difficult to tell where they were added from. I have no confidence that the three of us will be able to resolve this, and declining confidence that the article can make progress overall. I've opened a request on the ANI board for some admin involvement in the particular issue concerning the reverts tonight and hopefully some insight on next steps in terms of helping the page improve. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed tag. Until you describe in detail what language you are currently disputing, it isn't necessary. Disputes from months ago aren't relevant and a dispute over whether there should be a tag doesn't count either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles