User talk:Spasemunki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

[edit] Thanks for the feedback

Just wanted to thank u for the feedback! -)

[edit] Request

Hi, I m interested in Theravada and began the article Twelve Nidanas based on the Visuddhimagga. Would you take a look at it ? Thks. pyl 22:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I'm actually just starting to read the VM once again. Hopefully I'll get a chance to take a look this week. --Clay Collier 05:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your help: This editing trick is marvellous : ) After a long break i have some time. More time and more work to do on Twelve Nidanas as i did not exactly realized what is implyed : the Buddhaghosa's catagories... pyl 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

[edit] Oi

I left some comments on Talk:Abhidhamma. By the way, if you get a chance, could you take a very quick look at the new Phra Bhudhacharn(Toh)Promrangsi page that some guy made? Obviously, the page needs a lot of cleanup to convert it into English, and I can handle that, but the thing is that I can't find anything about this guy on-line. I thought that, with your knowledge of Thai Buddhism, you might be able to advise on a) whether this monk is actually a real historical person deserving of an encyclopedia article; and b) what title the article should be moved to, since it clearly can't stay where it is with the parenthetical "Toh". Thanks, - Nat Kraus e 10:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter

« Jupiter in fiction and film - 'home' of the Flying polyps? ». Yes, indeed. Thanks for catching my slip. Urhixidur 20:32, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Changes

Hello Clay! I can only thank you. I really didn´t know what to do with that article, I just thought that something that people keep talking about should be explained in an encyclopedia - as a social phenomenon, at least. Thanks for your effort. Best, Subramanian ^talk 23:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand stub edit

That was the existing text and I didn't bother checking its validity when I revised the category so that it would be a child of the newly created Cat:Asia stubs. It didn't help that Cat:Thailand geography stubs was not in Cat:Thailand-related stubs as it should have already been. I've amended the text and made certain that Cat:Thailand geography stubs is in Cat:Thailand-related stubs. Caerwine 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism Fix

You're welcome Scifiintel 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very much for your support. I appreciate it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism - Vegetarian Fix

Thanks for the work on the cleanup. It looks a lot better! Csbodine 01:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

Hi, you seem to know a lot about Buddhism, I am wondering if Theragatha and Theragatha are two different texts in the Khuddaka Nikaya or whether they can be merged? The write-ups seem to be remarkably alike. Regards, ImpuMozhi 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have removed the merger-proposal notices. All the best for your future contributions to WP! ImpuMozhi 21:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drepung monks

Wow, I had no idea that Tibetan monks moved around while debating. I figured it was a dance since (for one thing, that picture had been captioned with "dancing" by someone else sometime in the past) I have once seen a photograph of something called "lama dance", so I figured this was that. If you think it's a debate, that's probably right. To hedge our bets, we might just say, "These are monks" rather than "These are monks debating/dancing." To be honest, I never really liked that photograph very much: it seems to raise the question, "What the heck are those guys doing?", and, if one doesn't already know what a lama dance or Tibetan debate or whatever looks like, this photo doesn't seem to give a very clear idea. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sangha/Buddhist monasticism

Clay, I wonder if you could offer your opinion on Talk:Sangha about what the relationship between that page and Buddhist monasticism (as well as other pages like bhikkhu and samanera) should be. I'm not sure what to do with them. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 09:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request

Hello. I`ve got one request for you. I collect words in other languages and now I`m looking for word "sugar" in various languages. I have this word in 330 languages but I can`t find a Pali dictionary. So can you write me what`s "sugar" in Pali language? That`s very important for me! Thank you very much. Szoltys TALK

Thank you very much for your translation. But can you write me what`s "sugar" in Pali language, but in original script. Regards. Szoltys TALK

Sorry for intruding, Spasemunki!

Szoltys, there is no "original" script for Pali, the closest would be Sinhala script, because if I am not mistaken the largest part of Pali literature was written (in Sri Lanka) in that script.

I can offer you a word for "(granulated) sugar" in Pali, sakkhāra (that's the common indological transcription/romanization) or in Sinhala script සක්ඛාර. Cheers, Krankman 12:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help (Tamil)

Hey Spasemunki,

I'd like to ask you to take a look at something. I'm pretty desperate right now. I think it's not your subject, but the it might be in your direction; if you look at the discussion here (it's mainly about the difference between "inherited" and "borrowed" lexicon, applicable to any language), you might be able to form an opinion.

If you know some other qualified wikipedians, I'd be glad if you could point this page out to them. Thanks, Krankman 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Buddha and His Dhamma Dr. Ambedkar

Agree with the change. But would like to mention that the Author has set out clearly in the introduction that "The Buddha and His Dhamma" is a compilation and assembly plant. He claims no originality of the text. I request you to follow the link to the book and read beyond the 'Introduction'. I am sure you will read it to the end. Regarding Babasaheb Ambedkar; There can hardly be a greater authority on Buddhism. Every verse of "The Buddha and His Dhamma" has been properly referenced to the Pali Canon in another book by Mr. Vasant Moon who was responsible for typecasting and publishing Dr Ambedkars works after his death. Its not available online but an extract and pictures of few pages can be viewed on Columbia.edu

[edit] Hi!

Hi Clay!

I've just added my name to the list at the Buddhism Portal. I'd like to get involved, creating, editing, whatever needs doing! If there's anything you think I could help with, please let me know, either on my talk page or by email (user dot rentwa at googlemail dot com). Rentwa 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maitreya buddha

i'm sorry if i sound hostile, but the removal of 'some' is essential to the belief. there are no qualifiers - all three branches of buddhism agree with this. pls let me know exactly which buddhists deny the doctrine of maitreya, otherwise i will revert in a day. Mandel

you are stating some so-called 'buddhists' follow a creed of buddhist thoughts, but you contradict yourself ('Buddhism has typically been more about what you do than what you believe' - in buddhism, thought is almost inseparable from action, or we might as well be rocks or non-sentient beings.). if you want to define that loosely, everybody could and might be a buddhist, a christian or a moslem. is this helpful in an encyclopedia. pls note that Stephen Batchelor does not, and no longer, refers to himself as a buddhist, since he is rejecting some of the clear doctrines of gautama. a lot of christians respect buddha's ethical system, but unless you profess a faith without contradicting the belief of what the buddha preached, it is difficult to call yourself an adherent. belief in samsara is central to why he preached - you dont cut, delete and rewrite tracts of dh lawrence and then still call it his novel. Mandel 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samadhi

Hi Spasemunki- Noticed you removed the link to my account of a Nirvikalpa Samadhi and would appreciate your letting me know why you decided it was not a contribution for perspective on the subject. Compared to Yogananda's account in the wiki article it had considerably more archetypal features described in the literature of the dharma traditions. Does the fact that it was not triggered by virture of a religious practice devalue it as an example of the Advaitic experience in your opinion? Mayagaia 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Theravada with Buddhism

I was wondering why you confuse theravada (or even mahayana~ regardless) with Buddhism? Theravada especially so, is materialism, it admits to only 6 things, the 5 khandhas and avijja.

[The Advaita tradition in Indian Philosophy , Chandradhar Sharma Motilal publishers ISBN 812081312X 1996] “The Theravada schools missed the Buddha’s advaitavada and elaborated a metaphysics of radical pluralism. The inner contradictions in their metaphysics led to the rise of Mahayana” page: 3

“The Theravada interpretation of Buddha’s silence on the avyaakrta (inexpressible questions; i.e. is, is not, both, neither) questions is in accordance with its view of radical pluralism. According to the Theravada the Buddha advocated the theory of elements and denied the ultimate reality of souls and God (Brahman/Absolute)”page: 21

“The Abhidhamma treatises of the Pali canon, though called ‘the word of the Buddha’ (buddhavacana) are really the Theravada interpretation that misses the deeper truth in the Buddha’s teachings” page:16

“Theravada reduces the self to a series of fleeting mental states which are taken as real…Theravada rejects the eternal (empirical) ego but (ignorantly) glorifies the uchchheda-drsti (nihilistic view) by accepting the reality of mental states.” page: 26-27

“Even Theravada which ignored the absolutism of the Buddha and elaborated a system of radical pluralism and which was emphatic in denying the Self , admitted Nirvana as an eternal positive reality, calm and blissful. But Hinayana degraded Nirvana to the level of an eternal substance (asamskrta dharma) set over and above the worldly objects (samskrta dharmas) in which there was cessation of misery. This (view) was corrected by Mahayana which revived the absolutism of the Buddha and treated Nirvana as the transcendental Absolute at once immanent in the phenomena, the ‘dharmata’ of all dharmas” page: 29

“Even if, as some scholars do, the word atta (atman) in attadipa (light of Soul) is interpreted as meaning just ‘oneself’ without any reference to an ontological reality called “Self” and the phrase ‘attadipa’ is taken to mean ‘you yourself are your light’, it has to be admitted that the Buddha is asking his disciples to seek light within and not outside. Now, if there is no true “Self/Atman”, then who is to seek the light and where? And if all objects, as the Buddha says, are perishable (anicca) and miserable (dukkha) and the light is to be sought only in the subject, then the reality of the transcendent subject is clearly implied in the passage” page: 30

“It is incorrect to hold that the Buddha starts with a spirit of opposition to the Upanishads and initiates a new tradition of anatmavada (no-Soul-ism) against the Upanishads tradition of atmavada. Anatmavada is nirahankara-nirmamavada, the removal of the false notion of the (ego) ‘I’ and the ‘mine’, which the Upanishadic seers themselves unmistakably voice and which all systems of Indian philosophy accept.” page: 31

“Theravada (Sarvastivada), due to an imperfect understanding of the teachings, forgot the Absolutism of the Buddha and created a metaphysics of radical pluralism in the form of the theory of momentary elements in their Abhidhamma treatises and commentaries” page: 35 Attasarana

--Attasarana

[edit] More Regarding Samadhi Link

Hi Spasemunki- Thanks for your thoughtful, detailed response to my inquiry about your removing my link to> http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html.

What follows is my final appeal to you to reconsider including my link in the Samadhi article either as 'external' or as a citation in the sentence in the Analogous concept section: "Such episodes occur spontaneously and appear to be triggered by physically or emotionally charged peak experiences such as in runner's high or orgasmic ecstasy, however even mundane activities such as reveling in a sunset, dancing or a hard day's work have, in rare instances, induced the entire range of Samadhi- from Laja to Nirvikalpa." The reference for citation would read: Fisher, Ed. "First-person account of non-dual samadhi", Maya-Gaia, 1998. Retrieved on February 24, 2007.

Alternatively the title of the citation could read: "First-person account of non-dual transcendence."

The following is my argument that the link would point to information symmetrical to the article's subject.

http://www.dabase.net/cambell.htm Even all the [Universal] Great Statements and Myths Proclaim (whether implicitly or explicitly) that faith must become ecstatic (or self-transcending) practice, and practice (or ecstasy) must Realize Samadhi, for, apart from Samadhi (or direct Realization of God, or the Absolute), body, mind, and world are the incarnations of "difference", illusion, and bondage. Therefore, faith is not an end in itself, or an excuse for the egoic life. Faith is, properly, only the beginning of the Way of faith, ecstasy, and (Ultimately, Perfect) Samadhi.

http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model3.cfm/ wilber_psychological integral model part 3 of 10

Ken Wilber: On the Awakening [samadhi] Experience- It would be based on what seem to be universal human capacities to interface with the Divine. Most of the great wisdom traditions agree that:

1. Spirit, by whatever name, exists.

2. Spirit, although existing "out there," is found "in here," or revealed within to the open heart and mind.

The Sanskrit term samadhi has become so familiar that all languages use it generically to describe an open, transcendent state of consciousness in which spirit is revealed. It is used both in Vedic and all the other dharmic religions and mystical traditions like Sufism and in the modern vocabulary of transpersonal psychology, consciousness science and integral spirituality in reference to all stages of mystical transcendence and is commonly used synonymously for satori, kensho, nirvana, moshka, gnosis, entasis, stasis, enstasy, transcendence, awakening, realization, enlightenment and more- all in reference to various stages of mystical transcendence. The consensus in the Vedic traditions for defining the ultimate state of awareness of spirit is Nirvikalpa Samadhi which is the model for a generic concept of ultimate non-dual experience with spirit. Although the dharmic traditions offer the most comprehensive descriptions of what is perceived as a hierarchy of samadhic states, there is such historic conflict over their distinction, causation, anatomy and significance that it would be justified to characterize samadhi as a divine enigma.

Since all the dharmic traditions proclaim that realization is available to all (and some say to all sentient beings down through to single celled organisms) this means not only Vedantans and Buddhist- not only those of other faiths- but All! So to claim that an account of transcendent awareness of spirit that has virtually all the qualities of Nirvikalpa Samadhi has no epistemological (or encyclopedic) validity because it did not arise from a particular belief or practice seems patently unjustified.

In perspective, the "cause" of my experience is thoroughly consistent with Vedic and Buddhist tradition in that I had attained a state of absolute desirelessness- albeit not through meditative practice or bhakti but via ecstatic orgasm- which is consistent with an integral view of some Tantra traditions.

It wasn't clear that you had actually read the account that I had linked to the article. If so, I wondered if you are able to provide a citation for a description of any non-dual transcendent experience that contains more of the character, content and context of Nirvikalpa Samadhi than my account? (I've already expressed my skepticism regarding the Samadhi article using Yogananda's account as an example of the Advaitic experience since- although eloquent and poetic- it is essentially a stream of ambiguous metaphors attempting to convey a perception of forms and qualities of light, contributing little to further an understanding of the experience.)

I'll appreciate learning whatever further thoughts you have on this issue. Mayagaia 19:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Udana

Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot to include the notes section, so the note was visible only on the edit page, not the main page. Peter jackson 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevatta Sutta

		The Original Barnstar
		For your speedy edits to Kevatta Sutta saving it from speedy deletion by actually adding content, I award you, Spasemunki, this Original Barnstar. Hats off to you for, in the midst of vandal fighting, remembering why we are all here in the first place. Selket ^Talk 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/User_talk%7ESpasemunki_9ece.html"