User talk:TonyMPNS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Question re Mahaparinirvana sutra
Ahoy. I have a question for someone who specifically knows the Mahayana Nirvana sutra. Does the sutra say—as apparently testified by Nichiren (1222-1282)—words to the effect that "those who accept only the Hinayana sutras...will have their tongues fester in their mouths"? To make it excruciatingly clear, my question for the moment has nothing to do with Nichiren but rather how the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra uses the term Hinayana.
I've taken it on myself to try to remove the particular POV that the current Hinayana article projects. While it may not be possible to remove all bias, it is possible to present all sides (as I think the Shroud of Turin article does for its highly controversial subject; and I plan to use that as something of a model for what Hinayana will become after I rewrite it). I can well imagine that you might not like to be drawn into such a controversy. Still, I would ask you to please give an honest answer and to trust that I bring a high standard of documentation to my contributions here, as perhaps evidenced by the first 1/2 of koan, which I authored and footnoted. My (very preliminary) notes for a revision, which is probably still months away, can be found at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. The current Hinayana article does not reflect any of my contributions at all. --Munge 04:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
An Award | |
| I award the Barnstar of High Culture to TonyMPNS for his devoted contributions to Buddhism-related articles. Well done! Brisvegas 13:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
[edit] Your edit to Buddhism
Your recent edit to Buddhism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] to develop a summarized Conception
Hi. I've added, into Conceptions_of_God#Conception_of_God_in_Buddhism, your recent addition to "Names of God" section in article God. However, you're welcome to work on a more devoloped one, if possible, to a maximum of two paragraphs (like a summary). The ideia is to have all views fairly represented at the article. Thank you! --Rosaecruz 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gratefull for your friendly and kind words; likewise! :) Best regards! --Rosaecruz 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I have noted a few moments ago, already afterhours, that you're an indepth author related to Buddhism and a Mahayana Buddhist (the Buddhist path with which I would say, at a first glance, that I would have more affinity with). As such, please allow me to humbly request your attention to a small and almost unknown book written in the first half of the twentieth century: [1] [2] an edition. It was written by a laddy, disciple of a Mystic called Max Heindel; I have read this book many years ago; who knows what a knowledgeable mind in Eastern Religion(s) may find there? :) With gratitude. --Rosaecruz 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
[edit] no problem
- ) Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] thankyou dr tony
Thankyou for your kind words.
Yours in truth
Glenn Langdell
[edit] "Atman" and "Tathagatagarbha" equivalent?
Dear TonyMPNS:
Please do not be offended by my revision, on 2/7/07, of your section of the Mahayana article in which I said I took out all inappropriate references to "Essential Self" (Atman) in reference to "Tathagatagarbha." I feel that your interpretation is somewhat unorthodox -- which is not a bad thing, just that it may not accurately represent the majority interpretation. Perhaps this is not what Wikipedia is meant to do, or perhaps it is. In any case, that to which we are both referring, Buddha-nature, is of course the same regardless of the language used to describe it, but I simply felt that the language and translation in the "Immanent Transcendence" (or is it "Transcendent Immanence"?) section of the article was moving too far away from an upayic interpretation of the text, in which the Mahaparinirvana sutra would be seen to be pointing towards something other than a strictly literal interpretation of the scripture.
These are not philosophical arguments in the Western sense, in which there would be an assertion of a particular idea (in this case, Tathagatagarbha) as an objective truth. In all authentic schools of Buddhism there is no idea that can be held up as the absolute "Truth" -- be it Atman or anatman. These and any other ideas can only be considered "truths" in a relative sense (upaya), in which they can be used by a teacher as skillful means in order to steer those with one-sided views toward the indefinable (prajna), that can only be grasped intuitively. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anatman is not a dogma, but an upaya which was meant to bring those, brought up within the spiritual world of Hinduism, away from a one-sided view of "Atman" or "Essential Self" as a permanent and unchanging entity, and toward the prajnic Middle Way.
Similarly, toward the end of his life, the Buddha may have seen his followers moving too far in the other direction toward an almost nihilistic interpretation of his own doctrine of anatman, and so he may have sought to compensate for this through the wonderful teachings found in the Mahaparinirvana sutra. Again, these are meant to be read in an upayic context, not as the final, ultimate teachings of the Buddha in which his "real" understanding of the Truth is finally revealed. All of the Buddhas' words are equally "true," and then only in an upayic sense. There may be certain schools of Buddhism that would refute this, but their interpretations, just as those of the more "orthodox" or mainstream schools, may tend to veer off too far to one side or another of the Middle Way when held onto as objective "Truth." Nagarjuna is the perfect explicator of this, and I would of course defer to his much more eloquent summary of this subject.
One might safely say, at the risk of sounding absurd, that the essence of Buddhism is to be found through non-essentialism -- which, of course, applies as much to itself as to essentialism. This "prajna-sword," cutting away all one-sided views, can be seen not only in Manjushri's hand and Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyakakarika, but also in the Prajnaparamita sutras, Chao-chou's "Wu," and in the Mahaparinirvana sutra itself, which states, "And, also, the wise person clearly thinks: 'For what reason do beings speak about the Self? Why is it that beings speak about the Self? If this Self exists, it must be [either] one or many. If it is one, how can there be such as Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Sudras, humans and gods, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, or big and small, or old age or the prime of life? For this reason, I know that the Self is not one. If the Self is many, how can we say that the Self of the being is one and all-pervading, knowing no bounds? Be it one or many, in either case, there is no Self.'"
Your part of the Mahayana article, as well as many others, is quite insightful and helpful, so please do not think I am attempting to refute your views as "un-factual." I merely sought to bring some balance to the article, which is, after all, an article in reference to the Mahayana in general, and not any one interpretation.
Thank you for your knowledgeable contributions, Tomabird 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
