User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2018

Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list

Indo-Aryans and Bhimbetka Caves

JJ and @Kautilya3: I was just reading some sources on Bhimbetka rock shelters. There are paintings in these caves that has been interpreted by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and Kim Heuston to represent the conflict between Indo-Aryans and native central Indian population. It is on page 76 of the source. Have you seen any alternative interpretations?, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Bhimbetka rock shelters, sorry. But they give a clear summary of the development fro Harappan to vedic, i njst a few lines. Anyway, it's clear that those caves are an important topic for some people. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Rudaki

Hello, Joshua Jonathan, and Happy New Year! – If you have time, would you take a look at the latest edits to Rudaki? (Also note user name.) You know better than I do how to determine if any or all of the items were sourced material, and how the name is spelled in those sources. I had always seen the name spelled "Rudaki". I believe what is in the sources should determine the spelling, not a particular editor's preference, but I'll leave this up to you or others. Thanks in advance.  – Corinne (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The book-title is clear; I've reverted the edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Zoroaster

Hello, JJ – Can you help out at Zoroaster. See this edit. It is verging on edit-warring, and the editor does not seem to understand WP:BRD.  – Corinne (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Corinne: best thing to do seems to be to open a thread at the talkpage, and dig into the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ. I think I'll just leave it up to them.  – Corinne (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Morals and anatta in Buddism

Anatta is what separates Buddhism from all other religions. It is the key cause of dukkha as an attachment to the self allows for suffering, and thus it is the reason that one ought to escape samsara. There are no morals in Buddhism as there is no moral authority. The Buddha never said there are thing that you should do no matter would, he just taught how to escape samsara and why that is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond Leonard: thank you for your message; we can discuss this at Talk:Buddhism#Morals and key tenets. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

About my not Civil Comments

Hi, You posted about my comments not being Civil. Thanks for feedback.

Please note that my comments are exact copy of comments by [Ms Sarah Welch] at my page and at other pages.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dixitsandeep&action=edit&section=2

I am sure you have provide same feedback to him/her.

Dixitsandeep (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I told you that the remark "Apart from providing reference please edit what you understand. Do not go for subjects beyond your expertized." is not part of the standard template. If that's a copy of a remark by Ms sarah Welch, I'll be interested to see where she made that remark. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you suggest what I should have said? Ms Sarah Welch does not seem to understand calendar's very well, still she chose to control those parts. Also quality of references is very low in article Makar Sankranti (newspapers and blogs). Dixitsandeep (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

What do you make of Sarah Welch's socket puppet block? Is it legit?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess so, for the moment. But as far as I can see, she hasn't been using sock-puppets to influence discussions, so I'd expect sh'll be unblocked, with a warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks a bit odd to me. The reviewer has changed his mind, without explaining why.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on the socking, MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See HERE. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. Noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes, which are always botched in some way.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed she did some cherry-picking, but these socket-puppet charges seem out of place. It looks like politics to me.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. We are talking about different matters.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's ironic that in the ANI-discussion which resulted in AVC topic-ban on caste-articles, their editing is compared to that of Hkelkar, an editor who has also been mentioned as a possible previous avatar of Baldesmulti... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

MSW aftermath

Hi JJ, can you keep an eye on people wanting to mass revert MSW's edits? Some of it seems to have happened already at the Kalki article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

As a reminder: AVC is not indeffed. As far as I can recall, socks are reverted when they are socks of indeffed editors, that is, editors who are not welcome anymore. That's not the case here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock edits are often made by and on behalf of blocked or banned editors. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." ([1]) AVC was not blocked before 10 February 2018 [2], and the edits by accounts claimed to be associated with AVC were made after AVCs 6 month topic ban expired. JimRenge (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the sockmaster was indeffed or not. It matters only to G5 (deletion of articles) and it wouldn't have applied even if AVC was indeffed or banned after SPI. Edits of socks are removed per WP:SOCKHELP(If an account has been blocked specifically for sock puppetry, then removing some of their edits is acceptable. This is NOT done to spite or punish them. It is done to alleviate the disruption/deception caused by abusing multiple accounts.) because edits were made when they were evading scrutiny. By reverting them, you are telling them to use their main account for editing. Flawless edits should not be removed, but whatever has been removed, it should not be restored without taking responsibility and carefully checking the edits, talk page and any related discussion. I just saw some edits from VictoriaGrayson on my watchlist[3][4], they are cleanup of MSW's edits and but they are correct too. AVC is welcome to reinstate these edits if he finds it necessary, but after looking at the nature of these edits, I would recommend not. Capitals00 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is probably independent: Neo-Vedanta#Colonialism and modernism section also seems to be accumulating a lot of shrubbery, starting from around here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC.

Academic sources not written by indologists

MSW used many academic sources not written by indologists. For example the tertiary source "Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities". As far as I know, none of the entries were composed by indologists. So what do you think about this?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a lot better than the sources which are sometimes being used by pov-editors who search for confirmation of a specific pov. The relevant question would simply be: is the source reliable, for the specific topic? That does not only depent on the author being an indologist, does it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Indianization

Hey there. I'm not sure why my article Indianization got reverted? Do you mind explaining it to me?Nicoleedalat (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Nicoleedalat

It's a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page, which gives links to several articles which cover this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple desccrepancies in Sarasvati River Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are multiple sentences and paragraphs in the Sarasvati River article which do not reflect an open and broad minded view, but rather show an assertive and one-sided view relating to The river Sarasvati. Listed below are some of the sentences:

The last line of the first paragraph of Sarasvati River "The name Sarasvati was also given to a formation in the Milky Way" is a speculative view or theory of a single scholar and it is not agreed upon by multiple others. Hence it should not be stated as a fact but more like "Witzel suggests the Sarasvati could be the Milky Way".

In the second paragraph the line "However the geophysical characteristics of the Rigvedic Saraswati river do not correspond to the Ghaggar-Hakra river" is again said as a statement of fact, but it has strong arguments against it: The Sarasvati river flows from the mountains to the Ocean but not the Helmand river. The same could be said about the Helmand River section, Many scholars argued that Kochhar's theory has serious flaws.

The Mythical River section contains statements related to politics of India. Political views and statements should have no place in an article related to a River.

I would like to know from you the specific reasons to remove my edits and revert to the earlier. User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Discussions of this kind are best done at the article talk pages. To put it briefly, Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources for technical content (history, archaeology, linguistics etc.) Michael Danino is not a reliable source. So his opinions don't count. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Yep.While Witzel, on the other hand, is a highly respected authority. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well User talk:Kautilya3, Michel Danino has published multiple papers on Indian history and his book on the Sarasvati river has reference to multiple papers and article by dozens of scholars from 19th century to present. There are hundreds of Historians, Linguists and Archeologists both Indian and international, who do not agree with the so called Aryan migration theory as there is no strong evidence in the ancient literary sources or archeological sources or genetic sources. -- User talk:Truthteller301

References

Witzel himself changed his position on the Aryans and the Vedas multiple times. He earlier strongly asserted the Aryan invasion theory and then later changed his position to Aryan migration and today he says it was not a migration but just a trickling in of Aryans, but a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent. Saying Witzel is a highly respected scholar is an individualistic opinion and many more would disagree. Ancient History can only be interpreted, theorized and speculated. Unlike classical Science which has experimental and mathematical proofs, Historical events can be interpreted in many ways as there is mo way to go back in time -- User talk:Truthteller301

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academia.edu

Dude!

Dude, click on this link.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae

I would say Bullshit is a bit derogatory, even if something is clearly bullshit people will get in a huff because you used a rude word. I personally went for "speculative pseudo-history" but I think "cruft" is quite common. :) Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves: "speculative pseudo-history" is a fine nuance. You've got a point, of course; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian philosophy

What's the issue? Parasparograhi1 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Indian philosophy#"oldest written form of Indian philosophy". To be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bhimbetka horses

Yet another Aryan controversy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed it from my watchlist again. Waste of time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Mahavira

Hey, I was working on Jainism related pages for some time but faced opposition on pov grounds and independent sources. That has resulted in delaying multiple GA nominations too. While scrolling through contributions of those who opposed, I observed that using sources from Buddhism domain in Jainism article make it more authoritative and neutral and vice versa. You seem to have good knowledge over Buddhism and Mahavira has got descent attention in Buddhist history. Would you like to help? Thanks Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: pffooo... I know very little about Jainism. Have you got specific examples of this "opposition"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You can have a look at Talk:Jainism/GA7 Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Few references to Buddhist sources have already been included in Mahavira by Ms Sarah Welch, and there is a page Buddhism and Jainism as well indicating the interdependence of both on each other. I wanted to elevate Mahavira to FA but couldn't get it through. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European homeland

You are clearly not Here to build an encyclopedia to build a consensus. You are engaging in conflict with other editors and retracting their content even after multiple citations and references provided by them. You as an editor cannot judge and interpret which sources are "fringe" and which are "mainstream", but you can build a consensus with others based on authenticity of references. I suggest you go through consensus and dispute resolution.

If you continue to retract content of other users by passing your judgement of right and wrong you will be reported for Vandalism.----User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: time for some tougher measures? For the talkpage-stalkers: diff and diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Guess who-o. guess they forgot

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I already noticed, and responded. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As a reminder: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthprevailsalways/Archive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For diligent work done on the confusing and politically hot topic of Veerashaivism/Lingayatism. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It all looks much clearer now. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: thank you! Sincerely appreciated. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Entertainment

Please see [5]. JimRenge (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

removing the editor's archiving

This seems presumptive. Other messages will be posted on that talk page years in the future. Who are you to re-arrange a deceased editor's talk page as if it were your display case? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: if there are messages added to the page in the future, MiszaBot will archive the condoleances-messages first, so they will disappear. That's why I removed the bot; other futire messages can be archived manually, if necessary. And regarding your question "who are you to": I've helped Corinne repeatedly with organising her talkpage, including adding MiszaBot. See also her response; and User talk:Corinne/Archive 13#Archiving for a delightfull correction on "archiving." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I understand your point; that's not what I'd prefer. I hope this sort of thing does not become a trend. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope so too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yaditiva

I don't know. The changes here match the main articles. This is indeed a mess, but it's annoying that the Mitchiner date in the article is 250CE but I can't find the date in the source.[6] I'd prefer ANI myself, and don't have time until Sunday to look more carefully as it would require a lot of checks. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. But at least, see Bhāsa. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI,

• I tried to clean up the Yuga Purana page a little.
• The date range on the Pāṇini page has been in flux, because a (different) user is rejecting sources that say 4th century BCE.
• In addition to Bhāsa, Yaditiva has made several more clearly unconstructive edits that misrepresent sources: for instance, changing Pingala's date from 3rd/2nd century BCE (I've checked the cited book) to 5th century BCE; replacing the sourced estimates for the Nyaya Sutras (6th century BCE to 2nd century CE) and the Vaisheshika philosopher Kanada (6th-2nd century BCE) with only "6th century BCE"; and outright deletion of entire sourced sentences, often with misleading edit summaries ("added content", "fixed typo"). This user has persisted in this despite repeated notices (from @Arjayay and others) to stop. Also, there are certain anonymous IPs (here, here, here) which also have a similar style of unconstructive edits.

Avantiputra7 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Another example of MSW's incompetence

HERE MSW says "should not be seen as a social reformer" is a direct quote of Richard Gombrich. I checked the source and its a quote of Christopher Queen describing Richard Gombrich's position.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Arghandab River

I am trying to fill in this article. Do you want to come over to help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I took a look; it's interesting, but I know close to nothing about the subject. I'll take a closer look later this week. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Me neither. But apparently this is where the Rigveda was composed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually believe that this is the Sarasvati of the Rigveda though. It doesn't make sense. Why would the Aryans bypass the Helmand which is so close to them and go south to the next river so far to the south? I agree with R.S. Sharma and Rajesh Kocchar that the original name of Helmand must have been Haraxvaiti, and Hetumant is a later name.

But still, this page needs to be documented enough so that people can decide for themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a view of the Hindu Kush from the Indian subcontinent. It seems to be that nobody in their right mind would attempt to cross it just for the fun of it. Rather, they would wander southwest into Afghanistan, and then, if they make it that far, try to move east again into Gandhara/NWFP.

Until the European colonization, the conquests of India always followed one and the same pattern. The invaders first established themselves in Central Asia and in the eastern parts of the Iranian plateau, and then expanded their power to cover the northwest of India as well. When the invaders in India kept expanding their conquests into the interior, this group was likely to become Indianized and to lose contact with the other part west of the Hindukush. It is most likely that rhe Dãsas and the f.gvedic Aryans both in turn followed this same model in their respective Indian invasions. If this was the case, the Aryans, from whichever direction they came, would have first met the Dãsas and panis on their way in Bactria, before reaching nonhwest India. This location would be in agreement with the fact that the early Dãsa chief Sambara lived in a mountainous region. (Parpola, The Coming of the Aryans)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ghaggar-Hakra River: please mind your language

Nonsense? Is that the language you use with strangers. Please show academic peer-reviewed journal or at least an academic book citation for reverting my edit. Please mind your language.

Mkv22 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the article on Sarasvati River. The changes in the volume of the GH were caused by a change in the mossoons, not by tectonics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mkv22, again your reaction is OTT here. "Nonsense" is not an insult. It just means that the content doesn't make sense. (I know that "nonsense" has an offensive connotation in India, but that is not part of its standard meaning. Wikipedia's editors come from many different countries, and you can't assume that everybody speaks the Indian English.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

Additionally, your signature appears to go against WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text.

Please change

[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] : Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

to

[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] : Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Pub Med

Hi JJ, perhaps you know how to access the full text of Pub Med articles such as this [7]? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: nope. Isn't there a project-page for medicine where there are people who may know? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Joshua, I saw your question and thought that this comment might be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Gandhara opening paragrah

Hello Joshua Jonathan. The reason why I reverted the edits is because that article is referring to Gandhara as an historical region, not the Gandhara Kingdom, which was part of the Mahajanapada. Please revert the edits to the last accepted edits dated 7 April 2018. Thank you. --99.252.20.102 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Gandhara#Edits by IP 99.252.20.102. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bronkhorst

This Greater Magadha is fascinating. Does Bronkhurst talk about slavery? I think it was rampant there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't know. There is a pdf on the internet, but it was copied in a clumsy way, missing the right-side for half an inch or so. It struck me because of this notion that there were several Indo-European cultures at some time in northern India, not just the Aryan/Vedic culture. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed remarkable. Remember that the Vedic culture came via the Helmand/Arghandab valley, fighting with the Dasas/Dahae along the way. They circled round the Hindukush Mountains in the west. The Magadhan group must have come through the mighty Himalayas, via Nepal, Sikkim, Chumbi valley etc. This is a completely different route, and probably a very different culture, without any BMAC influence. This is definitely earth-shaking! It upsets practically everything written about the "Aryans" till now. And perhaps these people didn't even call themselves "Aryans". They were beyond the Aryavarta.

That is why I started thinking of slavery. The Vedic culture took hardly any slaves. They evolved a varna system instead. The Magadhan group, on the other hand, seem to have been much more like the ancient Greeks. They had massive slavery, including Buddha's own Shakya clan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: a Himalayan route seems highly unlikely to me. But your comment about Greeks makes sense, that is, the connection with non-Aryan cultures. Geoffrey sameul (2008), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, also worls with a "two cultural regions model," and states that the early Northern Black Polished Ware of the Gangetic Plain stood in contact with the Achaemenid Empire. Definitely worth reading, this book by Samuel! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is also relevant: Witzel, Michael (1995), "Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State." (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 1 (4): 1–26. You'll have to search for it with Google; the url doesn't work, but Wikipedia has blacklisted the correct url. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry. I have had the Witzel paper in my local files for long time. But none of these sources ever made the clear-cut point that Bronkhurst makes, viz., that the Magadhan culture could be entirely non-Vedic. It always appeared as if it was a modified Vedic culture which possibly underwent interaction with the local indigenous cultures. But the possibility that it could be non-Vedic opens entirely new doors.

The fact that Shakyas, Kosala and Videha etc. (the most famous of the early Magadhan cultures) are all at the foothills of Himalayas gives a strong indication that these people entered through the Himalayas. I am strongly committed to the view that the Vedic people came via Afghanistan, the Helmand-Arghandab valley. So, they circled around the Hindu Kush mountains rather than climb over them. From the Helmand valley they were driven out by the Dasas/Dahae. The Dasas, who took enormous care to protect their cattle in fortified enclosures (puras), obviously thought of these Vedic cattle raiders as nothing but a nuisance. So, I presume they drove them off. That is how the Vedic people ended up in Gandhara and then expanded into Punjab.

In search of greenery

The Magadhans must have followed a different course. The same aridity that killed the IVC also pushed the Indo-European tribes south, in search of greener pastures. So, sooner or later, they ended up at the foothills of the Himalayas in the north and eventually they found the passes through which they could enter the Indian subcontinent. They were familiar with Indra, but they thought of him as an idiot.

The Iranians thought of Indra as a daemon, no doubt because of the cattle raiding habits of the Vedics. It was only after the Dasarajna battle, in the protected enclosure of Punjab that the Vedic people flourished and eventually took over the entire Indian subcontinent. After they developed agriculture and recruited enough local labour to do the farming, they grew enough surplus food to support the professional Brahmins, who had nothing to do other than memorising and propagating the texts. So that is how the Vedic culture managed to dominate the others within the subcontinent. But their religion is mostly dead. Nobody worships Indra. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

One more thing. When the British were in India, they found tantalizing references to a Mughal "Royal Road", which ran between Khotan and a place called Najibabad. It was supposed to have been fully paved, and one could drive a horse carriage from one end to the other, and grass was abundantly available en route. The British looked for it quite a bit, but couldn't find it. It is rumoured that the Tibetans know where it is but they won't tell any one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of edits on Roshi

Just wanted to let you know I was the one who made those edits on the Roshi article stating that "a handful" of people in the Rinzai sect have inka shomei (I forgot to log in when I made them). The statement was in fact sourced in the body (as "perhaps 50" people), and I added an additional reference (that says "50 to 80"), and I changed the wording in the intro to say "less than 100" to capture the diversity of these two sources. It doesn't count for anything as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but this reflects my understanding of things as well. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Djlayton4: I see; thanks for clarifying. "A handful" somehow is too subjective, it seems to me, like "Wow, awesome, they're unique!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Medieval Hindu identity

I have been helping with Shivaji (1630–1680) GA nomination and looking up some sources. Here is an interesting passage from James Laine:

I find evidence in the Śivabhārata that the word dharma could mean both “order or moral law” (the classical Sanskrit definition) as well as something more like the modern English word “religion.” This suggests that although Hindus and Muslims in many ways lived in a common society, they both felt that there should be distinct boundaries between the two communities; the degree to which any individual was comfortable with participation in the cultural styles associated with another group, however, remained widely variable. One might question whether there are important chronological shifts, as well as class and caste differences, in the way these boundaries of identity between Hindu and Muslim were drawn.

This is of course not new. We know this from Lorentzen already from the 14th–15th centuries, but Laine doesn't cite him.

This blog post reproduces another interesting passage (from p.39) where James Laine contests historians on what Shivaji's motivations were. I find it amusing when Religious Studies scholars debate history just by reading texts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

But here is the part that the blogger omitted:

I do not think I am disputing the evidence Gordon adduces, but my interpretation depends on how one uses the word “Hindu.” In these matters, it seems to me there is no more clearly “Hindu” position than to exalt Akbar's policies and to patronize Muslim religious practices and persons within the context of Hindu culture. Such “tolerant” inclusivism is a fundamental structure of Hinduism, a structure that can expand to include Muslim sultans as honorary kshatriyas as long as the scope of polycentric, polytheistic Hindu culture is not infringed upon. It is for this reason that even in a text like the Śivabhārata, which ever resorts to the caricature of Muslims as demons, Shivaji's father, grandfather, and uncle can be seen as legitimately serving Muslim sultans. Shahji is even described as spreading the rule of Lord Rama in his military conquest of the Karnatak rajas while he was in military service to the Adil Shah... Similarly, the Nizam Shah can be described as dharmātma, which I translate as “man of piety.” In classical Sanskritic ideology, the king is the protector of gods, brahmins, and cows, and when he does that, even if he be Muslim, he may be seen as in service of dharma.

This is the kind of pseudo-scholarship that gives fuel to the likes of Rajiv Malhotra. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Logos.com

How were you able to use logos.com to peek into the source?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: I use Firefox; maybe you should try another browser? Anyway, logos.com gives a very limited preview, but I Googled the sentence on the "numerous cults," to check what it's about, and if I could find your "bodily resurrection" quote. Give me your source, and I'll check it. But let's continue this discussion at Talk:Origins of Christianity#Dubious. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

My talk page

You are most welcome to make suggestions but would you actually mind to allow me discuss an editor on my Talk page? I have been around here for a while and sort of know how things work. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: of course. The point is, I'd already opened a tread (thread?) at Talk:Siddha Yoga, when I noticed that the two of you were already discussing at your talkpage. The proper place for that discussion is the article-talkpage, where other editors can join the discussion. Anyway, you'replies in that discussion were good and clear. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding reverts to my contributions to Proto-Indo-European homeland

I am not promiting fringe theory. In a section about a fringe theory, I am listing the arguments that its proponents have used. Nowhere have I stated anything as fact. Kindly re-instate my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.180.203 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a separate article on this topic; no need for WP:FORK. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

edits on criticism of hinduism

Dear!please explain

• I have added a section of criticism of hinduismon in article of hinduism, is it wrong when christianity and islam also incorporate such section, is it wrong to criticise hinduism but not christianity or islam, please explain in the light of wikipedia guidelines;so that we may assume good faith and do not think it vandalism. Thanks,Smatrah (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss over there. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan! Please explain in plain terms. Your answer is not explanation of reversion of constructive edits. Thanks. If you think that was mistake. Then feel free to tell. Smatrah (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hanuman Jayanti

Greetings, JJ, it's been a while. I came across Hanuman Jayanti today. The page is in terrible shape. I'm out of my depth; can this be salvaged? Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

R1a map

• [8]

Anatole Klyosov is a pseudoscientist. Better to restore your oldest revision of map. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Pishachas and the Magadhans

First, on the Pishachas, note:

If there is any truth at the bottom of this legend [of Nilamata Purana], the Piśācas must have been hardy northerners, accustomed to cold. At the present day the country to the north of Kashmir, with Gilgit for its centre, is inhabited by Shins (Dards), and the legend points to a long contest between them and the 'men' — i.e., immigrants from India—for the possession of the Happy Valley. This entirely accords with the linguistic conditions at the present day. The language of the Shins, or Shina, is one of those which Pischel has connected with Paiśāacī. The Kashmiri language itself, though in the main Indian in character, has at its base a considerable Shina vocabulary. The commonest words, such as those for 'father,' 'mother,' 'I,' 'thou,' are of Shina, not Indian, origin.

So, if Kashmiri has this mixture of Dardic and Sanskrit, it gives some support to the contention of the Nilamata Purana that the Pishachas (Dards) used to swoop down on the valley during the winter months.

According to Daśarūpa 2, 60 the Piśāca or Māgadha language is especially spoken by the Piśācas, the people of lowly origin etc. According to Sarasvatik.... P. the language of the Pisāca; Bhojadeva... forbids the use of pure P. by high class characters: ... High characters, who do not appear in the highest roles, according to Sarasvatik. 58, 15, speak in a language that is Sanskrit and Paiśāci at the same time, by means of the popular play of words bhāṣāśleṣa, which is comparatively easier in Paiśāci than in any other Prākrit dialect inasmuch as P., of all the Pkt. dialects, is most akin to Sanskrit.

So Paishachi and Magadha were similar, and they were similar to Sanskrit, but dissimilar to others Prakrits (Indianised variants of Sanskrit, also characterised as deshyas or local languages, by Vararuchi).

Pischel also mentions Panchala and Shaurasena versions of Paishachi. These are the central Himalayan regions. So, I am getting more convinced that these "Pishachas" came through the Himalayan passes, and not through the Arghandab like the Vedic Aryans.

But the crazy thing is that these people didn't call themselves 'men' (descendants of Manu), even though they spoke practically the same language! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

On Spamming Shasta Abbey

It is not my intention to spam the Shasta Abbey Page, I just wanted to add more information and cite the information on the page. Would you prefer I only cite one time for a source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just don't give WP:UNDUE attention to one Zen-organisation. This includes changing "thumb" into "frame," which blows-up pictures to disporoportional sizes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On Reverts to Sōtō

I believe the changes I made to the Soto Zen page were constructive. Generally, I believe it is important to put information on Soto Zen in an easy to digest, accurate form that is understandable to the western mind. I chose to delete small portions that were inaccurate and add more content. In particular, the content I added to the section 'spread in the western world' I believe will be helpful to those practicing in the West. I'd be very grateful for your willingness to inform me of what you think is not constructive and hope we can come to an agreement. I am new to Wikipedia and realize I may be making mistakes in how things are done. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsitting (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You added/edited the following:

• diff added an WP:UNDUE and WP:PUFFERY amount of information on one, minor teacher;
• diff was miinor indeed;
• diff gives undue weight to Shasta Abbey terminology, and incorrectly equates zazen with shikantaza.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much information on Rev. Master Jiyu; I have shortened it appropriately.

Zazen and Shikantaza are two descriptions of the same practice, they even reference each other on their respective pages.

The term "Serene Reflection Meditation" is not "Shasta Abbey terminology", but an appropriate english translation of the practice of shikantaza or zazen, which is the central focus of the Soto Zen sect. This article may be helpful in understanding the translation of the chinese term "mo chao". Tanka Shijun is an ancestor of the Soto Zen tradition who used this term to distinguish the meditation done in Soto from that of Rinzai. It is important to note that Buddhism is quite new to the Western world. As Buddhism spread from India to China to Japan each country translated the terms into their own language so that people could understand it clearly. As of yet, many Buddhist terms remain untranslated which causes confusion to Westerners. Since the term "Serene Reflection" has been in use in the Soto tradition for over 1000 years, it is more than appropriate on the Soto page.

I hope this back-and-forth editing is not seen to be "fighting". I just wish to provide information on the topic that users will be able to easily understand. Cheers!

Justsitting (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• The shortened info on Jiyu-Kenneth still gives undue weight to some minor aspects, while missing essential info; I've explained this at Talk:Sōtō#Jiyu-Kennett.
• Shikantaza is the typical zazen practice of Soto; they're not exactly the same. From Zazen:

• The precise meaning and method of zazen varies from school to school, but in general it can be regarded as a means of insight into the nature of existence. In the Japanese Rinzai school, zazen is usually associated with the study of koans. The Sōtō School of Japan, on the other hand, only rarely incorporates koans into zazen, preferring an approach where the mind has no object at all, known as shikantaza.

• "Serene Reflection Meditation" is an obscure term; besides Shasta Abbey, I see it being used by the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives - which is the same club. See also Philip Wilkinson (2008), Eyewitness Companions: Religions, p.206: "The term Serene Reflection Meditation is being used by the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives for their form of Soto Zen."
• "Silent illumination" is the more common term; your article also mentions this term (thanks, by the way, for the link). It's an interesting explanation, though "reflection," in the west, also means "to think about" - and taht's not what's being meant here! Thus, there is an ambiguity here.
• The term "mo chao" has not been untranslated; the common translation is "silent illumination." And the terms Sōtō Zen and shikantaza usually are not translated; their meaning is well-known. To call Sōtō the "Silent Reflection Meditation" school is confusing.
• You refer to Tanka Shijun; yet, Koten Benson refers to Wanshi Shokaku (1091–1157), giving Garma C.C. Chang (1959), The Practice of Zen, as a source, while Taigen Dan Leighton refers to Tiāntóng Rújìng.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?

Hi Joshua Jonathan,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Anatolian peoples

Hey! As en editor interested in Indo-European topics, this deletion discussion might be of interest to you. Krakkos (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit as Indo-European language

Hi JJ, apparently the page on Sanskrit doesn't highlight its Indo-European familial relationships. See the edits reverted here. Can you fix that? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I noticed the edits; but what do I know about Sanskrit. I'll have a closer look, later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, me neither. But I found that the historical aspect of Sanskrit is completely missing on the page, even though there is a paragraph in the lead. You can probably summarise some stuff from Indo-Aryan languages or something. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wrong. History was buried in a later section called "Historical usage". I moved it up now. Should be ok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3: That article needs a review and clean up! The lead sentence does not reflect what the source is stating. The lead sentence currently claims Sanskrit is a philosophical language of Sikhism. That is odd. That is not supported by Keown and Prebish, even with a generous interpretation of what they actually state: "Sanskrit served as the lingua franca of ancient India, just as Latin did in medieval Europe". Sikhism did not start in ancient India, of course. Keown and Prebish do mention Sanskrit's importance to Mahayana Buddhism, but they do not mention Sikhism. Beyond the article's lead, the Indo-European familial relationships history section of Sanskrit article is weak. JJ: Some WP:RS to review and consider for any update to that article: 1 published by Brill, 2 from Cambridge University Press, 3 from Southern Illinois University Press, 4 from Cambridge University Press. There are more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, that is years of accumulated POV edits like this one. I think the whole article can be junked and rewritten. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Nirvikalpa page

Hi Joshua, I have undone your change as you have given no reason for re-inserting inaccurate information. I've provided the reasons for my edit in Talk:Nirvikalpa. Please read my post there and discuss if you have a differing opinion. Trutheyeness (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The info is not inaccurate; it is in the source. The info you added, though, is the traditional account of the Buddha's awakening, and ignores the relevant scholarship on this. I've undone your revert,a nd added additional info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OR map

I think the 4th map at User:Joshua Jonathan/Indo-European migration is OR and should be removed from articles for the same reason I removed the map at Centum and satem languages whose author has complained on my talk page. I've replied to them on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: guess you're right. Could you post a message at the talkpage of that map? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, although only our page, not Commons. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help, please

Thanks for your previous help and encouragement. Can you please help me with the wikimarkup for linking to another WP - French or German for example. I am translating and reproducing text from the English WP into the French and German articles on the same subject, and also trying to provide links there to other articles and images in the English Wikipedia. E.g., what markup to link the English article on Slovenske novice to the French WP.

Can't figure it out and losing time trying to do so. Many thanks, MacPraughan (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@MacPraughan: I don't know either, but try Wikipedia:Help desk. Succes!

FYI

Just in case you didn´t see this already. JimRenge (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks buddy :)

You just removed my semi-rude commentary to User Ogress on her talk page. What would you recommend? Did you read my comment?

Should I replace "You severely fucked up" with the more genteel "I believe you erred in your edits"? Cuz I can do that, and repost a slightly less vitriolic rebuke. :)

Did you read my comment? About how Ogress, in what seems to be an attempt to be academically accurate, butchered that Wikipedia page, using characters that don't seem to be available or displayable on most people's computers. Ogress also used bizarre phonetic characters that do display, but are meaningless and unpronounceable, and therefore unintelligible and unreadable and unusable to use in any discussion on the topic. As an example of the undisplayable characters, Ogress replaced the simple words of Ba and Ka (words that I was taught in my studies) with the Egyptologist-pleasing "bꜣ" and "kꜣ". On my computer, the letters following the B and K display as little square boxes, meaning my browser doesn't know what they are. As for the characters that do display but are silly (accurate, I'm sure, but ridiculous), there are many replacement words on that page: Sheut was replaced with "šwt", Khu with "ḫw", Sekhem with "sḫm", and so on. These replacements make reading this article a non-trivial mess.

To further illustrate how fouled-up this is, I typed Sheut into Google, got a link to this Wikipedia page in question, and the word Sheut now no longer appears anywhere on that page. wth.

Joshua, I pass this mess on to you. Please see that it gets fixed. Here is the link to the History difference where the damage was done:

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_concept_of_the_soul&diff=848300025&oldid=848299093

I recommend that all those changes replacing readable English with Specialist Gibberish be undone, reverted. I nominate you, Joshua, to be the man in charge, to be the change maker. Please. Fix this. Because I'm done with this kind of Wikipedia kaka. I'm not going to try to fix this myself. I'm sure this can be resolved, but...

I'm not looking for an edit war. I'm not looking to move the problem up the problem resolution chain. I don't want to petition any overseers or WikiUberMenschen. I'm sick and tired of battling on Wikipedia. You all are a hot mess. Now I just fix typos and grammar/spelling errors here and there. But this change by Ogress was an egregious act of hubris and shortsightedness. I'm sure Ogress meant well, and my commentary to them was blunt and to the point, which they seemed to indicate they preferred.

Please. Fix this. Thank you. 2602:306:3284:3F60:3C68:DA5B:E234:491F (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Dalai Lama and The Four Noble Truths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JJ, things RW wrote during his recent topic-ban appeal were strange. The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,

Quote: "So in Buddhism there is an understanding that so long as we are subject to the process of rebirth, all other forms of suffering are natural consequences of that initial starting point. We could characterize our life as being within the cycle of birth and death, and sandwiched in between these two, as it were, are the various sufferings related to illness and ageing."

The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: it's funny you bring this up now. I was about to ask if you've ever read something from Buddhadasa, a Tai monk who argued that rebirth is not Buddhistic. He argues that anatta/sunyatta is central to Buddhist thought, and incompatible with rebirth. Rebirth, in his understanding, is the constant rebirth of "I" and "mine" in this very life. I think he's got a good point, a very good point; a point which is actually understood by most Buddhists throughout the world, and which relates to the practical approach of Buddhism: self-restraint through insight, meditation, and loving-kundness. See Buddhadasa (1985a) [1961], "The essential points of the Buddhist teachings", Heart-wood from the Bo tree, and Buddhadas, Anatta and rebirth, for an introduction. It's intruguing. @JimRenge: this might be of interest to you too.

NB: I went through one previous "discussion" with Robert; his point there, which I'd already happily forgotten, was that he thought that rebirth is a western interpretation of Buddhism, which is wrong, of course. But there may be merit in the idea that rebirth is a Buddhist addition to Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

See also T. A. P. Aryaratne, The Philosophy of Anatta: A Reconstruction of the Real Teaching of Gotama. And there is more: Lynn A. Silva (1979), The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity, aslo mentions Aryaratne (p.55), and refers (p.53-55) to J.G. Jennings (1947), The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, Oxford University Press. And there is I. Hattori chapter 2.pdf - Shodhganga], p.67 ff (search for link at Google; it's blacklisted):

The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)

Hattori also refers to Jennings, Silva, and Aryaratne, and a T. Watuji (p.68), quoted as stating:

W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.

Hattori then states:

He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.

There's work to do! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Patchanee Malikhao and Jan Servaes (2015), The Journalist as Change Agent, p.52-54, in: Shelton A. Gunaratne, Mark Pearson, Sugath Senarath (2015), Mindful Journalism and News Ethics in the Digital Era: A Buddhist Approach, explain Buddhadasa, but also refer to Phra Brahmagunabhorn (aka Bhikku P.A. Payutto):

They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.

They refer to Jackson (2003), Buddhadasa. Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand, p.90-91. See also Payutto and Buddhadasa themselves. @Javierfv1212: you seem to know more about this?

Ironically, RW often referred to Payutto as an author who stressed the authenticity of the Pali canon... Could it be that this is the (a) source of his ideas on Buddhism and rebirth? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.

Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.

Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!

I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back Ms Sarah Welch. Joshua, I think Buddhadhasa´s view on rebirth is indeed interesting. He argues that the sutras have two levels of meaning. "While at the hermeneutic level of phasa khon [everyday language] the Buddha's words are taken literally, phasa tham phasa tham [Dhamma language], reveals the hidden meaning of the Buddha's words." (...) "The demythologized view of Buddhadasa is that birth (jati) means the moment-by moment birth or rebirth of an egoistic sense of "I" and "mine" through the twelvefold links of causation in the process of dependent coarising." (Odin, Steve (2011). Review: Buddhadāsa: Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand by Peter A. Jackson, Philosophy East and West 61 (1), 221-231. See p 223-224)

Buddhadhasas view of rebirth became popular among educated Thais in the seventies.(Gosling, David (1975). The Scientific and Religious Beliefs of Thai Scientists and Their Inter-relationship, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 4 (1), 1-18. /p.10) I don´t think demythologized interpretations are new. Pali sutras mention six realms of rebirth. In Tiantai doctrine, these six realms, plus four higher realms, "are not courses into which one may be reborn, but realms of consciousness, all of which entail each other." (Bowring, Richard (2008). The religious traditions of Japan, 500-1600 (Paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780521851190.) JimRenge (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I'd also been thinking about the realms of rebirth; once and a while I meet a hungry ghost someone craving for love and affection, whose thirst is unstilable... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Marissa Abruzzini, Do All Zen Buddhists Believe in Rebirth?, SevenPonds (blog).
• Brad Warner, The Myth of Rebirth, Hardcore Zen (blog)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

JJ and JimRenge: Interesting comparison of Buddhadasa to "neo-Vedantic" thought. This source (p. 230, note 3, Donald Swearer (1989)) states, "A western critic might justifiably argue that Buddhadasa's view is uniquely Buddhistic, but the Theravada criticism that Buddhadasa takes a syncretic, "neo-Vedantic" position seems to be misplaced". Swearer has studied and written much about ācariya Buddhadasa's views since about 1960 and is a reliable source (p. 2). I hesitate in adding the Vedantic comparisons, for now, because we must check how mainstream scholarly this is and then carefully reflect on the context. Interesting note there JimRenge, thank you for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brahui people

An interesting edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Spencer Wells is one of the authors; the study is from 2004. Slightly outdated, but the data seem to be in line with the recent studies on the Harappan Civilisation. But the Elamo-Dravidian link is questionable; that is, Dravidian seems to have developed in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Article development

Hi Guys please develop articles of different sub schools of Vedanta and their founders Vishishtadvaita (Ramanuja), Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya), Bhedabheda Dvaitadvaita (Nimbarka), Achintya Bheda Abheda (Chaitanya Mahaprabhu), Shuddhadvaita (Vallabha). Most of the articles are written poorly with ill-sourced since you guys are expert in Hindu-related article I request you to develop these articles (no hurry take your time). Please help @Ms Sarah Welch:, @VictoriaGrayson:.--223.223.129.222 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Hello u have reverted my edits on Bodhidharma.Could I know the reason why??Moreover I have given u the details of justifying my reason that Bodhidharma was in fact from Kancheepuram india.But yet u changed it back to him being from China. Hari147 (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma is from Kancheepuram,India; I've already responded there. Please follow the links; we'll continue this discussion after you've read them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi ashram

JJ, Have you looked at the Sri Ramana Ashram article? Interesting place it is, and of significance to the RM article you have done much work on. The Matrubhuteshvara Temple (Tiruvannamalai) embedded within the ashram, next to the samadhi hall there, needs some discussion. I can upload some pictures of the RM ashram/institution and the temple if you would like, or send you more info by wiki-email. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
(ps) I added (Tiruvannamalai) above, because there are other Matrubhuteshvara temples. For example, one of the large temples as you climb up the Tiruchirappalli rock is also called the Matrubhuteshvara temple and it is next to the Sugandhikuntalamba and below a Ganesha temple, a site full of interesting old Sanskrit and Tamil inscriptions. The one within the RM ashram is smaller and simpler, but built in the traditional style with the sculpture of Vedic and Puranic Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakti gods, goddesses and symbolism along with the mandapas, meditation hall, etc. It is an active house of worship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: sounds like you've actually been there? Ramana Maharshi was my first 'connection' with Indian culture, maybe even before Buddhis. Ramana Maharshi saved my soul, in a way. I'm afraid, though, that I'm not suited to contribute to that article; my heart is with the person, not with what developed out of him, except for the devotion as a sociologically phenomenon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Interesting place, on the way between historic monasteries of TamilNadu. I was expecting a memorial to RM only in Thiruvannamalai. The temple with the deities plus traditional, richly detailed beautiful architecture took me by a bit of surprise (but that may reflect my limited knowledge about them, rather than anything of them - I have not dived deep into the RM history and movement). The samadhi meditation hall, the temple and the small recitation room.... my guess for the day I visited, the place had 40% women and 60% men. Overall, about 70% Indians and 30% European-North Americans. Friendly intellectual place it came across as. A community vegetarian kitchen. A school. A good size bookshop with RM-related publications and some Advaita texts, plus unusual posters. Given you are not involved, you are more likely to craft a balanced, npov update to the Sri Ramana Ashram article. Maybe I will take a look at it and add the temple section or create a spin-off article few months from now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

RM is very interesting for the way his experiences, talks and answers have been interpreted within various religious frames. Tamil 'folk' religiosity, with spirit possession; Saivist religiosity; Advaita vedanta; and western, Theosophy-influenced spirituality. RM himslef interpreted his death-experience initially as spirit-possession, and later as awakening in a Saivist-Advaita Vedanta sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

They have a big poster on the temple maha-mandapa wall in English (strangely enough, for I expected Tamil or a combo of Indic languages). It is near a yoga-style seated meditative statue. The poster is titled "Death Experience of Bhagavan Sriramana Maharshi at the age of sixteen" (excuse my typos / memory). It is described along the lines you write, but no mention of spirit-possession in there. It read along the lines "I experienced a violent fear of death, [...] I experienced death, [...] I felt my body is dead, [...] yet the "I" isn't, [...] the "I" is my real self, [...] so I am a spirit transcending the body [...] fear of death vanished from me [...] I was absorbed in the Self from thereon..." and so on. Nothing about spirit-possession in that poster. This maha-mandapa is linked to the inner mandapa, parikrama and the garbhigriya (sanctum) with images of Shiva, Parvati, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Brahma, Saraswati, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Dakshinamurti, etc etc typical in historic Pallava (~600 CE) and later Tamil temples. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

RM used the word "avesam"; "I" and "Self" is translation-interpretation. That is, "avesam" may refer to a spirit, but also to a divine force. Shiva incarnate on earth, or Brahma incarnate. Subtle nuances, depending on the frame of reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Avesam refers to "possession" indeed. They have a Mountain Path magazine, which I saw a few folks carrying with them and its volumes from over the years were stacked in a part of their bookshop. Is there an article therein that discusses the avesam aspect more and whether this was RM's initial understanding or the final one of what he felt at that early age? In the text on the ashram temple's wall, the description comes across as linear, one without confusion, a form of sudden enlightenment of self, of Self (yes, capital) and more. Given your substantial knowledge of RM history, there seems more to it, much more. He is admired and followed in that region it seemed, given the prevalence of his pictures far from the ashram. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

See User:Joshua Jonathan/Ramana Maharshi and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. The admiration in that region is probably due to traditions of incarnation of God(s) on earth/in person; the wordlwide veneration is related to Advaita Vedanta, in it's modern, more-inclusive form, as far as I can tell. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Has any med professional or scholar published similar analysis or conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No. But I contacted a nuerologist who's doing research on epilepsy and ecstatic seizures; she found it very interesting, and convincing. So, the subject is up for a serious publication by anyone who's interested. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Walser edits

Joshua, This is Joseph Walser and I recently changed a number of wikipedia sites: Buddhism, Mahayana, Prajnaparamita, Sunyata and anatta. I did include references to my own published work when that work provides peer reviewed evidence or argument against what was said on the Wikipedia page. I did not erase the opinion that I was arguing against, but changed it to say something like many or most scholars think x. I can now see how someone might object that this is self promotion or conflict of interest. (I actually won't profit from anythin but the Genealogies book) and did not change the pages in order to benefit personally. I thought that the general reader might be interested in up to date scholarship -- especially when it concerns basic issues in Buddhism. If academia is not to be an ivory tower, we do need to make our arguments accessible through wikipedia. If, however, the wikipedia community finds me referencing my own work to be unacceptable, I certainly understand and can remove all references to my work tomorrow (or you can feel free to delete them today -- I have to go pick up the kids now). Joseph Walser 18:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

Alternately, I could leave the content changes on the page and just delete all references to me. Is that preferable? --Joseph Walser 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

Joseph Walser: Welcome to wikipedia. Thank you for disclosing your links. Per WP:COI, it would be better if you avoid summarizing your own research. You are welcome to use the article talk pages to suggest possible changes or provide links to papers that review / cite you, or both. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joseph Walser: sorry about all the trouble; the book looks interesting. I think that MSW's suggestion is a very good option. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is Joseph's book: Walser, Joseph (2018), Genealogies of Mahāyāna Buddhism: Emptiness, Power and the Question of Origin, New York: Routledge. Chapter 5, "Buddha Veda," looks very interesting:

Sharf argues that the central features of Tang Dynasty tantra and Zen were labeled by at least one Tang Dynasty observer as coming from “Buddhist Veda.” He then argues that we should understand the Mahāyāna trajectory of these trends in India as a “Brahmanization of Buddhism.”

That's a familiair argument; if I remember correct, such arguments have also been made in connection to pratityasamutpadda. And from the lsummary of the last chapter:

...those who objected to Mahāyāna thought that it came too close to the Brahmanical thinking referred to as “vedānta.”

That too sounds familiair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Academics editing Wikipedia is always to be encouraged. It is not COI, but rather WP:SELFCITE.

JosephWalser, You are entirely welcome to write content based on other sources. If you are citing your own sources, please make sure that the material is not contentious. If it is contentious, then it is better to raise the issues on the article talk pages rather than to make the edits yourself. Wikipedia editing policies are slightly different from academic authoring, e.g., you can't make inferences which you might think are obvious from the published material. But I am sure you will figure them out as you go along. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Mooji

Hello Joshua, I noticed that a while back you gave feedback on the deletion nomination of the page "Mooji". It ended up being deleted. I was given permission to draftify it and fix the issues. It is now back in mainspace, but was nominated for speedy deletion despite having added over 10 new third party sources to show that Mooji is a notable person. I would be happy if you could take a look and give any feedback you may have. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mooji Thanks so much Sumantra1 (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Saraswati

See diff and diff

The artical I mentioned is published in the 2017 issue of 'Sanskriti' a journal of ICHR and ASI. Wonder why you call it a unrelaible source?

182.68.136.185 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonder why you call 'Indigenous Aryan' concept a 'bullshit'? An Aryan was defined my Manu as a 'Spiritual Person' born and brought up in spiritual environment. An Arya was not merely a noble person. Vedic people were spiritual. Swami Vivekananda had also, quoting Manu explained an Aryan who always propagated spiritualism. As per 'Brahmavarta Research Foundation' Brahmavarta was located on the banks of the oldest route of Saraswati river during the great floods, where Manu was the king and he gave Manusmriti. This fact is described in various scriptures. Even Avesta explains that Avestan people, who claimed to be decendents of Manu and Bhrigu, migrated to Iran/Afghan border from 'Vara e Prithvia', that is described as an enclosure of rivers and explains many aspects of Brahmavarta. Please consider these facts.I can give you references of everything I have mentioned above. 182.68.136.185 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A link to "Sanskriti" would be usefull. What you call "facts" are not facts, but mythology. You're free to believe in mythology, but not you're not free to present mythology and beliefs as fact here at Wikipedia. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) IP, you need to follow the Wikipedia policies about verifiabiity and neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a forum for airing personal opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like this is the article, or perhaps a letter, the IP was referring to. No connection to ICHR or ASI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to get a link to the artical on Brahmavarta mentioned above in "Sanskriti" the journal published by ASI and ICHR. The above artical in www.sanskritimagzine.com is different. I have a copy of Journal 'Sanskriti' and can forward a copy to any EMail Id you provide. As I mentioned above, there is lot of confusion on who were the original Aryans and where was their Homeland. Brahmavarta, the land of Brahman was the original place of Aryans where they composed scriptures like Vedas and Upanishads. I wonder if word mythology should be used on description of the area of Brahmavarta. Area is for real. Expect your comments on what is written above.

2409:4043:2092:3631:79A7:7035:FAF0:C401 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You probably won't be convinced, but there were no Aryans in northern India 10,000 years ago. The Shintashta-culture, from which the Aryans descend, came into existence ca. 2,200 BCE. 10,000 years is a religious story, not history. Anyway, a link to "Sanskriti" Journal wouls be appreciated. I can't find it via Google (though I'll try again). Regarding "bullshit": apologies for the term; it's just that there is so much credible research available; religious notions about the 10,000 years just don't fit in. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I can mail you the artical from Sanskriti journal, if an EMail Id is provided. Shintasha-culture is 4200 years old, but Indian scriptures like Ramayana 7200 yrs old, Mahabharata 5100 years old have several mentions of term Arya as main characters were Aryans. Flood time seers Manu and Bhrigu, who gave Manusmriti some 10000 yrs ago, also mentioned and defined Arya. Manu's sons had ruled Aryavarta during Manu's time itself. I have references of all these happenings.

2405:204:E381:21EF:C45E:63E7:37F2:5343 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In the left column, there's a link to email me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sent the artical on Brahmavarta, published in 'Sanskriti Today' to info-en@wikimedia.org Atten: Joshua Jonathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:E68A:B690:5484:1C60:4F16:767C (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably not going to work, but we'll see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please give a reason why its not going to work and a time frame as I want to add more information to the page. 182.68.164.140 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

182.68.164.140: Welcome to wikipedia and do consider creating a user account. Please explain how Sanskriti Today is a reliable source with a peer review process? Who is the publisher and does it have a website/registered office? You may wish to review wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:FRINGE guidelines, given your "who gave Manusmriti some 10000 yrs ago" and other statements above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Please give a reason why you are not registering an account. If your IP address keeps changing, you must register an account. Otherwise, we have no idea who is talking to us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason not to register an account. Not a regular editor. IP address kept changing last week, as I was travelling. No other reason. 2405:205:3197:1ADB:80B7:672B:D078:FD05 (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• The artical, a research paper is published in the 18th Volume of 'Journal of History and Historical Archaeology' by the name of "History Today" published by "History and Culture Society, New Delhi. This is a peer reviewed Journal, financially supported by 'Archaeological Survey of India' (ASI) and 'Indian Council of Historical Research' (ICHR) as per information on the cover and cover-inner page of the Journal. Address of 'The History and Culture Society' is B-17, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110 016. Tel No. 26523728 and EMail: ihcsnewdelhi@gmail.com The statements in the artical are not given for the first time. There are many like David Frawley, Grahm Hancock and others who support the time period of Flood time seer Manu as 10,000 years. Manu (8000BCE) the king of Brahmavarta had defined term Arya and is used extensively in Ramayana (5200BCE) and Mahabharata (3100BCE). Please add the information on page Saraswati which was removed earlier. 2405:205:3228:8077:B52B:468F:29CB:6282 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@IP: So it is not Sanskriti Today, it is History Today (this). Which article and page number are you referring to? FWIW, Joshua Jonathan's concern about you trying to summarize fringe sources and mythology into wikipedia article(s) are accurate... these do not qualify the WP:RS and other content guidelines. We are also a bit exhausted by internet warriors trying to plug and replug their favorite theories on Indus Valley Civilization, Aryas, Brahmavarta, Hindu mythologies are not mythologies but real facts/truth, etc. Wikipedia may be a too boring place for all this, an inappropriate place to right great wrongs. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The link you mentioned is the right one. It is History Today, indeed. As I was travelling, did not have the Journal with me. So updated the details yesterday. But presently, the website of History Today is showing details of only 17 publications (2000 to 2016). The artical mentioned by me is from the latest journal (2017) No. 18, which is not uploaded yet. That's why the peer reviewed research paper was EMailed, details of which are given above already. Intention is to put new well researched, peer reviewed information in public domain to improve Wikipedian pages. New scientific tools are helping to unearth the lost civilisations and we should be open to it. 2405:205:3197:1ADB:80B7:672B:D078:FD05 (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Frawley... And Graham Hancock:

An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.

References

"History Today" does not seem to be indexed by Google scholar; that's a very bad sign... Indian History and Culture Society tells more. Look, IP; the idea that the Aryans have been in India for 10,000 is a nonsensical idea, indeed WP:FRINGE. At best it can be mentioned, in a general sense, at Puranic chronology#Indigenous Aryans. That's enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see how you put it. 2405:205:308A:4379:A84E:9B16:A08:A5FE (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to my additions on page Saraswati River regarding Aryans and Brahmavarta which you removed ? 2405:205:3088:13A2:75F5:4FD6:5CF0:3D7B (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

They were removed, for reasons explained above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't find any reason above except your comments on David Frawley and Grahm Hancock. How about the artical I sent to you from the Journal "History Today" which is a peer reviewed journal. To locate the Aryan homeland may I request you to consider who an Aryan was or is? The word has a specific meaning defined by Manu and Swami Vivekananda. Brahmavarta is identified now on 5 parameters like Scriptures Vedic as well as Avesta, Languages, Archaeology, Culture and Genealogy the details of which we can discuss some other time, as presently, I am interested only in adding what was removed from the page. Please reply. 2405:205:3282:8BAB:D0A3:E416:665D:9D44 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You sent it a to a general mail-adress, not to me; I didn't receive it. Read Indian History and Culture Society for the gaols of the IHCS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, leave apart the published artical and IHCS, we can atleast come to a consensus on this page as to, who were the Aryans and what is meant by Brahmavarta? According to supports/evidences I have, Brahmavarta was the land of Spirituality and Aryans, the spiritual people. If we can reach a consensus on what they mean, we can move further on route of Vedic Saraswati too! 2405:205:30A2:FB14:2051:4D2:47CD:D6D4 (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for comments on consensus on Arya and Brahmavarta2405:205:33A4:1523:A8D7:23B7:F4C3:2098 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The concensus is that Sudhir Bhargava is not WP:RS. There were no Aryans in northern India 10,000 years ago. See also Talk:Yoga#How does one decide whether indus valley civilization is pre vedic or not?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You reject all supports and individuals who don't follow your line. Alain Daniélou (4 October 1907 – 27 January 1994) a French historian, intellectual, musicologist, Indologist says on page Brahmavarta on Wikipedia itself, that Aryans were natives of this state. Fact remains that there are many studies on this topic drawing same results. You have rejected so many supports from different sources but not discussing who were Aryans and what was Brahmavarta, if not the homeland of Aryans. Even the Vedic scriptures, older than Avesta mention Aryan homeland Brahmavarta. 2405:205:338E:C5BF:B807:FE76:D63C:C55A (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hardly any discussions on this page. Why should Joshua reject all references given by editors. Wikipedia cannot be monopolised by one person. We want more information on Aryans and their homeland.103.205.244.152 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Genome study: BMAC, Indus Periphery-related, IVC and post-IVC populations

JJ and @Kautilya3: you might have already seen this The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia March 2018 paper. If not, see Figure 2 and 4, it is interesting and may have some bearing on the map JJ made a while ago. In Table 1, they summarize their key findings, stating "we reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians". You folks follow and watch this discussion more, will understand it better. It is WP:Primary, needs due wait or abundant caution before being cited/used. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Narasimhan? Yes, you bet! See Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint: "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia" and Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC.. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody claimed that BMAC was the primary source of "ancestry" for South Asians. That seems to have been made up by Hindutva-leaning Indian archaeologists like B. B. Lal. Rather, BMAC has been used to explain the differences that arose between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians within Central Asia. It has been postulated that the Indo-Aryans picked up the distinctive features of their religion (Indra and Soma, in particular) from the BMAC.

BMAC

I don't agree with the Figure 4 of this paper, which has already appeared in earlier papers. It supposes that the Indo-Aryans came into India by crossing the Pamir & Hindu Kush mountains. There is no highway through the Pamirs & Hindu Kush for a massive population transfer to have occurred. Rather, I believe the Indo-Aryans circled the Hindu Kush mountains, went into Afghanistan, settled down on the banks of Sarasvati (Arghandab and Helmand river valleys) first. Then they made their way up the mountains to cross into the Kabul river valley. The genetic data from Afghanistan hasn't been gathered and analysed yet. So, the key part of the data in the formation of the Indo-Aryan culture formed is missing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Note that they did get data from north Afghanistan Darra-e Kur (figure 1), and the river valleys west to it – such as the Amu Darya-Panj River river valley – in what are now part of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. This they must cross whichever directions they migrated over time if and as they circled the Hindu Kush. You asked a good question on the talk page JJ links, if BMAC did not contribute genetic material to the later South Asian population, how did it contribute its gods? Similarly, their comments on connections between the Indo-European languages (pp. 15-16) is interesting. I do not know if this genome study does or can support, or deny, any "massive population transfer" theories or provide a scale estimate. I haven't yet located the peer-reviewed version of this bioRxiv pre-print article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I find their "Inner Asian Mountain Corridor" also fascinating. I'd always prictured a more western route; in their view, the proto-Indo-Aryans came from as far east as the Altai Mountains. See also Michael Frachetti on the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor, and Google for more maps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant talk, JJ. I watch listed Begash. The slide on Inner Asian Mountain Corridor, at roughly 28:09 and another at 29:40, give the full picture.

There was one sole "highway" into India though, which is the present day Karakoram Highway. It leads into Gilgit. A long and difficult mountain route with very few oases along the way, it did carry small groups of Dards (Pishachas) into Gilgit. They seem to have impacted Kashmir to some extent. That is about it as far as Narasimhan Figure 4 goes.

By "large scale population transfer", I don't mean that people migrated en masse. Rather young and unmarried men, ventured out farther and farther afield in search of green pastures. That corridor of those green pastures leads into Afghanistan. I think it is Harirud (Sarayu) at the bottom left corner of that picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Was that invasion, then? Few boys venturing out, finding "green pastures" and then eloping/marrying local girls hardly qualifies! When did they find time to memorize texts and transmit it, unless of course, the girls made the move for the studious boys in their newfound forests (aranyaka)? Even a hundred young men moving into their vast northwest lands hardly qualifies as invasion. Armies were big by the bronze age. Was it just a slow and steady migration, decade after decade, with occasional weather/etc-induced peaks in human migration? Is the data sample in the Narasimhan study big enough, and does it have an inherent bias from the kind/political status of the people who might have been buried? Yep, JJ, that corridor fascinated me too, I looked at that map for quite a while a few days ago. It raises many questions. The Begash talk is very interesting! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't Mahabharata have enough examples of dashing unmarried (or partially married) men marrying local girls, not to mention Bhishma stealing brides for his half-brothers or something?

We don't see much evidence of states, to talk of invasions. They would have been more like bands of fighters or adventurers. I put down the scale of migration to the growing aridity in Central Asia. They needed to go look for greener pastures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This book

• Harmatta, János (1996), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume II: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to AD> 250 (PDF), UNESCO Publishing, ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5

pages 492-493 has a map of the silk routes during the historical period. Since the modes of transport then were no different from what were in 1500 BC, we can take them to be the only possible routes that existed. The way to India from the north, Gilgit (21), was pretty much impossible. Tashkurgan (20) is a good oasis. You could get there from either Afghanistan via the Wakhan corridor or from the Tarim Basis via Yarkand. But in order to do that, you would need to know in advance that that was your destination. Pastoral people with herds of goats or whatever are unlikely to travel that far through narrow mountain valleys.

Rather, since there were plenty of easily reachable oases on the northern periphery of Hindu Kush mountains, I hold that that is how the Aryans went, until they found the gap in the Hindu Kush mountains to the west of Herat. There they entered Afghanistan. All the Central Asian oases would have been already occupied and there would have been the flooding of the Steppe people arriving the same way. If you climb on top of one of those hill tops and look out you find Saraswati (Helmand). Is it any wonder that the Rigveda goes gaga over it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Paul Thieme, Sindhu/Hindu meant 'natural barrier', which is I think well-evidenced. However, there is no evidence that the Iranians themselves called the river "Hindu". They were only adopting the Indian Sindhu.

It is true, there are no other certain examples of a u'-stem being derived from a present stem in Iranian,[14] and there are no other traces, as far as I can see, of an Iranian equivalent to the root sidh 'to ward off' — yet, no objection based on an argumentum ex silentio could possibly invalidate the clear semantic testimony for an Iranian hindu- 'natural frontier'." ... As the great frontier river that represents the natural dividing line between India and Iran, the Indus could most easily and fittingly be called Sindhu- 'Frontier' by the Indians and Hindu- 'Frontier' by the Iranians. Indian influence on the Iranian naming is not to be presupposed of necessity, though it is possible and even probable that Iranians when hearing the Indian name Sindhu- transposed it into sounds fully meaningful to an Iranian ear, as they transposed Saptå Sindhavas 'the Seven Rivers, the land of the Seven Rivers' ... into Hapta Hindū Vd.I.18. Such a procedure does not constitute a 'loan' properly so called rather an adaptation of the words of another, closely related language which are easily understood, into their immediately recognized native equivalents. An adapting adoption like that certainly cannot be used to date the Iranian replacement of an older, inherited, s by h.

My theory would be that the Aryans themselves called the river Sindhu as they were coming from the west. It represented a natural barrier into India. After they crossed it, it wasn't a barrier any more, and they changed the meaning of the word to mean 'river'! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Might be interesting for you

• Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads --Wario-Man (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man, Kautilya3, and Ms Sarah Welch: See also The genetic makings of South Asia – IVC as Proto-Dravidian. Nice maps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. The Wario-Man link article states, "To evaluate the ancestral components of Srubnaya-Alakulskaya, we conducted ADMIXTURE analysis for K = 2 to K = 15 ancestral clusters (fig. S10A). K = 15 clusters revealed that Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individuals consisted of two major ancestral components; first, an “orange” component predominantly found in west and NE hunter-gatherers (WHG) and in present-day NE [north European] populations, and second, a “light green” component typical of Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) found in south Asian (SA) modern populations." JJ, the cartoons in the article you linked are so colorful and complicated!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I missed that ping. So, whose cartoons are these? David Reich's or the blogger's? I find the "pull of the Indus Civilisation" part dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Emergence of Vishnu and Shiva

The most amazing slide show you will ever see! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Link Removal

Hello,

You have reverted my revision on the Ego death page about link removal and requested an explanation on Talk, so I have provided one here. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ego_death#Regarding_Link_Removal

I hope my explanation clarifies the reasons for removal of those links.--198.71.112.21 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Dhāraṇī – the oldest printed texts in the world

Dharani – a form of magical amulet, melodic sounds we can't understand and aren't expected to, the hymns and the chants, inspired by the Vedic literature and implemented by the Buddhists – are the oldest surviving printed texts in the world. These are dated to early to mid 8th-century prolly by Chinese/Chinese-influenced inspiration, now found in Korea and Japan about the same time (c. 700-770 CE, pp. 114-115). @JimRenge: and JJ: perhaps, if you have the time and energy, the Dhāraṇī article could use your attention, such as with scholarly summaries from the Zen, the Theravada, the Mahayana and the Vajrayana traditions. For those talk page stalkers who might think this Buddhist Dharani and their Hindu/Jain/Christian/African/Meso-American equivalents is all superfluous, remember how you feel when you listen to your favorite music, one without words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: that's an interesting subject; and it make sense that those amulets are the oldest printed texts. Yet, I know nothing about it, and at the moment I'm lost in researching vipassana, so I'm afraid I'll have to let this one go by. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:, I think it is a very interesting topic. Ronald M. Davidson´s articles [9], [10] may be useful. I don´t have much time now but it is on my list. JimRenge (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. Given the historical significance of Dharani in everyday layperson's Buddhist practice, I have expanded the Dhāraṇī article a bit. It is triple the size now, and I hope to add a bit more shortly. It might be a candidate article for a DYK on wikipedia main page, with the hook "oldest known printed texts in the world", assuming I can find time from RL commitments. Interesting how ideas migrated, how peaceful interactions and sharing of musical chant literature between the ancient Indian religions impacted their future, followed by the intercultural interactions and collaborations between the Koreans-Japanese-Chinese-Indians well over a millennium ago, a collaboration that helped trigger, create and preserve the earliest known mass printed texts in our world. JJ: see sources such as this (pp. 62-75) on the historic association between meditation and dharanis. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am trying to sort out India's oldest coins (or so they say). I will be happy to watch this page too :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, DYK is a good idea and the hook is fine. I am glad to see that you are already using Davidson´s analysis. JimRenge (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

JR: Ok, I will try to find time and get the DYK done if possible. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: The updated article now meets the DYK expansion etc guidelines. I will let it marinate for a day or two before nominating it for DYK review process. Please take a look meanwhile, if your time permits. Revisions/comments by you and others would be most welcome as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: well well, look what's at Thai Forest Tradition:

• Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja (1984). The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-27787-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• McDaniel, Justin Thomas (2011), The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk: Practicing Buddhism in Modern Thailand, Columbia University Press

I don't know if it's related to printed texts, but at least it's about amulets. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

I dont understand why you deleted the content? Adi Shankara, born in my native place and I know more than what you know. You people trying to prove thatAdi Shankara was born in CE 588? what a rubbish? Then what abouth the temples he built? What about the books which was written in BCE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrajesh (talk • contribs) 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kjrajesh: well, I self-reverted. After all, that section also pays attention to non-scholarly opinions and local beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Kjrajesh: Please see WP:RS guidelines. We prefer scholarly sources, not blogs/websites/SPS/etc. If you can't find a peer-reviewed source for your BCE or other interesting claims, please do not edit war with JJ or others in any article. It does not matter where you were born, nor what you feel is "rubbish / wisdom / whatever". Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Śramaṇa religion: AfD?

JJ: Any CFork issues with recently created Śramaṇa religion article, given we already have Sramana? The article looks like a cut-paste with strange incomplete sources (our @Diannaa spotted it). @Ronz: another Jain-related plug? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've turned it into a redirect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Good. Some parts of the pre-redirect version reminded me of Buddha-kahika, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes. Kundakundakunda (talk · contribs) needs to be reined quickly, and all edits reviewed carefully.

Aren't there some sanctions that apply? I'm not finding them... --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Kundakundakunda has been edit warring with Chrissymad, Drmies and others with the undue Jain/etc-related content where they are copy-pasting text along with "{{citation needed|date=June 2016}}" from somewhere. The username is odd too because Kundakunda is a famed Digambara Jain monk who actually had a lot of interesting ideas. For someone registered in 2018, their spotty editing is strange and disruptive. Worth a scrutiny and watch. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz and Ms Sarah Welch: I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Śramaṇa religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Kundakunda died 15+ centuries ago (lived in 2nd century CE, likely later). This is unlikely to be WP:COI issue, likely WP:CIR with a bad username case, fwiw. I do not have the time to do the admin-review paperwork on this user. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely CIR issues. These articles have a long history of sockpuppetry and pov-pushing. Kundakundakunda fits right in. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Urhemiat

Hi Josh, I don't edit often, but the section I did appeared to have the same sentence written twice; I took out the second instance. Hopefully I got the footnotes right. But other than affecting the readability of the section, the extra sentence did not have any impact on the topic. I trust veteran Wikipedia editors, so if you saw fit to restore it, all good. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.104 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Legit edit?

• diff

Dubious edit. I read the cited source and I still don't understand how this one is "more accurate". Looks more WP:POV rather than representing the source. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: just checked the source; "non-Indo-European BMAC originated Iranian" is definitely wrong; Parpola writes (p.105) "pre-Aryan language of the BMAC." The Iranian languages are not "non-Indo-European," of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my thought too. He has made some new changes to that article.[11] --Wario-Man (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think what the guy is trying to say is that dāsa is a BMAC word. Is it? I don't think Parpola actually said that.

But, more interesting stuff in Parpola:

This find suggests that Indo-Aryan speakers had come from the southern Urals and entered the ruling elite of the BMAC probably as early as the twentieth century BCE.

That is pretty radical! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

He is backing this up with lots of evidence:

During 2000–1900 BCE, the BMAC spread to Pakistani Baluchistan. A rich BMAC graveyard was accidentally discovered at Quetta, while other BMAC graves were found at Mehrgarh VIII and Sibri near the Bolan Pass. That BMAC people (not just traders) moved to Pakistani Baluchistan is evident from the fact that the entire cultural complex was imported, including burials (Jarrige 1991). BMAC-type seals and seal impressions have been found in small numbers in the late phase of the Indus civilization at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (Parpola 2005d; Franke 2010), and in post-Harappan times in the southern Indus Valley (the so-called Jhukar seals in Chanhu-daro) (Mackay 1943), Gujarat (Somnath, alias Prabhas Patan), and even Rajasthan, where about a hundred seal impressions were collected in a pot at Gilund (Shinde, Possehl, & Ameri 2005) (Fig. 8.5). The Gangetic copper hoards have antennae-hilted swords similar to those coming from plundered BMAC sites of Afghanistan, which dates the hoards to about the twentieth century BCE or later (Fig. 8.6; Fig. 4.4).

Gangetic copper hoards in 2000 BCE? I never heard of them! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a strong two-wave model. A first batch of proto-Indo-Aryan speakers took over the BMAC around 2000 BC and then expanded to various places in Asia (including the Mitanni, the Gandhara grave culture etc.). Then the Rigvedic Aryans came around 1500 BC via the Arachosian route that we have discussed many times. It is the first wave, consisting of the BMAC + IA people, that are presumably referred to as Dasas by the Rigvedic Aryans. We might imagine that the Dasas and the Rigvedic Aryans did not get along and the Dasas drove them away from the BMAC area so that they had to take refuge in Arachosia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Panchalas etc.

Working recently on the Pir Panjal Pass, whose original name was Panchala-deva (according to Rajatarangini), I started wondering if the Mahabharata tribes in the northwest were the original ones and we have been fed fake geography and demography in the official Mahabharata. There are quite a few of them in the northwest, including the famous Porus the "Paurava", who fought against Alexander the Great. It seems to me that the Mahabharata may have been reworked by the Gangetic people to give themselves a greater role in the story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. I know close to nothing about those ancient tribes, but reworking ancient tales to give one's own tribe, or king, a better standing, is quite usual (themn, and now, isn't it?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

See Panchala. The first citation is to Witzel. I can't figure out where Witzel's geography/demography comes from, but possibly to older texts than Mahabharata. Only the Kurus stay fixed. All the other tribes seem to have one branch to the east of Kuru and another to the north of Kuru. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The tribes in the Mahabharata, you mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, except that we don't necessarily take Mahabharata's ideas about their relationships at face value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Heart Sutra

OK, I'm here. Hi Joshua. Did you see my comments re: Lopez on Heart Sutra talk page? Also how best to present Harada's work without back and forth argumentation? Harada's 2010 book is a 300 page + book with detailed footnotes. It gives many details that contradict Jayarava's assertions. But it is too long and technical to translate. My only goal is to show Nattier's theories are not universally accepted by academics of standing. Didn't expect to get into a back and forth argument similar to Jayarava's contributions to various Buddhist blogs - and I'm not sure whether Heart Sutra talk page should be used as an underhanded way to introduce his blog to Wikipedia readers. Hanbud (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's discussion, there's discussion. So, discuss, to improve the article. I don't know about the blog; if it's good, why not? But MSW has already pointed out that there may be WP:COI problems. If so, we'll notice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. I'm not sure what the wikipedia policy on translation is. I have read it but it seems MSW doesn't like personal translations. As I understand it, some English wiki pages are translations from different languages and it's encouraged. The references would then mostly be non-English references. Any translation would of course be personal translations. Can you please see the latest developments on the Heart Sutra talk page. I'm uncertain what her abbreviations mean e.g. ec, etc., I do have a Chinese (from Taiwan) source with basically the same information. I plan on combining it with Ledderose's article (cf Heart Sutra talk page). Ledderose's article is basically interested in the Heart Sutra Stele dated to 661 CE because it is the oldest dated stele in the Fangshan Stone Sutra. There is another source Sonya Lee who is interested from an art historian viewpoint.

She also is interested in the Heart Sutra Stele dated to 661 CE for the same reason Ledderose is. The lack of interest may be due by those scholars may have to do with the low number of Buddhists in those countries as compared to Luo Zhao, and the Taiwanese scholar Chen Yan Zhu (just my personal speculation on why these steles are not mentioned with respect to the origin of the Heart Sutra in English language scholasticism). He/she doesn't mentioned the whole text which has "Xuanzang by imperial decree translated the Heart Sutra" --- this is mentioned in the Taiwanese source. Am I allowed to use both. Should I just footnote the Taiwanese source and Ledderose source without a translation. I (perhaps) mistakenly was under the impression, detailed translation or inline quotes are value-added feature encourage in wikipedia. Is this untrue? Also she keeps mentioning the Heart Sutra is well studied in English language. I'm not an academic so I may not know all the English scholastic sources out there. But are there any English language scholastic sources that mention the 661 CE, 669 CE stone stele affirming the translation by Xuanzang of the 649 CE Heart Sutra based on the Fangshan Stone Sutra Heart Sutra Stele. Many thanks for your edits. Please advise as I'm uncertain as how I should proceed in this specific matter on the Heart Sutra article and translations re: criticisms of Nattier as there is just one article I am aware of that mentions a few points from a Japanese scholar translated into English.Hanbud (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just finished reading the Britannica.com article and newworldencyclopedia.org article and it doesn't mention Nattier at all. They are much briefer articles. Is it ok to omit Nattier and the whole scholastic thing from the Heart Sutra article including origins, etc., as they are controversial? And the section for critical editions -- I think only scholars would be interested in that. No practicing Buddhist I know knowingly reads a critical edition as their text for daily recitation. Maybe Conze for English speakers?Hanbud (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

you need to discuss why you have reverted by edits in Indus valley civilization.

Unattributed copying from other Wiki-articles; WP:UNDUE; the usual pov-pushing on the dating of Bhirrana as oldest "Harappan" site

the dating is not POV, it contains references, im just copying the referenced information from bhirrana article, why have you removed it? 202.188.53.210 (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rameezraja001 rides again? See also 115.135.130.182. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The info was already there in a note, but apparently they only read what fits thejr ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

DTTR and EW

See diff.

See WP:DTTR. It tells that you should avoid templating the regulars especially when they know what they are doing, unlike you who adds {{cn}} tag on lead when things are already sourced thoroughly inside the article.

Furthermore, stop edit warring. You had already reverted 2 times. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Behave in such a way that templating is not necessary, and read again what edit-warring is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

These templates are generally used only when there is a pattern or the edit is either unexplained or misleading. These were not the issues. You have talk page where you can still argue and you are editing for long enough to understand that. As for WP:EW, it says "an editor who repeatedly restores that editor's preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether that editor's edits are justifiable". 2 reverts are enough for concluding that. Edit warring is not a rare phenomenon but something people frequently engage in even when they don't know. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking policies. The first sentence reads:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring.

Neografield placed maintenenance-tags, explaining why; Shashank5988 removed them, calling them "unnecessary," without resolving the issues. I re-inserted them, and you removed them again, without adressing the issues either, only stating "lack of reasonable issues raised per talk." So, if you want behavior that fits the definition... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.

Ah, sunyata. Great. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Joshua Jonathan!

Happy New Year!

Joshua Jonathan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBigXrayᗙ 15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Same to you, DBigXray! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)