Talk:Buddhaghosa

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: (Copied from ) [The section of text from the Visuddhimagga mentioned above exists only in the Sinhalese texts, not in the original Pali.] This is a fact that can be verified by viewing page 743 of the Visuddhimagga where the translator states that the section in question does not exist in the original Pali text and is only found in subsequent Sinhalese versions. Therefore it is not "original research" the research was done by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and is published in the following reliable source (or one could simply look at the online version: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf, the original text by Buddhaghosa was written in Pali and so the Sinhalese edition(s) are later translated versions of the original text. The fact that it was written in Pali is stated in the introduction to this same book): Visuddhimagga The Path of Purification by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa. translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli copyright 1975, 1991 Buddhist Publication Society. User:Blaskdfaks 09:08, 11 June 2013
:I wonder if Shravasti Dhammika is a reliable source; he seems to be selfpublished. It looks to me like you've got a point here. I've edited the section, and used your comment as a reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics - Shravasti Dhammika  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Buddhaghosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925190451/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: you paraphrase/quote Heim as saying 
Source: 
Those are interesting statements, given the scholastic nature of Buddhaghosa's work. Did he really practice? Shaft (1995), The Rhetorics of Meditative Practice notices that meditative experience does not play the role in BUddhist practice and experience that we, westerners, perceive in it. And Polak (2011), Reexaming jhana, argues that Buddhoghosa probably did not meditate!
NB: how about using the sfn-format for citations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heim 

message: This is also interesting:
"The" Theravada meditation tradition did not survive throughout the ages; they abandoned it somewhere in the 10th century... Meditation was re-invented in the 19th and 20th century. And Buddhaghosa's, and the whole Theravada's acoount of meditation is doubtful; their systematization of meditation into samatha-vipassana is a later systematization, which deviate from the dhyana-scheme. Dhyana is not samatha. Shaw was taught by Gombrich and Griffits, and she cites Bronkhorst, so she must be familiair with this line of research. Yet, no comment on this in her introduction.
This is also rich:
That's a nice escape; Polak bluntly says that Theravada altered Buddhist meditation, turning dhyana into concentration-meditation, a non-Buddhist practice.
Ah, and this is what Shaw writes regarding the survival of the (Theravada) meditation tradition:
Some things are missing from here account, which are provided by Shankman, especially Gunaratana:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw and Shankman on meditation 

message: Hi . 
Posting this here, as your talk page is protected. You've revert my fix for the cite error that is currently being displayed on the article. 
The error was caused by this edit  on the 29th of Sept. If you look the refname "brokenbuddha1" was changed to "brokenbuddha2" but the actual reference didn't change, just the refname. This caused an error as they was already a  in use.
My fix was to simply rename the missed instance to "brokenbuddha2" as well. I'm going to revert back to my fix, as I can only assume this was a mistake (as it was such a noncontroversial fix). Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 89.241.33.89, thank you for this information. --Serols (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of citation error fix 

message: buddhagosha rajaathuma 175.157.66.154 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  buddhagosha king