Talk:Buddha-nature/Archive 1

message: "the possession by sentient beings of the innate buddha-mind, which is, prior to the full attainment of buddhahood, not fully actualized"
:Is Buddha-nature necessarily implying "Buddha-mind", i.e., there is no version of Buddha-nature not equating it with Buddha-mind? Because if so, this should clearly be given a greater exploration, and if not, then the statement should be qualified or removed. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:12, 28 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: intro paragraph 

message: * to do: compare and contrast the above pedantry with the medieval debate re how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
There was never any such debate: it was invented by Isaac D'Israeli centuries later. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist Pedantry 

message: For some months now, I have felt uneasy about the section on Rigpa suddenly cropping up in this article on the Buddha Nature. I did add a linking sentence at the time to the effect that Rigpa could be seen as similar to the Buddha Nature -  but in truth, I don't really think this Rigpa piece belongs here (I am not sure that Rigpa is exactly congruent with the Buddha-dhatu). This interpolated Rigpa piece sticks out like a sore thumb! It deserves its own special entry/article (in fact, I've just seen that it has been lifted from the legitimate main article on "Rigpa" - which in turn is lifted from Sogyal Rinpoche's "Rigpa" website) and need not be included under the "Buddha Nature".  A mere internal Wiki-link to "rigpa" would suffice, I feel. Unless there is strong support to keep the section on Rigpa, I shall remove it in the coming days. Thanks! Tony. TonyMPNS 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigpa Should Be Removed? 

message: There's a footnote referencing a specific page number, but there is no edition listed in the References section, which makes the page number rather meaningless. Cundi 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay, I'll modify the footnote to make that more obvious... Cundi 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srimala Sutra 

message: I think the article is really improved, though not yet NPOV. Cundi 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work! 

message: The article briefly mentions that the viewpoint expressed is not universally accepted within Buddhism. For the article to be NPOV, we need details on this. Are the texts universally accepted as being attributed to the Buddha, or do some Buddhists believe they are later compositions? What are the arguments against the position expressed? What sect or sects do not accept this particular viewpoint? What are the arguments against it? and so on and so forth. Once this is included, the article will be up to Wikipedia standards. Cundi 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ms Cundi, the article mentions this: "Buddha-nature is not at all accepted by Theravada Buddhism" -- simply because, as is well-known, Theravada does not recognize the validity of any Mahayana sutras.  As for Mahayana, the doctrine of Buddha-nature is accepted universally ispo facto, since it derives from universally accepted Mahayana sutras.  However, for some Mahayanist scholars and schools, Buddha-nature is important while for others it is only peripheral.  Different viewpoints regarding the precise significance of Buddha-nature are interpretational, based on sectarian differences.  But the situation is exteremely complex in the case of Tibetan Buddhism.  Even within the same sects, some scholars accept these teachings literally, while others give them a more figurative,  interpretation.  Thus, for example, amongst the Sakyapas, Shakya Chokden accepts them at face value, while Gorampa does not.  Or at times, the interpretation will depend upon the level of discourse and audience involved.  To do justice to this would require years of research since there are virtually no translations of primary sources that would help.  So your request is some what unrealistic at this point in time.--Stephen Hodge 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you have your own limitations too. Who knew? Fortunately, you and Tony aren't the only editors of Buddhist articles on WP. Perhaps over time, we'll see some additions which balance the article. Thank you for your acknowledgment that the article is indeed unbalanced and for not removing the tag as you previously threatened. Also for the improvements to the article in response to my previous tags... Cundi 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ms Cundi, any intelligent or wise person ipso facto should know their limitations, as Socrates stated long ago, hence I do not get involved in matters of which I am ignorant.  The problem is with those who do not recognize their own limitations.--Stephen Hodge 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know what they say about assumptions... You might note that I'm ignoring your veiled insults based on your lack of knowledge of who I am and what I may or may not know. While it is certainly outside the guideline of WP:CIVIL to go to such lengths to criticize someone, such criticism simply rolls off me like water off a duck. You might however want to read WP:TPG, which indicates that long lectures on talk pages are not likely to be read, and suggests adopting a shorter, more conversational style. Ciao. Cundi 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Ms Cundi, I wasn't making any insults, veiled or otherwise -- if the cap fits, wear it, as they say.  I am not the slightest bit interested in who you are and I only know you by what you write (eg. "the only permanence is impermanence" etc) and come to my own conclusions, as will others.  I offered you constructive criticism, but it is up you whether you reflect on that or take it on board. And, regardless of the Wiki suggestions to which you draw my attention, I know enough about human nature to know that people diligently read what is addressed to them in such circumstances, regardless of length.  Anyway, we're about done here, so see you around elsewhere.--Stephen Hodge 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV