Talk:Kleshas (Buddhism)

message: I'd like to: 
# move the Pali literature material to the top of this article
# re-organize the remaining sections (3 Poisons, 5 Poisons, 6 Defilements of Vasubandhu) under a sectional heading of something like "Mayahana contexts"
I think this would be helpful for a number of reasons including:
# from a holistic standpoint, it would likely provide a better explanation for the reader on the term's historical evolution
# I believe that it would help Theravada-oriented readers find material pertinent to their worldview and Mahayana/Vajrayana-readers find material pertient to their worldview 
Would anyone rationally object to this?  Thanks for any civil feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over a week and no one's objected so I'm gonna implement this change momentarily.  If you disagree with this change, please discuss further here.  Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-organize material per timeline and sects? 

message: Anyone else concerned about the apparent incoherence (e.g., why insert Patanjali outside of tangential word association?) of this section?  Anyone able to provide order (e.g., in terms of historical/denominational development and/or articulation) to this section?  Thanks for any help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I moved the Patanjali material to an ==Other literature== section today and renamed ==Mahayana and other literature== to simply ==Mahayana literature==.  If anyone objects, please discuss here (and, if you feel so compelled, feel free to revert, of course).  Hope this offends none and seems reasonable, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Larry, I would be happy if this article were not labeled Buddhist, but consider the Buddhist literature and the Yoga literature equally, perhaps with Klesha (Buddhist) / Klesha (Yoga) as two articles, or with another type of disambiguation page. My preference would be to keep them all here, but de-emphasize the Buddhist ownership of the term.  Bill Huston  (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mahayana and other literature" 

message: The Abhidharmakośa is listed here in the Mahāyana section despite it being a Sautantrika commentary on Vaibhāṣika positions.
Much of Vasubhandu's other work is in fact Mahāyana, but this text is not.
Perhaps a section entitled "Early Buddhism" should be created with the large amount of information on Theravāda being one section, and an "other early schools" section containing the information from the Kośa and other Sarvāstivāda works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabhusuku (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abhidharmakośa 

message: Why does this article have the header "kleśa" with a long final "a" ?  This is wrong ~ the body of the article has the correct form with a short "a".  Could somebody change this please ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kleśa

message: I've removed the following text from the article page. This text below is confusing, it has no references, and I can't find any references to support it. It seems to be mixing up different terms and concepts.
:BEGINNING OF REMOVED TEXT
:In Mahayana Buddhism, the mūla kleśa (English: root poisons) of the Twelve Nidānas are:
:# ignorance (Sanskrit: Avidyā; Tibetan: ma rig pa)
:# attachment (Sanskrit: Upādāna; Tibetan: len pa)
:# craving (Sanskrit: ; Tibetan: sred pa)
:In other enumerations of the mula kleśa, hatred or anger (Sanskrit: dveṣa; Tib.: ཞེ་སྡང་ zhe sdang; 瞋 Cn: chēn; Jp: jin; Vi: sân) is substituted for attachment.
:These three mula kleśa are rendered into English as the "Three Poisons" and are symbolized by the Gankyil.
:These three klesas specifically refer to the subtle movement of mind (Sanskrit: citta) when it initially encounters a mental object. In Buddhist conceptions of the mind, "mental object" refers to any object which the mind perceives, be it a thought, emotion or object perceived by the physical senses.  If the mind initially reacts by moving towards the mental object, seeking it out, or attaching to it, the experience and results will be tinged by the upādāna klesha.  Unpleasant objects or experiences are often met by aversion, or the mind moving away from the object, which is the root for hatred and anger to arise in relation to the object.
:END OF REMOVED TEXT
:Dorje108 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed confusing un-referenced text

message: I've created a separate page for the three poisons, with an appropriate link from this page. 
* See Three poisons (Buddhism)
The topic is certainly worthy of its own page. I will add more context on this page when I get a chance. 
:Dorje108 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Created separate page for the Three Poisons

message: In consideration of the discussion above, and after careful thought and reflection, I am updating the lede paragraph as follows:
:Kleshas (Sanskrit, also kleśa; Pali: kilesa; Tibetan: nyon mongs), in Buddhism, are mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions. Kleshas include states of mind such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc. Contemporary translators use a variety of English words to translate the term kleshas, such as: afflictions, defilements, disturbing emotions, negative emotions, or mind poisons.    
:In the contemporary Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist traditions, the three kleshas of ignorance, attachment, and aversion are identified as the root or source of all other kleshas. These are referred to as the three poisons in the Mahayana tradition, or as the three unwholesome roots in the Theravada tradition. 
:The early Buddhist texts of the Pali canon generally referred to the kleshas (kilesas in Pali) as mental states that temporarily cloud the mind and manifest in unskillful actions. Over time the kleshas, and in particular the three poisons, came to be seen as the very roots of samsaric existence.
I have discussed this change with Larry (see discussion above) offline, and he has given his assent. The main purpose of this change to to first provide the information of most interest to a general audience, and then provide the information of most interest to scholars.  — Dorje108 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos Dorje!  You are an exemplar of thoughtful, consensus-building, conscientious editing on WP. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating lede paragraph

message: I wrote the Pali literature section of this article and it has a possible problem that I've not gotten around to clarifying for a long time and I'm not sure when I'll get time to do so:  the section (openly, especially through a plethora of endnotes) does not maintain a bright-line distinction between kilesa and upakkilesa (and even, perhaps, sa.mkilesa).  
Is this distinction important?  I really don't know.  I'm hoping not, because if it is important then the Pali section could be misleading (depending on one's objectives for reading this article, e.g., historical textual scrutiny).  Why did I blur this line when creating this section?  I of course no longer really remember but suspect, to the best of my feeble recollections, that it was initially because, in the Samyutta Nikaya (SLTP redaction?), the grouping (sa.myutta) entitled, "Kilesa" (SN 27), actually uses the term "upakkilesa" throughout its verses (e.g., also see the so-called "Kilesa Sutta," SN 46.33: "pañcime cittassa upakkilesā ...." [emphasis added]) -- suggesting that at least some redactor(s) somewhere in Theravadan history did not think this distinction was so important.  In addition, again according to my foggy, highly questionable memory, the term "kilesa" per se does not seem to come up with significant regularity in the Pali Canon's Sutta Pitaka, as suggested by this comment in Rhys Davids & Stede (1921-5, p. 217):
:Kilesa (and klesa) [from kilissati] 1. stain, soil, impurity, fig. affliction; in a moral sense, depravity, lust. Its occurrence in the Piṭakas is rare; in later works, very frequent .... [Emphasis added. Source: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:579.pali ]
Why I am writing this now:  Mostly I'm prompted by Dorje's continued work on polishing this article -- trying to make it smarter and more beneficial.  So, I figure placing this cautionary note here is better than nothing.  In addition, I'd like to mention a couple of resources that others might value reading and/or want to include somehow, if they are motivated to attempt to address this in a thoughtful manner.  In particular, in the Sutta Pitaka, there is significant material on the upakkilesā, such as in Majjhima Nikaya suttas 7 and 8.  (Here, for instance, is a document Ven. Bodhi created regarding the 16 upakkilesas enumerated in MN 7:  http://www.bodhimonastery.com/bm/images/stories/documents/MN_Handouts/M0040_MN-007_Upakkilesa.pdf .  And here's a Ven. Nyanaponika preface to his translations of MN 7 and MN 8 highlighting "upakkilesa" -- which he appears to translate simply as "defilements":  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel061.html .)  (That that Sister Upalavanna, I believe, generally translates "upakkilesa" as "minor defilement.") In addition, four upakkilesa (intoxicants, sex, accepting gold & silver, wrong livelihood -- presumably aimed at bhikkhu[ni]s?) are mentioned in AN 4.50 (e.g., here's Ven. Thanissaro's translation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.050.than.html .)
Personally, I think the Sutta Pitaka subsection might benefit from two sub-subsections:  kilesa and upakkilesa ... someday?  (Am I splitting too many hairs?)
Better than nothing?  I apologize if not,
Larry (24.225.67.227 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pali section: ''kilesa'' vs. ''upakkilesa'' 

message: Respectfully removing the topic "International Nath Order (INO) perspectives" and corresponding links. These are interesting links, but this is an article about kleshas within the Buddhist tradition, and the Nath group is not in the Buddhist tradition. These links are included on the article Kleshas (Hinduism). For guidelines on external links, see Wikipedia:External links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing topic on "International Nath Order (INO) perspectives"

message: Just a simple note to say that I am for changing the translation of *moha* to "confusion" and not "delusion." I heard  Steven Batchelor use this translation on a podcast yesterday and suddenly the whole thing made sense. "Delusion" has connotations of mental visions of grandeur that I do not think are meant by *moha*, which clearly references something that is broadly and universally applicable to the whole of mankind.
On the other hand, I think every English speaker can look at their life and understand immediately what "confusion" would mean. The wikipedia article on moha and this article make clear that there are alternate translations. It seems to me that "delusion" is becoming more and more antiquated and ought to be eventually expelled. 
I would be happy with "delusion/confusion" in the meantime.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.84.71 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delusion 

message: These articles and their redirects need to be untangled: Kleshas (Hinduism), Kleshas, and Kleshas (Buddhism). Particular attention needs to be paid to Kleshas, which used to be a disambiguation page. Right now it says , with nothing about the etymology and no mention of the other articles. It seems fine to me if it's an overview or summary article instead of a dab page, but it's incomplete as it is. 
The redirects to these articles seem pretty random; sorting them out might be easy for someone knowledgeable in these areas. — Gorthian (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kleshas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kleshas (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719223228/http://www.bodhgayanews.net/tipitaka.php?title=&record=15231 to http://www.bodhgayanews.net/tipitaka.php?title=&record=15231
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024042257/http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?9T to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?9T
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110509040030/http://www.vipassanahawaii.org/article_th3.php to http://www.vipassanahawaii.org/article_th3.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825100830/http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/past-conferences/ml08/ to http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/past-conferences/ml08/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified