Talk:Mortification of the flesh

message: There is a passing reference to mortification in Islamic contexts, but it seems like this topic needs a full section. Does anyone have any knowledge in this area? The best I can do is a picture of Iranian Revolutionary Guards flagellating themselves with chains. Godfrey Daniel 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mortification and Islam

message: The article says:
"The Sanskrit term for mortification is tapas."
Are there any Sanskrit scholars out there who can verify this?  
I'm pretty sure Tapas refers to "internal heat" or bodily energy released / produced through spiritual practice (although--this may or may not include self-mortification)... similar to Chi (Qi) or the Boiling Heat of the !Kung San (Khoisan).  Can any one confirm or deny this?
--Pariah 14:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Although  the literal meaning of 'tapas' is heat, it also refers to the act of penance (With 'tapasya' being the verb). Mythologically, there have been Hindu saints who apparently performed penance through meditation for inordinate periods of time (long enough for an anthill to be built upon them).
Im no sanskrit scholar though - the most I did was 2 years of it in middle school.
--Pdinc 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanskrit

message: The section "Teachings of Pope John Paul II" (formerly titled "Teachings of John Paul the Great" includes some numbered references 88 and 89.  That suggests the text is pasted from somewhere.  Could there be a copyright prob?
----
fuck
This section reads to me like a sermon which has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. It should be replaced by a short summary, or deleted entirely. Ben Finn 12:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The teaching of Pope John Paul II: the salvific meaning of suffering

message: I brought back parts of the teachings of John Paul. It provides very important insights into this theological topic. I've also rearranged it so it is more encyclopedic. 
If it is a theological topic then the experts have to have the greatest say. The more credible the better. 
Neutrality does not mean irreligious or secular. Neutrality means presenting sides, but presenting more the side of the most credible expert. 
Please see Wikipedia rules:
If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not
From the NPOV Tutorial:
Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them. One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. 
Lafem 09:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's Neutrality Rules: Neutrality = higher proportion for credible experts

message: This article specifies only one view of mortification, however it mentions nothing about how non-catholics regard those practices. I added a new paragraph which you can expand. Pictureuploader 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an excellent NatGeo documentary on Taboo practices of suspension  and temporary piercing as a form of spiritual awakening and tests of courage.  Bad thing is I can't find transcripts of the documentaries. They certainly aren't about self-hatred or hopelessness.  Alatari (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Whilst some ascetic practices are used in Buddhism I think these need to be differentiated from mortification.
Buddha explicitly rejected the practice of mortification after the harsh practices he undertook prior to his enlightenment almost caused his own death.
Mortification is taught to be another form of attachment (and hence source of suffering) by Buddhists, and is spritually counter-productive.
The concept of finding a "middle way" is central to our beliefs, and that middle way rules out mortification
:I agree, however the term "mortification" in the wider sense includes asceticism that is intended for a higher spiritual goal. Any denial of the body's needs fits in here, in this case its goal would differ...that goal being to end attachment. 
It's not the degree of suffering, it is that it is physical suffering that is related to a spiritual goal. That's the simple definition, and asceticism in any form (even mild, and middle of the road) fits. Do you have any references for the quote from Buddha? We could include it in that section, definitely.
Resonanteye 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: Could someone please help me? This is my first time doing a major edit, and I can't figure out the footnotes. I can link to my source, but for some reason it shows my source number as 3, and there's already a 3. And I can't get my footnote in the Footnote section at the bottom of the page to connect to my footnote number. For now I've given up on that.
Also, some of the other footnotes in the Footnotes section at the bottom aren't showing up now, and I don't know why. I didn't touch them, and they seem to be on the "edit" page. (maybe?)
I thought it was important to note that certain forms of self-mortification are discouraged by the Catholic church, but I definitely did not plan to make other people's footnotes disappear. So sorry!
--Eldaglass 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the number is redundant that means the source has been used previously and not to worry.  The reflist sees duplicates and numbers accordingly.  I couldn't figure out where your references went in the text.  Goto the previous version to copy out your footnotes and use the  template to place them inline right behind the word/sentence they reference.  Alatari (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote help! 

message: The phrase is used to specify more than just protestant groups, but then links to the protestant wiki article. This seems a bit confusing and counter intuitive. Should this be changed? DeMyztikX (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Catholic Christians 

message: The opening paragraph had this link unexplained picture but it's out of context and not explained how it is relevant to the article.  No matter how interesting it is it needs context.  Alatari (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I've created Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching as a content fork from the current article, as I think that it gives undue weight currently to the Catholic position.  I'm going to trim that section at some time in the future, but as I can be quite severe in these cases I thought I'd leave it to regular editors to do this.
JASpencer (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching]] 

message: From the self-harm#History section: "Favazza and Rosenthal (1993) reviewed hundreds of studies and divided self-mutilation into two categories: culturally sanctioned self-mutilation and deviant self-mutilation[24]"
The above classifications deviates between self-harm and practices such as this article.  Any ideas what kind of article to create at culturally sanctioned self-mutilation and how to tie in this article and various other non-religious acceptable body modifications or acceptable self-mutilations?  Review the Meninger and Ross/McKay classifications schemes in the history section too. Alatari (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  culturally sanctioned self-mutilation 

message: Many of the papal quotes are for some reason interpreted to be specifically about mortification of the flesh. Wikipedia is a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.14.55 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquotations 

message: Would whoever added the statements about the Church of Body Modification please cite some sources?  Nothing on the Church's website makes any mention of pain being part of their spirituality at all.  Unless someone can give references for these claims, I'm going to remove them from the article. Fyrael (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Body Modification 

message: Substituted at 00:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment