Talk:Blind men and an elephant

message: I've corrected some of the references but I think not all repetitions, and I don't know Wikipedia's referencing format so they may not be technically formatted correctly for Wikipedia, but they do at least make sense now. Udana is the name of a book. 6.4 is the chapter and sutta/sutra number. Normally within Buddhist texts the intra-textual referencing is to sutta/ sutra names, not books and numbers, so in this case it's the Tittha sutta. A good non-sectarian source for primary text references is suttacentral.net, which is a comparative correspondence index of all the available different ancient language recensions and many translations. It also makes clearer the structure and history of the texts. Referencing to page numbers of the PTS edition is only handy if you're in a university or somewhere with the print edition books, which are not online, and it falsely implies that the Pali / Theravada recension is the only or primary one, which is a sectarian bias. E.g. for the Tittha sutta/sutra there are two Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit recensions, one of which was likely transmitted by the Mulasarvastivadin school, as it was later translated into Tibetan.
KesterR (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: referencing to Buddhist texts

message: About the "Blind Men" print to the right side of the page, how can that have been published in the 1880's if Hanabusa Itchō died a century before? PeterTheWall (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: Started the article but you do not even know that this story is originally from hindu panchtantra supposed to be written in 200-300 BC by a Brahmin Pandit Vishnu Sharma, that went to Arab world through translation.
Deliberately keeping Hinduism at the end and not giving original source of history of this parable. Dishonest and/or false presentation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.42.232 (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdity in presentation 

message: Nice article, well done! Glad to see the nasty comments some people made in one of your discussions didn't discourage you! I'm making a few minor edits, though. IamthatIam 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It did bother me for a while but I got over it. But it really upset Gerina. I don't think she's posted anything since! I hope she comes back. Some people are totally rude. I think they should be banned! But I'm not an admin. Binky The WonderSkull 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadly, there's an attitude prevalent which seems to think that "politeness" is anachronistic in these modern times. Certain folks would do well to realise that it's actually an evolved, useful species trait which enables H.sap to function in social conditions which would drive non-domesticated species to violence. Musings aside, if anyone's in contact with Gerina, do let her know that there *are* folks who appreciate her, and hope to see her back sometime. Drjon 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to be adding, but the Apocrypha also contains an earlier Discordian Blind Men and Elephant story (see page 80) by Robert Anton Wilson. Perhaps someone might like to add the information to this article as well? Or if it's not a conflict of interest, I will add the information myself. Drjon 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drjon you have a link for that? I'd think about adding it but there's a particular Wikipedian who didn't like some comments I made about him and tries to get everything I do deleted. IamthatIam 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The version that Robert Anton Wilson wrote under the penname Reverend Loveshade is a lot more famous than the one he wrote under his legal name. I don't think it's necessary to add that one too. MRN 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, not only are there two different earlier Discordian Blind Men and Elephant stories (references to follow), I think you'll find that the author of the version mentioned here is not the same individual as Robert Anton Wilson. Drjon 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouragement

message: Sam Gross, U.S. cartoonist best known for his work in the National Lampoon, published several collections, one of which (1982) was titled after a panel cartoon depicting the blind men...one of whom was elbow-deep in dung, making the astute observation "An Elephant is Soft and Mushy!"
I looked up this story as a means to explain to students that to have a complete representation of reality you can't rely on a partial reading, through a single observation, but you must integrate or sum up different sources and points of view. I find it strange that the main conclusions to the story go in the opposite direction, that a correct reading of reality is out of reach, unattainable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepf (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Elephant is... 

message: Then there's this earlier Discordian version, from Illuminatus!:
:Five stoned men were in a courtyard when an elephant entered.
:The first man was stoned on sleep, and he saw not the elephant, but dreamed instead of things unreal to those awake.
:The second man was stoned on nicotine, caffeine, DDT, carohydrate excess, protein deficiency, and the other chemicals in the diet which the Illuminati have enforced upon the half-awake to keep them from fully waking. "Hey," he said, "there's a big, smelly beast in our courtyard."
:The third stoned man was on grass, and he said, "No, dads, that's the Ghostly Old Party in its true nature, the Dark Nix on the soul," and he giggled in a silly way.
:The fourth stoned man was tripping on peyote, and he said, "You see not the mystery, for the elephant is a poem written in tons instead of words," and his eyes danced.
:The fifth stoned man was on acid, and he said nothing, merely worshiping the elephant in silence as the Father of Buddha.
:And then the Hierophant entered and drove a nail of mystery into all their hearts, saying, "You are all elephants!"
:Nobody understood him.
--FOo (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discordian 

message: Is there a serious dispute? The Buddhist version is in the Udana, an ancient text (long before Sufis were invented). As far as I can tell, the Jain sources are much later. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Bayer is a german company: http://www.bayer.com/en/imprint.aspx HenryCauthon (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Correction 

message: Isn't there a tale in one of the epilogues of War and Peace (here: http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/war_and_peace/356/, where people are asked what makes a railway locomotive move? It seems quite similar to this tale, so perhaps include it in Modern Treatments?  Murukesh Mohanan (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  War and Peace 

message: Can we have a citation for the Heisenberg quote?Lestrade (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Werner Where?

message: Yeah so the Bhuddah spoke English and liked to write in rhymes! Cool. Also... someone might want to check the sources for accuracy or at the very least move modern interpretations to the modern interpretation section. 68.42.144.46 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhyming in English? 

message: I'd love it if this line from the article is true - does anyone have a source for it?
    "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
85.255.234.245 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heisenberg quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blind men and an elephant. 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/20060831224020/http://www.spiritual-education.org:80/ to http://www.spiritual-education.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060708063248/http://www.antiquebooks.net:80/readpage.html to http://www.antiquebooks.net/readpage.html#saxe
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051107015356/http://www.cs.rice.edu:80/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1179.html to http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1179.html
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 02:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blind men and an elephant. 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/20121813211000/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/../../../../tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009233459/http://davidwilcox.com/index.php?page=songs&display=1998&category=Out_Beyond_Ideas to http://davidwilcox.com/index.php?page=songs&display=1998&category=Out_Beyond_Ideas
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726115510/http://www.octagonpress.com/titles/books/depr.htm to http://www.octagonpress.com/titles/books/depr.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013094305/http://www.spiritual-education.org/blindmenelephants.pdf to http://www.spiritual-education.org/blindmenelephants.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blind men and an elephant. 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:
*Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20121813211000/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/../../../../tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html on http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html
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) 22:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi All, the external link: Buddhist Version as found in Jainism and Buddhism. Udana hosted by the University of Princeton at http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html returns a 404 not found and should be deleted.
Alivebeing (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead External Link 

message: I have never read of an attempt to relate the parable of the blind men and the elephant to the expression “seeing the elephant”. Both seem to have ancient roots and pertain to the acquisition of broader knowledge from a position of limited subjective experience. 65.128.179.126 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some "seeing elephants" to the "See also": Seeing the elephant, Elephant in the room, and Seeing pink elephants StrayBolt (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing the elephant 

message: : I'm inclined to agree with Dcouzin about whether this parable's relationship with "ontologic reasoning" should be mentioned in the first sentence of this article.  Per the Manual of Style's guidance on the lead section, we should be avoiding "difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols" in the introduction, and "ontologic reasoning" is difficult to understand.  This parable shows up in many childrens' books all over the world, so it shouldn't be that hard for us to avoid links to "ontology" in the first paragraph, should it? -- RobLa (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point — it is fundamental enough to be in the article somewhere, but needn't be in the lede. I'll move it down and deemphasize it. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontologic reasoning