User talk:Joshua Jonathan
.jpg) "The avalanche was down, the hillside swept bare behind it; the last echoes died on the white slopes; the new mount glittered and lay still in the silent valley." Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited |
[edit]
You have no knowledge about our Ishta Dev Bhagwan Swaminarayan and about our sect. So why do you change it? I presented an impartial matter with evidence so why did you delete it. Either prove my proofs wrong or prove from any Sampradayak or Puranic text that Bhagavan Swaminarayan was a Yogi. Evidence has been given regarding May. You have insulted our Ishtadev, you know it hurts our feelings.... User : ભાવિક ( talk 08:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ભાવિક (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not personal beliefs; and nobody WP:OWNs articles. If you don't understand this your Wikipedia-adventure will be short-lived. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Misinformation in the Advaita Vedanta Page.[edit]
It is so sad that the page of Advaita Vedanta literally says that "Advaita adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis". This makes it look as if it copied ideas from Buddhism and just reinterpreted those. This is total nonsense. Advaita was heavily influenced by Buddhism, that too only Mahayana Buddhism due to its presence in the Indian intellectual landscape at that time. Mahayana's influence on Advaita is profound but making it look as if it blindly copied ideas is very unfair.
This is not just for Advaita but in the page of every Hindu philosophical system, there is an attempt to portray that it's core ideas came from or were influenced by Buddhism even though the Principal Upanishads, Samkhya and Yoga are older than Buddhism.
Besides no page in Wikipedia ever talks about the influence of Upanishads, Yoga and Samkhya ideas on Mahayana Buddhism even though it is very clear that almost all prominent Mahayana philosophers(like Nagarjuna, Ashvaghosha, etc) were of Brahmin origins.
This bias against Hindu philosophical systems must be taken into account. Wikipedia is almost a bad source to refer Hindu philosophies. 117.215.89.66 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- The current version of the article does not say Advaita Vedanta "copied from Buddhism". Wikipedia merely reports sources that are vetted for reliableness, and the part you're referring to cites an inline citation to a book called A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy.Here's what page 13 of the cited material says:
I think anyone would agree that Advaita Vedanta came after Buddhism, so it's a matter of reporting WP:RS as to whether it "adopted Buddhist concepts and gave them Vedic basis, and was influenced by various other Indian philosophy" or "taken influence from Buddhism and various other Indian schools of thought". But the formal is more accurate because essentially the concepts of Atman and Anatta between Buddhism and Advaita is "+0" and "0".If you have a WP:RS that contradicts this, please cite it (or it's best to take this discussion to Talk:Advaita_Vedanta). --WikiLinuz {talk} 18:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[...] but from Deussen onwards, no one has been able to come to any definite conclusions as to what centuries B.C. these Upanisads were composed. That is to say, there has been for the most part agreement as to the sequence of the composition of the Upanishads relative to each other, but to their actual dating, opinion has been divided into many divergent lines of thought. The large majority of scholars of Indology place their date of composition long before the rise of Buddhism, while there are those who assert on the contrary that even the most ancient of the Upanishads cannot be traced back to the 6th century B.C. To tackle this problem, some standard criteria must be sought which can reliably determine the periods of the Upanishads, but the Upanishads themselves are lacking in positive clues. Many personal names appear in the Upanishads, but their dates are completely unknown; furthermore, though the same names appear in the Buddhist and Jain Canons, since it cannot be finally concluded that these names refer in fact to the same individuals, they can not serve as suitable criterion.
— Hajime Nakamura. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy. p. 13.
See Talk: Horses[edit]
[1]. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The thought of Martijn Linssen per gThomas[edit]
Thomas isn't concerned with anything else but Us, We, You: what is our essence, who are we, what makes us, what drives us? (Radical non duality) is a fine fit as it also doesn't care about anything but ouselves...
It is my top priority to disclose the intricacies of Thomas and the beautiful insights in it. In essence, he teaches what today is known as radical non-duality, only 2 millennia earlier."Martijn Linssen | Leiden University". Academia.edu.
Please consider adding your input on the thought of Martijn Linssen per gThomas @ "Biblical Criticism & History Forum - Chrestians/Christians?". earlywritings.com. 2db (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
"Jesus died for our sins" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Jesus died for our sins has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25 § Jesus died for our sins until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)