User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

"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

Userboxes This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 11 months and 15 days. This user has made over 41,000 edits on Wikipedia worldwide. This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star. This user has been blocked at Wikipedia 1 time. This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

Archives: Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list

Alien Mentor collection Thanks Hafs! Now what kind of grammar was that? Be POLITE!! Darth Vader Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them I don't like the way you do your citations... That sentence, you need to reword it. It's too near original'. File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg Appreciation. For the Kalachakra sand mandala above, see Archive 2012

en:User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message

Thank you - History of India - lead

I want to personally thank you for compromising and being mature in solving this issue. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC))

@24.157.56.12: thank you! I'm glad that the comparison is being appreciated. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See Indo-Aryan migration theory

See Indo-Aryan migration theory.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to add a sentence to lead per WP:LEAD: "However recent genetic studies have shown that both northern and southern populations of India predate the hypothesized Aryan migration by tens of thousands of years, thus leading geneticists to reject Aryan migration".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Some geneticists, actually, only a few, or one - and Victoria Grayson, but that's only relevant backstage at the Wikipedia-theatre ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Geneticists published in Nature (journal). You do realize Nature is the top scientific journal right?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And the Nature-article does not state what you are stating here; it's the personal conclusion of one of those researchers, in another publication, presenting the Indo-Aryan migration theory as an Indo-Aryan invasion theory. You mean the Reich 2009 publication? I'll look it up, if you want. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

See Indo-Aryan migration theory#Pre-Indo-Aryan origins. It was Singh:

"Based on these researches, Lalji Singh, a co-author of Reich, concludes that these findings show that "[t]here is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India"."

Note the nuance: no genetic evidence. These titles are telling: "New research debunks Aryan invasion theory"; "Aryan Invasion Theory used for Divide and Convert : Exposed by fresh Genetic research." It's like saying: "Darwin's ape-theory debunked; humans do not descent from chimpansees." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There are several geneticists mentioned in those newspaper articles, including 2 coauthors of Reich: Kumarasamy Thangaraj and Lalji Singh. By the way, you do realize that Aryan migration is used to Christianize India right?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Which publication/source? I'm sure you get my point here: the way Singh is quoted on these researches is, ehm, peculiair, and has a lot to do with, well, you know, a specific view on Indian history, and less with the reliability of such statements. Not every statement carries the same weight... And no, I do not realize that "Aryan migration is used to Christianize India"; if so, that sucks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think people are opposed to Aryan migration? St. Thomas is portrayed as being the original source of southern Dravidian culture which is in opposition to northern Aryan culture. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Namaste JJ. And when theory after theory have been changed in the face of evidence the argument has changed to, uh, they are lowlife inadequate Hindutva people. Nationalism or Hindutva or Hindutva Nationalism is not the actual player, you will find it more from the opponents to dismiss any discussion against their views. It is only simple to observe that it is not fair nor academic practice to debate in such manner. This comment is about content discussion and is made in seriousness. Lord Buddha or Shankaracharya were uneducated tramp by a set of people, I beg to differ with the criteria used to come to such conclusion itself (academic degree and peer-reviewed-publication). A scholar discusses content/evidence and not the author. ... Digressing. Anyways, consider this trolling or a casual healthy interaction, your choice. Namaste again. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, you can delete this discussion. I'm done for now.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: St. Thomas as "the original source of southern Dravidian culture"? Hilarious. Same category as "Jesus went to India," or worse?

@AmritasyaPutra: "when theory after theory have been changed in the face of evidence" - that's how science works. With "opponents" you probably mean mainstream scholarship? Note that most scholars don't even bother to "dismiss" Indigenous Aryans theories; they're simply irrelevant in the academics. Buddha or Shankara are unrelated to this discussion; at least they're not mentioned by geneticists. The point is, the scholar makes a correct statement: "there is no genetic evidence for Indo-Aryan migrations." But it is represented as: "Indo-Aryan invasion theory debunked." Duh. Don Quichot fighting the windmills, while the real discussion is on other matters.

Regarding "academic degree and peer-reviewed-publication," the publication in question is:

• Metspalu, Mait (2009), "Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia", AJHG, Volume 89, Issue 6, 9 December 2011, Pages 731–744 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).

This what this article has to say on Indo-Aryans:

• "Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP."
• "However, some heuristic interpretations of the ancestry proportions palette in terms of past migrations seem too obvious to be ignored. For example, it was first suggested by the German orientalist Max Muller that ca. 3,500 years ago a dramatic migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia (the putative Indo Aryan migration) played a key role in shaping contemporary South Asian populations and was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family and the caste system in India. A few studies on mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation have interpreted their results in favor of the hypothesis,70–72 whereas others have found no genetic evidence to support it.3,6,73,74 However, any nonmarginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region, we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia."
• "Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration."
• "Summing up, our results confirm both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span."

Note the terms "dramatic migration" and "nonmarginal migration." The Indo-Aryan migration theory (not "the Indo-Aryan invasion theory") does not postulate a mass-migration. Max Muller himself stated that one wandering shepherd could have been enough to introduce Indo-European languages. The IAmt, as proposed by David Anthony, states that it was their culture of creating in-group bonds which allowed for the spread of the Aryans (the "noble ones," c.q. "hospitable ones"). So, when an article uses the term "Indo-Aryan invasion theory," you already know that that part of the article is nonsensical, engaging in straw-puppet arguments and outdated models. As a matter of fact, this research even confirms this aspect of the IAmt: no large-scale invasion. The real question is: how does language shift take place, and what were the benefits of this Aryan culture? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Namaste JJ, is B. B. Lal a scholar or ...? --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such a fascinating topic. I think it's the same case with my country, where a majority of Germanic origin migrated to the nowadays Finland and adopted the language spoken by the (current) Sami minority. Proto-Sami / Proto-Finnish it is referred to =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Some say so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The award for the best edit yesterday goes to Pebble101 [1]. Well done, Pebble101! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Can you please check sources on Bodhidharma page, and the image of "blue eyed cenetral asian monk preaching east asian monk" is pretty random and unrelated to Bodhidarma. I can't access the given source for the quote of his central Asian origin but i did a quick search on google-books and found this on Encyclopedia of Monasticism by William M. Johnston: The mention of him as Persian (Bosi -Fars) is mistaken, for his name is Sanskrit, and Sassanian Iran was little known for it's Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.24.52 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

References

The Japanese tradition regards him as Persian (or Afghan; anyway, blue-eyed). Broughton is a reliable source. See also Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources for an extensive overview of sources (and traditions) on Bodhidharma. And no, the picture is not random; see Indo-European migrations for the extent of these migrations; see also Silk route. I'll add the info from Johnston to the sub-article; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Done; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Affirming my action

I am talking to you, because you and Sitush are least aware of the ground facts, siding each other sidelining my community's history, and giving your own interpretations on the topic. You seem to be Christian, and I cannot guess anything about Sitush, you have a funnel vision that all the words are derived from Sanskrit, that's ridiculous. The truth is Dravidan languages is another unique language group( Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam are recognized languages from the family in India) Your undoings will mislead the people who want to learn about our community. We are unrelated to the namesake communities from other regions of India, we are basically Dravidans
You cannot revert because I am referring the term Komatis from History book pertaining to Andhra, I again quote here the book as well as page numbers for your further reference We are Komatis(Kalinga). Shrine of our tutelary deity is at Penugonda and name is Vasavi. It is neither related to Jainism that was prevalent during the Vengi Kingdom of Eastern Chalukyas nor to the name of Godavari nor Gomati Please do not meddle with the article. If you need further reference tell me how can I request another user to affirm my edits because I am still struggling to get grips using Wiki.

Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Ywan Chwang who happened to visit Vengi clearly uses the term 'KOMATI' in his works to document the trading community in Eastern Chalukyan empire (a.k.a - Telugu lands Andhra/Telengana). He stresses that Jains and Buddhists as well in Kingdom of Vengi were influenced by caste system,he says that the trading community are denoted by the term 'Komatis'. Kindly note the usage of words Komatis and Jains in the reference page mentioned above PDF, they are distinct

About Chinese Buddhist Pilgriim Ywan Chwang and his Buddhist study at Amaravathi Buddhist Studies at Amaravati,Andhra(South India)
'In the religious sphere.Buddhism which was dominant once was now in a decadent position.It monasteries were practically deserted, when the Chinese traveller visited the Vengi country. Due to their love of sacred relics in stupas, a few might have lingered on,Ywan Chwang noticed some twenty or more Buddhist aramas in which more than three thousand Sramanas lived .He spent sometime in Amaravati and studied Mahasanghika Abhidamma with the help of two sramanas....'

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondivadu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 7 December 2015

@Mondivadu: I'll look further into your edits. it's just that Sitush is a knowledgeable editor, who often encounters unwarranted resistance from other editors. But I'll look into it. NB: my religious background is irrelevant here, but I suggest you take a closer look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To be continued at Talk:Arya Vaishya#Komatis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

IP

This is a response to your comments on my talk page: "I am sure my ISP has numerous IP addresses that it assigns to millions of its users. I have no idea why or when they change an IP address associated with a user, but I am sure you can determine from my comments that they are coming from the same person. There is no intention on my part to hide the fact the comments are the same person, but I have no interest in paying for a dedicated IP address since I comment on Wiki very rarely. Your edits stood out because I suggested to a friend to go to Wikipedia to get a general understanding of who the Buddha was and what he taught. She then reported back to me what she found, and I was totally shocked that this was considered a 'neutral' description of the Buddha and his teachings, and thought perhaps it was a joke. But after going back and forth with you for some time now, it is clear this is based on your Nagarjuna-like understanding of Buddhism, which is merely one perspective that is clearly not universal. I strongly suggest you educate yourself on the much wider and richer perspectives shared by Buddhists around the world so you can make meaningful editorial contributions from a neutral point of view."123.231.127.74 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly advice you to familiarise yourself with Wiki-policies, and to update your knowledge of academic scholarship on Buddhism. The fact that you are "shocked" by this scholarship says enough. The references are given in the article, and the sources can easily be found at the internet. Meanwhile, stop being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, shocked that this so-called scholarship would be taken seriously as a 'neutral' point of view concerning the Buddha and his teachings. Yes, I am aware of the politics in academia where some young scholars feel a need to kiss-up to 'prominent' scholars like Gombrich and Bronkhorst to get published in various journals. But politics and self-promotion of particular scholars is no substitute for neutrality.123.231.127.74 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should consider the possibility that the Buddhism which you have learned is not in all aspects the Buddhism of the Buddha, but a Buddhism which developed out of his teachings. Take serious the traditional account of the Buddha's awakening: the third insight, namely the realisation of the four truths, directly results in his liberation. Hmmm... don't the four truths say that there is a road leading to liberation, namely the eightfold path? A road which you have to traverse? But the Buddha himself, by discovering this path, is liberated right away? Something's weird is going on here... Read Vetter etc, instead of disregarding these scholars as "kiss-up self-promotion." It's a really stupid and immature comment. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it - the Buddha DID traverse ALL of the parts of the Eightfold Path, not only in his last life during seven years in the forest as a ascetic, but in previous lives that he recalled as part of his enlightenment experience (First Knowledge). The problem with scholars such as Gombrich and Vesser is that they admit that they do not accept the idea of kamma or past lives, and this is a personal BIAS that shows up in their scholarship that is completely inconsistent with what the Buddha taught. 123.231.127.74 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.127.74 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You follow Protestant Buddhism invented by 19th century Theosophists.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I follow by own direct knowledge and experience with the teachings of the historical Buddha. You have some sort of aversion to 'religion' based on your exposure to Christianity and its interpretation by others (fundamentalists), and I understand how this has shaped your perspective; but when you do not know someone, what they have studied, or what they have experienced, it is best to stay silent rather than look foolish by trying to 'fit' someone into your preconceived idea and label. Most of my formal studies, including master's level studies, were in the Mahayana tradition. I have also spent time in-residence in Mahayana temples. My rejection of the Mahayana perspective is based on personal experience with the teachings of the historical Buddha, not a knee-jerk conformity to local conditioning and observances of Theravada Buddhists. I am now practice-oriented (my doctorate research is in psychology, not Buddhist Studies), as the deficit appears to be a lack of practice and experience with the teachings of the Buddha, which is causing a lot of human suffering. Like your friend, Jonathan, I have come to understand through experience that the 'gradual approach' works best for most people, but I also understand and accept that certain individuals like the historical Buddha have done a considerable amount of spiritual development work in previous lifetimes, and would therefore never question or doubt that work even if I had no direct knowledge of past life experience. As it turns out, I do have direct knowledge of past life experience and therefore have a fair amount of confidence in the Buddha's description of his own enlightenment. Through study of most of the 20,000 discourses given by the Buddha, I have also realized that the historical Buddha was aware that most people have not done the amount of spiritual work he had done in previous lives (Second Knowledge), but that this should be no barrier to spiritual liberation from samsara if one attempts to experience the truth of the Dhamma for themselves. This is why the Dhamma is his gift. Get out of the journals and into the Dhamma from a practice perspective would be my best advice, as most scholars in the Buddhist Studies field have no clue because they don't practice. I know the 'theory' is that this lack of practice makes these scholars less biased, but anyone who has been in the academic field for some time knows that 99% of scholars in the social sciences are biased in some way, and could not get published if they did not share some of the core biases of the editors on the journals that determine the outcome of their careers. Therefore, what we should be doing is bringing these biases to the surface so the reader can put the scholarship in its correct perspective, rather than hiding the bias and trying to pass off a biased perspective as a 'neutral' point of view. I know when I write a paper regarding Buddhism, I am completely upfront concerning my tradition and practice, as I have no interest in fooling anyone or pretending that this perspective does not inform what I write.123.231.127.74 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Pali Canon is not the teachings of the historical Buddha.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Try 'practicing' according to those teachings and learn for yourself what the truth is rather than simply parroting what others have said. First hand experience is not something you should be afraid of if you want to be a serious researcher in the field of Buddhism.123.231.127.74 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Try practicing Vajrayana techniques and learn for yourself what the truth is rather than simply parroting what others have said. First hand experience is not something you should be afraid of if you want to be a serious researcher in the field of Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have tried Tantic practice, and it did not lead to awakening - just more chasing of pleasant feelings in samsara.123.231.127.74 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"I do have direct knowledge of past life experience and therefore have a fair amount of confidence in the Buddha's description of his own enlightenment" is indeed the kind of "transcendental truths" that I don't believe in. You've got very strong opinions, but a serious deficiency qua critical attitude. Your comment "Get out of the journals and into the Dhamma from a practice perspective would be my best advice, as most scholars in the Buddhist Studies field have no clue because they don't practice" is the ind of dogmatism I really don't like: "I'm right, you're wrong, because you don't see it and don't do it my way." Read those sources, and start doing some real work, instead of this socalled "spiritual work." Dare to doubt! And don't judge others so quickly. Doubt!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Doubt regarding the Dhamma is the second fetter that binds beings to suffering in samsara. And if you don't have any confidence in the Buddha's own description of this enlightenment, what in the heck are your doing editing Wiki pages on Buddhism? Is Wiki your personal project to cause 'doubt' among unsuspecting readers concerning what the Buddha taught? If you don't even accept past life experience, which not only is featured in the First Knowledge of the Buddha's own awakening but through-out the thousands of discourses of the historical Buddha, then you REALLY ARE disqualified to edit any Wiki pages concerning the Buddha and his teachings. Even the Tibetan Buddhists, which is the dominant strand of Buddhism in the Buddhist Studies field, believe in past life reality - what do you think a 'tulku' means?123.231.127.74 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe in past-lives as a Tibetan Buddhist. But I doubt your ability to remember yours.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding edits at bhakt page

The term bhakt has religious meaning ahead of political or social media troll terms. So opening of an article can't have a different introduction as per wikipedia policy. Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls. As this is even used in facebook by trolls.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)