Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fetter (Buddhism)

2010-08-09T14:43:02Z

71.111.221.229: /* Disputed */ - clarifying discrepancies? exploring alternative solutions?

{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=Start}}
{{philosophy|importance=|class= Start|auto=yes|eastern=yes|religion=yes}}
== WikiProject class rating==
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Disputed ==

There seems to be a big discrepancy between the meaning given here and the actual texts. It would have been nicer if the author had indicated how s/he came across the translations.

I will discuss the descriptions of the ten fetters as given in the article. I will change them with the article if no one has objections to my arguments.

1. belief in an individual self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
Well, this is OK looking but wouldn't it be nicer if we could rephrase as "Belief in an eternal, unchanging individual entity in one's self"?

2. doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)
Agreeable.

3. attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)
Wrong. What sīlabbata-parāmāso means, literally, is "to believe in a rite or ritual, that it will save one from the cycle of suffering." The emphasis should be given on to why there is an attachment to a specific rite or ritual. This is the one place where Theravada is in stark contrast with many religions and philosophies, where Theravada never administers blind beliefs or derivatives thereof, including prayers, rites, ceremonies, etc. to attain freedom from suffering.

4. sensual desire (kāmacchando)
This is pathetic. It clearly demonstrates the unfamiliarity of the author with the term kāma in Theravada context. Kāma, in Theravada context stands for "enjoyment" or "craving" from physical entities. Chanda, in Theravada context means "will", "longing" or "attachment". So the translation would be "attachement or longing to physical enjoyment". It should be emphasized at this point that the enjoyment goes beyond lust or sensuality: it encompasses all that is seen, heard, smelt, tasted or felt; in short, all that is perceived.

5. ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo Agreeable, although it could be stated as "the will to enjoy another's pain".

6. lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
This is actually good; good in the sense that it captures both the meanings of rūparāga; but why the author never did the same with the next topic I don't know.

7. lust for immaterial existence (arūparāgo) - Pls see above.

8. comparison of self against others (māno)
I had to edit this, there was simply no way I could leave the definition as it was. In fact, Māna is not just about pride; it has three categories: seyya-māno, sadisa-māno and heena-māno, which mean "pride", "equating oneself with another" and "considering oneself beneath another". Māna literally means "to measure", and there are three ways which one can measure oneself against others.

9. restlessness, distraction (uddhaccaŋ)Good.

10. ignorance (avijjā). This could be rephrased as "non realization". Vijjā stands for "to learn", or "knowledge". So Avijjā could be roughly translated as "ignorance", but here I suggest going beyond verbatim translation and actually rendering the meaning.--[[User:Cjdrox|Cjdrox]] ([[User talk:Cjdrox|talk]]) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:All the translations ''are'' sourced: each entry has an accurate end note. If you want to '''add''' different translations based on different reputable sources, please do. As it is, you just changed a definition directly based on the PTS PED while retaining the PED end note; so as to attempt to maintain Wikipedia's accuracy, I'm going to revert your change. Why is there any confusion here? [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

::To make it easier to add additional reliable sources, I just changed all the "''ibid''s" to "Rhys Davids & Stede (1921-25)." Also, Cjdrox, the kind of changes you're interested in making might be best expressed in the section [[Fetter_(Buddhism)#Individual_fetters]], where the individual fetters are put in greater context (since a two or three word list entry is necessarily limited in its contextualization). As it is, only three individual fetters are explicitly elaborated upon. Your greater (well-sourced) elaborations would, I think, work well here. - Larry ([[Special:Contributions/24.136.253.60|24.136.253.60]] ([[User talk:24.136.253.60|talk]]) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

:::Hi Cjdrox - just to make explicit a few of the reliable sources that probably influenced me when creating this, I've expanded the end notes to include translations by [[Bhikkhu Bodhi]], [[Thanissaro Bhikkhu]] and [[Maurice Walshe]]. (There are other sources -- e.g., [[Nanamoli]]'s [[Visuddhimagga]] and [[C.A.F. Rhys Davids]]' [[Dhammasangani]] translations -- but I thought I'd stick with translations of the suttas for this section's content. There's also, of course, Nyanaponika's AN translation and Nanamoli's MN translation, but since each of these were largely edited by Bodhi, I thought adding these would be redundant.)
:::You'll see, for instance, that translating "kaamacchando" as "sensual desire" and "avijjaa" as "ignorance" is widespread. There is certainly room for discussion regarding how best to concisely render terms such as "sakkaaya-di.t.thi" and "siilabbata-paraamaaso." Also, based on your observation regarding the discrepancy between the translations of "ruuparaago" and "aruuparaago," I expanded the latter (though I'm not confident that I struck the best balance).
:::Thanks for highlighting the last issue. Hope you find these additions and changes of benefit. Hope too you might further consider adding the details that you value, using reliable sources, to the [[Fetter_(Buddhism)#Individual_fetters]] section. Best,
:::Larry ([[Special:Contributions/24.136.253.60|24.136.253.60]] ([[User talk:24.136.253.60|talk]]) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC))

:::Dawned on me while out for a jog that you might prefer "historians" over "translators," so I added Gethin and Harvey (who also use "sensual desire" for "kaamacchando," etc.). I did a brief check of texts by Gombrich, Robinson et al., and Warder, but did not see anything immediately pertinent (although I did see Warder also translates "avijja" as "ignorance").
:::Hope this helps, Larry ([[Special:Contributions/24.136.253.60|24.136.253.60]] ([[User talk:24.136.253.60|talk]]) 01:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

Well, I guess it really is time for me to go head on:

The ten fetters have 'specific' meanings, which no one can be disputed about. But since this is encyclopedic content, we should provide sources. Yes, you are right. But my questions are:

1. What were your criteria in selecting the sources? Apart from Rhys Davis' translations, I see that all your sources are biased to the viewpoint of modern Theravada. According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I should have challenged it right there.

2. Your citation #15, http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2509.pali, does not list any of the translations you mention, where did you get the individual translations? None of the items under ''Abhidhamma Pitaka enumerations'' has any source. The above link is just a verbatim translation and a short description of the term Fetters. I have the right to demand that you provide ''actual'' verbatim renderings.

3. According to your citation, the third fetter is merely translated into English. For a complete understanding, please refer to the original text. I have found a near enough English translation: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/upaadaana.htm

4. This is embarrassing, Larry, your own sources contradict you. According to the Rhys Davis' translation, the following is mentioned: "A more logical definition is given by Dhammapāla on Vv 11 (VvA 11). He classifies as follows: 1. manāpiyā rūpādi -- visayā. -- 2. chandarāga. -- 3. sabbasmiŋ lobha. -- 4. gāmadhamma. -- 5. hitacchanda. -- 6. serībhāva, i. e. k. concerned with (1) pleasant objects, (2) impulsive desire, (3) greed for anything, (4) sexual lust, (5) effort to do good, (6) self -- determination."

So you see, Mr. Larry, sensual lust is but one interpretation. It is clearly not acceptable to specialize in one meaning, even if it is highlighted in some contexts by no matter how qualified authors, when the term very, very clearly can have several meanings.

5. A word about the term 'māno': Larry, could you please cite just one place where the term is stated to have this particular meaning only, in Theravada context? I agree that the term's original meaning was 'pride', in Vedic context, but in Buddhism, especially Theravada, the term has threefold meaning. Please see this excellent thesis by an active researcher on the word. http://www.mcu.ac.th/En/thesisdetails.php?thesis=254611

It explains two things:

(a) The original meaning of the word: as stated on the preface, "As for the meaning, mana means conceit or pride", and,

(b) The meaning in Theravada Buddhist context: as stated in the same preface: "...when it is caused by the thinking that ‘I am superior to others’ and liking down others, by comparing oneself with others like ‘I am better’, ‘I am equal ’ and ‘I am worse’, and by clinging to worldly conditions such as gain, fame, praise and happiness, respectively."

Please challenge me on Buddhist context of the term only. I am not answerable on other contexts.

Plus, as a closing thought, please read my contributions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Theravada#Disputed

- (cjdrox) [[Special:Contributions/112.135.71.184|112.135.71.184]] ([[User talk:112.135.71.184|talk]]) 05:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:Hi CJ -

:Thanks for the thoughtful responses. As you took a few days to respond, I'd like to do the same. (Sounds like we both have busy lives :-) ) Alternately, I can address one or two of your points sooner; are there one or two items you'd like to prioritize?

:With metta, [[Special:Contributions/24.136.253.60|24.136.253.60]] ([[User talk:24.136.253.60|talk]]) 19:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::The Buddha has been often misrepresented on the subject of self. Just read the MN 2 and MN 26 and that should clear it up. [[User:Mitsube|Mitsube]] ([[User talk:Mitsube|talk]]) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

::Sure, we all have busy lives. Take your time, It's all right. In the meantime, there are some additional things as well that I would like to bring up:

::1. The Ten fetters are mentioned in yet ''another'' way, but with Kāmarāgo, Ruparāgo and Aruparāgo replaced by just ''Rāgo''. The justification can be found in Abhidhamma, which states that there are three possible interpretations of Rāga: Kāmarāgo, Ruparāgo and Aruparāgo.

::2. The ten fetters are the same as Nīvarana (surprise, surprise!). It just happens to be yet another interpretation of The Fetters. Refer to Dhāthukkhandha for this topic.

::Is it OK if I rephrase the article after two weeks?
::With Metta,
::[[User:Cjdrox|Cjdrox]] ([[User talk:Cjdrox|talk]]) 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Hi CJ -
:::Of course, it would be fine if you were to add to this article ASAP using context-sensitive reliable sources.
:::I'm still having some trouble understanding why there is an air of conflict between us here. I'm getting the sense, based in part on the conversation with [[User:Peter_jackson]] you identified, that we are agreed that:
:::# For WP articles, reliable, verifiable sources are best (e.g., per [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]]) and that, when such sources are not available, it is beneficial to attempt to adapt these WP guidelines as best we can.
:::# No matter how "true" we know something to be, WP discourages material being introduced that is not published (e.g., per [[WP:NOR]]).
:::# The concept of the "fetters" in Buddhism is complex, reflected differently in different places in the literature, and documenting this variety (and perhaps evolution) is a good thing.
:::# End notes are a good means for documenting sources.
:::Assuming we are in agreement on these, then I get the sense that the nature of our apparent disputation concerns:
::::(a) '''Is the structure of the current article best?'''
::::(b) '''What qualifies as a "reliable source" (per [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], etc.) here?'''
::::(c) '''What is the best manner to aggregate these sources' information?'''
:::I hope it's clear, I'm trying to avoid getting in a discussion of "I'm right" and "you're wrong." I appreciate that you and I are both reasonable, have significant domains of knowledge, and aspire to share our knowledge in a way that benefits others. I hope too that we both aspire to refrain from divisive and harsh language, yes? (Admittedly, for me, these last ''sikkhaapadaani'' are works-in-progress.)
:::Regarding (a) above, the article's structure, I'm wondering if you are finding the current division of information between "lists" ([[Fetter_(Buddhism)#Lists_of_fetters]]) and "analysis" ([[Fetter_(Buddhism)#Individual_fetters]]) problematic, non-intuitive, misleading. Thus, for instance, when I read your concern about the list section's identification of ''maano'' as "conceit" (e.g., based on a consensus of Bodhi, Thanissaro and Walshe), I see a natural solution to be to create a new entry in the "analysis" section (e.g. [[Fetter_(Buddhism)#Conceit_(māno)]]), in which you can include statements such as, "According to the Abhidhamma ...." or "In SN 1.9 ...". (Sorry for my lack of specificity on canonical material ... I'm typing this while watching my son's gym class, without access to any literature.) Would this work? Or do you feel that the "lists" and "analysis" sections should be combined, perhaps the way in which the five aggregates are introduced in the WP [[Skandha]] article (see [[Skandha#Definition]])? Or, perhaps to maximize authenticity, might it be best to identify the terms first in Pali and then to provide some brief English language exposition, such as:
::::''maano'': often translated as "conceit" or "pride," this concept really has to do with ....
:::I'd also like to further explore the possible disharmony caused by (b) and (c) above as well, but if you could share your thoughts about this assessment and discussion of possible solutions at this point, I'd appreciate it.
:::Be safe, healthy and happy, Larry ([[Special:Contributions/71.111.221.229|71.111.221.229]] ([[User talk:71.111.221.229|talk]]) 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Buddhism and psychology

2010-07-13T18:26:15Z

71.111.221.229: /* Mindstream */ - this section is barely comprehensible, inconsistent with the rest of the article, school-specific, poorly cited/original "research," and patently false in places

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPReligion|class=|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B|nested=yes}}
}}

== Related texts ==

Today, an IP anon added a Fryba text to the "Bibliography" of this article. While I'm vaguely familiar with (and own) Fryba's "Art of Happiness," I did not use it in writing this article. So I moved the newly added Fryba text to a new section called "Related texts." I'm curious to know:
# Am I correct in assuming that there is a benefit to including in the "Bibliography" only sources that were used to write (and that are actually referenced in) the article?
# Am I correct in creating a "Related texts" section (after all, if something is on the web that is related to this topic but was not used to write this article, then it can be included in "External links")? Is there a (more) standard WP section title for such?
Thanks for any civil, constructive feedback, 
[[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Assuming this "Related texts" (or something similarly named) section stands, then personally I view this as an open door for everyone to add their favorite Buddhism-and-psychology-related publication (including articles, etc., but excluding self-published spam, etc. -- just where is that fine line?). Given that such a list probably extends into the hundreds, this could actually develop into a thoughtful reference section ...? Just an after-thought, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that psychological knowledge included in this article is seriously outdated. For instance, the weak points of the medical model were discovered decades ago and at least two significant health models have been developed since that time: holistic and ecological.
[Scobin, 23:53, 30 May 2008]

== "Insight Center" (L.A.) advert removed ==

An IP-address editor added the following today:
:In Los Angeles, the Insight Center [http://insightcenter.org] provides evidence-based training to the general public, psychotherapists and nurses in basic and advanced practices of mindfulness meditation and mindfulness psychotherapy. The Center offers consultations and trainings accredited by the American Psychological Association and the California Board of Behavioral Sciences as a Continuing Education Provider.
This was added ''prior to'' information on [[Erich Fromm]], [[Jon Kabat-Zinn]], [[Marsha Linehan]] and [[Albert Ellis]].

I suspect the editor who added this is proud of the "Insight Center." I suspect they are somehow affiliated with it. I suspect the Insight Center is an excellent, wonderful, truly helpful resource. The problem with its placement here is that:
:* There is no evidence that the Insight Center (unlike Fromm, Kabat-Zinn, Linehan and Ellis) is historically significant.
:* There is no evidence that they do anything truly unique that is worthy of an encyclopedic entry according to the academic/scholastic community or based on a review of history.
:* There is nothing to suggest that they should for any reason precede pioneers in psychotherapy such as Fromm and Ellis or pioneers in incorporating Buddhist mediation in psychotherapy such as Kabat-Zin ane Linehan.
:* Wikipedia has many reasons for not including advertisement – not even in the "External links" list (see [[WP:EL]]) – and this unfortunately appears to be advertisement. In short, if every institution throughout the world that offered such a practice were to add a paragraph to themselves at the top of such a section then: (1) this article would be very long; and, (2) this article would involve constant edit warring (e.g., who goes first?).
:* Way before any person familiar with the field would even contemplate including a place like the "Insight Center," they'd include in this list the pioneering work done at U.Mass (e.g., see http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/index.aspx); but, even that did not make this article given the prioritization of space usage.
Per [[WP:Consensus]], I'm going to revert the above insertion of information concerning the "Insight Center." Before an attempt is made to add it back, the matter should be discussed here and a communal resolution such be reached. (Otherwise, such non-consensual additions will be treated as [[WP:V|vandalism]] and related warnings will be placed on the originating editor's talk page.)

I deeply respect that the editor who added the above believes in the work of the "Insight Center" and I assume that they are among the thousands of such practitioners doing laudable work. I hope the above concerns, rationally considered, are understood if not completely agreed with. Thanks for your good works, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

==Mindstream==
This section is at best incomplete. It is barely comprehensible and contains references whose meanings are not explicated. Please improve. [[Special:Contributions/69.178.120.127|69.178.120.127]] ([[User talk:69.178.120.127|talk]]) 08:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that the section in question is "'''barely comprehensible'''." Furthermore, it '''lacks any cohesion''' with the rest of the article which is multi-disciplinary and historically organized. (Through the article's WP "History," you can see that this section was stuck in by a different editor after 99% of the rest of the article was stabilized.) In addition, this small section betrays, ''at best'', a '''specific school's thought'''. It relies heavily on highly disputed, '''idiosyncratic jargon''' (e.g., "Buddha Dharma"???). Moveover, some of its meager, illiterate (e.g., "Psyche" with a capital "P"???), inadequately sourced content -- e.g., "The principal [''sic''] and central teaching of Buddha Dharma is the 'consciousness continuum' or the Mindstream" -- is both bizarre and '''false'''. (Without question, "the principle and central teaching" of Buddhism is liberation from suffering.)
:I'd like to suggest that this obscure, discordant, sectarian, misleading section be removed from this article. Are there parts of it that can be salvaged and incorporated elsewhere in the article? Would anyone reasonable object to the removal of this section at this time?
:Larry 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Buddhist term

2010-07-13T18:06:49Z

71.111.221.229: /* "Translations of [Pali]" */ create explicit, optional "title" parameter?

I suggest that the parameter "sa-Latn" be renamed to "sa-IAST" in order to make it unambiguous that IAST is used as the romanization method. Also, can this parameter accept an embedded IAST tag as an argument, and is that desirable? [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:it's just a parameter name. sa-Latn is a valid ISO code while "sa-IAST" isn't. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::The problem is that many users do not understand the variant methods of romanization, as is clear from the talk page on the Buddhism article. Since "it's just a parameter name" making the parameter unambiguous that it is for IAST would be better than leaving it as sa-Latin, which is not clearly defining which romanization method it uses. The issue may be clear to you, but it is likely to be unclear to at least some users of the template. The use of the term "Latin" is ambiguous. The term "IAST" is not ambiguous. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

== Thread from [[Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist terms template]] ==

<center>''This thread is copied from [[Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist terms template]] for ease of reference. [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)''</center>

I don't know where to find this in the system in order to change it. The example of it in [[abhidhamma]]has Pali in devanagari, which is completely wrong as it's only been used since the nineteenth century. I couldn't find a way to change this in the article, so I assume it must be hard-wired into the template wherever it is. Could someone tell me how to find it (or change it themself)? [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] 11:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

::I'm trying to type and corral a baby at the same time so please forgive my brevity: I think the template you're looking for is here: [[:Template:Buddhist term]]. It was recently created by [[User:Dbachmann]] (based on something which [[User:Nat_Krause]] might have tried to start back in August 2006?) as indicated at [[Template_talk:DisplayTranslations#concerns]]. I suspect the concern you have is not so much with the new template but with the parameters passed to the new template. (Or perhaps, like myself, you're not thrilled with the placing of Roman-lettered words in parentheses, etc.) If I'm understanding you correctly and if you could spell out for me in more detail about what you would like to see (e.g., include punctuation, etc.), I'd be happy to try to make the resultant changes (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Best wishes, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

::Baby's asleep so let me return to this.
::There's a new Buddhism-specific translation-related template created by [[User:Dbachmann]] called [[:Template:Buddhist term]]. It differs from the previously used generic translation-related template called [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] (created primarily by [[User:Buddhipriya]] and myself) in a number of ways, mainly in terms of significantly saving computing resources.
::A more superficial change appears to be the new template's assumption that Devanagari is the norm and Roman characters should be parenthesized. (The generic template makes this a user/article-specific option.) My recollection is that this is the way that it in fact has been on the [[Abhidharma]] article for a while (Devanagari not parenthesized, Roman-characters parenthesized), but other articles (e.g., [[Sadayatana]]) have done it differently. I see different options:
::# non-Roman characters (e.g., Devanagari, CJK, Sinhala) are not parenthesized and Roman characters are parenthesized (which is the way [[:Template:Buddhist term]] is currently encoded — although apparently not for Tibetan and Vietnamese terms).
::# Roman characters are not parenthesized and non-Roman characters are parenthesized.
::# Parenthesize nothing; put the terms simply side-by-side or force Devanagari to a separate row, etc.
::# Make the displayed term totally user configurable: so some articles might parenthesize Roman characters and others might not or the same article might parenthesize Devanagari but not parenthesize CJK characters, etc. (which is the way [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] is currently encoded).
::Given Peter's expressed concerns, etc., I'm inclined to perhaps make [[:Template:Buddhist term]] totally user-configurable (article-specific) regarding parentheses and other term-specific display information, but would only do so if others agree to this. Any other changes anyone wants I'd also be happy to pursue. ([[User:Dbachmann]] appears to created this as a gift for the WP Buddhism community and I don't think he'd object to our modifications.)
::FWIW, other changes between new [[:Template:Buddhist term]] and old [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] appear to include:
::# the new template is wider than the old template.
::# the new template might omit the user-configurable prefix phrase, "Translations of"
::# the new template does not include the footer: "view • talk • edit" (which probably would have been of use to Peter today).
::I'd be happy to make any and all these changes as time allows if folks are inclined for me to do so (or, at the very least, if no one explicitly objects). With metta, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:::OK, let me try to be precise here. Pali has been written in the following principal ways:

:::* by large numbers of people for more than 2 millennia in various phases in the evolution of Sinhalese script
:::* by large numbers of people for several centuries in various SE Asian scripts
:::* by large numbers of people since the nineteenth century in Thai script
:::* by small numbers of people since the nineteenth century in nagari
:::* by small numbers of people since the nineteenth (or possibly eighteenth) century in Latin script

:::It should be obvious from this that there is no standard writing system for Pali, and most certainly not nagari. Therefore the way it appears in the [[abhidhamma]] article is totally wrong, as it gives the impression that nagari is ''the'' writing system. When I tried to deal with this on the particular article, I found that if I tried deleting the nagari the Pali disappeared completely, so obviously there's something in the template imposing nagari, which is unacceptable. If you're happy to deal with the technical stuff, which I'm not much good at, that's fine. What seems to me the sensible way to do it is to have Pali only in Latin, without brackets, because that's the way Pali is written in English. The basic situation is that there is no standard script and everyone uses their own. So obviously in Hindi WP Pali would be quite correctly written in nagari. The only acceptable alternative (acceptable in the sense of not misrepresenting the situation) would be to include all major scripts, including Latin, on an equal footing (without brackets). So my preference would be for the template to be altered so that only Latin spelling is entered in the Pali box. (A theoretically possible exception might be if a word is confined to, say, Thai Pali, but I don't know of any such.) [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Hi Peter — Thanks for spelling it out, sharing your knowledgeable and considered perspective. Very thought provoking and meaningful. I still have some lingering questions (e.g., should all languages be represented only using Latin characters or do we allow for CJKV characters, etc.). Perhaps until community consensus is articulated (e.g., at the very least, [[User:Stephen_Hodge]] do you have a view?), we should change back to [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] in the [[Abhidharma]] article and you can modify the input as you like? We can then voice these concerns at [[Template_talk:Buddhist term]]. If you don't object, I'll pursue this interim fix later today if possible or certainly within a week. (My real-world life is insinuating itself again :-( .) Thanks again, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::My feeling is that only romanization should be used for Pali and Sanskrit, for the reasons that Peter Jackson outlines and I am also a bit dubious about inserting CKJ characters. Some articles are a veritable clutter with all the terminological equivalents. Perhaps a more elegant solution is to create some kind of extension to the Glossary page -- one that lists all the terms in as many scripts and languages as any user might want. Each Buddhism article could have a notice inserted to guide users to that page.--[[User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, receiving the same guidance from Peter and Stephen is like receiving stone tablets on Sinai. So, unless anyone objects, I'll make [[:Template:Buddhist term]] Latin-script-only and, as Stephen perhaps suggests, include in the template's footer a link to the "Glossary page" (where folks can work out the "extension" Stephen proposes). Before I do this (and it will likely have to wait at least till this weekend or maybe next Tuesday), I'd like to check:
# Stephen, by "Glossary page," are you referring to [[Buddhist_terms_and_concepts]]?
# Does anyone mind if I copy the majority of this thread to [[Template_talk:Buddhist_term]]?
'''Peter and Stephen, thanks so much again!''' (And, of course, as always, if anyone else wants to weigh in, your all's additional insights are always appreciated.) [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, as preserved at [[Template_talk:DisplayTranslations#Non-English_languages]], I'd like to acknowledge that [[User:Rudyh01|rudy]] also maintained the Latin-script-only position back in February 2007 (along with Stephen then too). (I also see that part of the motivation for creating [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] was to move non-Latin-scripts out of the article's main text. I guess in the future if someone feels strongly that they need to include non-Latin-script in a WP Buddhism article they could still use [[:Template:DisplayTranslations]] then?) [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:I would like to comment on the potential use of this template on articles within the Hinduism project. Since many of the terms used are shared between these two great religions, the template can be of value in various places. The issus of romanization methods for both Sanskrit and Pali comes up often. I have collected a number of threads from previous discussions about IAST, which is the academic standard for the romanization of Devanagari, at: [[User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage]]. Nothing there has any formal standing, but some of the recurrent issues are listed. It is important to note that [[IAST]], which is used within the Hinduism project, is not exactly the same thing as the "Latin alphabet", which is used for a different romanization method often called "simple transliteration" or "simple romanization". In editions of Buddhist Pali texts that are published in India, it is quite common for the Pali to be given in Devanagari as the primary script. When the Pali texts are romanized, they are generally romanized in IAST, since that is the academic standard. Since IAST is not "Latin script" (because it uses some characters that are not in the Latin-1 character set), when i find things that are in simple romanization using Latin script I generally convert it to IAST, since that is a lossless romanization method for Devanagari. Thus the option to use both Devanagari and IAST in the template is a good idea as it will enable the use of the template on articles where it is desirable to establish academic credibility for the translation. The sound system of the Pali language can be fully-rendered in Devanagari script (or in IAST) but cannot be fully rendered in Latin script due to the smaller number of sound elements in the Latin alphabet. If a rendering is done in IAST there is really no need to show Devanagari because there is no information difference between those two rendering methods, and since most readers will be unable to read Devanagari showing it may be of limited value. However since romanization methods vary, it is important to signal to the reader which romanization method is being used. For that reason I feel that the best approach would be to standardize the "sa-romanization" parameter to be named "sa-IAST" in the template code itself for that reason. It is wonderful that we have an increasing number of options for methods of handling these languages. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

::Greetings Buddhipriya! Good point and, in short, I personally agree. Following up on what you write here and at [[:Template_talk:Buddhist_term]], I'd be inclined to have the template automatically pass all input strings through the <nowiki>{{IAST|}}</nowiki> function (e.g., so the nasal velar ''{{IAST|ṅ}}'' could be appropriately displayed). Would this have any undesirable side effects? (Also, on a technical level, if there are no further objections to this proposed modification, I was going to remove all the "-Latn" suffixes from the template's parameter names and just specify that all input parameters are assumed to be IAST-compliant.) Any objections? (Secondarily, if you think this would definitely be used in WP Hinduism articles, should a template name other than "Buddhist term" be used?) Thanks for the additional edification! [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I am unable to comment on the technical issues about passing an IAST tag into the template (you will recall that this was an issue we dicussed when you did the excellent work to create the previous template). The issue is that in some versions of Internet Explorer, use of an IAST tag wrapping the text results in the most accurate rendering of them (as opposed to just having the raw characters). I think that in the template the parameter names itself should be "sa-IAST" and "pa-IAST" so that the user will be unlikely to use some other romanization method there. That may be another way of making the point that "all input parameters are assumed to be IAST-compliant" as you said, I am not sure. :) If there is a way to have the title be a user-parameter, but with the default value be "Buddhist term", then someone who wanted to do an article just on Indian or Chinese history could perhaps use it, for articles such as [[Kushan Empire]] that aren't Buddhist issues, but where Chinese, Sanskrit, and Greek terms are used. Note that that article is a case where Greek, a language not particularly prominent in Buddhism, is critical to Indian history in the same region where Chinese influence was high. Indian history has a lot of contact with China, and the Buddhist issues therein are one of the many interesting examples of cross-fertilization between the two cultures. That article also notes a speculation that Aramaic may have been in use, so you really can't predict what may come up on these articles. Let us not forget [[Bonji]], which is a relative of Devanagari, and which was significant for some of the transmission texts during the period when Sanskrit texts were being transmitted beyond the borders of India.

:::As an elaboration on why IAST is not equal to the [[List_of_Unicode_characters#Latin-1|Latin-1]] character set, to properly display all the diacritic marks needed for IAST transliteration, a Unicode font must include characters that are spread across several different Unicode character ranges:

*Basic Latin: Range U+0000 – U+007F
*Latin Extended-A: Range U+0100 – U+017F
*Latin Extended Additional: Range U+1E00 – U+1EFF

:::Thus the IAST system is not limited to the Latin-1 set. The Latin-1 character set is the one used to do "simple transliteration" or "simple romanization", using only characters that appear in the English and Spanish languages. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 06:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, with all due respect, this discussion of Latin-1 is a red herring. By "sa-Latn" we mean IAST. "Latn" is the [[ISO 15924]] code for the [[Latin alphabet]], not for the [[ISO/IEC 8859-1]] charset.
Regarding Pali in Devanagari, I tend to agree. Giving IAST for both Pali and Sanskrit, there is no need to also give Devanagari (especially since Devanagari tends to render ugly, at least on all systems I am using). If we decide to only give romanizations (except for Kanjis, of course), I wonder if we need to keep the Sinhala slot, since Sinhalese terms mostly seem to be just a transcription of the Sanskrit one in Sinhalese script (?). I created {{tl|Buddhist term}} paying attention that the full functionality of {{tl|DisplayTranslations}} is preserved, but the idea is, of course, that it should now be optimized for the requirements of the Buddhist context, so please feel free to fiddle with it. thanks, [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was with regard to Pali only, where there is no standard script, and I'll leave argument about other languages to those with an interest. I was using the term Latin script in a broad sense. Strictly speaking, one might say that the letter w is not Latin because the ancient Romans didn't have it. There is a point to be thought about here, though. Many computers will not display some of the IAST characters. My own policy in actual articles, which I recommend for general use, is that both pointed and unpointed forms should be used on first occurrence in an article. Thereafter I think the unpointed form should be used, unless it's necessary to distinguish similar words. This avoids having the article full of oblongs. Whether this should apply also to these term boxes I'll have to think about. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:Larry, you ask "by "Glossary page," are you referring to [[Buddhist_terms_and_concepts]] ?" Yes, that's what I had in mind, although a separate simple listing of terms could also be useful to avoid definitional clutter. We should also make sure that users are aware that this listing exists, whether the existing Terms and Concepts page or a new listing. Also, what system is used for the diacritics encoded on that page ? A lot of them look horrible, especially in italics. And does anybody know what font I should have in order to display the Tibetan ? I just get rows of boxes ?--[[User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::I use [https://collab.itc.virginia.edu/access/wiki/site/26a34146-33a6-48ce-001e-f16ce7908a6a/tibetan%20machine%20uni.html Tibetan Machine Uni] for Tibetan script display and [http://www.thdl.org/tools/tise.html Tise] for input. The font isn't always beautiful but it works fairly well, except that (for me, at least) superscript r does not display properly. It's still in development and should improve in the future. As for the diacritics, they look fine to me, but I have my font set to Doulos SIL, which is particularly diacritic-friendly. I do worry that the some large portion of our readership will have difficulty displaying diacritics, especially any relatively unusual ones, or that they will look awkward when they do display; but, hopefully, the next few years will bring significant advancements in how well diacritics and unusual characters display on the average person's machine.—[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]]([[User talk:Nat Krause|Talk!]]·[[Special:Contributions/Nat Krause|What have I done?]]) 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::The comment that an editor made ("I was using the term Latin script in a broad sense") is the point I was trying to make, which is that many people may use the term "Latin" in a general sense rather than in a specific sense of a particular romanization method, such as IAST. So when Dab says "By 'sa-Latn' we mean IAST" he is expressing the technical nature of the parameter. But many users, particularly those who may not be exposed to academic texts, may not be aware that IAST is the academic standard for romanization of Pali in reference works like Franklin Edgerton's ''Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary'' and in other academic studies of Pali texts. Is there disagreement that for academic transliteration of Pali the standard method is to use IAST? Regarding the issue that some computers cannot display IAST, the same can be said for the other non-Latin1 character sets involved, such as Chinese. That is not an argument not to use Chinese, however. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::No. it's not an argument for not using Chinese at all, but it is an argument for minimizing its use. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not following up sooner, but I've been on the road and had only limited time and Internet access. 

It sounds to me that we are agreed on the following:
# Pali and Sanskrit entries should be done with Latin/IAST characters
# Pali and Sanskrit entries should not be done using Devanagiri
# A link to the Buddhist "glossary" should be added to the end
I plan on implementing these ASAP while making minimum changes to the current template (keeping in mind one caveat mentioned below).

I realize that there is intelligent, reasonable and truly heartfelt concern — especially by Buddhipriya — regarding the parameter names and, perhaps, whether non-IAST Latin should be allowed. I hope it is not seen as unreasonable that I'd like to hold this issue(s) in abeyance for the moment, to be discussed on an on-going basis. At the moment, I'm going to stick with the computer programmer's apothegm that simplicity is user-friendly and I'm going to simply use "pi" (not "pa", by the way, which is the [[List_of_ISO_639-1_codes|ISO alpha-2 code]] for Panjabi) for the Pali parameter and "sa" for the Sanskrit. The template's description will include a statement that the expected input for these two parameters is IAST or, at least, Latin. (At this moment, I'd like to allow for the user who, e.g., does not feel comfortable typing in (or know how to type in) "Pāli" but would rather type "Pali" or even "Paali".)

The caveat is that while I haven't fully reviewed dab's coding I don't think it explicitly checks that where IAST/Latin is expected as input, Devanagari is not in fact passed in. That is, if we specify that a parameter should be IAST/Latin and a user passes it Devanagari instead, I think the template will simply show the Devanagari. Moreover, it's not obvious to me using WP tools how to check for this; so, at this time, beyond the planned template description's specifying that the Pali/Sanskrit parameters are expected to be in IAST/Latin, the ultimate line of enforcement will be our following up with appropriate edits and pointers to the consensus reached here in this thread.

I hope my decision to move forward as seen above is not seen as inconsiderate, unreasonable, contentious, harsh or otherwise uncaring. If so, please feel free to partially or wholly revert my pending changes to the Buddhist term template. With metta, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

== Burmese, Korean, Thai ==

Should this table also be able to display Burmese, Korean and Thai? - [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And, should Vietnamese come before Japanese (e.g., do Vietnamese Buddhist scriptures predate Japanese Buddhist scriptures, as this enforced table's ordering of languages seems to be chronology-driven [with the obvious exception of English])? Thanks, [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Off the top of my head, I think Buddhism arrived in Japan before Vietnam, but that needs checking. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::FWIW, I added Thai today (hopefully in a manner that works) so that ศีลห้า can be represented in the sidebar in [[Five Precepts]]. [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Displaying "-Latn" only expressions ==

Due to a need in the WP [[Paritta]] article, I've added code to this template so that if a Sinhala term exists ''only'' in its Latin transliteration (that is, there is no "si=" term but there is an "si-Latn=" term), then the transliteration ("si-Latn" term) is displayed. I implemented this as best I could given limited time and, frankly, skills.

I have not generalized this to the other currently existing "-Latn" parameters ("my-Latn," "zh-Latn," "ja-Latn," "bo-Latn") — mostly due to my lack of confidence that the above fix (kludge?) is worthy of generalization. However, if someone identifies a WP article that needs this fix for a non-Sinhala term, please just leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll try to implement the "-Latn-only" fix for the needed language. - [[User:Larry_Rosenfeld|Larry Rosenfeld]] ([[User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld|talk]]) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== "Translations of [Pali]" ==

There is definitely an issue with defaulting to Pali as the main language shown at the top of these boxes.

# Numerically in just about every way imaginable, translated terms come overwhelmingly from Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, a different prakrit, or formal Sanskrit. That is, the largest collections of Buddhist texts were not translated from Pali.
# Pali has not been demonstrated to be an especially important source prakrit for the other important related languages, and it is usually accepted that the Buddha himself probably spoke a different regional prakrit, that of [[Magadha]] ([[Magahi]]). Over time, these were preserved in various regional prakrits (i.e. [[Gāndhārī language|Gandhari]]), and gradually updated to something closer to Sanskrit.
# Pali is used only by the Theravada school and therefore presents a misleading and false impression that everything came from Theravada and Pali. I have seen no evidence linking the earliest dated Buddhist texts with Pali, nor any evidence of Pali terms being historically translated into Chinese or Tibetan.
# Pali is generally not seen as an acceptable medium for pan-Buddhist discourse, as it is specific to one regional school of Buddhism only. Sanskrit is usually used as the proper language for writing academically about Indian Buddhism (or any other form than Theravada, for that matter).

For these reasons, the default should be changed to Sanskrit, which is much more representative of Buddhism as a whole, and also the historical Buddhism of India. This avoids associations with any one school, and this level of respect brings forward good will from other Buddhist traditions as well. [[User:Tengu800|Tengu800]] ([[User talk:Tengu800|talk]]) 08:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

:This template appears to be used in articles that are entitled using Pali (e.g., [[Saṅkhāra]]), Sanskrit (e.g., [[Vijñāna]]), Tibetan (e.g., [[Rigpa]]) and English (e.g., [[Four Noble Truths]]). I think it would be least confusing for the average WP reader if this template's instantiation either was entitled using the same word(s) (or at least language?) as the article's title or if it had no title at all (e.g., simply said "translations"). (Implicitly, relatedly, I think the various languages used by the various article titles reflect that some of these terms are most meaningful in the context of a particular language.) Towards this end, I'd be happy to implement one of the following:
::(a) simply use "translations" in the title (that is, delete the "of [Pali]" portion; although this would then limit this template's utility mid-article, if ever it were to be used in such a manner).
::(b) create a specific, optional "title" parameter that would allow one to explicitly define this template's instantiation's title (in whatever language seems most appropriate to the article in question).
:(Frankly, I wish I knew how to simply grab the article's title as the default, but I'm not sure how to do this and haven't time to see if WP has a mechanism for such.)
:Honestly, I'm inclined to sidestep a debate over whether [[Pali]] or [[Sanskrit]] (etc.) should be the *first* default. I'm hoping either of the above options would be found satisfactory, if not definitive. (My personal preference is to implement the latter option.)
:With [[metta]],
:Larry [[Special:Contributions/71.111.221.229|71.111.221.229]] ([[User talk:71.111.221.229|talk]]) 18:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)