User talk:TonyMPNS
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Question re Mahaparinirvana sutra
Ahoy. I have a question for someone who specifically knows the Mahayana Nirvana sutra. Does the sutra say—as apparently testified by Nichiren (1222-1282)—words to the effect that "those who accept only the Hinayana sutras...will have their tongues fester in their mouths"? To make it excruciatingly clear, my question for the moment has nothing to do with Nichiren but rather how the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra uses the term Hinayana.
I've taken it on myself to try to remove the particular POV that the current Hinayana article projects. While it may not be possible to remove all bias, it is possible to present all sides (as I think the Shroud of Turin article does for its highly controversial subject; and I plan to use that as something of a model for what Hinayana will become after I rewrite it). I can well imagine that you might not like to be drawn into such a controversy. Still, I would ask you to please give an honest answer and to trust that I bring a high standard of documentation to my contributions here, as perhaps evidenced by the first 1/2 of koan, which I authored and footnoted. My (very preliminary) notes for a revision, which is probably still months away, can be found at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. The current Hinayana article does not reflect any of my contributions at all. --Munge 04:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
An Award | |
| I award the Barnstar of High Culture to TonyMPNS for his devoted contributions to Buddhism-related articles. Well done! Brisvegas 13:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
Your edit to Buddhism
Your recent edit to Buddhism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
to develop a summarized Conception
Hi. I've added, into Conceptions_of_God#Conception_of_God_in_Buddhism, your recent addition to "Names of God" section in article God. However, you're welcome to work on a more devoloped one, if possible, to a maximum of two paragraphs (like a summary). The ideia is to have all views fairly represented at the article. Thank you! --Rosaecruz 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gratefull for your friendly and kind words; likewise! :) Best regards! --Rosaecruz 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I have noted a few moments ago, already afterhours, that you're an indepth author related to Buddhism and a Mahayana Buddhist (the Buddhist path with which I would say, at a first glance, that I would have more affinity with). As such, please allow me to humbly request your attention to a small and almost unknown book written in the first half of the twentieth century: [1] [2] an edition. It was written by a laddy, disciple of a Mystic called Max Heindel; I have read this book many years ago; who knows what a knowledgeable mind in Eastern Religion(s) may find there? :) With gratitude. --Rosaecruz 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
no problem
thankyou dr tony
Thankyou for your kind words.
Yours in truth
Glenn Langdell
"Atman" and "Tathagatagarbha" equivalent?
Dear TonyMPNS:
Please do not be offended by my revision, on 2/7/07, of your section of the Mahayana article in which I said I took out all inappropriate references to "Essential Self" (Atman) in reference to "Tathagatagarbha." I feel that your interpretation is somewhat unorthodox -- which is not a bad thing, just that it may not accurately represent the majority interpretation. Perhaps this is not what Wikipedia is meant to do, or perhaps it is. In any case, that to which we are both referring, Buddha-nature, is of course the same regardless of the language used to describe it, but I simply felt that the language and translation in the "Immanent Transcendence" (or is it "Transcendent Immanence"?) section of the article was moving too far away from an upayic interpretation of the text, in which the Mahaparinirvana sutra would be seen to be pointing towards something other than a strictly literal interpretation of the scripture.
These are not philosophical arguments in the Western sense, in which there would be an assertion of a particular idea (in this case, Tathagatagarbha) as an objective truth. In all authentic schools of Buddhism there is no idea that can be held up as the absolute "Truth" -- be it Atman or anatman. These and any other ideas can only be considered "truths" in a relative sense (upaya), in which they can be used by a teacher as skillful means in order to steer those with one-sided views toward the indefinable (prajna), that can only be grasped intuitively. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anatman is not a dogma, but an upaya which was meant to bring those, brought up within the spiritual world of Hinduism, away from a one-sided view of "Atman" or "Essential Self" as a permanent and unchanging entity, and toward the prajnic Middle Way.
Similarly, toward the end of his life, the Buddha may have seen his followers moving too far in the other direction toward an almost nihilistic interpretation of his own doctrine of anatman, and so he may have sought to compensate for this through the wonderful teachings found in the Mahaparinirvana sutra. Again, these are meant to be read in an upayic context, not as the final, ultimate teachings of the Buddha in which his "real" understanding of the Truth is finally revealed. All of the Buddhas' words are equally "true," and then only in an upayic sense. There may be certain schools of Buddhism that would refute this, but their interpretations, just as those of the more "orthodox" or mainstream schools, may tend to veer off too far to one side or another of the Middle Way when held onto as objective "Truth." Nagarjuna is the perfect explicator of this, and I would of course defer to his much more eloquent summary of this subject.
One might safely say, at the risk of sounding absurd, that the essence of Buddhism is to be found through non-essentialism -- which, of course, applies as much to itself as to essentialism. This "prajna-sword," cutting away all one-sided views, can be seen not only in Manjushri's hand and Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyakakarika, but also in the Prajnaparamita sutras, Chao-chou's "Wu," and in the Mahaparinirvana sutra itself, which states, "And, also, the wise person clearly thinks: 'For what reason do beings speak about the Self? Why is it that beings speak about the Self? If this Self exists, it must be [either] one or many. If it is one, how can there be such as Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Sudras, humans and gods, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, or big and small, or old age or the prime of life? For this reason, I know that the Self is not one. If the Self is many, how can we say that the Self of the being is one and all-pervading, knowing no bounds? Be it one or many, in either case, there is no Self.'"
Your part of the Mahayana article, as well as many others, is quite insightful and helpful, so please do not think I am attempting to refute your views as "un-factual." I merely sought to bring some balance to the article, which is, after all, an article in reference to the Mahayana in general, and not any one interpretation.
Thank you for your knowledgeable contributions, Tomabird 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent addition of Nichiren to Template:Buddhism
Hi Tony - I suspect this might be way beneath you but, given that you teach Mahayana Buddhism, I was wondering if you might have a viewpoint on the recent inclusion of Nichiren on Template:Buddhism (being discussed under Template_talk:Buddhism#needs_more_Japan). I'm soliciting feedback from regular WP contributors such as Nat_Krause, Sacca, Rudy and yourself. Am I overreacting to or wrongheaded about this recent addition? Thanks for any guidance or insight. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As a complete aside, as a one-time animal-rights activist, I applaud your additions of pro-vegetarian Buddhist material to WP!
- Thanks so much for the extremely fast, thoughtful, informative and helpful response! Your shared knowledge is greatly valued, as well as your righteous efforts on behalf of all sentient beings. I'll respond to your e-mail soon. May you be safe, healthy, happy and at ease, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your amazingly generous, deeply kind and thoughtful words are a truly rare gift in this world with so much conflict. I am grateful for the good you see in others and your enthusiasm for expressing it. Surely, if we could replicate you a thousand times, all sentient beings would be saved. With mahametta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Buddha Nature on Template_talk:Buddhism
Hi Bodhisattva Tony,
I was wondering if you might mind if, in the current thread regarding Buddha Nature inclusion, we cut your "16:35, 2 May 2007" entry in half, just before the words "One more point" and then inserted a section (or subsection) title to something like "Including Buddha Nature?" My reasoning is that some people who might be interested in this topic are not seeing it in the Edit Summaries since the current section title has to do with "Schools vs. Branches...." Just a thought.
Another suggestion, if I may: Depending your interest in the matter, if, after some time, additional responses appear to be few in number, it might be worth putting a two or three sentence request for comment on the talk pages of some Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buddhism#Participants or Category:WikiProject_Buddhism_members — as I did with you, Sacca, Nat and Rudy regarding the Nichiren issue. (FWIW, I hand picked you four because of your all's obvious intellect, regular participation on the pages in question, collective representation of a broad spectrum of Buddhist knowledge and, for me something critical when addressing a newbie's well-intentioned-but-seemingly-misguided edit, consistent exhibition of kind intentions during discourse.)
Thanks again for your excellent contributions and unsurpassed collaborative efforts, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:MahayanaBuddhism
A lotus for you.
Is this okay for a first mock up? I intuited that a lotus image might be a good symbol, but, if not, it can change ... all of it can change - the image, the colors, the organization, the content (yes, definitely the content!)....
FWIW, the content is largely based on a gloss of Mahayana but I realize my selection of terms is at times haphazard. Also, more categories are beckoning -- how could there be a Mahayana template without mention of Avalokiteshvara?
Let me know your list of changes and then just add patience. Many blessings to you, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dearest Tony, per your e-mail, I've:
- added Eternal Buddha to the Doctrine section
- added Lankavatara Sutra to the Scriptures section
- FWIW, if I may be straightforward, there's no reason for your to provide reasons for the changes — I trust your scholarship and know my own deep ignorance on this topic, so I wish simply to implement the template you have in mind.
- Relatedly, of course, feel free to simply say, "I hate the green" or "change 'Scripture' to 'Text'" or "move Buddha Nature on top" or "text needs more contrast" or "nix Bodhidharma and Nagarjuna." Since this is a prototype it is way easier to make changes you desire now before other editors get involved.
- Once you feel this template is good enough, we could proceed in at least one of two ways:
- We could simply cut-and-paste it to a page named something like Template:MahayanaBuddhism and then transclude the template in any WP pages that you feel would be appropriate; or,
- We could cut-and-paste it to Talk:Mahayana to advertize its existence and solicit input from other editors (after which we could hopefully proceed to step 1).
- Your thoughts, my hands, this template :-)
- Thanks for all your thoughtful, generous and excellent work. May you be safe, healthy, happy and at ease. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Second prototype
|
- Excellent ideas! I'm going to implement them in two parts: (1) I'll make the simple content changes you requested; and, (2) for comparison sake, I'll make a new version of the prototype (to the left) trying to use the colors you suggested. (It would likely be of most benefit to try out new color schemes iteratively — I appreciative your patience, indulgence and collaborative spirit!)
- I am grateful for your extreme consideration in regards to this effort but, in truth, I enjoy doing the Josef Albers thing on occasion and the thought that it might be useful and give you and others spiritual knowledge and personal contentment deepens the joy greatly. So, honestly, thank you for giving me this opportunity through the sharing of your invaluable expertise, serious interest and supportive guidance. I bow deeply to you.
- Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a preference between these two prototypes' color schemes at this time? Perhaps there are aspects of each you'd like to keep or ditch? Frankly, I haven't had a chance to compare -- I'll do so later today or tomorrow. Forgive my hurried speech -- work whistle blows! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)