User talk:Langdell~enwiki

Thanks for your note. I agree with you that Taoism has had a significant impact on these three countries and it would be good to reflect that. I'm not sure how best to do that, though (see my note on the Tao talk page). It seems to me to be somewhat cumbersome to include all those words in the lead sentence of the Tao article. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions as to an alternative. Sunray 05:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and welcome to Wikipedia! For a new user you seem to be finding your way around Wikipedia pretty well and have been making some nice additions to articles. Here are a few tips:

Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
You might want to put a few words on your User page (so it won't appear as a red link). It is your space to do what you wish with.
Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
Have fun.

Sunray 07:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Dharmakaya Intro

Hallo Langdell. Just a note to say that I love your new Introduction to the "Dharmakaya" article. Excellent. It's always a joy to see something "positive" and "affirmative" communicated of the Buddha's Dharma - rather than the usual suffering, suffering, suffering, impermanence, pain, suffering, non-Self, suffering, nothingness and more suffering - and then the goal of Nothingness!! As you will have guessed, I believe that type of nihilistic emphasis is so very distortionist of the Buddha's "real" teaching. Anyway, thanks for your very fine piece on the Dharmakaya. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to September 11, 2001 attacks

Your edits to the aforementioned article was reverted, as it was not cited, and was original research. Please do not use Wikipedia as a repository for original research. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you should seriously provide a source, or it may happen to you again from some other person. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jiva and Atman

Dear Langdell - thankyou for your input on the jiva article, however there is more than one opinion on what exactly the jiva is. Advaita schools equate the atma with Brahman, but Dvaita schools do not - they differentiate between the two. Similarly for traditions following the dvaita schools the words 'jiva' and 'atman' mean much the same thing (in most contexts - there are exceptions) so for the article to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy it is incorrect to show only one argument or the other - both viewpoints much be given and explained. Your edits sided heavily with the advaita philosophy only. Ys, GourangaUK 10:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Jiva&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Jiva is defined as 'The individual soul or divine within', 'The embodied soul' , 'life, vital principle, individual soul', 'Sentient living being. Embodied self.' It does not refer to the body, nor does it refer to a soul in ignorance (that is specific to certain traditions only and usually jiva is prefixed with another word) - it is very similar to the word atma. It is like the difference between saying the 'living being' and 'the self' in English - both are different phrases used in different contexts - but both point towards the same singular or differential reality of being. I appreciate your comments and have adjusted the article to show this much clearer than before. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

About your edit [1]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Regebro 11:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and reports

Regarding your recommended video clip, all it says is that the 9/11 Commission didn't blame anyone. That was its purpose. That's why it's not the best source, and why conclusions of engineering experts are more useful. I don't understand what you think is so surprising about politicians being less than honest and avoiding responsibility. Peter Grey 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maspero

Perhaps you could add a footnote of a work that says Maspero's work is the most important. I looked around briefly in the works I have access to at the moment (Robinet and Schipper), along with a few web searches and couldn't find anything that suggests other than the fact it is one of the first works about Taoism, it is still considered the seminal work about Taoism. In my opinion (from looking at the book as it sits in front of me), it seems pretty scattered and old-fashioned. So I'm just not convinced as to its current importance, especially with new works that have recently come out. Hopefuly you can prove me wrong.Zeus1234 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me of the merit of Maspero. I actually do have a copy of the book at the moment, but it is from the library. Perhaps I could photocopy it for you? Let me know if you want this to be done. Of course, I will have to look into costs as well.Zeus1234 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatta

Sorry, but I have deleted the line you added to the introduction of the Anatta article since it seems to beg the question. Also it does not seem very helpful at this time when the whole of the Anatta article is a bit of a mess anyway. Perhaps you could re-insert it later in the article, reworded to NPOV.--Stephen Hodge 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Kundalini, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tao article

Thanks for your explanation. But I don't see how that passage can stand as it is. Consider the first sentence: "Today, scientists call the creative principle at work in the universe the ‘principle of self-organisation.’" Which scientists? What exactly did they say? At the very least it needs a citation. But more importantly, how do we know that what these scientists are referring to relates to Tao? There needs to be a link. Also, Tao is more than simply "the creative principle." So the wording of that passage seems fatally flawed to me. I will await your further comments before trying to fix it. Sunray 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

You're not supposed to add any templates to the featured articles. Please remove them, discuss your issues on the talk page, and you can add them after it's off the main page. Thanks. Zain 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]