Jump to content

Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The Words of My Perfect Teacher

I know that Patrul Rinpoche is a famous teacher, but I'm afraid I've got some trouble understanding this section ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what's the trouble? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Rongzom Pandita is the bedrock of Nyingma philosophical views. There is too much emphasis on Longchen Nyingthig.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Qualified views to be source attributed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph may need some rewriting, to make it clearer. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, or the student may have wrong view. Let it sit for while. Then revisit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Which student? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The one with impure karma. Thanks for the rewrite, great work. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do penance for my nasty remark, and create some good karma and a good temper, by going to sleep now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I now see what's missing in the re-write emphasis on following the guru to keep karma pure. Will address at a later time. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision - rewrite

Perhaps a slight change of wording, like this, could make it clearer (proposed edits shown in bold below):

"The precise results of a karmic action are considered to be one of the four imponderables.
In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest.
In more detail, Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states, from a Tibetan Mahayana perspective:Karma - Rigpa wiki
"Sometimes, in order to help us understand how particular actions contribute to particular kinds of result, such as how good actions bring about good results and how bad actions bring about bad results, the Buddha told stories like those we find in the Jataka tales. But things do not happen just because of one particular cause. We do not experience one result for every one thing that we do. Rather, the whole thing—the entire totality of our experience and actions—has an impact on what we become from one moment to the next. Therefore karma is not just what we did in our last life, it is what we have done in this life too, and what we did in all our lives in the past. Everything from the past has made us what we are now—including what we did this morning. Strictly speaking, therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, you cannot say that there is anything in our ordinary experience that is not somehow a result of our karma.
And Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains in more detail, from a Therevadhan perspective:(Bhikkhu Thanissaro 2010, p.47-48):
"Unlike the theory of linear causality — which led the Vedists and Jains to see the relationship between an act and its result as predictable and tit-for-tat — the principle of this/that conditionality makes that relationship inherently complex. The results of kamma[a] experienced at any one point in time come not only from past kamma, but also from present kamma. This means that, although there are general patterns relating habitual acts to corresponding results [MN 135], there is no set one-for-one, tit-for-tat, relationship between a particular action and its results. Instead, the results are determined by the context of the act, both in terms of actions that preceded or followed it [MN 136] and in terms one’s state of mind at the time of acting or experiencing the result [AN 3:99]. [...] The feedback loops inherent in this/that conditionality mean that the working out of any particular cause-effect relationship can be very complex indeed. This explains why the Buddha says in AN 4:77 that the results of kamma are imponderable. Only a person who has developed the mental range of a Buddha—another imponderable itself—would be able to trace the intricacies of the kammic network. The basic premise of kamma is simple—that skillful intentions lead to favorable results, and unskillful ones to unfavorable results—but the process by which those results work themselves out is so intricate that it cannot be fully mapped. We can compare this with the Mandelbrot set, a mathematical set generated by a simple equation, but whose graph is so complex that it will probably never be completely explored.

I.e. maybe we need somehow to make it clear to the reader that they are expected to read the inline quotes not just to verify the intro sentence, but to find out more about the ideas described, from two different perspectives. Otherwise they may just glance at the quotes, to check that they do indeed say what the intro para says, and not realize the reason they were placed inline rather than in a footnote.

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision
Both Ringu Tulku and Bhikkhu Thanissaro are internationally respected scholars, translators and authors. In the above quotes they are explaining a very subtle point (that is frequently misunderstood) extremely clearly. It is difficult to understand why Jonathan felt the need to delete this material from the article. Here is a quote from Peter Harvey emphasizing the same point:

"The law of karma is not regarded as rigid and mechanical, but as the flexible, fluid and dynamic outworking of the fruits of actions. The full details of its working out, in specific instances, are said to be ‘unthinkable’ (acinteyya, Skt acintya) to all but a Buddha (A.IV. 77). A moral life is not necessarily immediately followed by a good rebirth, if a strong evil action of a past life has not yet brought its results, or a dying person regrets having done good. Similarly, an immoral life is not necessarily immediately followed by a bad rebirth (M.III. 209– 15 (SB. 195– 204)). The appropriate results will come in time, however (Dhp. 71)." -- Harvey, Peter (2012-11-30). An Introduction to Buddhism (Introduction to Religion) (p. 42). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

And here Rupert Gethin also emphasizes the same points:

"Buddhist thought does not understand causality in terms similar to, say, Newtonian mechanics, where billiard balls rebound off each other in an entirely predictable manner once the relevant information is gathered. First, the Buddhist attempt to understand the ways of causal conditioning is concerned primarily with the workings of the mind: the way in which things we think, say, and do have an effect on both our selves and others. Second, Buddhist thought sees causal conditioning as involving the interaction of certain fixed or determined effects and certain free or unpredictable causes. If, presented with a situation, I deliberately kill another human being, this action must lead to some unpleasant result in the future; it may also make it easier for me to kill in the future, eventually establishing something of a habit; and this may lead me into circumstances—life as a bandit, say, or rebirth as a tiger—where the only way to live is by killing; and yet in some measure the freedom not to kill, not to act in accordance with established habits, remains." -- Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (pp. 153-154). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar. Dorje108 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is easy to condense a longer quote into a shorter paraphrase, sometimes not. Sometimes paraphrasing improves the readability of the article, sometimes not. It depends on the context and on the ability/expertise of the editor. In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether.Andi 3ö (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
When an article contains more quotes than text, yes, paraphrasing is required. Articles simply become unreadable, and unencyclopedic. If you feel unable to do so, then ask for help. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for your response.
By the way:
Wikiquote has quotations related to Karma in Buddhism.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations. Sometimes quotes are helpful, but they should be used sparingly because using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. Quotations should be interspersed with original prose that comments on those quotations. Loosely associated topics, such as groups of quotations that can't be justified for use in an article may be better placed in Wikiquote. JimRenge (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've started; I'll give some insight into my "train of thought"; I hope that helps.

  • "the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions" - so, it's not the result of a single action, but the result of many causes? Which causes?
  • Ringu Tulku Rinpoche: "Everything from the past has made us what we are now" - so, we are not talking about "single deeds", but about an ongoing proces of interrelated deeds and results?
  • Which would give a sentence like this: "The fruits of our actions are not dependent on single deeds, but on the entire totality of our experience and actions."(RTR ect)
  • RTR: "Strictly speaking, therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, you cannot say that there is anything in our ordinary experience that is not somehow a result of our karma" - that's not correct. It's a typical Tibetan (or Kagyu, I don't know) point of view. In the sutras, Karma is only of eight factors which determine our present life-conditions. But where did I read that?... More homework to do... Ah, Gombrich! "What the Buddha Thought", p.20:
"For the middle way between determinism and randomness, there is an important sutta in the Samyutta Nikciya.' A non-Buddhist renunciate called Moliya Sivaka asks the Buddha what he thinks of the view that everything one experiences, whether pleasure, pain or neutral, is the result of what one has done. The Buddha replies that this view is wrong and goes beyond both what one can know for oneself and what is commonly accepted to be true. One can know for oneself, and it is commonly accepted, that feelings arise from eight causes. He lists them. The first five are perfectly clear and refer to the medical knowledge of those days. First there are the three humours: bile, phlegm and wind. The fourth is a combination of these three. The fifth is a change in season. (We, with our more variable climate, would call it a change in the weather.) The sixth the PED translates as 'being attacked by adversities';Qut I think the reference is still medical and it means inappropriate or inadequate care or The seventh seems to mean 'caused by an act of violence'.' Only the eighth cause, says the Buddha, is the result of karma. In other words, he seems to be saying that ascribing good or bad experiences to karma is only suitable when no medical or common-sense explanation is available."
But Gombrich next wonders if this is correct, since "karma operates on a grand scale" (p.21). Gombrich then notes that "the tendency has always been, probably from the Buddha's day until now, to see the same doctrine from the other end, backwards," (p.20) and explains that the important thing about karma is not to explain one's present condition (though that's reaaly tempting to do), but to put an end to the whole process: "So he witnessed the workings of karma, but we cannot. And what he saw convinced him that nothing could be as urgent as putting a stop to the whole process." (p.22)

So far for the first quote... I'll continue later, I've got tp pick up my dauhter from school. Please do me a favor, hold back your responses 'till I'm finished, so we don't drift off in another discussion prematurely. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've added paraphrases, and some additional info. The main point seems to be: don't get fixated on the "theory of karma", liberate yourself! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I go with Andi 3ö and User:Dorje108 - these are not easy points to paraphrase. In this case - the author has already presented it concisely and clearly.
Wikipedia:Quotations "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words".
And - your presentation not only paraphrased to the extent it is hard to still be accurate, but goes over things too quickly. There is no substance to it. Saying karma is not a judgement, but going into no detail at all about how and why Buddhists understand it that way, for instance.
Same for the other points. If we were to paraphrase those quotes, I think the paraphrase should be about the same length as the quotes and go into as much detail.
Those deleted sections should be at least as long as in Dorje's version, in my view. And I think it saves everyone a lot of time to just have the quotes themselves.
These scholars have spent many years of their life studying Buddhist ideas of Karma and are also good communicators, good at putting their words into writing. So - it's not going to be that easy to improve on their presentation of their ideas with a paraphrase of their words.
And also individual authors have different ideas about Karma and about how best to present it and will present it differently. By presenting a representative Tibetan Mahayanist quote and a Therevadhan quote, side by side, Dorje gave examples of different ways of presenting the ideas.
By attempting a paraphrase yourself - you are really creating a third presentation of the topic yourself, maybe a mix between the approaches, or it mibht be something totally new. And as a reader I much prefer to read the originals. In this particular topic area that is. In other topics in Wikipedia paraphrasing works well so I'm not saying that we should do this with all articles.
But in this case I think we should - or at least - the easiest thing to do - because
* Ideas of Karma are subtle and difficult to explain in few words. So quotes are likely to explain them better than a paraphrase unless the wikipedia editor who does the paraphrase is a genuis who has an in depth understanding of ideas of Karma similar to the understanding of the authors paraphrased
* Also there is no single idea of how karma works. Many points of detail in difference. So - it is "controversial" in the sense that - not so much major arguments about it as - that different authors will present it and understand it in subtly different ways. So quotes help the wikipedia author from the responsibility of taking positions about how karma is understoood and interpreted - by making clear attribution to an author. And when you paraphrase, the problem is, that you will almost certainly bring in some of your own ideas and interpretations into the paraphrase.
If the entire article was too long it could be split. But Wikipedia does have long articles, there is no hard cut off point. Especially a specialist article like this, is sometimes good to have it quite long. Robert Walker (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Rigpa Wiki

Jim: "I asked about rigpa wiki about 1 year ago at RSN" [1]. Please share with us! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rgpawiki is used as a source in several Buddhism articles. I assumed that it is not a reliable source (editors anonymous, no experts,, no publisher known for good redaction) but I wanted to be sure and asked about it at the RS noticeboard. The red pen of doom explained that its an open wiki and not considered to be a reliable source in wikipedia (like wikipedia). Simple case (WP:SPS like http://www.zenguide.com). If open wikis were considered a reliable source, I might add my personal POV there and quote myself at wikipedia afterwards.
You may use a RS cited in rigpawiki if you can confirm its content . JimRenge (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to investigate the reliability of this source. I think it is important to verify the reliability of sources. A few clarifications in this case:
Jim, was this a recent discussion on the RS noticeboard? I was unable to find the discussion. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorje, I have no problem with the content of Ringu Tulku's statement. I understand that editing Rigpawiki is restricted to members of the Rigpa sangha but I can not verify what qualifies a member to get an account. For the reader of the wiki it is impossible to identify the author/editor of an article as an expert.
I asked about Rigpawiki in February 2014, Helpdesk: Delete unreliable sources? (sorry my memory failed, it was not RSN).
WP:SPS, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, (...) collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Maybe Ringu Tulku is a credentialed member of the sites' editorial staff?
Sorry, Joshua, please feel free to re-insert the reverted sentence/citation. JimRenge (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I appreciate you clarifying your research. This is an unusual case, and I think there are more pressing issues to address on this page right now. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I'd observe here - for future reference not for discussion right now - that since it is a wiki - you can look at the edit history and see who inserted the quote. In this case it is an editor called "Adam". So presumably one could contact this editor, and find out what his source was for the quote. And take it from there depending what one found out. And you could do the same for any wiki. If you found a quote on wikiquotes - well what matters is not that it was hosted on wikiquotes, all that matters is if it is an accurate quote.
So for instance, just by way of example, if we found, for instance, that the Rigpawiki editors have a policy of verifying their quotes by getting the authors to check them over before they are inserted - then we could then use Rigpawiki as a valid source for quotes generally (if not necessarily their other content). Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you cannot source from other wikis like Rigpawiki. See WP:UGC.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in the main body

Quotes can be used in many ways, I've already given my reasoning for multiple quotes per section in the body of the text - that for instance the reader will be interested to have quotes from prominent Mahayana as well as Therevadhan sources so there is often good reason for at least two quotes in the main text in each section to present those different approaches. And a section may require more quotes to cover it adequately. It is something to decide on a case by case basis, not established as a ground rule for the entire article, how many quotes to have in each section. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes

However - whatever you think about text in the body of the article, those guidelines are not about footnotes. There are no guidelines I know of limiting the number of quotes you can have in footnotes. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing - example of the Reimann Hypothesis

I wonder if I can help make the issue clearer? Perhaps a non Buddhist example would help here?

I could summarize the Riemann hypothesis for a non mathematician as "Hypotheses that all the zeroes of the Reimann Zeta function are either negative even numbers, or they lie along the line with real value 1/2 in the complex plane". For most non mathematicians that is already too technical for them, and they will ask me to stop talking most likely. But for mathematicians, this is one of the most intricate, hard to explain, and fascinating hypotheses in number theory, and that long article may well seem all too short :).

So for a non mathematician, then you can summarize this entire article: Riemann hypothesis in a single sentence. And given the technical nature of the hypothesis, you could adequately summarize it for most readers as "A famous hypothesis in mathematics".

Similarly for someone who is not interested in the details of the Buddhist ideas of Karma then you can summarize those sections you deleted in just a few sentences. But this is a specialist article, someone who comes here surely is interested to know details. For these readers your summary paraphrases remove all the interesting content from that section of the article. There is a good chance that they already know that Karma as understood in Buddhism is not a judgement, to take one example; they want to find out more than that. A brief mention of the topic is not enough.

Similarly just about anyone who has done say a first degree in maths will know as much about the Riemann hypothesis as I just said in my short summary. If they come to wikipedia, to read an article about it, they want details, and will be most disappointed if that is all that it says.

I hope that helps to clarify the issues we have with this paraphrasing, and maybe help make a bit of progress in the debate. Does it help you understand where we are coming from? Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly! I feel that the broader issue here does not so much seem to be primary vs secondary or reliable vs unreliable sources or the excessive or appropriate use of quotes but the fundamental question of what we want an article about a Buddhist concept like karma or Four noble truths to be about - and how much WP:Weight within the articles is assigned to the various aspects and perspectives.
WP:RNPOV can be an important starting point for that discussion.
WP:STRUCTURE, WP:BALANCE are also very informative and, of course, again WP:DUE (emphasis added):

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

WP:RNPOV:

NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as Rev. Carlin) believe This and That, and also believe that This and That have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days; however, influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work) certain sects — calling themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists — still believe This, but instead of That now believe Something Else."

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has a section on "Within Buddhist traditions". It provides ample opportunity to add the poins of view, and practices, of specific tarditions. PapaZulu just did so for "The Words of My Perfect Teacher"; I helped him to clarify this addition further. If you've got any suggestions, I'm quite willing to help. If people still want more than that, there are a lot of books available which peple can choose and read for themselves. Some suggestions have already been given at "further reading" and "external links". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - that's not what I was talking about, but about your view of the article that it should cover certain points only superficially. E.g. just a single sentence in the entire article for subjects that are given intricate and detailed treatment in the sources, and that require at least a section to them to just cover them in an introductory way. Please re-read the example, thanks!
It's response to your reason you just gave for deleting all those sections that Andi restored. You gave as your reason for deleting them - that the subjects have already been touched on briefly in the article. You didn't give as your reason that the sections were POV biased, which I don't think they are, at all. Robert Walker (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to say that I whole-heartedly agree with the points that Andie30 and Robert are making. Dorje108 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You should read CFynn's 2 comments on Wikiproject Buddhism and 1 comment on Robert's talk page. CFynn is probably the most knowledgeable Buddhist editor on Wikipedia besides myself.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You can't source from other wikis like Rigpawiki

I'm pretty sure you cannot source from other wikis like Rigpawiki. See WP:UGC.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, it depends on who maintains the wiki, and who can edit it. As it says there "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." - so the issue is with the credentials of the editors, rather than the wiki format or use of collaborative editing.
But with the Ringu Tulku quote, Dorje used the wiki as a source for quotations, didn't use its editorial content. So that's a much simpler question. There the guidelines are: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations

The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article..

So the question here is, is this a reliable secondary source for quotes from Ringu Tulku? For instance, does he perhaps verify them himself? That's something that presumably we could find out. Maybe not the priority right now, but something to look into for sure. Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations says: "the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source." Rigpa Wiki is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Please move on.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's the thing to be determined is it not? When it comes to quotations when it comes to "reliable" then all that matters surely, is if they provide accurate quotes. Do you have evidence that the Rigpa wiki has a tendency to misquote its sources? I mean - might be that they do, I just don't know. But that would need to be established either way.
At any rate my understanding is that Ringu Tulku is a good source because of his situation as a prominent member of the Rime movement to present the teachings of all the Tibetan traditions as understood within the schools, without bias. So, if that's accepted, the question is rather what is the best source of quotations from him. If it does turn out that this is not a good source for quotations, we may need to find another. Perhaps one of his books? Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Rigpa wiki have a contact page here: Rigpa wiki contact page so would be an easy matter to contact them to ask for more information about the provenance of their quotes and whether they are checked by the original authors quoted or how they make sure they are accurate. And see also the discussion of this topic above: #Rigpa_Wiki Robert Walker (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the quotes are correct or not. The truth of the info doesn't define reliability. Rigpa Wiki is not a source we can use per WP:UGC.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I don't get what you are saying here. You haven't really explained why we can't use it as far as I can see. If it was an open wiki that anyone could edit, then it wouldn't be acceptable. But as a closed wiki then it might be an acceptable source, you have to do further investigation to find out. One of the books that Dorje mentioned referred to it as an "excellent source" in the introduction. And in the case of quotes then what counts as reliable surely is - that they quote accurately, there is no more to it than that. Robert Walker (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
John Carter already explained to you "A wiki still is not a reliable source, even for quotations from others."VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Victoria, wiki here just refers to a form of software that is designed to make collaborative editing easier to do. There is nothing in the format or the design of the wiki software that makes what is written intrinsically unreliable, or reliable for that matter - has no bearing on the matter either way surely. I gave MicrobeWiki as an example that is used sometimes for citations here in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Wikis are largely not acceptable. JimRenge (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim, in this case, it's Joshua Jonathan who removed the material. That quote has been in the article since February 2014, possibly earlier. I haven't tried to find when exactly it was introduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=596734961
In a situation like this, then the usual procedure is to add a tag to the article for this particular quote, requiring the editor to verify it or to find a better source, not to just remove it.
It is only one of numerous citations in the article, and most of them are to scholarly articles and books. This one is a quote from a suitable author, but a question has been raised about whether this wiki is a suitable source for quotes. Dorje had good reasons for using rigpa wiki as a source, which he gave himself - see above
"I appreciate the effort to investigate the reliability of this source. I think it is important to verify the reliability of sources. A few clarifications in this case:
Those seem good enough reasons so that it is a matter that needs further discussion or verification.
Note also that this article was in its mature form, essentially, in January of this year. And that Joshua Jonathan never edited it or commented on its talk page during this period that Dorje worked on it. There have been many opportunities to raise issues with this quote, he could have done so any time since January 2014. He was an active editor of articles on Buddhism during this period and before. Robert Walker (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A few issues- one, even a Wiki with restricted authorship is not in a fixed form. That makes citation particularly problematic- to actually identify the reference, you would need at the very least to also provide version information so that if the article changes later the correct reference can be followed. Secondly, given the general policy on Wikis and other semi-self published sources there really ought to be a compelling reason why this particular source is needed- karma is such a fundamental concept in Buddhism that there should easily be 100+ years of scholarly and practitioner publications on the topic in English that are in a fixed form and reflect established academic or traditional understandings. What is the compelling reason for adding this specific problematic source? --Spasemunki (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Spasemunki - first just to say - that there is only one citation of the rigpawiki in the original article out of 132 footnotes. Yes, if it were restored, I dare say that Dorje could find another source, or another editor could.
The other thing is, this is a quotation from Ringu Tulku, not editorial content from the wiki. So, you wouldn't expect it to change. And if Rigpa wiki was accepted as a good source for quotes, then it does have a lot of quotes from Ringu Tulku, as he is one of those who sometimes teach at Rigpa. And the only reason for disputing it so far is on the basis that it is in wiki format, which doesn't seem good reason, with a published book saying that they are an excellent source. So, why not use this site, for quotations from Ringu Tulku? In addition to his books that is. I don't see the issue myself, unless someone can show that rigpa wiki has some problem with its quotations, such as misquoting. I suggest we restore this section first, and then tag that quote to alert the reader that it is under discussion, and then continue this discussion at that point. Robert Walker (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bold,revert,discuss - conclusions from the past days of discussion

Joshua, I've been following all the discussions concerning your edits to 4NT and here very closely. Having seen your effort to condense/paraphrase the two(four) quotes above i want to say a couple of things:

  1. Thank you for your willingness to get back to cooperation and discussing concretely about reinserting lost content!
  2. Unfortunately, in the concrete example here, i cannot see how the two little sentences you extracted from the rather longish quotes can serve as their adequate substitute. There is much more to these quotes than you extracted!
  3. The same is true for your overall condensing [former sections 1-8] into your very concise section 2: Most of the content is simply gone or condensed to such a short form that the average reader will not be able to grasp the full meaning of the thoughts you are trying to convey - which is sad, especially keeping in mind that - as i already stated elsewhere:
  4. Benefiting the reader (Please read if you haven't) should be our foremost guiding principle - after all, what else would we be doing this for?

Also, from the extensive discussions of the past few days here and there and here and on this very page, it should be clear that

  1. there is at least no consensus justifying your mass deletion of content on the grounds of WP:RS or the classification of quotes as primary sources.
  2. Also the overuse of quotes in general cannot be a justification for this massive deletion of well-sourced content. As i said earlier: In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether.

Therefore, also taking into account the time and effort it will take to discuss every little bit of content that you boldly deleted, i have come to the conclusion that at this point and at least in the case of [former sections 1-8] it will be better to start the process by reinserting the content lost. Then you and Dorje108 and Robert Walker, maybe i myself and whoever else is interested in this topic can start working on it, one piece of content, one line of thought at a time and try to improve the article by removing or substituting or paraphrasing - or leaving - one quote at a time. From reading the comments by Dorje108 and Robert Walker i also got the impression that they were simply too humble and polite to revert your massive edits in the first place which would have been the standard procedure following Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. It's ok for you to be bold, but it's also ok for others to say no. So then we need to discuss. One edit or one section at a time - and over and over again, until there is a consensus - or at least a well established majority view. Andi 3ö (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorje108's edits were reverted per Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Moreover other editors including myself have edited the article. Reinserting Dorje108's edits is not following Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorje's edits were not reverted; a large part of his quotes have been condensed, in line with Wiki-policy. Several editors, at several pages, have voiced their concern with his over-usage of quotes. These concerns have been voiced for over a year and a half already, without avail.
Further, several of his formulations have been rephrased in accordance with the sources.
Third, additional info has been provided, from top-scholars as Richard Gombrich. For example, the fact that it's not so important how exactly karma works out, but that one should strive to become liberated from this whole cycle.
Fourth, additional edits have been amde by other editors.
A roll-back is only appropriate in case of vandalism. This is not the case here. See also WP:ONLYREVERT:
"The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text."
I've explained my edits already extensively. To state "[we] can start working on it" is completely ignoring the discussion that's already going on. Robert has indicated that he doesn't want to engage in constructive discussion, because he doesn't feel competent to do so. Nevertheless, I've considered all his complaints, and following his remarks, re-inserted part of the info in condensed form, and adjusted the overview of how karma leads to fruits.
Regarding "readers first": providing an overkill of quotes is by no means encouraging readers to stay. On the contrary.
What's more: of the four quotes on the predictability of karmic results, Ringu Tulku Rinpoche's quote is from Rigpa Wiki, which is not accepted as WP:RS; Thanissaro's quote is from a self-published source, which gives his personal interpretation of Buddhism, but is nevertheless retained as a reference; and the quotes from Harvey and Gethin, which are WP:RS, were not in the article, but have been paraphrased and added, as a result of the ongoing discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I will add my comments to the following section, which is a continuation of this discussion. Dorje108 (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to say - that Dorje's edits have been here for months. He has been working on this article since spring 2013.
Joshua, there is no way that you can call deleting those sections from the article a "revert". If you wanted to revert his edits you should have done them as he did them, starting in spring 2013. But not only did you not object to them, you never previously edited either this talk page or the article itself, although you have been editing articles on Buddhism here for years. For that matter, you didn't revert to any previous version of the article, but rather created a new article by deleting much of it and re-arranging it.
By no stretch of interpretation can your actions be called a revert in my view. Robert Walker (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert, read carefully: Dorje's edits were not reverted, they were refined. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; that Dorje has been working on this article since 2013 is not an argument. See WP:OWN. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I read Victoria's remark as yours. As for me, I don't want to be an editor of this article that's what I was saying. I'm a reader of it who was dismayed to find a previously valuable and mature article turned into one that is no longer informative in the same way. That's why I feel able to comment on it and discuss it. But I don't want to be involved in processes of paraphrasing or working out new content. And I also think the first step is to roll back. So don't want to discuss how to improve an article that in my view is a step back from the old version. My discussion here was meant as motivation for a roll back, but you took all my comments as an opportunity to rewrite the present article. I never edited the old version except to fix one broken link, and don't want to edit the new one either. Because it is a subtle topic which is so easy to misrepresent. Robert Walker (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Also the things that I said to you that you took as a reason for rewrite was just saying things that were already said in the material you deleted. I meant those as reasons for a roll back, you took them as reasons for adding a short sentence to cover each issue in the new version. One example should make it clear why I don't want to be used as a kind of meta-editor of this article in the way you are using me.
E.g. when I said that Karma was not a judgement, at first you say, on this talk page, that nobody could assert such a thing about Buddhism, saying ""In Buddhist philosophy" - that's an incredible generalisation!".
When I copy / pasted the quotes from Dorje's article for that section into this talk page, you then agreed that you can say such a thing about Buddhism, and then added a single sentence to your version of the article saying that Karma is not a judgement. But the point I was making there was that your original belief that nobody can say such a thing about Buddhism was not a reason for deleting that section as the citations that Dorje gave for that section clearly supported what it said. Adding that sentence in doesn't justify deleting the original section.
So I stopped raising these points as it seems each time I raise such a point you will respond by adding a single sentence paraphrase of the original deleted content in the article, based on your understanding of what I say to you, and then thanking me for this in the article history. And then that lets you use that "mention" of the material as a reason against a rollback. Which doesn't seem a productive way of proceeding - you should have read that content thoroughly before deleting it.
You shouldn't need to rely on me first summarizing it to you in this talk page before adding these single sentence paraphrases of it. And most definitely you should not credit me as an editor for simply pointing out things that are already in the material you deleted which you should have read before you deleted it.
It makes me a kind of meta editor of the article, summarizing what Dorje said in his version of the article, and feeding the results to you, which you then put into the article, which is a role I don't want to play, and also makes your paraphrases in the article about three steps removed from the original material as they are summaries based on your understanding of my understanding of the original section written by Dorje. Robert Walker (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Internal preliminaries

I think that these lists are too specific, and thereby WP:UNDUE, for an overview article on karma. But they may be of interest in the Dzogchen article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I feel provoked. You started with the 10 negative actions in the footnotes, I expanded with those listed in the confessional elaborations. The added lists are specific negative karmic actions, that were found within the confessional context. For now the sources say, they belong within the preliminary practices. I see little source support to break them out to specifically Dzogchen. If anything, I would look the other way and find sutra support. Overall, to me seems like specifying them in the footnotes is harmless. Realizing that Tibetans have so many sources published, the breakout may be to Karma in Tibetan Buddhism. This is a unique subject, since Tibetans actualize Tulku reincarnations. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ho, no offense intended! Dod I start with those 10 negative actions? I'll have to check, I don't remember... Ah, no (sorry); you added them, I moved them into a note. My point is simply: how specific are we going to make it? We may as well end up with a synopsis of The Words of my Perfect Teacher. Which may be fine, I think, but then in an article dedicated to this book. It's fine for me too to have them in the notes, but they may deserve more attention in the Ngöndro article, I guess. Nevertheless, hte Dzogchen article also could use some more content. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Points in favour of authors with Tibetan as a first language

Some of the other editors here have been raising points in favour of using Western academic sources almost exclusively for academic sources on Buddhism for the articles here in Wikipedia.

I thought it might be interesting to list some of the points in favour of the Tibetan sources. Some of these points also apply to the Therevadhan sources.

  • The Tibetan scholars are talking about texts written in their native language. For Western academics - it is a bit like Tibetans writing about Shakespeare - however familiar they are, unless totally bilingual they are talking about texts in a foreign language.
  • They are in a continuous tradition with the authors of the texts. Other editors here have said this is a disadvantage because their equivalent of a "degree" is in a different format from Western degrees, e.g. no research thesis to write. But on the other hand - they do memorize the texts, and debate them, and there is a long tradition of critical evaluation of the ideas expressed in them - and they are using similar methods to work with them to those used by the original authors of the Tibetan texts. This lineage surely also helps them as well as hinders them? Makes them easier to become closer to the original intentions of the authors when writing the texts. And writing a thesis is no guarantee that you have a broad understanding of your field - as it has a tendency for some authors to lead to a narrow focus on a tiny field of study.
  • They are working in a meditative tradition. A large part of the sutras is to do with meditation. Just as carpenters are more likely to spot difficulties and confusions in books about carpentry - meditators may be better able to spot subtle issues in books about meditation. So - not because they have any special realization necessarily - I just mean on a very ordinary level. And not just for meditation. The teachings on conduct also - are teachings that they are applying in their own lives, or should be. While for the academics who write about Buddhism as a foreign religion - some of them at least - they have not faced the many issues involved in applying these teachings to their own lives, and so again may easily miss important or subtle points in the texts. Other scholars of course are practicing Buddhists - so - this is - maybe more a general point in favour of having at least some sources that are practicing Buddhists who are working with the texts in a practical way. That's rather similar to the value of having some carpenters as sources for articles on carpentry. (While you could also have other sources that have never done woodwork). A non meditating, non practicing expert on the Buddhist teachings is perhaps a little like an antiques expert who is very familiar with the form of a table, but hasn't ever made one themselves. They may occasionally get insights in understanding the antiques they study from carpenters that they wouldn't get otherwise.

I think there may well be other points in their favour as well, if anyone has any thoughts on this do say.

Not meant as reasons to use the Tibetan sources exclusively for Tibetan Buddhism, not saying that at all. Just saying both types of sources have something to offer, and so much has been made here of the benefits of the Western sources and Western academicism, I thought it might help to redress this by mentioning some of the advantages of the Tibetan sources. Same also for the Therevadhan ones, but seems to me that the most strongly stated objections here have been to Tibetan sources.

Both sources I think help each other actually, or can do. The Western academicism does bring a new way of working with the texts, looking for textual characteristics, and brings scientific ideas and archaeology. And the best of both types of academic are learning from each other.

I think myself that a good wikipedia article on Tibetan Buddhism needs to use both types of sources. Probably in roughly equal balance. And more generally for Therevadhan Buddhism, then similar things apply. Robert Walker (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to cite for the above, else fail to see how to be of benefit to your thoughtfully originated points? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring here to the Tibetan sources used by User:Dorje108 in the original version of this article before Joshua Jonoathan removed those sections and the quotes. See: User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism and scroll down to the citations and you'll see many citations and quotes from Tibetan Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama and Khandro Rinpoche and Ringu Tulku who are all Tibetan teachers who studied in this traditional way, while at the same time also meditators and practitioners, and also, interested in Western ideas and incoroporating them into their work. They also all practice in all four Tibetan Buddhist schools, following the Rimé movement - as the wikipedia article says "It is basically an appreciation of their differences and an acknowledgement of the importance of having this variety for the benefit of practitioners with different needs. Therefore the Rimé teachers always take great care that the teachings and practices of the different Schools and lineages and their unique styles do not become confused with one another."
So gives a good idea of the sort of sources I'm talking about here.
For the background on the Tibetan sutras, see Tibetan Buddhist canon - a large collection of sutras and commentaries all in Tibetan along with many later commentataries and additional works by Tibetan Buddhist scholars over the centuries. Which, for scholars with Tibetan as their first language, or bilingual, is a collection of sutras in their own native language.
Joshua Jonathan and a few others have been arguing that we should use such sources as the Dalai Lama etc only sparingly, as primary sources and to go to the Western academics for final reference and guidance in all aspects of the Buddhist teachings of Karma and the Four Noble Truths before presenting them here. He recently did a major rewrite of both article in accord with this vision for them, which other editors have asked him to reverse. Does this answer your question? See also the RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?Robert Walker (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To me which source is primary or secondary depends on the context, so not all are categorically one or the other (ie. middle way). It's a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight issue. I would of course prefer the Tibetan Buddhist context to have qualified primary sources however, when attempting to secularize the views into the academic context would give weight to the academics with attribution. In my opinion, the article benefited from the re-write. The old version appears to have less references and overreliance on in-line quotes; which disrupt the reading flow. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Holy explosion Batman.. Got redirected to the discussion at the Buddhism project talk and then to here. Its an area of discussion I do feel needs improvement on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia bias of a 'scholar' as someone who is a 'western' scholar I think is missing the point. I would consider a Geshe a scholar in the truest sense of the word. Their work is often a secondary source, too, as they are making commentaries to another text and not functioning merely as a primary source. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCE:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

  1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
  2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
  3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[1] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

  • university-level textbooks
  • books published by respected publishing houses
  • magazines
  • journals
  • mainstream newspapers.

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

References
  1. ^ This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.

Publications by Geshes can be used, "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are to be preferred. Geshe's speak with the voice of their tradition, and are not necessarily knowledgeable for other schools of Buddhism, nor necessarily in favour of them (not necessarily even in favour with the mainstream within their own school...). NB: this is a Wiki-policy, not an essay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is you stating your views, fair enough. But these are not "wikipedia laws" that we have to follow.
* First, it just says that they usually are the most reliable sources in fields such as science and history. It doesn't say that academic publications are always the best sources in all fields. It doesn't say that in Buddhism academic publications are the best sources. That needs a per subject RfC.
* Also at least some of the sources from Tibetan writers fit your criterion, e.g. the Dalai Lama book co-authored with Jeffrey Hopkins Kindness, clarity and Insight, to take an example. If we can establish that Tibetan and Therevadhan scholars are acceptable sources, can then look case by case at particular cases. It's not a reason for a blanket ban of all Tibetan and Therevadhan sources as secondary sources for the article.
Zulu Papa 5 * It may seem that it has lots of citations. But - well first that's a legacy from the old version. If you take a mature article, rewrite it, and then add some more sources to it, you are likely to increase the citation count, even if you also delete material.
And the citations no longer have quotes. So you can't verify them as you can with the old version. And in its main theses that it puts forward, it is mainly relying on a small group of academics - with repeated citations of Vetter and Bronkhorst. With other sources only used where they support what they say. When he talks for instance about ideas that teachings on karma are not being present in the early sutras for instance - how widespread is the support for that idea?
What other views do scholars have? Article just doesn't mention them. Just presents one favoured line of research and presents all the conclusions arrived at by those scholars with the wording: "notes that"... which suggests that this is the only valid view on the matter.
And - for me the lack of quotes in the main body - is combined with the issue that it is a tricky subject and that I'm not at all confident that a wikipedia editor is likely to be able to paraphrase the sources correctly. Especially with frequent use of a single sentence to summarize an entire section in the previous article.
Robert Walker (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If the old version quotes disrupted the reading flow - if that's the main issue, then need to work on that. But again - not by just deleting the quotes and all the sections in the old version that rely extensively on quotes for the detailed presentation of the material.
Also note - that over the last year, before this dispute, nobody at all said that the quotes disrupted the reading flow. Is only after Joshua's rewrite that anyone said that on this talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The citations in the Karmic results are not a judgement section which you deleted

  • Also don't think it is right to collapse this discussion either. It is not wkipedia policy to collapse talk page discussions immediately when the issues mentioned in the article are fixed Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That particular short section you deleted Karmic results are not a judgement has 5 citations by eminent Buddhist scholars including perhaps the best known of all the modern Therevadhan Buddhist scholars.

  • "Karma is not a system of rewards and punishments meted out by God but a kind of natural law akin to the law of gravity. Individuals are thus the sole authors of their good and bad fortune."
    Damien Keown, Professor of Buddhist Ethics at Lancaster University
  • "The law of karma is seen as a natural law inherent in the nature of things, like the law of physics. It is not operated by a God, and indeed the gods are themselves under its sway. Good and bad rebirths are not, therefore, seen as "rewards" and "punishments", but as simply the natural results of certain kinds of action."
    Peter Harvey, Emeritus Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Sunderland
  • "[Karma] is usually understood as a sort of moralistic system of retribution—“bad” karma and “good” karma. But karma is simply a law of cause and effect, not to be confused with morality or ethics. No one, including Buddha, set the fundamental bar for what is negative and what is positive. Any motivation and action that steer us away from such truths as “all compounded things are impermanent” can result in negative consequences, or bad karma. And any action that brings us closer to understanding such truths as “all emotions are pain” can result in positive consequences, or good karma. At the end of the day, it was not for Buddha to judge; only you can truly know the motivation behind your actions."
    Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (one of the few Tibetan lamas to have studied teachings in all four of the Tibetan schools)
  • - "Buddhism is a nontheistic philosophy. We do not believe in a creator but in the causes and conditions that create certain circumstances that then come to fruition. This is called karma. It has nothing to do with judgement; there is no one keeping track of our karma and sending us up above or down below. Karma is simply the wholeness of a cause, or first action, and its effect, or fruition, which then becomes another cause. In fact, one karmic cause can have many fruitions, all of which can cause thousands more creations. Just as a handful of seed can ripen into a full field of grain, a small amount of karma can generate limitless effects."
    Khandro Rinpoche - notable as one of the few Tibetan nuns to be recognized as a reincarnation - in her case in the lineage back to Yeshe Tsogyal
  • "The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term ‘justice’ is ambiguous and dangerous, and in its name more harm than good is done to humanity. The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice, or reward, or punishment meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgment on your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law."
    The world famous Sri Lankan Scholar Walpola Rahula who almost any educated Buddhist will have heard of.
  • I'm sure many more could be added also if you had asked Dorje for more citations to back up his edits.

For the original citations: Dorje's 5 citations for this section

Walpola Rahula is, internationally, surely the most famous Sri Lankan scholar, who became the first bikkhu to hold a chair in a Western Institution, in 1964, when he became the Professor of History and Religions at Northwestern University. He is also the author of What the Buddha Taught - one of the most famous books in modern Buddhism, considered by many to be the best exposition of Therevadhan Buddhism.

Just about every educated Buddhist - if they haven't read his book - at least has heard of him - he is that famous as a Therervadhan scholar.

How can you consider yourself qualified to edit this article in the way you did, when you know so little about Buddhism that you haven't heard of him?

Suggestion: When you are not sure if an article is supported by sufficient sources - the first step is to add a "citation needed" template - or ask questions on the talk page. If everyone went around deleting everything in wikipedia that they didn't know themselves and with citations to sources they hadn't read and didn't recognize, there would be nothing left here.

Even if you thought it was mistaken - there was absolutely no need to be in such a rush to edit this article without giving other editors a chance to add citations, or clarify the text or improve it as needed. Especially if you are editing a long established article that has been unchanged for months. Robert Walker (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process" was preserved, together with Keown and Harvey as references. I've added Gombrich as a source, and removed Dzongsar Khyentse, Khandro Rinpoche, and Walpola Rahula as references. Three references suffices. The line is very clear in itself; it does not need additional quotes to make it clearer. So, done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out that in Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism/Archive_1#Clean-up you wrote about this very sentence you are now using as a summary of the deleted material:
To take one example:
"In Buddhist philosophy, karmic results are not considered to be a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process."
"In Buddhist philosophy" - that's an incredible generalisation! Which Buddhist philosophy, which school, which author? To add a couple of quotes does not help here; you can't just throw 2,500 years of Buddhist history together under such a general notice.
If you didn't know that this sentence was valid until you re-read Dorje's footnote when I posted it here in this section - how can you now be so confident that this sentence adequately summarizes the entire topic of Karma not a Judgement? Does it not require discussion? Restoration of the original I mean first and then discussion with Dorje and others expert in this material?
Robert Walker (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Further explanation (#3?)

From Andi's re-insertion:

  • "Specific" and "general" level: definitions of karma and karmaphala are already in the article. None of the sources speaks of "specific" and "general"; that's WP:OR, and confusing. The "Padmakara Translation Group" (Patrul Rinpoche, The Words of my Perfect Teacher), though, notiuces that in Tibet in common language the term las ("karma") is also used for rgyu 'bras, "action-and-fruit". This kind of carelessness is typical.
  • "centrality to Buddhist thought": re-added "Karma and karmaphala are fundamental concepts in Buddhism.(Kragh 2006, p.11)(Lamotte 1987, p.15)". "Karmic actions are considered (etc)" and dependent origination are already mentioned in the article.
  • List of translations of karmaphala: WP:UNDUE
  • Interdependent origination: already mentioned in the article. NB: the twelve links don't mention "karma", but "bhava".
  • "Whatever we do has a result": mentioned in the article
  • "Multiple causes and conditions": mentioned in the article
  • "Seed and fruit": explained in the article
  • "Positive and negative actions": explained in the article
  • "Overcoming habitual tendencies": primary sources; sounds like western psychotherapy.
  • "Right view": incorporated in "Liberation from samsara"
  • "Rebirth": part of the article
  • "Predestination": mentioned in the article ("not predetrmined", etc)
  • "not a judgement": mentioned in the article
  • "impossible to predict": mentioned in the article
  • "delayed for lifetimes": not mentioned in the article - "it is believed". And Robert complained about the statement that actions will inevitably ripen into a result. Sorry, overdone.
  • "Twelve Nidanas": mentioned. And, as I said: the twelve nidanas don't mention "karma", but "bhava".
  • "Three types of misunderstanding": too much; primary source
  • "free will": mentioned in the article
  • "Buddha's realisation": mentioned under "The Three Knowledges"

The basic problem is the focus on a detailed exposition of the workings of karma, instead the simple notion that the understanding of karma as a "fact" of life urges one to strife for liberation. Those details, nevertheless, are summarised. The really important point is being mentioned in "Liberation from samsara". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you very much for your explanation! Unfortunately i do not have the time right now for a point by point response concerning the above list, but you can imagine from my earlier posts that i have some objections. I am especially grateful for your sharing of what you call the "basic problem". This makes the further discussions a lot easier, because it brings me closer to an understanding of your thinking and the overall intention of your massive edits:
I have the feeling from your edits and comments that you personally lay a lot of emphasis on trying to find out, and (therefore?) first and foremost presenting in your articles, what the "original" teachings of the Buddha were - and on the other hand tend to disregard later developments and contemporary Buddhist's views as (maybe often being mislead and therefore?) not so important. (like here: "The really important point is being mentioned in "Liberation from samsara"")
My thinking is exactly the other way round: To me it is not so important what the Buddha or the early Buddhist Sangha originally thought and taught, but what Buddists think. And by that i mean primarilly what they think (and teach and practice) about concepts like Karma and the 4NT but also - to take it one step further and illustrate my point by means of (slightly) exageratiing: For me it is even more important what Buddhists think what the original teachings of the Buddha were than what western academics think what "objectively" were those teachings.
Please think about it: After all, as our well thought out and thoroughly debated famous very first sentence about Buddhism in this wonderful digital encyclopedia states (emphasis added):

"Buddhism is a [...] religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha [...]"

So for me it seems quite obvious that an article about a Buddhist concept like karma should first and foremost report what the believers (of different traditions respectively) think about the concept, how it is taught and how it is incorporated into their practices. And by the way, the Buddhism article - right after the lead - continues with a traditional account of the life of the Buddha - not an historical (!)
Of course there should be room for historical critical analysis and comparative studies, which is what (western) academics seem to be mostly occupied whith. But if you think about what matters to the world, i.e. the reader? How does karma, i.e. the concept of karma, not the "real" thing, come into the world, leaving the ivory tower? It is through its workings in the minds of Buddhist believers. So it is our foremost duty to report what believers say, think, do - again: not (western) scholars!
Of course, in order to report this accurately there are many ways and one of them - undoubtedly one that Wikipedia actively encourages - is to use academic secondary or tertiary sources (that report those beliefs).
To conclude: there is still a lot of work to be done; i will definitely not be engaged in some kind of edit war but i will definitely also not put up with the petty rest of the "detailed exposition of the workings of karma" that you left over from the previous version, precisely because these "workings of karma" take up a very important part in (contemporary) Buddhist's beliefs and practices (as proven by the very quotes you removed alone). BTW: Wouldn't "detailed exposition of the workings of karma" be a good title for a nice little large section where a lot of the missing stuff could find its way back in? ;) Kind regards, with metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Andi. Thanks to you too, for your explanation of your point of view. Yes, I am interested in what "the Buddha thought". But what I'm most interested in is: what works? That's an open invitation for subjectivity and WP:OR, of course. So good sourcing is essential, and a critical stance. But I really want to understand what's "behind" all the stories. For Zen, that's authors like John McRae and Bernard Faure. They're cool.
Regarding the "real world" and what Buddhists think: in that case the statements of teachers are not relevant, but the perception of "common people". There are anthropological studies which describe how the concept of "karma" works through in the daily life of "common people" in Asia. For example Gombrich's (here he comes again...) "Buddhist Precept and Practice", or George D. Bond's "The Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka". Asian "common people" are probably the greatest group of Buddhist "believers".
Lessons and classes from teachers probably provide very little information on this "common Buddhism". Also, the over-emphasis on teachers reflects a western bias, with it's interest in the culture and practice of "religious specialists". How many western Buddhists are integrated into an "immigrant" sangha?
For the west, the most interesting question might be: what if you don't believe in karma and rebirth? See Stephen Batchelor, for example.
Additional info on the views per tradition would be appropriate in the "Within Buddhist traditions"-section, I think. See the "Nyingma"-section, which was expanded last night.
Quotes are most relevant when a statement is disputed; see Hinduism and the socalled "Hindu synthesis", which is plain rigth offensive for orthodox Hindus. Large amounts of quotes can be stored at wiki-quote. That's the appropriate place, I think.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Karma in Buddhism.
I was thinking: maybe, just maybe, for a point of consideration, we can put back some quotes, in notes. Some. One per statement, max. As a "clarification". And provide good links in the "Further reading" and "External links" sections.
Thanks for your response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why "Some"? I can understand that you prefer paraphrases to quotes in the text body. Which is obviously a matter for discussion and differences of view, some prefer more quotes, some prefer the same material in the form of paraphrase. Is obviously a discussion that would go on and on. I've already commented on that, why I think quotes are preferable over paraphrases and maybe some time we can have a RfC on that.
But what is this objection to quotes in footnotes? I just don't get that at all. It doesn't impede the flow of the article. All it does is to make it much easier for the reader to verify the citation. And why only one quote per footnote? Sometimes it is good to have several. One of the great features of Dorje's version for a reader was the long list of footnotes - with quotes. Because when you don't have access to the original source material yourself, or even if it is online and you can - the quotes save the reader a great deal of time and make it far clearer why the citation was included - and gives you extra information. I just don't see any issue at all with quotes in the citations - as many as are considered worth adding. Robert Walker (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Andi - just to say, of course I support your reinsertion as well as the idea to turn back. I might have done a roll back right away - but hadn't got this article on my watch list - was an article in what seemed to be its final state, mature, had no idea that some editor would come along and rewrite the whole thing. So when I found it, he'd been working on it for several pages of edits in the edit history. So not a simple roll back. As well as that, I've found in the past that some editors respond to BRD with an extra R BRDR and thought that this might well be what would happen here also as Joshua Jonathan is really confident and sure that what he is doing is the way forward - and I didn't want to start an edit war.
Joshua - just picking up a couple of your comments, choosing these because we've already discussed these two sections in some detail in this talk page:
  • "not a judgement": mentioned in the article
  • "impossible to predict": mentioned in the article
As I've already said - a one sentence mention in the article is no substitute for a section that covers that topic in some depth which you remove. Readers will surely want to know details - how, why, in what way, who says this, Hardly seems a good reason for reversing Andi's insertion of the old material that your version already has one sentence mentions of some of the topics included... Robert Walker (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua I'd also like to draw your attention to a reply you made above, maybe you'd like to reconsider it?
Dorje wrote
"I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar."
Your reply was:
" ... If you feel unable to do so, then ask for help. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for your response"
Do you not think there is a possibility that a scholar who has spent most of his or her life contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English, might, just possibly, be tricky to paraphrase? Especially with your style of condensing an entire paragraph in a few words? Robert Walker (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I promised to read your comments. Quotes can be used to clarify a topic, or to verify a statement. One quote should be enough to clarify a topic. Otherwise, there are plenty of books and online resources for the readers who want the details. This is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Verification is needed in case of controversial statements - like "The four truths were later added to MN 36. Originally the Buddha's liberation practice may basically have been the practice of dhyana, for which the eightfold path prepares." That might be controversial, but the sources are esily available, so anyone can check them (I wish they did). Too many quotes simply distract, also when they are in the notes. And yes, I feel confident enough to paraphrase. Again, if you want more, read the book. And, basically: the important thing about karma is not the exact workings, but to get rid of it. That's a scholarly conclusion, and a practitioners conclusion - actually, starting-point. Liberation should be the conclusion. Overemphasising the (non)workings of karma distracts from that basic point. On your cushion! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, yes your view on this is clear that these ideas should be presented as "verified truth". For example, "your" four noble truths article says, categorically, things like "Only as late as the fifth century CE came[sic] the four truths to be identified as the central teaching of the Buddha Carol Anderson notes that the four truths are missing in critical passages in the canon,".
However, that's not encyclopedic. I already posted about Selwyn Cousins detailed examination of it which found many flaws in her arguments. His statements are just as "verifiable" as the statements in her book.
And we have other scholars saying that the Pali Canon is essentially unchanged since the time of the Buddha. If we had a section presenting Prayudh Payutto's views on this - his arguments also are just as "verifiable" based on investigation of the processes of memorization used by the Buddhist monks who preserved the canon.
When authors write a book like that, they present it as "the truth" - is just a convention. It would be awkward to keep writing "I think this, and I think that and I say this and I say that". But that an author says that something is the case doesn't make it so.
So, is an appropriate convention and style for a book by an author such as Carol Anderson or Prayudh Paiutto. But in an encyclopedia, you are not writing as an individual presenting your own views on the matter. When there are differences of opinion, in reliable secondary sources, this needs to be made clear, and it is not appropriate to present any of these as "the verifiable truth". Who verified them?
You have to attribute things like that, not present them as a "view from nowhere"! Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Very important point! And applies to Joshuas edits to the karma article as well (see my first remarks in this same section and his answer to it).
I find this policy guideline quite striking in that regard:

"Scholarship is, in every sense, fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia policy. The core of scholarship is original research, synthesis, and asserting that a scholar's vision of reality is in fact the correct one (some would call this bias). High quality scholarship relies on primary sources, and only engages the secondary literature in order to either acknowledge the sources of ideas or attempt to refute points made by others. Particularly in the humanities and social sciences, scholarship is little more than an extended argument."

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Carol Anderson is not a view from nowhere. I already told you: the book is published in the "CURZON CRITICAL STUDIES IN BUDDHISM", general editors Charles S. Prebish and Damien Keown; reprint in the "Buddhist Tradition Series", editor Alex Wayman, with a foreword by Alex Wayman. It builds further on Norman's and Schmithausen's research; it stands in a line of research from highly praised scholars - scholar's scholars, so to speak.
Apart form the fact that there was no canon, let alone a Pali-canon, at the time of the Buddha, it is clear from antinomies within the Pali-canon that they are not the actual recordings of the words of the Buddha, but edited texts which have been developed over time. Buddhism is, in this regard, not different form Christianity c.q. the Bible.
WP:NPOVS is an essay, not a guideline. Scholarship may be "original research", Wiki-policy is to depend on "original research" by scholars.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Joshua Jonathan - of course she isn't a "view from nowhere". But the editorial viewpoint of the article is. The point is, that the article presents her views as if they were, along with her interpretation of earlier scholars. It does that by not presenting any criticism of her ideas, by the terminology used "notes that", and by not presenting any other views on the matter. So the reader is left with the impression that what she says is "the truth". So, you have made this executive decision that her view is the correct view. But nobody is in a position to make such a decision.
Your view that there was no Pali canon at the time of the Buddha is an opinion based on her work - she certainly hasn't proved anything in her book. Prayudh Payutto has presented good reasons for supposing that the present canon represents the texts that the monks memorized while the Buddha was alive and then rehearsed after he died - and due to their extraordinary abilities for memorization (which some monks are still capable of today) were then able to preserve this unchanged for several centuries until it was written down. With some contemporary monks capable of memorizing all 16,000 pages of the Pali Canon word perfect, also with understanding of the meaning and able to start at random, anywhere in the canon and continue reciting the text from that point, again word perfect, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that can't be ruled out. And for the internal evidence of texts that developed over time - his view is that the earlier texts here predated the Buddha. Which again seems a reasonable hypothesis. After all - the four noble truths - that's quite a remarkable idea to come up with - who was its author, if not the Buddha? It is easy to see how the monks when memorizing the Buddha's teachings late in his life could incorporate texts that predated him, and attribute those to him after he died. Combined with minor changes that happened after he died - of course there must have been some changes over the centuries before the canon was written down - it is a reasonable hypothesis, by an outstanding Buddhist scholar. It is not the place for a wikipedia editor to decide which of these two views is the correct one. Also any material critical of the views should also be presented. Robert Walker (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute

I didn't really want to get involved here, but I keep getting mentioned. Here are my comments. I can see that there is a content dispute about this article and about Four Noble Truths. It is my understanding that two editors have made significant changes to these articles, and that other editors are complaining about those edits. It looks as though talk page discussion is not productive, although I base that assessment only on the amount of discussion, not on a review of it, because it is too long. Please read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. Since there are already more than two editors, third opinion is not in order. There seem to be multiple issues, and just voting between two significantly different versions of an article is not useful, so this is not a case for a Request for Comments. I would suggest taking the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance by a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, I've mentioned this on User:Dorje108's talk page. Have also had a look at a few of the recent cases there, to try and get an idea of how it works. The cases each have a section on "How do you think we can help?" and not sure what one could put there. After my previous experiences of dispute resolution, I think we would need to have a reasonably clear idea of why we are going through the process first, and how they might be able to help for it to have a chance of success. Anyway just to say, thanks for the suggestion, and thinking it over, and as I'm a reader of the article rather than an editor I think it is really up to User:Dorje108 which way we take this so will see if he has any thoughts about it. Robert Walker (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if one could just put under "How do you think we can help?" - to say we are asking for help with suggestions for what to do next or how to take it further, as we don't know what we can do to resolve the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep everyone up to date, I'm in the process now of getting material together for posting to the dispute resolution notice board. Dorje suggested I take it on as I have more time for editing wikipedia at present. It is just to ask for advice at this stage. Robert Walker (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Final update. With the restriction of 1500 characters a day and 3 edits a day per talk page, if this goes ahead as seems likely, obviously I can't go ahead with the DRN notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_max_1.2C500_bytes_a_day_for_Robert_Walker
If anyone else wants to take it up, the draft notice is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice
But I warn that attempts to do something about this may seriously backfire. So take care!
Myself, I'll have to give up on it, and probably give up on wikipedia also, just log out and forget. Sorry, for those who are in support of the rollback to previous mature articles - I did what I could. Robert Walker (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism/Archive_3&oldid=957562242"