User talk:Bhikkhu Santi

From Wikivinaya

Revision as of 15:21, 2 July 2006

Hello,

I just wanted to show you what happens if you put something here...

Also I agree with your additions about the difference between Wikipedia and WikiVinaya. Good to put that up. greetings, DJti 01:33, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

How did you do this??? Santi.

Just by writing something on this page. You can try and write on my discussion page, then I will get a similar message... DJti 04:28, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

Actually I posted a perply to your comments on my discussion page so do have a look.

Fundamental Guidelines

One more thing, I had problems integrating the 'Fundamental guidelines' in the Guidlines on discussion, because I felt most of it was already there, and other things were a bit too specific. I think you have a lot of experience on forums etc, but let's just wait if these things will happen here in WikiVinaya also before we become too specific. I feel right now the guidelines already support all the more specific issues you put down, so they're not really necessary.

• Don't assume that all Buddhists share the same 'views about views' as you. The view that 'all fixed views are wrong' is also a fixed view and no evidence in support of it from the earliest scriptures has yet been shown to me.

I am still not quite sure whether shis one is necessary for Vinaya issues. Seems to be geared for some views on Dhamma, which some people hold. I put it there though but let me think about it a bit more.

• Within religious debates sometimes a viewpoint is seen as inherently 'offensive' even if stated politely. Whilst this is a complex issue open to varying approaches, my opinion is: we should not support the antihistorical tendency which considers (some) historical facts based on verifiable and falsifiable evidence as inherently 'offensive'. In my opinion, the antihistorical tendency is the defining characteristic of unhealthy fundamentalism.
• 'Offensive' within WikiVinaya shall mean ad hominem arguments and abusive language not historical facts and polite but challenging arguments. We will question whether the commentaries are always right; and perhaps whether they ever claimed infallibility themselves. We may mention in passing evidence about the history of the development of the Abhidhamma and other books regarded as 'Word of the Buddha' by the Theravādin tradition (perhaps) but as later, sectarian developments by scholars, historians and Buddhists whose faith is focussed on 'early Buddhism' or seeking early Buddhism. If the perception of historical authenticity in the claim that the Abhidhamma and commentaries are 'Word of the Buddha' is absolutely sacrosanct to you, you might find it less upsetting not to get involved with the community of Wiki Vinaya.
• To be continued...

I put the text here for your contemplation. greetings --DJti 04:44, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

Main Page

Hello, I put the old version of goal and content back on the main page, it's more simple and easier reading, and so better as an intro. Your new piece can now be found on the more detailed page: wikivinaya:Goal and content I re-arranged it a bit so the info is grouped in related subjects, and moved some pieces out which I couldn't find a place for, they had some info on Buddhism but it wasn't about the goal and content of WikiVinaya. greetings, DJti 09:40, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

Pali /Sanskrit

Hello, I am wondering if any of the other schools use the word pāṭimokkha (or patimokkha) also, in that exact same spelling. If they don't, that would be very nice because then we wouldn't have to use naming-conventions like pāṭimokkha (theravadin bhikkhupatimokkha for the articles on the patimokkha rules; we could just use pāṭimokkha. It would still be clear which recencion is meant: the pali one. I would like to know the same for parajika, sanghadisesa, etc. Both for their correct pali spelling and their spelling without the pali symbols.

thanks, DJti 11:21, 2 July 2006 (EDT)