Incompetent editor ruining Wikipedia Buddhist articles

[alwayson]

I don't think you fully appreciate how academic references work.

Explain to me how ONE Gelugpa book is better than 3 academic books.

I honestly don't get it, even though I went to Ivy League schools.

I guess I should ask for my money back from those schools......

[Acchantika]

It is not "my" book. I am not a Gelugpa. I don't think you fully appreciate how academic references work. This was explained in detail to you in the discussion page by one of the editors, there is not much point in me repeating it. There is no conspiracy against you, alwayson.

I'm trying to learn here.

Explain to me how one Gelugpa book is better than 3 academic books.

I honestly don't get it, even though I went to Ivy League schools.

The first writes out the entire quote directly without comment, while the latter three are added after the fact to back up an interpretation.

You wrote the paragraphs first. When challenged, you then added several references. When other editors actually read the books and found them to not actually say the things you suggested, you argued and ignored them. The entire record of this process exists for public viewing.

This is not how academic referencing works. You do not write out opinions and then strive to find references that may complement those. This is what people do when they are trying to promote a particular idea, not represent a view without preference.

[alwayson]

The above is again, not true.

Anyone can see the bold faced sentences right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madhy ... eplacement

The first writes out the entire quote directly without comment

Yes from a Gelugpa translation from a Gelugpa book.

[Acchantika]

Dude, you openly admit your bias and intent to promote it in the discussion page.

"Exactly! I am trying to counteract the Tibetan Gelugpa view which scholars have said has become predominant."

This is an argument and a bias. This is what these words mean. This is not what an encyclopedia is for, especially not the introduction.

[alwayson]

Dude, you openly admit your bias and intent to promote it in the discussion page.

"Exactly! I am trying to counteract the Tibetan Gelugpa view which scholars have said has become predominant."

This is an argument and a bias. This is what these words mean. This is not what an encyclopedia is for, especially not the introduction.

No its anti-bias, because this scholar says the exact same thing:

Karl Brunnhölzl says "First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more of less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schoools."Page 17, Center of the Sunlit Sky

P.S. Also discussed by several other people on this forum MULTIPLE times. Thats how I first learned about it.

[Acchantika]

You don't have to pull up quotes. I am not debating the sentiment that the Gelugpa view is predominant.

If you are trying to write an impartial article while simultaneously "trying to counteract the Tibetan Gelugpa view which scholars have said has become predominant", do you not see that this reflects a bias? If something is partial to a particular view, it is not impartial, yes?

[alwayson]

I am not debating the sentiment that the Gelugpa view is predominant.

I think you missed the point of the quote as usual.

The main point is that very last sentence which says "In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schoools"

[Acchantika]

The main point is that very last sentence which says "In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schoools"

This has to do with the history of Madhyamaka in Tibetan Buddhism. Madhyamaka existed for like 600 years before Buddhism even got to Tibet. Tsongkhapa came 600 years after that. The whole old school revival thing was another 600 years later. That is a lot of history, and none of this has anything to with an introduction to Madhyamaka.

Your gripe has to do with the current page quoting a Gelug book, but it is quoting a translation of Buddhapalita anyway. He's not even a Gelugpa.

Why is it so difficult for you to just add this to the next section, entitled "Tibetan categories"?

[alwayson]

I don't even care about the Gorampa bit.

For example this would be fine:

According to the Mādhyamikas, all phenomena have no intrinsic, independent reality apart from the causes and conditions on which they are designated as mere conceptual labels. To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Furthermore bundles of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels, which of course also applies to the causes and conditions themselves and even the principle of causality itself since everything is dependently originated (i.e. empty).

Your gripe has to do with the current page quoting a Gelug book, but it is quoting a translation of Buddhapalita anyway. He's not even a Gelugpa.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that quote doesn't explain anything about Madhyamaka, which is why padma norbu called it "useless".

[Huifeng]

The fact that both pages seem to be largely Tibetan arguments means that as a general Buddhist take on Madhyamaka, both are very deficient.

For it to be somewhat academic, a couple of things would be needed:
1. Outline of the basic history, time periods, including the persons during those periods.
2. Outline of the basic texts, historically structured, of course.
3. Outline of the basic tenets of those texts, again in historic format.
These could each have branches from India, to China and then Korea and Japan on one hand; and from India to Tibet / Mongolia, etc. on the other.
They could then draw in to modern positions, particularly the modern academic stance.

Otherwise, leaving either as they are, they are rather a mush; a bunch of citation bombs, without any structure or format.

~~ Huifeng

[alwayson]

Go for it

[alwayson]

Some good stuff:

I highly doubt Tsongkhapa held this view in the first place.

I am sure Tsongkhapa would have agreed with Gorampa that emptiness is a nonimplicative negation of all the Four Extremes, or ANY claim in general.

No, Gorampa analyzes this in detail.

Basically Tsongkhapa's famous formula for freedom from extremes is "not existent in the ultimate, not non-existent in the relative", he disregards the second set of extremes since they are double negatives and considers it absurd to negate things that "both and exist and do not exist" etc., since things never appear to both exist and not exist at the same time.

Well, it is a little more nuanced than that, but yes, one criticism of Tsongkhapa is that he holds that the intellectual apprehension of emptiness as non-affirming negation of true existence an appropriate conceptualization because it mimics ultimate truth. Gorampa rejects that emptiness is merely the "non-affirming negation of true existence" as well as the notion that an intellectual apprehension of emptiness is ok.

There are over 150 points where Gorampa criticizes Tsongkhapa's views.

Re: tetralemma -- this is the basis of the disagreement, whether to take the tetralemma literally. Gorampa takes Tsongkhapa to task for trying to reinterpet the tetralemma. It must be taken literally, for among other reasons, [one not mentioned in the book], there are those who assert things both exist and do not exist, for example Jain and other interpretation of arising where there is an instant where something is in simultaneous state of existent and non-existence. In other words, the tetralemma is to be taken literally.

N

[alwayson]

Basically Acchantika does not want to compromise, and again made unfounded insults out of left field to me via PM (the same behavior as witnessed here and on Wikipedia)

He is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, including the fact he is not knowledgeable about these subjects.

I asked him to quote a direct quote from Nagarjuna, MMK 24.18, and he would not even do that.

[Virgo]

He is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, including the fact he is not knowledgeable about these subjects.

It's a wiki dude. It will always be flawed, and not a trusted source for accurate information, being that anyone who makes an account can edit it, as far as I understand, with or without any real credentials.

You went to Ivy League schools, can you cite Wikipedia as a resource in a paper there?

Kevin

[alwayson]

being that anyone who makes an account can edit it

Kevin

That depends. If you are a new editor, and a "regular" disagrees with you, you are going to lose.

Unfortunately none of the "regulars" on the Buddhism pages are competent.

[Acchantika]

Basically Acchantika does not want to compromise, and again made unfounded insults out of left field to me via PM (the same behavior as witnessed here and on Wikipedia)

He is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, including the fact he is not knowledgeable about these subjects.

I asked him to quote a direct quote from Nagarjuna, MMK 24.18, and he would not even do that.

You PM'd me. I told you your treatment of editors was abusive, the same thing I said in this thread.

For the 100th time, I do not have an opinion about whether or not the information regarding Madhyamaka is accurate or not, I'm am not in a position to do so.

I say what I have always said, that Tibetan history is irrelevant to an introductory overview of an Indian system aimed at the general public.

I have never edited a wiki page in my life. I simply agree with the editors there; that you don't understand referencing and deserved to be banned.

You started a thread in a public discussion forum and asked for opinions, I gave you mine, take it or leave it, don't drag me personally into your drama.

[alwayson]

I have never edited a wiki page in my life.

This is B.S.

[catmoon]

This topic is about exhausted, all that remains seems to be personal sniping. Any further nastiness will result in a lock and deletions.

[alwayson]

lock it

[Tara]

Locked.