Talk:Ajātivāda

Stub

Yes I know its a stub, I still have a lot of work to do.......Tony.--Aoclery 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of links

Deleting links as a link-farm. I am not sure there isn't some Ahamkara in these deletions...Convince me it isn't prejudice or inappropriate..........--24.207.41.230 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

I have reinserted the link to the GThomas for it is another treatment of Advaita from a Gnostic Christian view, which well could have originated in India. It is not self promotion as there doesn't seem to be any other treatments of GThomas according to Vedanta. Also the purports were added to an already existing text. So please don't interfere with things that you obviously do not understand. User:Aoclery|Aoclery]] 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery

I have reinstated the links as they are most appropriate to the article for they are the main authors and philosophers in this subject. Anyone who would say they have no relevance to the article doesn't understand Ajativada and where it came from and who taught it..--Aoclery 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

I deleted some external links and listed each reason in the edit summary. The link to the gnostic gospel seems to be original research. Perhaps if there are articles about the relationship between the gnostic gospels and AV, in published journals, then we can use those. Also, I think that a link to a message in a yahoo forum does not meet WP:EL.

Feel free to discuss this with me on my talk page or here.TheRingess 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The treatment of the GThomas is only in relation to the interpretation to Vedantic Non Dual Philosophy. The translations were not original just the commentary. There would be no other as far as I know..--Aoclery 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Tony O'Clery.

It probably counts as original research and we can't link to it.TheRingess 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are hardly avoidable in discussing mysticism...........However whoever put that notice there may take time out and explain to me how weasel words are verifiable in Ajativada or forever hold his peace.............Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for specific citations

Hello, I am trying to determine if the term ajātivāda is primarily used by one or more of the specific modern authors mentioned in the article or if it has a prior use in traditional Indian philosophy as is implied in the article. There are no footnotes giving citations to any classical texts. The adjective ajāti (अजाति) can mean "eternal, not produced" (Apte, p. 23), as well as some other things such as not having a specific caste membership. I am unable to find the word used as a technical term in traditional Indian philosophy. The article cites verse 426 of Viveka Chudamani and gives a translation but does not cite the source. The translation of that verse in the Turiyananda editon (p. 195) is very different, and the Sanskrit text does not use the term ajāti or have any obvious connection to the point being made in the article. Since the citation has no reference I think it should be cut pending clarification of what the relevance is. The Mandukyakarika is cited but with no line number, so the citation cannot be verified. Can someone supply a line number? Buddhipriya (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

RAMANA MAHARSHI IN 'BE AS YOU ARE' BY DAVID GODMAN.Arkana 1981..WHERE HE MENTIONS AJATIVADA SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR ANYBODY..pp 181-3, 184..TONY.

Re-ordering of the article

I've re-ordered the article:

• Topical arrangement + subheaders
• Etymology-section
• Additional sources
• Changed references to proper references
• Removed some WP:OR, c.q Shankara and Para-Advaita. Paradvaita is onlymentioned in connection to Kashmir Shaivism.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Johnathon

Do yourself a favour and read and digest it first and also see if you can grasp what it really means ajativada...only 1 in 10 million can according to Maharaj...Tony. I may have more time than you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir shaivitism is not ajativada it is maybe advaita, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. It's clear that this page is dear to you. But... Wikipedia does not acknowledge "ownership" of pages per WP:OWN. Also, Wikipedia asks for reliable sources per WP:RS. Simply removing tags, without providing sources, is not acceptable. "Paraadvaita" surely needs a source; as far as I can see it's a Shaivist term (which may not be that strange, given the syncretism of Indian religions). I will undo most of your edits, following WP:RS. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Shows how ignorant you are para advaita is phrase i coined myself from sanskrit..to describe ajativada in another way.......Tony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not grasped in its totality what ajativada really means so how can you modify my entries?..Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

I removed the paragraph on "para-advaita", since it was build around the term "para-advaita", a phrase coined by a Wiki-editor, as stated above diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Four bodies and levels of truth

Those "Four levels of awareness" are a very good illustration of the importance of providing sources: where does this list come from?!? It seems to correspond with the three-bodies-theory of Advaita, of which Siddharameshwar Maharaj (the teacher of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj) gives a fourfold version. I hope the references are correct; personally I find the list too interesting, and convincing, to simply dismiss it as "unsourced". Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Again Buddhism pov

Please discuss here about the fringe theory before inserting this in lead ? , please see WP:NFRINGE

Please stop your POV-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

before going ahead with war of words would suggest to stick with topic , let me know why there is necessary to put influence claimed by one author of the influence in the lead ? is not it amounting to wp:fringe ?

Fringe means: far outside the accepted scholarly mainstream. So no, this is not fringe. On the contrary. It may look strange from a popular point of view, but maybe that's because many people are not familiair with scholarly research. It is necessary to put this here, beacuse Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism. The Mahayanists came up with powerful philosophical ideas; Brahmans took them over. So what? Shankara linked those ideas to the textual basis of the Brahmins, that is, the Upanishads, and the concept of "Brahman". He did a great job there, didn't he? Later on, the Buddhists took over tantra, when they started to lose their support, that is, the means to keep themselves alive. And eventually, the Brahmins fared much batter, since they already had the popular support, and kept the royal support, while the Buddhists lost all their support. To put it boldly: after all, the Buddhists were a bunch of elitists, while the Brahmins kept in touch with "mainstream" religion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, have you seen the amount of who has taken over whom & what in your analysis ?, A bold statement suggesting that it was influenced by Buddhism is not really summarising your analysis from above. and the last analysis! please note for me it suggests the elitists attitude erased buddhisim teaching and was replace by then " popular " philo or religion, why was it "popular" what is the length and "breadth" of its popularity ? there exists a problem in gerneralisatio of this too.

and the sentence in lead really takes the actuall importance & the summary of the subject (suggesting stop do not go further and divert yourself here directly to mahayana buddhism..) , then why write an article itself we can make a redirect in each page?, would suggest to add possibly later or in article about history of religion Shrikanthv (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand your points, but it is appropriate to discuss the influence of Nagarjuna here as it was a significant flow from Buddhism into Hindu philosophy. It's got significant theological import. Ogress _smash! 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nasadiya Sukta. 10:29

Tony has repeatedly inserted Nasadiya Sukta, Rig Veda 10:129, with a commentary:

"In the Vedic Nasadiya Sukta. 10:29. The first line reflects Ajativada ,

"Then even nothingness was not ,nor existence. This was multi thousand years before Buddhism,and the night sky in the Rig Veda is 8000 BCE. This sUkta reflects 'ajAtavAda', which is just a word for no creation. This is further elaborated by the word 'visRShTiH' which raises a doubt upon 'creation'. This also is again in perfect tuning with Sri Ramana's assertion; 'Where-from this 'visRShTi' came into being? And once again,'visRShTi' itself can be interpreted according to Vedik Grammar as 'chaos' or'appearances'.

Apart from forgetting the closing marks for the citation, referring to the wrong verse (10:29 instead of 10:129), and not giving a source for the interpretation (which is probably his own interpretation), the interpretation he gives is incorrect: "ajativada" does not refer to mere nothingness, or not-being-created-yet, but changelessness. So, he's not only being disruptive with his repeated insertions of non-sourced text; he's also disruptive by adding "info" that is factual incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait, we know who that IP is? If he's doing it on purpose... Ogress _smash! 08:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You bet we know: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aoclery. See also Google, and especially O'Clery Report, Ajativada and wikipedia joshua jonathan and kim dent-brown . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The claim "Gaudapada borrowed the concept of "ajāta" from Nagajurna's Madhyamaka philosophy

The claim "Gaudapada borrowed the concept of "ajāta" from Nagajurna's Madhyamaka philosophy" seems a presumption, especially as there is no chronological evidence for such an assertion.

On the other hand, 'Aja' (unborn) is a name of Shiva - considered as immutable Brahman. And 'immutability' and 'unborn' nature of the highest truth (brahman) is the constant theme in the Rig Veda and the Upanishads.

The sentence in the Wikipedia article should be modified to begin as "In opinion of some scholars ------".Atanu2013 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope; sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)