Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Summary of the issue with the change of "ownership" of this article

So - the main thing is that Joshua Jonathan has taken over ownership of this article, by completely rewriting it, after Dorje108 had been working on it for eighteen months. And Dorje108 is no longer editing wikipedia as a result of these actions on this article and the Four Noble Truths article. I write this as a reader who found Dorje108's version of this article useful.

Karma in Buddhism has a reputation as one of the most difficult topics in Buddhism to explain clearly, and one that is easily misunderstood. It is regarded as far harder to expound in any detail, and to understand than the teachings on non self. To truly understand details of the workings of Karma is after all one of the four imponderables.

I think it is clear from the discussions here that none of us currently writing on the talk page have the competence to edit this article. I know that I don't.

As for Joshua Jonathan - though he may have impressive scholarship in other areas of Buddhism, he doesn't have sufficient competence in this topic, I think is pretty clear. In an earlier version of the main page (now fixed) and in this talk page:

He confused

• Intentions (which may not be accompanied by actions) with
• Intentional actions - where you actually carry out an action, and confused both of those with
• Impressions on the mind caused by the completion of an action.

That last one, the so called "Seeds" - as I understand it is a later addition made by some Buddhists in an attempt to make the workings of Karma easier to understand. I don't think, from what I read in Dorje's version of the article, that all Buddhists accept that this is the way to explain it, via imprints on the mind.

Then he compounded the error by saying that this is a subtle distinction.

Also when I challenged him on the old section on "Karma is not a judgement" - he said that nobody can say this about Buddhism. But then when I simply copied Dorje108's footnote into the body of this talk page complete with the quotations - exactly as presented by Dorje108, he then conceded that this was valid and reinstated the section.

I think this shows clearly that he deleted material without first carefully reading the supporting citations.

He also removed all the quotations from the footnotes. The Wikipedia guidelines recommend including quotations in footnotes. It is not an adequate solution to move them into wikiquotes - as who is going to read this article with wikiquotes in another tab and search each of the footnoes in wikiquotes?

He also removed the quotations within the body. I for one found them very useful. Quotations in the article body are recommended when they express things more clearly than a wikipedia editor can hope to do - which is surely the case here in such a subtle topic as Karma. As Joshua has already shown with his own incorrect summaries. They are also recommended when it is a subject where there are differing views expressed, where you want to present the view of a particular author - often the author's own words are the best way to do that. Again in Karma in Buddhism there are so many different ideas about how to understand it in detail - that I think it is an area, of all areas in Buddhism, where quotations in the body of the article, and of reasonable length, make sense. Supported of course by explanation, not just a list of quotes, but included for a reason - but that is exactly what Dorje108 did.

So what is the way forward?

I submit that none of us are competent to edit this article. The only wikipedia editor I know of so far who is competent is Dorje108. He would not have made the basic mistakes that Joshua Jonathan did. And has shown that he has wide ranging scholarship on this subject in the Western scholarly literature, in the Therevadhan literature and the Tibetan literature on the subject.

So I submit that the way forward is to apologise to Dorje108, to revert to his version of the article, and invite him to return to Wikipedia to edit it.

Dorje108 has shown himself to be a courteous editor, who is good at working collaboratively with other editors and non contentious. There should be no problem discussing proposed changes to the article with him.

I am not suggesting that Joshua Jonathan is banned from editing this article or anything like that. You can see ways to improve an article, often, even if you don't yet have an in depth understanding of the subject. Indeed, since the article is written for readers who don't yet know about it, then often a reader who doesn't have an in depth understanding can see issues with the presentation that specialists on the topic can't see.

Also I think it is clear that he has good scholarship in the area, particularly, of Western Buddhist scholarship. Surely many things he can contribute. I just don't think he is the right person to be the main editor and to take ownership of this article from Dorje108.

Hope this helps, presented the issue here as neutrally and dispassionately as I can do it. Apoologies if this is too long, and I have put a couple of hours work into making it as succint as I can, it's the best I can do. These are my main points. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To remind you:

"Tillman Vetter notes that in early Buddhism rebirth is ascribed to craving or ignorance.(Vetter 1988, p.xxi) Buswell too notes that Early Buddhism does not identify bodily and mental motion, but desire (or thirst, trsna), as the cause of karmic consequences.(Buswell 2004, p.416}} Matthews notes that there is no cohesive presentation of karma in the Sutta Pitaka,(Matthews 1986, p.124) which may mean that the doctrine was incidental to the main perspective of early Buddhist soteriology.(Matthews 1986, p.124)"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But again - none of that says that intention leads to karma without action. Is of course ascribed to craving and ignorance. So what? Doesn't mean that karma is an inevitable consequence of ignorance and craving. You work on that of course. But you also work on right action and right livelihood, mindfulness etc. If karma arose just from intention then there would be no way of doing anything about it except through intention.

Robert, please move on. Joshua Jonathan is a way better editor than you and Dorje108 combined.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, why then did he confuse Seeds - a theoretical idea from later Buddhism of impressions on our mind that result from the completion of actions - with Intentions, which happen before an action is carried out, and don't have to be followed by actions or Karma at all? How could he possibly think of that as a subtle distinction, between Seeds and Intentions, if he understood both ideas?

I agree that he seems to have read widely and know many sources. That doesn't mean however, that he is an authority who understands everything he read and that as an editor his decisions are final and always excellent. Robert Walker (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Remark on Popular Buddhism and stories from the sutras=

Victoria, BTW on your remarks before about introducing quotes from "popular Buddhism" into this talk page discussion - are you thinking of my mention of the Angulimala story? there are a number of things in the sutras that can't be fitted easily into modern scientific ways of thinking about the world, like that story. But you have that also in other religions. In Christianity, the stories for instance of the feeding of the 5,000 or turning water into wine, or walking on water. But it is valid to talk about those stories when you discuss how Christians understand Christianity. Some take them literally, some more for the ideas in them. Same here. So the story of Angulimala, whether you think it happened literally as described, or is a way of presenting an idea vividly to help us understand it - it tells a lot about Buddhist ideas of karma and the results of karma which is why I mentioned it.

Does this make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Remarks on Karma not a science

With Karma one of the four imponderables - then though some elements are well within the purvue of science, it is not something that you can work out scientific laws and rules for in all its details.

Acinteyya

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.

..."The [precise working out of the] results of kamma..." - Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

So we need to be careful not to turn this into an article that tries to make Karma into a science in the Western sense.

Of course you can apply methods of science to study of the texts themselves, history of the teachings, and so forth. Indeed this is a case in point.

The article should say that Karma is considered by Buddhists to be one of the four imponderables, which Dorje108 says in his version. That's an essential point lest the reader thinks that Buddhists think of it as some kind of a scientific law.

That BTW is another of the many essential sections Joshua left out. One of the most important sections in Dorje108's article in my view, User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism#Karmic_results_are_nearly_impossible_to_predict_with_precision

I'm not going to fight for them one at a time as I did for "Karma is a judgement", as I don't want to be an editor of this article. And it would be exhausting. I think the only way forward is to restore Dorje's version. There is so much material in it that no longer exist, as you see from the Cleanup summary.

Also, I don't think myself it had an unnecessary sentence in it, at least in the parts that were of most interest to me.

If anyone wants a reference on Karma in Buddhism I'd link to Dorje's version. Which, if not restored here, I'll back up outside of wikipedia, have already done that indeed, as is permitted so long as you attribute it properly. Robert Walker (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think of Dorje's version, but I am troubled by what seems to be a clear case of WP:OWNER going on here.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From which side?

Regarding the "Four imponderables": my way working with this is as follows: read the lines carefully, and notice contradictions and issues. In this case:

• that line was unsourced. Next in the previous version of the KiB-articles follows the line "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." What's the relation with the first line? By the way, funny thing is: the Acinteyya] article quotes the Acintita Sutta: "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about [...] The results of kamma." So, stating that the result of karma is imponderable, tehere follows a discussion of the results of karma.
• The Acintita Sutta says "the results of kamma", whereas the line in the article said "the precise results". This implies that the reults of karma are ponderable; only the precise results are not. that's an issue, isn't it?
• Two quotes from primary sources: Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states comes from Rigpa Wiki; wikis are not accepted as a source; and Bhikkhu Thanissaro's publication is self-published.
• Next follows a Google-search, at Google Books. Only six results. That's not really much... At first sight: three books by spirituality-minded writers, one hit for the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. Leaves two publications that might be interesting; they both don't give an example, only a preview. It seems to be the same text. Basic line from all the six: thinking over the four imponderables will drive you insane. Might be true...
• Next we try Google web: 638 results. "Dharma Wheel" sounds promising; it isn't - that is, it's unusuable; it's a web-forum.

I give up here. Un unsourced line, contradiciting the aim of the rest of this section, which consists of two long quotes from self-published primary sources. If the four imponderables are to be included, I'd introduce it with "despite the fact that the Buddha called the question of the result of karma an imponderable question, the Buddhist tradition has developed views on." But that's my opinion; I'm looking forward to additional info on this.

I hope that giving this insight in my way of working and thinking is helpfull, and makes clear that I'm not just simply dropping a bomb to erase everything that I don't like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: Bhikkhu Thanissaro is preserved as a reference, despite the fact that this is a primary, self-published source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Acintya" was the magic word: 739 results. Dasgupta: "that which is to be unavoidably accepted for explaining facts, but which cannot stand the scrutiny of logic." That makes better sense than "going mad", doesn't it? I've added it to the section on karmaphala, together with "The Acintita Sutta warns that "the [precise working out of the] results of kamma" is one of the four incomprehensible issues." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Am I Being Canvassed?

There seems to be an attempt to drag me into a content (and possibly conduct) dispute on a subject about which I have little knowledge and no previous involvement, and to provide me with information that is too long to read. I don't plan to participate at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. It was not intended as canvasing. I just wanted advice on user conduct policies on wikipedia. This was a misunderstanding by the other editors, I hadn't explained to them clearly enough what I was doing. Perhaps I should have posted about it here first? I posted to Dorje's talk page instead. Robert Walker (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a paper encyclopedia

Joshua, I think this might be worth your attention. Some of your deletions and summaries seem to be just in the interest of keeping the article short. But there is no requirement to do this in Wikipedia. It is not a paper encyclopedia, and so there is no need to limit us to brief mentions of topics. If it is deserving of extensive treatment, there is no problem in presenting those details here.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content.

So for instance, in the section we've been discussing #Karmic_results_are_nearly_impossible_to_predict_with_precision there is absolutely no reason why we can't give it a full treatment in a separate section as Dorje did. We don't have to try to trim it down to a single sentence.

It is of course appropriate to try to summarize in the more general articles. But in a detailed article like this one, the very point in them is that they permit extensive treatment, whatever the subject requires for the reader to have a reasonable grasp of the subject.

Also - in Dorje's sections like this - the quotes are not meant to be just backing up the sort intro. He is not just giving inline citations to show that "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. ".

Rather I think that intro sentence is meant to introduce us to the topic, and summarize it briefly. Then the two quotes are meant to give a more detailed presentation of the topic, first from a Tibetan and then from a Therevadhan perspective. Robert Walker (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

New "Rebirth and Intention" section - it is just plain wrong!

Again removed the collapse - it discusses your previous version of the article. I don't think it is right to hide this section just because you have now corrected your mistake here. Not so soon. Can be archived eventually of course! Robert Walker (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[Have just edited this with more sub-headings to help reader - and discussing your new version of the statement] Robert Walker (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is about the sentence right near the start of the article, originally read: "The cause for our rebirth in samsara are our intentions", it's now been rewritten as

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition."

Both are simply false. In the Buddha's teachings on this subject, scholars are agreed, there is no inevitable effect at all from intentions. And in the case of an Arhat, then none of their intentions and actions lead to karma.

It suggests that all you need is intention to get karmic effects. Is absolutely clear in the Buddhist teachings that you can prevent someone else's bad karma if you can prevent them carrying out the action they intended to do.

I've removed "inevitable". Groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Story of Angulimala from the Pali Canon - shows how by preventing an action, intention to kill the Buddha did not lead to the effects of killing a Buddha

See Angulimala#Meeting_the_Buddha where Buddha saw that Angulimala was about to kill his mother as his 1000th victim. He saw that the karmic effect of this would be that Angulimala would end in hell realms. And that if he could be prevented from doing this he would become a monk and subsequently attain Nirvana. So he set out to intercept him, and so prevented him from carrying out the action. And he then did attain Nirvana in the same lifetime.

Didn't prevent the intention. He tried to kill the Buddha also, rushed at him to kill him, so most definitely had a firm intention to kill a Buddha (which has similarly devastating immediate karmic effect in the same lifetime to killing your mother), and failed. Shakyamuni Buddha prevented the action, so saving him from its harmful consequences.

That's also a story that's included in the Pali Canon and recognized in all traditions of Buddhism, Therevadhan and Mahayana.

It could hardly be clearer. By acting to prevent this murder, the Buddha showed clearly that intention does not have to lead to effects, if the intended action can be interrupted and prevented.

Intentions are necessary - but not sufficient - for karmic effects

It is true that "Actions, then, must be intentional if they are to generate karmic fruits" - as you say in the quotation from Harvey.

But the actions also are needed. The intention is needed, but is not enough by itself. That's how it is taught.

No citation given for this - as the article now says "citation needed"

And, you haven't given any citation saying that intentions bear fruit without actions

Don't recommend a fix, please turn back to Dorje's version by a scholar who knows his subject

BTW I don't recommend that you try to fix this section. This is a subtle topic. No way am I going to get involved in trying to fix it myself either. It is easy to see obvious mistakes like this, but it is very hard to write clearly and accurately about Karma which is probably one of the hardest topics to write about in all of Buddhism.

Dorje did an excellent job of it. Use his text instead! Robert Walker (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's reply

The section cites Gethin, Bronkhorst, Harvey and Bowker in this respect, and the Nibbedhika Sutta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Those quotes all say that intention is necessary - but it is not at all clear that they also support the case that intention is sufficient. As I've always heard the sutras explained by the Buddhist teachers, then you need intention, the act itself, the completion of the act, and to rejoice in the completion.

Since that's the generally accepted interpretation, then to counter that you need citations that say explicitly that the action is not needed to cause the karmic effect, only intention. That say, for instance, taking the Angulimala example as a basis, that the intention to murder someone has the same effect of an actual murder of someone.

That's different from citations that say that the intention is necessary. If there are any authors that say that only intention is needed and the action is not required for karmic effects, and that the intention to murder someone has the karmic effect of murder - well that is I think is surely a minority, almost fringe viewpoint and it should be explained that that is the case.

After all, if this was the case, it would for instance cause serious issues in meditation if you can't allow thoughts to arise that might have intentions of harmful actions - which is what the situation would be if intention by itself caused karma. You'd end up having to stamp out many of your thoughts before they even arose, an aggressive approach to meditation rather than the middle way. While the way Buddhists generally meditate at least in the simple basic meditation - is that thoughts are allowed to arise, and naturally purify themselves as they pass away. Robert Walker (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, in your quote from the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

Yes intention gives rise to Karma. But intentions can also be blocked before actions leading to karma arise, as in the story of the Buddha and Angulimala. Also, in meditation, intentions can also dissolve away by themselves without causing any karmic effects. He was talking to Bikkhus who would be familiar with all that.

You need to take this to the commentaries, as it is a short statement that obviously needs to be clarified with understanding of the full Pali Canon, not just treated in isolation.

Commentary on the Nibbedhika Sutta statement "This famous statement is often misunderstood

Looking up the 2003 translation of the Nibbedhika Sutta with notes by Piya Tan, this is what he says about that passage:

See: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.11-Nibbedhika-Pariyaya-S-a6.63-piya.pdf

"Bhikshus, intention is kamma, I say! Having intended, one creates karma through body, through speech, and through the mind"

This famous statement is often misunderstood. "The Buddha's utterance does not establish a mathematical equivalence between cetanaa [volition] and kamma, such that every instance of volition must be considered kamma. As the second part of his statement shows, his words mean that cetanaais the decisive factor in action, that which motivates action and confers upon action the ethical significance intrinsic to the idea of kamma. This implies that the ethical evaluation of a deed is to be based on the cetanaa from which it springs, so that a deed has no kammic efficacy apart from the cetanaa to which it gives expression. The statement does not imply that cetanaa[volition] (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma."

Bodhi Bihikku, 1998, "A critical examination of Nanavira Thera's "A note on paticcasumuppada", Budhist studies review, 1998.

By the way when it says "(in the non arahant)" - an arahant of course, has seen through the illusion of self and is no longer bound by Samsara, so no longer creates karma. But has intention and wishes and actions. So it is only in non arahants that intentions lead to Karma - and then his point is that only some intentions lead to karma in a non arahant.

Karma free actions of arahants

On the Karma free actions of arahants, Walpola Rahula puts it like this:

Now, the Pali word kamma or the Sankrit word karma (from the root kr to do) literally means 'action', 'doing'. But in the Buddhist theory of karma it has a specific meaning: it means only 'volitional action', not all action. Nor does it mean the result of karma as many people wrongly and loosely use it. In Buddhist terminology karma never means its effect; its effect is known as the 'fruit' or the 'result' or karma (kamma-phala or kamma-vipāka).

Volition may relatively be good or bad, just as a desire may relatively be good or bad. So karma may be good or bad relatively. Good karma (kusala) produces good effects, and bad karma (akusala) produces bad effects. 'Thirst', volition, karma, whether good or bad, has one force as its effect: force to continue-to continue in a good or bad direction. Whether good or bad it is relative, and is within the cycle of continuity (samsāra). An Arahant, though he acts, does not accumulate karma, because he is free from the false idea of self, free from the 'thirst' for continuity and becoming, free from all other defilements and impurities (kilesā, sāsavā dhammā). For him there is no rebirth. Chapter III of "What the Buddha Taught"

The full quote

The full quote by Bhikkhu Bodhi continues as follows - but it gets rather technical, with use of specialist Pali words like vipaakacetanaa and vipaaka and sa"nkhaarakkhandha - so this is a passage for a Pali Scholar to read:

Extended content

The Buddha's full statement should be considered first: "It is volition, monks, that I call kamma. Having willed (or intended), one does kamma by body, speech, or mind." The Buddha's utterance does not establish a mathematical equivalence between cetanaa and kamma, such that every instance of volition must be considered kamma. As the second part of his statement shows, his words mean that cetanaa is the decisive factor in action, that which motivates action and confers upon action the ethical significance intrinsic to the idea of kamma. This implies that the ethical evaluation of a deed is to be based on the cetanaa from which it springs, so that a deed has no kammic efficacy apart from the cetanaa to which it gives expression. The statement does not imply that cetanaa (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma. In order to see that the notion of vipaakacetanaa is not self-contradictory nor even unintelligible, we need only consider the statements occasionally found in the Suttas about naamaruupa descending into the womb or taking shape in the womb (e.g. DN 15/ii,63; also #17 above). It is undeniable that the naamaruupa that "descends" into the womb is the result of past kamma, hence vipaaka. Yet this naama includes cetanaa, and hence that cetanaa too must be vipaaka. Further, the Suttas establish that cetanaa, as the chief factor in the fourth aggregate (the sa"nkhaarakkhandha), is present on every occasion of experience. A significant portion of experience is vipaaka, and thus the cetanaa intrinsic to this experience must be vipaaka. When one experiences feeling as the result of past kamma, the cetanaa coexisting with that feeling must be vipaaka too. The Commentaries squarely confront the problem of cetanaa in resultant states of consciousness and explain how this cetanaa can perform the distinct function of cetanaa without constituting kamma in the common sense of that word. (am quoting from the online backup of his article by someone to a forum page here as I don't have access to the original: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?193-Paticcasamuppada-II-In-which-Bhikkhu-Bodhi-Debates-at-Nanavira%27s-Ghost-and-Mettiko-Bhikkhu-rebuts )

Once again just reminder, I'm not, by saying this, helping you to fix the article. My view is that we should restore the article to the state it was when you first started to edit it, and then you, Dorje, and anyone else can then work on any issues you found case by case, one at a time, with a discussion on the talk page, and giving other editors opportunities to add new citations and supporting content where needed. Robert Walker (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's edits

I support Joshua Jonathan's edits.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the collapse of my response here - I don't think it is right to collapse a section that suggests that there is an issue of user conduct even if you don't agree with it. All of the things I said here down to Joshua Jonathan's "response" were collaped. Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Point of procedure and I wonder if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct by Joshua Jonathan

I'm going to look into what can be done as a point of procedure and user conduct.

I'd like to point out - that whatever anyone thinks of his version of the article - it turns out Joshua Jonathan has been editing wikipedia on these topics for a long time. And he let Dorje108 work on this article, and on the Four Noble Truths article, slowly and carefully since spring 2013. And then in a period of three weeks, destroys most of his work, in both cases removing large amounts of text, re-arranging the articles, and basically completely rewriting them as new articles - with no prior notification on the talk page first. This destroys just about everything Dorje108 has done for the last year on wikipedia.

Whatever you might think of his edits, I think there is also an issue of user conduct here. Why let someone work on two articles slowly, for well over a year, and then do this all in just a few weeks without discussion, except a brief exchange on the Four Noble Truths talk page?

Details

Here is the history page of Four Noble Truths showing many edits by Joshua Jonathan back to 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&offset=20121230030834&limit=500&action=history

Diffs for both articles showing the extent of the recent changes by Joshua Jonathan

for Karma in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

for Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305

Can't be any doubt he has been aware of Dorje108's work here for a long time. Though he hasn't edited this article before, he must have been aware of it for a long time also, given that it is one of the central topics of the Buddha's teachings.

Understandably, Dorje108 has now stopped editing wikipedia. See User_talk:Dorje108

What can be done?

I'm not sure what can be done, but am going to investigate and see if this can be dealt with as a user conduct issue. I was hoping that he would do this of his own accord, but if not, I think that we have a case for a roll back of both articles and to ask Joshua Jonathan to propose his edits on the talk page first, and apply them one at a time after consultation rather than rewrite the entire article in one go like this.

I think also, given that it is an article with few editors, that's been essentially the same for months with few changes - and with no deadline or hurry to "fix it", that he should also apply his edits slowly and with consideration for the limited time available to the other main editor, discussing them here first. Robert Walker (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan please consider rolling back and doing your edits more slowly, with prior discussion, in this fashion. Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have another proposal: Dorje is going to propose and dicuss all his edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference is, that his version is the existing article as it was before you did your edits. As I understand wikipedia guidelines, then you start with the existing article when discussing proposed edits, not the suggested new version of it. But I will check this, as a point of procedure. Robert Walker (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong view of karma

Copied from Talk:Four Noble Truths#Extent of the recent changes by Joshua Jonathan

I've been following the Karma in Buddhism article more closely, and there, Joshua Jonathan leads out his new version, with a wrong view about Karma

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"),[web 4] cetanā ("volition"),[3] or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving")[12] create impressions,[web 5][note 7] tendencies[web 5] or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition."

Where, he is clearly talking about volitions at that point, not actions, or "karmic imprints", and he presents this, without citation, as a "view from nowhere", doesn't say who said this, it is just his own statement as a wikipedia editor. If I was reading that article for the first time I'd stop at that point as clearly the work of an amateur who doesn't know much about Buddhism. Just being blunt there. Perhaps he has some scholarship in other areas of Buddhism but in this topic this shows that Dorje108's scholarship is far superior to his - that he is editing from an actual understanding of Buddhist teachings.

I'm no scholar myself, but this is an elementary error that just about any educated Buddhist would pick up on, I'd have thought. Piya Tan comments "This famous statement is often misunderstood. " about this misunderstanding of the Buddha's short utterance in the Nibbedhika Sutta. It gives me no confidence at all in his edits. While Dorje108's article - I found an excellent one myself. And I don't know why you call the authors of his quotes "popular authors". Just because some of them are Tibetans who have studied Tibetan rather than Western scholarship? He choses Tibetans widely recognized as authoritative and knowledgeable about Tibetan Buddhism, not fringe popular figures whose scholarship is dubious. He mixes them with quotes from Western academics and from Therevadhan authorities. A good all round mix of sources I'd say myself of both Eastern and Western scholarship.

That's also why quotes are so much better. If you have a quote - and not just short one sentence fragments but long enough quotes to see what the author says, then you know that this is a statement by a recognized authority on the Buddhist teachings rather than some wikipedia editor.

But whatever your view on this - the pace and method is all wrong. Why let Dorje108 work on these articles from spring 2013, and then destroy his work so rapidly with almost no prior discussion - none at all in the case of the Karma in Buddhism article.

I've posted this to the talk page Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Joshua_Jonathan.27s_edits I will investigate, and see if we have any case for user conduct and rollback anyway, if he doesn't revert his edits - I don't know if we have a case here, but seems at least possible we do, does no harm to just find out what we can do. Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The line was already changed in "the basic ideas is that intentional actions,[40] driven by kleshas (etc)". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Response

Robert, could you try to give constructive suggestions for what you think are improvements, instead of repeating "I don't like it"? Here are some responses:

• Karma in Buddhism: yeah, maybe it might have been better to first make a list of problems I saw with "Karma in Buddhism". Well, I didn't, I started working on it. See WP:BOLD and WP:OWN;
• User conduct & rollback: out of the question. To label my edits as a "user conduct" problem goes against the grain of Wikipedia. A rollback is appropriate in case of vandalism, not in case of faithfull edits, even if you don't like them;
• Wrong view of karma: the two lines give three sources; one of them was already in the article. So this is not "just his own statement". To call this "the work of an amateur who doesn't know much about Buddhism" is inappropriate; the talkpage is meant to discuss changes, reach concensus, and improve the article. Not to make misplaced ad hominem attacks.
• Quotes: this has been discussed before. Extensive quotes can be moved to WikiQuote. They distract the article.

I've explained my edits; you've chosen not to respond to these explanations, but to repeat again and again your objections, which boil doewn to "I like the quotes" and "you should have asked first". The way you're acting here is WP:DISRUPTIVE. You're not trying to reach concencus, you keep pushing your point, and you keep adding WP:WALLSOFTEXT, despite a long list of helpfull advice and warnings in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On conduct, since you don't agree, I'm going to ask for advice from Robert McClenon who I've found is very helpful on these matters and knowledgeable. As a matter of conduct, it is quite simply, that you let Dorje work on this article for a year and six months uninterrupted, slowly and carefully working on it just about every week for over eighteen months without a single comment on the talk page. And then in three weeks, you completely rewrote it, without any comments on the talk page first. And naturally enough - having previously done the same to the 4 noble truths article which is the other main article he has been working on for a similar period of time, he has stopped editing wikipedia.

I think that might be conduct that could be taken sufficiently improper and inconsiderate of other editors to require a rollback and apology, and to do those edits again more slowly with discussion first. But I'll see what he says. Robert Walker (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Eiteher you don't read my comments, or you don't understand them. "Since you don't agree" condences it: you don't want to reach a concensus, you just want it your way. Let me repeat: your talkpage-behaviour is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua, I have replied in detail in that section above, but you didn't respond.

1. Your citations in this section show that volition is necessary for karma, which is not disputed.
2. They do not say that volition is sufficient for karma
3. You haven't given any citation that says volition by itself causes karma without action

I wonder if part of this confusion arises from the Buddha's mention of mind, when he says "through volitions one acts in body, speech and mind". Clearly volitions are not themselves acts of mind or he would say "volitions are acts of mind", not that "through volition one acts with the mind". I take it as meaning what we would now call miraculous powers, though in those days the distinction wasn't made quite as we do. So things like curses, or levitation, or manifesting things from nothing, or instantly re-appearing in another realm or in another place - they are all acts of mind certainly, so would be included. I don't know what else would be included.

Also would like to point out, I searched and found this citation in support of the interpretation.

Where is your scholarly support for the opposite interpretation of the suttra? Even one example - if you found something - that would make it a disputed interpretation. But as it is now, we only have the interpretation that I described as supported by the scholars who read Pali and are expert in the Pali canon, and you have given no scholarly sources that say that volition is sufficient for karma, without action. This is not just saying "I don't agree" or "I don't like what you say"! Robert Walker (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, just to say, Joshua Jonathan has now corrected this sentence in the article, see below. But - as a beginner's error, that he made this error at all, confusing volitions on their own, with both volitional actions, and also with the seeds which (according to some interpretations of Karma only) are the imprints of the volitional actions on the mind after completion of the action - that he confused three different things and treated them as if identical - this doesn't give confidence in him as someone to completely reshape the article. Dorje108 would not have made a mistake like this. Robert Walker (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Vajrayana source check

The disputes have caught my attention. I would like to expand the Vajrayana section with this source His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1982), Happiness, Karma and Mind

Considering the extensive editorial attention the source has received and publication, would it be accepted here as a Primary source? What's interesting is the skilfull means distinction; which could benefit the discussions here.

Additionaly, announcing that I am investigating to elaborate on

• A. no self

means

• B. no karma

means

• C. no cyclic rebirth.

Putting this in linear cause in effect terms. Hey, maybe even skilfull means can keep karma on a linear path. Scientists see to be able to figure that out.

(Please forgive me in advance, I may have difficulty in getting this articles references system to work correctly.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZuluPapa. Could you be more specific on what info from this speech you'd like to use? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Buddhist theory of karma

The last version of this article before my clean-up frequently uses the term "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" as a translation for karmaphala. It is used to structure a series of qualifications. I have several problems with this term:

• It is a neologism:
  • The term is a neologism. "Buddhist theory of karma" is being used, though, by notable scholars like David Kalupahana and Paul Williams; but "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" is not;
  • Karmaphala seems to best translated as "the fuit of actions" [1], or "action-and-effect" (Gereon Kopf, Beyond Personal Identity: Dogen, Nishida, and a Phenomenology of No-Self, p.141), or "action and result" (Kragh 2011);
  • The list of terms following the introductory sentence suggests that "the Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" is a common term; the list lends credibility to this term. Yet, karmaphala and these terms are not all the same; at least two distinct concepts are mixed here. This Google-search gives an interesting result: "some unwary students to jump to the conclusion that the law of Karma and the law of cause and effect are synonymous".
• It is an over-generalisation:
  • There's not such a thing as "the" Buddhist theory of karma";
  • "theory" suggests an objectively existing law of nature, which can be observed, and which allows for the development of a theory;
  • It is imprecise; it emphasizes action, whereas intention is the decisive element in Buddhist btought on "karma".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At second thought: the article might as well be called "Karmaphala in Buddism", since most issues in Buddhism are with karmaphala, not with karma. But then, the plural of "theory" should be used, and a close rendering of karmaphala: "the Buddhist theories of action-and-fruit".

By the way: it's interesting to note that the term "the law of" is being used. This is a western phrase, borrowed from physics. It shows that contemporary Buddhism is influenced by western ways of thinking, and adapts itself to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about here. As you know, I'm no specialist on Buddhist ideas of karma, but is clear from many of your comments on this talk page, you can't be either but are "learning on the job" as it were. Maybe you have unearthed some issue with the previous version, I don't know.

But can say this much, that the previous article does say clearly that Karma is not a scientific theory, or law of nature. It has a whole section on that very point. Do you not remember deleting it? Surely you read it before deleting it?

As for detailed discussion - if you want to discuss the previous version, I'd like to submit that the best way to do that is to roll back to it first. Then present your objections to it. Then perhaps Dorje and others might be encouraged to start entering into discussion about it here on the talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The previous version was a mature article that had been worked on for many years, most recently by Dorje for eighteen months, but with other editors before him. What we have now is more like a first stage draft. Probably quite credible as a first stage draft, they often need a great deal of correcting. But why go right back to stage 1. on this article? Please restore the previous mature article, and then present your concerns and invite comments on it to find out what issues there were with it, if any. Then you may get a decent detailed discussion of your points here. Dorje has shown he is a collaborative editor and I am sure would be willing to discuss this and any other points you have in detail if presented as a discussion of a restored previous mature article.

If not, well I think I'll investigate to see if this is something that can be addressed as a matter of user conduct. Whether we have a case for doing a roll back anyway. I have held off from investigating in the hope you might roll back of your own accord. But I think there might be something to be done about this situation, if a user takes a mature article and rewrites it pretty much entirely into what is more like a fist stage draft, without prior discussion, with changes so extensive the previous main editor has given up editing or commenting on the talk page. Probably this happens from time to time and I'd expect there would be some user policy about it, or the main articles in Wikipedia would continually get rewritten by authors who are sure they have a better way of presenting things and think most of the previous content should be removed.

I'd also like to point out that there is a RfC going on at the moment about some of the issues that Joshua Jonathan's actions have raised, about whether articles like this one should have references to mainly Western sources as he suggests, i.e. papers by authors trained as Western academics - and so present mainly the Western interpretations of these ideas - or are permitted to cite Eastern sources as well such as writings by the Tibetan and Therevadhan scholars, who are trained as scholars are trained in the Tibetan tradition, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc, as secondary sources. Robert Walker (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you mean the "Characteristics"-section? [2] The version of 3 november nowhere says "Karma is not a scientific theory, or law of nature". Yes, I did read that section. Condensed it, removed the unsourced parts, the obvious WP:OR, and the lenghty quotations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, the section you deleted. Don't know what you mean by "unsourced parts" or OR, as the whole thing just consists of two quotes plus intro to explain

---

Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision

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. Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states:

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.

Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains:

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 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.

---

What I totally don't get though is - why this radical edit?

At first I thought you must be a newbie editor to wikipedia as you hadn't done any previous edits on this page and never did any edits of the talk page either.

But then turned out, you've been editing wikipedia for years, articles on Buddhism. You must surely have been aware of this article back in spring 2013 when Dorje started to edit it - and even further back.

Why not raise any of these issues in all that time period. Let Dorje edit it for eighteen months. And then suddenly rewrite the whole thing without any prior discussion, removing much of the previous content, more than half, and in the process also producing a draft with many errors in it, and obviously, not scrutinized and corrected over the years like the previous version.

Where does all that come from? What was your motivation? It made sense at first as an edit by an enthusiastic newbie who doesn't know much about Buddhist ideas of Karma, and is perhaps not very familiar also with how wikipedia works. That I could understand.

I don't understand it as the actions of an experienced wikipedia editor and what's more one who has interacted with Dorje many times during that period and who knows that he is a collaborative respectful editor who would listen to any concerns you have about his edits. Robert Walker (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Robert, please tell me which of the 5,000 pages on Buddhism I'm going to edit in spring 2016, so I can already target my criticism.

Regarding the radical edit: the whole section has been summarisesd to the following:

"The Buddha's teaching of karma is not strictly deterministic, but incorporated circumstantial factors, unlike that of the Jains. Several causal explanations of behavior can be found in the early Buddhist texts. The karmic effect of a deed is not determined solely by the deed itself, but also by the nature of the person who commits the deed, and by the circumstances in which it is committed.

Karma is also not the same as "fate" or "destiny". Certain experiences in life are the results of previous actions, but our responses to those experiences are not predetermined, although they bear their own fruit in the future. Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process."

For the sources themself:

• Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states (Rigpa Wiki): wiki's are not accepted as a source; it's as primary as a source can be;
• Bhikkhu Thanissaro: self-published, primary source.

Both sources speak from a specific, contemporary perspective. Do they represent "the" Buddhist view? Secondary sources are needed to know that.

The reasons of my clean-uphave been explained before, but WP:DONTGETIT, as you admit yourself, does indeed apply to you: overreliance on primary sources is to be avoided, too many quotes simply are not to be used. Those are policies, which are also being used and enforced by regular editors.

I've raised these issues several times at the four truths page, but without avail. Other pages which have been edited by Dorje have also been tagged for the overuse of quotes and primary sources, by me and by other editors. So it's not just "suddenly", it's not just one article that's been criticised; it's an overall pattern. If pointing out the problems doesn't work, well, there comes a point when someone just does something about it. I told you before: yes, I could have pointed out once again my problems with this page. Well, I didn't. I tagged, and I cleaned it up. You don't like it, others, good editors, do. If someone can't stand that, then Wikipedia is not the right place to be. Articles do get rewritten. I've done so before; I'm good at it.

You've been howling about this for a month now; could you please get over it and move on now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan. Other editors, such as myself, have long noted the problems with Dorje108's edits.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with your short summary

I see several inaccuracies in your short summary. Particularly the idea that Karma is a causal explanation of behaviour is a common Western misunderstanding. It's not trying to explain behaviour, not a form of "behaviourism", it is not a causal theory for volitions. Rather is to do with the circumstances we find ourselves in. E.g. example that one Therevadhan scholar gave, if I walk up a staircase, I can no longer touch the ground and may be somewhat tired. That's not a punishment by some external deity prohibiting me from touching the ground because of my action of going up the stairs, or making me tired because of my "wrong action" of walking up stairs.

So in this example, it is not a result of some deterministic behaviour that I can't touch the ground because I have got into some mental habit or block that prevents me from touching the ground. My past actions have an effect on what I can do, and the range of possibilities available, but in this more ordinary sense. I may decide to go back down again because I'm so tired, or decide to keep going. But it doesn't determine what I do. My decision to keep going or to go back is not forced in any way by my previous action of climbing the stairs. The very question of "determinism" is unrelated to ideas of Karma.

In other words, in many ways it is far simpler and more ordinary than many Westerners think. But then on the other hand, it is also subtle and hard to understand, especially when you look at the effects of present actions on future lives and past actions on the situation I'm in in this life, e.g. the choice of the birth that I made when I took rebirth in this world. and the conditions I were born into and how those relate to previous lives. And the idea that this is a result of continuing choices, but also external conditions as a result of these ripening "imprints" which are somehow carried into the future via the mind - although widely used idea, I'm not convinced myself that it really adds much explanatory power. You can't directly observe or experience those "imprints" and they remain a purely theoretical consturct as far as I can see. Only some Buddhists ascribe to this view. You can use "Seeds" as an analogy without subscribing to the idea that they actually exist in some sense as these latent "imprints". I've heard that analogy used often but not heard detailed explanations of the "imprint" idea.

Anyway, for Westerners I think the idea of an "imprint" can lead too easily that it is intended as some kind of behaviourism. When the imprints are actually imprints that ripen as circumstances that I find myself in, not as volitions. And are not things that we can directly observe, only notice their effects, if I understand right.

Extended content

For instance according to this idea, they ripened in the circumstances of this body and this place that I am in. But again, not in the sense of being fully the causes of them either, obviously. In the ordinary sense my body is caused by many things such as for instance, hydrogen that formed in the first few moments of the big bang, various elements formed in supernovae etc. And they don't deny that sort of causality. And my choice of parents - in some sense was a volitional choice, not just an imprint. But the options that I could choose between, my stream of awareness, when I took birth - I suppose those are due to these imprints?? Not really sure how it is supposed to work.

So, I'm not clear how this imprint idea is supposed to work in detail. But whatever they are, they are not habits of mind which are a different thing again. I think that they tend to just confuse most Westerners rather than add explanatory power.

Too short

Anyway more generally - that is far too short a treatment of several important significant parts of the teachings of Karma which each deserve to be treated carefully and fully. I see no point at all in trimming it right down like this, how does this help the reader? And why no mention of the imponderables? I think the quotes are the way to go here, rather than trying to summarize.

Paraphrasing

If we do paraphrase, it has to be careful paraphrase worked out in discussion here, and detailed, not summarizing so much in a single sentence. But in such a subtle topic it is my own view that it is far better to use quotes, as a wikipedia editor is bound to make many mistakes. As you have shown. And if I attempted a paraphrase I'd make many mistakes also.

Use of Refimprov

If the quotes given are not suitable for whatever reason, that means we need to find other ones. They can be regarded in that case as temporary "stop gaps" until we find a better citation. That is done frequently in wikipedia.

In that situation you add a refimprov tag. So alerting the reader that the citations used are insufficient, and then anyone who reads the article then is aware of this, and even if you don't have a better citation yet yourself, someone else might do. Robert Walker (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Particular citations

As for the particular citations, I think it is okay to refer to self published material if that material is by a notable scholar who is summarizing their detailed understanding to a less specialist audience. It's not really that different from using a book by that author.

But in this case, this is an actual published book also. Just because a citation links to an online page - that doesn't mean that the online page is necessarily a self published article posted on line by the author. You always have to check further as it is common nowadays for authors to make papers, and sometimes complete books, available as online web pages. Especially in the case of scholars, who are mainly interested in getting as wide as possible readership rather than in increasing sales of their books.

In this case, it is an example of a Buddhist scholar who has made his book available for free on line - a bit like the example of Walpola Rahula whose "What the Buddha Taught" is available for free online.

You can buy this book "Wings of Awakening" at amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Wings-Awakening-Anthology-Canon/dp/B000O04ZIY

ASIN (ISBN): B000O04ZIY

Robert Walker (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As for use of the Rigpa Wiki - I don't know what the policy is about using other wikis as sources. I've seen use of e.g. microbe wiki in articles on microbiology. So I don't think it is prohibited in cases where the wiki itself is a well researched one maintained by experts on their topic. It is of course explicitly prohibited to cite Wikipedia itself. I think therefore it would be a matter of discussion as to how reliable a particular specialist wiki is as a source. And also - that in cases where there is no other good source, and the wiki is more specialized than Wikipedia itself, and generally reliable, it seems a good policy to use it, but add a "refimprov" tag if necessary.

In this case it cites Ringu Tulku, a prominent member of the —Rimé movement. So I think this makes him a good source on interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism..

if anyone is not aware of this movement, check out

The movement's name is derived from two Tibetan words: Ris (bias, side) and Med (lack), which combined expresses the idea of openness to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, as opposed to sectarianism. The Rimé movement therefore is often misunderstood as trying to unite the various sects through their similarities. Rather Rimé was intended to recognize the differences between traditions and appreciate them, while also establishing a dialogue which would create common ground. It is considered important that variety be preserved, and therefore Rimé teachers are generally careful to emphasize differences in thought, giving students many options as to how to proceed in their spiritual training.

More details here: Rimé movement.

Only question really, seems to me, is - what is the original source and how can we check that this is what Ringu Tulku said? The article doesn't give sources. But if one has confidence that the Rigpa wiki authors quote their sources accurately, then it is a reasonable source for Ringu Tulku's views on this matter I think, so long as it is ascribed to him as it is in the article. And I would submit that on this topic, he is a notable source whose views on the matter deserve citing. Robert Walker (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also just like to say - that whenever I have checked up on Dorje's Tibetan sources in detail, they are always sources like this, teachers that would be generally regarded, for one reason or another, as excellent sources to use on Tibetan Buddhism. He is discriminating in who he chooses to cite. Robert Walker (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If we accept Therevadhan sources (in this case a notable Western Therevadhan) and Tibetan sources as secondary citations, then these surely count, do they not? There is of course a RfC going on at present about this point. Where I have said clearly that in my view they are totally acceptable as sources in articles like this. Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanissaro's "Wings of Awakening" is still being used as a reference, though I still think it's a primary source. Never mind; the reference is there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting book, by the way; the author gives a refreshing interpretation. It's good, I think. Unfortunately, also "original", though it seems to be close to vetter's statements about the importance of dhyana, and Frauwallner's observations on mindfulness. I bet Geoffrey Degraff also reads modern scholars... I'm going to put it on my e-reader. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

At third thought: he refers to "insight" as the deciding element of of liberation. That's a somewhat later development in early Buddhism, and standard doctrine in Theravada c.q. "Buddhaghosa-Buddhism". At page 20 Thanissaro refers to the sasima Sutta, SN12:70. here's what Gombrich has got to say:

"I see the devaluation of concentration as originating in certain identifiable texts. One of them is called the Susima Sutta (SN II, 119–128). This is the text, de La Vallée Poussin tells us (p. 201), on which Harivarman based his position that one could attain release without entering any of the jhana, the stages of concentration. As the text stands in Pali – and apparently as Harivarman read it – it does indeed appear to support that position. However, by comparing it with its Chinese version and by scrutinising its internal coherence, I think I have established that the extant Pali Susima Sutta is a reworking of an older text – one might almost describe it as a kind of forgery." (Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, p.110-111)

So, could it be that some Buddhists teach a Buddhism that's not in line with the teachings of the Buddha? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)