Occasionaled
- Nonduality; how would they be related if they were? Because they are. All Relative Truths are relatives: Pratityasamutpada. Therein, resides the teaching. I personally am a practitioner of Xitro and Chod but now do so effortlessly and such realizations are the fruit of sadhana. I am not the only lineage-holder within whom these two sadhana entwine, all such disciplines are not so distinct as rabid fervent and somewhat abrasive practitioners like yourself portray. Remember that the past, present and future entwine in Now. So Ancestors unifying with the Bardo deities that are inherent within our Body (a triune of Nirmana~Sambhoga~Dharma) and indeed the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities of Xitro are the energetic signatures the bija within the energetic bodymind a bodymind initially constitued by Red and White bindu from the Ancestors, form the Ancestors, from the Ancestors is salient. Where did the Father Lineage of Pacification come from? Didn't this unify with Xitro & Chod? You are ignorant of historicity. Xitro is from a terma, where does a Terma come from if not an Ancestor or preceptor? [1] Where did the Nyingma lineage come from? A significant part came from China as well as India and Bon, all of which have Ancestor rites! The Funerary Tradition of the Great Perfection?
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Funerary" Buddhism signifies the late Indian Buddhist tantric obsesssion wth death on multiple fronts: (1) the focus on charnel grounds and their corpses, (2) funerary rituals, (3) the signs of dying and death (particularly relics). (4) "intermediate process" theory (bar do, Sanskrit antarabhava), and (5) contemplative yogas bassed on death. In this process of transformation, we find a concern with relics blossoming in conjuction with an elaborate tantric synthesis revolving around death, vision, and the body in relationship to Buddhas.
- Are there no Ancestors in the Charnel ground? Wasn't Xitro initially done in the Charnel ground? What about Sarira? Put Xitro in the context of world spiritual traditions and where does it reside? Lets also not forget if I hadn't have created the article there would have been precious little discoverable on the Internet.
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi B9 hummingbird hovering,
I think if we ask the participants of this page who is abrasive they might come up with an alternative candidate. As to me being ignorant and your points. Nyingma Terma certainly do not come from your ancestors. And in the view of those Tibetan Buddhists from all four schools who practice them they come from Padmasambhava. Who did not have children nor parents! You are not providing any historical or academic reference. Furthermore in the view of Nyingma school masters you are proliferating your own ideas into not only the dharma but more seriously terma which involves destroying their effectiveness and samayas and protectors. The corruption of terma by out of control egos is a large area of study within Nyingma and Kagyu and is highly warned against as one of the worst things a sentient being can do. It would be acceptable to me if you provided references to books or journals or papers by scholars, secular or not, but you are merely indulging in personal fantasies and when people ask for citations or references you simply erase their edits with arrogance.
Chod too has nothing to do with ancestor worship or funerary rites as such. It is equally effective in places where there has not been a recent dead body or disposal for a long time. And not just charnel grounds or cemeteries which are currently in use. Furthermore it is not limited to those. Some of the most effective Chod power places as laid out in local guides by Chod masters have and never had anything to do with corpses. The tradition of Chod power places is a large area of expertise too. Theoretically too Chod is not to do with benefiting the spirits of ancestors as you misrepresent. That would mean Pretas of the deceased and we know Pretas are only one of many forms dead ancestors, specially of practitioners, can take. It is to do with generating various beings of the eight classes and subclasses, not just Pretas, and then offering oneself and ultimately one's ego, the only big problem in smasara we suffer from, to them. They are mainly the demonic classes. Relatively we hope to bring the benefit of dharma to them and pacify them which makes most of them run away unless the practitioner is egoistic himself. That is if he or she is successful to generate them with enough ferocity. Ultimately the aim in Chod is non-duality. There are also secret meanings. So Chod is far from what you try to misrepresent too.
This is the typical way western New-agers who are non-academic and not experts on the subject behave and abuse Tibetan Buddhism. It is not inter-dependent origination or non-duality. It is known as proliferation and in the case of terma as breaking it's samayas and corrupting it. Technically according to Wiki rules if you can not find references for your wild speculations, the edits of the people you undid in protest should also be restored. Any fake terton calls himself a poet and indulging in non-duality. But most of them are not foolish enough to justify it by calling it pratītyasamutpāda or dependent arising which means admitting the guilt of proliferating terma and corruption of it's samayas. I can go on forever debating but I see no point. The main point is I don't think anyone can stop your runaway conjecturing activity but let me tell you that it is extremely serious. You need to go to a great master and show all that you have spread in the name of dharma and tantra and terma and ask what to do. Good luck. Occasionaled (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk) has erased and censored our recent discussions on his talk page. Admins can access his talk page history. Occasionaled (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Copy of discussion after my complained lodged on the admin notice-board for reference for future users abused by B9 hummingbird hovering now follows:
Wiki Cult Task-force and User:B9 hummingbird hovering Breaking Basic Academic and Wiki Rules
The user edits mainly Tibetan Buddhist pages. He claims to have gone beyond the need for teachers in TB tradition. Something even elderly Tibetan great lamas who have been brought up in over half a century of full-time monastic education and practice would never dream of saying. This basically amounts in the tradition to declaring oneself a saint which is in fact never done. The user of course does not even understand Tibetan, colloquial or classic, never mind his understanding of the subject which would be equivalent to a young teenager in a monastery. The actual problem with regards to Wikipedia is that he creates wild specuation in the name of inclusivity! When editors ask him for academic refernces or any inter-textual citations, he dismisses such basic standards which any academic or Wiki admin would require. Secondly he removes the edits the protesting editors have done and engages in editing wars. Thirdly he claims he has certain rights on article pages he has started. Fourthly he justifies his unfounded innovative speculations without citation or reference, which he does not deny, by saying he is a tantric! When told all of of TB followers opposing him are also tantrics, he merely states that unlike the rest and even elderly Tibetan high lamas who still have regular teachers and tuition, such as the 75 year old Dalai Lama, he has gone beyond such needs!
We now have hundreds of thousands non Tibetans following TB worldwide. Only less than ten westerners have set themselves up as teacherless and lineageless novelties. Interestingly unlike the hundreds of valid western teachers and lamas within lineages as well as hundreds of academic Tibetologists, these few self appointed saints do not even speak or read any Tibetan dialect are still beginners interms of education even after decades! A few of these have setup organizations, cults, in the USA and Europe and some have presence on Wiki via members. But they are few in number and almost everyone of the hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia, Europe and Americas follows one of the lineages of the five Tibtan schools. Even if there is occasional disagreements amongst them they all acknowledge each other. So basically the picture is very satisfactory.
The actual problem with B9 hummingbird hovering is that he gets into editing wars, claims ownership of articles, dismisses others' valid academic requirements for references and citations and justifies his self acknowledged wild speculations in the name of inclusivity and as a superior rare tantric who has gone beyond the others who are asking for references which has also been the norm in Tibetan shedras and monasteries for over a thosand years when the rest of the world hardly insisted on it. So we need an unbiased admin judgment in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zhitro). Also as he is extremely active in Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Wikisource we need to make a record of his behavior early on. So that he does not enforce his mere speculations with no background whatsoever inside articles. If the decision goes in his favor, it means his section entitled "Cross-cultural correlates and possible antecedents" which he also admits has assertions that have no refernce or background except his personal special tantric feelings, can be repeated across atciles within Wiki by anyone?
Finally apart from this lone editor, I think Wiki needs a special small admin section which co-operates with various cult watch-dog bodies, who deal with their victims daily, in order to combat their misuse of Wiki. The reason is that cults basically milk their victims financially and in terms of resources and logistics whch we simply can not match. And also are time-rich via members and can make their members have organized co-ordinated behind the scenes presence as you well know. Unlike big corporations, they do not fear such adverse pulicity by being uncovered since they indulge in worse actions and are used to much worse reputation than being accused of abusing Wiki.
The question of a special section on cult presence on Wiki really needs to be addressed as it already is too late. I'd suggest to recruit several new admins and relieve some more experienced admins of their usual duties to have time to setup such a special unit and task-force or at least a think-tank to start drawing up contingency plans and guidelines and strategies. I think this will be unavoidable and the sooner it is started the easier things will be as many lessons need to be learned early on which will take time. Thank you for you attention. Occasionaled (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(1) Per the header for this page, new reports go on the bottom. I would have just moved it but after the 2nd or third edit conflict I gave up. If you erase this and paste it in again at the bottom successfully at some point feel free to recreate it without my comment here. (2) Per the header for this page, you are required to inform the editor that you are complaining about. Looking at your contributions, I don't see that you have. If it wasn't for (1) I would do (2) for you, but at this point I leave it up to you whether you really want to recreate this following the proper instructions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Now that the thread is at the bottom of the page, I've notified User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion (talk) 18:49, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Hooray for persistence! Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
* B9 hummingbird is a long-term problem editor. I had a conflict with him some time ago regarding his addition of original research and absurdly flowery language to articles, which seems to have continued right up to today. I think a WP:RFC/U is probably long overdue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This reflects my experience with B9 as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I remonstrated with this user regarding the titling of articles with additional Wylie transliteration. This user responded in a very strange way, and it took several other users to convince him/her that we should even be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As to the original complaint above, I can't really see that we need a 'Cult taskforce' -- as to B9, the two problems (penchant for OR and purple-bordering-on-ultraviolet prose) could probably have at one time been handled with mentoring; the (in my opinion) more pernicious problem is B9's inability-cum-refusal to work in a collegial, collaborative manner [If you dare to disagree or edit one of 's/his' articles, you'll hear about it, believe me] and tendency to own articles (example: Talk:Seventeen_tantras). Also worrying is s/hir readiness to simply revert any edit without discussion if s/he finds it disagreeable. Compounding the problem is the fact that the subject area (Tibetan Buddhism) that s/he edits in is pretty rarefied and obscure so not many people are in a real position to challenge hir edits, even if they had the stomach to do so and gird their loins for the rain of flowers that would almost certainly follow. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Syrthiss, it is my first time on this board and someone had kindly reposted it at the Bottom. As for informing B9 hummingbird hovering. I only registered as an editor less than a week ago as a result of reading his bullying tone to others who had asked for citations, which I stated in the article talk page. I also immediately informed him on his talk page of my comments in the article talk page. I did not even edit the article to remove his fantasy projections and self confessed baseless conjectures. After a few days of receiving his now apparently obvious usual treatment I removed his wild sentences. At every stage I posted my reasons and replies to him in the article page and on his talk page which has been ongoing for the last several days with regular input from him. Before I posted here he had removed all our discussions on his talk page. So there was no point and I was sure he was reading the article talk daily as he was writing there daily. Furthermore I had informed him previously that I would state a complaint in the admin board. All this is obvious from the article talk page which I linked above. Also as to why there are not many Tibetan experts here, which I am not one of, is due to the fact they are usually educated to let things be and unfold by themselves unless matters are getting really serious and harming people. That is why many merely read and smile. I'll copy and paste this section in my talk page so that future users have a reference buried somewhere regarding B9 hummingbird hovering if they come into contact with his odd behavior. Now onto the serious matter.
CULTS: There are cults and highly dubious organizations discretely present on Wiki that have members assigned individually or as organized groups with their own private forums to coordinate regarding their presence, editing wars and regular input on Wiki. This is a serious problem that will get worse and will not go away by merely being ignored. People like me can see their work but we simply do not have the time or the ability to take them on. Some experienced admins should discretely organize a private forum and form a cult think-tank. They can do some basic research and then contact cult watch-dog bodies, not necessarily as Wiki admins initially. Then they can draw up a white-paper with their recommendations and strategies and working solutions for organizing a special unit. This initial stage can be done discretely before being made public. I suggest that two types of experts be included on this initial think-tank. Firstly a few who have legal backgrounds or are preferably legal professionals. Secondly people with a background in helping abused victims as they need specialist care and attention and are prone to known psychological problems and can recognize the hallmarks of the cults' presence on Wiki. Thirdly there is a lot of professional help and expertise out there with regards to cults both in the active support groups and also academia who would only be too glad to help in any way they can.
I hope some see the inevitability of this undertaking and that the sooner it is started the better it will be for Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Occasionaled (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
do some research and how about actually providing a citation, how novel edit
a known problem what misrepresentation, take note of the number of discreet articles i have edited, the number of edits and do some reseach and be aware of the number of citations on average I add in a week and u have the gall to call me a "problem editor". that is unfounded. could u please name ten articles and ten citations u have provided? B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Stop humming, take a break from usual activities, calm down & then relax edit
1- You censored and deleted our discussion on your talk page, some of which were unique to that page. Then you post here? How can you be so two faced? Such blatant double standards and lack of any decency or morals. I can only conclude you have become sick and need a break.
2- Others called you a "problem editor". Many others have joined in the admin board to complain. Many more would join if they knew. Take a break and consider why so many people say there are deep problems with you.
3- Starting a page does not give any rights to an editor as you often claim. Only an idiot would say such a thing against basic Wiki rules.
4- Editing many articles does not give a right to a person to insert self confessed baseless personal fantasies. Only a complete idiot would link such factors together.
5- Issue: I asked you for references to your self confessed fantasy section stated on the article page as others had done before. Then you became rude and tried to bully me like you usually do. Only then I edited and removed your self confessed sans-reference fantasies which were also damaging the tantra and terma and yourself. You engaged in your usual editing war. I warned I would go to the admin board. You continued. I did. I did you a huge favor beyond your imagination by removing your samaya breakage.
Now: The rest in the admin board is long standing problems many others have found with your edits and general state of mind. Since you seemingly are habitually mentally obscuring basic common sense boundaries, actually it's more serious, as many others have stated I won't let you make your condition worse by typing on this page again. Also if you were a gentleman you would have not denied me the right of writing on your page and then amazingly wrote here on mine. Furthermore you deleted our conversations there. You have become sick and are messing with tantras and termas which is one of the most evil acts a human can do. Take a break from your Wiki activity and possibly other disturbing real life routines. Get back to basic teachings of shamatha and compassion and empathy with others for a while. Your mind is boiling madly and from what others say it has been going on for quite a while.
If you don't I will find those interested in your editing history and alert them to the admin board discussion. People like you with no morality and blatant egoist double standards, like typing here and denying me the same and even deleting me not to mention what others have revealed, who have fallen greatly only understand disciplinary action and basic human decency and reciprocity is well beyond them. You are not mentally balanced and it will only get worse if you continue your daily routines. You also need help. First clam down. Read the title of this subsection again. Occasionaled (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
RFC/U edit
Since you initiated the last ANI discussion, I'm informing you that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering is now live and awaiting certification. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I do not know what that page means in terms of procedure. Frankly I do not want to do anything further to do with him. I hope he considers my suggestions. Thanks for all your and other admins' hard work in maintaining and growing Wiki which will continue to benefit so many. Occasionaled (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The RFC is now live. I realize this is a somewhat cumbersome and intimidating process, but the more users that participate the more likely it is to have the desired effect. One simple thing you can do is watch the page for statements being added and add your name to the "users who endorse this summary" section below any statements you agree with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)