Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda

Transcendental section

Thanks Kukku - that is better than my earlier hash. The transcendental section doesn't actually fit underneath the madhyamaka section very well, and though the facts may well be good, I am concerned about the interpretations- things like 'quanta' really seem out of place, even in metaphoric terms. (20040302 09:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Edits to the last para. were made just to attempt to make it a bit more easy to read. I also replaced the elements of causality as [cause,effect] rather than [actor,action,acted-upon] - please revert, edit, destroy as you see fit, Kukku. (20040302 11:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Also, the Dualism article pertaining to 'eastern mysticism' needs to be edited! I had a quick hash of it, but it is still pretty dodgy. (20040302 11:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I am concerned about the very western term: Transcendental, to me it reduces Buddhist philosophy to Platonic/Cartesian/Kantian ontologies and would bring all the baggage that rests with Transcendentalism onto the Buddhist doorstep. Is there no better term? Or can we cite the school/translation school who uses it? (20040302 22:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Hmm. Fair point. Actually, do you know what the hell that whole section is about? I've never heard of it, so I don't know how to fix it. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Okay, Google helped me out a bit on this front and I made some adjustments accordingly. See what you think. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Big cheesy grin. Great. (20040302 23:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

is it a "contribution to metaphysic" ? at least, the bramajala suta should be mentionned
what about the time : past-present-future in the dependant origination ? i think this interpretation is quite "modern" , i mean not at the beginning. Per exemple, the Buddhagosa 's Visuddhimagga does not mentions this version.
-buddho

Upadana

Hi, I've redirected Upadana here, because I think it is related. We're trying to take care of every article in Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, and that was one. Can someone familiar, create a sentence or so in this article on Upadana? Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 15:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK I take that back, there are more facets to upadana than just Buddhism. But if someone can help with it that would be great. - Taxman ^Talk 15:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have made some additions to the page adding formula tables, additional formula references and some notes. There is more to be done before the article is balanced. I will add some further text soon.

First time I've added notes to a talk page. Don't know if I have done it correctly. We will see. stray 16:08:00, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Also added some content to Upadana page. This needs more work before its acceptable. It's just a stub at the moment. Will work on that too in the next few days. stray 16:10:52, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Pali expression for paticca-samuppada

I think right Pali expression for paticca-samuppada is paţicca samuppāda. Isn't it?

lt.wikipedia.user.Gyvas ([email protected]) 2006-March-09

Anti-Mahayana polemic pulled from technical note

All notions of self are included here ranging from the then extant views contained in the Upanishads, to the later views. Even notions that the body or the ego are not the self and that there is a higher, more refined self, whether as the Supreme Self of Vedanta or as the womb of the Tathagata of the Mahayana are essentially notions of self that fall under one of these categories. For example, the Vedantic notion is that of a formless and infinite self. The Mahayana notion is that of a formless but finite self. Some Mahayana traditions don't explicitly consider the womb of the Tathagata to be a self, but nevertheless, they consider it a persisting entity in all beings and in this sense it therefore is a clinging to self-view (sakkaya ditthi).

This article is still written by people who are only experts of their own views. In the above text, which has been excised, there are no basic citations that demonstrate any support for the assertion that Mahayana traditions as a whole cling to some form of self-view. Actually, it reveals a lack of study regarding the Mahayana traditions, all of whom assert Pratītyasamutpāda, and all of whom have faith in the four noble truths. A qualifying counter-example to the text above is the Madhyamaka tradition, which denies the objective (essence-holding) self, as well as all other phenomena; the only self that exists is the one used to indicate the difference between 'me' and 'you' - a conventional, unphilosophical, nominal self. It is true that other traditions accuse the Madhyamaka of being nihilists, but that is because for them they believe that some form of essential existence is necessary in order for Karma to function.

IMO, a lot of the technical notes and the basic text has been written over the last two years with a rather narrow, and in some places bigoted, view without much in the way of references or background to contextualise it. Buddhism is vast, deep, and multi-faceted. (20040302 (talk))

This article could benefit from an additional subtopic.

... The question of free will -- i.e., what the principle of dependent origination says about the commonplace notion of free will. 2600:8801:BE01:2500:795B:4CC3:8ED9:13FA (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)