User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014#Copied from Raj Malohtra.

[Rajiv: Lets discuss the following issue after peole have read Indra's Net because this book is centered on the issue of Vedanta-Yoga unity and a defense of Swami Vivekananda on this controversy.]

Hi Rajiv, I was trying to elaborate on Swami Vivekananda's contributions to yoga in Wikipedia, but I got the following response and my changes got reverted. The id that I use on Wiki is "Manipadmehum". Here is the link to my arguments with the editors of yoga -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoga

I have copied the sections below highlighting in bold and underlining those parts which are plan wrong to an average Hindu / Indian. But this is the line of thinking followed by western scholars in some prominent universities like White, University of california. There is also an embedded pdf in the section which explains the "thesis". It is also the first time I hear about Madame Blavatsky who seem to have influenced modern Hinduism and modern Buddhism. Vivekananda & Early Buddhist Texts Vivekananda is absolutely not a reliable source on Yoga. He was a Hindu nationalist, not a scholar. To insert a text like this has nothing to do with understanding the origins of Yoga, but with promoting Hindu-nationalism, and is plain WP:OR. See White (2011) p.20-21 for an assessment of Vivekananda: "Vivekananda’s rehabilitation of what he termed “rāja yoga” is exemplary, for its motives, its influences, and its content. A shrewd culture broker seeking a way to turn his countrymen away from practices he termed “kitchen religion,” Vivekananda seized upon the symbolic power of yoga as a genuinely Indian, yet non-sectarian, type of applied philosophy that could be wielded as a “unifying sign of the Indian nation . . . not only for national consumption but for consumption by the entire world” (Van der Veer 2001: 73–74). For Vivekananda, rāja yoga, or “classical yoga,” was the science of yoga taught in the Yoga Sūtra, a notion he took from none other than the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, who had a strong Indian following in the late nineteenth century. Following his success in introducing rāja yoga to western audiences at the 1892 World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, Vivekananda remained in the United States for much of the next decade (he died in 1902), lecturing and writing on the YS. His quite idiosyncratic interpretations of this work were highly congenial to the religiosity of the period, which found expression in India mainly through the rationalist spirituality of Neo-Vedānta. So it was that Vivekananda defined rāja yoga as the supreme contemplative path to selfrealization, in which the self so realized was the supreme self, the absolute brahman or god-self within."

Replies

By RK

[Rajiv: I agree 100% with this post. But what have people done about it since the same issue of wicki was discussed her months ago? Nothing.

Some folks here resolved to gather and DO something. They put up a totally new entry on Rajiv Malhotra. It was deleted in a few days by the gatekeepers citing all sorts of reasons and lack of due process Our side lost stamina.

Because it seemed contrived and not natural from our side the wicki folks toughened their stance against me. Change is supposed to be done gradualy with each change backed by evidence cited in footnotes and links. Hence the half-ass effort by our folks has backfired.

So dont start something amateurish as its better to do nothing if you dont know what you are doing. This is not a game for inexperienced folks with passion/opinions but no competence.

This entity "Joshua Jonathan" is editing anything that touches Hinduism and Buddhism. �I think it is an organization of multiple people and not a single entity. �If it is a single person, he has a full-time job to do this. �Probably a well-funded entity considering how many man-hours it invests editing and enforcing its views. �This entity "Joshua Jonathan" likes anti-Hindu scholars like Martha Nussbaum. �I conjecture that it may �be related to receive patronage of U of Chicago or some other AAR member. �

Just go and take a look at Rajiv Malhotra wiki page and you will see that this entity inserted all kinds of text from references which are anti-RM and some are patently Indian Christian. �In fact, RM's wiki page is dominated by one highly spurious anti-RM reference. �No prizes for guessing - "Joshua Jonathan" is the most active editor of RM wiki page. �Compare that page to those of Wendy Doniger or Martha Nussbaum. �You can see the difference of night and day. �

This entity will out-win you by sheer expense of time. �Wikipedia has been turned into a joke by these characters. �

"Joshua Jonathan" claims to be a Buddhist but do not buy it. �It is on a mission to demolish anything labeled, or even remotely connected with the label, neo-Hinduism. Unless you are willing to spend considerable time waging an intellectual battle, forget it.

By S Well, I have to agree that Vivekananda was not a professionally trained scholar.

Rajiv: Based on whatever your criteria of "professional training" means, nor am I or you

professionaly trained". Nor was Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, or any of our great acharyas. Nor Buddha, etc... Only Wendy Doniger, Witzel, Hawley, and their large lineages would be considered by you as "professionally trained". You have in effect bought into the coloniation of what makes a competent Hindu thinker. You assume that western style system accredition is what makes one trained. Therefore, all yogis in history are in effect rejected by you as none of them from Patanjali on had certification by western style institutions.

Bladesmulti (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Man, I'm really impressed by your courage - courage for possibly attracting the reactions of people who may be distracted by my actions, but also the courage to expose yourself to views that may challenge the worldview you have inherited. And no, I'm not "an organization of multiple people", I'm just a single person with an intense drive to understand this one insight that 'the "I" does not exist.' I do have an academic training (three times, actually), but that hardly makes me more professional than anybody else. I feel flattered that Rajiv (Malhotra) thinks I'm an organisation. Thanks. The best piece of advice I can give "his" people: read those damn books which you hate, so we can discuss them on a par. I'm even very willing to explain what I read in them, what understanding they give me. And a second "piece of advice": cherish the tradition, but seek out what's relevant for today, and what's not. Your worth and self-esteem is not in what "the" tradition says, but what you do with this tradition, and how it can help you to be a fully human being - one who can tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty, and stay close with another human being, especially when they are suffering. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually that comment about you being an organization of multiple people is not from Rajiv Malhotra, but Rohan Kanji. The formatting here is a bit off. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oaky, thanks. Revealing anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Dharmacakra. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User:Devanampriya reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Both blocked)

{{subst:unblock reviewed|decline=Yep, you were edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)}}

Okay, thanks for responding. I'll take better care in the future. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For those interested: I won't remove these block-messages. I was blocked, after all; people have a right to know this and read about it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Chocolate, at least once a day, keeps me happy! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you know anything about this practice? Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I only know about chickens and guinea pigs. They keep pretty nice in line when the food is appearing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is Zen in the Art of Archery, but using a blowgun, that is something new. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

'No, thanks, woede of angst Walging, afkeer, weerzin of aversie. Hafspajen (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Eeeks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It appears as the favourite pet of the Red Queen and serves as her champion for the Frabjous Day. When it comes to him confronting Alice, the Jabberwocky quotes "Ah, my old foe. We meet on the battlefield once again." When Alice states that they never met, the Jabberwocky quotes "Not you insignificant bearer. My ancient enemy, the Vorpal One." During the fight against the Jabberwocky, Alice manages to defeat it by using the Vorpal Sword to slice off the Jabberwocky's head causing the White Queen's side to win. The White Queen later uses the Jabberwocky's venom to make a potion that will get Alice home.

Hafspajen (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Original picture removed; Image:Fozzierowlf.jpg Those are buddies. Buddies work together. ^[2]
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Animal (Muppet).jpg There is the frustrated type who shows his teeth
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Beaker (Muppet)-en.jpg There is the new begginer who does'n get a thing
• 
  There is the is the frustrated type who bites
• 
  Original picture removed; Dr. Bunsen Honeydew File:Dr. Bunsen Honeydew.jpg There is the Doctor with his PHDY, who knows everything and he will tell you all
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Fozzie Bear.jpg There is the nice guy who will do his best, like Jonathan
• 
  Then there are the Austalians who don't know how the rest of the world works
• 
  Original picture removed; File:MissPiggy.jpg And there is Mr Pig who tries to hit everybody in the head with most convincing arguments
• Original picture removed; File:Kermit the Frog.jpg There is Kermit the Frog who is doing his best, but others don't agree, like Bladesees
  Original picture removed; File:Kermit the Frog.jpg There is Kermit the Frog who is doing his best, but others don't agree, like Bladesees
• 
  Then there are the original editors they see everything upside down, and confuse everybody, like 74
• 
  And here is Doctor Dolittle.
• 
  Original picture removed; File:ScooterMuppet.jpg There is the young genius - as he thinks of himself, in reality a Nerd or a Geek (very hard to convince them about anything.)
• 
  There are the OLD wikipedians who knows best (and they usually do)
• 
  Original picture removed; File:Statler and Waldorf.jpg There is the OLD wikipedian who knows best (and they usually do)
• 
  The editor who has multiple a accounts
• 
  and there are the editors who allways get their way by printing WP:This and WP:That ( often not quite true but it sounds good.)
• 
  There are the editors who are draged to the ANI and spend a lot of time defending themselves somehow there.
• 
  There are the completely Angelic editors, polite and loving like Sagaciousphil‎ and Yngvadottir (if is not busy) - (Very rare)
• 
  And there are the picture cleaners who inconsiderately remove pictures and don't replace them with others, like XX
• And there are the editor who left or got banned by the banners
  And there are the editor who left or got banned by the banners
• 
  There is the orphan editor who is alone and nobody cares for him or her
• 
  Original picture removed; File:SamTheEagle.jpg And There Is The Eagle, who is ...a pompous as. They may know things or may not, but because they believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people, it really doesn't matter. They can be spotted at Christmas time. Although they have contact with a lot of editors, never get a Christmas greeting. Or a Happy New Year greating. One could mention probably names here but we leave this link Red.
• 
  Here we are

Donate them to you If you thought about copying it to a Wiki-essay. Hafspajen (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:WIKITYPE Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

From Talk:Ego death#"Bagatelized", I say! "Bagatelized"!:

Dan Merkur notes that the use of LSD in combination with Leary's manual often did not lead to liberating insights, but to horryfying bad trips.^[1] It also lead to fatal accidents, which were bagatelized by Alpert.^[2]

Almost nobody knows what this word means. This is the ONLY Wikipedia article to use it. There is no online-dictionary definition for it. A Google search produces a very few other pages using the word, but again, no definition. (All false modesty aside, if I don't know an English word, it isn't in common use.) We shouldn't be using language that isn't in Wiktionary, and we definitely shouldn't be using words most people have never encountered in their lives!

Furthermore, the sentence is poorly structured. Even with a more-familiar term in its place, there would still be a simpler and stronger way to say it. The passive voice is often a pretension, and rarely clear. "... which Alpert bagatelized" would be the way to go, if "bagatelized" was a word worth using (which it isn't). "The gun was carried by Frank" is never as good as "Frank carried the gun."

Do feel free to let me know, if you know, what "bagatelized" means. I am certain there's an equally accurate way to say what needs to be said, without resorting to esoteric terms or neologisms.

--Ben Culture 06:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ben. It's an mistranslation by me, I'm afraid, of the Dutch "bagatelliseren". Which means "to trivialize", "to belittle". Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but really, thank YOU! I now know English is a secondary language for you. I wouldn't have known that if your User Page hadn't said so. I didn't know who put "bagatelized" in the article originally, anyway. I hope you didn't feel insulted by my above comment. I was just frustrated, because I like to think I have a good English vocabulary (if no other languages.) Thank you for clearing this up, and I think you picked a perfectly good substitute, "trivialized", which any English-speaker, native or otherwise, will surely know.

You have really contributed a lot to this article! It's an interesting topic, but I don't think I've ever done so many edits to a single article, in such a short span of time. It is better to do a lot of small edits, as you have done, instead of a few big ones. I'm impressed and appreciate your work! Have a great day!

→Ben Culture 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! See also Bagatelle (music). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

From Talk:Subitism#Wonderful:

I confess that my enthusiasm for Wikipedia is waning as a result of finding article after article on aspects of Buddhism that seem more like showpieces for the author's (or authors') esoteric wisdom rather than genuine attempts to reach a general public.

What pleasure then to find this article, which lays out the ideas, follows allied threads in a coherent way, and generally presents comprehensible language rather than arcane terms.

My only suggestion would be to wonder whether the impossible is possible: can the two views (sudden/gradual) be reconciled rather than merely left (as I believe here) alongside one another? At present the "sudden" and "gradual" schools seem incompatible. But I have read elsewhere that in practice, there wasn't this separation: that neither "school" believed in an extreme position and held only loosely to both: the "sudden" school admitted that the ground needed to be prepared, and the "gradual" school admitted that there could be a "moment" of enlightenment (** all my wording **).

Of course the author(s) here cannot propose such a course. Let me see if I can find a reference to this effect. --User IP 24.244.23.226 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...not yet the reference I was looking for but the presentation here covers related ground. Unfortunately, the author seems to have a particular axe to grind (the authenticity of the Northern School) so it isn't as objective as one might wish.--User IP 24.244.23.21 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation! And yes, you've got a point here: in real life the two stand along eacht other, or are actually mixed. "Sudden and gradual" is a wonderfull book on this topic.

Actually, the problem may be at the root of Buddhism, as reflected in the difference between dhyana and insight. See Presectarian Buddhism#Dhyana and insight. According to vetter, the core practice of early Buddhism was dhyana; according to Schmithausen, and others, "liberating insight" was a later addition. See Majjhima Nikaya 36: after parcticing dhyana, the Buddha attains three knowledges, the third one being the four noble truths, which shows the path to liberation. On realising what the path is, he is liberated! That's weird, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)