User talk:Stephen Hodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tibetan translator? 2 Plotinus 3 Wonderful additions to the Tibetan language article 4 mahayana in fourth council 5 Theravada 6 Aspect in Tibetan 7 ariyena / ariyāya 8 Translation 9 Quotes on WIkipedia 10 Re: Vandalism 11 Personal attacks in edit comments 12 TIred of being told to do more than I am 13 Re:Devanagari script additions 14 Asanga 15 your deletion 16 A looooooong overdue barnstar for you! 17 Biographical articles for Buddhist scholars 18 Reply 19 Buddha avatar 20 Buddha 21 Is the Visuddhimagga part of the "Pali commentaries" ? 22 Happy Vesak 23 Passaddhi / Passambhaya ? 24 hello again 25 AfD nomination of Buddhist polemics 26 Nirvana Sutra

[edit] Tibetan translator?

Hi there Stephen, Saw your name in the recent spats on various talk pages.. Are you the published translator? Could you put a (even tiny) bio. up please? All the best, (20040302 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I am particularly interested in the status of the SOAS dictionary project - also, you published the translation of a text called "Mo-rtsis" with =grrr= no reference to it's position in the Tenjur, so it's pretty difficult to source your original text. I would be v.grateful if you could mention the particular source? (please!) (20040302)

Thanks for your reply and for your bio! - I will look for the text.. Take care now (20040302)

[edit] Plotinus

Thanks Stephen for your comments and professionalism. LoveMonkey 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stephen now he has vandalized my personal page... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LoveMonkey&action=history LoveMonkey 14:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful additions to the Tibetan language article

Mr. Hodge, thanks for your excellent contributions explaining verbs in Tibetan. If I could speak Tibetan I would be addressing you with the honorific mdzad to show my respect. Thanks for your scholarly and concise contributions to Wikipedia, I am now going to take the time to read more of them. --technopilgrim 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mahayana in fourth council

Actually I did write parts of it, and I think also the section you are most opposed to. I am not quite sure of this however, since I also took info other pages (the info on the Buddhist Councils is very fragmenten in Wikipedia). But I will accept the blame since I agreed with it at the time. Now however I recognize it not true (a popular myth?). Keep on learning,no?

But it is true that this fourth buddhist council is recognized within Mahayana, partly led to the arising of Mahayana, and that Mahayana got it's strongest original base in that same area, no? greetings, Sacca 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theravada

Hello Stephen, your edits on Theravada were generally good, but there's one aspect which I doubt, and that is the quote 'which eventually evolved its disctinctive doctrines in isolation. There is much to say against this, as the Sri Lankan Buddhists have, until the 13th century AD, been in close contact with the south-indian Buddhists. Indeed Buddhaghosa himself was an Indian, who 'proved' his 'Indian' knowledge by writing the Visuddhimagga. So all these important (basic Theravadin) commentaries of Buddhaghosa come through a South-Indian-educated monk. Also the Abhidhamma (this is also a kind of commentary) is not claimed to have been composed in Sri Lanka, but actually comes from India, from the Asokan Buddhist Council of 250 BC. And also the Sri Lankan ordination-lineage became extinct in the 12th century AD, after which it was reinstated through Indian monks.

Also It is important to know what these distinctive qualities are, that you write about? And when did these originate, and where? When writing down a comment like this, these things need to be mentioned also.

I did some research on the 18 schools, but have my notes not with me now. I was most impressed by the books by a Japanese scholar(I can't remember his name, Japanese names don't stick very well in my mind), which cleared up the not-so-good and unclear writings by Lamotte and a few other western scholars. Maybe you can remember this Japanese scholar's name? Greetings, Sacca 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Stephen, You have a very impressive range of language skills! I wonder, if I have a specific question about a point in Tibetan, would you mind if I ask you? Of course, no obligation to answer, if it's too difficult to find, or it doesn't interest you never mind. I'm very interested in studying the communal side of the Vinaya, and how the ideas it includes have evolved.

So far I only know Pali fairly fluently, so I can more or less guess my way through Buddhist Sanskrit, and I've got the SHT, Gilgit and Schoyen manuscripts on their way, so then I will get more practice. I will start trying to learn Chinese using Dr. Eye in the new year probably, and perhaps in a few years when I've got that down someone will have invented a way of learning Tibetan as convenient as Dr. Eye.

In the meantime, I might have some specific questions about the Tibetan Vinaya recension. For example: would you be able to find any passages which define the point at which a schism technically occurs, as well as anything else about schism, especially bits that are significantly different from the Pali? In Pali there are just two short passages, but unfortunately it's not obvious how they agree with each other, or which one to give preference to: they are in the Sanghabhedakkhandhaka (at the end) and in the Parivara>Upalipancaka> beginning "pa~ncaakarehi sa"ngho bhijjati", this passage is also in the Dharmaguptaka version of the Upalipa~ncaka. I could find the references for pages and paragraphs in Frauwallner's Earliest Vinaya and Prebish' Survey of Vinaya literature but I can't read it yet. I'm aware of THDL and their translation tool, but I think the Vinaya is not up yet. Ideally I would like the passages in romanised Tibetan with parallel translation. This way I could even put the Tibetan through THDL's translation tool and see if I can work out how you did it! Alternatively, if you have a digital version of the Tibetan canon, especially the Vinaya, which for some reason is not public but could be shared free with, e.g me, that would be great. Then I could start putting bits through the THDL translation tool and maybe start learning.

Do you know Dr. Eye? You can also get a special vocab for it with ancient Buddhist terminology and Indic roots which are translated with a certain character. BS and Analayo both use it, but I think they can both read many common characters without it now. Chinese still looks like a totally impenetrable mass to me. Ven. Dhammajoti has made a WikiVinaya site too, which is just in the beginning stages.

I made a few edits on the Mahasamghika page. I would call it in the 'developing' stage, not at all complete or perfect. Hopefully I can persuade Bhante Sujato to contribute to it when he's finished writing his new small book "Sects and Sectarianism", which has lots of info about the Mahasanghikas. If you'd like a soft-copy as soon as it's done (before it's printed) I suggest you email him: sujato AT gmail DOT com.

With metta,Bhikkhu Santi 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bhante. Pls ask Bhante Sujato for my email address an contact me via that. I might be able to help but I am having broadband connection problems at the moment and can only use expensive and slow dial-up.--Stephen Hodge 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, thankyou. I will contact you by email. Thanks.60.228.10.99 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspect in Tibetan

Bettina Zeisler has recently written a 1,000 page book arguing that the Tibetan verbal system has nothing to do with "Aspect". It is called something like _Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages_ published by Mouton de Gruyter. Personally, I agree with George van Driem that 'Aspect' is an incoherent discursive category. The Tibetan article on Wikipedia is a disaster and so naturally your contributions are welcome, but I must also register my disagreement with your description of the transitive / tha dad pa issue, which is more complex than you suggest. I have treated it at some length in my review of Paul Hackett's verb dictionary published in Revue des Etudes Tibetaines (available on-line at Digital Himalaya). ---best

[edit] ariyena / ariyāya

Hi Stephen -

I was hoping you could help regarding some Pali. For the "Householder (Buddhism)" article, I'm trying to accurately reflect part of AN 6.119 (AN 6.2.17[1]) which, in describing aspects of householders who have seen deathlessness, states:

Buddhe aveccappasādena, dhamme aveccappasādena, sangheaveccappasādena, ariyena sīlena, ariyena nānena, ariyāya vimuttiyā.

(Forgive my not using diacritcal marks with "n" letters -- for some reason I don't have an appropriate font loaded with my browser to enable my seeing/verifying them :-( )

The only translation I can find is on www.metta.lk[2], which translates this (at AN 6.12.3) as:

Unwavering faith, in The Blessed One, in the Teaching, in the Community of bhikkhus, in the noble one's virtues, in the noble one's knowledge and the noble one's release.

My question is about the modifiers "ariyena" and "ariyāya." Do these refer, as translated, to "the Noble One" (that is, the Buddha), "a noble one" (e.g., anyone obtaining nibbana) or "noble" (that is, an adjective, connoting perhaps sila/nana/vimutti as described in the Dhamma and Vinaya)?

THANKS for any guidance,
LarryR 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Fantastic!! Perfect!!! Sādhu sādhu sādhu! Thanks so much, Stephen. You are the best! LarryR 17:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Thank you Stephen. Sunnaloka 08:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes on WIkipedia

I believe it's in the Manual of Style somewhere, but there is a rule that no changes of any kind (editorial insertions, etc) may be made to direct quotes. THey must be presented as written. An ellipsis is permitted (actually, required) when omitting material, but that's all that is allowed to be done with quotes. —Hanuman Das 14:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism

Hello Stephen, I agree with you in regards to the vandalism by maleabroad - it is getting tiresome now, and it is obvious that he/she is not interested in a logical discussion as I can see you have already tried several times previously. I find it amusing to be called a 'Neo-Buddhist', but in all seriousness something has to be done about it. See the Hinduism article for a similar attitude of bold edits and reverts without any discussions with other users.

In regards to the Vishnu Purana, there appears to be a significant difference in interpretation between some traditional Indian scholary/religious circles and modern scholarship. It's not just Gaudiya Vaishnavism (i.e Prabhupada) that has this viewpoint on Buddha as a 'salvationist Vishnu', but I've barely researched it beyond that. I've been meaning to read the VP for some time, so this will be a good excuse to do it sooner rather than later. Thank you for your patience. Ys, GourangaUK 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks in edit comments

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. A Ramachandran 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TIred of being told to do more than I am

Look, I don't spend the whole day on the computer. I see the last change on my watchlist, I don't go looking for more. If you see something somebody needs to be warned about, do it yourself. I'm sick and tired of removing one spam link, then being taken to task because I missed another. Same with personal attack. I respond to what I see. If you don't like it, too bad. A Ramachandran 02:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no right to make demands of me. Warning you about personal attacks was not wrong. As I said, I do what I can, you do what you can. That's about it. If you are going to approach me in a manner like I owe you something, please don't post on my talk page. Thanks. A Ramachandran 03:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... The anon was not on a static IP. The IP is different every edit he makes. Would you care to explain precisely how I am supposed to warn him? And for what? He is not making any personal attacks. If he breaks WP:3RR I would report him. Frankly, I don't see that there was anything I could do, and your expectation that I should have to is certainly demanding. Put yourself in my shoe and read your message to me as if it were to you. A Ramachandran 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Devanagari script additions

Thanks for your comments. I know very little Sanksrit and Pali so I'm no expert at transliteration. Some of the Buddhism articles already had Devanagari script equivalents for Pali. As a result, I felt adding Devanagari to other articles would be okay as other articles established a precedent. Please feel free to make any corrections as you see fit. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asanga

Would it be possible for you to arrange for an email to be sent from an email address associated with the original publication of this page sent to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org confirming that the original author of this article was the the copyright holder, and had the right to release it under the GFDL? It's inconvenient, but we try very hard to make sure that we are not taking any authors' work on false premises. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your deletion

I am afraid that i do not understnad the meaning of your message nor the reason for your deletion. Perhaps you could explain yourself in plain English. User:Langdell

[edit] A looooooong overdue barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		This is a long overdue barnstar for your generous sharing of your truly expert knowledge regarding numerous Buddhist canonical languages, your thoughtful suggestions for incorporating pertinent contemporary scholarship into WP articles, and for your endlessly doing battle with the many Peloponnesian sword-wielding skeletons in WP closets. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much again, Stephen. For instance, that Jan Nattier book that you recommended -- though I've only time to read a couple of dozen pages -- is very thought provoking and inspiring. And I hear you about the eight vicissitudes ;-) (no wonder you can endure so much :-) ) Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical articles for Buddhist scholars

Hi Stephen, thank you for your detailed response to my post on the anatta talk page. I was wondering if I could enlist your help in setting up biographical articles for some of the "big names" in Buddhist studies. To date, I. B. Horner doesn't have an article, neither does Jean Przyluski, Lord Chalmers, Étienne Lamotte, Wilhelm Geiger, or A. P. Buddhadatta, to name a few; I plan to work on creating some of them in the near future, but I don't think I can tackle them all. I've recently created a page for Louis de La Vallee Poussin, as well as one for Richard Gombrich, and I've done a little work on the J. W. de Jong page (and I think you've already seen my Caroline Rhys Davids page). I was hoping someone could add a summary of their major contributions to the field, as well as maybe a brief criticism of their theoretical approaches. Also, I think it would be useful to start articles detailing the histories of and major differences between the Franco-Belgian, Russian, and the Anglo-Germanic schools of Buddhist Studies. Anyhow, if you have the time and wish to add a sentence or two to the articles which have been created, or create a new article for one of the others, I'd greatly appreciate it! :-) Lotus 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No, that's not me. I'm not attached to any academic institution. Peter jackson 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha avatar

Hello Stephen - please could you take a look at the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu article. I get the feeling that a number of users have been recently pushing some kind of POV into the page (and are deleting a lot of what was there)? Either that or most of the article is drastically innacurate and I'm reacting out of tune? I remember you adding much information to it in the past when we had problem of POV from a pro-Hindu perspective. Many thanks, Gouranga(UK) 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a POV. Stephen, your CV is quite impressive. Arrow740 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha

Hi! yea, I'm new to wikipedia. But I didn't go and add it there again coz' I realized that it was out of context. So I don't understand what you've deleted again. Regarding the word 'annitya', the correct word as you said is 'anitya' or 'anicca' but it is also used with the word 'annitya' coz' that's what I found in google. Thanks for other suggestions. Annitya0 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Visuddhimagga part of the "Pali commentaries" ?

I've started a thread on this question at Talk:Atthakatha because recently the Visuddhimagga has now been deleted both from that article (Atthakatha) as well as from the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template by different knowledgeable wiki editors. I'm explicitly asking you, User:Peter_jackson and User:Sacca to respond given your all's apparent expertise, intellect and thoughtfulness. Thanks for any help, if you get a chance. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Vesak

[edit] Passaddhi / Passambhaya ?

Hi Stephen!
I was hoping you could take a few moments sometime and check to see if I'm making an ass of myself again and, of greater concern, am denigrating Wikipedia with my opening two sentences (and the associated end notes) on the new article, Passaddhi. Are passaddhi and passambhaya related as the PTS PED seems to suggest (identified in the endnotes)? Are these appropriately identified as a "Pali noun" and "Pali verb"? Any advice you can give -- even if it's recommending the article for a speedy deletion -- is, as always, much appreciated. Thanks so much,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. FWIW, I hope to modify the Skandha article soon so that the Thich Nhat Hanh "Heart Sutra" quote is replaced with a Red Pine translation and that the translation is identified as being based on a Sanskrit translation. I know this is not a complete fix by a long stretch, but I hope it at least goes a short way towards greater accuracy. (Relatedly, for the endnotes, would you know of the Nattier source that identifies the absence of the svabhava concept from the Chinese version and its subsequent insertion in the Sanskrit text? Thanks again!)

Hi Stephen!

Thanks so much for the quick and extremely helpful response. I'll delete the unnecessary reference to Theravada Buddhism presently. Regarding the Sanskrit version of passaddhi and passmbhaya, and keeping in mind that I am a complete Sanskrit ignoramus, would the Sanskrit be something like prasada or even vizrabdha??? (I tried to wade into on-line Sanskrit dictionaries but could not find anything obvious to myself, and the PTS PED's "pa+śrambh" I assume is incomplete.) If you know the Sanskrit equivalents, please either insert them into the article yourself or let me know and I'd be happy to do so.

Thank you too for the Nattier JIABS citation. If noone balks at the replacement text I've proffered at Talk:Skandha, I'll definitely include the citation you provided in an associated end note.

I see I've only said "thanks" twice so: Thanks so much again (sincerely!). You're expertise is truly unique and invaluable to the WP enterprise and, on a personal note, I am grateful for your taking time to educate me.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrific! And, again, thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello again

You comments on both AK Warder and the chronology of early texts/Mahayana sutras were POV. AK Warder is actually busy in the three following fields:

• pali
• sanskrit (he's Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit in the University of Toronto)
• and indology (mostly literature and philosophy

You can have a look at the other place (buddhist texts) how I corrected the POV contribution there. This is not a personal thing, you should keep that in mind. Other contributors to Wikipedia don't exhibit the contentious and problematic attitude you show to me. Please make positive contributions, and keep the poisonous comments for yourself. I will not take those unpleasant gifts anyway, so they remain yours. All the best. Greetings, Sacca 08:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Buddhist polemics

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist polemics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. Thank you. linca^linca 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana Sutra

I am endeavouring to progress cited scholarship on the Nirvana Sutra page as per Wikipedia guidelines. Uncited information from the main page has been transferred to the talk page. If you could please duly cite this information and transfer it back to the main page it would be most appreciated.
Blessings in the Mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)