Talk:Avidyā (Buddhism)

Are these links lacking here?

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.208.203 (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely applaud Austerlitz for soliciting feedback on these links instead of just adding them and waiting to see if anyone would respond in some fashion. I admire such thoughtful civility.  If I may add my own feedback, based on a quick gloss of the linked articles:
 * the first article referenced above cites as its sources the Chandogya Upanishad, a masterpiece of the Brahmanic/Hindu tradition. If it were to be included in a WP article, I'd suggest Avidya (which is the Hindu complement to this current WP Buddhism-specific article).
 * the second article referenced above is by someone espousing a philosophy/worldview called "Avidyana" (of which I'm currently ignorant, though, of course, for all I know, it could be significant [though seeming to lack a WP article itself ;-) ]). The linked article seems somewhat conversant in some Buddhist ideas although it appears to be unclear at times.  Regardless, the article is critical of what it (arguably) identifies to be Buddhism.  Perhaps, if this current Avidyā (Buddhism) article would have a "Criticism of the Buddhist notion of Avidya" section, material identified in this linked article would be appropriate to incorporate in this WP article, though I'd hope such should be from something resembling a WP-standard reliable source.  As for adding it as an external link, I personally wouldn't delete it if you added it but given its questionable authorship and scholarship, I'd be disinclined to add it and would support someone else's deleting it.
 * the third article referenced above appears to be essentially a blog without any cited sources, primary or secondary or tertiary. Its use of terms seems loose.  Does it reflect someone's interpretation of Hindu concepts, Buddhist concepts, pop psychology or a melange?  I've seen many such blog entries and, personally, I'd be concerned that if we added one then we'd have to add dozens.  Does WP even allow blog entries as external links?
 * Just my two cents. I regret if this sounds overly negative. Frankly, I saw the first article's source (Upanishads) and saw something clearly worth identifying; my spiel on the latter two articles is really half-hearted ;-)  Again, kudos to Austerlitz for soliciting feedback.  With metta, 24.136.229.74 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Some (tibetan) information on removal of ignorance
dag pa nyid - state of being pure, purification [JV]

dag pa gnyis - two types of purity (rang bzhin, blo dur) [JV]

dag pa gnyis - Twofold purity. Inherent or primordial purity and the purity of having removed all temporary obscurations [ry]

dag pa gnyis - purity from the two obscurations {nyon mong gi sgrib kyis dag pa} and {shes bya'i sgrib kyis dag pa} OR {rang bzhin/ ngo bo dag} and {glo bur dag} [IW]

dag pa gnyis - two purities [IW]

dag pa gnyis - two purities. The purity resulting from the removal of the obscuration of conflicting emotions and the obscuration covering the knowable {nyon mong gi sgrib dang shes bya'i sgrib kyis dag pa}. Syn {spang ba gnyis} [ry]


 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.210.76 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed text
I've removed the following text since it is no clear and has not citations:
 * Avidyā is a lack of knowing, and can be associated with intention. Avidyā has three aspects as associated with the three kinds of vedanā (sensation), four aspects as the ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, and five aspects as masking the five destinies (see : Samsāra). Avidyā has six aspects as associated with any of the six doors, the six senses (see: Sadayatana). - Dorje108 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitions for ignorance
I am adding some definitions here for reference for the article.

Mipham Rinpoche states:
 * Ignorance means not knowing the [law of] actions and their effects, the [four] truths, and the virtues of the Precious Ones. It cases all affliction to occur. ---Mipham Rinpoche, Gateway to Knowledge, Vol. 1, p. 25

Ringu Tulku states:
 * In the Buddhist sense, ignorance is equivalent to the identification of the self as being separate from everything else. It consists of the belief that there is an "I" that is not part of anything else. On this basis we think, "I am one and unique. Everything else is not me. It is something different." --- Ringu Tulku, Daring Steps Towards Fearlessness, p. 29

Ron Leifer states:
 * From the Buddhist point of view, the unwillingness or failure to see the facts of life as they are, to see ourselves as we are, and to conduct ourselves in harmony with these realities, is the chief cause of our self-inflicted suffering and, therefore the chief obstacle to our happiness. This state of denial, or lack of realization of the facts of existance, is called avidya in Sanskrit--literally, "the failure to see or know"--translated as "ignorance". One of the great contributions of Gautama Buddha was the realization that ignorance is the primary cause of the sufferings we impose on ourselves and others. --- The Happiness Project, p. 14

Bhikkhu Bodhi states:
 * Ignorance (avijja) is the cetasika delusion [moha], which obscures perception of the true nature of things just as a cataract obscures perception of visible objects. According to the Suttanta method of explanation, ignorance is non-knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. According to the Abhidharma method, ignorance is non-knowledge of eight things: the Four Noble Truths, the pre-natal past, the post-mortem future, the past and the future together, and dependent arising.A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidharma, p. 295

Bhikhu Bodhi states:
 * Wisdom is "the one thing needed" to cut off the defilements because the most fundamental of all the mental depravities is ignorance (avijja). Ignorance is the kingpost upon which all the other defilements converge and the lynchpin which holds them all in place. While it remains the others remain, and for the others to be destroyed it must be destroyed. Doctrinally defined as nescience with regard to the four noble truths, ignorance signifies not so much the lack of specific pieces of information as a basic non-comprehension regarding the true nature of things as expressed in the four truths. Since the eradication of the defilements depends upon the eradication of ignorance, the one factor capable of abolishing the defilements is the factor capable of abolishing their fundamental root, and that is the direct antithesis of ignorance — wisdom or "the knowledge and vision of things as they really are." For this reason, at the beginning of our sutta, the Buddha proclaims: "The destruction of the cankers is for one who knows and sees, I say, not for one who does not know and does not see." The defilements, epitomized in the "cankers," are only destroyed for one who overcomes ignorance by the wisdom which knows and sees things as they are. Transcendental Dependent Arising

Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:
 * Ignorance (avijja) is actually identical in nature with the unwholesome root "delusion" (moha). When the Buddha speaks in a psychological context about mental factors, he generally uses the word "delusion"; when he speaks about the causal basis of samsara, he uses the word "ignorance" (avijja). --- Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Noble Eightfold Path, footnote 1

Nina van Gorkom states:
 * Moha is ignorant of the true nature of realities, it does not know nāma and rūpa as they are. Moha is lack of knowledge about the four noble Truths: about dukkha, the origination of dukkha, the ceasing of dukkha and the way leading to the ceasing of dukkha5. So long as ignorance has not been eradicated we have to continue to be in the cycle of birth and death, we have to be born again and again. The Pāli term avijjā is used for ignorance in connection with the “Dependent Origination”, the conditional arising of phenomena in the cycle of birth and death. Avijjā is the first link in the chain of conditions for the continuation of this cycle. At the attainment of arahatship ignorance is eradicated and then there are no more conditions for rebirth.

Section on "uprooting avidya"
This section needs citations. - Dorje108 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Within the different schools of Mahayana Buddhism
User Dienekles has begun addressing the meaning of ignorance within the different schools of Mayahana Buddhism as follows:
 * According to the Mahayana, it is the exact opposite of seeing the nature of reality correctly; more specifically, a misperception of the nature of self and phenomena as existing inherently1, truly2, or dually34.

I removed the above text because it has no citations and no context is given for the wikilinks. However, it would be beneficial to cover this topic in the article, if anyone is up for doing the research and providing good citations from Reliable Secondary Sources. If anyone does decide to address this, it should be added as a separate section and not just tagged onto the lead or overview. (Note that the Four Schools that are studied in Tibetan Buddhism are primarily a pedagogic device used to develop an understanding of emptiness; thus, they should be presented as such.)

WP:OVERLINK
Greetings! I recently removed the links that are mentioned 2x or more in the article after the lede. Since there seems to be a sort of misunderstanding with another editor, I'll just make the backgrounds of my edit a bit more clear :P

So, about the overlinking, WP:OVERLINK says that (boldings included in the original text):

"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ignorance vs unbeknownst
Can 'Avidyā' be translated into 'unbeknownst' as well? Since not all can be resorted to the fault of oneself's abilities and deeds. Chances, other people's treats, even other people's hidden personalities and habits also influence a person to fall into crap for decades before that person is finally awakened.

Avidyā translated as "ignorance" but it is not the "ignorance"
The Pali word Avidyā(අවිද්‍යා) used by Buddha really means "unconsciousness" not the "ignorance"

Avidyā(අවිද්‍යා) is the word given by Buddha for unconsciousness. The "ignorance" has some other meaning  and does not give the meaning  for  Avidyā(අවිද්‍යා).--  Rs  Ekanayake  20:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually there is no special thing called "Mind" to do the thinking. It is the brain that doing thinking. what we called the mind is an activity of the body, Buddha used 3 words to refer the Mind. "Vijñāna-(වින්ඤාණ- perception)" ,  "Manas-(මනෝ-cognition)" and   "Citta-(චිත්ත-emotion)"
 * 2) "Vijñāna-(වින්ඤාණ- perception)" is seeing, hearing etc ,the environment stimulate the organism through 5 senses. the reaction of the body to stimulant is called the perception(වින්ඤාණ).
 * 3) The cognition part is called Manas-(මනෝ-cognition)" . The different information that get from the 5 senses comes to one place called "මනෝ"1. Cognition means that we giving a meaning to what we saw. Seeing is only perception "Vijñāna(වින්ඤාණ)". After the perception it comes "cognition”, also an activity of the body(brain)2.
 * 4) According to the meaning you give to cognize, an emotion "Cittaචිත්ත(emotion)"is aroused. The emotion comes in the form of liking, disliking ,warring etc. The emotion once it is aroused ,it is expressed in behavior. Sometimes it is called stress.Buddha called it "Karma". These things happening without our knowledge ,we are not even conscious what is going on,When we speak of the "mind" there are 2 parts.thinking part and emotional part.thinking part is called "Manas-(මනෝ-cognition)".emotional part is called "Citta-(චිත්ත-emotion)" our emotion part are going in one direction and thinking is going in other direction.thinking part comes in conflict with the emotion part and thinking part has become a slave of emotion part. Buddha pointed out what we have to do is to get the thinking part to dominate our emotion part.this is the main teaching in buddisem.
 * 5) We are simply organism in an environment reacting unconsciously  not unconsciously. Everything in the world going on unconsciously.we think that there is a self . we think that we exist. but we do not. there are only sensation in the world.struggle to exist without existence. To correct this  it is to awaken  from the dream of existenc3 and self. Buddha is a state of perfection that every human being can reach. It is only by correcting our mental process that we can bring the suffering to an end. The effort to reach that perfection  not unconsciously but consciously. What we call meditation is an effort to become conscious of this unconscious process.


 * @Rsekanayake: No WP:OR in this or other wikipedia articles. No citing other wikipedia articles as source either. Please see WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me. Please note I made no attempt to edit in the article. what i did was just pointing out the error in translating along with good reasoning. it is a matter of understanding the Buddhism. because Load Buddha didn't speak in English. he spoke in pali.the problem is there. if someone perceive the intended meaning of "Avidyā"(අවිද්‍යා) and interested in what i pointed out ,he can find a better source  other than the meaning  provided in Pali – English dictionary..i think all the source finally end up in the translations of Rhys Davids. a matter of understanding.--  Rs  Ekanayake  07:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)