Talk:Buddhaghosa

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the following sentence from the lede of the article page to this talk page, "His name means 'Voice of the Buddha' in the Pāli language." because
 * It does not fit with the flow of the paragraph, and,
 * More importantly, it does not refer to the import of the article which follows it.

Perhaps somebody will know a better place within the article for the sentence other than the lede. makeswell (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics - Shravasti Dhammika
(Copied from ) [The section of text from the Visuddhimagga mentioned above exists only in the Sinhalese texts, not in the original Pali.] This is a fact that can be verified by viewing page 743 of the Visuddhimagga where the translator states that the section in question does not exist in the original Pali text and is only found in subsequent Sinhalese versions. Therefore it is not "original research" the research was done by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and is published in the following reliable source (or one could simply look at the online version: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf, the original text by Buddhaghosa was written in Pali and so the Sinhalese edition(s) are later translated versions of the original text. The fact that it was written in Pali is stated in the introduction to this same book): Visuddhimagga The Path of Purification by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa. translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli copyright 1975, 1991 Buddhist Publication Society. User:Blaskdfaks 09:08, 11 June 2013


 * I wonder if Shravasti Dhammika is a reliable source; he seems to be selfpublished. It looks to me like you've got a point here. I've edited the section, and used your comment as a reference.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Buddhaghosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925190451/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heim
you paraphrase/quote Heim as saying

Source:

Those are interesting statements, given the scholastic nature of Buddhaghosa's work. Did he really practice? Shaft (1995), The Rhetorics of Meditative Practice notices that meditative experience does not play the role in BUddhist practice and experience that we, westerners, perceive in it. And Polak (2011), Reexaming jhana, argues that Buddhoghosa probably did not meditate!

NB: how about using the sfn-format for citations? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the first line actually refers to Buddhagoasa's explanations of the phrase "visible here and now"; it does not support the above quoted line, except that practicing the Buddhist dhamma changes a person. Duh. I'm goin to remove it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've changed these lines into

I think that this is more in accord with the source. Note that Buddhaghosa's stance reflects an intellectual understanding, not necessailiy a meditative understanding. Which, of course, is reflectd in his (mis)understanding of Buddhist meditation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Shaw and Shankman on meditation
This is also interesting:

"The" Theravada meditation tradition did not survive throughout the ages; they abandoned it somewhere in the 10th century... Meditation was re-invented in the 19th and 20th century. And Buddhaghosa's, and the whole Theravada's acoount of meditation is doubtful; their systematization of meditation into samatha-vipassana is a later systematization, which deviate from the dhyana-scheme. Dhyana is not samatha. Shaw was taught by Gombrich and Griffits, and she cites Bronkhorst, so she must be familiair with this line of research. Yet, no comment on this in her introduction.

This is also rich:

That's a nice escape; Polak bluntly says that Theravada altered Buddhist meditation, turning dhyana into concentration-meditation, a non-Buddhist practice.

Ah, and this is what Shaw writes regarding the survival of the (Theravada) meditation tradition:

Some things are missing from here account, which are provided by Shankman, especially Gunaratana:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of citation error fix
Hi. Posting this here, as your talk page is protected. You've revert my fix for the cite error that is currently being displayed on the article.

The error was caused by this edit on the 29th of Sept. If you look the refname "brokenbuddha1" was changed to "brokenbuddha2" but the actual reference didn't change, just the refname. This caused an error as they was already a in use.

My fix was to simply rename the missed instance to "brokenbuddha2" as well. I'm going to revert back to my fix, as I can only assume this was a mistake (as it was such a noncontroversial fix). Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello 89.241.33.89, thank you for this information. --Serols (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

buddhagosha king
buddhagosha rajaathuma 175.157.66.154 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)