Talk:Sentient beings (Buddhism)

Problems
This article has some issues that need addressing. The tone is like that of a religious text, not an encyclopedic entry, and there are an excessive number of quotes. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have chopped it down to a stub per the discussion at AfD, so let the rebuilding as a proper encyclopedic article begin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That was quite a chop! I'm replacing this stub (for now) with the more extensive one I'd been working on. The old article with all its refs and so on is archived at my subpage User:Ninly/Sentient—feel free to draw on that for referencing or elucidation. /Ninly (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cited quotations are original research! How novel...
User talk:Beeblebrox wrote on B9's chittychat page:
 * This article was cut down because of the consensus reached in the discussion at articles for deletion, which you did not participate in. An edit summary like "extract salient points and footnote, don't undo my scholarly pastiche: there is a grand synthesis unfolding" makes it patently obvious that you are adding your own opinions and original research to the article. Please discontinue this behavior, promoting your religious viewpoints is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in the discussion because I was not notified nor invited and was not informed or included in its proceedings. Where is the inclusivity and transparency in that? I included the quotations at this formative stage of the article EXACTLY to pre-empt and negate the expected baseless charges made by individuals such as yourself in the abovecited. In answer, I do not have a religion and I do not have a position. You are just wrong and your attribution unfounded. Don't project your seduction by opinions and false charges of original research onto me. Where is your evidence? The grand synthesis I made reference to is about an encycopedic, historical, developmental and inclusive exploration of the technical term "sentient beings", you wantonly misunderstood. What is now evident on the page due to the "consensus" is a generic Western interpretation of the position of the Gelugpa hegemony.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

NB: Cited quotations are original research! How novel... and that from an Admin... B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm not an admin. I don't really know what it is your talking about otherwise, as I explained in the parallel conversation on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat at a loss here, and will have to think about this a bit before commenting at any length. But... B9, to address your question, the discussion that Beeblebrox described (misleadingly, in my opinion) as consensus can be found – and is linked on this page, above – at Articles_for_deletion/Sentient_being_(Buddhism). I do not think that the current state of this article is beyond hope or salvage, but neither do I think it's clearly headed toward any "grand synthesis" that will be accessible or relevant to the general reader. An article is not the proper place for "scholarly pastiche", wherever you think it's going. That said, I suggest that we allow for more substantive and diverse input before making any further drastic changes. More later! (But don't hold your breath.) /Ninly (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I only meant that there seemed to be a consensus (not the one I was looking for either) that the article be kept but that it needed fundamental changes in order to become a proper article. However, since the discussion was only open for a day before I withdrew the nomination, perhaps it was not exactly proper to state there was a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't mean to say you were intentionally misleading anyone or anything like that, it just all happened pretty fast. For what it's worth, I think that B9's concern is that the description in the stub primarily reflected the POV of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism, which (as I understand it – I'm learning about this on the fly here) has had political influence perhaps out of proportion with its religious import – B9, or anyone else, please correct me if I'm wrong on that. I know from my own OR that the stub's view is reflected in some Zen schools, but can't back that up or fill it out with more refs, so I just want to see what others have to say before we decide in what direction to move. /Ninly (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that i did place a link to the AfD debate when it was closed. It is right at the top of the page, under the WikiProject tag, and the history indicates I left it there on September 20, moments after withdrawing the nomination. Consensus is important and I would never try to "hide" an important discussion. I have opened a request for comment so that more editors may make their voices heard and I have also left a note on the WikiProject Buddhism talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, I totally agree with you, and have added some comments over on the WP:BUDDHA talk page. If you want to help improve the stub, I've got our latest version on my subpage. /Ninly (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * 1) Lead is mainly about Prasangika position, which is, as such, maybe 1 Buddhist in 20, tho' that's not to say others might not agree on (some of) what's said here.
 * 2) General definition seems to be largely someone's notes for an article rather than article material. Also mainly Tibetan.
 * 3) Turnings. This is a Tibetan classification. East Asian Buddhism uses a different system, & of course Theravada doesn't recognize Mahayana texts.
 * 4) Pali. Correct description, as far as it goes, of 5 or 6 realms.
 * 5) The material on Buddha nature in East Asian Buddhism needs expansion. When they say inanimate objects have Buddha nature, what do they actually mean? Do they mean they're sentient beings that will eventually become Buddhas? Or have they changed the meaning?
 * 6) Classification seems to be mainly Tibetan. Overlaps & contradicts previous material on 5 or 6 realms. In particular, Theravada position isn't correctly represented. It believes some asuras are devas, but others are petas.
 * 7) The great debate seems to be an entirely Tibetan debate.
 * 8) Is there a difference between sentient beings & living beings?

Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentient beings (Buddhism) → Sentient beings &mdash; Since there appears to be no articles about other types of sentient beings the title should be fine without the buddhism bit. Kayau HAPI   B-DAY   WP  12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sentient beings are mentioned in many contexts: very much so in science fiction!, and often elsewhere, and see page Sentience. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Sentient beings should redirect to Sentience. Powers T 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think that it is a lot more appropriate that Sentient beings and Sentient being redirect to Sentience, so more appropriate in fact that I have already made those two changes (perhaps that is premature from my part, given the present requested move... if so, please excuse me). As to this article, Sentient beings (Buddhism), if we look at 'what links here' we see that there is a concept in Buddhism by that name, and thus the article must stay as it is. Moreover, I am going to correct a few links to 'sentient being' and to 'sentient beings' so that they ultimately and correctly lead to 'sentience' or to 'sentient beings (Buddhism)'. --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sentient_being_(Buddhism). --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Enlightenment of Insentient Objects
As far as I know, it is because of T'ien-T'ai's teachings on Ichinen Sanzen that insentient objects are deemed to be capable of attaining Buddhahood. All the article says is "Japanese and Tibetan Buddhism". Ichinen Sanzen was taught by T'ien-t'ai in his Great Concentration and Insight (Chn. 摩訶止観) before Buddhism came to Japan. Steve (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will add in what T'ien-t'ai taught re: the Enlightenment of insentient objects. I don't think that quote from Dogen belongs. A quote from a sutra would be better. Steve (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sentient beings (Buddhism). 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/20080828072632/http://www.acmuller.net/budkor/wonhyo-chinul-kihwa.htm to http://www.acmuller.net/budkor/wonhyo-chinul-kihwa.htm

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 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)