Talk:Shantideva

Untitled
page says...

--- Contrary to Tibetan biographies written about him, Shantideva became a king in southeastern Bangladesh, which has been shown through archaeological discoveries that record him not only as the first in a line of "Deva" kings who recognized the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest Dharma (or truth).

I am confused. Are Tibetan biographies contrary to the idea of Shantideva recognizing the Bodhisattva ideal as truth? What does Tibetan biographies say that is contrary? This should be provided on page.

I don't claim to know too much about Shantideva history, not very concerned with it. I came here to learn more, and was confused by the statement about being "contrary to Tibetan". What are these discoveries, what do they show that is contrary? All this needs to be made more clear or just taken off, as it is it does not seem to be that informative.

Thank you for you time, and all the best.

Clavio

Contrary... Bangladeshi King
I deleted this para, because it's the first time heard it, and there's no citation or anything. And I've just been through the newbie's guide to NPOV (heavy going), and I think it's inappropriate to be saying "contrary to X's view", without saying what X's view is. ---MrDemeanour 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The "contrary to Tibetan..." is in reference to the Tibetan claim that Acharya Shantideva declined to succeed his father as a ruler, when he actually predates the establishment of the Deva dynasty (beginning with the Shantideva associated with Nalanda University) --- in other words one shouldn't put the cart infront of the horse, no sooner than a tradition withstands historical fact.

Dharmakara (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

External links removed because "controversial"
On 13 March 2007 196.44.16.10 removed external links with the note "removed controversial external link".

I'm not sure that "controversial" is in and of itself a sufficient reason to delete external links. I'm going to archive them here in case we decide that they should be restored. -- Thanks Writtenonsand 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, full unpublished translation of the Bodhicaryavatara by Alexander Berzin
 * Commentary to Bodhicaryavatara by Patrul Rinpoche (in English )
 * Popular Quotations from Shantideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra
 * Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life (Tharpa Publications)
 * Meaningful to Behold (Tharpa Publications: commentary to GBWL)

Prasangika
Why do we think he was a prasangika? That term was invented by the Tibetans 300 years later, so he certainly didn't describe himself in that way. I'm sure this claim is somewhat controversial. Anyone have some citations about that? -Owlmonkey (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite fair to say he was a "madhyamaka" but trying to pin him down between the later prasangika and svatantrika distinction is I would guess up for discussion. Most of his famous book for example are relative teachings about the path not on the dissolution of views. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an old, old comment. But I would probably argue that he was a Prasangika as Tibetans understand the word. His ideas and approaches are far more in line with Buddhapalita/Candrakīrti than they are with Bhāvaviveka - while he certainly does not shy from rhetoric, he is certainly familiar with reductio arguments throughout his works.


 * I'm not saying that therefore he is a Prasangika. I would argue that almost all Indian Madhyamaka is 'Prasangika', though some contemporary (for Śāntideva) developments gave rise to Yogacarya-Madhyamaka, and Śāntideva was certainly not a part of that movement. So, from a Tibetan point of view (and in a descriptive manner only) one could argue that, as a student of (or inspired by) Candrakīrti and Buddhapalita, then Śāntideva could be classified as Prasangika.


 * Also, while Candrakīrti would not have called himself Prasangika, the term was invented to indicate Madhymaka views that are 'in accordance with Candrakīrti' - and in this sense, I believe that (if one has to put everyone into a basket) it is fair to suggest that Śāntideva was Prasankiga. (20040302 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shantideva. 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/20140817095902/http://www.shantideva.net/index.html to http://www.shantideva.net/index.html

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 23:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New translation (including Shantideva's commentary)
The Training Anthology of Santideva: A Translation of the Siksa-samuccaya translated by Charles Goodman, 2016, Oxford University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shantideva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227143833/http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/nyingma-masters/patrul-rinpoche/bodhicharyavatara-brightly-shining-sun to http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/nyingma-masters/patrul-rinpoche/bodhicharyavatara-brightly-shining-sun
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606213159/http://indica-et-buddhica.org/sections/repositorium-preview/materials/santideva/bibliography to http://indica-et-buddhica.org/sections/repositorium-preview/materials/santideva/bibliography

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Utilitarianisn
"Shantideva was an advocate of utilitarianism" I think statements like this are a little out of context. What do you think? Cuginopiu (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Utilitarianism was invented a good millenium after Shantideva's death. If he advocated Utilitarianism, then his advocacy must be on record; so cite please. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the source, which does not support the claim that Santideva advocated utilitarianism, a philosophy he had never heard of. Instead, the source refers to "similarities". So I deleted the claim.


 * It is argued in the source that Santideva's views were "utilitarian", because he advocated the relief of suffering for all beings. That is not Utilitarianism, which advocates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Santideva had no such wishy-washy views; the aim of a bodhisattva is to relieve all suffering (mainly by accelerating the enlightenment of all beings, i.e. by teaching). MrDemeanour (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Santideva was a Buddhist; he subscribed to the view that killing was forbidden (or rather, "unskillful"). Utilitarianism argues for the greatest good for the greatest number, a position that allows killing for the greater good of society. That is a direct contradiction between utilitarianism and Santideva's (mainstream Mahayana) view (Santideva would actually have acknowledged that killing was permissible, but that the killer still had to bear the karmic consequences of killing).


 * Santideva urges people to consider that in future lives they may be reborn as disadvantaged beings, and that they should adapt their views and actions to take that into account. This is a mainstream Mahayana practice, it wasn't invented by Santideva. In that respect, he was foreshadowing the arguments of John Rawls, in "A Theory of Justice". Rawls was not a utilitarian; his arguments were an attack on utilitarianism.


 * So you could argue that Santideva was a liberal, I suppose. But IMO that would be equally wrong. Santideva's arguments were not meant to describe a sensible way of organising society; they were instrumental. The practices were intended to bring the practitioner closer to bodhisattvahood and enlightenment, not to fix the world. Santideva believed in a samsara that couldn't be fixed, and had to be escaped from. Political postures such as utilitarianism and liberalism are purportedly ways to "fix" samsara, and are far from Santideva's position.


 * I'm not going to edit this article again for a while, because I don't edit-war, and I can't be bothered dealing with editors with a bee in their bonnet. This article is not a suitable platform for arguments about modern, western political philosophy (yes, Mill is classed as a "modern" philosopher). I'll again try to improve the article once it's clear to me that the bee-in-a-bonnet brigade have moved on.

MrDemeanour (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal Identity and free will
There is a lot about this section which was erroneous, and somewhat misleading. No Buddhism - certainly neither Buddha nor Śāntideva – suggested that self is an illusion. Śāntideva was a Madhyamaka and the definition of anatman must be understood from such a position in this context. As to whether or not Buddha originally taught anatman in the same mode as Nagarjuna - certainly there is no consensus.

Moreover the basic object of negation (what it is that anatman refutes) is not merely 'illusory' - it's recognised in Buddhism as being the root cause of all suffering, a direct cause of clinging and aversion - basically it's toxic. And none of this is specific to Śāntideva. It's Buddhism 101: The second noble truth.

Meanwhile Goodman's idea that Śāntideva talks about 'free will' (as, I guess, is understood in western philosophy - as free will isn't a topic in traditional Buddhism), is very confused IMO. Sure, Goodman got a book published - but 'free will' discussions depend upon western ideas about the nature of self and identity which do not bode well as a hermeneutic backdrop for understanding Śāntideva. One may as well suggest that Heisenberg is referring to free will in his discussions on uncertainty. I'm sure that some people would like to say that too. Similar to Heisenberg, one might indeed find some interesting ideas from Pratītyasamutpāda that entail challenges to naive approaches to free will - but I would argue that this is much more like "free will" philosophers being informed by (or provoked by) such texts, rather than the texts talking about free will.

My amends are at least more or less concordant - however, I'm not convinced by the section at all. (20040302 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC))