Talk:Tattva (Jainism)

Merger proposal
I propose that Asrava be merged into Tattva (Jainism). I think that the content in the Asrava can easily be explained in the context of Tattva, and the Tattva article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Asrava will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Asrava article is small and is unlikely to be expanded Rahul Jain (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Merger not required. Asrava article can be expanded substantially with details that are not normally required in Tattva article. Asrava is an important concept in Jainism and fulcrum of Jain karma theory.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Asrava is part of tattva. Every information currently in Asrava article can be included under one section of tattva. It would also be beneficial in developing the Tattva article. If, in future, the section is expanded, we can summarize it here; but as of current, I think a merger is appropriate as it satisfies more than one good reasons which are listed in WP:MERGE. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Refer to my comments above. They still hold. Just because Asrava is part of Tattva, it does not mean that it needs to be merged into Tattva. There is nothing in wikipedia that prevents independent existence of such article. Furthermore, you need to understand the underlying philosophical concepts in case of Tattva and Asrava. Asrava has independent existence outside its classification as one of the Tattva. It is also a part of Jain yoga (activity) and responsible for mundane existence. Paul Dundas calls Asrava as archiac word existing in Jain and Buddhist philosophy. Classification of verities or reals into Tattva was probably done first time by Umasvati in a systemtic manner. In Acaranga sutra, Asrava is mentioned without reference to Tattva. Hence, merging of this article into Tattva does not make sense. Furthermore, Asrava article can be expanded by deriving its etymological roots, usage by Buddhists, useage of Asrava in other terms other than Tattva, types of Asrava (eg. Bhava asrava, Dravya asrava etc.) which need not be formed part of Tattva article. Also refer to the same policy you have quoted, WP:MERGE. The reasons given for avoiding merging the article are satisfied and hence should not be merged.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I trust that the issue is resolved and there is no need to merge Asrava into Tattva (Jainism). I am removing the notices.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not resolved. Merger is appropriate, as far as I can see. Everything about asrava can be explained under Tattva article. As I said earlier, it satisfies more than one good reason listed in WP:MERGE. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not appropriate and clearly does not satsify the Merger criteria as per WP:MERGE. I have given my reasons cleaarly. After that you have not given any convincing reasons for the same and are repeating the same thing.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The criteria mentioned under WP:MERGE which this article satisfies are


 * 1) Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. In this case, the tattva article completely overlaps Asrava. This Asrava is specifically about the Jain version of asrava. The buddhist version has a separate page Asava. If this article had information about both the version (Jain and Buddhist), perhaps this criteria wouldn't be satisfied. But since this is not the case, a merger is appropriate.
 * 2) Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. The information about the Jain version of Asrava is short and is unlikely to be expanded within reasonable amount of time. Hence it should be merged with the broader topic of Tattva.
 * 3) Context: If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. The short article of Asrava requires the bacground material on whole karma and tattva theory of Jains. Without understanding of what soul (jiva), non-soul (ajiva), karma, moksha etc are, the article on asrava does not make much sense to a non-Jain. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Overlap: The criteria of overlap does not apply here. Refer to the guidelines again. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. Read again. It talks of merging two different and opposite concepts into one. Like Nastika and Astika, which clearly overlap. Asrava clearly has independent existence outside its classification as one of the Tattva. Furthermore Asrava article is not simply a definition but an article in its own right. Very clearly Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply for Asrava. Yet, you keep on repeating it.
 * Secondly, this so called perception of overlap that you have created has been your doing when you copy pasted from Asrava into Tattva (Jainism). . It is not proper that you first copy paste the entire article and then claim overlap.
 * Text and Context: These are simply your opinion that you have conveniently developed to fit into the criteria of WP:MERGE. How can you say that the article of Asrava requires the background material on whole karma and tattva theory of Jains? If it is true then even if Asrava is merged into Tattva, then still this criteria will not be satisfied as you have said it will still require background material on whole karma! In fact as you have pointed out Asrava is in reference to not only Tattva but also Karma. Hence Asrava is much more than a simple classification of Tattva;, it is also an important part of Karma theory. The very argument that you quote in favour of Merge, actually speaks in favour of having a separate article for Asrava.
 * Till now I was assuming good faith on your part. Unfortunately, your fascination for unmerited mergers and deletions of article is creating unwanted disruption in Wikipedia. Kindly desist from it and do some constructive edits. Instead of editing the articles, I am wasting time in replying to unwarranted and unproductive arguments.
 * --Indian Chronicles (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not see the sense in merging two separate well-defined concepts into one. There is a very good reason why these concepts were stated differently and explained exhaustively. Knocking down terminology coined specifically by ancient Jain seers will not help in communicating the Jain doctrine effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)