User talk:Beyondname

Name change
Please supply citations to reliable sources to support your edit to Name change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"One India"
Regarding this edit summary: "India had always been known as one India, never southern and northern or eastern india", have a look at Middle kingdoms of India. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with dictionary Joshua is this that it points back to each other. Similar is the problem with wikipedia citations. I experience India as I live in it. Here in this moment, not in medieval times, it's one India. How can he had been born even in southern India. Mention the kingdom in which he was born. That wasn't known as south India. It was called by that kingdom name.

Edit-warring
Please stop edit-warring, as you're doing now at Nagarjuna, Samkhya and Adi Shankara. One more revert, and I'll report you for edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good response, though it belongs at the talk page: User talk:Joshua Jonathan. See there for my response. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you reverted again after your response. Therefor I've reported you for edit-warring.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really mind any geographical indication and historical information but it shouldn't be classified with pretension or presumption. In medieval times, when Nagarjuna was born, the name of his kingdom was Vidharbha, that lies in between modern day Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra [2] [3]. The geographical divisions like north and south didn't exist during time of Nagarjuna. Mystic term is given to him due to nonavailability of any term for either bodhisattva or any person who has reached nirvana. Please read more about Nagarjuna & his psyche from [8]. I understand your concern about India's sensitive articles, but the problem here is this that you're talking from only the books that are translated in English and I'm talking about direct experience of Nagarjuna's Treatise which is quite similar in nature to Mahakashyapa and Jiddu Krishnamurti in modern times. It's purely based upon Samkhya philosophy which says, pure knowing is enough, because truth is beyond karma or causation (cause and effect). Therefore, no technique could help. Only externally their languages are different because they have to depend on their peculiar education for communication and external expression. That differs form one person to other and it also differs in time. For example, Buddha and Mahavira both knew the truth, and were wandering in small Indian state called Bihar (Bihar name originated from their there sanskrit word "vihar" or prakrit & pali word "bihar which means travel in English), and they even stayed in same place in same village on one incident, but they didn't meet. Lots of people from outside thinks that they were egoistic, that's why they didn't meet, but there's nothing left to discuss amongst them, because both of them knew. However their expressions were quite different and still they knew the same truth. Nagarjuna, Krishnamurti, Mahakashyapa, Ashtavakra are the masters (master of oneself), who emphasized on pure knowing and that's why they cancelled all the arguments that requires one to do something for reaching nirvana. That's the original philosophy of samkhya. How different in articulation it might look form outside, but from inside, it is the same path. Entire Zen (sanskrit word dhyan) is based on the similar concept of direct knowing, that's why the only meditation they ascribe to is Zazen (aka no mind meditation). Finally I'm not very concerned with what you revert to in the changes. You have full freedom and I will not change it. But if you understand the 3 aspects of searching truth, I think this debate could conclude or at least could possibly move into some direction. India divided search into Satyam, Shivam and Sundaram. Satyam is the pure inquiry and is the original path of Samkhya and the Zen in modern age. Shivam is the path of knowing through determinaton (Sankalpa)and it requires lot of doing and is pure path of Yoga. All the mediation ascribed by Buddha and Mahavira and Patanjali belongs to this. Last is sundaram or knowing through beauty or devotion. All the religions that talk about bhakti (devotion) are part of Sundaram. Examples of bhakti are Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Meera, Nanak, Kabir, Rabiya, Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and many more. If we understand these 3 dimensions of search, then we can relate properly. Nice to know your views on the same (not thoughts, as thoughts have no value in world of inquiry, spirituality or religion). Let's talk!

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

May 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Adi Shankara, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ugog. The issue is this that in ancient time when Shankracharya was born, the parts of Indian subcontinent wasn't known as south or north india. It was known by the kingdom in which he was born. Moreover today india is classified as states, but not divided as northern and southern territory. Secondly, the caste system is not important here, as he belonged to a larger sect named as hinduism or which was known as vedic system or bhramanic system. The jainas and buddhas during that time were classified under shraman category. I remained my all life in India and traveled across it and I have learnt things that are still transmitted through shruti (listening), rather than smriti (Memory or reading). Therefore it is advisable not to write about all these enlightened masters just by pure citation, as it is also pretty simple for me to put a website with all the topic and wikipedia lnk to that, but that will not suffice anything. Do look into the changes I've made. That is not in any way reducing the quality of the document, but refining it more due to removal of junk. Let's talk!


 * Apart from the fact that Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not personal learning, there's something weird with your signature. I appreciate it that youcopied it partly from me, but it does nog give your username, nor a link to your userpage aor talkpage. I guess you'll have to work it out further.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)