User talk:ForestTeacher

Reply to ForestTeacher

 * Am concerned with the article. I cannot care about your personal POVs on unrelated stuff like brahmin-basing, satan, and such crap. You even misquoted Padmanabh Jaini, which i set right - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379 In the name of your so-called "counter-balance" what you are doing is misquoting stuff. Sorry but i think you are involved in an edit war. So what if Ananda Guruge mentioned "parrot-like" repetition. So what if Ananda Guruge "is an international Buddhist preacher and leader". I mention what i find in the sources. If you change words, sentences, as per your own personal POVs, ofcourse i will have to change it as per the sources. Its obvious you are heavily concerned about so called anti-brahmanism. Hence you are into obfuscating. You can do what you want with the article. Am not interested in talking about this with you.--&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I don't understand what you are getting so angry about. As this is a talk page, I just wanted to tell you my personal views on why I did what I did. How is that a reason for you to get so offended? And I did not misquote Padmanabh Jaini. Nobody can call that misquoting. Jaini, Collins, Upinder Singh and multiple others have said similar things. And "obfuscating"? That means writing material in a way that is hard to understand. When did I ever do that? As for anti-brahminism, yes I am very concerned about any attempt to paint a minority group as the symbol of all evil. Whether that be Muslims, Christians, Brahmins or anyone else.

Anyway OK look I am not interested in quarreling with you either, I won't make any further changes, hope that makes you happy.ForestTeacher (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ForestTeacher
lol, looks like you are really offended and angry. Ofcourse you misquoted sources and obfuscated. Here is a sample (let admin take note):

1) You wrote "In later centuries, perhaps as an attempt to assimilate into society at large, even Sramana writers like Jinasena produced lawbooks which declared that the Varna system was not of Brahminical origin, but had, in fact, been created by the first Jain Tirthankara Vrsabha. "

This is your own POV. You gave a wrong portrayal of varna system. To correct you, i wrote the historical context in which jainas wrote law books here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379

''In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in the South could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century, Jinasena produced Jain lawbooks in the guise of puranas glorifying Jain Thirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present ''kalpa'. Vrashabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain-brahmans. ''

2) You wanted to portray as though largest number of monks who made up though Shramana movements were brahmins. This is quite an lol point. Collins mentions this in the context of Buddhism, but you twisted it, used selective portions of Collins work to obfuscate and wrote this:

"However, it has been noted by authors such as Randall Collins that some offshoots of the Shramana movement like Buddhism were actually more of reform movements within the educated religious classes (which was mostly composed of Brahmins), than rival movements from outside these classes. The largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society. Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins was the first to accept the Jainism preached by Mahavira, becoming his chief disciples or Ganadharas. 

So I corrected your obfuscation, quoted the reference exactly word by word in the References section here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shramana&diff=476062909&oldid=476058427, and wrote this paragraph in the text section: With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism was more of reform movement within the educated religious classes, composed mostly of Brahmins, than a rival movement from outside these classes, with the largest number of monks in the early movement derived from Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society  --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Well its good you arent as offended as you sounded previously. On the other hand, let any admin take note of my inputs, I have nothing to hide. Let me also highlight once again, while you accuse me of selective quoting, what you did was openly change a crucial word while quoting from a reference in an attempt to alter the entire meaning of the quote. "Other" became transformed into "Older".


 * 1. Buddhism is kind of THE standard bearer for Shramana tradition, as you are probably aware. I wrote that some offshoots of Shramana traditions like Buddhism were Brahmin dominated. Your "correction" is actually no different from what I had written, (which is why I had no problem with it) except that the grammar is worse. "With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism". Clearly superfluous use of the word Buddhism here. And look closer at where I put it recently - after a para where it was said that "some Shramanas" went very far in their denunciation of Brahmins. So when the subject under discussion is subgroups of Shramanas in relation to Brahmins, obviously the normal thing to do is to write about the most important subgroup i.e Buddhism. Show me where I imply that all the Shramanas were mostly Brahmins. I am clearly talking about early Buddhism here.


 * 2. The reason I dont quote references completely word by word in the references section is that I would have to read and memorize and type them word by word, since I am unable to copy paste. It is too much effort.


 * 3. About the Jinasena thing - I have no problem with your expansion of the material I wrote. It detracts little from the basic point under discussion. I put that after the Dharmakirti quote, which is followed by an explanation saying that four of the five things criticized by Dharmakirti are brahminical, while the fifth, asceticism, is Shramanical. Obviously, that seems to imply that only Brahmins had written works supporting hereditary caste system, while shramanas never had. Which, in the light of the fact that Jinasena had written something similar, is patently false. Jinasena may have had a hundred great reasons to write casteist works, but that does not wash away the fact that later Jain scholars also did write casteist stuff. Again I have no problem with the extra context you gave, it doesnt divert from my essential point.


 * 4. You yourself have quoted selectively. Randall Collins, in the sentence just prior to your quote given in my talk page, writes "Buddhism gave the caste system renewed significance by making it part of one's religious duties to carry out the activities proper to one's station in life" Hah. And you tried to paper over that by writing "..." in its place and skipping over to the next sentence in a hurry. LOL. And you are accusing me of obfuscating and misquoting. Really, Maya... ForestTeacher (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, I dont dispute the ancientness of the Jain tradition. So I am not quaking with fear now that you have written that new line into the article. My only problem was that you had wilfully changed Other to Older. If you are providing a new reference, thats fine, go for it. I suspect I have read before that Shaivism might be older still, but then again I dont have the energy to search for a reference for that.ForestTeacher (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ForestTeacher
You seem to be a master obfuscator (expected this).

1) Obviously Buddhism is not the standard bearer for sharamana traditions. Your contention that you are "clearly talking about early Buddhism here" is plain falsity. Its obvious you are just playing around to push your obfuscations.

2) I don't quote references word by word either. In this case i had to do it bcoz of your obfuscations.

3) Rubbish. You quoted varna system out of context, you never wrote anything about the historical context in which Jinasena / law-books of jains thru puranas came into being.

4) Ofcourse buddhist monks depended on patronisation by the wealthy. People got fooled by the concept of "earning" good karma. Early buddhist traditions upheld caste system for its own survival. With your edit conflicts, obfuscations, moving content, how can anyone expect to complete writing an article. Am not interested in jumping to support buddhists, like how you jump to do obfuscations for brahmins, lol

Anyways now you have the article all to yourself. You can do what you want with it. Am not writing on that page anymore. All obfuscations someday come to a nought. Keep trying to manipulate content for all you will. Lets see how the future comes to pass. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Shramana
I have no idea why the above discussions have not taken place at Talk:Shramana. What I do know is that both of you are way over the three revert rule. I urge you to discuss at the appropriate venue, where I have started a thread for that purpose. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I have asked a supplementary question or two because someone else thinks differently. This is precisely the type of mess that results when people do not use the appropriate venue - conversations become scattered and people jump to the wrong conclusions because they do not have the full picture. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)