User talk:Nat Krause/Archive1

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

snoyes 22:17, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good work on the Buddhism article. I largely agree with your changes - you might want to include Tibet, the USA and Europe as places where the Mahayana is practiced though. Also I'm not sure that referring to the Theravada as synonymous with the Shravakayana (what is mostly still called Hinayana) is accurate. For instance all Gelugpa's still practice the Sarvastavada vinaya. Since a schism in Buddhism is defined purely as a difference of opinion about matters of praxis (ie vinaya) the Gelupga's are technically a Hinayana school (to use that horrible term). mah&#257;b&#257;la 10:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I'm not done with Buddhism. There's a lot of little things to fix, and some of the prose is frankly awful.  As for your specific points, I will consider the issue of where Mahayana is practiced -- I'm not sure if mentioning the West here would confuse more than inform.  Nowadays, one can find practitioners of every kind of Buddhism in just about every country.  As for Theravada, to be clear, I didn't say that Theravada is synonymous with Shravakayana historically, although I suppose I did say, not in so many words, that they are synonymous vis a vis modern adherents.  I can't agree that all Buddhist schisms are based on vinaya rather than dharma -- one need only look at the (rather questionable) sections of certain Mahayana sutras where the Buddha is portrayed denouncing Hinayana doctrine by name.  Therefore, I think its fair to include the Gelugpas out of Shravaka/Hinayana.Nat Krause 11:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Three Jewels
Hi Nat, When we're talking about the three refuges/jewels then Sangha does refer only to the Arya-Sangha. We don't go for refuge to the monks and laypeople, but to the Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and actually to anyone from Stream Entrants up - ie those who have "seen things as they really are". I think this distinction is important, and you could easily mention that Sangha also has a broader, more general use. mah&#257;b&#257;la 14:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good job on the three jewels stuff. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 01:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, which part of China are you in? I'm in Qingdao, just moved here from Shanghai about two weeks ago. Will be staying at least one year. You're welcome to come and visit in summer if you like! prat 01:08, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I agree
But I like talking about stuff, and I REALLY like properly defining terms. Socialism can refer to reality, as well as anarcho-communist pipe dreams. Sam Spade 21:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Research and vindicate as necessary the thinking of Herbert Spencer in the Herbert Spencer and social darwinism articles."

Thanks for the warning. 172 12:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalist Critique
I still appreciate your concerns about that page, but unfortunately, I'm not in a position right now to help with it much... That's cool, I was just wanting to generate discussion. It seems people have complained but haven't done much about it. I've been spending too much time on the talk pages of articles that are already substancial, and, in the process, not contributing as much as I could... millerc 22:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Neofeudalism
I must say this article has some apparent crackpots orbiting it. I was amused by being told to "wake up and smell the coffee". Anyway, if it's a real term, I guess we can have a neutral article about it, which means dumping a good deal of what's there. That may be hard though, with serious assertions by Mike Church and others that neofeudalism is not even pejorative and Bush is an archetypal example. I wonder if it will survive VfD. -- VV 11:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

baimasi
yeah, basically i read some page that said it wasnt, then i happened to go there last week and find out that all current literature at the site itself says that it is. im sure there's a case to be made otherwise, so i left an also on the White Horse Temple page. prat 13:19, 2004 May 10 (UTC)