User talk:Necrodharma

December 2021
Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dhyāna in Buddhism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

hi josh

no offense taken.

Jhana is the correct term, not Dhyana, which is Sanskrit.

Sanskrit is an infallible language.

the perfect letter grants the perfect expression.

Pali is not an infallible language.

which explains why, analysis, and not authority, is indispensible.

just as, injecting theological nuances into Buddhism is inappropriate, it is, inappropriate,to inject Sanskrit nuances into Buddhism, as history has seen fit to do.

only very late last century, did materials become available where the countless errors of misinterpretation could even be recognized, let alone, addressed and worked through. be mindful.

this is not historical revisionism.

buddhism is not a theistic doctrine.

nor does buddhism have any semblance to, a theistic doctrine.

all the while, buddha dharma stands metaphorically at a much higher ethical ground, than all theistic systems.

including, the quite popular contemporary process theology.

historically, Chinese, Tibetan, Korean, Japanese, and most oriental traditions have stumbled often enough lacking the critical Pali sources which are now, globally available.

the Critical Buddhist movement in last century Japan, focused very closely on this issue. The Agamas are known to have, unintentionally, misinterpreted numerous critical terms, and indeed, events, in Gotama Siddhattha's life.

these are, scholarly matters, Britain's Peter Harvey, among others, has devoted a great deal of time to addressing and correcting.

interestingly, not once, did The Bhagavat refer to himself as  "Buddha."

he referred to himself as the Tathagatha.

this term directly relates to satipatthana practice, focusing on, meditation of body, via breathing meditation.

Meaning "Well Come" and "Well Gone," the continuity of spacetime and consequences, are notable.

the issue of mappo, takes into account, the Tathagatha's estimate of "the decline of the dharma."

some take this to mean, apocalyptics and what not.

Zen defers from investing energies in perpetuating such nonsense.

just as, Shakyamuni did.

this then advises us, the practitioner, from making practial excuses, as dramatized in the Platform Sutra.

the consequence of practice is freedom.

lived, freedom.

when as Nagarjuna observed, "there is not a hairbreadth's difference between Nirvana and Samsara."

meaning, to interpret either term, as a substance, errs grossly.

it is that precise error the Critical Buddhist movement has sought to resolve and remedy.

with much success and vigor, i might add.

i recommend, a close and repeated read of David J. Kalupahana's "Nagarjuna."

he is a second generation intellectual descendent of Ludwig Wittgenstein, by way of Jayatilike.

which relieves him of no small heavy mental lifting of logical and metalogical issues.

cheerio!

v/Y, brian e. turner, aka., necrodharma Necrodharma (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

i might also add, the epistemics we can now engage, are original.

one can, work fluidly between contemprary systems of western science and Pali sources.

neither suspension of eukraisic judgement, nor faith, nor reliance on authority, nor sense of mystical secret knowledges float.

now, they all sink like rocks.

and we are left in lieu of twaddle and hoo hah...

the real deal.

Siddhatha Gotama, the Tathagatha.

where in earlier times, it may have been acceptible to let upaya excuse us from serious vipassana and examination of first hand experience as directly related to dharma...

...the hook is gone.

and there is no bobber nor line to catch us from a fall into self-created ignorance and delusion.

save, Good Teachers.

bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.

monks and nuns.

professionals.

not hackwits and wannabes.

bring this, then, to evolution.

a 14-plus billion year-old universe, and, possibly, multiverse.

bring this to climate change.

an intimately familiar Earth.

women's self-sovereignty.

individual rights.

self-creation as an exercise of freedom.

freedom which we cannot say, is a potential.

yet by no means, can we say, freedom which is needed to change our, Original Sinful Nature.

it's an intelligent activity.

not a choice.

v/Y, brian e. turner, aka., necrodharma Necrodharma (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

the Buddha Edification Tongue
so, you've got a big fat tongue, eh?

must be all those chemicals "they" put in our toxic water systems to, indulge ourselves in, and, sate, our collective thirsts.

so what is, engaged buddha dharma, Alex?

oh, yea. that's right, you're dead. you can't answer that question.

or this one, which i won't state.

"Go, bury your child, Gautami," bodhisatta Sidhattha said to the young grieving mother.

whose child was bitten at a picnic on the grass by a slithering snake with poison glands backing it's needle-sharp piercing fangs.

dead is dead.

but what individuality is, is not limited to a single lifespan.

there is no reincarnation.

but there is rebirth.

reincarnation is a Sanskrit term.

rebirth is a Pali term.

the difference is crucial to accurately comprehend, engage, instruct, and advance Buddha Dhamma.

western biases of linear spacetime, are visible enough evidence of populist corruption for the sake of comfort and a false sense of security.

"Time is not a linear function," I repeat.

i said that thirty some years ago knee deep in Nietzschean process ethics philosophy.

nor is mindbody a linear function.

i try not to make the physicist's one size fits all shoe bucket error when working with buddha dhamma.

that error is westerly, in almost every case, but not all.

the oriental is not so quick to make that same error.

necrodharma is not merely a name or title Necrodharma (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that in this edit to Draft:Brian E. Turner, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 03:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

it will remain to biographers, to flush out the details of my relative sordid existenz. for the time being, i'm opting for "keeping it simple, stupid." being a n00b wikied, i'd rather this not become a major project. i have many skillets on the stove. so this is in the can as i've last edited it. Necrodharma (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brian E. Turner


A tag has been placed on Brian E. Turner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Brian E. Turner
Hello, Necrodharma. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Brian E. Turner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

hi, bot.

please move this to draft review.

i have only limited mobile access, no desktop.

thanks ed.:bet. Necrodharma (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Brian E. Turner


Hello, Necrodharma. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brian E. Turner".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)