User talk:TonyMPNS

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 00:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Question re Mahaparinirvana sutra
Ahoy. I have a question for someone who specifically knows the Mahayana Nirvana sutra. Does the sutra say&mdash;as apparently testified by Nichiren (1222-1282)&mdash;words to the effect that "those who accept only the Hinayana sutras...will have their tongues fester in their mouths"? To make it excruciatingly clear, my question for the moment has nothing to do with Nichiren but rather how the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra uses the term Hinayana.

I've taken it on myself to try to remove the particular POV that the current Hinayana article projects. While it may not be possible to remove all bias, it is possible to present all sides (as I think the Shroud of Turin article does for its highly controversial subject; and I plan to use that as something of a model for what Hinayana will become after I rewrite it). I can well imagine that you might not like to be drawn into such a controversy. Still, I would ask you to please give an honest answer and to trust that I bring a high standard of documentation to my contributions here, as perhaps evidenced by the first 1/2 of koan, which I authored and footnoted. My (very preliminary) notes for a revision, which is probably still months away, can be found at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. The current Hinayana article does not reflect any of my contributions at all. --Munge 04:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to Buddhism
Your recent edit to Buddhism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

to develop a summarized Conception
Hi. I've added, into Conceptions_of_God, your recent addition to "Names of God" section in article God. However, you're welcome to work on a more devoloped one, if possible, to a maximum of two paragraphs (like a summary). The ideia is to have all views fairly represented at the article. Thank you! --Rosaecruz 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gratefull for your friendly and kind words; likewise! :) Best regards! --Rosaecruz 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have noted a few moments ago, already afterhours, that you're an indepth author related to Buddhism and a Mahayana Buddhist (the Buddhist path with which I would say, at a first glance, that I would have more affinity with). As such, please allow me to humbly request your attention to a small and almost unknown book written in the first half of the twentieth century:  an edition. It was written by a laddy, disciple of a Mystic called Max Heindel; I have read this book many years ago; who knows what a knowledgeable mind in Eastern Religion(s) may find there? :) With gratitude. --Rosaecruz 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

no problem

 * ) Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

thankyou dr tony
Thankyou for your kind words.

Yours in truth

G.H.L

"Atman" and "Tathagatagarbha" equivalent?
Dear TonyMPNS:

Please do not be offended by my revision, on 2/7/07, of your section of the Mahayana article in which I said I took out all inappropriate references to "Essential Self" (Atman) in reference to "Tathagatagarbha." I feel that your interpretation is somewhat unorthodox -- which is not a bad thing, just that it may not accurately represent the majority interpretation. Perhaps this is not what Wikipedia is meant to do, or perhaps it is. In any case, that to which we are both referring, Buddha-nature, is of course the same regardless of the language used to describe it, but I simply felt that the language and translation in the "Immanent Transcendence" (or is it "Transcendent Immanence"?) section of the article was moving too far away from an upayic interpretation of the text, in which the Mahaparinirvana sutra would be seen to be pointing towards something other than a strictly literal interpretation of the scripture.

These are not philosophical arguments in the Western sense, in which there would be an assertion of a particular idea (in this case, Tathagatagarbha) as an objective truth. In all authentic schools of Buddhism there is no idea that can be held up as the absolute "Truth" -- be it Atman or anatman. These and any other ideas can only be considered "truths" in a relative sense (upaya), in which they can be used by a teacher as skillful means in order to steer those with one-sided views toward the indefinable (prajna), that can only be grasped intuitively. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anatman is not a dogma, but an upaya which was meant to bring those, brought up within the spiritual world of Hinduism, away from a one-sided view of "Atman" or "Essential Self" as a permanent and unchanging entity, and toward the prajnic Middle Way.

Similarly, toward the end of his life, the Buddha may have seen his followers moving too far in the other direction toward an almost nihilistic interpretation of his own doctrine of anatman, and so he may have sought to compensate for this through the wonderful teachings found in the Mahaparinirvana sutra. Again, these are meant to be read in an upayic context, not as the final, ultimate teachings of the Buddha in which his "real" understanding of the Truth is finally revealed. All of the Buddhas' words are equally "true," and then only in an upayic sense. There may be certain schools of Buddhism that would refute this, but their interpretations, just as those of the more "orthodox" or mainstream schools, may tend to veer off too far to one side or another of the Middle Way when held onto as objective "Truth." Nagarjuna is the perfect explicator of this, and I would of course defer to his much more eloquent summary of this subject.

One might safely say, at the risk of sounding absurd, that the essence of Buddhism is to be found through non-essentialism -- which, of course, applies as much to itself as to essentialism. This "prajna-sword," cutting away all one-sided views, can be seen not only in Manjushri's hand and Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyakakarika, but also in the Prajnaparamita sutras, Chao-chou's "Wu," and in the Mahaparinirvana sutra itself, which states, "And, also, the wise person clearly thinks: 'For what reason do beings speak about the Self? Why is it that beings speak about the Self? If this Self exists, it must be [either] one or many. If it is one, how can there be such as Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Sudras, humans and gods, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, or big and small, or old age or the prime of life? For this reason, I know that the Self is not one. If the Self is many, how can we say that the Self of the being is one and all-pervading, knowing no bounds? Be it one or many, in either case, there is no Self.'"

Your part of the Mahayana article, as well as many others, is quite insightful and helpful, so please do not think I am attempting to refute your views as "un-factual." I merely sought to bring some balance to the article, which is, after all, an article in reference to the Mahayana in general, and not any one interpretation.

Thank you for your knowledgeable contributions, Tomabird 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition of Nichiren to Template:Buddhism
Hi Tony - I suspect this might be way beneath you but, given that you teach Mahayana Buddhism, I was wondering if you might have a viewpoint on the recent inclusion of Nichiren on Template:Buddhism (being discussed under Template_talk:Buddhism). I'm soliciting feedback from regular WP contributors such as Nat_Krause, Sacca, Rudy and yourself. Am I overreacting to or wrongheaded about this recent addition? Thanks for any guidance or insight. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. As a complete aside, as a one-time animal-rights activist, I applaud your additions of pro-vegetarian Buddhist material to WP!
 * Thanks so much for the extremely fast, thoughtful, informative and helpful response! Your shared knowledge is greatly valued, as well as your righteous efforts on behalf of all sentient beings.  I'll respond to your e-mail soon.  May you be safe, healthy, happy and at ease, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your amazingly generous, deeply kind and thoughtful words are a truly rare gift in this world with so much conflict. I am grateful for the good you see in others and your enthusiasm for expressing it.  Surely, if we could replicate you a thousand times, all sentient beings would be saved.  With mahametta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddha Nature on Template_talk:Buddhism
Hi Bodhisattva Tony,

I was wondering if you might mind if, in the current thread regarding Buddha Nature inclusion, we cut your "16:35, 2 May 2007" entry in half, just before the words "One more point" and then inserted a section (or subsection) title to something like "Including Buddha Nature?" My reasoning is that some people who might be interested in this topic are not seeing it in the Edit Summaries since the current section title has to do with "Schools vs. Branches...." Just a thought.

Another suggestion, if I may: Depending your interest in the matter, if, after some time, additional responses appear to be few in number, it might be worth putting a two or three sentence request for comment on the talk pages of some WikiProject_Buddhism or Category:WikiProject_Buddhism_members &mdash; as I did with you, Sacca, Nat and Rudy regarding the Nichiren issue. (FWIW, I hand picked you four because of your all's obvious intellect, regular participation on the pages in question, collective representation of a broad spectrum of Buddhist knowledge and, for me something critical when addressing a newbie's well-intentioned-but-seemingly-misguided edit, consistent exhibition of kind intentions during discourse.)

Thanks again for your excellent contributions and unsurpassed collaborative efforts, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:MahayanaBuddhism
A lotus for you.

Is this okay for a first mock up? I intuited that a lotus image might be a good symbol, but, if not, it can change ... all of it can change - the image, the colors, the organization, the content (yes, definitely the content!)....

FWIW, the content is largely based on a gloss of Mahayana but I realize my selection of terms is at times haphazard. Also, more categories are beckoning -- how could there be a Mahayana template without mention of Avalokiteshvara?

Let me know your list of changes and then just add patience. Many blessings to you, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dearest Tony, per your e-mail, I've:
 * added Eternal Buddha to the Doctrine section
 * added Lankavatara Sutra to the Scriptures section
 * FWIW, if I may be straightforward, there's no reason for your to provide reasons for the changes &mdash; I trust your scholarship and know my own deep ignorance on this topic, so I wish simply to implement the template you have in mind.
 * Relatedly, of course, feel free to simply say, "I hate the green" or "change 'Scripture' to 'Text'" or "move Buddha Nature on top" or "text needs more contrast" or "nix Bodhidharma and Nagarjuna." Since this is a prototype it is way easier to make changes you desire now before other editors get involved.
 * Once you feel this template is good enough, we could proceed in at least one of two ways:
 * We could simply cut-and-paste it to a page named something like Template:MahayanaBuddhism and then transclude the template in any WP pages that you feel would be appropriate; or,
 * We could cut-and-paste it to Talk:Mahayana to advertize its existence and solicit input from other editors (after which we could hopefully proceed to step 1).
 * Your thoughts, my hands, this template :-)
 * Thanks for all your thoughtful, generous and excellent work. May you be safe, healthy, happy and at ease. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Second prototype

 * Excellent ideas! I'm going to implement them in two parts: (1) I'll make the simple content changes you requested; and, (2) for comparison sake, I'll make a new version of the prototype (to the left) trying to use the colors you suggested.  (It would likely be of most benefit to try out new color schemes iteratively &mdash; I appreciative your patience, indulgence and collaborative spirit!)
 * I am grateful for your extreme consideration in regards to this effort but, in truth, I enjoy doing the Josef Albers thing on occasion and the thought that it might be useful and give you and others spiritual knowledge and personal contentment deepens the joy greatly. So, honestly, thank you for giving me this opportunity through the sharing of your invaluable  expertise, serious interest and supportive guidance.  I bow deeply to you.
 * Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a preference between these two prototypes' color schemes at this time? Perhaps there are aspects of each you'd like to keep or ditch?  Frankly, I haven't had a chance to compare -- I'll do so later today or tomorrow.  Forgive my hurried speech -- work whistle blows!  Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your vote's good enough for me! (One talk page, one vote!)  Following up on your suggestion, I stuck the gold-and-yellow prototype out on Template_talk:Buddhism for feedback.  (Feel free to edit what I wrote there regarding the template and/or qualify anything I said.)  Hope you don't feel my leap forward was premature or unilateral in any way.  Hope you're happy with the continued evolution.  Thanks again. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
Hello Tony, just to give you some feedback on your comment. you said I think that "Hinayana" is too historically important a term for us to delete it from this section.

You are right that it is an historically important term in Mahayana, but the list is about current living schools, not about what Mahayana called the dead schools.

You seem very happy when Larry helps you out with a Mahayan template, and I also helped making that template so maybe I have made you a bit happy too? Why not start and return a little favor and refrain from using these denigrating words, at least in those places where they are not applicable? In this instance you can't hide the insult behind a NPOV label, Greetings, Sacca 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism
Hello Tony, just to say that I don't think it's necessary to mention the sentence "completely rejected by Theravada", I would think that's obvious already. It would make the sentence a bit shorter and less complicated to read.Greetings, Sacca 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Tony. You too! Victor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klimov (talk • contribs) 11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Template:MahayanaBuddhism
Thanks to you too. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Papayana AfD
Hi Tony, you're very much welcome -- I'm glad I could be of assistance.

I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to contact me -- I appreciate it. If you have any questions or ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Oh, and I just had a chance to take a look at your very impressive list of contributions: keep up the outstanding work. Hope you have a great Sunday! Cheers, -- Seed 2.0 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer from the Dalai Lama people...
Hi, I had an interesting discussion with Mike that ended rather abruptly, and so I decided to check his contributions... And well, the quotation is certainly false, see this, and a there is a web archive copy of the official response. --Merzul 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you kind reply. The reason I posted here was because I did realize it might be a sensitive issue and it shouldn't be hurried. You now have some additional links, and hopefully they will put back the official statement on their official website. Best wishes, Merzul 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I noticed you now changed your reply slightly :) Well, I leave it up to you to decide if you feel it should be removed now or after you receive their reply. In any case, I hope they will put back the statement, as they probably thought the rumour was dead. Thanks for alerting them about the issue, Merzul 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for looking into it. Best wishes, Merzul 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See also section
The see also section is not supposed to include links already included in the article. Optimally, see also entries should eventually get integrated into the text of the article and eliminated. Just so you know. Cundi 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Skandhas and the tathagatagarbha sutras
Hi Tony! How are you doing? I hope you are well. I was wondering if I could ask you about your most recent edit to the Skandha article. First, the material you added is very interesting and I am grateful to you for expanding my consciousness about this aspect of Buddhism. It's definitely something I look forward to learning more about. The OCD part of my brain is wondering though if the new material could be better integrated into the existing article's structure (though, I know, the structure might not be evident). Currently, the introductory material (in accord with WP standards, I think) summarizes material within the article's main text. In addition, the intro material attempts to do this in a relatively balanced manner; thus, for instance, there are 25 words regarding Theravada material and 21 words regarding Mahayana (i.e., Mahayana and Vajrayana) material. The new material you added though is about 44 words -- almost as long as the summary of all other Buddhist traditions combined. If I may suggest, I was wondering if the paragraph you added to the intro could be moved to its own subsection at the end of the existing "Mahayana perspectives" section, with its own subheading (e.g., "The ineffable skandhas"?) and then a few words could be added to the existing Mahayana intro paragraph to attempt to introduce this new material. Does this make sense? What do you think? Either way, thanks again for the excellent addition! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony - thanks so much for your kind and thoughtful words; and, I of course feel the same about you. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony - Good work! I like the additional sentence and I think I can begin to better grasp the concepts you wrote up given where you newly placed the paragraph. Thanks again.  Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinayana
Tony, hi, I haven't been too active lately. I see you've worked on Hinayana, though I admit I haven't gone over your changes much. My general opinion about that article is well-documented on Talk:Hinayana. I'd like to ask you to take a look at Hinayana/Article Sandbox. It's a controversial topic and I feel that statements one way or the other all need unambiguous documentation. For next steps to fill in the blank sections, my weakest points are canonical or classical commentary that use the term in an unambiguously nonpejorative sense. E.g. perhaps there are cites in Indian commentarial or canonical literature that regard hinayana as a skillful preliminary to the bodhisattva practice (as distinct from simply being deficient, or for people of inferior ability)? Likewise where if anywhere is/was theg-dman formally treated as "preliminary" (again, as distinct from the practice of people having lesser ability), and likewise for xiăoshèng in east Asia? What about the idea of these terms referring to a vehicle having lesser capacity to carry people, but still unequivocally able to carry the few all the way? Wonder if there is creedence to that. Comments? Suggestions? Regards,--munge 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kulayarāja Tantra
The Goddess of Serendipidy smiled upon me as I found my way to this Wiki-artice... Jim of left a recommendation on my blog:


 * Rabjam, Longchen (Longchenpa) (2000). You Are the Eyes of the World. (trans of kun byed rgyal po by Kennard Lipman & Merrill Peterson and with an introduction by Namkhai Norbu). Snow Lion Publications; Revised Edition. ISBN-10: 1559391405; ISBN-13: 978-1559391405

Searching for this text on the Internet (aka Indra's Net) I came across:The Annotated "Eyes of the World" which discusses the Grateful Dead song. Anyway, this is all a very circuitous way of asking you to please reference/cite the quotations you entered to this article when you have time.

Namaste in Agape

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel particularly akin and an abiding affinity with Jigme Lingpa and Tapihritsa. That said, Longchenpa and his iconography are simmering on the backburner of my mindstream. In time and when timely, I would appreciate your assistance in iterating and unifying language and correspondences betwixt and between: mindstream, anatman and God in Buddhism, etc.


 * Huzzah (vocalized as Torah)


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism and Intellectualism
Hi Tony - I thought I'd just check in with you regarding the quickly evolving discussion on Talk:Buddhism. I want to make sure you don't feel crowded out by myself and others, especially given that my original participation in the discussion was largely motivated by wanting to provide you with some support. If you don't have the time or interest to pursue this thread further, I understand of course. In which case, please just know I wish you good things, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are too kind....
Well deserved and long overdue. You constantly amaze me with your felicity and friendliness. Kudos & thanks once again! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism article reverts
Hi Tony, I am unhappy about the reverting going on with the Buddhism article and have made a start at dialoguing with Victor about this. Maybe you can check this on his and my talk pages. I don't really know what to do about this and we need dialogue to perhaps move things forwards. Please reflect on this and let me know your thoughts. I don't wish division to spoil the article even though there do appear to be some genuine differences of view. many thanks & kind regards Peter morrell 06:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tony, for your prompt reply. I have sent another message to Victor and hope he will respond on the Buddhism talk page. I actually think it is down to him to make a move as he must feel strongly if he keeps unilaterally reverting the page back. However, 'one is a lonely number' so maybe he feels unsupported, which is perhaps where we come in. I will think over what my concerns might be although I did enumerate a few to Victor in my second msg in a nudge and wink kind of way rather than stating them too overtly. I dearly wish that genuine consensus can emerge. kind regards Peter morrell 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. Actually [ glancing around, whispering] it seems that 'the other version' has merits too. It doesn't seem ok however, that we should condone behavior that seems different from friendly. Tashi delegs, Victor Klimov 11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)



Victor (Klimov 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Talk:Gautama_Buddha
Hi Tony - it appears that you recently added your name to a vote at Talk:Gautama_Buddha. If I may point out, the current discussion has expanded to explore different options below the vote (in particular, it includes exploring the option of renaming the current Buddha article, which the initial vote did not explore). If you are interested in the discussion (as I suspect you are), I ask that you look at the discussion beneath the vote and add your thoughts. I realize that your views are probably very different (probably logically "opposite") from my own on this matter but, as always, I would value your discourse and hope to find the best communal solution. I hope you're doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Tony. I always deeply appreciate your voice, mind and heart. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi dear Tony - just wanted to thank you for your early vote at Talk:Buddha! As always, your guidance and enthusiasm are greatly appreciated.  I hope you are doing great! --Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi dear Tony - I hope you are doing well. Knowing you, I know you are busy.  I hope you don't mind my intruding again.
 * The good news is that, due to the efforts of many (including of course yourself) the moves we've been discussing have occurred: Buddha is now Buddha (general), and Buddha (disambiguation) is now Buddha. The interesting, I think, news is that a number of seemingly unrelated people have raised an interesting concern about the suffix "(general)" that I did not anticipate before: the concern is that the "(general)" suffix might lead readers to think that Buddha (general) is about a military general. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel seriously persuaded by this concern.  And, due to this concern, the issue of a re-vote has come up at Talk:Buddha_(general).
 * While of course I welcome all discussion, I am concerned that if a re-vote were to take place that you (who along with Rudy and myself were the three who initally successfully voted for the title Buddha (general), and, please forgive my paltry memory, I believe you initially inspiredly suggested Buddha (general) ) might somehow feel cheated or disempowered since our initial votes and voices would be in effect discounted by a re-vote. I'd hate for you to feel anything like this.  So, I was wondering, do you have any perspectives on this new concern and, regardless, would you be willing – if I may be direct – to give a re-vote your "blessing"?
 * Perhaps I've already wasted too much of your time with my hand-wringing. If so, I apologize.  Any new thoughts you might have on this matter would be welcomed though, of course.
 * I hope you are doing great! Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Larry and I gathered many more facts on talk:Buddha (general), and we feel it is time to vote again. Please take a look at the page and let us know what you think. &mdash; Sebastian 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Sutra
I am endeavouring to progress cited scholarship on the Nirvana Sutra page as per Wikipedia guidelines. Uncited information from the main page has been tranferred to the talk page. If you could please duly cite this information and transfer it back to the main page it would be most appreciated.

Blessings in the Mindstream

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddha-nature
Aloha. You added this quote from the Angulimaliya Sutra in 2006. Recently, an editor has requested a source citation. Would you be so kind as to provide one, or recommend a reference that I can add? Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Losar
TonyMPNS, Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?

Blessings in the mindstream

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism Article
The Buddhism article could really use your expertise. Please make an effort to help it. The editors on the article have been bickering and struggling with it for some time. I think it could benefit from the perspective of an expert such as yourself. LuisGomez111 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Sutra
I have raised the issue of "COI" in the article, Nirvana Sutra. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)