Jump to content

Talk:Shantideva

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

page says...

--- Contrary to Tibetan biographies written about him, Shantideva became a king in southeastern Bangladesh, which has been shown through archaeological discoveries that record him not only as the first in a line of "Deva" kings who recognized the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest Dharma (or truth).

I am confused. Are Tibetan biographies contrary to the idea of Shantideva recognizing the Bodhisattva ideal as truth? What does Tibetan biographies say that is contrary? This should be provided on page.

I don't claim to know too much about Shantideva history, not very concerned with it. I came here to learn more, and was confused by the statement about being "contrary to Tibetan". What are these discoveries, what do they show that is contrary? All this needs to be made more clear or just taken off, as it is it does not seem to be that informative.

Thank you for you time, and all the best.

Clavio

Contrary... Bangladeshi King

[edit]

I deleted this para, because it's the first time heard it, and there's no citation or anything. And I've just been through the newbie's guide to NPOV (heavy going), and I think it's inappropriate to be saying "contrary to X's view", without saying what X's view is. ---MrDemeanour 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "contrary to Tibetan..." is in reference to the Tibetan claim that Acharya Shantideva declined to succeed his father as a ruler, when he actually predates the establishment of the Deva dynasty (beginning with the Shantideva associated with Nalanda University) --- in other words one shouldn't put the cart infront of the horse, no sooner than a tradition withstands historical fact.

Dharmakara (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link to Shantideva.net hast nothing to do with Shantideva himself nor with Tibetan Buddhism either. His webmaster, aka himself Shan Chien Da Shi, lives in Spain and has been tagged as a pretender a year ago. Five years ago he started to prey, calling himself then Thera Karavika.

Shantideva.net offers information from the Shantideva Project _a charity orphan based, as if it was part of the NGO in question, although it's a way to promote a monastery in the U.S. devoted to Shan Jian himself.

I practice Buddhism and live in Spain, and also have relations with american buddhists, and there is no link at all of this website with any other order neither with the Ecumenical Buddhism. The called "avaivartika" order simply doesn't exist.

Please remove the site. I usually contribute in the spanish Wikipedia and don't dare to do it myself until anybody check my information. Erein

I followed the link, and it makes a lot of fuss about the supposed bengali origins of Shantideva, and the claim that the author of the Bodhicharyavatara wasn't the Shantideva from Nalanda. I can't verify these claims, and they certainly don't belong in the article; but it's wrong to say that the linked site has nothing to do with Shantideva. The track-record of the webmaster, it seems to me, is his own business.

I don't see any harm in the link, which is, after all, an external link. Accordingly I've left it in-place. MrDemeanour 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links re-added.

on September 29, 2009 07:05 158.18.197.40.

I added the link back to the main page. Just because something is controversial, shouldn't be the reason to remove material.

It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.

I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not--Torin93 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Torin93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torin93 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) --Torin93 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately, there are several erroneous statements attributed to Erein, some of which appear contrary to the posted guidelines of this page.

First of all, Shan-jian Da-shi is not the webmaster of Shantideva Online and never has been... that responsibility has been my own from the very beginning.

As for Shan-jian (aka There Karavika), he was originally ordained within the Theravada tradition and studied under the tutilige of Nyanaponika Mahathera, as well as Nyanatiloka Mahathera. After 17 years as a Thera, he moved from Sri Lanka to China and later received a second ordination by Qiongzhang in Beijing during the time of the cultural revolution.

Finally, as for the Avaivartika Order, it is directly associated with the Buddhist Brotherhood Assembly of Bangladesh, a non-sectarian associate body of the World Peace Prayer Society (WPPS), a recognized NGO of the United Nations.

Dharmakara (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]




External Links re-added.

on September 29, 2009 07:05 158.18.197.40.

I added the link back to the main page. Just because something is controversial, shouldn't be the reason to remove material.

It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.

I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torin93 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

On 13 March 2007 196.44.16.10 removed external links with the note "removed controversial external link".

I'm not sure that "controversial" is in and of itself a sufficient reason to delete external links. I'm going to archive them here in case we decide that they should be restored. -- Thanks Writtenonsand 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prasangika

[edit]

Why do we think he was a prasangika? That term was invented by the Tibetans 300 years later, so he certainly didn't describe himself in that way. I'm sure this claim is somewhat controversial. Anyone have some citations about that? -Owlmonkey (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite fair to say he was a "madhyamaka" but trying to pin him down between the later prasangika and svatantrika distinction is I would guess up for discussion. Most of his famous book for example are relative teachings about the path not on the dissolution of views. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old, old comment. But I would probably argue that he was a Prasangika as Tibetans understand the word. His ideas and approaches are far more in line with Buddhapalita/Candrakīrti than they are with Bhāvaviveka - while he certainly does not shy from rhetoric, he is certainly familiar with reductio arguments throughout his works.
I'm not saying that therefore he is a Prasangika. I would argue that almost all Indian Madhyamaka is 'Prasangika', though some contemporary (for Śāntideva) developments gave rise to Yogacarya-Madhyamaka, and Śāntideva was certainly not a part of that movement. So, from a Tibetan point of view (and in a descriptive manner only) one could argue that, as a student of (or inspired by) Candrakīrti and Buddhapalita, then Śāntideva could be classified as Prasangika.
Also, while Candrakīrti would not have called himself Prasangika, the term was invented to indicate Madhymaka views that are 'in accordance with Candrakīrti' - and in this sense, I believe that (if one has to put everyone into a basket) it is fair to suggest that Śāntideva was Prasankiga. (20040302 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

File:Shantideva.gif Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Shantideva.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shantideva.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shantideva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New translation (including Shantideva's commentary)

[edit]

The Training Anthology of Santideva: A Translation of the Siksa-samuccaya translated by Charles Goodman, 2016, Oxford University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shantideva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianisn

[edit]

"Shantideva was an advocate of utilitarianism" I think statements like this are a little out of context. What do you think? Cuginopiu (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianism was invented a good millenium after Shantideva's death. If he advocated Utilitarianism, then his advocacy must be on record; so cite please. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the source, which does not support the claim that Santideva advocated utilitarianism, a philosophy he had never heard of. Instead, the source refers to "similarities". So I deleted the claim.
It is argued in the source that Santideva's views were "utilitarian", because he advocated the relief of suffering for all beings. That is not Utilitarianism, which advocates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Santideva had no such wishy-washy views; the aim of a bodhisattva is to relieve all suffering (mainly by accelerating the enlightenment of all beings, i.e. by teaching). MrDemeanour (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Santideva was a Buddhist; he subscribed to the view that killing was forbidden (or rather, "unskillful"). Utilitarianism argues for the greatest good for the greatest number, a position that allows killing for the greater good of society. That is a direct contradiction between utilitarianism and Santideva's (mainstream Mahayana) view (Santideva would actually have acknowledged that killing was permissible, but that the killer still had to bear the karmic consequences of killing).
Santideva urges people to consider that in future lives they may be reborn as disadvantaged beings, and that they should adapt their views and actions to take that into account. This is a mainstream Mahayana practice, it wasn't invented by Santideva. In that respect, he was foreshadowing the arguments of John Rawls, in "A Theory of Justice". Rawls was not a utilitarian; his arguments were an attack on utilitarianism.
So you could argue that Santideva was a liberal, I suppose. But IMO that would be equally wrong. Santideva's arguments were not meant to describe a sensible way of organising society; they were instrumental. The practices were intended to bring the practitioner closer to bodhisattvahood and enlightenment, not to fix the world. Santideva believed in a samsara that couldn't be fixed, and had to be escaped from. Political postures such as utilitarianism and liberalism are purportedly ways to "fix" samsara, and are far from Santideva's position.
I'm not going to edit this article again for a while, because I don't edit-war, and I can't be bothered dealing with editors with a bee in their bonnet. This article is not a suitable platform for arguments about modern, western political philosophy (yes, Mill is classed as a "modern" philosopher). I'll again try to improve the article once it's clear to me that the bee-in-a-bonnet brigade have moved on.

MrDemeanour (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Identity and free will

[edit]

There is a lot about this section which was erroneous, and somewhat misleading. No Buddhism - certainly neither Buddha nor Śāntideva – suggested that self is an illusion. Śāntideva was a Madhyamaka and the definition of anatman must be understood from such a position in this context. As to whether or not Buddha originally taught anatman in the same mode as Nagarjuna - certainly there is no consensus.

Moreover the basic object of negation (what it is that anatman refutes) is not merely 'illusory' - it's recognised in Buddhism as being the root cause of all suffering, a direct cause of clinging and aversion - basically it's toxic. And none of this is specific to Śāntideva. It's Buddhism 101: The second noble truth.

Meanwhile Goodman's idea that Śāntideva talks about 'free will' (as, I guess, is understood in western philosophy - as free will isn't a topic in traditional Buddhism), is very confused IMO. Sure, Goodman got a book published - but 'free will' discussions depend upon western ideas about the nature of self and identity which do not bode well as a hermeneutic backdrop for understanding Śāntideva. One may as well suggest that Heisenberg is referring to free will in his discussions on uncertainty. I'm sure that some people would like to say that too. Similar to Heisenberg, one might indeed find some interesting ideas from Pratītyasamutpāda that entail challenges to naive approaches to free will - but I would argue that this is much more like "free will" philosophers being informed by (or provoked by) such texts, rather than the texts talking about free will.

My amends are at least more or less concordant - however, I'm not convinced by the section at all. (20040302 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shantideva&oldid=1206427697"