Talk:Śrāvaka

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in May 2012. Buddhism Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jainism Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

While I like nurturing articles that deal with positive common aspects of the so-called Dharmic religions (e.g., such as this one involving both Buddhism and Jainism, or others involving Buddhism and Hinduism), I like even more developing pan-Buddhist articles (e.g., those that discuss the variously evolving core notions across Buddhist schools, as was attempted more-or-less in the

Oppose. This looks like a good and needed article on a thorny subject. Though it would be improved by a treatment of the various ways Mahayana and Vajrayana denominations use the term sravaka. If I understand what you're suggesting, I suspect it's grafting a western idea of discipleship on a different culture. An article based on the English sense of the word disciple (overlapping with the meaning of sravaka) would have to include all sorts of relationships, even relationships among highly devoted persons who hypothesize the sravakayana yet disavow themselves from it. Even thornier, and I'm not sure it would be encyclopedic. Or worse, it could become an endless catalog of "so-and-so was a disciple of thus-and-such" and "this group of disciples has this many vows and that group has that many"; "these disciples fast after noon and that one doesn't"...Some article someday could cover the dharma teacher-student relationship. Not to be confused with the body of knowledge about what sravaka means. -munge 08:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey munge - thanks for the excellent feedback. While I still have some secondary reservations (for instance, that an article based primarily on the Pali texts and using primarily Pali words and phrases is entitled with a Sanskrit word), your overall point is persuasive enough for me to put off indefinitely making the aforementioned partial-move of content from here to "Disciple (Buddhism)". I'll post here & on your talk page if at some time in the future I'd like to re-open this issue. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritical marks seem to be quite randomly included or omitted in this article. Peter jackson 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be my doing. Sometimes I use a computer where I can see diacritical marks and sometimes not (especially when it comes to diacritical marks associated with consonants, such as retroflex and nasal characters); so, during the latter instances, I'm reluctant to use the special keys to insert diacritical marks if I can't verify them visually. Also, I often have to do my editing in 10 to 30 minute spurts; so, to save time, I'll often simpy leave the marks out. (I've found that some knowledgeable and nimble editors seem to enjoy inserting them so I figure this gives them a chance to do their thing, for which I'm grateful :-) ) And then there's the fact that I often get confused as to which letter gets which mark and I'm too lazy or harried to double check.

Given the above (questionable utilities, limited time, suspect knowledge, dilettante-ish habits), I guess I generally edit with the notion that a few diacritical marks are better than none; but, maybe I should change to a personal policy of: If I'm not gonna do them all, I shouldn't do any? What would you recommend? (Perhaps if I knew a quick way to convert any computer's browser [even if just Internet Explorer] so that it could readily display Pali diacriticals, I'd probably be more conscientious about 'em. Any suggestons?)

In short: mea culpa. My bad. Have at it! Gotta run :-)

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<font=4>OR, I guess the adult response is to say: I'll get on it. Which I will, as time allows, over the next couple of weeks.

Peter, one question: What would you advise regarding the word "Pali"/"Pāli"? I guess my initial feeling is that "Pali" is an English word and doesn't need diacriticals; but, I've seen other WP articles use the diacriticals ("Pāli"), so I thought (for the moment) I'd add them here except for in the phrase "Pali Canon" (or "Pali canon") or in published titles that lacks diacriticals. But I'm beginning to think I errored here. Could you give some educated guidance?

Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is a Sanskrit term. But many of the the terms in the body of the article are in Pali, including references to the article's subject.

I think the article should be marked with a "Sanskrit" language tag, and that at least references to the article subject should be converted to the Sanskrit form (I would prefer that all of the Pali terms be converted to Sanskrit, with a parenthetical Pali version, but that preference is just because I know the Sanskrit terms better).

I plan to return here in due course, and convert all uses of "sāvaka" to "Śrāvaka".

I strongly disapprove of partisan ethnic or sectarian editing, in any subject; I am only asking that the article be internally consistent. An alternative would be to change the article's subject to be the Pali term, but that is something I don't know how to do, without creating trouble for inbound links. And there would still be a need to Palify the Sanskrit terms that remain in the article body. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]