Talk:Bhavana

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

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.

I added some notes today in an attempt support some of these article's existing statements. I also did two things that I think are more questionable and that I want to thus identify here:

• I changed the phrase "teachings of the
  Buddhist
  teachings" because I was uncertain to what degree the identified compound terms were included in the Pali Canon or agamas, and thus which ones could – by even traditional standards – be attributed to the Buddha. Given the current wording, I think this is still a worthwhile change since, at least in the suttas thus far identified in the end notes, only the terms citta-bhavna and kaya-bhavana are mentioned in a sutta directly attributed to the Buddha (MN 36). My search for the identified terms was very restricted though (e.g., mostly done using www.bodhgayanews.net/pali.htm) so I am way open to being proved wrong (and, in fact, would appreciate the education).
• I added "citation needed" ({{cn}}) tags to samatha-bhavana and vipassana-bhavana because I could not readily find these terms in the canonical texts and, moreover, because I think Thanissaro might even suggest that such terms are post-canonical (e.g., see Thanissaro, 1997?). Please don't take my "citation-needed" tags as any form of rebuke; really, I'd simply like the additional information, if it exists, or a more accurate statement.

Thanks for any help! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, upon subsequent re-reading, I see the PED references the paracanonical Nettipakarana's (in particular, Nett 91) use of samatha-vipassana in the context of bhavana and thus cited that as a segue to the phrases samatha-bhavana and vipassana-bhavana. I'm hoping this might help the article though would still appreciate any earlier citations. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW²: I've found that MN 151 includes bhāvitā kho me samatho ca vipassanā cā, etc., so I'll update this page yet again shortly. (Still awaiting a canonical samatha-bhavana or vipassana-bhavana reference though ;-) ) - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. User: 24.225.75.12 has removed references to

The identified change was made by myself, using an anon ID (User:24.225.75.12), as I am wont to do ever since "retiring" when reverting vandalism and what appear to me to be thoughtless edits. I think it's a misrepresentation to say that I "removed references to Nyanatiloka." Instead, what I actually did was "undo" your edit. I undid your edit because your edit:

1. changed the accurate phrase, "has been generally translated as," with the curious assertion, "literally means" (there are multiple ways in which this Pali term has been translated into English, many of these translations can claim to be "literal"; to say that most authorities translate it one way or another is to make clear the basis for the current translation while allowing for the differently nuanced "literal" translation of other authorities)
2. removed references to both Rhys Davids and Stede's PTS Pali-English Dictionary [PED] as well as Monier-Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary [MWD] (this article's intro cites both Pali and Sanskrit; in addition, as I can only hope you are aware, the PED itself regularly references MWD; moreover, MWD provides contextualization in both Hindu and Buddhist texts; thus, as in several other WP articles, the MWD is in fact relevant and useful here)
3. broadened "the
   Buddhist
   teachings" (is the Pali/Sanskrit term "bhavana" found in Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures? I don't think so; so, in my mind, to claim pan-Buddhist applicability is, I believe, misleading to the average WP reader; and, an admittedly lesser but annoying concern, could open this article up to being retitled, "Development (Buddhism)" and then have material added by Theosophist and the like -- which, honestly, is a favorite thing for some newer WP editors to do)
4. changed "the development/cultivation of the mind/heart" to "development of mind" while leaving in all the referenced sources, including those that use the phrases "cultivation of the mind" or "development of the heart" (so, on the one hand, if I may be frank, this at least initially appeared to dishonestly indicate that more sources use the term "development of the mind" than actually do and, on the other hand, dismisses alternate, useful translations by scholars and authorities)
5. also changed the phrase "the development/cultivation of concentration" (which, originally was not in quotes) with your own "'development of tranquil-wisdom'" (which you put in quotes) and, again, left the existing citations (again, objectively speaking, appears to dishonestly associate your own personally favored terminology with that of actual scholars or authorities; in this case, the citation is of Thanissaro Bhikkhu who appears to never actually use the term "tranquil-wisdom")

Absolutely, positively, to your admirable credit, you had also included a citation or two to Nyanatiloka (with whom, if you check his WP article's history you'll see, I am certainly familiar). This is why, in the "Edit Summary" associated with my undoing of your prior edit, I had written: "reinserted authoritative refs & material associated with authoritative refs; feel free to *ADD* new sources; re-inserted quoted & specific material (e.g., Pali Canon) vs. generalities & idiosyncratic." In other words, feel free to add Nyanatiloka's material, but why delete Rhys Davids & Stedes as well as Monier-Williams information? Now, admittedly, perhaps ideally, it would have been wiser, more thoughtful and more compassionate if I had incorporated your Nyanatiloka reference into the existing material; but, in my estimation, there was so much that was problemmatic with your edit (as identified above) and, in addition, I had retired from WP precisely because I did not have time to go through this long negotiation and rehashing in a caring manner while hoping that the other editor is educated, honest and well read.

All this said, I'm not going to revert you a second time; nor will I attempt to create a synthesis of our combined intellectual contributions. I simply haven't the time. But I felt the need to respond to what I believe was a misrepresentation of my prior action. (And I didn't want folks throwing unnecessary egg shells at an anon ID's rarely checked talk page.) If possible, please forgive my late-night crankiness. I hope you know that, underneath it all, I wish you much happiness and perhaps sometime in the future we could collaborate more harmoniously. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since I float around WP irregularly now, if you truly would like to engage me, feel free to contact me at [email protected] . Thanks.

With this edit a reversion was made to wrong info, as far as I can see. Samadhi is concentration; "tranquil-wisdom" refers to vipassana. Same for absorbed concentration: that's not about "the present moment", but about fixation on an object. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhavana. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727231248/http://www.glennwallis.com/files/Bhavana_6-20-09.pdf to http://www.glennwallis.com/files/Bhavana_6-20-09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 12:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to recommend that Glenn Wallis' quote be removed or at at least made less prominent. His idea, that bhāvanā is closely related to the metaphor of agriculture, has no citation in his work, and Wallis claims no more basis than his own imagination. It's a nice bit of poetry, but it's misleading to pretend that it's a serious explanation of the word. Bhū is the most fertile root in Pali, and by the time of the Buddha its derivatives have long lost any concrete metaphorical associations.

Neither the Pali nor Sanskrit dictionaries list any such usage:

https://suttacentral.net/define/bh%C4%81van%C4%81

http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=bh%C4%81van%C4%81&lang=sans&action=Search

With such a common term, surely it is possible to quote an actual authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.186 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]