Dear D.C.,
Thank you for your consideration. I'm thinking of a short message as being
no longer than a page or two. The message you have posted so far are of
reasonable length. My suggestions are not meant to be taken as rules. It's
really left up to each individual members to follow as they see fit.
It's probably a good idea if you leave off introducing a new topic for a
couple of weeks. A new topic means a new subject-line and the best time is
when the list has been quiet for at least a couple of days.
I'll return to the topic of "pāḷi" after I've done some further work. I've
also been studying up on what the commentaries have to say about the word
"sutta" (e,g. Sv I 17f (6 interpretations) and its 2 ṭīkās).
Best wishes,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dc Wijeratna dcwijeratna@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: December 9, 2014 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] moderator's note
Volume Control Suggestions,
I have reviewed my contribution to the above issue. I feel I have nothing
more to contribute to any of the topics that are being discussed.. If a new
topic comes up that interests me I shall certainly contribute. I shall try
to keep my contribution to about 50 words. If I can make it in two
sentences that will be it.
I hope the actions mentioned above will in someway help to relieve your
burden.
D.C.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, 'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@...
[palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> I agree with Lance and Susanne. This is not the forum to be introducing
> the
> topic of the definition of Buddhism. The primary focus of this group is on
> anything to do with Pali, especially the language and the texts.
>
> It is apparent that there has been a flood of postings lately. It all
> started just over a month ago with DC's post on the English word Pali. I
> did
> a rough check on the numbers and found we're getting close to 200 since
> Nov.
> 6 which is unprecedented for this list which normally receives around
> 200-300 messages for the entire year. I have some suggestions on volume
> control.
>
> 1) no more than five group message per day.
> 2) keep to one topic at a time instead of having several threads happening
> at the same time.
> 3) not to introduce a new thread until after the current one seems to have
> died out or has been put on the back burner until later.
> 4) keep individual messages short and to the point as much as possible.
> This
> is because most of us are busy and don't have the time to read long
> messages.
>
> I hope these are reasonable suggestions and by all means contact me
> off-list
> if you disagree or have some other suggestion(s).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "'Susanne Ott' ottsusanne@... [palistudy]"
> <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
> To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: December 8, 2014 8:41 AM
> Subject: Aw: [palistudy] Definition of Buddhism
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear D.C.,
>
> There are many possible responses to your query.
>
> 1. Provide you with links to literature to read about the "What is
> Buddhism"
> debate(s). I would assume that this kind of debate began to blossom in the
> 19th century with Orientalist scholarship and the emerge of the subject
> "comparative religion" (Max Müller etc.). Many scholars have discussed
> about
> emic and etic (Pike) views of Buddhism. Maybe the discussion about
> introducing the term "Buddhist theology" would be an interesting reading
> for
> you, too.
>
> 2. My personal reaction to your question was a big big sigh (kind of "Oh
> no!
> Not again!"), and I appreciated Lance Cousin's answer. My view is also
> that
> this is outside the scope of this list. I have a lot of work to do, but I
> do
> not want to miss the mails of the palistudy yahoogroup; if there are too
> many mails it becomes a burden to read through all of them, and the only
> solution is to try to keep to the core topics around Pali language. I
> think
> there are other online networks where discussions and questions about more
> general aspects of Buddhism are appreciated.
>
> 3. As Jim said before, we have different ways of looking at things. Your
> epistemological approach could be categorized as positivistic, you believe
> in the possibility of using defined terms as in mathematics. I did my A
> levels in mechanical and electrical engineering and mathematics, I used to
> study 3 years of mathematics and physics at university (before "a year
> abroad" in Thailand made me change the direction of my study), my working
> surrounding for working on my dissertation about Pali-Thai translations of
> the Tipitaka is an institute and a campus full of particle physicists, so
> I
> know what you are talking about when you point to your
> professional/educational background. But I would never transfer the strict
> system of defining and deduction from mathematics to other areas of study.
> In the Wikipedia (English page, lemma "Ontology") you can read: "Ontology
> and language. Some philosophers suggest that the question of "What is?" is
> (at least in part) an issue of usage rather than a question about facts."
>
> There are many interesting fields of discussion, but please, I am quite
> desperate if the mails in the yahoogroup become too numerous...
>
> I apologize to everybody for this email of "meta discussion", and I would
> also suggest to continue the one or other discussion off the list, if
> possible.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Susanne
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Metta is being friendly to everybody