Talk:Japamala

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

Untitled[edit]

To be added after checking meru Andries 23:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "history of the mala" section was actually an unsubstantiated story about how Christians got the idea for the rosary from India, so I removed it. If you have proof then put it back. I've heard Hindus claim that early popes came to India to get the idea of God becoming man, so we can't take all of these thing seriously. 71.198.169.9 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the mala is used in both Hindu and Buddhist practices, this article should not come under the Wiki Hinduism umbrella. To be balanced, this article should not be 'affiliated' with either the Hinduism or Buddhist umbrella. Links to both are included in the main article which is very clear as separate sections for both are included. --Ant108 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do it but the page "mala" does not point here. OldAndTired (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

108[edit]

While this is most common, there are other possible numbers depending on religion/sect--it doesn't have to be 108 as the article seems to suggest. I do not know enough about it, however, to edit the article and provide proper information, as in my particular sect of Buddhism, 108 is often used. If someone else who is more knowledgable wouldn't mind... --Somnilocus 03:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word 'often'. It says elsewhere in the article "In Tibetan Buddhism, larger malas are often used of, say, 111 beads". Chopper Dave 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Tibet, all malas are 108 beads, it cannot be another number whether the beads are large or small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.176.110 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need for sources[edit]

Currently the article is poorly sourced. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In order to improve the quality of this article I request that we raise the bar on content quality by ensuring that any additions to the article be done in a manner consistent with that policy. Buddhipriya 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to spam link section[edit]

I object to the restoration of the spam link section. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for general guidance on what should be considered for a link. These sites do not cite any reliable sources and push specific religous groups. They are inappropriate for this article. It is not "too harsh" to expect that policy on links be followed. Buddhipriya 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On articles such as this it just seems too much like 'nit-picking' to remove links because they are from specific religious groups. Who else is really all that interested in Japa for example, other than religious groups? If we give only cold, intellectual links (if they even exist in this context) then that's missing the whole point in my opinion. As long as enough links are given from a variety of sources, and they are not blatant spam, (i.e selling japa beads) then I really don't see the harm? The guidelines should not stop us from providing the reader with relevant information. Gouranga(UK) 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sites do not meet the tests for being WP:RS because they do not cite any reliable sources. Hence they cannot be used to source the article. Adding a link to a religious group is promotional spam. All such links should be removed. There could be dozens of such groups that wish to be listed, and some of the articles I have seen have been link farms for religious advertising. We must raise the bar on source quality and get this article referenced using [[[WP:RS]], not web sites of this type. Buddhipriya 09:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that prominent religious persons, and their viewpoints on Japa Mala are at least as reliable as any other source in this matter. For example, what is wrong with linking to a webpage which list Sivananda Swami's advice on Japa and Japa Mala? This is a useful link and it does not detract from the article. Nor is it being used as a reference. I agree we should avoid spam, but on articles of a religious nature religious websites seem highly appropriate as long as they are directly discussing the subject matter. Gouranga(UK) 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we decide which teachers are notable? If Swami X puts up a page somewhere, do we have to list it? Why are bead stores listed? (http://www.thebeadsite.com/BBRS-01.html) That site cites no reliable sources whatsover and makes no claims of religious notability. It is commercial linkspam. Buddhipriya 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That website appears to be an information site only, although it does contain links to other commercial sites. I'm not saying we should list every site under the sun, but neither do I see the need of removing sites which might be of interest and are relevant. If an article becomes a gigantic links directory, then yes, pick the better ones out and remove the others - but otherwise what's the harm in leaving them alone? We both know that Swami Sivananda is notable, and the article reads as relevant - as with the others. Why worry about it? Gouranga(UK) 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to worry about it is that source quality requires WP:RS, and sites that do not quote them are not usable as sources. Promoting commercial bead sites that have little or no information of value is linkspam. Promotion of religious groups via Wikipedia is objectionable advertising. Antyhing the EL section is subject to consensus. Since I am objecting to the links, we clearly have no consensus. Wikipedia is not a link farm. May I at least remove the bead store? Buddhipriya 05:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu prayer beads?[edit]

A thought, if the article Rosary is not given the title Christian prayer beads, or for that matter Misbaha as Islamic prayer beads, then this article also should be moved to its actual term japa mala. --Ekabhishektalk 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support moving to Japa mala, which is the common name anyways. First Light (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge of Similar Articles[edit]

We have three articles (this one, Buddhist Prayer Beads, and Buddha chitta mala on substantially the same topic. As this is the title that applies to Buddhist and Hindu malas, it seems like this is the logical place to consolidate things, particularly given that there is relatively little information on Hindu practice right now. There is a previous merge mentioned on the Talk:Buddhist prayer beads page, but there still seems to be two articles that are largely covering the same material. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three into Japamala: it is the name of the entry about beads in the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism,[1] and is also used in Hinduist traditions.[2] The three articles are about the same subject.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support all merged three to Japamala. I would then suggest a move/renaming of the article to Mala as Japamala is "mala used for japa (recitation of a mantra/prayer/etc)" and not all mala are intended for japa use. Waerloeg (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I considered moving them to Mala, but Mala is already quite crowded so it would need to be disambiguated as something like Mala (prayer beads) or some other appropriate title. Japamala has the advantage of being the title used in some of the relevant reference material as Farang Rak Tham points out, as well as solving the disambiguation issue. Some malas are used for counting prostrations, but I don't know of other uses that don't involve some kind of recitation, and that is the origin of their use in the Buddhist tradition according to the Agamas. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of any other use, though it would seem that they may be symbolic for many things:[1] in Thai traditions, wearing them often points to a Northern Thai Khruba lineage,(own observation) and in Pure Land, they are a symbol of the greatness of Amitabha and one's own inferiority compared to him:

"Through association with nembutsu-practice, a person’s rosary often comes to be a revered object; touching it may immediately start the recitation revolving in the mind, and bring on the associated mental states. ... After faith has arisen, any recitation is done solely as an expression of gratitude, often shown by merely wearing a rosary wrapped around the hand. This is also a reminder that ‘sinful humans’ are but a bundle of passions compared to Amitābha."[3]

It seems to me that the mālās may also be symbolic, but have not other use than a tool in counting recitations. So Japamala should suffice.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spasemunki notes just above that they are used to count prostrations which are themselves not recitations even though prostrations typically involve a short prayer or mantra. That use is noted in the Buddhist prayer beads lead section as is the practise of counting breaths.
I clicked the first five links on a websearch for how to use mala and four of them mentioned or described in detail how to use them for counting breaths, one calling it pranayama practise. Three of those sites mentioned that they are called japa mala or japamala but only one of those three used it in context. That single website used "japamala" just 2 times while "mala" appeared alone over 60 times. All five sites predominantly or exclusively used mala.
Having written that, let's pause this part of the discussion until someone formally proposes the move as its own topic at which time we can come up with (better) reasons for or against a move. Waerloeg (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waerloeg, a formal proposal is not required for a move, consensus is.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged the material from the two articles. Let me know if I missed anything- I did a little editing en route because of the amount of redundant or unreferenced material involved. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Buswell, Robert E. Jr.; Lopez, Donald S. Jr. (2013). "Japamālā" (PDF). Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15786-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 June 2018.
  2. ^ https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/eastern-religions/hinduism/mantra
  3. ^ Harvey, Peter (2013). An introduction to Buddhism: teachings, history and practices (PDF) (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 255–256. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4.

Serial comma[edit]

[(transcluded from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rui_Gabriel_Correia#Serial_comma)]
  • "You are changing the meaning. If you don't understand, take it to the discussion page." The serial comma in the list "in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism" does not alter the meaning of the sentence, it does not introduce any ambiguity, and is not a grammatical error. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear about using a single style consistently throughout an article in regards to citations, spelling, and punctuation. The serial comma was used consistently before your edit, so please change it back. Scyrme (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Scyrme. The idea was to do this on the discussion page of the article so it would be recoreded as reference for future queries on this. You say the comma does not introduce ambiguity, then cherrypick from the guide, citing the principle of consistency, whereas just as importantly, the guide has clear examples to illustrate ambiguity. In the segment "Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism", the comma is excluding Buddhism from the series, just as in "My friend likes tropical fruit such as bananas, pineapples, guavas, and peaches", peaches is excluded from the series of tropical fruit by the comma. If you remove the commma, then it implies that peaches are tropical fruit; you add the comma and you separate it into two units — My friend likes tropical fruit (such as bananas, pineapples, guavas) [unit 1] and peaches [unit 2]. So in effect, in the case at hand, the comma results in Indian religions (such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism) [unit 1] and Buddhism [unit 2], which excludes Buddhism from the series of Indian religions. Namaste, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this issue will be raised again on that article, so it seems more appropriate to settle it here; however, if you want me to move the discussion there I will do so.
I don't see how my linking a relevant section of the guidelines on punctuation is cherrypicking given the page doesn't say anything which would support your case. Cherrypicking would imply there is something in the guidance that actually affirms your case but which I left out, but that is not the case. In-fact, further down in a section I did not directly link, the page explicitly states that the "Oxford comma" should be used consistently throughout the article if it is used.
The guide page I linked does not contain any examples of ambiguity - it does not mention ambiguity at all; however, an example of the serial comma creating ambiguity is listed on the main article (which is not part of the guidelines). Specifically, this example illustrates that the serial comma may be mistaken for an an appositive phrase. That is the only such example listed and it does not apply here; no-one fluent in English would mistake the list "Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism" for an appositive phrase.
The same article lists numerous reputable style guides that recommend or even mandate the use of the serial comma, but also lists many that recommend against it. Even those that recommend against it mandate it when not using it would create ambiguity. The guides that recommend against it only do so because they think it's redundant, not because they think it alters the meaning. Wikipedia's style guide does not recommend anything either way, it only mandates consistency.
The argument you have made is not listed in the article or guidelines, and is frankly bizarre. That's not how "and" works in the English language. If it were then no style guide would recommend using the serial comma to resolve ambiguity and Wikipedia would recommend deleting it rather than using it consistently. The word "and" does not exclude the final entry in a list from said list, and I honestly don't know where you got the idea that it does. Scyrme (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So... do you mind if I put the comma back? Or is this now settled? Scyrme (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said what I had to say. If you don't agree, do whatever you want; which I am sure you will anyway. I am done here, there are a mllion other things to do here and in life. Please keep the discussion here. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japamala&oldid=1210498003"