Talk:Buddhism and Gnosticism

"All the scholars in the world"

"Scholars now unanimously consider Notovitch's book as a hoax." This sentence is untrue by the nature of the statement. I'm sure some do, many in fact, but unless that statement is clarified, it doesn't belong in the article as written. - SudoGhost 17:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

About scholars unanimously finding it a hoax, these are not my words, but Ehrman's:

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). "8. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions". Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub Edition. ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. pp. 282–283. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

So, it satisfies WP:VER and WP:SOURCES, therefore it should be included in the article. See also WP:VNT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. An e-book author's opinion (no matter how researched and educated) doesn't hold enough weight to give voice to every scholar on the planet. Unless the sentence is clarified, it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And as for the WP:VNT, there is no way to verify that every scholar alive considers it a hoax. The only thing your source verifies is that Bart Ehrman is of the opinion that no scholar believes it, nothing more. There is no way to fulfill the WP:BURDEN of adding the information as added. - SudoGhost 17:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, however, this is not to say I believe it has one shred of truth to it, or is even marginally likely to be true, but we cannot put words in the mouths of every scholar just because something is obvious. There may be a scholar or a group of scholars that, for some reason, believe the account, and we cannot know for sure that such scholars do not exist. This is the only reason why I am opposed to the information as written being inserted into the article. - SudoGhost 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost "scholar" does not mean "anyone." The definition of the word "scholar" is usually taken per WP:RS and other Wikipedia to mean a professional "scholar", i.e. someone whose profession is scholarship, someone like the source you've deleted. Also common sense dictates that if anyone took Nicolas Notovitch seriously he wouldn't be a "scholar" since his academic tenure would be terminated. Unless there's there UNIVERSITY OF WP:FRINGE out there somewhere printing degrees. Source restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the word unanimously is the problem, we could replace it with "scholars consensually consider Notovitch's book as a hoax." However, unanimity renders more accurately Ehrman's saying (since he simply cannot believe that a serious scholar would think that Notovitch's book has historical ground). Alternately, we could render it as "According to Bart Ehrman, scholars unanimously consider Notovitch's book as a hoax." This way, it is clear who is making such value judgment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, you cannot speak for every scholar in the world, nor can you decide what makes a scholar. "Common sense" dictates many things that do not hold true, and we cannot state things as being universally true when such things cannot possibly be determined. "Every X believes Y" is only true if X is what defines Y. Unless you can provide a source that says that anyone that believes this information would no longer be a scholar, you cannot make such assertions. Your opinions about what "should be" do not matter, and it is impossible to have a source verify such a statement, so it is thus impossible to have that information in the article, no matter how true it is.

Tgeorgescu if the wording was changed, I wouldn't have an issue with it, as long as it was something that can be verified. "Most scholars consider..." or perhaps "The scholarly community considers..." would be a better wording, I just take a great issue with inserting something into the article that cannot be proven to be true. - SudoGhost 19:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the words, now it is clear that it is Ehrman's opinion and that he thinks this would be the consensus. As explained in core Wikipedia pages, scientific consensus does not mean unanimity. So, I make allowance for the logical possibility that there is a recognized scholar who does not consider Notovitch's book as a hoax. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, did you read what Ehrmann actually said before making the 2ndRR of the 3RR you made?

(cur | prev) 17:17, 8 September 2011 SudoGhost (talk | contribs) (12,633 bytes) (Anyone who doesn't isn't a scholar? Unless there's a source showing that every scholar in the world agrees (which is impossible), this is untrue. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN discuss instead of reverting.) (undo)

If you'd have read the actual source there should have been no need for 3x deletion. You could also have persisted with discussion here to reach the above modification without 3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, your assertion that I somehow violated 3RR is an accusation about my personal behavior that lacks evidence, as I did not violate 3RR, and is a personal attack. See my talk page. As for your other assertions, I did read the material, as shown above. The source does not show that every scholar in the world considers it false, it shows that that author is of the opinion that every scholar in the world considers it false, which doesn't make it true. But instead of addressing the substance of my explanation, you somehow accuse me of violating 3RR and ignore the fact that I already addressed your comments above.

SudoGhost

We probably all have better things to do than this. I dropped in because I saw an intelligent sourced edit by another editor deleted with, in my view, a not super-helpful edit summary, that's all. As for 3RR well it's possible that my simplistic 3 deletes = 3RR understanding is flawed, looking at your own nomination of an IP earlier today for example, but it's not as if I intend to make a report, so it doesn't make any difference.

And now we have the text in anyway. All good. Have a good day. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, that's perfect, thank you. - SudoGhost 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Proceed with merge

This seems like an appropriate juncture to proceed with Talk:Buddhism_and_Christianity#Merger_proposal. If Elaine Pagel's suggestion justifies a paragraph there? As for Notovitch that could be merged to Notovitch's own page, it has nothing to do with Gnosticism. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge has been proposed since July In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The merge suggestion was over a year ago now, removed flag. In general Gnosticism does not represent Christianity by any measure. The Gnostics were generally kicked by Christians at large, called herettics, etc. not embraced at all. There is Jesus in Little Tibet, however, which can merge into here. This is far too long (a good deal of stretched semi-WP:OR as well) to merge into Buddhism and Christianity and does not represent Christianity anyway - it would be the tail wagging that article, which needs help itself. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've removed a lot of undue text from this article. Personally I'm quite convinced that Gnosticism was influenced by Buddhism, but a single suggestion by Conze, in an article that's unaccessible, is no justification to throw together so much original research. We don't even know what influence Conze suggested: from Buddhism on Gbosticism, or from Gnosticism on Buddhism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources:

• GIOVANNI VERARDI, The Buddhists, the Gnostics and the Antinomistic Society, or the Arabian Sea in the First-Second Century AD; argues that there was contact between Gnostic and Buddhist thought via merchants and the trade routes.
• Zacharias P. Thundy (1993), Buddha and Christ: Nativity Stories and Indian Traditions, BRILL; gives an overview of similarities.
• Stephan A Hoeller (2012), Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing, Quest Books, p.180; gives an overview of similarities.
• William M. Johnston, Encyclopedia of Monasticism: A-L, p.536, arguing for similarities between Gnostic cosmology and certain (anti-Brahmanic) teachings in Buddhism.
• P. C. ALMOND (1987), Buddhism in the West: 300BC–AD400, Journal of Religious History.
• Stephen A. Kent (1980), Valentinian Gnosticism and Classical Sāṃkhya: A Thematic and Structural Comparison, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 241-259; notes similarities, but also notes that the development of both systems can be explained from local roots.
• Edward J.D Conze (1975), Buddhist prajñā and Greek sophia, Religion, Volume 5, Issue 2, Autumn 1975, Pages 160-167.
• Erik Seldeslachts (2007), Greece, the final frontier?—The westward spread of buddhism, in: The Spread of Buddhism, BRILL, pp 131-166.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)