Talk:Eastern epistemology

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions Banno 21:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This page needs some kind of introduction. What is meant by "eastern epistemology" in general? How is "eastern" defined?

I added a cleanup tag on the article, which seems to be a copy and paste of a academic paper. The article seems nice, but it needs some rewrite and reformatting to conform to standards.

Madmedea :I added a copypaste tag in relation to the above. If retained it could also do with being merged by someone with subject knowledge into Buddhist philosophy.

I've reverted to the version before the copypaste. It doesn't look like that version was copied from anywhere. Angela. 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is pretty horrific... it reads like a non-expert high school essay - it is mainly written in the first person and is full of personal opinions. As it stands, I see very little that is salvageable in this article (if anything at all). 86.135.77.30 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article violates copyright laws as it would appear it was copied from a paper by Douglas M. Burns, titled The Epistemology of Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.60.70 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire section on Buddhist Epistemology should certainly be rewritten. It contains numerous first-person pronouns and is certainly not written from a neutral point of view. RealityApologist (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.vgweb.org/bsq/bud_epis.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This Wayback Machine link confirms that the copying was from the external site into Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism

Although I'm not against a discussion of Abhidharma as a means of discussing Buddhist psychology and perception, following the Jain subsection this article seems to be more about theories of truth and existence than of knowledge and perception. Likewise, the Sutras are generally considered to have predated the Abhidharma. So, and being bold, I have replaced the Buddhism section with article text that I consider more relevant and resonant for the current article.

Of course I am willing to discuss this - but let's do so without knee-jerk reaction reverts. (20040302 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

Merged

I changed and edited most of this and then moved a pared down version to Epistemology#Indian_pramana. First, this whole article was a mess, no sources, and it was not really serving a purpose. Second, there is no reason why there should be a "eastern epistemology" article and the general epistemology article should be all about Western philosophy. If anything, the general epistemology article should include all possible philosophical traditions that have dealt with epistemological problems, and this includes the Indian tradition of pramana. Javierfv1212 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)