Talk:Basic goodness

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

what say buddha?[edit]

did the Buddha have a view on this? while i don't know, i'll write some notes here - will clean up later, and if fail to do that, well, you know what to do (i mean feel free to clean):

having read a Thai buddhist book on 'right mindfulness' i've had the impression that this is a part of buddhism indeed, and have hence assumed the Buddha himself had a view on this, but have not checked now from where actually that came. i dont have the book right now as i borrowed it to a friend, a friendly monk bought/gave it to me in the Wat Po bookshop while i bought other things myself :)

IIRC it basically is the idea that we all (can) have a healthy conscience, that we just must listen to.

m-w.com on conscience, i did not check what wikipedia itself says on it (yet, now was just spellchecking :)

1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego

i suppose one question is if there are really bad people, then - or are those "just" failures to listen to the good conscience in them.

213.216.199.18 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Toni Alatalo (http://an.org/t/)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This reads like a buddhist handbook. No outside perspective, or anything. Honestly. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed your tag, I restored it and also put in some technical specificity and restored the two external citations reworded as outside commentary. The article had accreted even more pamphlet-style language as well so I removed that and tried to reduce it to just the citable facts. But this page doesn't get a lot of attention (since it's been a year) so I'm not sure how much additional discussion we'll see. -Owlmonkey (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basic goodness. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]