School of Non-killing studies (Nk-s) is excellent, though non-traditional academically... I would like it moreso: what if I make an ecumenical Philosophy school (or dept, topic, ...) focused on ahimsa (  )? I would first make it interdisciplinary between NK-S, Philosophy/science/mathematics & comparative religion, maybe relosophy if they give reference or more explanation.) I know not what to call the page; many appropriate terms exist to combine in it: suggestions?
BTW, 'ahimsa' has been an English term outside of comparative Philosophy since at least the middle 20th century--ahimsa (or a derivation)is a succint term your could use to name your school, or we could redirect 'Ahimsa studies.' If it is acceptable, then a page I make as discussed would link A-S to NK-S: I would expect readers to be either (somewhat) comparative Philosophers or interested in their multicultural views & terminology keeping grammar developing/improving.--Dchmelik 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly open to any possibilities... Nonkilling does not exclude concepts as peace, nonviolence or ahimsa but rather provides a new approach. This nonkilling approach is characterized by the measurability of its goals and the open-ended nature of its realization. While the usage of terms as "nonviolence", "peace" or even "ahimsa" in many occasions follows the classical form of argument through abstract ideas leading to passivity, killing (and its opposite, nonkilling) can be quantified and related to specific causes, following a clinical perspective (prevention, intervention and post-traumatic transformation toward the progressive eradication of killing). That's the basic proposal of the new approach. --Cgnk 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Was it important to this school that 'non-killing' is translated from Sanskrit? I have only ever heard 'ahimsa' translated that way, though usually with explanation it is more. I used spokensanskrit.de and google and did not find Sanskrit for 'non-killing.' Perhaps it exists; if so I would like to know. I know nothing about the clinical perspective you mention, but surely all sorts of negativity have opposites and most are best avoided. (I do not think that necessarily leads to passivity: take a look at the Bhagavad-Gita or Shaolin arts for example.) That is why to me, harmlessness may be broader than non-killing, but hopefully the quantification and clinical approach can be explained. Ahimsa and non-killing are almost synonyms enough for me, though one may need to redefine 'killing' and say what harm really is. I will leave the redirect up to you/anyone, or if I make the page I described maybe I will make the redirect.--Dchmelik 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
School v. book
The material posted is really a single wikibook, taken from a single book-like source; shouldn't it be moved there and referenced from course-like or project-like material here? –SJ+> 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, makes sense, like much of what Sj writes. We would need User:Someone to do the work. He's on extended wikibreak. Indeed, so far, he hasn't registered an account. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:Somebody else has registered, but doesn't seem to be doing much. At least not under that name....
- Many of the pages are copied from material published elsewhere. I'll be looking at that. I may be blanking much of this, replacing it with links to the other publications. The user who created this set of resources was User:Cgnk, apparently named after the Center for Global Nonkilling. Still active on en.wiki. Interesting.
- Actually, what I've been doing today is moving the resources into a single structure, which could easily be exported to Wikibooks. These pages were scattered, following the flat alphabetical structure most wikis adopted, which is only useful for lookup when you know the name. Most of them started with "Nonkilling," but not all. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I am developing a Dignity course which may fit well here. If you like it, perhaps you can add it to the curriculum. (I hesitated to do this myself because I did not want to disturb the existing structure.) (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbeaumont (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2011)
The wikitext for this page is borked. The link to Wikisource comes up empty. I'll handle this stuff later, if someone else doesn't get to it before me. Beware: "Later" might mean never. But hopefully, soon. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)