About Me English, male, born 1983. I'm personally devoted to presectarian, early Buddhism, used to be a monk (then, Bhikkhu Santi) in the Thai Theravada forest tradition (Wat Pah Nanachat and branches) for six years, and left basically because I felt so alienated in modern(ist) Theravada tradition.

I'm not technically 'fluent' in Pali but I can muddle by fairly comfortably, likewise I muddle by even less perfectly in BH Sanskrit and Sanskrit, and did a basic Sanskrit grammar unit in Uni. I no longer plan on learning classical Chinese and Tibetan, altho I once aspired to and might go back to it.

I enjoy the suttas/ sutras most, but specialise in comparative early Vinaya studies because I feel responsible for it since hardly anyone else does it!

I'm sympathetic to later schools and their members, altho my sympathy struggles to extend to Theravadin Fundamentalists (i.e., those opposed in principle to historical criticism of the tradition), Traditionalists (those who attribute authority of a kind which is illegitmate according to the early texts to later developments in the tradition which are not, by reasonable probability, Buddhavacana or Savakavacana explicitly endorsed by the Buddha), Commentarialists (those who give undue authority to the traditional Commentaries, which they never claimed for themselves) and Abhidhammikas (those who treat the traditional Abhidhamma texts as if they were authoritative Buddhavacana, when in fact they are later developments by savakas) because of all the grief I've had from them! I have lots of friends in Chinese Mahayana tradition, and am more than sympathetic to early Madhyamaka teachings.

I'm going to be starting academic Buddhist studies with a BA at Bristol University, UK, in Oct 08, and hoping to continue to make a career in academia teaching and researching. Hopefully in the last stage of my life I can return to the Sangha, if my wife (hopefully by then!) gives permission!

As well as Buddhism, I'm also very interested in politics, sociology and philosophy of science, although I don't know enough to contribute to wikipedia on those topics.

Hello, Kester ratcliff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Levine2112 Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kalupahana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you still around? Per Wikipedia's general policies/guidelines on how we should name articles about people -- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) --, we'll probably be re-naming Kalupahana to David J. Kalupahana. This is not in any way a criticism or attack, and Kalupahana will still automatically re-direct to the article under the new title.
Also, if think that you might be working on Buddhism-related articles and you want to stay in touch with what others are doing, you can join WikiProject Buddhism.
Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take part in those discussions, & I'm doubtful of the conclusion. The last I looked,PSB was very biased & inaccurate. The template can wait till we've balanced the main Buddhism article,tho'.

I'mpuzzled by your remarks on admins. As far as I can tell from the policy pages, they have no authoritty over content disputes, except deletions. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kester, I was arguing that the page on pre-sectarian buddhism was very relevant, distinct and important, Peter tried to delete it. The majority was not on his side - he was the only one working for their deletion, but I must commend him for his effort - he really did try... The rest was quite supportive. Thanks to you too, for your support! And don't hesitate to supply any good and relevant info, backed by quotations of course. Greetings, Sacca 13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ethics in small scale societies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article makes no attempt to verify notability of the subject

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. role^player 19:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ethics in small scale societies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Christopher Kraus (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a Pali scholar recently returned (to the U.K.) from over five years in Asia --and, indeed, I've passed through Wat Pa Nanachat in Thailand, though I spent far more time in Laos proper.

I'm quite surprised to read that you are "fluent in Pali"* --certainly, I never met anyone at Nanachat who had the lowest degree of reading comprehension in Pali, and I did ask them to introduce me to anyone with any interest in studying the language (past or present). Perhaps you'll take a look at my website that discusses some technical issues in the Pali traditions of mainland Southeast Asia: www.pali.pratyeka.org

• N.B. The version of the introductory text responded to described Kester Ratcliff as "completely fluent in Pali" at that time; after discussion, the author [K.R.] voluntarily revised his own text to instead suggest that he can "muddle by".

Perhaps, also, you should reconsider describing yourself as "fluent" in a dead language: unless you compose original prose or verse in Pali, it would neither be apt nor fair to describe yourself in these terms. I am now at Cambridge, and have met with some of the most careful and respected scholars in the field --none of them describe themselves as "fluent in Pali". Indeed, most Pali scholars take several years to read a single book/treatise in the language --and I wonder if you do not instead mean, "I can chant Pali in a thick Thai accent without difficulty" rather than "I have fluency in speaking and reading comprehension".

In any case, I would be interested to hear about the "scene" at Bristol, as I've lately been making something of a survey of the state of Buddhist Studies at both Cambridge and Oxford, after many years in Asia, as aforementioned.

You will see my name on my own website, and my e-mail address is to be found at the bottom if you look carefully (http://www.pali.pratyeka.org/#Mazard). I have one translation project listed on the PTS website (under "current projects") and I'm carrying out other research and publications, too --some sense of which you may get from putting my name into google.

Regards, E.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.159.169 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. for others looking here later maybe -we had a long boring argument about what constitutes 'fluent' -I gave up because I found Peter the most pretentious pedantic pompous person I think I have ever contacted, and now say 'fairly functional' -I don't remember ever saying 'completely' fluent, just flowingly able to use Pali in the contexts I was using it -not academia, and virtually nobody converses in Pali nowadays so that's not relevant. I don't have a "thick Thai accent" -that is just intentionally offensive, actually I have a very carefully non-Thai accent for Pali, as exactly as possible as its described in Warder and more careful about pronunciation than my Sanskrit tutor in Uni (only did 6 months). The commenter also has a preference for Burmese style Buddhism, so that explains some of his hostility for WPN on only a brief visit.

For others looking at this, here is where you said, and I quote, "I'm fluent in Pali". Weakopedia (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kester ratcliff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Kalupahana - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kester ratcliff. You have new messages at Coaster1983's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.