Talk:Iddhi
Add topicLatest comment: 24 days ago by ~2026-39744-42 in topic Poor Citation
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Requested move 29 May 2014
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Xoloz (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ṛddhi → Iddhi – Unusual spelling. Rarely used. Inconsistent with most scholarly use – --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC) – 180.177.130.143 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Ṛddhi" is Sanskrit, "iddhi" is Pali. Which of these 2 languages should we use for concepts that occur across all Buddhism? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pali (Iddhi) is only used by one school of Buddhism -- Theravada -- whereas every other school of Buddhism depends on Sanskrit (Ṛddhi) for terms. Scholarship on Indian Buddhism also tends to use Sanskrit rather than Pali. In fact, the only scholars who tend to use Pali are those who deal primarily with Theravada Buddhism, and of course that is highly unrepresentative of Buddhist scholarship in general. Pan-Buddhist terms should be given in Sanskrit, which is the most commonly used Indic language for scholarship on Buddhism, and which is most representative of classical Buddhism. Tengu800 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose keep to the Sanskrit name. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Poor Citation
[edit]The work cited for the powers is Encyclopedia.com, which doesn’t have a citation itself. I’m struggling to find any non-ghost word source that contains this content. It appears to be a gross misunderstanding of other rddhi. ~2026-39744-42 (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)