Talk:Buddhism/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Strong atheism 2 Please have a look at anatta 2.1 Influential and doctrinally striking 3 Buddhist Course of Study 4 Open Task 5 editing, not vandalism 6 The size of the article (Bloating Problem) 7 Religion 8 Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism (Northern Tradition) 9 Bird & worm 10 Please have a look at Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu 11 Buddha came from India. It should be noted early and clearly 12 Article size 13 Dialogue 14 dharma wheel 15 Opening Sentence of Article:"Methodology"

[edit] Strong atheism

Is it be possible for a Buddhist to both 1) be a strong atheist and, 2) believe in "supernatural processes"? If so, I think this can be used to illustrate the clause "strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general" in the Strong atheism article. Shawnc 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In order this question, we must have sufficient definitions. Wikipedia defines strong atheism as "the philosophical position that no deity exists." However, we must still know what definition of deity and what definition of supernatural you would like us to use. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of such things often seem problematic. Buddhism came up on the atheism newsgroup's discussion on strong atheism. The suggested idea was that Buddhists tend not to believe in omnipotent gods but believe in things which may be considered supernatural by others.[1] In any case, several posters have disagreed with the aforementioned clause in the strong atheism article. Shawnc 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem odd to me for a Buddhist to express a particularly strong aetheism, even if Buddhism and individual Buddhists are generally atheist; I would say that they would be unlikely to take a particularly hard line on an issue like this. Futhermore, most of the "supernatural processes" in Buddhist scriptures occur alongside numerous gods, so it would seem unlikely to me that one would endorse the first and deny the second. I would personally not consider Buddhists to be a very likely example of the assertion you quote. bikeable (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please have a look at anatta

I'd like to attract the editors of this page to take a look at the controveries afoot on anatta and talk:anatta. Granted, it's a bit of a slog once you get there, but, on the other hand, there are some interesting ideas discussed. Conversation, for the moment, has ground to halt and the article itself is set to a version with a rather unusual POV. One thing that needs to be done, and which I don't have time to attend to right away, is for someone to go through the controversial edits and separate out a) reasonable comments and assertions that can stay; b) claims which need a ^{[citation needed]} tag; and c) claims and conclusions which shouldn't be in the article at all. Please have a look. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I would say normal wikipedian wouldn't have a clue what the intro is about. Vapour

It appear that User:TonyMPNS, User:Stephen Hodge and User:Attasarana are sort of a cabal. Dr Tony Page, aka TonyMPNS run a website in corraboration with Stephen Hodge. In his website, Dr Tony state that he founded what he call "Nirvana Sutra Buddhism" and he intend to propagate this version of Buddhism. [2] He is not so found of anicca, anatta or dukkha either, calling it "the unbalanced and distorting emphasis placed in some quarters upon the negative aspects of the Doctrine". He also make a glowing recommendation to Attasarana's site in the same page. What Attasarana is doing in anatta article is basically a POV vandalism. He appear to have no regard to NPOV, no original research, verification and soapbox ban. TonyMPNS and Stephen Hodge are soapboxing related Buddhist articles too. Quite few articles have some blatant and some subtle promotion of their position, such as saying "The Tathagatagarbha Sutra is an influential and doctrinally striking Mahayana Buddhist scripture"[3]. According to them, interpretation (or "connecting dot") of sutras with sutra quote, often from their own work of translation doesn't amount to violation of Wikipedia policies. Vapour

Actually, there is no Wiki rule debarring one from using one's own translations. My translations have been peer-reviewed anyway.--Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a hard-and-fast rule, but I think that, in general, it's a good idea not to use one's own translations if the case is controversial. On the other hand, if one's own translation has been published in a peer-reviewed or otherwise quite reputable source, then that certainly may be used. That would, as far as I know, apply only to you, Mr. Hodge, out of all the people involved in this conversation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat, no there does not seem to be any rule about this. It does not fall under the listed criteria of original research either. Actually, the question of the use of some of the material I have translated does not seem to arisen until user "Vapour" made the above aside. The situation is a little anomalous and a trifle undesirable, but the problem is that in the case of the MPNS especially, there is no reliable English translation from the more accurate Tibetan version. In which case, Dr Page, the main author of the MPNS would have nothing to cite and then the article would collapse. Actually, I suspect this may be the intention -- to supress a description of a very important Mahayana sutra. I think the solution might be to give the original Tibetan, Chinese or even Monglolian text in romanized form as the case requires from one of the major published primary sources with the folio/line numbers -- though I shan't be held responsible for "artikl bloting" as some would have it. Then any reader who cares can look at the originals and judge for themselves. How about that ? But I should mention that I do not anyway have a particular agenda when I am translating -- flatteringly, most professional colleagues seem to think I do a rather good job of what are intrisically very difficult texts. I read something today that sums up my standpoint, "The greatest enemies of truth are those who think they have a monopoly of truth" -- regrettably a trait that a number of users here exhibit in abundance.

I see what you mean about the situation with that translation. I don't know of a specific rule against using one's own translations; it just seems like the sort of thing that is generally discouraged on principle (of course, this principle is in place because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not particularly good translators). Considering that there is no equally good translation available elsewhere, I certainly have no objection to yours. I just don't know what the completely "by the book" answer is.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat: I searched through the various Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines and eventually found this:

SOURCES IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). [snip] Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

The solution therefore, which is easily provided, is for us to supply references to one or other of the major printed canonical editions that are available in most countries. Hence, in the case of the quote that Dr Page has used from my translation of the MPNS, I can supply the folio/line references to the Qianlong Kanjur, which was printed in Western book form by the Suzuki Foundation and is the most widely available edition of the Kanjur around the world. There are, I believe, a few people contributing who have some knowledge of Tibetan so they can check the accuracy if they wish.--Stephen Hodge 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside user Attasarana's style and technique of contributing, he has raised an issue which in itself should not be so lightly dismissed. One glaring defect I have noticed in many Wiki Buddhism articles was also highlighted on the Nikaya Buddhism discussion page under the rubric "Ahistorical" by user Karen Williams in April 2005, when she wrote "I am seriously concerned to see so much mythology being posted on such a reputable site as Wikipedia. [snip] I can tell you that the material on this page that relates to early Buddhism, Asoka and the Buddhist Councils is just perpetuating the assumptions and bad scholarship of an earlier period. There are some modern scholars still writing this sort of stuff, but it is now being seriously criticised, and a lot of it is simply not true. [snip]". Thus in the case of the knee-jerk reactions from some users here, it is clear they too often rely on these kinds of outdated assumptions and bad scholarship. Just because there are some lazy scholars who repeat parrot-like this inherited baggage, does not make them right or reliable. Yet curiously, the official Wikipedia states "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth !" I would have thought that reasonable belief of truth combined with reliability would also be a significant criteria for an enterprise like Wikipedia. So to paraphrase Hassan as-Sabbah, "Everything is permissible in Wikipedia (providing it is cited), nothing is true".--Stephen Hodge 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that that passage ("Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth") is put poorly and can be quite misleading. I might try to have it changed. The intention with which it was written, I'm sure, is that Wikipedia attracted a motley crue of cranks and theorists of, say, phlogiston and the New Chronology, who are quite convinced that their theories are unquestionably true, and so we sidestep the issue by telling them not to worry about truth but about verifiability (which is not to say that verifiability applies only to cranks). In fact, I'd say Wikipedia's goal is the truth, and verifiability is the method toward that goal. The purpose of verifiability is, I'd venture for an example, is for people who are absolutely sure that the First Buddhist Council ended with a Sthaviravadin majority to be required to substantiate that claim.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that Tony Page, Stephen Hodge, and Attasarana constitute a cabal or a group of any sort. It seems that Mr. Page and Mr. Hodge know each other outside of Wikipedia, but I doubt Attasarana is the third party to a troika, despite the recommendation you mention of attan.com. Certainly, Page and Hodge are more reasonable editors and more pleasant to deal with than Attasarana is. They don't have the same POV, either (despite some overlap): Page and Hodge are ultra-Mahayanists, while Attasarana apparently sees himself as some kind of historicist pre-Theravadin-cum-Hindu.

Do you dispute that the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is influential and doctrinally striking? I would think we would want to make that clear to our readers, especially if it gives them some context for why it might differ from the impression they get of Buddhism from other sources.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, Mr Page and Mr Hodge are more pleasant to deal with. But that is exactly the reason it buffled me Tony Page and Stephen Hodge are giving support to Attasarana's edit activities which is so off from wikipedia convention. I used "sort of a cabal" instead of "cabal" to refer to their collective defence of Attrasana's editing, which is likely to be attrituted to their rather unusual overlaping doctrinal affiliation, not to mention the fact that their work aren't avialable in wikipedia verified source. Pople who have access to wikipedia verified outlet aren't interested in using wikipedia as their soapbox.

As of "influential and doctrinally striking", it doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone else consider to be so. Problem is a lack of POV attribution. It's an another example of peacock terms. If one want to make the "alleged" significance clear to our readers, one should make reference to secondary source which describe the sutras as such. Plus TonyMPS appear to be inserting link to his works in related articles. This is an direct violation of no-soapbox policy. "My work is useful" won't work as a defence in this case. Vapour

• This is becoming utterly ridiculous now - and personal too, which I have always avoided in my edits and comments. Stephen Hodge does not run the "Nirvana Sutra" website with me - I do. Stephen Hodge is a recognised translator and scholar of Buddhism upon whose expertise I have drawn for my own research. I am not in a cabal with him, and certainly not with Attasarana. There are simply certain understandings of atman / anatman which, in varying degrees, we share.

I think it is outrageous to imply that I cannot put forward an objective presentation of Nirvana Sutra or Tathagatagarbha Buddhist ideas. The sad truth is that there are not that many Westerners intensively researching this area of Buddhism. I happen to be one of the few. Stephen Hodge is the only English translator (in the UK) actively working in this field too.

In stark contrast to Vapour's ridiculous comments and insinuations, Nat has shown himself to be reasonable and balanced. Nat is quite right: I do not even know who "Attasarana" is! I have never met him. I have never spoken to him. I don't know where he lives. I don't even know his name (obviously "Attasarana" is not his real name!). Also, as Nat points out, I have an entirely different style from Attasarana. But I happen to believe that Attasarana has lots of valid material on atta/ anatta which can, given certain judicious pruning, be very useful and informative on Wikipedia. I don't like people's work being completely erased from Wikipedia without constructive attempts at salvaging what is of value there. That has happened to Attasarana. It has also happened to me. In both instances, the cause of the problem is a person of dubious competence and qualification called "Vapour", also known as "FWBO", "MonkeyMind", "Yoji Hajime" (or similar). That alone should give people pause for thought: why does someone keep changing their nomenclature in this manner?

My identity and views are perfectly open and frank. I am not trying to turn Wikipedia into my "soapbox": I am a scholar who is putting out, in a balanced manner, information which I am one of the few in this country to possess. Simple.

So I ask Vapour to cease these foolish attacks upon my work (or Stephen Hodge's) and my contributions to Wikipedia. If any sense were being employed here, it would easily be seen that I have often included comments in Wikipedia which completely contradict what I personally believe. Any normal person with a modicum of understanding could see that when I describe the Tathagatagarbha doctrines as "controversial", that is hardly an endorsement of my own particular views - if anything, it's a warning flag that these views may be aberrant and deviant within the overall corpus of Buddhist teaching.

If this nonsense continues, I shall simply not waste any more time in discussion with utterly unreasonable, barely comprehensible and arrogant people. I have better things to do with my time. Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Nat (me "ultra-Mahayanist" ? LOL) and Tony for your observations on the above piece by user "Vapour".

The more I read contributions by the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" duo, I am convinced there is some kind of colluding cabal at work, given the similarities of their personal attacks of myself and Dr Page -- both members of the duo often exhibit a striking immaturity in their criticisms and innuendoes. I suggest they both have a good , long hard look at themselves before they start levelling their unfounded slurs at others.

I have already addressed a response to "RandomCritic" half of the duo on the Anatta talk page under "Response to RandomCritic", which should be read in conjunction with this, but let me set the record straight here once and for all. I am a professional academic Buddhist translator, researcher and writer -- yes, some of us can just about make a living thus -- and have only ever worked for bona fide mainstream publishers and organizations. To spell things out more clearly, the key word in the previous sentence is "academic", though the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique seem to have an aversion to academics. Of course, I know Dr Page personally, value his friendship and have produced translations for him on a professional, contractual basis, that he has reproduced on his website -- a website in which I have no direct involvement whatsoever. I also happen to share some of the views which I believe he holds, but as he will be the first to admit, I often disagree with him and challenge a number of his views. I am not a fool and I have a mind of my own. As for this Attasarana fellow, I have no idea who he is, I have never met him, nor have I even responded to him in this forum. Additionally, I do not endorse the overall tone and content of the website linked to this Attasarana, and I have no interest whatsoever in promoting his particular agenda, except in the one respect I mention below. I do not have the slightest interest in Vedanta or any other aspect of Hinduism -- Buddhist research takes up all of my time.

However, I do think that there are issues raised by Attasarana about the traditional understanding of the anatta doctrine which need to be reported in a balanced, neutral POV Wiki article. The "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" duo evidently have a very limited range of expertise on Buddhist matters and seem very ill-informed on the number of modern scholars who have raised exactly the same issues in the same terms -- was "anatta/anatman" intended to be a blanket denial of all forms of "atta" and did the Buddha teach some form of "atta/atman" implicitly or explicitly. I mentioned on the Anatta Discussion page some of those scholars. The findings of these scholars of quite significant and merit, in my view, an entirely new article on the reconstruction of pre-canonical Buddhism, which will also deal with the "anatta" problem. If you have not been keeping up with research on this, you might come in for some surprises.

My responses to the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique hitherto have been concerned with their knee-jerk hostile reactions to the Attasarana contribution -- which contrast unfavourably with that adopted by Nat Krause, even though he has been a butt of Attasarana's vituperations. For all his egregious infelicities, user Attasarana is obviously not unfamiliar with some of this research and deserves some respect for this, even though he yokes it to his own agenda in his own inimitable style. If the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique think they know better, let them write the Anatta article in a balanced manner that takes account of the core issues user Attasarana mentions -- but this is unlikely to be forth-coming, I imagine: more than a little bit of back-ground research will be necessary first. Still, let that stand as a challenge.

Finally, the "Vapour" half of the clique says "TonyMPNS and Stephen Hodge are soapboxing related Buddhist articles too. Quite few articles have some blatant and some subtle promotion of their position". This is typical of the ad hominem vaporous dross which emanates from the user "Vapour" (how can we take seriously somebody who repeatedly doesn't even spell Buddha properly ?). Whether Dr Page is soapboxing is for him to answer and for others to decide. I personally don't believe he is. But "Vapour" has obviously not taken the time to look at the histories of the various articles he alludes to -- where does my name appear as a substantial editor ? I contributed one passage on the history of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and that's all. My other contributions have only been short articles on various Yogacara masters and their works -- which is, alas, my main interest. All dry as dust and quite neutral POV.

All in all, this latest piece of innuendo and slur from the user "Vapour" suggests to me an act of desperation on the part of one who is struggling with a poverty of real expertise on Buddhist matters. I take the same view as Dr Page -- if this lack of respect and unpleasantness continues, I shall cease any involvement with the Wiki Buddhism articles and put my time to better use.--Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hodge: I am not a clique or half of a clique and I have no connection with Vapour other than that we both recognize the damage that Attasarana has done to the Anatta page. I regret to see you enabling this. Your language ("knee-jerk hostile", "ad hominem vaporous dross") is not conducive to a resolution of the issues. It would be kind of you to retract your characterizations. As for rewriting the anatta article, this is obviously difficult when one user treats a page as his wholly-owned property and reverts any edits made to his writing. We can't even begin to have a discussion of the relative prominence to give to different theories until that problem is dealt with. At present, however, Anatta is entirely one-sided, poorly written, shoddily sourced article. Just because it happens to agree with your prejudices in this matter is no reason for you to defend either the behavior or the form of the article. I would ask you to separate your personal views from the needs of Wikipedia. RandomCritic 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OED: "Clique": a small exclusive group of people. I have absolutely no intention of retracting my comments, especially in light of your ad hominen comments directed at me previously and yet again here. In view of your last sentence above, you are encouraging me to think that you are perhaps not a very bright person. What part of my reply to you on the Anatta Discussion page are you having difficulty with ? I know user "Vapour" would like the content of Wikipedia to cater for 15 years-olds preferably with an IQ of 90, but I really thought you had a far better grasp of English. Where do I fail to make myself clear to you when I write, "As far as Attasarana's conduct is concerned, I have a little sympathy with him, but I am also inclined to agree that the article itself could be improved considerably with less polemics, less verbosity and more citations. It is nothing like the article which I would write, even though I think that it contains material that has wrongly been marginalized or ignored in "mainstream" accounts of Buddhism. Just because the main thrust of that article is currently a minority view, this does not make it ipso facto wrong or eccentric or worthy to be dismissed in a few lines as has been suggested here. I have observed the same phenomenon in studies dealing with Yogacara over the past three decades -- see the work of scholars such as Dan Lusthaus, Alex Wayman, Janet Willis and Lambert Schmidthausen. They have virtually overturned the formerly prevailing paradigm of understanding which was based on traditional commentaries and sectarian distortions."  ? Yet you persist in these unwarranted comments of yours -- what on earth do you mean by "your prejudices in this matter" ? You kindly write, "I would ask you to separate your personal views from the needs of Wikipedia": if I am guilty of this, which I dispute, does nothing written by you in this debate reflect your personal views and prejudices ? And one last thing, please stop being so shy and do tell us what your Pali credentials are !--Stephen Hodge 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's always tough to figure out how to respond to someone who is so obviously angry that any good points he might make get drowned in a tide of invective. One is tempted to respond point by point, but this generally tends to enable the anger and keep it going. So it's probably better just to ignore the invective and other irrelevant material and let the angry person cool off. With respect to the one point that is discernible amid the dross, in Wikipedia we deal with fields of knowledge as they currently are, not as one person might guess or wish that they might become. Since Wikipedia is a constantly changing medium, there is always time in the future to bring an article up to date as the field changes. But we cannot anticipate such changes without introducing POV. RandomCritic 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On your first comment, I'll address this in my reply to you on the Anatta talk page later, except I'll say here that deliberate provocation is hardly conducive to a calm and constructive discussion. But now it would seem that an end is in sight for this current "debate". As for anticipating future developments, I was not suggesting that we should write articles in the way you suggest. I was trying to point out is that there are often re-evaluations of conventional knowledge that are current amongst specialists, but take an unncessarily long time to percolate down to popular presentations. In this case, there is a increasingly substantial amount of bona fide scholarly work available which suggests that the popular or orthodox understanding of "what the Buddha" taught is distorted and out of date as far as scholars are concerned. One such finding is that the Nikayas are heavily stratified and contain many elements that ae unlikely to have originated with the historical Buddha -- even the 5 skandhas, the 12-fold chain of interdependent arising, and, of course, the blanket application of the anatta doctrine. I am hoping eventually to do a new article that presents the findings of these scholars on pre-NIkayan Buddhism.--Stephen Hodge 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, did I open a can of worms? (^o^) I can't make point by point rebuttal at this point. I'll do that when I come back later. So here is a short reply. One, I didn't say just cabal. I said "sort of cabal.", which I clarified subsequently to refer to "collective defence of Attrasana's editing" (more like vandalism to be honest) and doctrinal overlaping (which is fairly unusual one). As of disagreement of editorial policy, why is it that Mr. Tony and Mr. Hodge doesn't seem to quote from wikipedia policies and guideline documents. When I make a claim, I try to refers to relevant policies or guideline documents (including "adult with highschool education" being our target audience. "Monkey brain" and "IQ90" are obviously meant to be jokes. :-) ). "It hasn't been a problem" is also a pathetic argument. Wikipedia allow people to edit freely even to the point of disregarding the letters of policies and guideline as long as each follow wikipedia's ideal. But it specifically state that one must foget this liberalism when someone invoke policies and guideline.

Main problem with Mr.Tony, Mr.Hodge or Attrasana is that they think their supposed expertise and long involvement in Buddhism mean something in wikipedia article. On contrary, wikipedia document specifically state that even edit from a Nobel prize winner will be rejected if it fail to satisfy wikipedia policies. It's pointless to claim one's POV are NPOV based on their self proclaimed CV. If they do indeed have expert knowledge, they would have been able publish in accredited peer reviewed journal then make reference from such sources. They would have zero need to assert their alleged expertise in here.

Oh, as of my multiple id, I experimented with real name thingy for a very short period until I found it to be a bad idea. I switch to Vapour from FWBOarticle because someone adviced me to do so on NPOV ground. Feel free to report me if you think I abuse the system. I'm happy to defend my action which is done on good faith. You can read the switch advice given to me in FWBOarticle's talk page. I also declared my old id in the debate which i was engaging at the time of the switch. Anyway, instead of short response, it ended up as a middle length response. I will be back to respond to criticisms which I didn't answer. See ya. V(^^) Vapour

• Yoji ("Vapour"): I feel uneasy about having to "trumpet" things about myself here (I find it

distasteful) - but just for the record: my Buddhist work is internationally acknowledged, and I have been - and continue to be - invited as a specialist on the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra" to attend international academic conferences on Buddhism and also to lecture on the MPNS at university to students and scholars alike; furthermore, at least one of my books is official "recommended reading" at university level ...

But this is not really the point. The main issue you and I have is whether the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is rightly called "controversial" (without the need for citation); I contend that it is justified so to label it; furthermore, I support the right of alternate views on "non-Self" to be fully aired on this website (as long as supporting evidence is provided, which it has been until now). Really, there is not much more to be said now. It is for other editors overall to see who they think is being sensible and reasonable in this discussion. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User "Vapour": You say "I can't make point by point rebuttal at this point". Don't trouble yourself, because you are a) getting extremely repetitious and b) using straw-man arguments. You allude to a supposed "collective defence of Attrasana's editing". I think I have made it sufficiently clear that I do not endorse user Attasarana's editing, his tactics, the style of his article and his use of polemics, and I have already stated several times that his contribution on the "anatta" issue to be unsatisfactory in a number of ways, though I strongly believe that the basic issue needs a substantial article. That is why I offered (and intend) to write another version. We can then discuss any problems you raise at that stage. In the meantime, I intend to stop responding to your attempts at trolling. I have watched your activities for a long time and see somebody who apparently loves to act frequently in a dismissive and high-handed manner that seems designed to provoke antagonism. This is a form of trolling.

You say "Main problem with Mr. Tony, Mr. Hodge or Attrasana (sic) is that they think their supposed expertise and long involvement in Buddhism mean (sic) something in wikipedia article". First, it is disrespectful to say "supposed". Both of us have a public record on our expertise and long involvement which anybody can verify -- the fact that you are unaware of this is your problem. If expertise is meaningless in Wikipedia articles, then the whole project is a complete waste of time. You say, "a Nobel prize winner will be rejected". Have you ever wondered why most genuine scholars don't bother with Wikipedia -- at least, here with Buddhism ? Precisely due to this kind of disrespect for their work. It is a deplorable state of affairs that somebody writes an article that utilizes years of knowledge, and then some twerp (who, naturally, hides behind a pseudonym) comes along and thinks they know better. The twerp is usually too stupid even to realize how egregious his behaviour is.

You say, "If they do indeed have expert knowledge, they would have been able publish in accredited peer reviewed journal then make reference from such sources". I think, even that is discouraged by official Wikipedia policies and not everybody who has expert knowledge feels the desire to publish in peer-reviewed journals. My impression is that you hid behind rules in an attempt to supress views with which you disagree, despite your protestations to the contrary. When I see you obsessively attacking and demolishing other articles, I might be persuaded otherwise.

You finally write: "I will be back to respond to criticisms which I didn't answer". Once again, please do not trouble yourself. I have no interest in anything you might wish to say at present.--Stephen Hodge 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous postings. Having looked at various Wikipedia rules and guidelines at the suggestion of user "Vapour", I suggest that it is actually or borderlines on vandalism. In the Wikipedia discussion of Types of Vandalism there is the entry: "Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit". This cannot be excused as "bold editing", because the following guidelines and protocol have not been followed: Bold Edits: "If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it" and "always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text". In the current dispute User "Vapour" has not corrected, added to or replaced user Attarsarana's contributions, and though some passages were eventually moved and objections listed, this was some time after the initial blanking of user Attasarana's input, thereby once again unnecessarily causing antagonism. Since user "Vapour" is such a stickler for the Wikipedia rules, could I ask him to stop vandalizing articles and adhere to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The approach suggested by user Nat Krause, who opened this sub-section, seems to have been both constructive and also in adherence to the above guidelines.--Stephen Hodge 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influential and doctrinally striking

Vapour writes: "As of 'influential and doctrinally striking', it doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone else consider to be so. Problem is a lack of POV attribution." I think that, in practice, it does matter very much. I know that, in theory, every little piece of information in Wikipedia should be thoroughly cited. However, we know that, at current, very few of them are. Consequently, it makes a big difference in what order we go about demanding citations for them. A good practice is to begin by going after "facts" which are questionable (as well as those which are false, if you deign not to remove them in the first place). Also, I think you are taking the rule against peacock terms too strictly; it's not a very well-written policy, but I think it should be understood to proscribe unnecessary dressing-up of the subject in question, in ways that provide no useful information. For instance, one outght not to write of Otto von Bismarck: "Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian politician who held positions XYZ, ABC, DEF, and achieved XYZ, 什么什么什么, etc. ad infinitem. Otto von Bismarck was an important man," because the fact that he was important is quite clear from the foregoing. To say that the Nirvana Sutra's message on atman is controversial is not at all the same, because it is telling us something important about the relationship between that sutra and modern Buddhist thinking. Now, one might dispute that the relevant sections of the Nirvana Sutra are controversial by arguing that they are, in fact, close to the mainstream of Mahayana; however, this would seem to imply that we should give them a more prominent place in the article, which I don't think is what you seem to be aiming for—

Its necessary to point out this profane Strawman fallacy as listed below from Vapour:

He (Attasarana) is not so found of anicca, anatta or dukkha either. What Attasarana is doing in anatta article is basically a POV vandalism. He appear to have no regard to NPOV. User: Vapour

On the contrary, I support all 662 occurrences of anatta in Sutta; all of which are contextually adjective referring to a list of 22 nouns as being either anatta/dukkha/anicca. The usage of anatta by Gotama supports the Atman, the Soul in referring to all empirical and consubstantial phenomena as being other than the soul.

At no time has Gotama made the proclamation to the effect that “Bhikkhu, natthattati’!” (followers, there is no Soul!). As for the “NPOV” claim leveled, this is a baseless claim without substantiation. Countless passages from sutta, regardless of translator, illuminate the fact that 22 nouns ARE ANATTA, nothing more can be said from doctrine. Its necessary to point out that from countless sources such as “Buddhist Sects in India” by Dutta, and others, that Theravada did not exist until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries A.D. (C.E.). As such, while “old” by our standards, is in fact very very late and secular non-original and heretical perspective upon Buddhist doctrine.

Can there be any doubt what anatta refers to?

[SN 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, form, Radha is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul.”

Might I make note that ALL Pali Theravada scholars admit to countless points of doctrine in the Nikayas which do not accord with the view of Theravada orthodoxy, the Abhidhamma, and Buddhaghosa. Such doctrines as “antarabhava” (in-between-existence; i.e. after death, but before reincarnation) is admitted by the Theravada to be prevalent in the Nikayas but utterly denied by the Theravada view, as Bhikkhu Bodhi himself admits, wherein Bhikkhu Bodhi admits “This [SN 4.400] goes against Theravada view”

[SN 4.400] At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness.

As for pathetic "Hindu" insults, might I remind such profane commentators remember that no such term as Hinduism existed at the time of Gotama.

"Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]

"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path I follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which I have discovered" SN 2.106

[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”

"I HAVE NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana

"I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka

– User Attasarana, Pali translator, Author, webmaster attan.com

No one here has made any insults regarding Hinduism. You seem to have imagined this.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist Course of Study

I'm sorry, but a Buddha does not have to spend years cultivating his/her spirit, investigating the various religious practices of his/her time, and meditating. A Buddha merely has to understand that there is suffering, suffering is caused by craving, and that craving can be eliminated. These are the Noble Truths of Buddhism. They can be realized in a sudden moment of knowledge. The passage in the article about years of cultivation, investigation, and meditation are incorrect and I intend to delete it if no one objects.Lestrade 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

huh? I suppose it's true that in the Zen and Vajrayana traditions you can realize the 4NT "suddenly", that would only be after many years of preparation to do so. Certainly the Therevada and most of the Mahayana would see this insight as the product of long study (as I recall, one scripture says that becoming a Buddha takes three great kalpas). Saying "realized in a sudden moment of knowledge" implies a simplicity of understanding ("I was in the cafe drinking a latte yesterday, and I realized that suffering is caused by attachment!") inconsistent with a real spiritual understanding. I would object to that removal. bikeable (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Understanding is mental, not spiritual. To realize the deep veracity of the Noble Truths is to understand them by associating them with personal experience. This does not have to take several years.Lestrade 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, what's your source for this?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I definitely share Bikeable's (and Nat's?) view on this one. If one follows the Pali accounts of the Buddha's life and take the Buddha Gotama as exemplary (as he is usually regarded as being), it would seem that he (and by implication, other Buddhas) did, at the very least, engage in six years of spiritual quest for the solution to the problem of suffering and its ending (it is not just "mental" development - but very much moral training that is involved too). This is, by the way, not usually presented as "study" as we normally would think of study today. It was more practically orientated - training or disciplining of body and mind, culminating in supreme meditation. Then if we take the Mahayana view, the Buddha (and this is in fact backed up by the Pali jatakas) spent lifetime after lifetime perfecting himself through practice of the "paramitas" (perfections). So I think that for both Theravada and Mahayana, it would be accurate to say that the Buddha Gotama - usually presented in the Mahayana, anyway, as a paradigm of all perfect Buddhas -became a Buddha after years (if not aeons) of inner and outer cultivation and self-discipline. When we come to the Zen and some Vajrayana teachings, however, there is a different take on what is possible as regards the attainment of Awakening - it can be a sudden event. But I don't think even the Zen Buddhists claim that Gotama himself did not engage in many years of self-cultivation. So I think the introductory part of the article - saying that a Buddha is generally viewed as becoming a Buddha after many years of inner cultivation, spiritual discipline/ practice, meditation and reflection - should not be removed. It is not really factually wrong, according to the foundational suttas/ sutras - so why delete what is pretty defensible? However, I do agree that some Zen masters and other Buddhists teach that Buddhahood can be attained in a moment of insight. So perhaps a bracketed note could be added to the effect that other Buddhist traditions (e.g. Zen) hold that Awakening can be realised in an instant, given the right practices and attitude of mind. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Tony. I'd also like to add that—based on my very limited understanding—I don't have the impression that the Zen emphasis on subitism is incompatible with the necessity for cultivation. That is, the fact that an event is sudden does not mean that it is not the result of lengthy preparations. Given that cultivation seems to be the default in Buddhist thought, I would, therefore, assume that Zen also asserts the need for cultivation; at least, by the scale of a human lifetime—I seem to recall hearing implications a few times that Zen sees itself as circumventing or attenuating the need for eons of cultivation, although I'm not sure how mainstream this idea is in Asian Zen thought. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Nat. Many thanks for the above posting. I appreciate your points. I think you are actually right: even the Zen Buddhists practise (often for years) in order to attain that "flash" of satori or kensho. Also, we should note that there is, in Pali Buddhism, a distinction between a Buddha and an arhat: an arhat may get illuminated swiftly by the words of the Buddha; but the Buddha himself is a spiritual pioneer (in a sense) - he is the re-discoverer of the ancient Path. And such attainment takes (as you say) at least a lifetime or (as portrayed in most Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism) many lifetimes of endeavour and self-perfection. So again, I would take your own position, and that of Bikeable, and say: "keep the contested passage in"! Cheers, from Tony. TonyMPNS 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This was quite an interesting discussion -- thank you both (and thanks to Lestrade for starting it!). bikeable (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bikeable, for your kind comment! All the best - Tony. TonyMPNS 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we're finished already. But what about Buddha Sakyamuni's sudden understanding of life after he observed a sick person, an old person, and a dead person? This resulted in his subsequent judgments about suffering, craving, and the cessation of craving.Lestrade 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The four sights that you're referring to marked the beginning of the Buddha's spiritual quest (specifically, the beginning of the final intensive phase of that quest). You could say that witnessing the sights and the Buddha's reaction to them were part of his years of cultivation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be used as an internet forum. Please do not take attitude that your little abuse doesn't matter. If everyone start to post their personal pet topic in this page, the situation will soon become impossible. I would like some of you to simply move this section to Archive 9. Whatever the quality of your discussion, it is same as litering in public park. Vapour

In accordance with User Vapour's admonishment, I will assume that the matter is not appropriate for discussion. Therefore, I will remove the article references to a Buddha's extended time of preparation.Lestrade 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

That's certainly not the right way to handle the situation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. First, Vapor, that's just ridiculous -- we are discussing a point in the article to come to consensus as to what the article should say. This is precisely what talk pages are for. And Lestrade, I must say, that's a very strange reaction, and you certainly would appear to be flaunting the opinions of other editors, which is, at the very minimum, not polite. bikeable (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded bit abrasive. Vapour

[edit] Open Task

I would like to delete Open Task for Buddhism, but leave the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism. Wikipedia is not particularly fast website. For people with slower connection, it is worse. And this talk page has tendency to reach significant size. I would like to remove content which can be served well in other page. Vapour

I'm neutral on this suggestion. The Buddhism Open Task template is much larger than it used to be. Maybe we should just reduce it to a more reasonable size.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Open Task for Buddhism are presented as "To Do" list in Wikiproject Buddhism. So we can save lot of space and serve the same purpose by leaving link to WikiProject Buddhism. How about making Wikiproject Buddhism as a tag? Vapour

I don't know how to make a tag. Can someone help? Vapour

I'm not sure what you mean by a tag.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editing, not vandalism

not vandalism, but editing - The edit envolved the fact that Buddha was interpreting the Hindu understanding of the Cosmos User:Tribal-fusion

Okay, I'll accept that your edit was not actually vandalism. However, your interpretation of Buddhism is not really the sort of thing that should be in the intro, I think.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with these "facts" about buddha interpreting Hindu understanding of Cosmo. As I understand it, Buddhism was a break from Hindu dominant culture. Saying that buddha was simply interpreting Hindu understanding is not really the case. Buddha may have been influenced by Hindu, but he was also influenced by other spiritual teachers aswell. So there it is not really the case that Buddha was interpeting Hinduism. Just that he found what was "lost". It would be correct to say that he was simply interpeting what was "lost". And I agree with Nat Krause, that it does not belong in the intro because it might confuse those who are not knowledgeable about Buddhism. - Monkey Brain

Ok, maybe not in the intro, but maybe so. but I believe it should be noted somewhere, because Buddha was raised in Hindu society and hinduism's religeous beliefs were the underpinning of has teachings. He was describing what he believed to be deeper revalation of the Hindu Cosmology. I recall always seeing the links between Hinduism and the origin of Buddhism in many educational resources throughout my life and it was taught that way in high school and college. I went to high school and college in the late 80s andearly to mid 90s. Tribal-fusion 19:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Buddha was raised in a Hindu society. According to the Hinduism article, Hinduism did not form "until these Vedic traditions interacted with the shramanical movements of Buddhism and Jainism". There was a lot of cross-pollenation between the various dhammas of the time, and the Vedic traditions was one of the many strands of doctrine that became what we now call Hiduism and Buddhism. --- Andkaha^(talk) 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it is anachronistic to speak of "Hinduism" in the context of the Buddha's lifetime. The correct term is "Brahmanism".--Stephen Hodge 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tribal-Fusion, I’m afraid to state the obvious that user Nat Krause is a typical secularist blind to countless 1000s of scriptural passages as pertains original Buddhism. Not a truth-seeker himself, his mission is to guard his incorrect, secular, and illogical views of Buddhism. Like the Catholic Church, which is nothing Jesus taught (Catholicism), that is often accused of protecting in secret and destroying Gnostic-like manuscripts and gospels, Buddhism too has this breed amongst its rank and file.

I'm sorry, but is this a reference to The Da Vinci Code? --- Andkaha^(talk) 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause, in debate, has been proven that he is unaware and adverse to the fact all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (In Doctrine) and unceasingly refuses to refer to same to support his unsubstantiated claims as pertains Buddhist doctrine.

Unfortunately Nat Krauses' position is identical to that of Theravada and most of Mahayana to wit the denial of all things other than 6: the 5-khandhas and agnosis (avijja); as such this is merely nothing more than Materialist-Humanism, wherein, thru the denial of ones Subjective Nature (Svabhava-Atman), all that is left is a compassion-based Humanistic Nihilism.

Surely the "light-within (dipam)"-Dn 2.100, and "Immortality (amata)"-Sn 5.9, has no place in what is concurrently passed off to the general public as "the teachings of the Buddha". One might as well deny Christ in Christianity as to remove the "only refuge", the Soul from the doctrine of Buddhism; whether illogical or non-doctrinal, the center doesn’t hold for a Liberation (vimutta) ontology such as Buddhism to espouse such nonsense.

“It cannot be otherwise that the Soul is the refuge, the light within, the refuge of the Tathagatas of the three periods”-[Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

Udana 1.81. There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not ,disciples, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.

"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" -SN 2.106

"I have NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana

"Gotama is a TEVIJJAN (Comprehensor/Expert in the Vedas)"- common passage

“The Buddha is a teacher of Monism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]

"Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Itivuttaka

[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”- Gotama

"I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka - - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Please note that the above rambling comment was left by "Attasarana", who edits primarily under an alternating series of IP addresses. Although I think he has added some useful information to the anatta article, I find his contributions to Buddhism, which concern so-called "presecular Buddhism" and which dismiss most of actual modern-day Buddhism as idolatry, to be worthy of removal. I'd ask other editors to help me keep an eye on his activities here.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

to: Krause and Attasarana, I am not a secular or presecular Buddhist. I am no Buddhist at all. I am a student of religion and its doctrines, origins and how they relate to each other and societies past and present. I hope I can enjoy working in the same space, with mutual respect. I wish not to be used in your personal war against each other. I wish onlt to include the truth and the whole matter of ant subject. User:Tribal-fusion 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You will not get anything worthy of calling "truth" by asking too many people... "Consensus" is your best bet, "one person's veiw" is the more likely result. --- Andkaha^(talk) 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Attasarana is supportings views similar to those referred to in this text. Google'ing for the verbatim references that he gives also produces interesting results. --- Andkaha^(talk) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, personal attack has no place on wikipedia. I have just read the text at watflorida which seems - in a manner - reasonable, whereas the diatribe of Attasarana above is disjointed and appears to me to be unreasoned. I completely agree that "Brahminical Vedism" is a better term than "Hinduism" to describe the influences of Sakyamuni's court life - but more than that - he was particularly inspired by the anti-Brahminical shramanic movements that later developed into Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika.

I vigorously oppose the statement that "all religious debates are Sola Scriptura" - especially if we identify the term "Dharma" to mean "truth". If Buddhism depended solely on this rather protestant idea, then there could be no Pratyekabuddhas.

As for Attasarana's interpretations of Sutra - they are selective and indicate the particular convictions that Attasarana feels most comfortable with. If we examine the entire collection of Buddhist sutras, we can find many verses which appear to be contradictory. The Indo-Tibetan interpretation (via the famous Bengali, Dipamkara Atisha) is that Buddha teaches according to the individual needs and requirements of his audience at the time. What Dipamkara's interpretation implies about Buddhist truth is therefore very distinct from any absolutist views - the explication of truth itself depends upon the context within which it is placed. Accordingly, Attasarana himself can only know if his views of Buddhism are truths for him - and the criterion for measuring their truth-value is whether or not his views free him from the delusions and chains of samsara. (20040302 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

May I suggest improvement. Why not explain "tirthika". In Oriental Buddhism they are called Six Masters of Tirthika, i.e. 6 major non Buddhist sects during the time of Buddha. Plus, it is not POV to assume that the current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism was also held during the time of Buddha. To claim that Buddah was interepretating Hinduism is not quite NPOV if you presume that Hinduism hasn't change since the time eternal. Recently, a book making reference to ancient practice of animal sacrifice caused a big controversy and protest. I would say counter interpretation of Buddhism from present Hinduism position won't be NPOV. Of course, what is present or ancient hinduism is another point of contention. This is more apporpriate to be discussed in a sister page rather than in main Buddhism article. .Vapour

Hmm well - I could possibly accept the statement that "orthodox Hindus believe that Hinduism hasn't changed since the beginning of time" - as long as there are sources to back that up. However, I contest the claim that "it is not POV to assume that the current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism was also held during the time of Buddha". I am not sure that (1) There is a univerally agreed meaning "current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism": What does this refer to? Vaishnavism? Saivism? Shaktism? Advaita? Vedic Brahminism? Brahminical Vedism? An as yet identified syncretisation of these? Something else entirely? (2) That it is relevant to anything.

Regarding Tirthika - I agree it would be good to have an article about this - but it is a distinct concept - and represents a distinct set of ideas that is generally thought to have arisen after Buddha's time. Take this from a Sanskrit dictionary for instance: "Tirthika literally means 'one belonging to a tirtha or holy place,' hence 'a worthy and holy man,' a Brahmana. Later when Brahmanism, Jainism, and Buddhism became antagonistic to one another, this word was applied to a follower or leader of a religion or philosophy other than one's own. For instance, the Buddhists called the Jainas, 'Tirthikas,' or ironically 'Brahmanical ascetics,' or 'unbelievers.' The Jainas, in their turn, called the Buddhists 'Tirthikas,' also implying 'infidels,' 'unbelievers.' " - So, my point is that it doesn't necessarily clarify an issue by using a term that is already rich in it's own meaning and prone to a variety of interpretations. What we generally find in modern historic sourcebooks are phrases such as "anti-Brahminical shramanic movements" - which would include the early Buddhist, Jaina and Ajivika traditions as well as the various shramanic traditions that inspired Sakyamuni to leave his royal court. In terms of identifiable religious influences - there are the court influences (Vedic Brahminism) and then the Shramanical influences (which tended to be vehemently anti-Brahminical). Any *cough* orthodox Hindu would need to decide which of these heterogenous influential religious groups represented the hinduism that hasn't changed since time eternal. (20040302 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

In one of British comedy skech, a second generation Indian British boy ask his father, "Dad, what is Hinduism?" in which the dad respond, "Son, listen to me very very carefully. Never eat cow!" It's funnier with caricured accent. I would say it is very informative to describe "Vedic Brahminism" as well as Shramanical traditions which would help puting the Gautama Buddha's teaching in proper context. In Japan, Brahminism is more common reference to distinguish it from modern Hinduism because "alleged" over emphasis on rituals (including animal sacrifice). There are plenty of refernce within Buddhist writing which make reference to this subject. Obviously, there will be disagreement as to what is "Vedic Brahiminism" but we can solve that with verifiability criteria. It probably better to explore this subject in "Gautama Buddha" or "History of Buddhism" sister articles with only passing reference in this main article. Vapour

[edit] The size of the article (Bloating Problem)

Let discuss the main issue of this article. This article has tendency to bloat, which is usually related to Mahayana/Theravada/Vijryana disambiguation. This is like a cancer. You cut it off but it will come back one way or another. Any suggestion for better treatment? Vapour

[edit] Religion

No offence to the other editors but Buddhism is not a religion, it is an atheistic philosophy. Buddha was profoundly athiestic after experimenting with local Hindu faiths and then formed Buddhim: which is athiestic.

So could we please change the description to athiestic philosophy? User:Green01 4:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (and we've discussed this before). Just because it doesn't have a "God" (whether or not it has "gods") doesn't mean it's not a religion. The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) gives several definitions for "religion", including "3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader". In fact, I would guess that that definition was written with Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism in mind. bikeable (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We should have a Buddhism talk history wiki. (20040302 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

• Hallo Green01 and Bikeable. I have to admit that I am with Bikeable on this one. First of all, "Buddhism" is a staggeringly vast array of various beliefs, practices and teachings. It encompasses just about every form of spiritual belief and teaching one can think of - from the Buddha's "noble silence" on big metaphysical questions in the Pali suttas, through the doctrine of the "Tathagatagarbha" (Buddhic Essence), which is said to inhere in every single phenomenon, to the (to all intents and purposes) Absolute Buddha (Adibuddha) of the Tantras, where such as Vairocana or Samantabhadra Buddha are seen as the emanational source of the universe. Buddhism can definitely be seen as a religion (it contains so many "supernatural" elements - including "gods" - which characterise religions). Is it "atheism"? Well, perhaps one could say that Theravada Buddhism comes close to atheism. I would not, myself, say outright that it is full-blown atheism. The "Times English Dictionary" defines "atheism" as "rejection of belief in God or gods" - and clearly Theravada Buddhism does not reject "gods" (devas). Certainly it is inappropriate to say that some of Mahayana or Tantric Buddhism constitutes "atheism". Generally, though, I would prefer to say Buddhism tends to be "non-theistic". Anyway, have a look, if you feel like it, at the God in Buddhism piece on Wikipedia. It has more info. Best wishes to you, and to Bikeable (and 2004) too of course! From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism (Northern Tradition)

This sub-section currently opens: "The Mahāyāna as a distinct movement began around the 1st century BCE in the area around the Kuṣāṇa Empire (now an area within Pakistan)". Though this is a popular conventional view, and it is likely that some elements of Mahayana did indeed originate there, there is also evidence from the Mahayana sutras themselves that major components of Mahayana originated with the Shatavahana Empire south of the Vindhya range, straddling the Deccan from present-day Gujerat across to the area around Amaravati. For example, a well-known passage in the Prajna-paramita sutras talks of Mahayana orginating in the South and then moving northwards. The Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra has the Buddha say that the Mahayana sutras and bodhisattvas will be most numerous and abundant in the South and "that is why I always praise the South". I propose to amend that opening sentence to reflect this situation.--Stephen Hodge 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However I seem to recall that User:PHG tends to believe that the entire Mahayana movement stems from Hellenic influence, and Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards this due to the amount of work he has spent promoting these ideas. Eg: This inscription represents one of the first known mention of the Buddha as a deity, using the Indian bhakti word Bhagavat ("Lord", "All-embracing personal deity"), suggesting the emergence of Mahayana doctrines in Buddhism. and The Mahayana movement probably began around the 1st century BCE in northwestern India, at the time and place of these interactions. According to most scholars, the main sutras of Mahayana were written after 100 BCE, when sectarian conflicts arose among Nikaya Buddhist sects regarding the humanity or super-humanity of the Buddha and questions of metaphysical essentialism, on which Greek thought may have had some influence: "It may have been a Greek-influenced and Greek-carried form of Buddhism that passed north and east along the Silk Road" (McEvilly, "The shape of ancient thought"). (taken from PHG in Greco-Buddhism ) as well as similar contributions in Mahayana. PHG appears to be strongly influenced by the syncretist McEvilley. (20040302 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I have changed the first sentence of this section along the lines suggested by me above. Looking at the remainder of this paragraph, there are further infelicities which I would like to change. I'll do this incrementally to allow time for discussion if so desired.--Stephen Hodge 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird & worm

201.19.108.253 inserted a paragraph into the "Gautama the Buddha" section:

He somehow managed to stay away from the group where his father was, and started to meditate over what was around himself. One fact called his attention: a bird eating a worm. He thought that if there hadn't been anyone ploughing, the worm wouldn't have been exposed and then eaten by the bird. He reflected upon that and realized how deeply actions could influence upon alien lives. Also, this poignant memory helped to set on Siddartha's mind bewilderment over the conundrum of "suffering". Why was it that one being should go through pain during its existence?

Is there some source for this? Since it was inserted without an edit comment by an anonymous user, and since it is without citation, I have reverted that edit. --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

200.149.48.24 reinserted the paragraph, and I reverted it again (no sources cited, no comment given). Can we discuss this please? --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Andkaha and 2001! On this matter, I tend to agree with Andkaha that it would be helpful if 2001 could give us a citation for the passage about the bird eating the worm, etc. I myself am not familiar with this incident - but this may simply be my lack of knowledge. I have checked the two main Mahayana depictions of Siddhartha's early life - The "Lalita-Vistara Sutra" and Asvaghosha's biography of the Buddha - but they do not mention the bird and the worm episode. What is mentioned there is the compassion Siddhartha felt for the farm workers in their hard labour and also (in Asvaghosha's text) his sympathy for the injured insects. But maybe the Pali vinaya or other Pali texts mention the bird and the worm and the interconnectedness of all things. Or maybe a general book on Buddhism came up with this speculation. If the story comes from the Buddhist scriptures, we can include it. If not - I agree with Andkaha that we should drop that bit from the narrative, which is otherwise very good. Best wishes to you both. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please have a look at Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu

Okay, well, I hope this turns out to have a happier results than the last time I tried something similar. I'm hoping that some editors of this page might turn their attentions to the newly-created Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu article. I haven't gone over the whole thing yet, but it looks as if it might have some POV-fork-ish elements to it. Could definitely stand to have some more sets of eyes on it (this article is not written by or associated with Attasarana, but it does seem to have lifted some text from his version of the Brahman article). I'll work on it a bit later. One might also want to take a bit of a look at Brahmin influence on other religions, by the same author.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha came from India. It should be noted early and clearly

I noticed on Wikipedia, I always have to fight to make a Buddhist article say that Buddha came from India...Why do many people have a hard time with this? He lived in INdia. He gained enlightenment in India. He spread his teachings in India. And he died in India....The only slight difference is, that his birth place was tehcnically on the boarder of what is now the India/Nepal boarder...But in those days their was no such thing as Nepal....And even if somebody wants to argue their was a Nepal...Buddha spoke Sanskrit, he was a Kasatriya, and he was born in a HIndu family...U cant get more Indian then that....Please for god sakes establish a clear sentence early in the article saying Buddha lived in India....Dont avoid it by saying it "spread from the Indian subcontinent" pleeeeease ARYAN818 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

India points to the modern country of Republic of India. Indian subcontinent is the correct term applicable here. --Ragib 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Aryan818. I have some sympathy with what you are saying. I do not myself understand why there is apparently opposition to saying that the Buddha was born in what today is the border of India and Nepal and lived his life in what is today called India. I have no axe to grind in this matter at all: as a Mahayana Buddhist, I believe that Siddhartha was in any case a kind of docetic projection of the Eternal Buddha - so I personally would not care whether he was born and lived in India, Africa, Jamaica, the South Sea Islands, or the United States! But it does strike me as odd that an encyclopaedia entry on Buddhism does not want to mention pretty much near the beginning that the historical founder of Buddhism dwelt his whole life long essentially in the geographical part of the world we now identify as India. I agree with you that it is perfectly reasonable to give this information. Perhaps we should, as other editors have suggested, call it "the Indian subcontinent" or "Ancient India" - but I do think it is of interest to the reader to know where this remarkable man, the "Buddha", actually lived and acted. This is pretty basic, I would have thought. So I do support your wish to have this information represented very early on in the article. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that our friend ARYAN818 (the man with the shouted username) is a protagonist of long-standing involvement on this topic, the yang to the yin of those editors who insist on emphasising that the Buddha was totally Nepalese. I can't help but feel mildly irritated at his MO of painting himself as constantly aggrieved and unanswered with regard to his complaints. In fact, this topic has been discussed in some detail on Talk:Gautama Buddha. I am, myself, generally sympathetic to the idea that one may affirm the statement, "the Buddha was from India"—it can be a useful abbreviation for the more complex truth. There is a general consensus, however, on Wikipedia, that the correct way for us to phrase it is to say that the Buddha lived on the Indian subcontinent. As for why this was not mentioned in the intro to this article ... it appears to me that Buddhism is currently in the degeneration phase of its life-cycle, and will be rejuvenated only when someone takes the time to revise it. So, it doesn't surprise me to find a minor error or omission. It is not the case that ARYAN818 has to fight to get a mention of the Indian subcontinent added—he need only edit the article—and I doubt that anyone has a problem with it. Now, if ARYAN818 doesn't like "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to "India", he should refer to the various discussions on Talk:Gautama Buddha, which he has, in fact, already been a party to.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Nepalese historically speak sanskrit, a great deal of them are Hindus, and they were even Shatriyas, Rajputs, Brahmins, you can't get more Indian, oops Nepalese than that. Nepal doesn't have much of a claim to fame, why steal it? Saying India is wrong, saying ancient India with a link to an article elucidating the difference is more correct. Generally the problem has been of people trying make historic India so large as to swallow the entire history of neighbouring regions. In this case there is good reason, but across the board its been a problem which is why the concensus has been arrived at and you have the term Indian sub-continent to help people orient themselves to the fact that just as yesterday, even today the region that was known as "India" is a geographical/ racial descriptor of a region which contains more than one nation. While it helps orient people it is not technically correct, which is what an encylopedia should attempt to be, so when mentioning his birthplace, say city_xxxx in Nepal if the city is there or India if there why weasel around with border region etc. Would he even qualify for an Indian passport if born today? Just as you would say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine (It has not officially been annexxed by Israel but if they were giving away passports back then he would have had a Roman one, anyway I think you get the point). If he preached elsewhere than that is a seperate fact that deserves a seperate mention, each on its own merit, there is no need to impose todays nationalities or borders on yesterday or vice versa. The Romans are not playing the Gauls for the football world cup!--Tigeroo 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing....Buddha lived most his life in India....He reached Nirvana in India...He first spread his teachings in India...He died in India....And the only small difference is that he was technically born in what is now TODAY known as the boarder of Nepal & India....So because of one small technicallity you people want to avoid saying that Buddha was from India?...Did I Get that right?....See this is why sometimes I say that WIkipedia is not fair....I have given fact after fact after fact proving that Buddha was from India....But all of that goes out of the window because of one TECHNICALLITY?.....What a joke ARYAN818 08:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good old ARYAN818. Never gets tired of this schtick: "What? Someone has an argument contrary to mine? Are u nuts? This is why Wikipedia is so unfair!" And what is this about "you people"? Tigeroo is, I assume, one guy. Did you get the impression he is some kind of official Wikipedia representative? He doesn't even have a user page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey NAT KRAUSE your contradicting yourself....U just typed sarcastically about how I have said in the past that Wikipedia is unfair right?....well...your a prime example of why I say things like that....I Mean before u left that statement, I had left a whole paragprah with fact after fact after fact (scroll up and see for yourself) on how Buddha was from India.....and whats your response?....Saying sarcastic things about me and making jokes....and then you wonder why I say Wikipeida is unfair????....If u want me to think wikipedia is fair....how bout just answering my points instead of making sarcastic remarks....your majesty..... ARYAN818 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact after fact after fact? Let's take a look at your list of facts:

• The Buddha "lived in India"; true
• "He gained enlightenment in India"; true
• "He spread his teachings in India"; and also among his own people
• "only slight difference is, that his birth place was tehcnically on the boarder of what is now the India/Nepal boarder"; by this you presumably mean to say that the Buddha was actually not born in India
• "Buddha spoke Sanskrit"; what do you mean by this? Where does one get the idea that the Buddha spoke Sanskrit? I think all accounts are that the earliest Buddhist literature is in some type of prakrit. Since Sanskrit was almost certainly not his native tongue, it seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
• "he was a Kasatriya"; the Buddha was treated as a Kshatriya by people in Magadhan and the surrounding countries. Andrew Skilton argues in Concise History of Buddhism that this does not imply that his home country actually had this sort of caste system.
• "he was born in a HIndu family"; so what? There are lots of Hindus in Nepal.
• "pleeeeease"
• "This is amazing"
• "Did I Get that right?"
• "What a joke"

I'm not so impressed. Anyway, the point that you keep leaving out in your list of fact after fact after fact is that, according to traditional accounts, the Buddha lived his entire life until the age of 29 in Kapilavastu, which is definitely in what we now call Nepal, and which was populated by Śākyas who spoke an unknown language. You seem to think that this sort of thing is merely a TECHNICALITY and so it is not important for an encyclopaedia to get it right. Other editors—some moreso than myself—believe we should say "Indian subcontinent" instead, because this is unambiguously true. Now, what's wrong with "Indian subcontinent"?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude ARYAN818 to say he was born in India would be a lie when he is not. Why do you have a problem with saying where he was born? No one is telling you not to go ahead give all the other information and locate all the other events and their locations. Where he was born and where he preached are different locations what the problem with that? Where they are today should be totally irrelevant to us beyond orienting a person who wants to find the location on a map. Atleast you are not like the BJP goons who refuse to accept Sonia Gandhi as an indian even though she has spent a good part of life there because technically she grew up and was born in Italy. You are simply exercising selective amnesia, he was a Non-Resident-Kapilavatsan, neither Nepalese nor Indian since neither existed back then. And he was a hindu, all his disciples and all buddhists were also hindu too because again back in the day a hindu was simply a person who lived in the land beyond the indus. Focus Ancient India is not historically synonymous with Modern day India, distinguish between the two just as today we distinguish between Buddhists and Hindus, distinguish between where he born and where he preached in order to be more informative, thats what an encyclopedia is supposed to deal in. Your arguments when weighed with the counter arguments just do not logically add up. Unlike Nat or me you have not given a reason why distinguishing between the two regions is wrong. --Tigeroo 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try this again because this is funny to me...Buddha lived most his life in India...Buddha gained enlightenment in India...Buddha first spread his teachings in India...and Buddha died in India....But u guys are telling me that we should erase all this and say that he was Nepali because he was TECHNICALLY born in an area that is NOW known as Nepal?....Is that ur logic? ARYAN818 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The area in which Buddh was born in what is now Nepal but at the time Bharat desh, or the Indian subcontinent. Indian subcontinent is the best term to use because at that time it was the Indian subcontinent and now it is still the Indian subcontinent. Who knows if it was Indian Aryan, there generally hasn't been one nation in India, instead many kingdoms. Even in the Ramayan, there were seven different kingdoms of India. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 you still don't get it. No is trying to make him a Nepali or erase anything. Rather you are trying to make him Indian but ignoring his connection to what is now in Nepal and erasing any recognition of the physical location of his birthplace. He was neither Nepali or Indian. We are saying mention his birth as where he was born which just happens to be in Nepal today, and mention the place where he was enlightened which just happens to be India today. His connection is with both which should be reflected and neither connection denied. Mention of India and Nepal should only be required for cartographic orientation. We are saying there is no little to distinguish between the Nepali and Indian area where he was except those created by modern day political borders. You are the one who insists on calling him Nepali because he was born and grew up in what happens to be Nepal today or an Indian because his career was in what happens to be India today.--Tigeroo 09:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo virtually stole the words from the tip of my toungue. --Andkaha^(talk) 10:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 has gained reputation as an Internet troll. Best to ignore him. (20040302)

I love how all of u have opinions about weather their was an India or not, and I wonder if any of u have every picked up an ancient book....THe entire area has always been known as Bharat or LAND OF THE ARYANS....IN the Vedas its written in Sanskrit...Its written in the Puranas, upanishads, and varoius other books...so please dont any of u tell me that it was never ONE land....Even the Muslims called it Hindustan....Yes their were kingdowms no doubt about it...BUt their was still a recognition of the entire land....China had kingodms but many people recognized it as their own land....Native Americans were set apart, but many people recognized it as Native American land....And yet INdia has written proof in their documents that it was recognized as one land, and all of u people are telling me it was never one land?...amazing....ARYAN818 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

I think any easy part to cut down the size problem is the culture section, Buddhist Food, etc. I don't think this needs to be in the main article.--St0ne 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialogue

Hello,

I was wondering if we could add some more information about the ongoing dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity. There are many priests in Christian churches who practice Buddhism...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876043481/sr=8-2/qid=1152655209/ref=sr_1_2/102-9807077-5106551?ie=UTF8 http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_buddhism.htm http://www.yutopian.com/religion/compare/

JF

[edit] dharma wheel

As it stands now, there's a little dharma wheel at the very top of the article. It appears to be introduced by the {{Buddhism}} tag, since there's no explicit image link, but I am not sophisticated enough to track down how that works. it seems quite odd to have it floating there, and it appears a number of times in the portal sidebar, so I think it's unnecessary. anyone know how to remove it? bikeable (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Sentence of Article:"Methodology"

The latest version of the opening sentence of the "Buddhism" article seems a bit odd and perhaps even a bit non-NPOV to me - defining Buddhism just as a "methodology". The Buddha called his teachings "Dharma" -which is not just "methodology". It is closer to a correct and pure way of living, thinking, knowing and being. If Buddhism is to be defined as a "methodology", then almost anything else could be called that - from how to fix burst tyres to how to write books on cake-baking! Isn't "methodology" just too vague, too general - almost to the point of being meaningless? If Buddhism is a "methodology" (as its key definition), then couldn't one equally say, for example, that "Islam/ Christianity is a methodology (through prayer and devotion to God) for overcoming the suffering of Hell and attaining eternal life in Paradise/ Heaven"? But that would not communicate the spirit of those religions. Most encylopaedias, I suspect, would define Buddhism as a "religion/ philosophy". So I think the previous version was better: "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably a psychology". One could then add: "As a central part of its methodology for release from suffering, it utilises the Four Noble Truths ...." What do other people think?? Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have reverted that change, and I had already done so once yesterday. User:Sangha is introducing new wording that plays down the religious aspect; I strongly disagree and would encourage Sangha to discuss it here before making such a big change. Tony and others, you should feel free to revert that sort of change yourself if you see it and disagree... be bold! bikeable (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Bikeable. I appreciate your words. I of course completely agree with you. I think some people like to make of Buddhism a totally "rationalistic" enterprise - which it is not. There is a fear in some quarters of calling Buddhism a "religion", it seems. Strange! Best wishes to you, Bikeable. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a "methodology" which has psychololgica, lifestyle and philosophical aspects. Dharma in sanskrit simply means "truth" and NOT religion. Buddhism is a methodology (4 Noble Truths) about lifestyl and mind cultivation. Those who call it a religion are wrong :

Bhikunni Sisupacala answers in the Sisupacala Sutta (SNV.8), NO.

I don't approve of anyone's creed, friend."

[Mara:]

"Under whom have you shaved your head? You do appear to be a recluse, Yet you don't approve of any creed, So why wander as if bewildered?"

[Sisupacala:]

"Outside here the followers of creeds Place their confidence in views. I don't approve of their teachings; They are not skilled in the Dhamma. [134]

But there is a scion of the Sakyan clan, The Enlightened One, without an equal, Conqueror of all, Mara's subduer, Who everywhere is undefeated.

Everywhere freed and unattached, The One with Vision who sees all, Who attained the end of all kamma, Released in the extinction of acquisitions: That Blessed One is my Teacher; His is the teaching I approve."

So unless I see a valid argument, I will revert to referring to it as a methodology, which is a set of rules and practices that has a particular aim or goal. - Sangha(P.S use ~~~~ for signature)

The previous sentence, "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably a psychology...", pointed out that buddhism is religion(most layman practice it, and some even worshipping it), philosophy, and psychology. Using methodology to cover all aspects seems to over-simplify Buddhism, and skips the religion part. Although buddhism may have been only a methodology(psychology and philosophy way of life), over the years lay people have made it into a religion and that change has to be noted. (i.e, the previous sentence) PS TonyMPNS's suggestion should be considered as well. Monkey Brain 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sangha and Monkey Brain. No prizes for guessing whom I agree with (yes, Monkey Brain!)! Firstly, the word "Dharma" does not precisely mean "truth". The Sanskrit word for "truth" is "satya" (or, at a pinch, "tattva" - reality). "Dharma" derives from a verbal root meaning "to uphold, support". The Cologne Sanskrit Lexicon gives as one of its definitions of Dharma "religion , religious merit". So Dharma does contain the sense of "religion". It is that Law which supports/ upholds all sentient beings and reality. Second, it is significant that you quote from the Pali suttas, Sangha, rather than from the Mahayana. Actually, I don't think your extract proves that Buddhism is not a "religion" at all. But more to the point, I think that overlooking the Mahayana is perhaps where part of the difference between us lies: if one sees "Buddhism" as just Theravada Buddhism, then a stronger case (although not one which I could ultimately subscribe to, myself) could indeed be made for saying that Buddhism is not a religion; but Buddhism includes the Mahayana and Tantra: and it would be a brave person indeed who insisted that these are not "religious" in nature. Thirdly, if you do a Google search for "Buddhism: definition", you will find that the overwhelming majority of references to Buddhism speak of it as a "religion" or as "a religion/ philosophy". So I think the onus is on yourself to prove that what has generally been - and still is - predominantly accepted by scholars and practitioners as a "religion"-cum-"religion/philosophy" should not be described as such on Wikipedia. I do share Monkey Brain's view that Buddhism, today, is fairly reckoned to be a religion. Whatever the earlier, Pali forms of Buddha-Dhamma (and I would myself still include them under the general rubric of "religion", as they have as their goal the ineffable and world-transcending state of Nirvana), subsequent formulations of Buddhism and subsequent practitioners of Buddhism (lay and monastic) have brought it very clearly into the sphere of "religion". Of course you are right that religion contains various methodologies for achieving its goals (be those methodologies of prayer, worship, fasting, meditation, self-abnegation, or whatever); but "methodology" is just too loose a term to give a sense of the overall spirit of "Buddhism" as a whole (and remember that the majority of Buddhists in the world follow the Mahayana - not the Theravada). So I support Bikeable's and Monkey Brain's preferance for keeping the earlier opening sentence, that "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably psychology". I think it would then be fine to add: "It utilises various methodologies to achieve its goal of the ending of suffering and the attainment of lasting peace, such as the Four Noble Truths, the Four Immeasurables, Faith, Insight Meditation" ... etc. It would be useful now to also hear the views of other editors, don't you think? Thanks again Monkey Brain, Bikeable and Sangha for your contributions to this discussion. All the best to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

                   " Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.
                   Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, 'He speaks the Dharma,'

                   or of a man who speaks the Dharma, 'He speaks the Truth.'
                   Verily, both these things are the same."
                   (Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2) 

Truth and Dharma are EQUIVALENT. It is basically natural laws -- so to call it a spiritual "way of life" is best. Dharma is NOT a religion as religion is not an equivalent word to truth. Sangha

Yes, but "truth" is not the only meaning of the word Dharma. See e.g. the PTS Pali-English Dictionary entry on Dhamma. --Andkaha^(talk) 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A well-known list gives ten meanings of Dharma accepted by Buddhist exegetes, such as Vasubandhu (Vyākhyā-yukti) are: phenomena, the path, nirvāna, mental objects, the meritorious, life, the teachings, the process of becoming, the religious life and custom. "Truth" is not mentioned here. Also why should a quote from the Upanisads be an authority from Buddhist usage ?--Stephen Hodge 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I cannot see why user Sangha considers that the Sisupacala Sutta corroborates "dhamma = methodology". The loose English here of Bhikkhu Bodhi should be compared with the original Pali.--Stephen Hodge 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1) it has been corroborated that DHARMA OR DHAMMA DOES NOT EQUAL RELIGION, I will accept that it is also not just a methodology but neither is it a religion. Religion is an english word, and so is Dharma. So let the word "religion be replaced with "Dharma"...

Dictionary.com:# Buddhism.

  1. The body of teachings expounded by the Buddha.
  2. Knowledge of or duty to undertake conduct set forth by the Buddha as a way to enlightenment.
  3. One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made.

Sangha

• Yes, dharma is not religion (So no need to change religion to dharma). However, dharma can be equated to teachings of Buddha. Which is already in the first sentence. Keep in mind, not everyone who visits article on Buddhism knows pali or sanskrit words. It is best to use words those that convey similar meaning and is understandable to majority of non-buddhist/non-pali/non-sanskrit literate.

So it is quite clear to everyone that Dharma is NOT a religion and therefore should not be used -- in the TAOISM article, the word "Religion" is not used except as "religious aspects". So Buddhism is not a religion, it is a Dharma but has some aspects which resemble religion.

Dharma is an english word now, so perhaps people should look it up.

• Hallo everyone. I support Monkey Kiss's reversion of the opening sentence to a more sensible version, mentioning from the start that Buddhism is "a religion, philosophy and arguably practical psychology". To refuse to call Buddhism a "religion" or "a religion/ philosophy" from the outset is to go against the trend of most of the main dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions of Buddhism. Why does Wikipedia have to stand out as so different in this regard? Is this not "original research" and very obviously biased POV??? It has already been pointed out that the word "Dharma" can bear the connotation of "religion" (in a broad sense); but more importantly, "Buddhism" is not just the word "Dharma": "Buddhism" contains numerous features which make of it (certainly Mahayana Buddhism) a religion -and that is why major dictionaries and encylcopaedias define it as such. I note that there are not lots of editors jumping in, saying "Yes, it is wrong to call Buddhism a "religion/philosophy". If a Wiki article is to go so stubbornly against what most other dictionaries and encyclopaedias state, that strikes me as a very eccentric Point of View (POV) and therefore needs a mightily persuasive argument to justify itself. Perhaps that is why most editors at the moment have not said, "Yes, junk the word 'religion'". Rather, the tendency, so far, is mainly the other way. But maybe that will change! Best wishes. From Tony TonyMPNS 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)