Talk:Buddhism/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Changes Mar. 14 2 Toolbar 3 Regarding Hinayana 4 Transliteration 5 New Pali or Sanskrit Wikipedia? 6 95 Theses 6.1 Nat Krause re: anonymous 6.2 Nat Krause to Kukkurovaca 6.2.1 "Hindu", etc. 6.2.2 Gods, etc. 6.2.2.1 Part the first 6.2.2.2 Part the second 6.2.2.3 Part the third, in which Nat does respond to Lord Surya 6.2.3 Atthakavagga and Earliest Buddhism 6.3 Nat Krause to 20040302 6.4 Nat Krause to ? 6.5 Conclusion 7 Thesis the 96th 8 Featurenom 9 syncretic mixtures of Christianity and Buddhism? 10 About the Image Redux 11 Three marks of existence 12 Scavenger Hunt

Changes Mar. 14

Wanted to give an account of why I'm messing with some changes that 195.232.57.17 made today. I took out the part about how laypeople are often do not consider the 1st precept binding. I'm not sure if that's true and emphasizing it so early in the article makes it seem like Buddhists condone killing, which would be a misunderstanding. I also took out the word "uncontrolled" in "totally transformed them beyond birth, death, and subsequent uncontrolled rebirth" because again I'm not sure it's true and I think it detracts from the impact of the sentence -- also might give the impression that Dharma is about an ego trying to control his rebirths. I removed the reference to Chan under Bodhidharma; I don't think it's necessary to go into all that here; the article on Zen is supposed to be about Zen/Chan/Soun in general as well as Japan-specific Zen.

I also added a new line about how some schools have additional "grave" precepts: I've seen several different lists of 8-10. One more thing, it looks like we now have a complete list of which countries practice Mahayana, Theravada, etc. in two different places. I didn't fix that this time, but we probably should at some point. - NYK 07:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toolbar

On a somewhat related note, I slapped together a {{msg:buddhism}} toolbar for the Buddhism pages. I figure I'll try adding it to the main page and wait for people to yell at me. To edit it, go to: MediaWiki:Buddhism

Regarding Hinayana

I also pulled this:

"(A common misunderstanding of the term "Hinayana" is that it means "inferior", and was intended to be derisory, which it was not - see the main article for more about this)"

[...]

Which seemed to me to not at all justify a claim that "Hinayana" is non-derisive. And, indeed, I'm pretty sure it is derisive, and that we ought to find another.

Not wanting to be too annoying about this, there has been much talk about this particulary issue over at Hinayana. A dictionary definition of derisory is "expressing contempt or ridicule", and the Mahayana schools did not and do not express contempt or ridicule towards the Hinayana traditions, schools, or practices. If you can find legitimate primary sources that conflict with this, then let's change the article (and remove the provisio here) (20040302 08:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I do not change my opinion, but I feel that the issue of derisoriness (or not) of Hinayana is no longer needed in the Buddhism article. So, let's go with your pull. Moreover, the issue of derisoriness belongs to the Hinayana article, and is yet to be fleshed out, either by myself, nat, mahabala or anyone else (20040302 09:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Is śravakayāna, mentioned in the Hinayana article, sufficiently general in its appeal to replace Hinayana in the Buddhism entry, and possibly to take the place of the Hinayana article, with that redirected?

It was used a lot in early India, and by the chinese visitors as (Sravaks). There are many advantages to saying Sravakayana, but it is used less in the west due to the high dependancy on secondary literature and poor translation. (20040302 08:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I think that's apt; the conversation is clearly still important, but can take place off the Buddhism main entry. This should improve flow in the article and reduce clutter. Also, perhaps "derision" is too strong, but it's quite clear the term is perjorative. See Talk:Hinayana#Etymology for an etymological note.

(Moved) over to Hinayana talk (20040302 12:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Also, I looked over the Hinayana page, and saw two good suggestions: First, either take the NPOV discussion of Early Buddhist schools as such to either a Sravakayana page or an Early Buddhist Schools page. Might I suggest that the interested parties resolve that question either by a vote of some kind or by someone simply going ahead and creating one or the other? (With proper discussion in the intro paragraph and a redirect, there won't be much lost either way.)

This has now been done - the Hinayana page now deals with the Hinayana (but still needs a better approach), the Early Buddhist Schools stuff is now on Early Buddhist Schools and looks good there. We should attempt to get more links to that, rather than Hinayana, so as to avoid the Hinayana debate obscuring useful history regarding early buddhist schools. Acc. to Mahayana literature, Sravakayana substantially deals with the motivation of the individual (although is differentiated from Pratyekayana by method of transmisison). (20040302 12:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Thanks! And I'll keep an eye out for Hīnayāna links that should be switched over.कुक्कुरोवाच 14:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Second, convert the existing Hinayana page entirely to a discussion of the term itself, or take that discussion, integrate it into the Buddhist polemics page, and make the Hinayana either a redirect or a disambiguation page. (I prefer the second option, but that's just because it looks neater from an organizational point of view.)

this is yet to be done, but a good idea, one way or another. (20040302 12:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC))

What do you guys think? कुक्कुरोवाच 10:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There has already been some discussion on this at Talk:Hinayana. Actually, I don't know if there was ever a consensus on the issue, and I keep meaning to go back over that and hash some things out to seem if we can reach some conclusions. - Nat Krause 05:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration

By the way, I'm not really enthusiastic about adding diacritics to Sanskrit, but I certainly have no objection if you want to. On the other hand, if we are going to standardize Chinese transliteration, can we agree on the modern standard pinyin (i.e. Linji instead of Lin-chi)? - Nat Krause 05:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's important to get the right diacritics, because otherwise (a) we're not spelling things properly, (b) we are potentially furthering the corruption of terms in the semi-informed sector, and (c) I think it's important that Wikipedia be standard on issues like this. Obviously this all holds for Pinyin just as much, but of course there are some (like me) who are more familiar with Wade-Giles (owing to the inertia of the Religious Studies field) and won't always know how to convert. So, help on that front is much appreciated. What I'd like is to eventually get it so that the Buddhist terms and concepts page has correct transliterations (and ideally also characters, for those languages) from all the key languages, so that users can depend on it as a reference. कुक्कुरोवाच 10:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree with you on all three points, at least as far as marks for vowel length are concerned. (a) I don't think that diacritics falls under the category of "spelling" in English. English is a very anti-diacritical language: there are very few if any native English words that require them. Because of this, the information that they provide to a reader of English is limited. (b) This being my opinion, I don't see how not using diacritics will further the corruption of the terms. Actually, I'm nt really sure what you are referring to, so an example might be good. (c) I'm also not sure why it is important for Wikipedia to standardize this. What difference does it make if one page is one way and another another? It might be marginally desirable for them to be the same, but I don't see why it is important.

I will be happy to help with conversion to pinyin, since this is something that I do know a little about. I took a look at Buddhist terms and concepts but there don't seem to be any terms listed in Chinese. By the way, note that Chinese words should also technically have diacritics to mark the tone, but this very rarely done in practice. - Nat Krause 15:25, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know about the dearth of Chinese equivalents. Do you where one would look to find some? I mean, most of these things will have to have translations and/or transliterations, given the number of sutras that got translated...

Not sure what you mean. You want Chinese equivalents for various Buddhist jargons? I guess you could try www.acmuller.net. I don't really think it's necessary, though. Chinese Buddhism has had very little direct impact on English vocabulary. Everything's in Japanese, Tibetan, etc. - Nat Krause 17:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For pinyin and other Chinese transliteration, we tried to come up with some standards for Chinese articles. In the end, people just type the tone marks and/or numbers if they can be bothered/have them on hand - eventually someone who finds this unaccepable will fix it. Pinyin is sometimes, but not always typed in italics. Personally I like italics... nihao looks better in a block of text than nihao.

Regarding Chinese Buddhism's impact on western vocabulary, fairly widely used terms like 'Chan' are Chinese (though traditionally romanized Ch'an, which is not pinyin). Mostly names of schools, scriptures, and Boddhisattvas important to Mahayana traditions are frequently referred to by English speakers using their Chinese names.

--prat 21:28, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC) (currently living in China)

You live in China? Cool, me too! Anyway, as far as pinyin standards, I'm sure there's more discussion of this elsewhere, but the only thing I think is important is to generally use it instead of Wade-Giles. I don't think tone marks are very important because very few English speakers will know what to do with them anyway. If possible, I like to have them the first time the word is used in the article. I've made a little personal project of converting tone-numbers to tone marks, but I don't anybody else needs to worry about using one or the other or neither if they don't want to.

As for Chinese vocabulary, I was thinking of non-Proper Noun terminology. Clearly, the names of schools, places, and people specific to China will usually be said in Chinese (although some people still say Rinzai or Eno or Tendai). But those are mostly not in the Buddhist terms and concepts page anyway. The words that are there mostly do have Chinese equivalents, but, for instance, the Chinese word for satori is, as that page mentions, wu. But I've never heard anybody actually say wu in English. Or, for instance, bodhisattva: I've heard a few people, in English, call them bosatsus, but never pusas. Same with the names of specific figures. Everyone I've ever talked to uses either the names in Sanskrit or in Japanese (except for Guan Yin). I guess it depends who you talk to. My point, go ahead and put in Chinese equivalents, especially for proper names, but it doesn't seem like a really pressing issue to me. - Nat Krause 04:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Pali or Sanskrit Wikipedia?

Unsure how many people here are advanced in either of these two languages (I'm certainly not yet very talented...), but believe it could be a good idea to start thinking about starting new Wikipedias using them. This is particularly the case for Sanskrit, which seems to have quite a large following from a number of philosophical traditions... --prat 13:17, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Sanskrit actually has one [1]. However, I can't seem to find any content, suggesting that perhaps it isn't so much of the functional. I'd love to have one, but I'd hate to take on the responsibility for constructing one; I have some training in reading Sanskrit and I can even translate reasonably well, but producing Sanskrit would be much harder. I mean, I could cobble together entries that were technically grammatically correct, but it wouldn't look anything like what an actual Sanskrit speaker would say...but maybe that's not such a big deal, as there aren't exactly a lot of native speakers running around...

Plus, the sa.wikipedia is UTF-8, bless its heart. कुक्कुरोवाच 14:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hrrm, it must have just started working again recently. I checked some time ago and sa: links just died. The site, however, states that it was started in January 2001. There are a total of two articles(!), one of which is the main page, and one of which is a single line long. Perhaps if interest can be generated here and elsewhere (sanskrit.gde.to, mailing lists, etc.) then we could give it a good kick-start? --prat 23:34, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Actually, you guys might want to find out about the Indian intellectual scene. Since with Sanskrit, unlike latin, we know close to the sort of inflection and word order a native speaker would use, most people who learn Sanskrit can speak it fluently and converse with one another. There are huge societies, especially in India, wherein people actively create new vocabularies that are internationally agreed upon. There is a newschannel whereon daily news is given completely in Sanskrit. --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:27, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

95 Theses

(I just moved a bunch of stuff around in this section for clarity's sake. The chronological order wasn't working with the point-by-point replies breaking up the numbering and whatnot. I hope I didn't mess anything up too badly, but perhaps this is exactly the kind of overzealousness that's led to the current confusion of Buddhism.

Also, what's the etiquette on archiving or deleting old discussions. Can some of the older stuff get filed so this page isn't so huge?कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well, I don't know if you should do this normally, but I approve the change. And archiving is very common - Nat Krause 17:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nah, I'm joking, it's nothing as serious as that. But there have been a surprisingly large number of edits to this page in the last few weeks (I'm talking primarily about the ones before Kukkovacara's latest round) -- it's really in a state of flux. Some of the changes are improvements and some of them seem troublesome to me. However, rather than just alter everything exactly to my liking, I figured I should bring up the issues here and see what people think about them. --Nat Krause

Nat Krause re: anonymous

On Mar. 22, anonymous removed the entire "Three Treasures" section from the intro replacing it with a bit about nirvana and meditation. Clearly, the Three Treasures should be mentioned in this article, but where? I think that the intro as it stands now is a little bit of a mess -- it used to have some concision, but now it sprawls out to more than a page on my browser. Maybe we should have a separate thread to hash out exactly what should be mentioned in the intro, so as to make it less ad hoc.

Note, I went ahead and put the 3 treasures back in in the body of the article. - Nat Krause 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same anonymous user changed the etymology of "Buddha" to "one who has been awakened" instead of "one who is awake". Can someone who knows about Indic languages comment on this? Is it a valid difference? I don't see the point of the extra words.

Yeah, "Buddha" is a past passive participle, so technically "one who has been awakened" is correct. The implication that the Buddha awoke and was not always awake is good; the passive construction is secondary (it's just that other past participles aren't as common in Sanskrit; it's not that the Buddha was awakened by someone else). How about "one has become awake"? It's a little clumsy in English, but it captures all the necessary implications and leaves the others out.

That sounds good to me. - Nat Krause 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He also says that mindfulness is the most important of the Eightfold Path. Is that a valid claim? I had never heard that there was a most important part of it, except maybe in the opinion of Thich Nhat Hanh.

I agree with you Nat - All three trainings are essential. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

It's a worthwhile discussion, and there are places where it's implicit that mindfulness has some form of priority, but it's not something that has to go in Buddhism. It would probably make more sense under Noble Eightfold Path.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I will withdraw the paragraph.

From the same guy: "[The 4 noble truths] were not to be taken as accepted truths, but as truths that could be understood to be truths after careful investigation and reflection." How does he know how the Buddha meant for them to be taken? Better, I think, to leave that out. We convey the same idea under 8fold Path anyway.

I agree with you again. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

(I am new to wikipedia and didn't realize there was this discussion here.) I wrote that since there is often confusion that these truths are considered already known to be true and must be accepted without question. My source for this is the Kalama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-065.html.

The eightfold path is not so much a "truth" in the conventional sense as a path through which to understand the other truths.

Well, welcome to the party. Feel free to create an account, if only for ease of communication (grin). कुक्कुरोवाच

Anonymous: it's certainly a valid position, but let's leave it out from the 4 nobles section and handle it elsewhere. - Nat Krause 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On Mar. 24, an anonymous user replaced "non-violence" in the intro with "non-harming" (which is now "non-harm"). I would prefer to go back to nonviolence because it's less jargony, which is important for the intro. The same user added: "This ultimate soteriological goal is called nirvana ... which literally means something like "extinction", as in a candle being blown out, where the fire that was once in the candle diffuses through the universe." I quibble with this for two reasons, 1) there are different ways of interpreting what nirvana is supposed to symbolize, and 2) it's a very awkward metaphor. Who can picture a fire, once in a candle, diffusing into the universe? I prefer just to say that it means "extinguishment" and leave it at that.

Totally agree. Also, what is wrong with nirvana linking to Nirvana ?

Sounds fine as long as it doesn't link to Nirvana.

Extinguishment, extinction, etc. doesn't have an object, so it's difficult to understand. Perhaps, "extinguishment of _________." where _______ is some word you think is suitable.

I think it would be difficult to find a suitable word to fill that blank. If it's not difficult to understand, then we're probably giving the wrong impression. - Nat Krause 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about the Dhammapada quote (added by an anonymous user on Mar. 26)? I kind of like it, but the intro is crowded as it is. Maybe when we restructure the intro, we could make that the last thing in the intro, as a segue to the main article. Or maybe elsewhere in the text, like as a segue from Origins to Principles ... (also, why is it "Dhammapā" now instead of "Dhammapāda"? - Nat Krause 09:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like it too, but it would be good to find the source in Sutra rather than depend upon the Dhammapada as source. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Isn't the Dhammapada a sutra? - Nat Krause

The loss of the "da" is almost certainly my fault (accident, now fixed), and I have no special attachment to that quote, or any quote, in that position. It might be nice to see some nice topical quotes in various of the subsections, though.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I added the quote since it is often taken as a concise 3 line summary of Buddhism. It doesn't need to be there of course.

No, the quote is good. The question is just where to place it in the article. - Nat Krause 12:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nat Krause to Kukkurovaca

"Hindu", etc.

Kukkoravaca, what do you mean by " 'proto-hindu' is relatively meaningless, as is 'hindu'; Atmic philosophies were simply mainstream Indian philosophies. Also, 'Brahminism' is misleading, as the kSatriyas played a key role" (re: your Mar. 23 edit)? Do you really mean that Hinduism is not a valid concept? Isn't "mainstream Indian philosophy" exactly what Hinduism (or proto-Hinduism) means? Brahminism might be the wrong word to use, I don't know. We should probably consult with actually Hindus on what term they prefer.

Romila Thapar argues well for "Vedic Brahmanism", though I find "Proto-Hinduism" bearable. Modern Hinduism is definately not the same as the religious practices of 2.5 thousand years ago, (Most of the rituals were performed by 'kings', overseen by 'priests') and the Sramanic movements (of which Buddhism and Jainism survive) differed from them. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

"Hindu" is technically just an ethnic term with the same meaning as "Indian", more or less. It has come to be associated with the dominant religious practices of the people of the region, but it's a lot like the confusion of "Muslim" and "Arab," just more popular. So, really, the Buddha was arguing against certain strands of, I dunno, "Post-Vedic Indian Philosophy". The most decisive way to distinguish Buddhism from traditional "Hinduism" is to say "Indian philosophies which recognize the Vedas as canonical" and "Indian philosophies which don't recognize the Vedas as canonical." But I think "main-stream" is less cluttery.

The philosophy of, say, the "Bhagavad Gita", which many regard (wrongly) as very characteristic of "Hinduism" (it's a bit more localized than that), is not very Brahmanical; it's a story about ksatriyas, with the key religious role played by a charioteer (the charioteer is the traditional epic narrator in India, and traditionally a role occupied by a Brahman-Ksatriya half-caste). कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Kukko, you have a problem with Vedic Brahmanism? Was the Gita around at the Buddha's time?

Ha! No, the Gita is considerably younger. But The Buddha was dealing with the post-vedic philosophical tradition. The Upanishads are from the period of several hundred years before the Buddha, for example.

- - ::: Basically, as the old Vedic religion decayed, several philosophical movements branched off. You had formalists interested in preserving the tradition of ritual sacrifice (these were certainly Brahmins), you had the specific cults of various gods which elevated them to near monotheism, you had atheistic dualists (samkhya-yoga) who believed the world was made of the confluence of matter and spirit, and you had the monists who believed that all was one. All of those come in several sub-flavors, and I'm leaving some out. There is no word that encompasses all of these, and their doctrines are as different from one another as any of them is from Buddhism. So "Vedic Brahmanism" is definitely misleading, yes. -

Well, I do get your point about proto-Hinduism (though Hindus may like the idea as it allows them to identify with deeply ancient dates). Also, you know that early sutras (and the Jataka) only mention "The Three Vedas", don't you?

I reckon that we can still follow historians like Thapar, and identify Buddha as subscribing a Sramanic trend that was distancing itself from the state-based Vedic Brahmanism that was still very apparent at the time. Yes I get the point that there were also folk religions (Yaksha worship is big in the Jataka), and other philosophical schools being developed (also, as you imply, India was a gigantic place with a lot going on). But the purpose of the article here is to paint a picture of what sort of religious environment Prince Gautama was exposed to - and being a Prince (whatever that means in Maghada at the time), we can expect him to be surrounded by Vedic Brahmanism, possibly more than other schools. Moreover, he met a Sramana on his world-famous chariot rides, and the Sramana was a part of this early movement. Agreed? (20040302 20:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aha! I've got it. Just say, "Hindu philosophy", and pass the buck of defining what the hell that means to that page and its redactors.

- ::: On a sillier note, now all I can think of is, "I'm koo-koo for Kuko puffs."

Haha .. sorry. Kukko :-)

Hinduism and Vedic culture: A religion need not be the same as it was at its inception to be called the same religion. Beyond silly fancies about age of religion, Hinduism is a 'name', not the entity itself. It signifies a very real tradition of Vedic belief, hence another name Veda Dharma, that has survived continuously since, I'd say conservatively, 1500-2000 BCE.

Early Judaism or Early Christianity were completely different faiths from what they are now. Indeed, Christianity didn't even have anything close to its current sacraments or even its Bible! (consolidated w/ NT c. 4th century) for centuries. But they are still referred to as the same religion due to the clear retaining of older founding principals, a general terminology and a visible development (but not sundering) from the base tradition.

Buddhists in general make the mistake of thinking that departure from older beliefs implies a split. Indeed, the streams of "Hindu Philosophy aforementioned are Hindu because they accept the doctrine of the Vedas and BUILD on Vedic or Vedic-developed philosophy and metaphysics. The Upanishads or Vedanta (end of Vedas) are direct commentaries on them (Upanishads perhaps best defining the foundation of classic and modern Hinduism). Mantras, like the Mahamrityunjaya and Gayatri, plucked straight from the Vedas are more popular than ever. Even goddesses like Saraswati are still in active play. Gods like Vishnu and Shiva, though many erroneously assume independent indigenous growth, found (the former his name) much of their personality and philosophy from the Vedas. Shiva would, without the Vedas, have taken a completely different course, since his prototype was a horned protector of beasts, not the HOwler/Desctructive force oF Rudra, which name is now a major part of his persona. Also, without Vedanta, Tantra would not exist as it does today. Its practices would exist, surely, but with a far different philosophical formation bereft of the Upanishads. Beyond that, dharma would not exist as a concept, I'd wager, without its nascent Rta philosophy and use in the Vedas and final explication in the Upanishads. Lastly, Upanishadic mystics, before Buddha, broke away from Brahminism. But do you know that Brahminism still exists in many temples in India today? In a limited sense, yes, but by Brahminism, I mean hereditary right to conduct Vedic ritual pujas in temples. The tradition, though modified, plus its branches, continued till today.

The Indian philosophical schools, though some who would like to do away with the Hindu entity, are based on a very simple idea. Astika (orthodox) and Nastika (heterodox). Hinduism is the former, hence the term Hindu Philosophy, and Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka form the latter.

As it is, Hinduism, though a recent coinage, has been referred to variously (for centuries) as Sanatana Dharma (Eternal Dharma), Veda Dharma, Arya Dharma (I believe Buddhadeb too used Arya-noble frequently) and Yoga Dharma. And, of course, as is endemic to each dharma faith, plain 'dharma.'

A rose without a name would smell as sweet.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:07, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. anyone call for a Hindu? --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:14, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, Surya - to me your ideas suggest a reductive approach that would not be acceptable to most modern scholars or historians of India. If we were to follow your logic, then christians and muslims would be jews. Read Thapar for a distinction between (her terms) vendantic brahmanism and puranic hinduism. Also, many scholars indentify 'hindu' to mean a group of people, (living near the Indus) which has no representation of religion. Hindu is a difficult word at the best of times. (20040302 08:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well, it's true that there are broad continuities between the Vedas, but also some sharp discontinuities. I personally like the Orthodox/Heterodox distinction, is it is meaningful, clearly definable, and has a coherent basis--there are some Indian philosophies which hold the Vedas as canonical and innovate by re-interpreting them, and some which do not hold them as canonical and innovate by other means. It's clean. But I'm not sure it'll make enough rapid common sense to work for the Buddhism intro page. (The scholar in me rebels mightily at the prospect of using "Hindu" in any historical context, as it reeks of imprecision.)कुक्कुरोवाच

"Well, I disagree, Surya - to me your ideas suggest a reductive approach that would not be acceptable to most modern scholars or historians of India.

Unfortunately, it is not a reductive approach. The scholar in me, moreover, revolts against the acceptance of one scholar's word as gospel. Note that she does not cut off the culture but speaks of its development. The word Hindu is indeed a new appelation, but as I said, it does not negate the very real existence of a continuous culture. How can you explain the retaining and indeed very much extant custom of brahmins learning the Vedas and reciting them, or performing their ritual, and insinuate a different religion? It has been known variously as Sanatana (Eternal) and Veda Dharma.

As for your statement on scholars in India, that is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. There are plenty of very notable and internationally respected scholars on India and Hinduism who, in India and abroad, are fine with the term Hindu since, while it may have not been native, still describes a real tradition. It's not an artificial grouping. If you don't like calling it Hinduism call it Sanatana Dharma. Buddhists may like to do away with the idea of the Veda Dharma culture (I'm only reflecting a statement made above about Hindus and the age-issue).

I think you need to study Hindu traditions more and also chart the course of progression of thought from within the Vedas to the Upanishads and to modern Hinduism. It doesn't matter whether you call it vedic or puranic brahminism, it's still the same tradition. Also, I don't know if you've read the Vedas, but it contains a whole range of beliefs, from henotheism to pure monism and monotheism, from its beginining to final mandalas. Thus, to impute even a philosophical 'split' is erroneous 'scholarship'. If you're so appalled by the name, as I've said, Hinduism, then all it Sanatana or Veda Dharma. Also, calling it 'indian religion' is silly because that groups together hinduism, buddhism and jainism. Rather, it is the Astika religion, the six philosophical schools, and the two (three with Charvaka) nastika systems. Whether you call the Astika systems and the related bhakti/tantra schools Hindu, Sanatana Dharma or Veda Dharma doesn't change the fact that it's a real religion.

A critic visiting the first exhibitions of a new wave of art was appalled by the grotequeries he saw there. It was a new wave, and he mockingly derided it, saying, "This is not art! These are mere impressions!" The name stuck, since it was appropriate. Should we now say Impressionism never existed? --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:00, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You obviously didn't get my logic. I clearly spoke about splitting of from the parent culture, denying it and effecting a complete split of beliefs. The early Vedics and the Upanishadic Hindus both reverenced the Vedas, the basic cosmology and the same gods. Later Hindus developed their monist and monotheistic beliefs but retained, with equal reverence for the Vedas, the original belief system. It altered but didn't not split. Your example of Christians and Muslims being Jews is illogical according to what I said since Christians clearly defy Jews' rejection of Christ as Messiah and formulate their own text, defining themselves as different from the Jews in faith. The Muslims CLEARLY reject Christians and Jews. The six philosophical schools (astika) of Hinduism are for this very reason grouped together as they ACCEPT the Vedas as well as evolved directly from them. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:22, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there is any merit in continuing this here. We must accept differences in our reciprocal opinions. We find each other's view to be contrary to our own. There is nothing that you have said that has changed my views on the issue, and I suggest that there is nothing I have said that has changed your views likewise. So let us be friends in our differences. (20040302 19:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Gods, etc.

Part the first

Yesterday, Kukkovacara changed the beginning of the second paragraph from "Amongst the world religions, most of which proclaim the existence of a Creator god, Buddhism is regarded as unusual for being both non-theistic and a religion" to "Buddhism is unusual among world religions for de-emphasizing the role of deities in human religious life. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods (indeed, gods are frequent characters in Buddhist scripture), they are not regarded as ultimate powers in the universe or as special sources of salvation" Thanks for getting rid of the "amongst". However, it looks to me like you've changed the meaning of paragraph a little, still accurate, but less relevant.

I think the average reader is more likely to want to compare Buddhism to the monotheistic religions that they are familiar with, rather than polytheistic religions with multiple "deities". Furthermore, I think it's a really good idea to avoid words like "god" or "deity" which, in contexts like this, are so vague as to be almost useless. I don't think there's anything in Buddhism that could accurately be called a "god" in English -- the sutras talk about devas, so let's say devas. In any event, I don't think we need to discuss that in the intro.

Also, Russell Dovey changed it to: "Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings. Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods, and they are frequently referred to in Buddhist scripture, but they are not regarded as ultimate powers in the universe or as special sources of salvation."

This looks fine to me. I don't like changing it to "devas", as that's just taking advantage of a language barrier to euphemize. I would accept changing it to "supernatural beings," though. Deva means "god," and particularly if we take it in the lower case, that shouldn't be a problem. We can also get into the issue of God with a capital G, but that might lead us into a Mahayana-Early Buddhism conflict, as the metaphysical moves that make it clear that Early Buddhism is incompatible with Monotheism (and pan-theism, and monism) are later drastically reinterpreted in some Mahayana schools.

(Formerly No Worship of Higher Beings-now merged)

"Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings."

Isn't this completely misleading? Now, without ad hominems, let's consider boddhisattwas and Buddha, as well as Buddhism, which though its sects can largely be said to abide quite closely to main principles and texts, is quite diverse in practice. I know Buddhism quite well, and I know its philosophies. However, in popular practice, especially Theravada and Vajrayana, petitions and rituals involving Boddhisattvas, who are basically depicted as quasi-divinity-god figures, and even the Buddha himself, are quite common. With nitpicking one can say they are 'only being looked up to for support' or being 'venerated for their wisdom', but they are CERTAINLY higher beings, whether formerly enlightened humans or not, and they are being worshipped to quite an extent, including many crossover practices from other Dharma faiths including incense, and devotional ritual. The culture surrounding Ma Tara, a co-opted Hindu mother divinity, is a potent example of higher-being worship culture. Thus, the introductory paragraph, imho, is inaccurate. I invite a discussion, to consider the statement (reproduced above) and assure you that I will not change anything without vigorous (and ahimsa-abiding) discussion. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:04, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your concerns are well-taken. We've already had considerable conversation on this issue (I just put some of it under the header Talk:Buddhism#Gods,_etc., for convenience of reference). Personally, I've been avoiding raising the issue of what constitutes "worship" (and I'll agree with you that the Buddhism practiced by the majority of Buddhists definitely involves worship) until we've pinned the question of what constitutes a god...

But if we wanted to get down and dirty and truthful, wouldn't we have to say something like this: "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods (and, indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe ultimate power, either for creation or salvation, to them; they may, however, be regarded as having less ultimate powers to effect worldly events and to aid seekers of enlightenment, and are frequently honored through ritual. Advanced Buddhist beings (Buddha, Bodhisattvas, etc.) may be regarded as similarly belonging to such an intermediate class of beings."कुक्कुरोवाच

Actually, the more I look at that language, the more I like it. Would anyone have any objection to my putting it up in place of the current version, at least tentatively? Obviously it won't stay that way any longer than anything else on wp...

I think the paragraph as Surya quotes it shows evidence of having been written by committee, so I don't know how firmly any one person would stand behind it. It seems to me that it is difficult to make any one blanket statement for Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhists on this. I have no idea how those Tantric types would describe their relationship with various dharma protectors, wrathful spirits, dhyani buddhas, etc. But the suggest that a Buddhist could "worship" anything other than, perhaps, Buddha as an abstract concept, deserves at least to be controversial, the same as it would be if you described Christians as worshipping saints. कुक्कुरोवाच's suggested text above is definitely an improvement, although I think it's still a little too strong (I would prefer "having some powers") and I am still uncomfortable with using "god" here (see below). Moreover, I don't see why this should be discussed in the intro; if it gives the impression that deva and asura veneration is a key point, that's misleading; and we haven't even introduced the concepts of buddha and bodhisattva yet. - Nat Krause 04:42, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead, if only because the old wording was bugging me. Please feel free to revert if this was hasty of me. I changed gods>divinities and used Nat's "some powers" wording: "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of divinities (and, indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe ultimate power, either for creation or salvation, to them. They may, however, be regarded as having some powers to effect worldly events and to aid seekers of enlightenment, and are frequently honored through ritual. Advanced Buddhist beings (Buddha, Bodhisattvas, etc.) may be regarded as belonging to a similar intermediate class of beings." I also moved the para to the end of the intro section, since (while I think it's not a bad thing to talk about up front), I agree that it is nowhere near what is most important or primary about Buddhism. Now, that's not to say that any part of the intro really presents a dynamic introduction to the religion....कुक्कुरोवाच 06:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Part the second

" think the average reader is more likely to want to compare Buddhism to the monotheistic religions that they are familiar with, rather than polytheistic religions with multiple "deities". Furthermore, I think it's a really good idea to avoid words like "god" or "deity" which, in contexts like this, are so vague as to be almost useless.

The first, no offense meant, sounds like way too much POV. oh, by the way, Hinduism isn't polytheist, so the blanket statement is also uninformed. The second statement is just lack of effort: the buddhist boddhisattvas are very much deities, which differentiates them from God or a God-concept, and if you feel the term is vague, define it on the page for deity or in a brief appositive. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:29, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

For your first point, I disagree that this is a POV issue. It doesn't involve any difference of factual statements, just of which facts are placed where. That is an unavoidable editorial decision in any article. But I think that it is somewhat pointless to worry about right now, because I think that the whole intro should be scrapped and rewritten anyway. Also, I have never said that Hinduism is polytheistic, although I have said that as I use the terms, a religion with multiple deities is perforce polytheistic. But clearly you use these words differently.

On your second point, I think that what we have here, Lord Surya, is basically a lexicographical difference. I think that the word "deity" is synonymous with "god". That being the case, I do deny that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are deities, or that anything else in Buddhism is accurately called deity. This sort of disagreement is part of the reason that I say "god" and "deity" are hopelessly vague. The other part of the reason is that "god" (usually lower-case) can mean something like, say, Zeus or Ishtar, or it can (usually capitalized) mean something like Yahweh or Brahman, which seem to me like to whole different categories. Since these categories are likely to get confused if we call them both "god", I prefer to use other terms unless the context is clear. Hence my preference for deva. - Nat Krause 04:42, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely there is a distinction between gods in Buddhism against gods in other religions, in that the following is asserted for all gods, regardless of what it is we wish to define as 'god'

• Gods are not immortal (though buddhas may be)
• Gods are not omnipotent (nor are buddhas)
• Gods have no ability to prevent the fruition of karma
• Gods do not (and cannot) decide your fate
• God(s) did not create the universe, and are not involved in any fundamental creative act
• There is no God element, just as there is no Atman

It appears that every other religion subscribes to one or more on that list.

Most of the functions of 'God' (judge, creator, interceder) were deliberately replaced by the 12 dependant links and the Buddhist notion of Karma: We are responsible for our actions, and no-one but ourselves can get us out of the mess; any divine particle or permanant entity (atman, paratman(sp), etc) was identified as redundant too. (The flow of mind is vehicle enough for rebirth). Moreover, the worship of gods was never banned in Buddhism, but it was not identified with leading to Buddhist enlightenment. Striking a deal with a local deity was seen as business, not liberation. (Look at early Yaksha practices)

Therefore, to start quibbling about folk-belief is going to make a hash of what could otherwise be very clear.

As for yidam and other tantric deities, the issue is deeply involved with upaya (for comments on your interpretation of upaya, kukko, go to talk:hinayana), but the above points stand. Most of the Buddhist tantric tradition involves in an increasing shift of understanding of what is going on in the practice, based upon the individual's own realisation, so there is never one meaning or attribution attached to a ritual. Because tantric Buddhism lacks the position of a one true path, there is no worship that can be identified as such in the tantras, except when it is what is most appropriate according to the realisation (or lack of it) of the practitioner. (20040302 06:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Nat: Our lexicographical differences do seem great. By deity I was differentiating between gods that decide fate and simply referring to higher beings. Whatever. I think it would be difficult to dispell notions of worship of higher beings with Buddhist sects of Ma Tara. You can still worship a being that you feel doesn't control the universe.

Also, since you're very knowledgable, I will remind you that Brahman is not a god. Brahman is analagous to atman, has no attributes, no form, no-being or non-being, is pure consciousness and yet without ego. It is both transcendant and immanent. Also, in Hinduism, we are completely responsible for our karma and gods cannot change the fate. Our love for God aids us in developing purity, or sattwa, and the divine grace of the universal Atman, also seen by some sects as the One Vishnu or Shiva, etc. is supports our developing non-karma-inducing behavior, what has been called 'acting without regard for the fruits of those actions.'

Also, your idea of polytheistic is very simplistic, since polytheism implies separate gods whereas Hinduism understands them to be different colors of the same prism. Hinduism since the dawn of the Upanishads has been monist or monotheistic accomodating emantive deities from the One. Even in the early Veda it spoke of Only One truth known variously.

Deity worship is very much existent in Buddhism. If one splits hairs about whether they are technically deities or not, they are nonetheless higher beings who are in one way or the other worshipped. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:16, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sunshine, you point out the distinction of your understanding from that of Buddhists. Your understanding of 'divine grace' is considered by Buddhists to be contradictory to Karma (I remind you that Buddhist Karma is distinct from Veda Karma, in this light -generally Buddhists do not accept the premise of non-karma-inducing behaviour, though Jains do). Your understanding of Brahman (the God element) is contradictory to Buddhism, as is Atman, let alone the omnipotence and permanence of God (all of which Buddha considered to be redundant, unnecessary and even detrimental to liberation). You contradict yourself if you assert that God is both omnipotent, yet powerless to help others.

In the end, we have to agree that Buddhism has a different agenda to Hinduism, and any effort of syncresis will deprive both of these fascinating and wonderful religions. Both Buddhists and Hindus share commonalities, and one of those commonalities is the acceptance of different paths. We must respect each other's views as being distinct and different. We must accept plurality, and rejoice in our ability to do so.

This implies that any given word, sentence or doctrine may be freely interpreted, but in our interpretation, we cannot claim to know the views of others by it. It is possibly (probably) inevitable that the Buddhist view of Hinduism (or what-have-you) will always differ from that of Hindus, just as the Hindu view of Buddhism will always differ from Buddhists. Why not accept that as being a wonderful lesson in the Dharma?

Here is a question for you: If Buddhists see their 'gods' as powerless to help them, unable to intercede, and unable to change their lot, why do they spend their time in worshipping them? What is their purpose? (20040302 14:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

You know something, I was not trying to bring in comparisons of Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and impose one on the other. I was simply responding to misstatements you made about Hindu beliefs, and then went on to talk about Buddhist ones. I am the first to understand that many beliefs, while overlapping, are oft irreconcilable. Secondly, you can't read, because I never called Brahman omnipotent. I said it was the Divine Ground. It's essentially the complete opposite of void, but it transcends duality, and thus is not an active force in governing our lives. It is immanent and transcendant. Brahman is beyond description, Nat Krause, and hence cannot be described. Brahman is not cognizable within a time-space-causation continuum since brahman is not limited by it and we are. Thus, it preempts Buddha's idea that we cannot describe shunyata, or formulate it in words.

Secondly, Prajnaparamita was hailed as the Mother of all beings who showered them with knowledge. Such was claimed to be Buddha's saying by Nagaijuna in the Prajnaparamdita Sutra. That's why Mahayana Buddhist worship goddesses. As I said, one doesn't need to think that one's fate is governed or anything by a higher being in order to supplicate it. Stick to the points and stop indulging in erroneous tangents about Buddhist-Hindu comparisons, because I was never talking about that. I'm quite fine with their differences. I was here speaking of Buddhist deity worship. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:48, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Part the third, in which Nat does respond to Lord Surya

Dear sir, our lexicographinate differences are very significant, but I think I have yet to notice any differences so far as on any other matters. However, the conclusions we do or do not reach will still have an important effect on how the article winds up looking. It seems that we also disagree on the meaning of the word "worship", or rather, I am not totally clear on what I think it means, if anything, outside of the context of monotheists worshipping God. Looking at the dictionary, it seems that it agrees with me on deity but with you on worship. No matter.

I'm afraid I am not quite as knowledgeable about Hinduism as you seem to believe I am. In fact, were I more knowledgeable on the subject, you would never have to correct me! However, looking at the article on Brahman it appears that what you call Brahman is the same thing as what I call God. Yet another lexicon difference! On the other hand, I will agree that my idea of polytheism is fairly simple, not sure if that makes it simplistic.

You say "Deity worship is very much existent in Buddhism. If one splits hairs about whether they are technically deities or not, they are nonetheless higher beings who are in one way or the other worshipped." I must continue with my analogy with Christianity. Would you show up in Talk:Christianity and cavalierly say, "Many Christians commonly pray to St. Mary and a whole army of other saints. Clearly Christians worship saints. Let's not split hairs."? Would you expect those sentiments to be non-controversial?

By the way, I should note that I happened, for an unrelated reason, today to be discussing with a Chinese person the distinction between two words in Chinese: shén and xiān, which both describe "higher beings". A shén is an eternal, benevolent spiritual being, which sounds very much like what we in English call a god, vis a vis for instance Greek or Norse heathenism. A xiān, on the other hand, is basically a mortal being that has freed itself from the constraints of ordinary mortal life (as the Taoist Immortals) and has attained a great deal of power but may or may not be friendly. As it happens, they use xiān to refer to Buddhist devas. I would argue that they got the terminology right. - Nat Krause 15:52, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nathaniel Esquire,

God according to a dictionary:

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. A very handsome man. A powerful ruler or despot.

God has attributes. Brahman does not. Brahman also falls under none of these categories remotely.

Secondly, if you are squeamish about god or deity, say higher being. Also, worship entails supplication or reverence to something. I would tell Christians that they worship Saints and Mary. Praying to St. Catherine or asking a divine being like the Virgin Mother for Christ's intercession fits the bill. If a lion insists that it is a tiger, but we see the mane, the stance, the lion behavior, the fur, the genotype, and everyone knows its a lion, we shall ignore its attempts to insist it is something other than what it is. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:44, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

But Christians are, by their own declaration, monotheists. If they worship something other than one God, they cease to meet the description of Christians. Therefore, a Christian who worships St. Catherine or Mother Mary is not a Christian. By definition, Christians do not worship saints.

P.S. On the Brahman page it lists several attributes of Brahman. I would suggest that this means that, taken literally, the article is incorrect. Similarly, one might say that the dictionary definition of God, taken literally, is also incorrect. - Nat Krause 12:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The thing about dictionaries is that they have to be general. (Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (grin)) "Brahman" has several meanings. (There's a saying among sanskritists that every word has at least three meanings: what it normally means, the opposite of that, and something sexual. That doesn't apply here, but it's not a bad rule of thumb.) Brahman was at one point understood to be something like a creator god or even a slightly minor demiurge in comparison to the more popular Shiva and Vishnu (B=Creator, V=Sustainer, S=Destroyer). Later, however, it came to be identified as a monistic absolute. (This is evident in many parts of the Upanishads and was codified more logically by the Vedantic philosophers. Well, some of them.) It is in this capacity as a monistic absolute that it is held to be without attributes or qualities. Now, "Brahman" (I like to spell this one "Brahmin", but that's just something the English made up) also refers to the priestly class (="Levite"), and if you think this is confusing, this is only scratching the surface...

I would suggest, however, that we take a somewhat more Wittgentseinian view of language here. You guys are searching for a "common core" definition that will encompass all uses of certain words, while we should recognize that word-uses have more of a "family resemblance" relationship (some have the same nose, others the same ears, others the same way of walking). Thus it's not wrong to say that Christians dont' "worship" saints, because they don't use the word the same way we might use word in other contexts. (Though I say that's a particularly loaded word and we should avoid it.)कुक्कुरोवाच 23:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your description of Brahman is inaccurate, because Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva are evolutions from it. As the concept arose, Brahman became the progenitor and is not to be confused with Brahma.

So... Christians who pray to saints are not Christians? Interesting idea. But pretty flimsy. I think Catholics would take exception.

"Brahman was at one point understood to be something like a creator god or even a slightly minor demiurge in comparison to the more popular Shiva and Vishnu "

Completely wrong. Brahma was and is a demiurge. Brahman is not the same as Brahma. Also, your threefold rule about Sanskrit meanings is on the ball in describing multiple meanings, but woefully off-base with your 'normal meansoppositesexual'. But anyway, I'm not going to go into Sanskrit, because it's inexplicably tied to Vedic thought and religion and most people here have demonstrated a thorough lack of understanding about Hinduism.

I'm talking not about Hindu/Buddhist comparisons but was rather interested, as I've said above, the deity worship, which is pretty obvious. People claim to be one thing and do another, which only makes them hypocrites. I'm not calling mahayana deity worship hypocritical, but rather I would aver that people who claim that deities aren't deities and worship isn't worship miss the point. You have taken a non-human, or a super-human (a boddhisattva) and engaged in prayer practices involving their form, conception and noted characteristics. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:54, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

"So... Christians who pray to saints are not Christians? Interesting idea. But pretty flimsy. I think Catholics would take exception." It might an interesting experiment for you to go the the Catholicism article, insert some lines about Catholic worship of Mary and other saints, and then see what response you get in Talk:Catholicism. My point is that you might call it hair-splitting, but some people consider these distinction to be very important. I'm not sure which camp I fall into it, but if it is important, then I must split hairs and say that you are wrong; on the other hand if it is not important, why are we wasting so much time arguing about it? - Nat Krause 02:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

very well... you are correct... there is no point... as it is, the introduction has already met with my own assertions. Good day, sir Krause, his faithful friend, and the number man. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:53, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Atthakavagga and Earliest Buddhism

In his edits yesterday, Kukkurovaca added a section about the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyanavagga Sutras which "reveal an earlier form of the religion." This may or not be true, but the way it stands it begs for further information. In any event, I think it should be under "history of the schools" or something, rather than in its current spot. Any of this "earlier form of" stuff is usually going to have POV problems, because it is heavily contested by Buddhists.

Hmm. Yeah, I suppose it's out of place. I added a link to an article in "Philosophy East and West" that discusses them, and I'm planning to put together an article on them which will summarize said article and substantiate the issue more generally, and also discuss their contents. I'm not sure they belong in history of the schools, however, as they aren't especially important within any school of Buddhism. But perhaps we can insert a bit at the beginning of "History of the Schools" talking about "Earliest Buddhism" and what is and isn't known about it.

Have now moved the info to its own page.कुक्कुरोवाच 20:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nat Krause to 20040302

My pal 20040302 made some changes on Mar. 24, including one referring to Hinayana literate as "encourag[ing] nirvāṇa| rather than Buddhahood]]. I don't even want to try to wrap my brain around the question of whether we can validly contrast nirvana and Buddhahood. Can we just say "arhatship rather than Buddhahood"? Also, is it necessary to say "spiritual enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings" in the intro? Couldn't we just say enlightenment there and explore the subject further somewhere else?

I concede your first point. I think your approach is well spoken. However, the sencond point (ones-self, or for all beings) I feel should remain. If it is not made explicit, most people will think that the enlightenment is for ones-self only, so it is good to point out that this is not always the case, though I am sure you could find a more eloquent way of phrasing that. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I agreee with 20040302 on both points.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you guys want to keep it, let's. But I think it's kind of damned-if-ya-do, damned-if-ya-don't situation. Taking it out might cause the problem you cite. But leaving it in sets up this dichotomy between "enlightenment-for-self" and "enlightenment-for-others" which is not necessarily valid. I will defer to your judgment. - Nat Krause 12:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also on the 24th Mar. 2 wrote "All traditions accept the Hinayana teachings as being authentic (and they are generally considered to be the earliest)." This is a little misleading. By "earliest" do we mean that they were taught by the Buddha earlier in his life, or do we mean that they developed earlier as schools of thought? If the first, it's generally true unless we count the Avatamsaka Sutra, the basis of the Huayan school, which was supposedly taught before the sermon at Sarnath. On the other hand, Mahayanists, etc. traditionally do not believe that their schools developed historically later than Hinayana.

Well, I'm all for the standpoint of secular scholarship on the points of dating. I think NPOV for encyclopedias should be regarded as secular (though never anti-sectarian) anyway, but in issues like dating, it just gets too confusing otherwise, and sooner or later you get somebody saying the Mahayana was writting millions of years ago in a different yuga.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm skeptical of the idea that secular research is necessarily NPOV whereas religious claims are not. There's a lot to be said for the idea that western scholars do (or at least did at one time) bring a lot of their preconceived notions to bear in interpreting eastern religions. On the other hand, the extreme case you describe about different Yugas does not seem very desirable either. In any event a) I'm still not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean exactly; b) "generally considered" in this context sounds like we're talking about Buddhists. If we're talking about what scholars generally consider, then we should specify that; c) I'm not sure how strong the scholastic opinion is right now on which schools developed first. For instance, how much of the Gandhara material has been incorporated into the academic consensus? Generally, considering the lack of contemporary documentary evidence, I regard all the research on this stuff to be interesting but fairly weak, so I would prefer to tread more lightly on the subject of what's the earliest and what isn't. - Nat Krause 12:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nat Krause to ?

Oh, yeah, and then there this thing about the "open source" canon ("Since it is a basic tenet of the tradition that anyone may become enlightened, it is also possible for new authoritative sermons to be delivered and recorded). That's been in there for awhile, not sure who put it in, but it always seemed questionable to me. What exactly is this referring to? What does it "enlightened" mean here? People really aren't supposed to go around adding new sutras to the canon -- the Platform Sutra is a very unusual case, and I think that's a mistranslation from the Chinese anyway.

I didn't put the text there, though I did link it to "open source", which was somewhat silly of me, I suppose. I'm not attached to it, as I don't think any scriptural canon is ever as closed as its owners think it is.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion

Okay, so tell me what you think. If there are any points above that no one has anything to say about, I will probably start making some changes in about a week. - Nat Krause 11:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thesis the 96th

What the? Anon user 67.42.67.85 put this in the intro section:

Buddhism largely consists of the doing of good action, the avoidance of bad action, and mental training. The aim of these practices is to put an end to suffering and achieve spiritual enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings. Spiritual Enlightenment (a translation of "Bodhi" in Sanskrit and Pali or Satori in the Zen tradition) is considered to be touching or abiding in Nirvana (Sanskrit; in Pali, Nibbana, literally, "unbinding" or "extinguishing".) Nirvana is a supramundane state which is unconditioned, unmade, unborn, unfabricated and results from unbinding from or extinguishing all that was conditioned, born, made, or fabricated; Nirvana can be thought of as a state of ultimate peace or reality in which all duality in the universe is resolved.

What's up with this "unbinding" business?कुक्कुरोवाच

Okay, I took out the bit on Nirvana, and stuck it on the Talk:Nirvana page. Then I streamlined the rest somewhat to this:

"Buddhism largely consists of the doing of good action, the avoidance of bad action, and mental training. The aim of these practices is to put an end to suffering and achieve enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings. Enlightenment is considered to be touching or abiding in [[Nirvana|Template:Nirvana]] (Sanskrit; Pali: Nibbāna), which means "extinguishing" or "extinction.""

Howzzat?कुक्कुरोवाच 17:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like your change. I'm still kind of uncomfortable with having the word "extinction" in there. Clearly that word will have strong negative connotations for most people who read it. "Extinguishment" is more neutral -- on the one hand it might imply something like the Fire Sermon, with the individual as a burning thing that needs to be put out. However, if you want to keep "extinction" in, maybe if we want to shake people up a little on purpose, then let's keep it. Which do you think is more faithful to the original Sanskrit? - Nat Krause 12:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Featurenom

I deleted the "featurenom" msg, as (a) We're actually on the Featured Articles list already (how the hell did that happen?), and (b) the only other article that actually has a featurenom tag is DOOM. And while it's always nice to be a in a group that selective...कुक्कुरोवाच

Yeah, I've got to say, I would have waited for the page to settle down a little before featuring it. - Nat Krause 04:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

syncretic mixtures of Christianity and Buddhism?

Near the end of the History of Schools section there's a phrase regarding Tocharia, etc. in modern day Xinjiang, China which includes "syncretic mixtures of Christianity and Buddhism". I'm curious what the source was here, as I've never heard of 'syncretic mixtures'. Buddhism: yes. Nestorianism: yes. Mixtures? No. I'm removing the phrase for the moment... if someone has a source, please add it again. --prat 22:23, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

About the Image Redux

Well, nobody except Usedbook said anything the last time I brought this up, but I still don't like the page's main image. I just saw this article for the first time as a "Featured Article" and the image, to me, makes me feel like not reading an article about Buddhism. Any idea where to look for better ones that are publicly available? Also, I notice the image kept moving around on the page for awhile. Why shouldn't it be up at the top where people can see it when they first load the page? - Nat Krause 08:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree very m,uch, I'd like to see a happy fat buddha, I've seen many red statues such as this, and any of them would be welcoming to the page. Sam Spade 06:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not the response I was expecting. Heh, I was thinking the current image is too fat and too happy! Oh, well, if most people like the current image, then by all means, it's fine with me. Carry on. - Nat Krause 16:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about this picture ? i can upload it if you can think it fit in the article. | Chmouel 13:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The happy, fat, red Buddha of statuary fame is usually the Chinese version of Maitreya, Mi Fo, not Gautama. FWIW, I think the current HK Buddha photo is fine... Fire Star 15:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm partial to aniconic representations of the Buddha myself. Footprints and the like.कुक्कुरोवाच

How do you feel about one of those "flaming dharma-wheel" symbols? I don't know, maybe a little too nouveau? - Nat Krause

Nice pictures, Chmouel. The one you suggest is pretty good, but it probably wouldn't work as the main image because it is shot at angle and there is a fair amount of stuff in the background. Some of your photographs of Thai temples and stuff are pretty cool, though. I'm sure we could use those somewhere - Nat Krause 03:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, we could really use some info on Thai temples generally, as it's one of the unrepresented regions on our temples pages...hint hint.कुक्कुरोवाच

Let me know if you need any pictures, i have as well some Laotian pictures that you may be interessed. | Chmouel 06:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Three marks of existence

Here's a nit-pick about the three marks of existence (I've never seen mention of the "three marks of conditioned existence" before). Not all three are about conditioned things nor about all dhammas.

The Dhammapada, verses 277-279, states:

       All conditioned things are anicca
       All conditioned things are dukkha
       All dhammas are anatta

As I understand it, "dhamma" as used in this context is the most inclusive, catch-all category in Pali. Sue Hamilton (Very Short Introduction to Indian Philosophy) translates it as "knowable things", which I like. (2004-04-09T08:05+0000)

Hmm. That's a fair point about "conditioned"--not that it's not conditioned existence, but what in Buddhism wouldn't be conditioned? Pratitya-samutpada tells us all things arise dependently, which is to say under conditions.

Similarly, the "dharma" is the fundamental phenomenlogical constituent, so everything that enters into our experience is composed of "dharmas", so everything is about "dharmas," as well.

"Knowable thing" is an entirely problematic translation, since the "dharma" is not an object of consciousness but an element of it, and of all experience. "Phenomenon" is the best short translation; one might also fuss about with "sensabile," if one so desired.

All that said, what specifically might you want changed in the text as it stands? I'm not sure I see the distinction just yet.कुक्कुरोवाच

(Meant to be on holiday, but hey.) Well, Nibbana is most often cited as being unconditioned. Certainly, Nibbana that was Dukkha or Anicca would undermine Buddhism in a pretty major way, but everything is definately Anatta. (20040302 18:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Ah, good point. Though that's a tangled metaphysical issue unto itself.कुक्कुरोवाच 19:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Scavenger Hunt

Okay, I've just stumbled across, like, five articles that weren't indexed in the "List of Buddhist Topics", which ideally should be encyclopedic. Keep your eyes open!कुक्कुरोवाच 23:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)