Talk:Buddhism/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Shortening the introduction --> Major Sects

First: I like the way the Theravada/Hinayana basic description was moved to "Major Sects". There has to be at least a basic introduction of the differences. That is why i, secondly, inserted a short note on one (if not 'the') major difference, which is the different scope of the two paths (personal liberation vs. liberating all others). Thirdly, i removed the adjective "irreverently" from the way (some) Mahayanists refer to the Theravada as Hinayana. From what i understand, a Mahayana practitioner doing so would at least come close to a breach of one or more of his Bodhisattva vows (see number 6,7 of the first and 13,14 of the second list. In some translations root vow nr.14 is even translated expliciteley as "disparaging the Hinayana"). Nevertheless, out of respect for the feelings of Hinayana followers, recently the term Śravakayāna (Skt. Vehicle of Hearers) is used by some Mahayana scholars. For example, i have attended an 8 day teaching by HH the Dalai Lama in Zuerich last summer, where this term was used most of the time, although it is not precise: see discussion here: http://www.berzinarchives.com/comparison_buddhist_traditions/terms_hinayana_mahayana.html . From a Mahayana point of view, there simply seems to be no proper substitute for the term "Hinayana". For further arguments also see the extensive discussion in the main article on Hinayana 213.196.198.205 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: after looking at the whole article and reading through (parts) of the revision discussion, i must agree that the article definitely needs a major cleanup. In that process "Major Sects" most definitely has to be merged with "Buddhist religious philosophy and branches" somehow. Again there would be the problem of Theravada/Hinayana. As to the term "Nikaya Buddhism" used in "Buddhist religious philosophy and branches": as much as i appreciate the effort of Harvard Professor Masatoshi Nagatomi, i do feel that it would be quite inappropriate to use this western scholarly term as long as it is not accepted by a broader part of the genuine Buddhist Community. 213.196.198.205 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

revert of edits by 24.61.71.99: removed these sentences: "The reason for this is that the Term Hinayana indicates a lesser path to Nirvana. It was used by Mahayana Buddhists to belittle the Theravada school." They dont seem to contain any new information and only restate the formentioned fact, that Hinayana has a negative connotation to some, in a less neutral way. 84.44.214.42 15:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Proposal for Revision

This article is getting unreadable. As I see it, main problem is mahayana-theravada disambiguation. This inter-sectorial debate doesn't belong in this page. It should be dealt in separate article. I intend to copyedit this article by moving all T v.s. M debate to the bottom. Yoji Hajime

Fully agreed. This article is so sectarian, geeky and unreadable, thus unusable. Besides, certain things are utterly nonsense, such as: "To achieve this, one should purify and train the mind and act according to the laws of karma...." (Karmic Law is not a guideline, but a natural law that everything unavoidably follows until achieving nibbana/nirvana.) As a person from a majority Mahayana country, this we-need-a-fair-treatment attitude floating all over the page looks very ego-centric and unbuddhistic. TokyoJapan
I highly agree. This ground has been re-trod so many times. While there is a lot of in-depth research being added it is all very one sided, of a highly esoteric nature, and un-referenced. I've found it interesting that under sub-headings, where one expects to find general information on Buddhism one finds one-sided sectarian interpretation that masquerades as general buddhist knowledge, whilst leaving out the actual general information.
I think if one puts information on the main-page it should have some sort of footnote referencing documentation of some authority. If one can only provide one side of the story, and if the full story belongs on the main-page, then the addition should be proposed in the talk page where it can be further developed.
Thanks for the edits Yoji, RandomTask 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the shrinking. Within "Buddhist Practice" section, "mind" sub section have to be expanded. I also felt that

8 "Relations with other Eastern faiths"
9 "Buddhism in the modern world"
10 "Buddhism and the West"

can be moved somewhere else entirely. Whether we should limit this page for history and basic theology or to include more worldly topic (such as Buddhism in the West), I wasn't so sure so I left as it is. I also think that "Buddhist religious philosophy and branches" can be changed to "Buddhist Schools" or something like that. This should be about general explanation of Theravada/Mahayana/Vijryana Buddhism Yoji Hajime

I also stated previously that I would move all the edit to the bottom but I actually deleted it because there was so much to cut and if I put them in the bottom, it would have been unmanageable. I'm very sorry for people who spent a lot of effort writing. Please do not think that I consider the writing unworthy. It just that this page should be for people who aren't Buddhist so the page should be kept as simple as possible. More specialised topics should be discussed in separate article where more detailed exposition can be made. Please recover the deleted section, copy edited to appropriate article then create relevant wiki links. Thank you. Yoji Hajime

I created wiki link for every section. I think it is better if people go there first anddeveloped more comprehensive and balanced view in these sub-articles. This page should be a collection of intros for these sub articles. Yoji Hajime

Recent Demolition of Buddhism Article Totally Unacceptable

The recent massive deletions of major portions of the Buddhism article strike me as wholly extreme and unjustified, as well as biasing the article far too much in a "Theravada" direction. The best Wikipedia editorial policy is surely that of judicious pruning, modification and amendment - not savage "slash and burn". Such a cavalier removal of whole swathes of information is not only unwarranted (unless there are masses of factual inaccuracies or total irrelevancies) but also intrinsically unfair to previous editors who have doubtless contributed many hours of effort to the provision of information that could well be of interest to Wikipedia readers and which is not always easily found elsewhere. Moreover, some of those editors - I know - are genuine experts in the field, with decades of scholarship behind them and numerous publications to their name. To (almost unilaterally) delete their work is not only insensitive in the extreme but also fundamentally undemocratic and rather unbalanced. If such savage deletions go unchecked and unchallenged, I fear that serious scholars of Buddhism - and other contributors too - will simply withdraw from the Wikipedia project and not wish to bother contributing information which could be massively removed in one fell and extremist swoop. And that would surely be to the loss of us all. I propose to restore the article to its form of several days back and to recommend grammatical enhancement and respectful, balanced pruning where necesssary - not wholesale butchery which, quite frankly, is breathtaking in its audacity. Best wishes to all. Tony. TonyMPNS 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the article does need trimming: about 60 lines each for Anatta or Vegetarianism is way too long in a general Wikipedia article on Buddhism. However, to TonyMPNS's point, destroying text is clearly not a solution. Even if it takes more work, excess material should be outlinked to sub-articles (... which by the way already exist for Anatta and Vegetarianism for example). PHG 07:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PHG, for your very balanced assessment of the situation. I agree with Yoji's idea of trying to slim down some of the elements within the Buddhism entry, but to engage in a truly major jettisoning of masses of material seems deeply unfair and almost reckless to me. I myself (e.g. with Yoji's additions on vegetarianism, with which I profoundly disagreed) never once removed complete contributions from that editor. I have too much respect to do that (although on this one rare occasion today I have reverted the whole Buddhism article to an earlier form, as the deletions struck me as so extraordinarily sweeping and one-sided). I think one should balance one's own understanding with that of others by simply adding a corrective line (as one sees it) or even paragraph here and there, while trying one's best to preserve what the previous editor has written. If we effectively censor whole areas of information (although I am sure that was not Yoji's intention), we do a disservice to the fundamentally democratic enterprise that Wikipedia is: it depends on mutual respect and toleration of variant viewpoints (except, of course, in the case of actual factual inaccuracies). So I tend to share your own apparent attitude,PHG, which is to try to reduce excess verbiage but not to throw out the baby with the bath water! All the very best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo again dear PHG. I've just seen your new reversion of the whole Buddhism entry and think it is very fair-minded and completely acceptable. I think we can all (as time allows) try to rectify the grammar here and there, maybe tighten up on some of the phraseology and general verbosity (of which I am as guilty as anyone!), but essentially try to keep all this interesting information in situ. One of the glories of Wikipedia is that it does provide a forum for information which one does not always find in more conventional encyclopaedias. I think we should treasure that feature of Wiki. Once again - thanks for your own very reasonable contribution to the discussion. Cheers! Tony. TonyMPNS 08:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi TonyMPNS. After a few hesitations, the last version before all these major undiscussed changes seems to be the one by Antandrus. I've reverted to that. Regards PHG 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi once more, PHG. I think what you have done is absolutely fine. I can see no problems with that in principle at all. Thank you again for being so very balanced and equitable in your approach to this whole debate. Warm wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • My suggestion was to move deleted potion of the article to sub-article. I specifically asked for people to "recover" deleted article. Have you looked at the sub-articles? Most of them are shorter than the section here. Is this site an extended version of Britanica? Should every article be begin-all and end-all article. The current article is just too large while at the same time being too weak because subarticles are either non-existent, too short or not wiki linked properly.Yoji Hajime
  • PHG, please go easy. I respect Hajime intent here. A lot of good edits are getting lost in this revert war. If anyone has time, please go through and pick out the best of them. The article now reads poorly yet again. One particular loss (that was discussed here) is Random Task's new opening sentence which was a major improvement on what was there. Another edit that was also in fact discussed here was the rereferencing of population statistics. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the props Metta Bubble. RandomTask 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • TonyMPNS, I can understand that you're defensive about a lot of the material that was removed because I checked the history and saw that you submitted a lot of it. I didn't make the extensive edits but I agree with them in large part for the following reasons:
  • Much of the material is esoteric, even to those educated in Buddhism and especially to beginners.
  • It doesn't read well, the grammar is horrible, and the style is horrible.
  • There is practically zero cross referencing with other articles especially in light of the fact that there are tons of other articles.
  • There are no footnotes to scholarly works to verify many of the esoteric bits (including your own).
  • There are no footnotes to the writings of monastics.
  • Arguably, it implicitly presents Mahayana doctrine as authoratative for all Buddhists without pointing out the Theravada position on such statements as: The Buddha's Mahayana doctrines contain a set of "ultimate" (nitartha) teachings on the immanence of a hidden, deep-seated reality within all sentient beings which is linked to the eternality of the Buddha and Nirvana. Theravada would argue that the Mahayana doctrines are not of the Buddha.
I still think what was removed was good material. I just think it needs to go into the related articles. Unless you disagree I'll be re-editing and adding the grammar fixes, readability corrections, cross-references, footnote additions, and minor topical changes I made (like removing esoteric topics from the introduction section). RandomTask 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, to cover this ground for the millionth time since this page was started; do we want to bring up the Mahayana vs. Theravada debates in the main page or does that belong in the subsections? Can we all agree that the main page is not the place for trying to put forth our own tradition as 'better' or more 'authorative' than any other? Maybe a Theravada_Mahayana_Differences page would be better suited to such discussion. I personally believe that if you have to write This applies to Mahayana only (or Theravada) then it doesn't belong in this article. Which, I'm sorry to say, "Buddha Nature" kind of falls under. RandomTask 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, RandomTask, for your comments. I'll try to respond to your main points (unfortunately I'm short of time at present):

1) I don't believe that Mahayana Buddhist teachings should be shunted off to various side-line articles within Wiki, away from the main "Buddhism" entry (although they can, of course, receive more detailed coverage in entries focussing specifically on those doctrines). It may come as a shock to some, but Theravada is not the entirety of "Buddhism": it is a highly important branch of Buddhism, as is Mahayana. The general article on Buddhism should strive to be balanced in its presentation of the ideas of these two extremely influential streams of Buddhism.

2) My grammar is not "horrible": the problem is that what was originally perfectly acceptable grammar (as manifested in my original contributions to Wikipedia) subsequently underwent mutilation at the hands of others whose mother tongue is evidently not English. The result of such changes gives the impression that I (and others) preside over a woefully inadequate command of the English language. If you don't like my style - that is, of course, another matter. You are quite at liberty to dislike the manner in which I express myself. Others may find it OK.

3) I don't quote named monastics in my contributions - you are right; I prefer to quote the "Buddha" himself, and I nearly always mention the Mahayana sutras from which I am extracting the quotes or outlining the doctrines. In this connection, I might also say that I said in my contribution to the opening sentences of the "Buddhism" article that for Theravadins, the Mahayana sutras are poetic fictions, not stemming from the Buddha himself at all. I don't see why one needs, after that, to keep attaching a little health-warning to mention of Mahayana doctrines, indicating that "these are rejected by the Theravada". I don't mind doing that each time, if people think it is really necessary - but it strikes me as potentially tedious for the reader to be told each time that a (specified Mahayana) doctrine is deemed by the Theravadins "not to be of the Buddha" or to be counter to Dhamma. Surely, once we have established at the beginning of the article that the Mahayana sutras are viewed as bogus by the Theravadins, that should suffice?

4) Most importantly, perhaps: should Wikipedia remain stuck in an understanding of Buddhism that is actually decades out of date? For example, it is simply not factually accurate to make such statements as (I give from memory a pertinent example here): "Buddhism denies all and any Self, Soul, eternal essence (svabhava) ...". Buddhism in total does not do so. The majority of Buddhist teachings, it is true, have been interpreted by most scholars in that way, but there are important strands of doctrinal assertion (and not to be dismissed as "esoteric" - as though that label somehow removed all legitimacy from them) which articulate a more "cataphatic" vision of the Dharma. I think Wikipedia should be proud to be in the vanguard of the latest research into Buddhism - and not rehearsing views that were deemed correct 100 years ago, but which subsequent investigation has revealed to be decidedly narrow, partisan or partial. Fairness, accuracy and balance should be the watchwords in all of this.

So let us strive to present a fair general portrait of Buddhism in the main Buddhism article and not skew it unfairly towards a Mahayana or Theravada viewpoint. All the best. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi TonyMPSN, Thanks for the replies!
w/rt 1) I also agree that Theravada doctrine isn't entirely of the Buddha (my personal predilection is to take the Abhidharma with a grain-of-salt if it contradicts or muddles the suttas). I'm not a Buddhist scholar so I don't have the research to back up my belief that anything other than the Suttas and the Vinaya are commentaries and not direct teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana doesn't need to be side-lined into sub-articles but deviations from Introductory Buddhism very well may. While it is certainly fair for each side to take their pot-shots at the other side due to the legacy of the dissention I am personally against any such divisive statements in the main article.
w/rt 2) Exactly my point, which I highlight in my proposal below. The article "reads like a scholar's paper, randomly edited by a seventh grader". Your style is exceptional and elegant at times and perfectly fine as long as it is accessible. I personally find exegesis and extensive parenthetical remarks to be more excursive than beneficial or clarifying, hence my recent focus on cross-reference linking.
w/rt 3) I simply mention monastics as a reference source because they've been a source of commentative authority for thousands of years. Many are quite learned and provide a perspective on doctrine and practice that can provide a good balance in relation to the research of exo-Buddhist scholars (though many scholars are Buddhist). My personal feeling is that monastics know what is important. Like you've aluded to before; Theravada views much of Mahayana as apocrypha, though often efficacious. I don't favor a single disclaimer after which contentious statements are presented as universal facts because I don't particularily feel that it is an honest or clear way to present the information, though it is certainly valid (and often favored) from a literary perspective.
w/rt 4) I believe Wikipedia has never intended to be the testing ground for emerging research into any subject though it provides us with a quick method to witness emerging research as it happens. Others may have a differing opinion of course.
  • I apologize if my orthodoxy is offensive.
Much metta, RandomTask 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, RandomTask, for your replies to my own points: I enjoyed reading what you had to say. On the question of my adding a caveat (e.g. when discussing the Buddha-dhatu doctrine) that such-and-such a teaching is not recognised as the Buddha's genuine dhamma by Theravada - I don't mind adding that at all. I just feared that the reader might get a bit bored with such repetitive comments. But I am all for fairness, accuracy and balance, as I said above. I'll try to add any necessary clarifying points (to the effect that such-and-such a doctrine is not accepted by Theravada Buddhism) in the days that follow (although I'm having terrible problems with my ISP at present, which makes it difficult for me to be on-line for long!). Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being thoughtful TonyMPNS. Hrm, I think you've demonstrated, with your recent edits, that a qualifier following every Mahayana statement is certainly overkill. I intend no offense, but I guess my big problem is my knee-jerk orthodox reaction to the term "the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine". I'm not so sure that statement is NPOV in light of strong Theravada disagreement, similarily continually qualifying Mahayana as, heretical revisionism following a single disclaimer that some believe the Mahayana teachings as authentic would certainly not be NPOV. I guess I don't feel "poetic fiction" expresses the weight of Theravada dissent to the claim of the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine. Would it be non-NPOV to mention in a single place that Mahayanists view the Mahayana doctrine as later revealed, authentic teachings of the Buddha, and then simply refer them as the Mahayana doctrine? I'll definitely concede to the opinion of the community with-regard to how this subject should be addressed, but I'd like some convincing. Metta, RandomTask 20:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo again, RandomTask. Thanks for your interesting comments. I can understand why, as a Theravadin, you feel very cautious about statements such as "the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine". I respect other people's deeply held religious convictions. I can understand how you feel in such areas of discourse. So I am not totally averse to changing my phrase to "the Mahayana Buddha's doctrine" (where "Buddha" could be viewed as a literary construct or literary character within the Mahayana sutras). But in all honesty, I don't really see why I should have to make all these constant concessions. I think that you also have to recognise that for myself, as a tathagatagarbha Mahayanist (and for Mahayana Buddhists in general), it is uncomfortable to read masses of material in Wiki's "Buddhism" articles with which I (or we) profoundly disagree and which I personally believe to be a distortion of the Buddha's Dharma. But I leave it largely untouched - out of respect for others' beliefs and viewpoints, and in acknowledgement of the fact that ultimately I myself don't know what the Truth is - although I have very strong beliefs and intuitions. The fact is, none of us knows at all for sure (unless we are Awakened - which I most certainly am not!) whether ANY of the Pali suttas or Mahayana sutras accurately reflect the precise teachings of "the Buddha" (did he even exist??? Or at least in the form in which he is presented in the Pali suttas and Mahayana sutras, etc. - flying through the air, penetrating through rocks, working all kinds of miracles, able to live for an aeon or more....!)That is by no means certain - if one wants to be totally "scholarly" about it. So while I am prepared to use phrases such as, "the Buddha of the e.g. Mahaparinirvana Sutra or Tathagatagarbha Sutra states" or "the Mahayana Buddha states", I don't think I need to give further ground beyond that.

As for simply saying, "according to Mahayana doctrine": I hesitate to use that formula, since it is far too general, too all-encompasing, as it were, and not "Buddha"-specific enough for me. I am always at pains in my writings on Buddhism to present what the Mahayana "BUDDHA" says - rather than what the various and variant Mahayanist commentators (monastics and laypersons) put forward as their interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. They can be amazingly divergent! Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify my personal position. Best wishes to you. Again, I know how you feel as a "faithful" Buddhist (if you don't take that word in a negative sense) when you encounter statements on Dhamma / Dharma with which you deeply and most sincerely disagree! From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Heya TonyMPNS, thanks again for the reply. I can understand that you're getting frustrated with me. I suggest you put off editing either the Buddha-Nature subsection or the disclaimers until we come to some sort of agreement. I don't want you to have to do any more work than necessary. I feel that were you to qualify too heavily it'd simply contribute to the readability issues. I'll address further soon. And yes I take Saddha very seriously, it is why I continue to practie. RandomTask 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo once more, RandomTask. Thank you for your pleasant comments. I'm glad to learn that we do at least agree on one big thing: the importance of Faith in Buddhism. Lots of people will argue with us on that one, though: for some Buddhists, speaking about "faith" in the context of Buddhism is almost a taboo! But you and I can happily agree that saddha is actually a very important element of the whole Buddhist venture. All the best to you. Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Revisited (Proposal for edits)

In light of the fact that all of the bothersomely tiresome edits I made (cross-referencing, prose, grammar, fact checking, foot-notes, etc) were removed in this latest edit war I'm proposing the following Introduction changes be re-instated. If you don't like them then DEFEND the current content because what we have sucks and reads like a scholar's paper, randomly edited by a seventh grader. It uses way too many words to say what I've tried to sum up below:

Buddhism is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, who lived in what is now the border region of Northern India and Nepal between 563 and 483 BCE. Buddhism spread throughout the ancient Indian sub-continent in the five centuries following his death. It continued to spread into Central, Southeast, and East Asia over the next two millennia.
With approximately 708 million followers, Buddhism is a major world religion whose adherents are called Buddhists. Buddhist denominations are historically categorised into two parent traditions, Mahayana and Theravada, divided on the efficacy of doctrine and practice. The Vajrayana tradition is often extricated from Mahayana categorization on the basis of its tantric and linguistic heritage.
The Theravada traditions recognize the sole authority of the (Pali Canon/Tripitaka) on matters of doctrine, which is comprised of the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka, and the Abhidhamma. The name "Theravada", lit, "School of the Elders" pays homage to the Pre-Mahayana orthodox Buddhist doctrine that forms the school's doctrinal body.
The Mahayana traditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the Tripitaka but also recognize the more esoteric teachings of the Mahayana Sutras as well as modifications to the Vinaya Pitaka arguing that adherents with different spiritual attainments require different teachings and differing strictures on behavior. The name "Mahayana", lit, "the Greater Vehicle" is styled on the breadth and self-reverent quality of the Mahayana doctrine and motivation, the Bodhisattva ideal.
The aim of Buddhist practice is to attain the realization of true reality (nirvana) by escaping the cycle of rebirth (samsara) (Pāli, Sanskrit), and preventing the cultivation of unwholesome Karma. To achieve this, one should purify and train the mind and act morally.

I can see some contentious points, like "self-reverant", but I think the sentence frames the context of 'self-reverent' well. Personally I don't like "Hinayana" having any place in the introduction at all and this has been discussed on countless archived talk pages so I've removed it. If it simply refers to a part of Mahayana doctrine then it can reside in the Mahayana page. The discussion on Hinayana in regards to Theravada is well laid out in the Hinayana page and it doesn't provide any needed substance to the main page. Personally I think the 'aims' are stale. How about something a little bit less scholarly and more realistic? I wouldn't mind talking about the idealistic doctrinal aims (nirvana), those of the common lay-person (freedom from suffering), and cultural aims (historically Buddhist people), and the aims based on Tradition. This alone relegates the aims to at least its own subsection if not its own page.

Metta, RandomTask 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) edited 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear "Randomtalk",

I have been silently following the recent discussions concerning changes to the Buddhism page, but now I would like to make a few comments.

First, I regard Yoji Hajime's interventions as totally insensitive. The idea of a 24 hour deadline to respond to his demands is quite arrogant and unreasonable – not everybody checks Wikipedia every day of the week. I also have reservations about unilateral editorial changes made by somebody who repeatedly cannot even spell "Buddha" correctly nor write Engiish to the standard of an educated native-speaker.

Having said that, I do agree there is some merit to the Buddhism article being carefully edited, with some material being placed under sub-division links. But, again, I suggest it is the responsibility of the person making the changes to take care of this, rather than unceremoniously dumping the material and expecting the original contributore to retrieve it for themselves. Parts of recent versions of the main Buddhism article are rather poorly written (grammar, spelling AND content) and presented. Some months ago, this artcle became a Wikipedia Featured Article, but obviously some people have no idea when to leave well alone. Democracy does not mean anarchy ! Many pointless or even stupid sentence or phrases have been added throughout with no though to the overall article. For example, where "Buddha" is given in devanagari script, what was the point of somebody mentioning Hindi ? Or what is the sense of adding a sentence about Buddhism being an Arya-Dharma and one of the surviving sramana traditions ? That is just in the first few lines.

As to some of your own comments in response to Dr Page: I tend to agree with Dr Page's views: I think that Mahayana doctrines ahould be given fair coverage and that to add a caveat that these doctrines are often not accepted by Theravada is unnecessary. See below for some of my reasons. You also say that you mention "monastics as a reference source because they've been a source of commentative authority for thousands of years". I am not sure what exactly you mean by this, but surely "thousands of years" is hyperbole. Which monastics would you have in mind. Historical commentators or living people ? If living, then Theravada or Mahayana. If either, which branch – there are many differences of opinion. Monastics may be authorative, but only for their own communities.

You also say, "I believe Wikipedia has never intended to be the testing ground for emerging research into any subject though it provides us with a quick method to witness emerging research as it happens." I agree that Wikipedia might not be the most appropriate forum for emerging research but it is my impression, looking at these discussion pages, that often contributors are not aware of recent shifts in understanding. What might seem as "emerging research" to some may well be old-hat in other circles. How many contributors here have access to the specialist academic journals for Buddhism where this material often intially surfaces ?

Two paragraphs of the Introduction have problems:

Buddhist denominations are historically categorised into two parent traditions, Mahayana and Theravada, divided on the efficacy of doctrine and practice. The Vajrayana tradition is often extricated from Mahayana categorization on the basis of its tantric and linguistic heritage.

The first statement is false unless one makes it clear that one is speaking about *present-day* denominations. Also I am not sure what is implied by "historically categorised". By who ? As for Vajrayana, "extricated" seems a rather odd word to use. Surely, "distinguished" would be more apt. And what is the distinctive Vajrayna "linguistic heritage* supposed to be ?

The Mahayana traditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the Tripitaka, but also recognize the the more esoteric teachings of the Mahayana Sutras as well as modifications to the Vinaya Pitaka arguing that adherents with different spiritual attainments require different teachings and differing strictures on behavior.

Mahayana trditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the Agamas (Sutra-pitaka) and the Vinaya. All Abhidharma works are sectarian in nature. Why are the teachings of the Mahayana Sutras labelled "esoteric". There is nothing especially esoteric about them , any more than the sutras of the Agamas. Also, virtually all Mahayana teachings are adumbrated somewhere or other in the Agamas. The statement that follows on is also dubious. Historically speaking, the Mahayana followers make no modifications to the Vinaya – in fact, most of them, to judge from Mahayana sutras, were very keen and critical adherents of the Vinaya. In the present-day, gain no modifications have been made to the Vinaya: it is either accepted, as in Chinese and Tibetan forms of Mahayana or ignored, as in Japan. This statement about different spiritual statements is more appropriate to Vajrayana. --Stephen Hodge 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments Stephen. My intention with my proposal is to simplify what is currently in place with something less confusing. I certainly agree with your assessment that it is the responsibility of the 'dumper' to move the data to the appropriate sub-articles. Indeed my own changes were dumped in the massive revert and I had to add them back in myself.
  • In reference to esoteric, this word is currently used twice in the introduction in reference to the Mahayana doctrine by a self-proclaimed scholar of Buddhism.
  • In reference to 'historically categorised' I've provided an in-line link to the buddhism history page. Strictly speaking, there was no Buddhism until recently, there was simply BuddhaDharma, with many schools unaware of the others, if I remember correctly.
  • With regard to the Vajrayana linguistic heritage, I added it in deference to its presently confusing inclusion in the Introduction though I admit I feel its inclusion may be unnecessary.
  • With regard to extricated, distinguished is synonymous and probably more accessible.
  • The clarification of the doctrinal foundation of the Agamas and Vinaya is appreciated... Mahayana doctrine is outside of my league, and I admit it. I was simply attempting to make sense of what is presently on the main page. By-the-way, Agamas currently links to a page on lizards.
  • In regards to the supposed Vinaya modifications, once again, I defer to the currently standing main-page.
  • From my own personal profession, I wouldn't expect trade magazine journalists to be more adept at thorough commentary on matters of computer science though they're certainly professional researchers. In the same respect I feel that some monastics are certainly very qualified to comment on their own trade though their perspective may be subjective. Certainly, by referencing any commentary such as the Abhidharma, we're referencing the commentary of monastics.
  • As far as references, I'd like to see footnotes to anything!
  • About hyperbole, Am I mistaken that the Pali Canon (as one example) had been preserved by monastics as an oral tradition for thousands of years?
So your comments are clearly critical of the current main-page as well as my proposed additions. Do you see anything you like in my proposal? RandomTask 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Random, Thanks for your courteous reply. Yes, I understand that your intention is to simplify the current Introduction. Those parts of your amendment which I did not address present no problems to me. Provided any amended version is discussed by interested parties, written in clear and balanced manner with adequate cross-referencing via links to subsidiary articles, I think the Wikipedia readership will be well-served. It might also be useful to peek at the Wiki entries for the other world religions to see if anything might be usefully adopted from them in terms of layout and presentation.

  • You write "I certainly agree with your assessment that it is the responsibility of the 'dumper' to move the data to the appropriate sub-articles". In fact, this kind of ill-mannered behaviour is little short of vandalism, in my view. As Dr Page mentioned, some people may have spent hours writing these pieces, so it is rather insulting and cavalier to just dump them.
  • Regarding esoteric, nevertheless this word is inappropriate for use with Mahayana as a whole. It could perhaps be used with respect to Vajrayana if my OED definition can be relied upon.
  • Regarding the reference to 'historically categorised', it should be made clear that present-day Buddhist denominations are under discussion. The historical situation is far more complex. You say, "with many schools unaware of the others": this is partially true for Buddhism in pre-modern times after the extinction of Buddhism in India, but Indian Buddhists were well aware of each other's existence.
  • Regarding the Vajrayana linguistic heritage, could I suggest something like: "The Vajrayana tradition is often distinguished from Mahayana on the basis of its tantric doctrines and practices" ?
  • Pedantry: "extricated, distinguished is synonymous". OED: "Distinguish -- inter alia, treat as different, differentiate", "Extricate – free from or disentangle from a constraint or difficulty". Not exactly synonyms.
  • Regarding Agamas and lizards. The Agama entry is probably accessible via the singular.
  • You say, "I feel that some monastics are certainly very qualified to comment on their own trade though their perspective may be subjective". The last clause here is important to bear in mind. But again, are we thinking of living or historical monastics.
  • You say, "I'd like to see footnotes to anything!". Indeed, but I notice that footnotes and references are demanded selectively. Some people seem to get away with most curious statements without being challenged – Yoji Hajime's recent but deleted claims about a hundred thousand plus Mahayana sutras, and his claims about the status of meat consumption with Buddhism.
  • You write "About hyperbole, am I mistaken that the Pali Canon (as one example) had been preserved by monastics as an oral tradition for thousands of years?" The quick answer to that is probably yes. To describe what is actually just "two thousand and a bit years" as "thousands of years" qualifies as hyperbole, in my opinion. This also seems a good place to mention something else that troubles me, prompted in part by all the business about providing caveats to Mahayana doctrines. There seems to be a very subtle, unspoken assumption that Theravada is somehow the original and authentic Buddhism against which everything else should be measured. This is not the case, despite Theravadin conceits to the contrary. Leading scholars (eg Lance Cousins, President of the Pali Text Society) mostly agree that there are no demonstrable historical links between the early Sthaviravadins who broke away from the Mahasanghikas and the later Theravadins. This was well-known to doxologists in ancient India who understood Theravada to be an outlying group derived from the Mahashisakas. Too many people equate the Pali Canon with Theravada. Grateful though we may be to the monks of the Theravada tradition for preserving it, it is just a historical accident that this particular canon has been preserved. Moreover, detailed text critical work on this canon also demonstrates that much of it does not date back to the time of the Buddha. In other words, it is no more the ipsissima verba of the Buddha than are Mahayana sutras, despite the pious traditional beliefs of Theravadins. It is just that the contents of the Pali Canon were composed a few centuries before the Mahayana sutras were. If you have difficulties with this, I can elaborate.

My comments are critical of the general state of the current main-page, but not of your proposed additions in general which seem quite reasonable. Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, but regretably too often articles here initially attract unncessary additions and changes that are little better that graffitti. --Stephen Hodge 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, friends.

I'm completely new to wiki-posting and wiki-etiquette, so I'm sorry to be stepping on toes here, but...

I came here to crib the introduction for some on-line friends who want to know about the very basic basics of Buddhism, and what do I find?

An article rife with theological/philoshophical references I can't hope to follow, but the basics (karma, cycle of death & rebirth, four noble truths, eight-fold path) buried deep down below the TOC. And when I tried to read the stuff on Mahayana vs. Theravada, I finished up more confused than when I started (and I was pretty well confused when I started :)

I copy-pasted some chunks of prose to rewrite into something I can use to show my friends, and thought I might offer some version of that as a new introduction to the article. But this discussion reads like a set of particularly nasty letters-to-the-editor of some high-nosed academic journal, and that's not a game I choose to play.

I'm posting mostly to pose you this question: Do you collectively want the Wikipedia Buddhism page, especially the introduction, to be a forum for expressing fine points of scholarly difference and (to borrow a term :) Talmudic disputation; or could it be a place for explaining a few of the very basic basics of Buddhism, for those who don't know anything about it but would like to learn a little bit?

In (what I hope is) the spirit of loving-kindness,

- Gorfram

The lead definitely needs work. The re-write by RandomTask, along with changes suggested by Stephen Hodge would be a step in the right direction, IMO. Let's proceed with that. Sunray 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the section entitled "Buddhism after Buddha" should be re-named. There is no end to Buddha; So how could there be a Buddhism after Buddha? Buddha is the enlightenment within all of us. There might be a time when the lips of men no longer speak his name and their minds no longer ponder him, but even this whould not end Buddha. Let us not forget. Fistagonfive 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Buddhism after the Parinirvana of the Shakyumni Buddha"? Csbodine 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I (Yoji Hajime) am back. From now on, I will be FWBOarticle. Using my real name is causing some trobule. Anyway, is it me or has the introduction of the main page become bigger? Plus, the opening statement of the introduction appear to be a pragiarism of encycropedia britainica, which says Buddhism is a "religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama (or Gotama), who lived as early as the 6th century BC." There appear to be some objections regarding the way I went about my first edit and this appear to cause some confusion as to how the wikipedia edit and discussion should go. So I clarify few points.

1. There is no such thing as 24 hours waiting rule for the first edit in wikipedia. There is 24 hour waiting rule after the same change is made two time in a row. I waited for 24 hours so that i can read any suggestion I might find it to be useful. And none turned up. If someone is offended for my non existent violation, then the problem is purely on misunderstanding of wikipeida edit policy. "One of the assumptions of Wikipedia is that continual editing by multiple users will result in a continual increase in the quality of an article" provided that the right editorial context exist. If someone doesn't checks Wikipedia every day of the week, fine. Just don't complain if someone do and make edit. This place is all better for it. As of my Engrish, feel flee to edit my Engrish, though I usually copy edit. (^_^) If someone can edit my grammer, it is wikipedia edit policy at work. I thank you. If someone think that only "qualified" person should edit, then please try to revive Nupedia.
2. It appear that some people are now too polite to make "unilateral" edit and are now presenting possible version of edit here. This is pointless. The discussion/talk page is NOT an edit page. Before, the front page was unreadable, now the talk page is becoming unreadable. If you think you can improve the front article, do so and explain your edit in talk page. This "proposal" section is pointless.
3. I admit that I went wrong way by making edit in one single shot. I still stand by my opinion that esotric (not refering to tantric) debate of buddhisms should be deleted out. But I should have done it section by section, making my case for each edit. It went well when I split "Buddhist Principle" section (which was a third of the page) into two. Because I was going to do the same for each section, I thought I will save time but it cause offense to some people and this I apologise. From now on, I will make specific edit/delete to each sentence/paragraph/section. If I can, i will transfer deleted part to other wiki link but please understand that I don't have obligation to do such transfer. The fact remain that the front page article is a bit of embarrasement to the previous featured status. This article is looking like a webpage wrtten by someone who doesn't know how to utilise link. If you don't like my cut, then please suggest the other part which can be cut. FWBOarticle

Featured Article Removal Candidate

I have nominated this article to be removed from the featured article status on the basis that it is in clear violation of section 5 of feature article criteria. I will not edit this article until this matter is settled. Anyone who wish to rescue the article before the judgement, please feel free to do so. ;P FWBOarticle

This is not constructive. Please discuss appropriate changes here, or propose a replacement introduction at Talk:Buddhism/Lead workshop. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
ahh, hello Eequor. Don't know why you keep switching the display of your username. You reverted my edit solely on the basis of the featured status of this article and then did not make any suggestion in this talk page as to what to do with this (sorry) state of the article. Your revert is the main reason I decided to give up and go to the removal nomination process. Also please read "size" section of Wikipedia:Summary style. At 72kb, the article is well past my subjective judgement. I also believe that losing the featured status would galvanise people here to restore the article to the former glory. FWBOarticle
I don't know why my signature would be changing...
We should have a strong preference for the status quo in the case of featured articles. It's up to you to suggest and promote discussion of the large changes you think should be made; as seen above, there is little support for your approach so far. Both Metta Bubble and myself have suggested ways of establishing consensus for changing the article, which will not be difficult if nothing objectionable is proposed.
Making changes occur is not the purpose of WP:FARC. Listing Buddhism on that page is obviously provocative and also inconsiderate of editors whose time may be limited. As I implied there, this is a disruptive way of making a point. Better would have been to make a request for comment, though I doubt that would attract anyone more qualified to fix the problems than the regular editors here.
I think we can agree that some changes should be made, but without proper discussion we can't know where the consensus lies. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is not in line with wikipedia editorial policy. Featured article page states that "we are always working to improve them even further, so be bold in updating articles". It is preferable to edit first then justify such edit in talk page so the continous editorial process vitalise wikipedia. Idea that my edit is inconsiderate to "editors whose time may be limited" is anathema to wikipedia. Plus, I no longer enage in debate over M/T disambiguation which cause "Demolition" objection. My current focus is now exclusively on the featured article criteria, which appear to have many support. So why do I get complained for using legitimate wikipedia process whatever the outcome turn out to be?FWBOarticle
Normally I agree that editors should be bold, but we should be wary of potential regression to mean. In particular, it isn't clear to me that this article has much room for improvement.
I'm not saying you're being inconsiderate in editing here, though you seem to be acting a bit ahead of the discussion. I was referring to your featured article removal nomination; it may be that the regular editors are currently rather occupied and not available for discussion. Demanding they help fix things now is inconsiderate. Presumably they would be interested in discussing improvements when they return. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
How could I be not offended when you deliberately imply that I'm not a "regular editor". What is it? Is there some 12 months waiting period I'm not aware of. Did I ever call anyone of undeserving to be a wikipedian (or regular editor) who ought to know his/her place. Did I ever make significant edit without making explantion? And why me going to nomination process which has "zero" implication to editorial process be "inconsiderate". Is it that "regular editors" (no doubt many of them buddhists) are so attached to the status that I'm being a party pooper? The reputation of Buddhism is not about the featured status. Still this M/T disamiguation is certainly a turn off for me. My case is very specific. This article is in clear violation of section 5 of featured article criteria. Please make constructive argument about why exception should be made. Burden of justification is on you not I. FWBOarticle
Er, I mean, there's a group of other editors who comment regularly on this page, and aside from TonyMPNS they don't seem to be around. I didn't mean any offense; of course everyone's welcome to edit. ^_^;;
I don't see the length as a problem myself; in my opinion, probably all the material the article covers should be covered here. Most of the sections have separate articles for their topics, but they're all important enough to be summarized. Maybe some details only need to be in the other articles, but I don't see anything in particular that definitely should be moved. Besides, the 32k page length guideline was picked mainly because some old browsers can't edit pages that size. With section editing, there shouldn't be that problem. The page takes a bit longer to load over a modem than some other pages, but I don't mind the extra time.
Regarding sects, I identify as Mahayana, but I think I don't share all the views of the Mahayanists who edit here; in some respects I'm more Theravadin. I think it's important to explain the differences between the two, particularly in what they consider canon. In most of the article, those details seem concise enough. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision

  • Thanks for getting into the real issue. 32k is no longer about old browser. Had it been the case, size criteria would have been removed long time ago. Size criteria is now about readability. At 72kb, this article is unreadable, period. So tell me. how can one justify a page which most people can't or won't read? FWBOarticle
  • I don't think it's unreadable, either, though I'd prefer RandomTask's introduction. This is a detailed subject that should have a large article, and by encyclopedic standards it's actually rather short — we have 9000 words, while Britannica has 47,000. [1] What do you think should be trimmed? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the link I provided. Readability is about average adult attention span of 20min. This readability criteria has nothing to do with content, style or English. Not even a Shakespear can make this article readable for ordinary people. They will give up before reaching the middle and move on. Secondly, Britanica is not wiki based so it is forced to be be-all and end-all entry, which most people won't or can't read. Why do we have to reduced ourself to inferior restriction of paper based encyropedia? In wikipedia, it's not about one article, it's about the totality of portal. I actually think the total words for entire buddhist portal should be few times more than 47,000 while each page should be 4000. I say it again. What is the justififcation of an article which people won't read? Or do you still insist that the article is "readable". Then please make reference which state that adult attention span is 50min (72kb) instead of 20min (32kb). FWBOarticle
Well, I'm optimistic. ^^;
I think it's rather sad if most people don't have the attention span to read an article of this size. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo everyone. Yes, some of us have not been able to give as much time to Wikipedia recently as we would like. In my own case, I am having problems with my Internet connection, and these problems may not be resolved for a couple of weeks or more. This is very frustrating, of course!
I tend to agree with the previous contributor's remarks: I think that the present Buddhism article is not SO bad at all, but needs to be tidied up here and there (slimmed down a little - but not with wholesale chopping-out of major sections). As always, I think we should strive to be fair to both "branches" of Buddhism - Theravada and Mahayana - in the overall shape of the Buddhist article. I don't think there should be an automatic, default "Theravada" stance, or an automatic, default "Mahayana" presentation. I think we must strive to be fair and balanced to both sides in our general presentation of this amazingly rich and varied complex of teachings and practices called "Buddhism". So I would say: whatever alterations people make to the "Buddhism" entry, they should make them on the basis of a) factual accuracy, b) balance and fairness to the various main Buddhist traditions, and c) stylistic elegance / grammatical accuracy. That's my little contribution for today! Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that is playing down the issues a little. Perhaps it was too loose a focus on balance and fairness in the first place that caused the article to get out of control. Don't get me wrong, I'm refering to the improving wording of your suggestion rather than changing the goals, which are admirable. A more specific wording could be to say people should edit on the basis of excluding sectarian principles and practices as much as possible from the body of the article and including them in an appropriate section instead, hence keeping the article balanced and fair. Does that seem reasonable? Peace. Metta Bubble 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo Eequor and Metta Bubble. Thank you very much for your comments, which are always helpful. As you will have seen already, I tend to agree with you, Eequor, that not too much should be removed from the Buddhism article - it should mainly be tidied up a bit (and slightly reduced in size) rather than massively changed, don't you feel? Metta Bubble, thanks for your ideas. I understand what you mean; the only problem is that in a sense all (or most) of Buddhism could be called a rich tapestry of "sectarian principles and practices" (whether vihara Theravadin, Forest Monk Theravadin, Pure Land, Zen, Dzogchen, Tathagatagarbha, etc.), so one could end up excluding virtually everything from the main article! Don't you think that the main thing to avoid is excessive verbiage and inaccuracy, as well as too narrow a focus on one or other of the schools/sects? I take your point about giving more detail of certain ideas in linked articles (as Yoji has elsewhere suggested). I think that is fair, as long as one does not completely remove from the main article important basic information about the different concepts, stances and practices within Buddhism - so that the attempt at balance and fairness is indeed maintained. Metta Bubble and Eequor, do you think that we should initially concentrate on slightly pruning the text as it stands, section by section where necessary, and then later discuss the precise contents of the article? I cannot myself really see anything in the main article (in terms of section headings) which I think should not be there at all. I suspect, Eequor, that you share my feeling on this one, right? But I'm not sure how you might feel about this, Metta Bubble? Forgive me if I cannot do much Wiki work in the coming two or three weeks, since I am having to use Pay-By-the-Minute Dial-Up to access the Internet at present - and it's costing me a fortune (until I can resolve my ISP problems!). Best wishes to you both and to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure what you want Tony. You don't really have time and you don't really feel inclined to change the article. Nonetheless, I think you're mistaken about sectarianism. To write a fairly non-sectarian encyclopedic account of Buddhism has in fact already been done. The featured article version from 2004 manages to get through well over half way before it mentions anything specific about different schools. Mentioning the rich tapestry of Buddhism sounds very pretty and appealing, and weaving in threads of organic prose is a beautiful thing, but in practice it comes this article has come out more like spaghetti. And we mention controversy between Theravada and Mahayana as the first order of business. That's patently absurd for a reader who may have never encountered Buddhism before. The rest of the article switches between Theravadin and Mahayana so much that you almost need two highlighters to discern what's what. With all due respect to everyone's hard work, let's look at what was working about the 2004 version and start to work towards what it does so well while keeping the important maturing the article has seen in the last two years. Peace. Metta Bubble 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with Tony. I think the various sects are probably best addressed on other pages, but there should be some mention here that Mahayana and Theravada disagree on some things. Perhaps we could have a Differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism page to explain the situation more fully. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ; 20:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo Metta Bubble. Thanks for your reply. I think I can best answer your own points by saying: I have had a look at the 2004 version of the article which you recommend, and, while it is certainly neat and tidy (that's for sure), it is clearly biased towards a more Theravadin understanding of Buddhism in its general presentation of the religion, as well as containing factual errors (not that the latest version of the article does not suffer from that defect as well). For example, the 2004 version states that it was the god, Indra, who pleaded with the Buddha to teach Dharma - whereas in fact it was Brahma-Sahampati; it says that the Buddha did not claim any divine status for himself, whereas in a number of Mahayana sutras he calls himself "the god of gods - the god above the gods" and even tells of how he assumes the form of Isvara ("God"), Vishnu, etc. and is being worshipped by the devotees of those gods without the devotees' realising that the recipient of their devotion is in fact the Buddha; the article also says that no higher beings are worshipped: from the Mahayana point of view, this is factually incorrect, since Mahayana Buddhists are strongly encouraged to worship and revere the Buddhas (who by definition are the highest of high beings) and the great Bodhisattvas; there is nothing in the 2004 version about the very important Mahayana (sutrically based) doctrine of the Buddha-dhatu/ Tathagata-garbha, which is central to much Mahayana Buddhism in China and Japan .... I could go on.

What some of us have been trying to do over the past couple of years is introduce a just and equitable counter-balance of Mahayana notions which had previously tended to be sidelined or implicitly treated as secondary or less expressive of "genuine" Buddhism. If the addition of Mahayana Buddhist ideas to the article has resulted in a kind of spaghetti tangle (and I know what you mean here - I tend to agree with you), then I think the best thing to do is to tidy things up (e.g. perhaps having a major divide within the main article as between "Theravada Buddhism" and "Mahayana Buddhism"). I don't see how one can accurately write about this religion/philosophy without making explicit to the reader pretty early on that it exists in at least two rather different forms (Theravada and Mahayana) and to give both versions of Buddhism fair and equal coverage. I see nothing wrong with that - indeed it strikes me as highly honest, fair and desirable. I would be interested to hear what others think about all of this? As for my time limitation - I tried to explain that this is not through lack of interest on my part, but through technical problems with my Internet connection. Best wishes to you. From Tony. 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can point where we are heading. Do you think it will stop with Mahayana disambiguation? What would stop someone saying "hey this has Tantric/Zen/PureLand/Tantien/Nichren bias. I demand "a just and equitable counter-balance" of my Tantric/Zen/Pureland/Tantien/Nichiren notions", which is soon followed by "Hey, this Nichren disambiguation is actually Nichren Shu disambiguation. I want "a just and equitable counter-balance" of my Nichiren Soshu notions". Communism sound all well and good. The reality is hell. Don't go that road. FWBOarticle
I'm not sure that's likely to happen. Are there specific parts you think the different branches of Mahayana would disagree on? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It has already happened. Look at the vegetarian section. It started from disambiguation between Theravada and Mahayana then soon developed into disambiguation among Chinese/Tibetan/Japanese disambiguation. I could have gone further by providing the different justification of non vegetarianism among Japanese sects. Most buddhist sects have different take or application of core buddhist doctrine. When some topic become an "issue", it will bloat. It is much better to explain the core idea while leaving the sectorial different to separate section. And you really should face the fact that only few will read 72kb size article. Only way to remain fair under size restriction is to isolate the issues.
I have a suggestion for general rule of thumb for disambiguation along MettaBubble's line. If anyone feel that any statement of doctrine is Theravada biased, instead of adding Mahayan version of such statement along with (perceived) Theravada version, the orginal statement should be altered for more neutral wording. If it is not possible to do so, then the statement should be relegated to section which specifically deal with difference among Buddhist denomination. Or the issue should be discussed in sister page. That means one cannot "add" Mahayana or Theravada statement. This page remain denomiation free zone except "Buddhist denomiation" and "Buddhist Scriptures" section. If we stick to this rule, then we might find the common element of buddhism (life of Buddha, 4 truth, 8 path). FWBOarticle
Here here! I support. I gather yoji does also. And from what I can see that also concurs with Eequor that we have a special section for disambiguation. Tony, thanks for your work balancing the Mahayana perspective into the article. Now I believe for the process to come full cricle we should look at removing that style again. Overall the structure will end up more like the 2004 article but the content will be more straightened out. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the article become bigger since I nomiated the article to be removed from featured status for being too big? Plus I see Dhammakaya reference here. Well, i guess every denomination and every single organisation deserve fair and equitable presenation. FWBOarticle

Creation Of Wikibuddhist.

  • I think us Buddhists need a wiki site. I mean, we have a site for orthodox Christians, which has less followers than Buddhism! Pure inuyasha 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the Christian site run by Wikimedia? Where is it? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

either it's made my mediawiki or it's a complete copy.

Ah, I see. These seem to be independent sites. It wouldn't be especially difficult to start a Buddhist wiki; all that would be needed are some good servers. There's the problem that a separate wiki might divide the available effort, though. Even here there's so much more that should be done, and WikiProject:Buddhism hasn't enough members to finish quickly. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If people are willing to commit the time and effort I think it'd be a wonderful idea. -Buddhist- 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! anyone else who wants to join me please post on my user page. if i get enough we'll get started. Pure inuyasha 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a Buddhist wiki: http://rywiki.tsadra.org
--Klimov 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 182 thousand pages. o_o
‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Do you suppose someone from our WikiProject should invite the RYW people to edit here as well? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. Actually, I already have a website, I could use the space to host the wiki, I would just have to learn how to install the Wikimedia platform. RY Wiki seems to be too specific to Vajrayana, it would be nice to have a Wiki for all lineages and in several languages, just as Wikipedia is. What do you think? Flavio Costa 13:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of changes between 2004 and 2006

I've started listing specific changes that have been made since 2004. Hopefully this will make it easier to decide what action should be taken. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...and I've more or less finished, now. Perhaps the newly added and removed sections could be broken down by facts as well. I've highlighted some of the changes according to whether I had doubts about statements made (yellow, orange, red); material I felt should have remained in a section in some form is highlighted in green. I found one blatant error — in 2004 the canon was associated with open source. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Specific issues

  • The introduction states "Eventually, however (from the Mahayana viewpoint), the conditioned realm of karma needs to be transcended altogether". It doesn't seem accurate to specify Mahayana here; doesn't this apply to all Buddhists?
  • Origins explains twice that Suddhodana was probably not a king: once in the second paragraph, and once near the end of the section.
  • Other principles and practices has the following statements:
    • "it is better to call Buddhism agnostic" - this doesn't seem appropriate when deities are definitely acknowledged.
    • "Karma had taken the place of God in Theravada" - I'm not sure about this. Karma is certainly regarded highly, but should divinity be ascribed to it?
    • "the Buddha himself is venerated like God in Mahayana" - this comparison is tricky, given the wide range of views on the status of Gautama Buddha. If we mention God, it's too easy for the reader to misunderstand the nature of veneration for the Buddha. I think either this should be addressed in much more precise detail, or the statement should be removed entirely.
  • The Noble Eightfold Path no longer explains that right understanding is typically considered vital to development of the other seven virtues.
  • What is a Buddha? says Gautama Buddha is dharma made manifest. This seems unnecessarily cryptic. The section has also lost the statement "He claimed to be ... a teacher to guide those who choose to listen." in detailing the Mahayana view.
I wrote the Buddha-God things, in the language I deemed fit. Thus, I did not explicitly state that Karma is God, or Buddha is God, but tried to answer the question--can a religion exist without God? You may address the issue more precisely, but do not remove it. Reference is a book on Indian Philosophy by Prof. H Sinha.Cygnus_hansa

Schools of Buddhism

How much detail should we go into on the different schools of Buddhism here? Some material about FWBO and Vajrayana was added today; is there a need to distinguish Vajrayana from Mahayana? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Buddhists, however, view a third type of Buddhism, found in Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal and Mongolia called Vajrayana. In the non Buddhist world this is often classed under Mahayana, although many of their practices and beliefs vary from those found in China and Japan. This is sometimes known as Tantric Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism. The supreme Buddha, or Bodhisattva, is Avalokiteśvara in Vajrayana.
There is a further, far smaller Buddhist movement called Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, which works in the western world, and India.

708 Million Followers

In the second paragraph, it says that Buddhism has approximately 708 million followers. Shouldnt this be rounded to a more general number? All I'm saying is 708 seems a bit... random. It'd best be rounded to either 700 or 800, so I'll change it to that. --Xer0X 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

700 million, yes, 800 million, no. 100 million people is quite a difference. There are on-line resources that state that the number of Buddhists world-wide are around 100-300 million [2], around 350 million [3] [4] [5] or 450 million [6]. With those numbers, saying 700 million almost seems a bit too excessive without making use of vigorous hand-waving and wishful extrapolation... The current text then goes on to say "There are estimates which are double that", which indeed needs proper citation! Andkaha(talk) 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at article Buddhism by country, the main difference with the previous 300-350 million figure seems to come from the hefty addition of 390 million "Chinese Buddhists" (estimated in the article at 30% of the population). Usually, Japan instead is considered, at 90 million, the largest Buddhist country in the world. Whether China indeed has so many practicing Buddhist, I do not known, and I would tend to doubt. PHG 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
looking at the http://vipassanafoundation.com/Buddhists.html, they claim the number of Buddist is 1.6 billion not just 450 Million! 88.109.94.66 23:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
TBH, I'm not sure there is any real meaning to these "religions by country" statistics: If I look at the count of Christians in the UK, placed at 71.6% - what does this mean? About five years ago the number of regular church-goers (CoE - the largest denomination) in the UK dropped to less than 1 million; which reveals sometihng like 5% of the population are practicing Christians. Likewise, if we look at the Chinese population, a vast number of them 'believe in Buddha', and significantly fewer do much about it. Such demographic statistics are always going to be plagued by political agenda - there is no way to clearly describe what is, and what is not, a practitioner of religion. (20040302)

This article contradicts itself, saying 708 million at the top and then below "estimates of the number of buddhists range from 250 to 500 million, with 350 million being the accepted figure.

This is probably bad.

External links (and below)

This section should not be in this article whatsoever. We can have a separate link, or alternatively, use the Buddhism by country as a way of devolving links to different centres, activities and organisations. We can use the portal, but this article is far too large to carry what in many cases is an advertisement. (20040302 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Buddhism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Buddhism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In Buddhism, there is nothing really to forgive because one shouldn't be attached to it in the first place. Here is an example of something which is related to it.
"He insulted me, he hurt me, he defeated me, he robbed me." Those who think such thoughts is not free from hate.
"He insulted me, he hurt me, he defeated me, he robbed me." Those who think no such thoughts is free from hate.
For hate is not conqured by hate: hate is conqured by equanimity (this can be translated as love or compassion). This is law eternal.
Buddhism is more heavy on Ethic of reciprocity. Not that heavy on the idea of sin. So forgiveness is not quite relevant. Forgiveness is more Christian theology thingy. FWBOarticle
The above was quoted from the first section of the Dhammapada, see e.g. [7] and other places. --- Andkaha(talk) 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Andkaha- I really appreciate the information and it provides a good starting point. I would like to push the people on this page a little harder. I believe the writing should come from those familiar with the nuisances of the various traditions. Perhaps we could concentrate on the purpose or content of the concept of being free from resentment and not get too hung up on the form of the words. I am guessing that there may be more common ground between religions and philosophies than we believe at first blush. We will see. I know that the Dalai Lama coauthored a book entitled The Wisdom of Forgiveness. [8] So I hope we can dig a little deeper. I thought it would be a worthwhile project to compare and contrast the various thoughts on the subject by soliciting input for a NPOV article from those knowledgeable in the various traditions. Thanks again for the speedy reply and any further information you are willing to provide! --speet 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear speet, Check out the message archives of my forgivenessBuddhism Yahoo Group. Here is a sample: Sayadaw U Silananda taught: Summary To minimize hindrances to progress in meditation practice, one should begin each session with "Forgiveness". Free or minimize your guilt by asking for forgiveness. Free or minimize your anger by forgiving others. And, if needed, forgive yourself. -- dhammapal 17:03 Sydney time 7 April 2006

Zen and Theravada?

This page makes the rather confusing claim that Zen in Japan is based on Theravada Buddhism. I'm going to change it, but I am really curious as to why this was written in the first place. Ig0774 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The complete translation of Southern Canon (i.e. Pali Canon) occured about 60 years ago and I belive Japan was the first to do so within Oriental Mahayana tradition. Since then, there has been a movement within Japanese Mahayana to put Pali Cannon as the most authoritative cannon, though this doen't amount to rejection of Mahayana cannons or theology. This is most pronounced in some of Japanese Zen school due to the fact that they don't make much use of scriptures in the first place. FWBOarticle
I forgot to mention "Mahayana Non-Buddhist Prevalent Theory" (大乗非仏説) which started in early 18th century during Togugawa Shogunate by Nakamoto Tominaga. It basically proclaimed that Hinayana preceded Mahayana, and Mahayana is a sophisticated reconstruction of Hinayana scriptures and theology. This has been a major controversy in Japanese buddhism ever since. I belive Japan is the only major Oriental Mahayana where this type of theory has been dominant. After the translation of Pali Cannon and the intoroduction of western philology, main contention of MNBPT is accepted at least among scholars. What MNBPT as formulated in 18th ceutry differed from Theravada view is that it consider only part of Sanskrit Hinayana sutras (mostly verse attributed to Ananda) as likely actual words of Buddah. The theory also speculated that small part of Abhidharma Pitaka to contain actual anaylsys and commentaries on sutra by Buddah. It's a big topic in itself if you add Theravada view on this. Might do it if this page has been sorted out. FWBOarticle

Proposal, March 14 2006

Looking over all the work which has gone before, I'd like to make a proposal.

The introduction is rediculously bloated. Chop it down to cover the some very basic points. I'd start with

  1. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy.
  2. Buddhism was founded by Sidhartha Gautama, who also came to be referred to as the Buddha Shakyamuni or Gautama Buddha.
  3. Adherents of Buddhism, called Buddhists, are concerned with finding an end for the suffering they perceive as being inherent to existance.

Next, a section for History, from the founding to the present time, with the briefest mention, of course, of the Buddha being someone who found a way to the end of suffering.

Next, a section for Sects can outline Theravada and Mahayana, Vajrayana, and sects.

Okay, that's my start. There no doubt needs to be more, but it'd be nice to hammer out an outline, then put information into it. Other sections that exist, many aren't really appropriate. A section, at the top, about the Buddha, contains information more appropriate to an article about the Buddha. Here, what is important is hammering out enough about the Buddha to say who he is in the history section. Controversies surrounding the Buddha Lands, Buddha Bodies, Buddha Nature, (and the denial of such concepts) will start to roll out quite intelligibly in the section for Sects. Other sections may also be needed, but not one on the Buddha, given that there's an article or two for that already. Also, it'd be good to totally get rid of the sections which already have articles of their own. The contained concepts can be mentioned, and will come up as they are discussed in other sections (it'll start in the two subsections I've already suggested, I'm certain of it!) anyway. Given that they HAVE their own articles, they do not need sections to themselves within this article. Perhaps a section on Related Concepts can list them with links to the articles, if that seems a good idea.

Before I stop, I want to stress that my foremost point is that I think that an outline, hammered out here, would be very, very useful. And I mean just an outline of sections which it seems good to include. What I've included is my suggestion for the start of this outline, plus reasons why I think the sections I've suggested are a good starting place, and why other sections seem to be NOT a good idea to me. Discussion on this level just seems a decent first step at wading through this to me. It's nice to meet you; I hope for ensuing discussion to be useful.--Beginnermind 05:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi BM, seems like a reasonable start. Do you anticipate any objections? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Ram Bomjan

I created the Ram Bomjan, the Buddha boy article. Could someone take a look and possibly expand? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That article has existed for a long time at Ram Bahadur Bomjon. I think it's been redundantly created at alternate spellings at least once before, too. Sorry for the inconvenience! Incidentally, you can help by thinking of other spellings and making sure redirects exist. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC) PS - Please stop calling him "the Buddha boy"—Buddhists can be expected to find that slightly offensive, and I get the impression he doesn't want to be called that, either.

Overall edit

Looking at the Buddhism article, it seems to me that it is still in fairly urgent need of a good, solid copyedit. I was a bit disappointed that a bit more didn't get done in that direction a couple months ago when FWBOarticle, Random Task, and others were pushing for reforms, although I don't mean to endorse (or critique) any particular proposals that were made then. I just think it's unfortunate that the rounds of discussion ended producing inaction rather than a good solution. I'd like to suggest that we should follow the philosophy that I call the Cycle of Boldness (see here): begin by boldly editing the article in the direction that you want it to go; then, boldly revert, remove, or alter changes that you don't like; make sure not to get upset or discouraged by this; also don't plod along in an edit conflict (not a major problem on this page so far, but it is on a lot of other pages)—instead, hash out the disagreement on the talk page until some sort agreement is reached. Then, the cycle begins again as more changes are boldly made. It's important to remember that, especially for a fairly mature article like this one, good editing means subtraction as well as addition, if that's what will improve the article.

Speaking of addition, one of the things that I plan to do when I'm editing this article is to re-integrate the sections of the article that were chopped out by Rama's Arrow to make Buddhists and Buddhist religious philosophy. I do think that what we have now is too long and I agree that the way to deal with that problem is to break out sub-articles. However, this is not so pressing of a problem that it needs to be done haphazardly. Buddhist religious philosophy is a good example of the problems that can arise: this essentially chopped out the article's discussion of the difference between Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana, placing it in an out-of-the-way location. This, however, is an important subject that needs to be covered somehow in this article; so new editors naturally tended to add information on that subject, so that the section gradually regenerated itself from scratch. The result is redundancy. In the future, let's discuss the creation of sub-articles on the talk page before implementing it.

I like Beginnermind's "Proposal, March 14 2006" quite well, particularly as regards the intro. I'm not sure about the idea of having an outline for the entire article on the talk page ... I say "not sure" just because that's not the way it's been done on other Wikipedia articles.

One more thing: a long, long time ago, I implied, hinted, or threatened that I would reorganise the images that appear in this article. I still plan to do that. However, I'm going to have to wait until we get the article down to an appropriate size, since, until then, I won't know how much room we have for images.

I'm going to get started in a couple weeks, but, of course, everyone else is free, welcome, and encouraged to get as get as much done as they'd like right away. Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. Good luck to both you and Beginnermind. The sooner it starts the better. I also like the structure suggested, but will don't necessarily want it to be set in stone. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


This sounds very good! I think outlining, as I proposed, is a decent course of action where there have been previous revert wars. I'm new to wikipedia, but I found it useful on the (yes, smaller and specialized) Sensei's Library. Maybe a balance between both, a little outlining, a little bold changing. Mostly, I'm interested in organizing information out of the introduction and various subsections into more comprehensive subsections, but this can be accomplished on the fly as well. I also think slow and steady does it. A mass gutting here is not, looking over the talk page, taken very well. So, I think if I get some time very soon, (or someone else can do it!) I'll start throwing up those nifty edit boxes onto some subcategories, boxes that can say where the info should probably be merged to on and off this article, and then those can stay up while relevant information gets popped into new subcategories of THIS article to stop redundancies from popping up mid-edit, and then the remainder can get swept onto another article page. If that sounds nice. --Beginnermind 01:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was thinking of merging information about, moving stuff from this article to the Buddha article for instance, before deleting most of the info in the Buddha section. That's a nightmare. The Buddha article is also a battleground. So, I think maybe a big restructuring is the only way to go. Maybe I'm not experienced enough, though ... maybe there's room for everything to be fixed up and copyedited. But I can't make much sense at all from the current article. It's all been claused and sub-claused and sub-sub-claused into a mess of contradiction. I hope that a more strict structure, starting with current real-life divisions, and then outlining the history of those divisions, might give both a better survey of Buddhism and at the same time supply a structure which would more naturally hold the information we'd all like to present.

Anyway, here's my outline of sections, I don't know that I can be of much other use than this. I hope people find it useful.

  1. Introduction. Very basic outline of the founding of Buddhism (details and controversy left for the Buddha article), which does a good job of explaining what it's about.
  2. Major Schools. Division of Therevada and Mahayana as it's found today. Talk about the Pali cannon and the Sanskrit cannon. Talk about the idea of appropriate means found within the Mahayana but not the Therevada (or, I guess, the different view of what constitutes appropriate means, and the large stress that Mahayana gives to it? Hey, this is why I'm not writing this sucker) and the consequences of this. Talk about the Arhan, and talk about the expansion of what constitutes a Bodhisattva in Mahayana sects, Mahayana views on the hearers and the self-enlightened contrasted to the Therevada views. Talk about the stress, in general, on the Four Truths given in Thereva and the Paramitas in the Mahayana and all that fun stuff.
  3. History. History of Buddhism, from the Paranirvana of the Buddha to today. Lots of neat stuff about the ideas of how Mahayana developed, and how Therevada developed. Schisms and traditional expansions, textual studies and such.
  4. Sects. Listing of sects and distinguishing ideas. Here's where the difference between a Zen Buddhist and a Pure Land Buddhist can go. Fun, fun.

The actual practices and beliefs can be tracked from this page to their own articles. Anything that doesn't get shoe-horned into those sections, delete mercilessly.

I don't know if that's of any use, but that's just the only way I could see through. I have a hard time making any sense of the information as presented on the current page: different ideas are brought to bear on ideas from diverse viewpoints and then rage out of control as people fail to see the other possible point of view. So that's why the radical restructure seems a good idea to me. Present things which are divided as being divided in the first place. Division is okay, after all. If we get attached to non-duality, we get hit by a bus, right?;) This way, points of view can be presented AS points of view. I think. Maybe. That any good? --Beginnermind 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

I just re-added the stuff Rama's Arrow had taken out. There wasn't as much as I thought (some of it had already been re-added by PHG and possibly others). I plan to do an overall copyedit of the article sometime when FWBOa takes a breather just for spelling, grammar, and any blatant weirdness that might have snuck in. For more substantial issues, I plan to wait until Fooby finishes his overhaul before getting started. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding history part bit difficult. But overall revamp of Doctrine part is finished. Several use of terminologies are probably off as you pointed out. Can't do much about my Engrish either. :) FWBOarticle

Formatting problem

What's up with the formating in the Origins section? It doesn't wrap, so you have to scroll horizontally. I've tried to debug it but I'm not that au fait with the Wikipedia formatting codes. Sciamachy 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Rycanada 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a buddhist, but...

The Mahayana vs Theravada stuff mixed in really makes this article confusing and I'd rather get an understanding of Buddhism in a more general sense before getting confused about what tradition appeals or doesn't appeal to me philosophically. I think it should be a sub-section and lead to other articles. Rycanada 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and several editors have been saying it for some time now. It is perhaps best to not mix in the Mahayana versus Theravada stuff at all. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I still think that defining the schism to start with would keep the article whole. The problem is that different sects don't know that other sects look at things THEY consider "core Buddhism" to be an offshoot. And even "offshoot" is often the wrong word. "What's a Buddha, what's that mean" and "what's a Buddhist?" are questions answered differently in different sects, and very markedly differently depending on Therevada and Mahayana. So, what's Buddhism depends on who you ask. The point of agreement is simply that a man looking for a way to end the suffering he saw in the world found something worth the effort to find for ourselves. At least, that's what I think, beyond different ways of saying the same thing. So, start with that and, beyond that, complete the answer to "What's Buddhism?" with "It's Theravada and Mahayana, and here's what those are each about. Arhan on the one side, and Bodhisattva on the other." Then each side can also define their own "ideal" instead of arguing with the other. Then further define other sects only later, briefly, because those are usually in agreement with the Mahayana ... mood.

Basically, instead of mixing it all in, it'd be nice to have a clear-cut seperation, and it'd be just asking for total meltdown again to make the article a unified whole, given that Buddhism ISN'T. I think, but that's one opinion.--Beginnermind 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If the entire article read: "Buddhism is a general term for two different religions: [Mayahana] and [Theravada]. They have nothing in common." and the [Mahayana] and [Theravada] articles were well-written accounts of those religions, it'd be more helpful than the current mess. Rycanada 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think it would be enlightening what people would suddenly choose to agree upon if that were the starting point, instead of the current mess. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've altered the first paragraph slightly to make it flow better and include this division... let's see where it goes from here. Rycanada 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Greetings. I've started a new wikiproject just for Tibetan Buddhism. Please check it out if interested - it is intended to complement the existing, more general project. WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism


Another attempt at revamp

I will give a shot at sorting out this mess. But this time, I will do it one at the time.

  • Introduction of the article should be a summary of the article itself. At this point, however, it is near impossible to summarise this article in concise manner. So, as a temporary measure, the separate introduction section should stay as a damping section.
  • I will tackle "Origin" section. I will rename the section as "Siddhartha Gautama" so the entire sectionc can be summary of a separate sister page. In that way, many content of this section can be forked out as needed. FWBOarticle

Siddhartha Gautama

I titled it Siddhartha Gautama instead of Guatama Buddha because this section include much of life of Siddhartha Gautama before he become Gautama Buddha. Plus, Siddhartha Gautama is more historical reference. FWBOarticle

I deleted mythological detail like baby Buddha pointing toward heaven at his birth and so on. Trivial detail with lot of different version of the event. Important info, imo, is that he was born a prince, a seer predicted that he will become a great holy man or a king, shielded him from suffering, four sight of suffering, he was married with kid but still left his kingdom. Historical reinterpretation of the legend can be found in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I also intend to fork out some historical revision about life of Buddha to Gautama Buddha article. Whether his hometown was republic or kingdom is a historical interest but add little substance to the knowledge of buddhism per se. One can read these detailed info in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I deleted Āyācana Sutta because (1) Siddhartha Gautama becoming Gautama Buddha is a good point to end the section (2) Gautama Buddha wondering whether he should teach dharma or not, imo, doesn't add much insight into what buddhism is. (3) The entire portion is duplicated in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I hope the section has been trimmed enough to be concise while still providing all important information relevant to buddhism. If anyone feel that any edit is theravada or mahayana biased, please make it neutral rather than theravada/mahayana dual edit. I will leave it for a while to see if people are happy with this. See ya. FWBOarticle

"Who is Buddha" and "Major Sects" section

Historical/academic narrrative wise, the period between time of Buddha and about 100 years after his death, is described as Early Buddhism. The period after the great split between theravaada/sthaviravaada and mahaasaaGghika is usually described as 部派仏教(lit-tran faction buddhism, or Nikaya Buddhism) in Oriental East Mahayana and and Theravada so I assume Tibetan variation use the same desigination. (see Schools of Buddhism) One of faction of theravaada, is known as sarvaastivaadin, and they grown to become one of the biggest faction. Later Mahayana criticism of "Theravada" buddhism (see Nagarjuna) is mainly directed at this sarvaastivaadin teaching, especially the one which consider dharmas to exist in all of "the three times" (past, present, and future). However, despite the fact that Mahayana contain teaching of Nikaya Buddhism, the entire Nikaya Buddhism has been designated as Hinayana, hence dual usage of Nikaya as a desigination of Hinayana/Theravada school(s) as well as a designation to describe the entire period of buddhism between the great split and the emergence of Mahayana. Before we get into Theravada/Mahayana disambiguation or "Who/What is Buddsah" question which is just a part of this Theravada/Mahayana thingy, we need to explain Nikaya Buddhism first. Otherwise, we can't explain the context and controversy of Theravada and Mahayana. FWBOarticle

The doctrines and teachings of Buddhism

Three marks, 4 truth and 8 path are doctrine while triple gem, 5 precepts (and the rest of vinaya), reincarnation, vegetarianism are teaching derived from these doctrine. It is like difference between key policies (NPOV, What Wikipedia is Not, Copyleft) and the rest of policies. To treat all of these as somewhat equal make presentation difficult and confusing especially for people who are not buddhist. FWBOarticle

FWBy, what's your source on the Pali and Sanskrit terms you added for the 8fold path? What's up with the capitalised letters in the middle of words? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Three or Four marks of existence?

Japanese wikipedia's buddhism portal has both three and four marks of existence. anicca (impermanence), Anatta (no self) nirvana (cecession of suffering), dukkha (suffering). 3marks of existence include the first three. Moreover, 3 marks "classification" is not the direct teaching of Buddha. Naagarjuna, in his writing, recommended to people who cannot yet end the craving to focus on three "type/kind" of marks of Buddhadharma, because there are three type/kind/class of marks in Buddhadharma. The actual ussage of the term "Three Dharma Seals" appear in the commenary written by Harivarman in 4AD. 4 marks of existence appear in yogaacaarabhuumi-zaastra, योगाचारभूमिशास्, which was written by Asanga.

I don't believe the classification which first appear in commentaries (though written by extremly eminent scholars) should be represented as what Buddha taught. It mere attempt at systemisation of Buddha's teaching by later sholars. I believe that three marks of exsistence should be replaced by Pratitya-samutpada (Dependent Origination), which is common to all Schools of Buddhism. It is somewhat similar to NPOV which has spawn Verifiability and No Original Research, which form the trinity of NPOV policy. FWBOarticle

In Theravada, "three marks of dharma" are anicca anatta and dukkha. In Mahayana, "Three Dharma Seals" are anicca, anatta and nirvana and "Four Dharma Seals" are anicca, anatta, nirvana and dukka. Vapour

Doctrines

I intend to concentrate on "Dependent Origination", "Four Noble Truths" and "The (Noble) Eight Hold Paths". FWBOarticle

I intend to eliminate this section from this article because all three marks are already explained and contextualised in Dependent origination section. However, I do not wish to cause loss of content, so I will transfer materials into sister pages. FWBOarticle

After looking at 8holdpath, I realised that part of "other teaching" can be revived into doctrine. That is Triple Gems, Precepts/Vinaya and Meditation. FWBOarticle

"Buddha-nature", "Buddhism and reality", "Who is Buddha"

I believe that these argument are part of "Dependend Origination", because it is all about impernance and the state of nirvana. Obviously, if I shaft these section, it would cause outcry because many would consider it as POV forking. However, duplication of issues, argument and controversies are not desirable in any article especially when the article is the main/platform article. I believe that introducing "Early Buddhism" "Nikaya Buddhism" (not referening to modern theravada school but refering to entire schools of buddhism before the emergence of manayana) and "Rise of Mahayana Buddhism" section would enable these issued to be place in proper context of development of Buddhist theology. The issue of the nature of nirvana, hence Buddha nature, i think, was raised by Nagarjuna in his rebuttal to one of Nikaya school. So obviously, the relevance is there. Just that current presentation does not provide proper context within this article or within Buddhism. FWBOarticle

The begining of the debate over the nature of nirvana can be attributed to Nikaya schools and Nagarjuna's criticism of one of nikaya schools' interpretation, which eventually led to Madhyamaka school. Opposing the perspective of Madhyamaka school is Yogacara school which makes the mention of the idea of "Buddah nature". FWBOarticle

"Other teachings of Buddhism" section forking

I'm quite sure this can cause lot of POV forking dispute. So I will explain every fork I make. But let me assure you from the beginning that I do not intent to fork out "nature of nirvana" (Buddha nature) topic from this article because it has a significant relevance in term of rise of mahayana theology. FWBOarticle

Reality in Buddhist Sutra

This is sooo part of Dependent origination. The content of this section exactly duplicate each other. My suggestion is as follow. Change title of the article from "Reality in Buddhist Sutra" to "Reality in Buddhism". Moreover, the dependent origination section has following intro.

The enlightenment (Bodhi) of the Buddha Gautama was simultaneously his liberation from suffering and his insight into the nature of the phenomenon.

I will switch phenomenon to reality and wikilink the term reality to "reality in Buddhism" article. Moreover, I insert the same edit in "Pratitya-samutpada" article. Furtremore, to ensure that the article won't disappear from buddhism portal structure by someone who delete the term "reality", I will add "Reality in Buddhism" article to newly introduced "See also" section which list other important articles relevant to "Dependent Origination" article. FWBOarticle

Ah, the whole reasong that this article got into a trouble was due to the fact that every different schools of buddhism trying to advance their version of interpretation of buddhist doctrine. This article shouldn't be a soapbox for every different school of buddhism, IMO. I don't think an particlar interpretation of particular topic of buddhism by a school of Tibetan Buddhism of Vajrayāna Buddhism (which include tibettan chinese and japanese school) deserve to be in this article. I think this is going toward "what wikipedia is not" which state that "wikipedia is not indiscrimate collection of information/knowledge" and "wikipedia is not a soapbox". FWBOarticle

Karma, Rebirth and Samsara

This section is the same. It is part of Dependent Origination. I will create wikilink in "Dependent Origination" section, then delete this portion. FWBOarticle

God

Gods, though mentioned in buddhist scriptures doens't really have relevance in term of buddhist teaching. And if one want to compare Buddhism to "the God" based religion, that should be done in "relationship with other faiths" section. I will transfere the content to "relationshiip with other faiths". FWBOarticle

Vegetarianism

As far as I understand it, even among mahayana schools which practice vegetarianims, the issue is not regarded as the central doctrine of buddhism. Unlike misconception held by some, in Mahayana, the justification of vegetarianism in theological term is not the first precept but the compassion of boddisatva. Still, as I understand it, some do hold view that it is related to the first precept. So I will add wikilink in first precept and boddisatva article so the relevance of the topic is placed in more appropriate context. FWBOarticle

I placed "Vegetarianism in Buddhism" into Five precepts and Bodhisattva article. Given the lack of commentaries which specifically state that meat eating violate the first precept, this may be an inappropriate placement. Still, I'm quite sure that people who are looking for information about vegetarianism in buddhism would go there first. I will add vegetarianism in buddhism to the vegetarianism article. FWBOarticle

Buddha Nature

This section is obviously a part of "Who is Buddha" issue. Therefore, I will merge this two portion into one. As I said, I intend to keep thise Nature of Nirvana/Buddha, because it is actually the ongoing controversy in all buddhist schools. FWBOarticle

Buddhist texts

I need to do this section before the history because history section contains too much infor so I need to fork it out as much as possible. I found "Buddhist texts" article. There must be a lot of orphaned buddhist articles which are lost. FWBOarticle

History of Buddhism

I will introduce three sections, Early Buddhism, Nikaya Buddhism and Rise of Mahayana. I believe this make the later sectarian disambiguation easier. FWBOarticle

This section might initially bloat due to the attempt to contextualise many controversies which has been raised here. I start from Early Buddhism-Nikaya Buddhism. FWBOarticle

Wisdom/Pana subsection in the doctrine section

The sister article is not that great so I didn't add this part in the Doctrine section. But isn't there a way to systemise practice of pana in term of doctrine like meditation (samadhi) and 5precept (sila)? I mean "Listening Dharma Talk", "Studying of texts and commentaries", "Debate among scholars" and so on have to be part of Pana. Isn't there any Saskrit/Pali term which denote Learning/Studying in Buddhism which is commonly recognised by all school of buddhism? FWBOarticle

Abortion

There's a section in the Religion and abortion article about the Buddhist view Religion_and_abortion#Buddhism. Please take a moment (it's a short section) to review and verify it's presenting an accurate view and not giving undue weight to any particular sect. Feel free to add and change. The sources at this point seem very limited.--Pro-Lick 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mizuko is Shinto origin. Anyone who is not officially committed to shrine as members were refered as Mizuko. Because Shinto was merged into Buddhism in mideval period, shinto rite of spirit calming and Buddhist concept of bodhisatvva was merged. Explaing the relationship between shintoism and buddhism takes too much time. Mizuko Kuyo should not be described as a "Buddhist" practice. It is very unique to Japanese Buddhism. FWBOarticle

Bloating of History section

As I stated previously, the section is bloated. And it's only up to first 500 years of Buddhism! What I intend to do is to add the history of Chinese Buddhism at the end of Mahayana section, add the history of Tibettan Buddhism at the end of Vajrayana section, add the history of Theravada Buddhism at the end of "Theravada Renaissance" section. Once "Buddhism Today" section is done, I will try to trim it. FWBOarticle

You know that History of Buddhism exists, right? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but, IMO, it was lacking in Nikaya/Hinayana history which is essential in explaining Mahayana/Theravada controversies. I believe I did o.k. in streamlining doctrine section. Previous version had three separate sections dealing with teaching of Buddhism. Reality in Buddhism is out of place imo but I don't feel like having an edit war right now. I'm just happy that, so far, most people seems to be o.k. with the overall direction of my edit.
My main idea is to establish correct section structures of article in term of overall Buddhism portal. Then it become easy to fork out contents to sister articles. Now, I know where Buddah-nature debate belong, I thik I can eventually submerge buddah nature section into Mahayana and Vijrayana narratives. FWBOarticle

FWBOarticle is Vapour

Someone suggested that my username is not helpful to conducting edit in Buddhism related article. For me, it was just the name of an article I edited first. I will be known as Vapour from now on. Vapour

Third Buddhist Council

In one of Japanese website, it was stated that there is no record of the third council by Ashoka in Mahayana buddhism or edicts of Ashoka. To be honest, I never come across a mention of the third council attributed to some Mahayana buddhist texts. If this is ture, the claim by Theravada about the authority of Pali Cannon is merely self referential. If someone can provide mention of the third council in Mahayana text, (such as 異部宗輪論) I'm eager to see it. Vapour

Is there any record of any of the Buddhist councils in Mahayana texts (other than the later Mahayana councils, which are, of course, not mentioned in Theravada texts)? My impression was that the "standard" historical account of early Buddhism being defined by the two councils derives from Theravada traditional history. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I went around few Japanese Buddhist sites. They either attributed the Third council to Theravada narrative or didn't specify the source. Given that most Japanese buddhist org are versed in Chinese Mahayana cannons, it is likely that there are no mention of the third council in Mahayana transmission. Anyway, the burden of proof is on positive proof so someone have to to cite a reference of the third council from mahayana text. As far as I can see, mahayana seem to accept Pali cannon as "a" Nikaya/Hinayana cannon. Another nikaya cannon is transmitted and kept by Mahayana so this seems to be the reason why mahayana do not see pali cannon as the authoritative Nikaya/Hinayana cannon. Vapour

I found out why the third buddhist council is often accepted as a historical fact. There are no record of ancient india except buddhist sources. This appear to be due to india's reliance on oral transmission, muslim invasion and other various factors. So until recently, the history of ancient india could be learned only from buddhist sources. So if a theravada source say that the third council happened, then it is often reported as such. But the standard of academic history usually require corresonding independent sources for something to qualify as a historical fact. So in academic term, it was stated as heresay. Recently, the edicts of Asoka has been decoded. It appear that Asoka was a buddhist but he accepted all different belief. So when the edit mention "dharma" it is not talking about "buddhadharma" but "dharma" for all belief. That may be one reason there is no mention of 4truth/8path mentioned in asoka's edict. Vapour

Reality in Buddhism

It seems, somebody, who removes a section, should be starting the discussion here and put arguments for such removal. --Klimov 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, it's not much a section. It says that Buddhists see perceived reality as being unreal. This is an extremely complicated and nuanced subject (basically requiring an englightened being to address). It cites one Mahayana sutra, possibly specific to Vajrayana (I've never heard of the Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra off the top of my head, and you've written the title in such a way that I can't google search it), while stating that this is the position of Buddhism in general. What is the argument for including this section? The page is too long as it stands. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
* As it stands, it's not much a section. Yes. There was a longer section before. It seems Vapour formerly known as FBO... deleted it together with the link to a new page Reality in Buddhism that he/she created and moved the content into.
* This is an extremely complicated and nuanced subject (basically requiring an englightened being to address). This issue appears to me in a different way. I remember that majority of books on Indian philosophy (chapters on Buddhism) that I've read some twenty years ago stated that very simple: unreal.
* It cites one Mahayana sutra, possibly specific to Vajrayana (I've never heard of the "Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra" off the top of my head, and you've written the title in such a way that I can't google search it)... I do not feel sure that the sutra belongs to the Mahayana tradition. I've found the reference in a book by Elías Capriles (this you can get from the web: The Four Schools of Buddhist Philosophy). And Dr. Capriles have found the reference in the famous The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism by Dudjom Rinpoche (vol. I, p. 219, Dudjom Rinpoche, J. Y. D. English 1991; trans.: Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications.)
* The page is too long as it stands. That seems a matter of opinion. It seems that all central issues of Buddhadharma should be addressed in the article, even if as a summary and with links for further reading.--Klimov 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the title, "reality in Buddhism" is in reference to Western Philosophy of metaphysics. Because English is derived from western cultural tradition, the title looks somewhat natural. But if I have to translate this article into Japanese, for example, the title of the section is just bizzare. It's almost equivelant to having "Dharma in Christianity" next to "trinity" section in the main article of Christianity. Moreover, it appear that you are advancing your edit from your knowledge in Dzogchen. But, if you look further, you see that Dream analogy is the continuation of debate between Madhyamaka and Yogacara. I do not belive it is a good editing to duplicate "Dependent origination" section just so that someone can insert Mahayana theology in guise of western metaphysics as the main doctrine of all buddhism. Vapour

* the title, "Reality in Buddhism" is in reference to Western Philosophy Probably. It seems that the majority of people who read this in English wikipedia come from some Western cultural background.
* ...it appear that you are advancing your edit from your knowledge in Dzogchen. It seems to me different. The content that you moved into Reality in Buddhism contains 2 drastically different POVs.
* I do not belive it is a good editing to duplicate "Dependent origination" section just so that someone can insert Mahayana theology in guise of western metaphysics as the main doctrine of all buddhism. It seems, if one does not agree with Mahayana theology [?], one could write about this disagreement and leave a short section in place (possibly marked as controversial) with the link to the Reality in Buddhism article that you created.--Klimov 09:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV specifically state that your argument is not a wikipedia argument. Having "Darma in Christianity" subsection in "Doctrine" section of Chritianity is not o.k. in any language version of wikipedia. Vapour
* It does not feel very much correct what is written in NPOV:Anglo-American_focus.
* If you translate Reality as Dharma, this seems from incorrect understanding of the word Reality in the English language.--Klimov 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You already stated that majority of audience is westerners and therefore, the term reality is suitable for them, which is not what wikipedia is about. Moreover, I did not say reality and dharma is equivelant. In fact, i said it is not. Because dharma is the fundamental concept of indian philosophy, it is wrong to insert it in the doctrine section of chritianity. Because "reality" is the fundamental concept of Western philosophy of metaphysics, it is wrong to insert it in the doctrine section of buddhism. Vapour
Now it seems that I understand what you are saying. This suspicion came to me yesterday while reading Manjushrimitra. Now you confirmed this insight. I seriously thank you. I intend to create a new "Buddhist worldview" section and express this your idea in a way that would be understandable for people with western cultural background. --Klimov 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's my take on this issue, for whatever its worth. That "reality" is considered "unreal" certainly can be attributed to certain Mahayana texts (this is basically the theme of the better-known Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra) — of course, this does not mean it can be attributed to all Mahayana schools. However, it is not clear that this opinion can be attributed to Theravada (pratitya samutpada ≠ "illusionary existence"). It is true that delusion is part of this chain, and that this delusion is about the nature of things, but this is not the same as saying those things don't exist (this part is Mahayana "theology"). It seems in Theravada there is a tension between delusive "reality" and Nibbana (with the exact nature of Nibbana remaining the provence of enlightened beings only). Incidentally, "dharma" is a valid translation of "reality" (hence the interpretation of "Abhidharma" as something like "metaphysics" — a comparison that works on several levels), but it is not the only Buddhist term that can translate what is covered by the English word "reality". Another prominent candidate is "samsara" and even "pratitya samutpada".
Interesting.--Klimov 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, it wouldn't be essentially wrong to talk about "dharma" in Christianity (provided it was somewhat qualified), in fact, such attempts exist (and by Western Christians, too), but one must be cautious of how one approaches such a subject. Similarly, it is not entirely invalid to talk about "reality" in Buddhism, but, again, one's approach must be properly qualified and careful (remembering that the English word "reality" does not always align properly to Buddhist concepts). Ig0774 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ig0774: ...remembering that the English word "reality" does not always align properly to Buddhist concepts.
Yes! --Klimov 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A Mahayana source?

Klimov: "I do not feel sure that the sutra belongs to the Mahayana tradition." I'm not sure what you mean by that. There are two possible interpretations, depending on whether you consider Vajrayana to be part of Mahayana or not. The sutra in question is certainly either a Mahayana text or a Vajrayana text, because Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. If it is specific to Vajrayana, that makes it even less authoritative as a reference for Buddhism in general.

Beyond on that, I don't think I will have any further comment on this issue. The question of how Buddhism understands reality is too complicated and nuanced for me to be able to readily explain it in an NPOV fashion. I'm not going to interfere one way or the other with attempts to do so. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. Thanks, Nat. I was not aware of that.--Klimov 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My Two Yen

If you want my 2 yen, the whole problem is this historgaphy that buddhism developed in order of Hinayana(Theravada) -> Mahayana -> Vijryana. So the "earlier" school try to claim that their teaching remain unaltered hence their teaching are better than the rest while the later school try to claim that their teaching existed from the beginning of time but remain secret because it was more "advanced", so their teaching are better than the rest. It's like saying "my dad is better than your dad". If you look at the textual evidence, certain mahayana theology or sutra pop up only after certain time period of history. And more importantly, modern Theravada are results of changes and even schism. They just don't like to talk about it that much. :D Vapour

External Links

"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". "Wikipedia articles are not [m]ere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such."

I will delet links which merely promote particular organisation. There must be 1000s buddhist organisations. Please revive it in the article which deal with each organisation.

There are just toooooo many.(1) I will delete links which is associated with one branch or one organisation of buddhism. No promo (2) Delete link which deal with particular topics or aspect of buddhism which ouguth to be posted in sister articles. (3) have commercial aspect (I make exception to sponsor which may be needed to run the site as long as it is not too overt.). Vapour

Comparative Study

This section need to be forked out. As a whole, it is a valid and interesting subject. I love to see, for example, "Science and Buddhism" section expanded. Buddhadharma in Dharma tradition as well as (western) philosophical interpretation of buddhism is interesting as well. Some might want to investigate the relation of buddhism with state. Unfortunately, the section is free for all topic so it should be trimmed to manageable size. Vapour

I forked content out. Now the article size is 48kb. Yippii!!. Vapour

All acceptt the idea of a supreme being whether it in theistic form or ?

O.k. my philosophy is bit rusty. There are two form of supreme being, one is trancendent (theistic) and the other is one is universe (close to hinduism). I can't remember the term describing this later concept. Can anyone help? Vapour

Found it. Pantheism Vapour

Quick question

Doesn't it make more sense to talk about the history of Buddhism after introducing the three main sects? Ig0774 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Three main division of buddhism makes no sense unless you talk about history. Buddhism in Pali, Tibettan, Chinese develop separately after Buddhism in India disappear. Vapour

Theravada part of history is still a stub. There are schism which prompt one school to commit Pali cannon in writing. Then Sri Lankan Buddhism split into three. The most influencial one around 5th century incoporated Mahayana. Then at about 9th to 10th century, the current theravada school become the state religion uniting different schools and subsequently eliminating the original schism, which, in turn, lead to 11th century Theravada Renaissance. As far as I can see there are one single history of Buddhism upto 11-12th century centred around India. IMO, clear distinction of three yana happen when buddhism was adopted to different culture outside of india. Vapour 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist world view

ah, Kilmov, you must know that edit in wikipedia should not be an original research, satisfy verifiability and written from NPOV.

"The practically relevant issue of worldview in the teachings of Buddha appears to be controversial and sometimes calls up strong emotional reactions. Others feel uncomfortable with the issue and try to evade it or ignore by pushing it out to the periphery of conscious considerations.
"And that seems understandable, because many Buddhists, contrary to the appearingly obvious, consider the perceived everyday reality to be unreal."
"Some go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality" as irrelevant to the Buddhist worldview."

The above edit fail all three wikipedia criteria. Your quote of Buddah pass no original research and probably verifiability criteria as well however, the source is cited as

"Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra as cited by Elías Capriles in The Four Schools of Buddhist Philosophy: Clear Discrimination of Views Pointing at the Definitive Meaning. The Four Philosophical Schools of the Sutrayana Traditionally Taught in Tibet with Reference to the Dzogchen Teachings. Published on the Web."

NPOV edit mean proper attribution of context. At this point, your edit probably belong to Tibetan Buddhism article or metaphysics section of Buddhist philosophy article. I think I have heard a Theravada monk use dream reference as well, so you might be able to revive it in Bodhi artcile. I also should mention that when Senior Lamas including Dalai Lama held seminar course in Buddhist theology in Scotland few years back, the course started off from dependent origination. So you might want to find out where your knowledge of tibettan buddhism fit into overall structure of tibettan buddhism. Vapour

you can now get involved with Bodhi article as well. Awakening from dream is a common description of buddhist enlightenment. So you now have choise of bodhi, buddhist philosophy, and tibettan buddhism. Vapour

Vapour: The above edit fail all three wikipedia criteria. It seems to me in a very different way. It seems that all three (original research, verifiability and NPOV) are satisfied.--Klimov 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
(1)"The practically relevant issue of worldview in the teachings of Buddha appears to be controversial." - No citation nor reference to Buddhist term, i.e. original research.
(2)"That seems understandable because many Buddhists, contrary to the appearingly obvious, consider the perceived everyday reality to be unreal" - Understandable to whom? "Many buddhists" is a weasle word. Bddhist from non western countries do not use western term of metaphysicsto to define dharma. Even many buddhists in the west (Nat Krause just as an example) avoid equating pali/sanskrit term with the one from western philosophy.
(3) No above statement appear in Vimalakirti Sutra, therefore it is an incorrect citation.
(4) "Some go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality" - "Some", "many", "most", "few" are example of weasle words. In wikipedia, it signify the absence of attribution of POV, hence automatically not NPOV. The correct edit may be "Manjushrimitra go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality"" in which case, this edit belong to Dzogchen article.
(5)"Anyways, according to the Buddha" - According to which sutra? No citation of Buddah's quote to sutra from mahayana or theravada source. Hence, at this point unverifiable original research. Vapour

Your edit appear to be based entirely on this section. Dogzen is one of six monastries within Nyingma tradition which is one of 4 or 5 branche of Tibettan buddhis which is one of two wing (the other being japanese) of vijryana buddhism which is one of three yana of Buddhism. This article is not a place for every different sects or organisations of buddhism to propagate their POV. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Vapour

Vapour: Wikipedia is not a soap box. Hmm... Should somebody think on this? --Klimov 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Klimov, I'm not sure what you mean by this ... Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
He is implying that i'm biased hence using this article as my soapbox. He fail to see that wikipedia does not advocate absense of POV. Wikipedia clearly state that NPOV is a POV. In my opinion that Klimov's edit does not suit wikipedia POV. Vapour

I'm planning to create Bodhi subsection

I felt that Buddha-nature or "Who is Buddah" is too Mahayana biased so I relagated it to Mahayana section. However, relagating reference of Boddhisatva might be too Theravada biased as well. I have inserted edit in "Main Sect" section that "All (school of buddhism) accept three types of Buddha and consider Bodhisattva ideal as the highest." I believe I can restore reference to Boddhisatva without causing Mahayana/Theravada disambiguation. I will insert Bodhi. Luckily, the sister article Bodhi already has three type of buddha/enlightenment. Vapour

Middle Way

The reason for my sepration are

(1) Doctrine section was getting too big.
(2) Practical aspect of Buddhism shouldn't be described as doctrine
(3) Meditation, obserbation of precept, Buddhist discourse (sermon, debate, study of sutras and commentaries), all start off from Samadhi, Sila and Prajna but eventually move past from its focus (Samdhi to Vipasanna, Sila to Paramita) and lead to enlightenment.

I apologise for the current stub state of Prajna section. Vapour

Western Philosophy-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Schopenhauer could be considered to be a Buddha, because he found enlightenment and taught the same ideas that are contained in the Eastern religion.". I believe this is an original research/opinion. I shift this section to Buddhist philosophy article. Vapour

Good move, though I might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether. Ig0774 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Here we have information about a noteworthy coincidence between an Eastern religion and a Western philosophy, and User Ig0774 "might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether." Lestrade 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I would respectfully suggest you (re-)read the section. It is speculative and quite poorly written. That is why I would have deleted it (you might notice I haven't). The overlap, insofar as there is overlap, is quite interesting, but the presentation of it needs to be a lot better. This little observation probably belongs on Arthur Schopenhauer or Buddhism in Germany or the like, but not a general page on Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy (since Schopenhauer cannot be described as, and never described himself, either a Buddhist or a Buddhist philosopher and Schopenhauer's thought did not have any impact on Buddhist philosophy). Ig0774 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The part of that statement that's tricky to be sure about is "noteworthy". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems to have been noteworthy for Schopenhauer certainly, which in turn seems to have influenced some of Nietzsche's swipes at Buddhism, and there is a fair amount of scholarship on the question of the parallels between Schopenhauerian pessimism and the Four Noble Truths. On the other hand, the parallel is pretty inconsequential to most Buddhists, as far as I know. Ig0774 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am still not a buddhist, but...

I never thought buddhism would be such a divisive article - and I'm especially surprised that so many appear determined to violate NPOV. The second paragraph of the intro blurb seems very Theravada-focused - what is wrong with keeping it to the first paragraph alone? Rycanada 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that there have been a lot of points of Theravada bias in this article, and maybe there still are (a lot of the new material I haven't read yet). However, I'm not sure what's Theravada-biased about the second paragraph as it stands. Granted, it leaves out some information that would be important in explaining Mahayana Buddhism. Therefore, I suppose it constitutes a more complete description of Buddhism if viewed from a Theravada perspective. However, I think it nevertheless holds true for any branch of Buddhism. I'm not sure whether there's anything wrong with this state of affairs. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as particularly biased, either: as Nat says, it is a more complete description of the Therevada, but nothing in there would be rejected by a Mahayanaist. I am hard-pressed to think of a way to add Mahayana focus without sounding like I'm detracting from the Therevada. What about this for the last sentence of the second paragraph?
To achieve this state, adherents seek to purify and train the mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path, and eventually to gain true knowledge of reality and thus attain liberation (Nirvana) for themselves, as well as (in some traditions) for all beings.
bikeable (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the Eightfold Path emphasized relatively constantly across the traditions? I was under the impression that it wasn't as important (I mean, of course it's important, but is it consistently opening-paragraph about Buddhism important across the traditions?) I'd prefer if the last two sentences were collapsed into:
In general, adherents seek to purify the mind, perceive the true nature of reality, and achieve liberation from suffering (Nirvana). The emphasis on individual or universal suffering varies from tradition to tradition.
Rycanada 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, I think the EFP (as well as the 4NT) are emphasized just as heavily in Mahayana (I'm less sure about Vajrayana, but I don't believe anyone would deemphasize it there either). I like your sentence, but I think it's worth mentioning the EFT and 4NT even in the introduction. I also liked the previous sentence about the aim of Buddhist practice is to end all kinds of suffering in life, which I think it a good nutshell. How about:
''In general, the aim of Buddhist practice is to end all kinds of suffering. Through realizing the Four Noble Truths, and by following the Noble Eightfold Path, adherents of Buddhism seek to purify the mind, to perceive the true nature of reality, and to achieve liberation from suffering (Nirvana). The emphasis on individual or universal liberation varies from tradition to tradition.
bikeable (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More than One Buddha

In the Wikipedia Buddha article, it is explained that Gautama Siddhartha was not the only buddha. On the contrary, the name is given to anyone who has become enlightened or "awakened" to the principles of the religion. Users Vapour and lg0774 should note that this might even apply to Western philosophers.Lestrade 12:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

No doubt. There is even a (mildly) famous story about a Zen master who declared Jesus to have been an enlightened being. The point isn't that Schopenhauer couldn't be considered a Buddha (though he never seems to have called himself such), just that the incident isn't really noteworthy to Buddhism as a whole (the information also appears in the article Buddhism in the West, another appropriate place for it). Ig0774 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
One should also note that, in the Buddhism view, to be a Buddha is not simply to hold a correct philosophy, but also to perfect one's own virtues and ethics. I'm not sure if followers of Schopenhauer or Schopenhauer himself would claim that he meets that criterion. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, then, a Buddha must not only have correct knowledge of life in the world, he/she must also act in accordance with that knowledge. Schopenhauer was criticized for not possessing the saintly qualities that he decribed in his writings. For example, he based all morality on compassion, but he had no compassion for detrimental philosophers. Under User Nat Krause's conditions, if they are correct, Schopenhauer was no Buddha. Schopenhauer wrote:

[I]t is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses.

– The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1. §68

Lestrade 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Has anyone other than Gautama Siddhartha ever been conventionally accepted as being a buddha?Lestrade 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
In terms of historical personages accepted by a wide swath of Buddhist practitioners and clergy, generally no. In the orthodox Theravada view, a Buddha has to be the first arhat in an age who discovers the Middle Path for himself; according to that view, there won't be anyone with the moniker 'Buddha' until the coming of Maitreya, which won't be until after the Buddha and his teachings are forgotten, the Sangha vanishes, and the relics of the Buddha are gathered together and cremated. There are, of course, previous Buddhas that are claimed to have existed in ages past, but there is no historical evidence for their existence- references to them don't exist prior to the coming of Shakyamuni. In the Mahayana tradition, there are many Buddhas conceived of, but most of them are residing in other realms of existence, like Amitabha in the Pure Land, and these folks don't generally pop up in the ordinary historical world. Putai, a quasi-historical Chinese monk, was considered after his death to be an incarnation of Maitreya.
There have been various historical figures in the Mahayana (and in the Theravada) that have claimed Buddha status, like the so-called 'Sun Buddha' in Sri Lanka. I can't think of any of these that have ever attained status above that of leader of a local cult. Many of them are 'splinter groups' that attempt to combine claims of Buddhahood with claims from other religious traditions- like the Theosophist Maitreya claimants. There are many famous monks in Thailand that are considered to be arhats after their death, but woulnd't be called Buddhas. --Clay Collier 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to the collection: Shinran, the founder of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, at least according to a letter by his wife Eshin-ni, believed his teacher, Honen, to be Vairochana. Of course, this, as with the others, is far from "conventional". One might note that the Mahayana doctrine of Buddha-nature complexifies this entire question. Ig0774 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
For one thing, we should distinguish between the three types of Buddha, which can be confusing because people usually use "Buddha" to mean Samyaksam-Buddha. Certainly, if one includes sravaka-buddhas (which are normally referred to as arhats), then many of the Buddha's disciples were also Buddhas. However, if we mean Samyaksam-Buddha (which is how I will use the term "Buddha" henceforth), then I certainly agree with Clay that there is no historical figure other than Siddhartha who is widely accepted by Buddhists as a Buddha. It seems to me that one might find cases here and there where some person is implied to be a Buddha. For instance (in addition to Ig0774's example), Tibetan Buddhists refer to Padmasambhava as the "Second Buddha", but it's not clear if this is meant to be taken literally. Furthermore, Tibetans believe that the Panchen Lama and the Shamarpa are manifestations of Amitabha, who is a Buddha. Moreover, they believe that the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa are manifestations of Avalokitesvara and (if I understand correctly) they believe Avalakitesvara to be a Buddha. One might perhaps interpret a case of this sort as a flourish of poetic pique or as an indication that our concept of "being/not being a Buddha" is too simplistic. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the qualification for being considered a buddha is to independently, in the absence of a teacher, think of the first three "Noble Truths." The fourth Truth is merely a reference to a practical program. This constitutes awakening or enlightenment.Lestrade 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Buddhist Ecumenical Statements

I have visited the page for this article on a few occasions since November last year. My intention was to improve the Buddhism article in the Spanish Wikipedia. However, I immediately decided against translating any sections of this article since I found it, quite frankly, completely unreadable then, and I opted instead for writing for the Spanish site based on my own research outside the English Wikipedia. I am very pleased that the English article seems to be definitively improving hanow. I was amazed a few months ago by the blindness of some wikipedians in this talk page who could just not see or did not want to accept how user un-friendly this article had became, how confusing, how long and how ridden by sectarianism and the minute examination of matters as inappropriate for a generalist article such as vegetarianism... or reincarnations of Hindu gods... etc. It was not an appropiate article for the average reader of wikipedia with little prior knowledge of Buddhism. If you forget your reader... then you might just as well forget everything else!

I am wondering now if the documents and statements mentioned in this new article I have just created here:

could help so that we never ever again get to the chaotic writing and the appalling not-see-the-forest-for-the-trees style of the article during the recent past. I believe that this type of ecumenical statements that concentrate in the commonalities of all "buddhisms" could help an awful lot as a framework of reference in the future, to maintain the quality of the article, and help decide on the relative importance of different topics.

Regards,

--Sandrog 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. What do you think of the article now? I think most editors agreed that it needed to be changed. As for "Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana", I think it can be useful. However, we should remember that Walpola cites these as common points of Theravada and Mahayana, but not necessarily as the most important points. So, they don't provide an obvious way of knowing what is the forest and what the trees. Also, it's not clear whether or not Walpola intends to include Vajrayana under his Basic Points. If not, they are deficient for describing Buddhism as a whole. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response:

  • What do I think of the article now? I thought it was clear that I find it readable now. The article does seem a lot more focused now. It also seems more appropriate for the general readership that Wikipedia and generalist articles are aimed at.
  • What's important? Importance is of course subjective and relative, not absolute. But to decide what is important we must first establish various criteria beforehand to be able to make such judgement in the first place. What I propose is nothing more than one criterion. To me, if there are any characteristics that all Buddhist schools have in common, and yet at the very same time they are not shared by any other religions, then those characteristics would be something which would certainly define Buddhism since it would distinguish and differentiate all forms of Buddhism from other religions, making it unique. That to me sounds at least like one very “important” criterion to use. What do you think?
  • Vajrayana included? Well...
    • The WBSC, which approved the document, has members from Nepal and Mongolia, which are mainly Vajrayana countries.
    • Vajrayana is sometimes included by some authors as just part of Mahayana, and the article for Vajrayana in Wikipedia defines it as: an extension of Mahayana Buddhism consisting not of philosophical differences, but rather the adoption of additional techniques. And since the list of Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana is mainly concerned with philosophical issues, we could then assume that it would include the Vajrayana as well.

--Sandrog 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana, I am pretty sure that there are very few Buddhists who would disagree with the initial nine point formula, however, the expanded formula is quite possibly contentious. Eg: One of the central theses of the 9 point formula, is point 8, which clearly indicates a clear and mutually acceptable recognition of the distinction between the goals of the Mahayana and the Nikaya/Sravakayana. However, This distinction is blurred in the expanded formula, when the paragragh continues: But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths ... etc., which is not necessarily something that is agreed upon, without considerable interpretation. The interpretation from the Sandhinirmocana-sutra begs the question: If they are the same Path, then why differentiate them at all? There is a distinct difference of doctrine regarding the capability of a Samyaksam-Buddha to continue to actively teach after Parinirvana - the Mahayana doctrines state that a Buddha continues to actively teach until the end of Samsara (of all beings), whereas IIRC, Theravada/Nikaya/Sravakayana doctrines state that a Buddha actively teaches only during his lifetime, and not after Parinirvana. It is in light of this distinction that the Nikaya traditions state that Nirvana is the final goal, and the nirvana of the three types of Buddha is the same. (20040302 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Pacifism

How do people who adhere to pacifist religions such as Buddhism and Christianity react when threatened by people who believe in aggressive and/or cruel ways of life? Do they conveniently suspend belief in their religions until the danger has been eliminated?Lestrade 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, if the question you're asking is about the respective founders of those religions, who are arguably the only people who can really be taken as exemplars, the answer is no. Jesus, you will recall, let the Romans take him and execute him; the Buddha let a neighboring tribe invade and annihilate his native people.
If you're asking about the successive followers of those religions, there were obviously many who didn't behave as pacifists. One could argue that those types of people would be more likely to be able to seize political power and thus become famous historical figures.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that Buddhism and Christianity really are intended to be pacifistic. It's true that Jesus said "turn the other cheek", which is perhaps the English language's most famous pacifistic statement. But, he also said "I do not bring peace, but a sword", and "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword"[9]. The Buddhist agamas record lots of instances of the Buddha telling people not to be violent, but it's a complicated question whether that implies complete pacifism. For instance, Japanese sohei warrior monks had their own philosophy about the relationship between ahimsa and self-defense. Moreover, there is at least one Mahayana text, the Nirvana Sutra, in which Buddha explicitly tells his followers not to be so pacifistic as to reject self-defense. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It almost seems as if the non-violent originators of the religion were similar to perfect and unattainable Platonic Ideals in that they could be only partly, unsuccessfully imitated in actual life. However, in so doing, the person who tries to be as non-violent as possible is making the world a better place. This may or may not be the case.Lestrade 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Corrections

People have started writing their own versions how Buddhism, how "it should be...."

  • First of all its Sanskrit equivalent is not Buddha dharma but Bauddha Dharma. Noun Buddha → Adjective Bauddha.
  • I have readded the schools of buddhist philosophy with reference.
  • Buddhism is not necessarily an atheistic religion. We need a separate section on "God". Theravada is atheistic, in Mahayana, Buddha is worshipped like God. It also bears mention that de facto, the concept of Karma has taken the place of God in Theravada. Also, Buddhism believes in celestial spirits (call it "gods").
  • Who the hell deleted my Wheel of Causation?

Cygnus_hansa 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Neither the Sanskrit nor the Pali should be in the intro. These are fairly obscure terms, and none of them has a special claim to Buddhism. Also, in English, we always say "Buddhadharma"; if the actual Sanskrit is something different, then that's all the more reason we shouldn't include it.
2) Thanks for referencing the schools of philosophy section.
3) The question of God in Mahayana is a a complicated one. To say, "Buddha is worshipped like God" is a big oversimplification. Likewise, to say, "he concept of Karma has taken the place of God in Theravada" is an interesting idea that I've never heard of before, but it also seems like an oversimplification.
4) I have no idea what "Wheel of Causation" you are referring to. However, everything anyone adds to the page is, as usual, edited mercilessly. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Buddhism & Atheism

User Amcbride reverted my use of the adjective "atheistic" as applied to Buddhism. Amcbride wrote that "to call Buddhism atheistic is a simplification." Isn't it important to know that there is a moral religion that does not refer to a god of any kind? I would think that this fact would be of primary importance. As a matter of fact, it may even be the most important fact in many persons' lives. Buddhism is a way of life that was proposed by a man who realized that suffering could be lessened. Is a simplification objectionable even if it is true? On Wikipedia, we are not theology professors whose job depends on interpreting and explicating mysteries. No one can quote a passage in Buddhism that refers to God. It is clearly and simply an atheistic religion, whether some of us like it or not. This kind of information belongs in a Wikipedia article. Lestrade 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

'By watching, Indra became king of the Gods' - Dhammapada, Chapter 2. Theravada Buddhism is rife with references to the gods of the Vedic pantheon- Brahma makes regular appearances, as do Indra and a host of others. The Buddha speaks of himself having been previously incarnated as a god in several Jataka, for instance. In the Mahayana, the line between gods and the various powerful Bodhisattva's is very strongly blurred- for instance, the identification of the goddess Kuan Yin with the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. In Tibetan Buddhism, the various tutelary and protective deities, while not being 'Buddhist' themselves, were tamed by Buddhist sages and their worship and visualization through various practices is essential to many forms of tantric practice. On top of these connections, we also have the fact that Buddhism as it is practiced across most of Asia exists in very close quarters with a variety of deities- the Kataragama cult in Sri Lanka, the Nagas in Burma, the various phi and a certain amount of Vedic Brahmanism in Thailand, etc.
It's certainly worth noting that certain traditions in Buddhism hold that it is possible to attain Buddhism's highest goal (Nirvana) without the involvement of a deity; it's quite something else to attach such a loaded phrase as 'atheism' to Buddhism, which may be incorrectly interpreted. Buddhism, for instance, never disavowed or denied the existence of gods. The Vedic pantheon is accepted without question throughout much of early Indian Buddhism, as are the cosmological details of a world oriented around advancing levels of divinity (the various heavenly realms of Mount Meru). Buddhism also does not hold belief in one or more gods to be incompatible with Buddhist practice. While certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity, this interpretation is far from universal and most certainly represents a different way of viewing Buddhism than has been the majority case throughout Buddhist history. In particular, there is little or no evidence, as is sometimes claimed, that such an interpretation is a 'retrieval' of some sort of primal, 'unadulterated' Buddhism.
So, it's complicated. --Clay Collier 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we will let Wikipedia continue the misconception that the Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) was a God. He rejoins his peers Christ, Mohammed, Jim Jones, and Zeus. We will not present Buddhism as it is: a way of life that merely reduces suffering.Lestrade 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

How condescending. Did you read what Clay wrote? bikeable (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing in the article as it stands that gives the impression that the Buddha is regarded as a god, and I don't see how adding the moniker of 'atheistic religion' is going to clarify matters at all. Given the evidence of scripture and popular practice, I would say that it is quite misleading to state that Buddhism is atheistic; on the other hand it is quite appropriate to say that Buddhism can be atheistic. There is nothing in the Buddhist tradition that demands or requires disbelief in the existence of gods, but the philosophy and practices of Buddhism can certainly be adapted to such a cosmology. There is a long-standing tendency among Western depictions of Buddhism to see the philosophy and ethical ideals as somehow entirely independent of the metaphysical and cosmological notions present in Buddhism, and to discard the non-rational, non-ethical aspects as 'cultural trappings' or as 'later developments'. To present Buddhism in such a way is to present a very recent Western ideal of what Buddhism can be, rather than Buddhism as it is. --Clay Collier 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus among the authors I have read that Buddhism is a NON-theistic religion, which is not the same as A-theistic. To me NON-theistic suggests that is a religion that doesn't overly concern itself with the idea of God. This would be represented in the parable of the man struck by the arrow (if some of you didn't know it I'd be happy to write a summary of it) A-theistic would suggest that it denies the existence of God, which it is something that the Buddha never did directly or indirectly, since he was extremely reluctant to speculate over any subject at all not related to the path to personal liberation.

According to Oo Maung the vast majority of buddhist schools reject the idea of a Supreme God, and according to a statement approved by the World Buddhist Sangha Council in 1967 both Theravadins and Mahayanists do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will. In contrast, Abrahamic Religions revolve around the idea of a creator God. Buddhism revolves instead around the idea of the cessation of Dukkha. However, this is not quite exactly the same as the out-right refutation of any gods, which is what the word A-theistic would imply.

It is all a question of writing the article both as simply and at the same time as precisely as it is possible.

--Sandrog 11:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that the above is word play. The prefix "a" is Greek and means "without." The prefix "non" is equivalent to "a". This type of subtlety occurs when a person desperately tries to salvage an idea by any means possible, preferably by making the issue verbally complex, confusing, and lengthy. In that way, the opponent can be accused of being obtuse or lazy if any complaint is made.Lestrade 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
It's more, I think, an attempt to confront the fact that in English we don't have a standard way of saying that the beliefs or doctrines of a religion embrace a certain amount of disinterest regarding the question of divinity. Buddhism does not assert that gods do not exist, or can not exit (as an atheist might), does not work from the assumption that they are necesary for soteriological purposes (as almost all Western, theistic religions do), and do not assert that the existence of god is unknowable (as an agnostic would). The Buddha identifies certain metaphysical questions that are seen as being central to any religious philosophy in most of the world as being, essentially, possibly knowable but basically unimportant (such as the origin of the universe, the existence of a creator, etc.). The use of non-theistic to indicate this unusual status for Buddhism is a modern convention. Yes, the derivation is wrong, but rather than being a linguistic shell game, I think it's an honest attempt at creating a neo-logism that explains Buddhism's position on divinity in more clear terms than the familiar atheist/theist/agnostic divisions. How useful it really is is certainly debatable- I'm not sure at present that 'non-theistic' really denotes anything other than 'the Buddhist attitude towards gods'. --Clay Collier 12:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Lestrade! I was sincerely trying to be helpful, objective and constructive and in a way I thought I could see your good reasons to refer to buddhism as atheistic, and I really thought I had made that clear in my comment. You are certainly very wrong as to my motivation for my comment. I am an atheist by conviction since I was roughly six actually, and hence it would be rather strange for me to be "desperately trying to salvage" the opposite view to yours in this topic. I was actually trying to find a consensus view. The expression NON-theistic is not word-play. It is in fact the description of Buddhism given, among many others, by the very reputable Buddhist Society in England. Could you provide a citation in support of A-theistic? Including user Amcbride and myself, five different people in total have already shown in one way or another that they are not completely and totally comfortable with the use of the word A-theistic. To put it very simply I will ask a very direct question (since before I gave the wrong impression of trying to be complex):
  • Do you accept or do you not accept that, if not most, many Buddhist cosmological systems include gods? Yes or No?
If Yes: Would it not be more reasonable then to accept the issue of whether Buddhism is atheistic as just a little bit more complicated, not so radically cut-and-dried? You seem to have a difficulty accepting any shade of grey at all and appears as though you can only see black and white in this matter.
And if No: What kind or sort of quotations, references or citations could persuade you to the contrary, since those ones that have indeed already been provided by user Clay Collier in his first comment in this thred on the 24th of April don't seem persuasive to you, (and you have not really explained why not either)?
And by the way: I hope no-one here has to think in terms of opponents.
Sandrog 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a gem here in a comment by Clay Collier:

"While certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity, this interpretation is far from universal and most certainly represents a different way of viewing Buddhism than has been the majority case throughout Buddhist history."

Since the Comparative Study section (which links to the God in Buddhism article) organizes this area pretty well, i've added that quote to the God in Buddhism article. - Rgrant 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am now convinced that User Sandrog's distinction between Atheism and Nontheism was not intended to be evasive. The Wiki article on Nontheism clearly shows the important difference. Buddhism cannot, therefore, be described with the adjetive "atheistic" in the Wiki article. Atheism has connotations and associations with the concept of evil for many persons. I will attach the adjective "nontheistic" to Buddhism in the article and see if it is reverted for any reason.Lestrade 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It might be informative to include the following passage in the main article. After all, I would think that it would help researchers understand true Buddhism.

But if we examine that religion which has the greatest number of followers on earth and thus the majority of mankind in its favor, namely Buddhism, we can now no longer disguise the fact that it is just as decidedly and expressly atheistic (atheistisch) as it is strictly idealistic and ascetic. In fact, it is atheistic to the extent that, when the doctrine of pure theism is brought to the notice of its priests, they expressly reject it out of hand.

– Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, §34

Schopenhauer then quoted several passages from scholarly articles to prove "the fact" that Buddhism is "decidedly and expressly atheistic." Lestrade 14:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Although I deleted the word "nontheistic" from the introduction and similarly oppose the word "atheistic" being used to describe what Buddhism is, a discussion about Buddhism in relation to these terms may be warranted, either in the section on comparitive study or the article Buddhism in the West. Ig0774 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is already an article God in Buddhism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I forgot about that. Ig0774 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In the writings of the Buddhists we cannot find any positive hint or suggestion of a supreme being as the principle of creation, and it seems that, whenever this subject crops up in the course of argument,it is intentionally avoided.

– Isaac J. Scmidt, On the Relation of Gnostic Doctrine to Buddhism

It is difficult, but not impossible, for a person who has been brought up as a Christian, Jew, or Mohammedan, to not see Buddhism through the spectacles of monotheism. But, it seems inevitable that the Wikipedia article will perpetuate that "optical distortion".Lestrade 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

With respect to Lestrade's comment, 24th April: Brahma is the being that persuaded the Buddha to turn the wheel for the first time, saying that "there are some with only a little dust in their eyes".
I personally am entirely comfortable with the term 'non-theistic', despite its incorrect etymology; and I don't think it's correct to describe Buddhism as atheistic. Atheism refers to the belief that there is no God/are no Gods, and even that there cannot be any such entities. Perhaps my tolerance of the neologism is due to the fact that I have had connections with the London Buddhist Society; Sandrog (above) attributes the usage to that institution, so maybe that's where I got it from.
I'm completely unfamiliar with the view that 'atheistic' has connotations of evil. I presume this is associated with groups that consider anything they disagree with to be evil, and I'm therefore inclined to discount it.
Since this is causing difficulty, can I suggest that the safest path is to say what we mean? E.g. something to this effect: 'The question of the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods is answered differently in different Buddhist traditions. Buddhists do not attribute the creation of the world to a creator-God, nor do Gods play any critical role in the Buddhist view of the Universe.'
MrDemeanour 14:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That would seem a most reasonable suggestion. I might venture to say that I do not oppose the word "nontheistic" as such, I only find that the way the term is defined on nontheism to which it had been linked to be inappropriate, since the "nontheism" of Buddhism relates not to the existence of gods as such, but to the (soteriological) importance of those gods. iggytalk 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)

Trying to a get a concensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic). Your input is appreciated. It's for naming and transliteration formating of vedic related articles. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism and manys things that overlap or are similar or have the same origin. This would probably help for coordination. --Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source

"It is also believed that Buddha used Magadhi or the Ardha-Magadhi dialect, which is very smiilar to the literary language of the Jains dialect. However, Buddha "admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn Ardha-Magadhi in order to understand his doctrine" [10]. "

The Theosophical Society is not a reliable source on Buddhism. To the best of my knowledge, it is not part of either tradition or scholarship that the Buddha ever used Ardhamagadhi -- which is a Prakrit that postdates the Buddha by centuries.RandomCritic 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Buddha did say that his followers were not forced to learn the same language as himself. I think that the paragarph may be shortened into "The Buddha admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn the language that the Buddha himself spoke in order to understand his doctrine". I've been looking for a Pali Canon reference to this, but I can't find it. I'm sure it's in a Sutta wich also mentions Devadatta, but I just can't find it... --- Andkaha(talk) 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both Northern and Southern lineage source state that Buddah used Magadhi. Theravada long held belif that Pali is almost near equivelant to Magadhi though this idea is now disputed by secular scholarship. Both are variation of Sanskrit language. However, Pali appear to be based on western dialect while Magadhi is based on eastern dialect. I think Magadhi reference should stay though Ardha-Magadhi is another matter. Vapour

Intellectual Worldview

This section is horribly put together and appears to be based on a book that tries to approximate Buddhism to a form of Hindu philosophy. I deleted some outstanding errors (Sautrantikas as Theravadins?! Shunyata as a substance?!!) but I imagine there are even more errors there and the whole thing needs to be rewritten - or deleted. RandomCritic 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm copying the whole thing out from the article and placing it here until there is some consensus on what to do with it. It doesn't fit where it was (under "Major sects"); it doesn't match the main article it's associated with; it is poorly written; it contains dubious and, in some places redundant information. Suggestions on where it should go and how it can be edited? RandomCritic 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Intellectualism and Buddhist worldview

Main article: History of Buddhist schools

In his lifetime, Gautama Buddha had not answered several philosophical questions. On issues like whether the world is eternal or non-eternal, finite or infinite, unity or separation of the body and the soul, complete inexistence of a person after nirvana and then death, nature of the Supreme Truth, etc, the Buddha had remained silent. Commentators explain that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightenment.

Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher Tilopa discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice.

Buddhist missionaries often faced philosophical questions from other religions whose answers they themselves did not know. For those, who have attachment to intellectualism, Buddhist scholars developed an enormous amount of intellectual theories, philosophies and worldview concepts. See e.g. Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophy and Reality in Buddhism.

Based on various interpretations of Buddha's teachings four major schools of philosophy were formed. [1]

  • Śūnyavāda of the Mādhyamikas: this is a Mahayana school, popularized by Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosha.
  • Vijñānavāda of the Yogācāras: this is another Mahayana school, propounded by Asanga and Vasubandhu. According to them, only the consciousness (Vijñāna) is true, and all objects of this world external to the mind are false. They believe in an absolute, permanent consciousness (similar to a soul) called Ālaya Vijñāna. This branch became famous in China, Tibet, Japan and Mongolia.
  • Bāhyānumeyavāda of the Sautrāntrikas: this is a school which believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects—but believes that the external objects can only be perceived indirectly through inference by our mind (Indirect Realism).
  • Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda of the Vaibhāṣikas: this is another school—based on an ancient Buddhist conference in Kashmir, which also believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects (as composed of atoms). They believe that external objects are known through direct perception (Direct Realism).
First problem: I have never heard of "Bāhyānumeyavāda" and "Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda", and can find no reference to them outside of Wikipedia and its translations and mirrors. I can't say definitively that these terms are never found in Buddhist scholarship, but normally when you want to refer to the Sautrantikas or Vaibhashikas, you say "Sautrāntrikas" and "Vaibhāṣikas". I have seen Śūnyavāda; I'm less sure about Vijñānavāda; but there seems little point in introducing these names when they are not often used and more common terms are at hand. RandomCritic 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not readable

the article is really interesting to read. But I think there are to much non english words. for example you can't easily go a a part of the article and understand : you will fall on a non english word without the translation and you will have to search back for the english word. This is an article in an encyclopedia. not a religious teaching. of course it is important to know the words used by buddists but not as important as understanding easily their meaning. I think each time a non english word is used you should put the translation beside it.

Finished

I finally got through the typographical update of the article. I doubt I missed more than a few words, other than a couple of modern Indian geographical names (Girnar, Sarnath) whose spelling I'm not sure of. Of course, there's the matter of the content, which is a whole different matter... too much of the article is centered around divisions between "Theravada", "Mahayana", and "Vajrayana". These in part reflect some realities in both the present state of Buddhism as well as its history, but to a great extent they are imposed on a less tractable Buddhist reality by western scholarship. I have seen maybe a half-dozen or more Buddhist schemas for classifying Buddhism, and they are, of course, all different, but not less useful or applicable for all that. The classification used here is, of course, the one that doesn't have a parallel in Buddhist tradition. :)

The most awkward thing about this classification is that it implies that Vajrayana Buddhism differs from Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that Mahayana differs from Theravada: i.e., that Vajrayana is either "non-Mahayana" (which is false) or "super-Mahayana" (which is POV). Unless we use Mahayana in an entirely notional way, Vajrayana is better treated as a subgroup (or rather, a constellation of practices) within Mahayana. Historically it might just be considered "very late Mahayana". Culturally, we can speak of the contrasts between Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism and CJKV Buddhism, but this only coincides with the supposed Mahayana-Vajrayana split insofar as Vajrayana practices are more emphasized in Tibetan Buddhism. But they are not uncommon in CJKV Buddhism either.RandomCritic 11:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Śrī Laṅkā

Is it fully necessary to have all the diacritical marks? I want to assume this is "Sri Lanka" because this is after all an English language Wikipedia, but this actually confuses matters. Plus I should also say it gives tha article an air of pretentiosness. I mean, please.. "Pākistān?" Why that and not Pakistan? What function do the diacriticals serve in "Kuṣāṇa Empire?" I think they alienate the reader, in effect telling them "go back and learn a set of pronunciation rules and then come back and learn about Buddhism." I should note too that this hampers searching. I say dump all of the diacriticals, through out the entire article. . 69.51.153.203 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with regard to Sri Lanka and Pakistan. I am, furthermore, the sort of person who is inclined to agree about Kuṣāṇa as well, but I will defer to the judgment of other editors on that and related questions. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Per RandomCritic's edits today, I'm afraid I really don't see how the article benefits from restoring this kind of typography. I'm not even totally sure what language the typography is reflecting. Which language is "Kuṣāna" (as opposed to "Kushan") or "Sāsānids" (as opposed to "Sassanids")? I propose to change Pañjāb back to "Punjab", because it's always "Punjab" in English. Islām and Afghānistān should not have diacritics because these are common English names. Likewise, Kaśmīr back to Kashmir and Viṣṇu back to Vishnu. "Nirvāṇa" should be written "nirvana", because this term will be quite familiar to any interested party who knows enough to care how it is written. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The point of having an encyclopedia article is to convey correct information. In the case of words written originally in non-Roman alphabets, correct information means correct transcriptions of the kind that you will find in any good paper encyclopedia. If you care about how a word is pronounced, you will appreciate the diacritics. If you do not care, then you can ignore the diacritics and pronounce it any old way. There is no reason to dumb down the article by using incorrect transliterations. For what it's worth, the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) encourages the use of formal transliterations. RandomCritic 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to start in on broader policy questions here, because I think this matter can be resolved without recourse to that sort of thing. But, for the record, no, I don't think that conveying correct information always necessitates providing a precise transcription of a given word as it used in the language from which it originated. There are extents to which no one would carry this principle. For example, should references to China be changed to Qín? (or would it be Zhōngguó?) Is the encyclopaedia dumber for not doing that?
In any event, these particular cases mentioned above are not very compelling candidates for diacritic use. These are mostly accepted English names (particularly "Islam") or articles of jargon, so they do not require treatment as foreign words. I still want to know what language and what transcription system "Kuṣāna" and "Sāsānids" are. What about Afghānistān?
By the way, one cannot simply ignore the diacritics used in spellings like Viṣṇu or Pañjāb because they don't just add diacritics but also remove letters that are usually used to spell those names.
Also by the way, I don't see where Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) encourages the use of formal transliterations in particular. It appears that it encourages the use of either a formal transliteration or a simplified one (such as "Krishna"), unless there is an irregular spelling which is much more common (such as "Punjab"). - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) says "Transliterated terms from Sanskrit and Pāli should take advantage of Unicode diacritics; for example, "Nirvāṇa". "Kuṣāna" is Sanskrit/Prakrit, the original from which we get "Kushan". "Sāsānids" is hybrid Perso-English (Sāsān + -id used with dynasties). Afghānistān is Persian. I have seen all of these transcriptions in English-language reference works, used in-line and not merely in the transliteration of original texts either. Most good scholarly articles on Islam will write "Islām", if the publisher can handle the typography. You won't see that in newspapers because newspaper publishers have to print quickly and it would slow them down to deal with diacritics. But that's not a problem on Wikipedia. 68.100.18.183 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia style is not necessarily the same as what would appear in scholarly articles. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia style is a mélange of styles from scholarly works, newspapers, and, most importantly, other encyclopaedias. The reason for this is that we have a different audience. To write "Islām" in something other than a very academic context is just plain bad style. The purpose of style is to give readers a text they read comfortably, and familiar spellings like Islam accomplish this better than unfamiliar ones like Islām.
Regarding some specific issues, I'm willing to go along with Kuṣāna. However, the article implies that "Kushan" comes from the Chinese Guishuang, so we should fix that if it's not true. As for Sāsānids, I don't see the point of including diacritics for English-Persian words. "Afghānistān", I think, falls into the same category as "Islām"; what's more, I note that the Afghanistan article shows two official names (presumably the Pashto and the Dari Persian), neither of which includes macrons in the romanisation.
The example the proposed Dharmic naming guidelines gives for nirvāṇa seems to conflict with the statement on the same page, "If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article name should be be written in either a formal transliteration or a simplified transliteration." I would go so far as to say that "nirvana" is a primary transliteration, but, in any case, I don't agree with the portion of the proposed policy in question. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I take that to be addressing the form of the article name, not the usage within the article.
As far as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", "Sri Lanka", with reference to the modern countries, I have changed my mind, because having consulted the official websites of those countries' government, I see that none of them uses diacritics. If the diacritic-less version is what they want, then that's what they should get. With reference to pre-modern states for which the only names are transcriptions from another alphabet, I think it's better to represent those in as close a transcription as possible. I still think that in the text of the articles on Buddhism, we should endeavor to represent the closest possible romanization of the original forms, enough so that a person who knows the alphabets in question can recreate the original spellings. "Nirvana" in a popular context may be good enough, but in a technical article Nirvāṇa is desirable. Wikipedia may not be quite scholarly -- yet -- but it's not a ridiculous goal. Attention to details like typography, small as those details are, is one of the things that can help Wikipedia articles be taken somewhat more seriously. RandomCritic 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhul-Kifl

Could someone have a look at [11] and see if it is accurate? Tom Harrison Talk 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the only one the Buddha is prophesising about is the future Buddha, Maitreya. The statement is without any reference to any canonical source and I would certainly like to delete it. --- Andkaha(talk) 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Islam is mentioned quite extensively in the Kalachakra (20040302)
It's almost certainly true that Buddhist sutras per se don't say anything about Muhammad. The Kalachakra Tantra, which I'm sure lots of people would argue was written after the 7th century, does mention Islam, as 20040302. However, if I understand correctly, Kalachakra takes a very negative view of Islam. So, the idea that Muhammad is heralded in Buddhist literature is 99% false and 1% misleading. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Haha.. yes.. well.. I was just stating that there are some texts that are purported to be the word of Buddha, which indicate Islam (and therefore Mohammed by implication). As to the negativity (or otherwise), I am not skilful enough to be able to offer much on that. (20040302)
Probably should be removed, but there is an argument that, IIRC, Mohammed is Maitreya based on the similarity of certain qualities attributed to Maitreya that (Muslims claim) Mohammed had — in ways it is quite parallel to arguments about the foreshadowing of Mohammed in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. I'm not sure that the portrayal of Islam in the Kalachakra Tantra makes a great deal of mention of Mohammed, nor do I think (given its character) that this particular text has been argued to "herald" the coming of Mohammed. iggytalk 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Identifying Maitreya with Mohammed is very tenuous. Mohammed arrived several of thousands of years too early to be Maitreya. IIRC, all Buddhists teachings and even the memory of the existence of Shakyamuni Buddha need to have disappeared before Maitreya will arise. (20040302 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC))
I'm not saying that it is fact or even that I agree with the argument, only that the argument has been advanced... iggytalk 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddha's Life at Wikimedia Commons ;)

Hello, I am in the process of uploading quite a large number of pictures which I made when I was in Laos recently. All of them are pictures of wallpaintings in monasteries. Now I am uploading various scenes of the life of the Buddha, so that they may be used here on the Wikipedia. Please have a look at "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_Life_of_Gautama_Buddha" - and see if maybe you know a nice place for some of these pictures on Wikipedia. I still have quite a number of pictures which I didn't upload yet, so in a week or a few days the selection will be bigger.

Other pictures which I have but am not yet uploading are some paintings about lives of disciples like Ananda and Mogallana. Also I have _a lot_ of pictures of Buddhist Hell-paintings, anybody interested? I'll upload them in due time...

Greetings, --Sacca 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)