Talk:Buddhism/Buddhism and Intellectualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Buddhism and Intellectualism 1.1 A Cup of Tea 1.2 "Amazing people" 1.3 Study is one thing; practice is very much another 1.3.1 Buddhism and Intellectualism: proposing a new title (half-jokingly) 1.4 topic space: relationship to scholarship? 2 Talk page notes

[edit] Buddhism and Intellectualism

Hallo. I don't think the "Buddhism and Intellectualism" section should be deleted. It contains valid and interesting material. To delete a whole section from an article is a massive step and really should only be done if there is a strong clamour for such a move from quite a number of (especially regular) editors. So I urge the retention of this section (of course, modifications can be made to it, if appropriate - that is quite another matter). Best wishes to you. From Tony.

I've actually moved the material to a different page Mind in Buddhism. I agree that there's interesting material there, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. The section was rather incoherent, and I don't know whether it, coherence aside, has a place in this particular article. And of course, I've done none of this in the article space, but here. There's more information about my reasoning in the edit history and at the new article. Gimme danger 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. The section seems pretty clear to me - I can't understand what's so difficult about it. Again, I don't think it should be moved - and also this is not about "Mind in Buddhism". It's about the role of intellect and conceptualisation - which is not exactly the same thing. Anyway, I think the section should be retained. As I said before, it's too extreme a measure (and smacking of high-handedness) to remove a whole section without quite a number of editors calling for that to be done. We should not simply remove a whole section simply because we personally find it "incoherent", when no one else has complained about it. It takes more than one person's gripe to justify the wholesale spiriting away of a previously accepted article section. Such major interventions demand more collective support than has so far been forthcoming. I appreciate that this is just a proposal of yours - but I want to raise a strong objection at this early stage. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 21:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with deleting this section, as it seems very specialized to be having a whole section in a general article. A few remarks in the doctrine section migyt be more appropriate. That section needs drastic rewriting anyway. Peter jackson 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the "Buddhism and Intellectualism" section needs "drastic re-writing" at all (or were you referring to the doctrinal sections of the main Buddhism article?). I believe that the "Buddhism and Intellectualism" section is pretty OK as it stands - given a bit of tweaking here and there. Nor is this topic some marginal element of Buddhism: it is very important an issue within Mahayana Buddhism, at least. But it might, as you say, be better to incorporate some of the main ideas here into the general doctrinal section on (Mahayana) Buddhism, with links to Zen, perhaps. As long as the basic ideas are retained, the separate section could be scrapped - depending on what other editors feel. I myself would be prepared to accept such a move. The main thing is to retain the basic points. Again, let's see what others think. All best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with both Tony and Peter's ideas here: I think the section should be kept, condensed and made a subsection (e.g., as Peter suggests, under doctrines).

In terms of what to cut to shrink the section down, I'd start by cutting out the block quote (after all, how many block quotes are in this article?).

Additionally, I'd cut out the Pali Canon/Theravada points. From a Theravada standpoint (e.g., the broad issue that only the suttas should be studied, memorized, investigated and discussed -- as mentioned in AN 8.2), I think the content is secondary, perhaps tertiary. I think the Theravada material of this section is only of value as it suggests a manner in which the Mahayana notion of transcending intellectual ideas developed; however, while an interesting idea, I don't think this suggested path of conceptual evolution is necessarily accurate (and there doesn't seem to be a citation for it) so it might even border on the WP taboo of original research. Additionally, for the section to suggest that Buddhist scholasticism is a response to intellectual attachments (as opposed to a necessary condition for the development of prajna -- again, as stated in AN 8.2, etc.) is, I believe, a very Mahayana POV and contrary to Theravada POV.

If we were to do the above, then the newly edited subsection might look something like:

In numerous Mahayana sutras and Tantras, the Buddha stresses that Dharma (Truth) and the Buddha himself in their ultimate modus cannot truly be understood with the ordinary rational mind or logic: both Buddha and Reality (ultimately One) transcend all worldly concepts. The "prajna-paramita" sutras have this as one of their major themes. What is urged is study, mental and moral self-cultivation, and veneration of the sutras, which are as fingers pointing to the moon of Truth, but then to let go of ratiocination and to experience direct entry into Liberation itself. The Buddha in the self-styled "Uttara-Tantra", the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, insists that, while pondering upon Dharma is vital, one must then relinquish fixation on words and letters, as these are utterly divorced from Liberation and the Buddha. The Tantra entitled the "All-Creating King" (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra) also emphasises how Buddhic Truth lies beyond the range of thought and is ultimately mysterious. The Supreme Buddha, Samantabhadra, states there: "The mind of perfect purity ... is beyond thinking and inexplicable ..."^[1] Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher mahasiddha Tilopa discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant rewrite. Thanks a million. --Gimme danger 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Brilliant, Larry! We can always depend upon you to come up with a fair and balanced solution to our besetting problems! I think your new version of that section is excellent. I for one would vote for it. Now we must see what Peter and other editors think. Anyway, I want to thank you, Larry, for your very constructive help. Warm wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this looks both consise and good.
  

Addition: Buddhism seems to be famous for unbelievably huge amount of literature produced. It seems that the last paragraph explains that and also gives pointers to relevant topics, some controversial like the issue of reality. And controversy sometimes wakes up interest :-)

In numerous Mahayana sutras and Tantras, the Buddha stresses that Dharma (Truth) and the Buddha himself in their ultimate modus cannot truly be understood with the ordinary rational mind or logic: both Buddha and Reality (ultimately One) transcend all worldly concepts. The "prajna-paramita" sutras have this as one of their major themes. What is urged is study, mental and moral self-cultivation, and veneration of the sutras, which are as fingers pointing to the moon of Truth, but then to let go of ratiocination and to experience direct entry into Liberation itself. The Buddha in the self-styled "Uttara-Tantra", the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, insists that, while pondering upon Dharma is vital, one must then relinquish fixation on words and letters, as these are utterly divorced from Liberation and the Buddha. The Tantra entitled the "All-Creating King" (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra) also emphasises how Buddhic Truth lies beyond the range of thought and is ultimately mysterious. The Supreme Buddha, Samantabhadra, states there: "The mind of perfect purity ... is beyond thinking and inexplicable ..."^[2] Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher mahasiddha Tilopa discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice.

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

Hmm... And scriptures explain that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightenment.

That seems important too.

So, maybe we just remove the quote?

Victor Klimov 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a difference between schools here. The Pali Canon regularly describes the dhamma as atakkavacara, not in the realm of logic. Theravada wouldn't disagree with the substance of most of what is being said, though it might not like the tone. The statement that doctrines were invented for those attached to that sort of thing seems pretty tendentious, though. And yes, it was the doctrine section I was saying needed drastic rewriting. I've started doing that in the draft rearrangement. Peter jackson 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Peter, for your comments. I guessed that I had probably misunderstood your reference to "that section". I agree with you that even in the Pali suttas there is the hint (or more) that the Dhamma is beyond time and beyond logical grasping. But I am not a specialist in Pali Buddhism! I defer to your own knowledge on this, and certainly to Larry's, who is always well informed on Pali Dhamma (if that phrase is not offensive!). I agree with the other editors that the re-worked version of the "B. and Intellectualism" section is now much neater, and could be slotted into an appropriate place within the main "Buddhism" entry, as a sub-topic of Buddhist doctrine. Thanks, everyone, for your contributions and help. Regards from Tony. TonyMPNS 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this discussion's congeniality and generous spirit. (Tony, in particular, you are a master of both.) I meant to add before (but was interrupted) that the Theravada portion of this section appears to me to be a restatement of MN 72 (and similar suttas, e.g., at SN 44) and a readily accessible on-line statement contextualizing these canonical statements can be found at Thanissaro, 2004. I provide this in case others might find it of interest and if, against my recommendation (for reasons already stated above), there is a desire to keep the Theravada section, then this could provide end-note fodder. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'll forgive my obsessing on this matter, to acknowledge and in response to Klimov's question, I'd also like to clarify my concerns about the current last paragraph (re: missionaries, scholars and Buddhist philosophy), perhaps in part echoing Peter's statement. In short, I think the last paragraph is confusing and possibly (depending on what it is attempting to state) false. For instance, it seems to suggest that the Abhidhamma is a response to non-Buddhist's questions about Buddhism, possibly providing worldviews inconsistent with MN 72, etc. While there might be parts of the Abhidhamma that could be seen in this way, there are other parts (e.g., the Dhammasangani, Vibhanga and Patthana) that are fairly dense (especially for non-Buddhists) and more obviously appear to be earnest (though controversal) attempts at systematizing the sutta's statements about phenomena, in a manner consistent with the Dhamma itself. (And, of course, there is that traditional view that the Buddha himself dictated the Abhidhamma....) Similarly, simply looking at the TOCs for the Buddhist philosophy and Reality in Buddhism, they appear to include such core Buddhist notions as Dependent Origination, again not a theory meant to address the metaphysical worldviews of other religions but encapsulating a core element of the canonical Buddhist teachings (e.g., see SN 12). So, for what appear to me to be its confusing nature and/or lack of accuracy, I'd recommend deleting the current last paragraph. (Of course, if someone were to provide a WP-level "reliable source" that articulates the last paragraph's contention, my concerns can be ignored.) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to delete information. Let's try to rewrite the paragraph.

I'd like to see those 3 links. It seems there could be some people who in this context will enter these doors if left open. Victor Klimov 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Larry. As one of the non-experts that this article should be understandable to, I can't make any sense out of the last paragraph. Unless a citation is found, I think it should be deleted. Information isn't valuable if it isn't coherent. --Gimme danger 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gimme_danger, I appreciate the enthusiastic support and desire for progress. Victor, I also appreciate your desire to be constructive and sincerely applaud your reluctance to delete someone else's material -- at least without the original poster's knowledge of the pending deletion.

So, in the spirit of truly cooperative editing, I tracked down what appears to me to be the origins of this section. First, the section (originally entitled, "Principal schools of Buddhist philosopy") was created by the still active and seemingly impressive WP editor, User:Magicalsaumy on 07:21, 23 December 2005. His initial statement makes more sense to me than the current vestige. It reads:

Principal schools of Buddhist philosophy In his lifetime, Gautam Buddha had not answered several philosophical question. 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. Hence the Buddhist missionaries often faced philosophical questions from other religions whose answers they themselves did not know. So later Buddhists made various interpretations of Buddha's teachings and formed four major schools of thought. Shūnyavāda of the 'Mādhyamikas': this is a Mahayana school, popularized by Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosha. According to the Madhyamikas, there is a supreme indescribable substance—Shūnyatā (lit., voidness)—which is neither true nor false. Everything in this world arises from this voidness. Hence the world is false as compared to the Shunyata. This concept somewhat resembles the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Adi Sankara. However, Shankara had condemned Shunyavada to be "contradictory to all valid means of knowledge". Vijñānavāda of the 'Yogāchāras': 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 Hinayana school which believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects—but believes that the external objects can only be percieved indirectly through inference by our mind (Indirect Realism). Bāhya-Pratyakshavāda of the 'Vaibhāshikas': this is another Hinayan 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).

This entire section was then deleted on 17:55, 5 April 2006. On 02:12, 23 April 2006, Magicalsaumy then readded the section with the following footnote (which, BTW, was one of the only five footnotes for this article at the time):

Sinha, H.P., 1993 : "Bhāratīya Darshan kī rūprekhā (Features of Indian Philosophy)", Motilal Banarasidas Publ., New Delhi.

In light of this, I can see multiple options which could include:

• Contacting User:Magicalsaumy to get his opinion on all this -- or at least notify him of the pending deletion if we do plan to delete.
• Adding the above footnote to the text in question.
• Readding some of the original text to make the current last paragraph seemingly more coherent.
• Continuing with the deletion as suggested since this information exists elsewhere in the article (does it?) or WP.

Etcetera. However, Victor, I'm not sure any of this would help achieve what you desire which appears to be perhaps to keep in a reference to the article Reality in Buddhism et al. Frankly, I'm kind of indifferent as to how we proceed with this new information; I just thought some might find it of benefit in terms of our attempt to work out the best scholarly and cooperative solution.

With metta,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my partial search above. I see that much of the material we are now discussing was in fact added by you, Victor, on 15:07, 4 May 2006, where you changed the former title to its current form, and inserted the following statements:

• "Commentators explain that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightment."
• "Also later famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher, mahasiddha Talika, now mostly known how Tibetans call him, Tilopa, discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice."

and modified the aforementioned "missionary" sentence to read:

• "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."

Perhaps then, Victor, is it only with you we need to discuss our concerns about these statements? :-) It's past my bedtime so forgive my abrupt exit. Best wishes to all, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good that someone has tracked down the source. Perhaps Motilal can't be treated as a reliable publisher. 3rd world standards are probably lower. At best this is a scholarly theory that most other scholars would probably disagree with. Peter jackson 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter and Gimme_danger here (although, as I keep by my bedside Buddhadatta's "Concise Pali-English Dictionary" published by Motilal Banarsidass, I withhold judgment at this time regarding their general scholarship :-) ): the scholarship of the current last paragraph is suspect; its current articulation is confusing and overly vague. I think this reinforces Tony's former resolution as well. And I hope Victor you can appreciate where we might be coming from, whether or not you agree. Tangentially, I find it to be "classic WP" that a section created to articulate one thing (the origins of Buddhist sectarianism) has morphed into something significantly different (discussion of ultimate truth's ineffability) though still useful. Regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, perhaps to accommodate Victor's expressed desire, I'd be open to the above condensed paragraph's being preceded by something like:

Main article: Reality in Buddhism

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: should the current title stand? I kind of feel that the use of the word "intellectualism" is somehow divisive, argumentative, unnecessarily provocative (which would not sit well with all Buddhist schools, of course). What about something like: "Reality's non-conceptual nature"? Just a thought, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, or at least better than my current title: "I have no clue what to call this" :D --Gimme danger 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A further comment on the source quoted. The statement about 4 main schools shows the author knows nothing about Buddhist philosophy & is simply following Tibetan sources, probably indirectly. These in turn are based on the situation in NEIndia a millennium ago & ignore both Theravada & EAsia.

I still don't get why people are so keen on this. Not only is there no difference between schools, there's none between religions either: eg Aquinas says God is beyond human conception & statements about him can be true only metaphorically. Similarly other religions. Do their articles have such sections? Peter jackson 11:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the following book very attentively or, better, three times as I did, maybe you will get it.

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light. Edited and introduced by Michael Katz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, NY

Victor Klimov 13:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo everyone. I think this is turning into a very interesting discussion. First let me thank Larry, as always, for such kindness and fair-mindedness. Truly exemplary (I'll pay you later, Larry, for your praise!)! Now to the more substantive point: I fully understand (and 100% agree with) what Peter says about all major religions having this notion of the ineffability of the Absolute. That is surely correct. But I think I can also understand where Victor is coming from: Victor is perhaps mindful of the fact that in some Buddhist quarters (particularly the Gelukpa) the idea of an Absolute (ineffable or otherwise) is strongly rejected, and the impression is generated that it is by logic, intellectual gymnastics and reasoning that Truth (however construed) can be understood. I think Larry's last proferred compromise regarding the contentious passage was a very good one (I personally would accept it) - but I do also have some sympathy for what Victor is trying to communicate here. Anyway, that's my contribution for today (little as it is). Best wishes to you all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice discussion. I would just like to add a few very minor points. Firstly, I think that Buddhism is more than an intellectual pursuit because it is primarily an applied religious philosophy with the aim of advice about self-improvement. Therefore, it necessarily touches upon philosophy and psychology. However, it is rooted primarily, I would say, in practice, not in theory. This may sound a fine point but in fact it is quite crucial. It means that any intellectualisations we might make about it will always fall some way short of the fuller picture of what Buddhism is trying to achieve or holding out to people. Secondly, the deeper teachings of Buddhism cannot therefore be acccessed via the intellect but must come through direct experience of its teachings and methods. In relation to this I would say that some of these points should be included in any proposed re-worded paragraph to go into the article under the title 'Buddhism and Intellectualism.' thank you Peter morrell 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! What Peter thinks seems to be very similar to what I am thinking. Victor Klimov 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The very title under which this discussion is taking place seems to be wrong: Principal schools of Buddhist philosophy. The point: Buddhadharma is not about philosophy. Buddhadharma is about practical activity.

Victor Klimov 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PeterJ, thanks for providing further reasons for discarding the current last paragraph (and its one-time elaboration). Your erudition is, as always, impressive and invaluable.

Tony thanks for the impressive insights into Vajrayana practices as well!

PeterM and Victor, thanks too for clarifying your points. Per Victor's last post, I'll change the inserted Magicalsaumy text so that its header does not show up in this page's TOC.

FWIW, I see at least two, possibly three, different views regarding what this text means. For me, personally, if what is meant is that Buddhism emphasizes practice over theory or, alternatively, that in Buddhism ones view of reality is like the view of the Judeo-Christian God, then I'm inclined to agree with PeterJ and express personal uncertainty as to the inclusion of this section in this article. If we are talking about the on-going non-dualistic apprehension of this ever changing moment with deep quietude, with the cessation of defilements, in a manner that is unbounded by concepts, space and time, then I think it deserves mention -- especially since such is frequently presented as the essence of such practices as Zen. My two cents. I'll take a cue from Tony and let this be my one entry on this topic today :-) With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Larry. What I meant was that because Buddhism is mainly about self-improvement so it must primarily concern itself with 'doing something' (action) rather than just 'thinking about something' (thoughts). However, 'what to do' depends a lot upon the quality or character of one's perception of the task itself, perception of oneself and what one thinks needs doing, plus some image of the ideal state/condition one is aiming towards. Therefore, it involves perception and psychology and deep issues of self-reflection (philosophy) on who and what we are and who or what we might transform ourselves into through religious practice, and even an evaluation of which methods are most appropriate. Thus some theory or 'intellectual understanding' of this issue is vital to and impinges upon the practical task...the two walk hand in hand. But overall I would still say that the 'direct knowing' approach that finds such emphasis in the Zen school and in the Dzog Chen Tibetan school is a dominant, recurring theme and core aspect of Buddhism and might be described as anti-intellectual; even the Anapanasati and mindfulness practices of Theravada do in themselves comprise a simple and 'de-intellectualised' Buddhist path that to some degree exists fresh and free, as it were, as a living world, standing outside the far more formally intellectualised traditions of the sutras, the teachings and the doctrines of the religion. The teachings can be accessed through the intellect or partially so, but the practice cannot; it can only be achieved and become a living reality through doing, through practice, not through thinking. And Buddha did not achieve enlightenment through intellectualisation but through practice, through direct knowing, through prolonged sitting in meditation. The teachings came second, not first. Maybe these additions can stimulate further discussion. sorry about lack of brevity! thanks Peter morrell 06:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between path & goal. Al schools (& religions) agree that the goal is beyond intellect. Most schools agree that thinking can be useful, at least for some people, up to a point: what point varies a lot. The Gelugpas say that thinking about emptiness can get you almost all the way to stream-entry, leading to arhantship, but for Buddhahood you need Anuttarayoga Tantra. Peter jackson 08:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say about Gelukpa, PeterJ, do you have a citation for that? is it mainstream to all Geluk practitioners? An equally strong case could probably be made by Nyingma and Kagyu practitioners for prostrations, vajrasattva purification, mandala offering, guru yoga, mantra repetition, chanting and visualisations: all practices with no substantial intellectual element in them. So I think on balance both points are still strong ones. Peter morrell 13:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may attempt to summarize, assuming we don't outright delete this section:

• It seems to me that there is complete agreement on reducing the block quote to a short in-line quote.
• It seems that a possible majority would be interested in seeing the last paragraph (re: missionaries) removed; and, those who have contrary views would like the last paragraph somehow integrated/re-written.
• My concern about the current first paragraph (about MN 72) was really not echoed by anyone and, in fact, PeterJ's apparent suggestion that it was not that different from the second paragraph's statement regarding Mahayana/Vajrayana views would perhaps suggest retaining the first paragraph (again, assuming this whole section is not deleted).
• There's been a suggestion to make this section a subsection which no one has outright rejected.
• I suggested an alternate title but so far only Gimme_danger has echoed this.

So, I'd like to suggest the following half-measures (that is, e.g., at least until Gimme_danger's and PeterJ's re-write is ready for insertion):

1. Change this section from a Level 2 (sectional) header to a Level 3 (subsectional) header and, per PeterJ's suggestion, insert under Buddhism#Doctrine, after the section on Prajna (Wisdom).
2. Rename from "Intellectualism and Buddhist worldview" to "Buddhism and reality" since this represents inclusion of those Buddhist traditions that espouse views on "ultimate reality" as well as those that reject such as the proliferation of non-Dhammic, useless thinking.
3. Start the section with the dab: 'Main article: Reality in Buddhism (and delete dab reference to History of Buddhist schools)
4. Keep the current first paragraph (re: Theravada scriptures) with the following additions:
   (a) wikilink "scriptures" to Pali Canon; and,
   (b) add a footnote to the aforementioned MN 72 external link and related Thanissaro (2004) overview.
5. At the end of the current paragraph one, add the re-wording of the current third paragraph along the lines suggested by PeterM and Victor, e.g.: "The eschewal of metaphysical exposition as contrary to or a dilution of the diligent practice of Buddhist principles is an important part a variety of traditions." (Then possibly add specific traditions??)
6. Retain paragraph 2 as above with the reduction of the block quote to a brief sentence.

Thoughts?

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename from "Intellectualism and Buddhist worldview" to "Buddhism and reality"

Larry, this seems to be a nice title that mentions the 'reality'. It seems also that the title should somehow reflect that the founder's main drive was not to entertain people by philosophical structures (and I personally am trying to overcome attachment to them) but to help people in a practical way.

the eschewal of metaphysical exposition...: it took me a second to parse the meaning out of the phrase. But who is our target audience?

Let's try to formulate something simpler?

Victor Klimov 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, no objections. At point 5 maybe add Zen as perhaps the best example of an anti-intellectual practice-centred tradition that stands outside the scriptures, or at least makes that claim. But if preferred, Dzog Chen could also be added and/or Nyingma, but so as not to overload it, I am happy for others to suggest on this. 1-2 examples might suffice. thanks Peter morrell 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

PeterM - Good points! Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation. I'm pretty sure I read the above points about Gelugpa doctrine in The Tantric Distinction by Jeffrey Hopkins. This does not itself qualify under WP guidelines, coming from a propagandist publisher rather than an academic one, but the author says it's a summary of his previous books, which I think do qualify, so you could probably find this information there. In fact Hopkins does not specify that this is Gelugpa doctrine, rather implying it's generally agreed in Tibet, which may be true or not, but his books are mostly based on Gelugpa sources so I narrowed the force of the statement. Peter jackson 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Victor,

I very much appreciate your continued efforts to collaborate fairly and to reach a respectful consensus. I bow to your persistence and high-mindedness.

Given your sizeable contributions to the Reality in Buddhism article I know that you know more about this topic than I do (especially regarding Vajrayana viewpoints), so please correct me if I error: It seems to me that there are divergent views among the numerous Buddhist traditions regarding so-called "reality" – some seem to say it is not useful to ponder such matters; others seem to say a lot about their view on it. For this reason, in general, in accordance with WP's NPOV policy, I believe we need to use an NPOV title. Put another way, my intuitive analysis is that if we were to use a title that normalized the first POV (that "reality" pondering is not conducive to Enlightenment), then we would be implicitly marginalizing those with the second POV (that "reality" can be fruitfully discussed). Does this make sense? Or perhaps I miss your point.

Regarding my awkward use of high-falutin' words, I'm open to any alternate wordings. Perhaps the subsection's content can be overall massaged, e.g.: first paragraph mentions that there are divergent views; second paragraph states that caution about metaphysical philosophizing goes back to the Pali Canon; third and subsequent paragraphs discuss such chronologically. I think the current two paragraphs already pretty much provide the second and third paragraphs of this new suggested organizaiton, but I know too little about Mahayana history to say.

Of those who have voiced an opinion, assuming we don't outright delete this section, I think we now have consensus on all of the aforementioned half-measures except #2 (title) and #5 (replacing the current third paragraph with a single sentence added to the current first paragraph). So, if no one else disagrees in the next few days, I'd like to go ahead and implement the agreed-upon half-measures (not #2 or #5) in the next few days. (If we can agree on the other matters before then, we could implement those as well, but they shouldn't hold up implementing the agreed upon half-measures.) If anyone disagrees with this proposed phase in, just say so and I won't pursue it until additional agreement is reached.

Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Larry. It all seems reasonable, that you wrote in the paragraph above.

And also, it doesn't seem very relevant to the main issue of the Intellectualism section.

Victor Klimov 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Victor -- thanks for the timely reply! Sounds like I might be missing your point about "intellectualism" so if you could help me better understand, it might help us find a mutually agreeable solution.

FWIW, in a nutshell, in the current context, I construe "intellectualism" to be a somewhat derogatory term to describe a person's or group's overuse of the intellect at the loss of the development of experiential wisdom. Thus, in my last append, those with the first POV would label those of the second POV as mired in intellectualism. Did you have a different point in mind? If so, sorry for my obtuseness and I appreciate your efforts to further educate me. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Larry, now, it seems, we understand each other well. It seems, that the main point of the Intellectualism section is that intellectual gymnastics in general helps little, but practical activities (like e.g. in your case (I'm guessing) Shamatha meditation) do really help. Victor Klimov 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's taken a while, but I think I finally understand what the current title is saying and how it is applicable to the section. Basically, the title and section are focusing on two inter-related topics: reality (represented by the word "worldview") and the Buddhist understanding of it (represented by the word "intellectualism" and, implicitly, a critique of intellectual approaches to understanding reality). Now, finally, I can live with the concept being conveyed. In addition, I understand how the proposed title "Buddhism and reality" is inadequate from your view since it neglects to address the latter concept. In addition, if it's not obvious already, like Gimme danger, I have found the current title very confusing. (Anyone strongly disagree?) In addition, I still balk at the term "intellectualism" since to me it sounds somewhat dismissive (is it my social science background where "intellectualization" is an overused defense mechanism, frequently of pseudo-intellectuals) and, in this case, dismissive of other legitimate Buddhist POVs (e.g., presumably, the referenced abhidharmists).

As an aside, if I may, I also think the term "intellectualism" might be something familiar to readers of contemporary Tibetan Buddhist literature (at least so I vaguely recall) but it is really not something with which Theravada practitioners would be familiar. I think a more central term in Theravada Buddhism is papañca, which deals with the proliferation of thought associated with craving and clinging. (See, e.g., the Ñanamoli & Bodhi (1994) translation of MN 11, especially note 4.)

Can we explore alternative titles?

• I think "worldview" is too general a term and I believe it has socio-political overtones. Are you okay with our substituting the word "reality" (although I recognize that this has some limitations as well, e.g., not inclusive of the issue of apprehending the Buddha himself)?
• My preference is that we leave out reference to intellectualism/rationalism, etc., itself since such is necessarily implied by any approach to Reality -- it can be done experientially, intuitively, affectively, rationally, etc. However, you've made it clear that mentioning this is important to you.

Alternate title proposals:

1. "Buddhism's non-rational metaphysical tradition"? What I like about "non-rational" is that it is not just a matter of Buddhism's advocacy of the empirical/intuitive, it also underlines that the Buddha (as represented in the Pali canon) simply refused to provide any answer to certain metaphysical questions. But, I would guess, most would find this clunky and too abstract.
2. "The Buddhist apprehension of reality"?
3. Simply: "Understanding reality"?
4. More accurate: "The limitations of thought in Buddhist philosophy"?

Anyone else want to take a stab? If we can't come to intellectual agreement, how best can we settle this area of mutual concern? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Larry but I do not agree with your take on this issue. It is more complex. OK we can say Buddha himself declined to intellectualise, BUT soon after his passing Buddhism very quickly tackled all those topics he declined to answer. A mass of intellectualisms came into being so as to distinguish Buddhism from its predecessors and other faiths and to bolster its emergent religious identity. However, the point remains that Buddhist practice will always stand separate from these intellectualisms. meditation and practice of Buddhism is not intellectual and in some guises, most notably Zen but in all schools really, there is a positive effort to distance the intellectual grasp we might have on the religion from how we apply it to ourselves. Indeed, the purpose of Buddhisnm is most definitely NOT to become a learned scholar about it (Gelugpas and Sakyas are criticised for exactly that), the primary task is to apply the teachings to oneself and so become a better person. I think that says it all really. This section should be reworded to reflect these concerns which Buddhism has asserted throughout its long history: the intellect stands subordinate to practice, arises out of practice and should never dominate or smother the fundamental reality of the practices of Buddhism. Does that clarify the point of this section?Peter morrell 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! ;-) Victor Klimov 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry, these three links might help with the points I have made above: [1] [2] [3] thanks kind regards Peter morrell 10:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the point of the section has been clarified, it becomes clear that it is totally unacceptable as such. It implies that there is some "true" Buddhist anti-intellectual position that has been betrayed by the Gelugpas & Sakyapas. It is totally against WP to say something like that. What you can say, of course, is that some Buddhists have criticized some othetr Buddhists on this point, which is obviously true, but whether it's important enough to mention in a general article on Buddhism is another question. Let's start by getting a few facts straight, shall we? In all Tibetan schools it is normal practice for monks to start with 5 years of study.^[3] The Buddhism of China, Korea & Vietnam is a fusion of various schools, including doctrinal ones, & study has an important role in Theravada. So we're talking about some Japanese schools & some subtraditions elsewhere. Is this important enough to spend a lot of space on? Peter jackson 11:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Cup of Tea Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!” “Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?” Your mind is like a cup of tea. Empty your cup.. [4] I hope this helps thanks Peter morrell 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC) [edit] "Amazing people" From the Pali Canon's Cunda Sutta (AN 6.46): Ven. Maha Cunda said, "Friends, there is the case where Dhamma-devotee monks[4] disparage jhana monks, saying, 'These people are absorbed and besorbed[5] in jhana, saying, "We are absorbed, we are absorbed." But why, indeed, are they absorbed? For what purpose are they absorbed? How are they absorbed?' In that, the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly, and the jhana monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of human & divine beings. "Then there is the case where jhana monks disparage Dhamma-devotee monks, saying, 'These people say, "We are Dhamma-devotees, we are Dhamma-devotees,' but they are excitable, boisterous, unsteady, mouthy, loose in their talk, muddled in their mindfulness, unalert, unconcentrated, their minds wandering, their senses uncontrolled. Why, indeed, are they Dhamma devotees? For what purpose are they Dhamma devotees? How are they Dhamma devotees?' In that, the jhana monks do not shine brightly, and the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of human & divine beings.... "Thus, friends, you should train yourselves: 'Being Dhamma-devotee monks, we will speak in praise of jhana monks.' That's how you should train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing people, hard to find in the world, i.e., those who dwell touching the deathless element with the body. "And thus, friends, you should train yourselves: 'Being jhana monks, we will speak in praise of Dhamma-devotee monks.' That's how you should train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing people, hard to find in the world, i.e., those who penetrate with discernment statements of deep meaning."[6] With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PeterJ I think you are quite wrong to say there has been a betrayal. That wholly mis-represents and exaggerates the point I made. It is a difference in emphasis within Buddhism. Go ask some Zen Buddhists what they think of intellectualism and you will see the point, the very simple point I made above. Study is one thing; practice is very much another. Buddhism ultimately is not about study, it is about practice, that is application to oneself of the teachings. The story of the Zen master and the professor is very apt here...I will find it for you. The section needs fine-tuning to reflect all this. That's about all. thanks Peter morrell 11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course there's a difference of emphasis, but do we need a whole section to say so? Peter jackson 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, we do. Victor Klimov 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rereading what you said above, I don't think you can get out of it like that. You seem to be quite clearly saying that there is some sort of "real" Buddhism, ie practice, & that much of what is conventionally called Buddhism, & calls itself that, is not "the real thing". That's a reasonable point of view, but it is a point of view, & WP is not supposed to be about that. Our job is to give a balanced survey of everything important conventionally called Buddhism. That can include the mutual criticism of various phenomena called Buddhism, if that's important, but of course different forms of Buddhism have many criticisms of each other, & we can't spend too much time on that. So I ask again: is a difference of emphasis on this one point sufficiently important in the context of everything else to be covered to justify a whole section? Your statement that practice is always separate from "intellectualism" is simply not true: the Gelugpas, Burmese abhidhammists & others make doctrine part of their practice. If you try to say that's not "real" practice, then that's not NPOV. Your statement that intellect is subordinate to practice is of course true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter jackson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

PeterJ, I am not one of those saying it should be a whole section; I don't know where you get that idea to pin on me? I am not that keen on a whole section. I thought Larry and others had agreed to reduce it to a mere part of another section. I'm sorry if you think I voted for a whole section; I didn't. However, I do think it is important to distinguish between an 'armchair intellectuialised' form of Buddhism as a learned subject that is very easy to talk about, makes no demands on what you ever say or do, and which one never practices--between THAT and with what goes on in Buddhist monasteries, which I would certainly call 'real Buddhism.' In that sense, then yes there is a clear distinction, but it is not a distinction between intellect and practice per se, but between 'intellect (to be frank, hot air) with no practice and no commitment to self-improvement' and 'intellect with practice and commitment.' How does that sound? I'm not bothered where this gets tucked away but I do think it is a point worth including somewhere in the article. However, if nobody else agrees then please leave it out. thank you Peter morrell 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter & Peter, thank you both for the respectful and learned continued discussion.

I do think we are working from different knowledge basis and perhaps even different personal experiences which might be leading us to assess this matter differently. If I may just explicitly add to PeterJ's list of "real" Buddhists who appear to be diminished by the on-going dichotomy, in Theravada Buddhism there is the notion of the "scholar monk" (perhaps to whom PeterJ was referring with "Burmese abhidhammists"), mention of whom can be found even in the Pali canon (though, honestly, I forget exactly where right now). Here's an extract from the WP article, Theravada, describing these monks:

... Monastic roles in the Theravada can be broadly described as being split between the role of the (often urban) scholar monk and the (often rural or forest) meditation monk. Both types of monks serve their communities as religious teachers and officiants by presiding over religious ceremonies and providing instruction in basic Buddhist morality and teachings.

Scholar monks undertake the path of studying and preserving the Pali literature of the Theravada. They may devote little time to the practice of meditation, but may attain great respect and renown by becoming masters of a particular section of the Pali Canon or its commentaries. Masters of the Abhidhamma, called Abhidhammika, are particularly respected in the scholastic tradition.

I appreciate PeterM's frequent references to Zen Buddhism since, as a former Zen practitioner myself, I have seen this issue repeatedly underscored by contemporary English-speaking Zen writers. Also, I'm pretty sure I've read something along these lines in Trungpa Rinpoche. Nonetheless, as PeterJ points out, in my mind, it does seem to be valid but clear POV. Even from a Theravada perspective, as I mentioned above, in the Pali Canon it is mental proliferation associated with attachment that appears particularly cautioned against, not all "intellectualization"; in addition, in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did refuse to answer certain metaphysical questions, but to extrapolate from this that he rejected all intellectualization is debated.

I do like Peter & Peter's suggestion that this topic not be given an independent section. Perhaps it can be reduced to a couple of sentences and inserted somewhere in the Mahayana/Vajrayana sections? [I see that Tony actually suggested this near the beginning of this thread at 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)! Kudos!]

Regardless, just a reminder, as stated above, I'd like to at least implement some of the aforementioned half-measures to clarify, correct, reduce the sectional level (that is, change it from "==" to "===" and insert under "Doctrine") and remove the block quote of this section under discussion sometime this weekend. So, while on-going discussion is pending (about whether or not this section should be completely deleted or drastically reduced, what title should be used, and how to re-integrate the misinformed last paragraph), I plan to implement the aforementioned half-measures #1, #3, #4 and #6 on either Saturday or Sunday — unless someone explicitly objects to such a change before then.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as I re-read the current last paragraph, it's erroneous information (especially in light of PeterJ's analysis above as well as PeterM's observation below) is causing me concern as it it misinforms readers and, frankly, in my own mind, as a result discredits WP. It currently states:

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

If I were to remove the incorrect statements, it would read:

Buddhist scholars produced a prodigious quantity of intellectual theories, philosophies and worldview concepts. See e.g. Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophy and Reality in Buddhism.

Does anyone object to my removing the incorrect statements ASAP (whether or not someone else attempts to capture the deleted erroneous statements in some other fashion shortly)?

Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection, go ahead it will be interesting to see the new piece. thanks Peter morrell 07:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the rewrites I've been doing in the proposed rewrite, you'll see that I've reduced this topic to a few sentences, as suggested above. I think thsi is all it needs in the context of Buddhism as a whole. Peter jackson 10:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest it needs to mention the Zen view, a link to the Zen Buddhism article and perhaps some stuff from the 3 news articles I referenced above all of which have quotable points to add. Maybe I will try to do that next week at some point. thanks Peter morrell 11:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the very quick response!

PeterJ, your contributions to the Buddhism rewrite are, as always, impressive, unsurpassingly thorough and scholarly! If I read the re-write correctly, it looks like you condensed the section-under-discussion here under the rewrite's "Practice" topic of "Study." I agree this is more of a practice issue (wish we had this section in the current article) and I can appreciate your re-write.

PeterM, thanks too for all your hard work here. I also sincerely look forward to your re-write of this topic. Out of respect and deference to your repeated request, I read through the first externally linked article you mention, Mishra's very well written and engaging book review in the New Statesman. I saw two paragraphs in there that might particularly resonate in terms of this current discussion. If I may, I'd like to excerpt them here and share with you my thoughts on them:

"...Buddhism teaches a radical suspicion of intellectual concepts - of knowledge of any sort detached from actual experience. It stresses the importance of living life in the present, with a high degree of self-awareness and compassion manifested in even the smallest acts. It may actually help some people in gaining an understanding of a complex and diverse world."

For me, this is emphasizing a withdrawal from the intellect, mindfulness of external and internal phenomena, and compassion. I think such is an excellent summation of contemporary Zen (perhaps Mahayana) popular teachings. Perhaps teachings popularized by the Theravada-influenced vipassana movement could be included here as well. For me, such typifies an emphasis of the seventh Noble path factor, Right Mindfulness. For a traditional Theravada practitioner though, I believe, such an emphasis appears to be like a boat without an anchor; for a traditional Theravada practitioner, the necessary co-requisites or grounding for mindfulness are Right View and Right Effort (e.g. as in the classic Great Forty Sutta (MN 117)) and is necessarily preceded by sila. (In fact, I've been told by various people that I find credible that in South East Asia, traditionally, Buddhist householders primarily practiced sila and rarely aspired to contemplative practices -- thought, of course, such has been changing over the last several decades.) If one were to base their practice on the Pali Canon, then I think it would be inescapable that one starts with Right View which, until you are a stream-enterer, is something understood intellectually (e.g., see the Right View Sutta (MN 9), which I believe serves as a basic primer for Theravada monks).

A second paragraph I find pertinent in the New Statesman book review is:

"Not surprisingly, Buddhism in the west appears a refined form of self-help, with meditation as its most widely available and practised technique. Its metaphysics and epistemology remain largely unexplored; they require a leap of imagination that most people seem to be unwilling or unable to take. Conradi himself steers clear of explaining the key Buddhist ideas of karma and reincarnation which, as Glenn Hoddle would attest, are fraught subjects for people brought up to believe that all human beings are born, or at least should be considered, equal."

I agree. The popular contemporary packaging of Buddhism in the West has left out traditional Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology. This doesn't mean that these topics of vast intellectualization aren't there; it's just that they are hidden away from consumers of popular books and articles. Personally, I do find myself shying away sometimes from discussing Buddhist cosmology, etc., with others for fear that it would alienate them from pursuing the Dhamma; however, this is also part and parcel of what Buddhism is. Also, for me at least, the antidote has been to largely leave popular texts behind and to delve into the actual canon itself which, for the less scholarly such as myself, is thankfully easier to do given sites such as "Access to Insight".

Another two cents from me. Sorry if I bore. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Study is one thing; practice is very much another

[edit] Buddhism and Intellectualism: proposing a new title (half-jokingly)

What PeterM said above summarizes (it seems) what differentiates Buddhadharma from other teachings.
Excluding maybe some forms of Hinduism.
It's not praying and hoping for a paradise.
It does help here and now.
Victor Klimov 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the rewrite of this section. First, the phrase 'for those with attachment to intellectualism' is false. Buddhism did not generate theories 'for those attached to intellectualism,' it did it for itself to reach a more coherent state and to begin to explain itself to its followers. Yes, there do exist those who 'attached to intellectualism,' but they are not the cause of the proposed effect. The alleged cause and the effect must be real and bound together or the sentence is a false statement. Second, the section does not mention the Zen and Dzog Chen view that intellectual pursuits are always subordinate to practice and that practice is the basis of Buddhism. That said, however, I can agree that practice without theory is like a car without a steering wheel if you like, or even without a driver! So I think these concerns ought to be included. any comments? thank you Peter morrell 05:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to 'bang on,' but this sentence is also a bit suspect: "What is urged is study, mental and moral self-cultivation, and veneration of the sutras, which are as fingers pointing to the moon of Truth, but then to let go of ratiocination and to experience direct entry into Liberation itself." Should'nt that be mental and moral self-cultivation FIRST and then study and veneration of the sutras? Several points in this revised paragraph, in my opinion, need citations to anchor each point being made. Otherwise it is POV and OR, which WP encourages us to avoid where possible. Every main point in the article should have a supporting citation or better still a short quote. I would say this applies especially to contentious points or those of dubious veracity. thanks Peter morrell 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PeterM - I believe we're in complete agreement on the "for those with attachment to intellectualism" phrase. Please look at my 03:34, 1 September 2007 entry above where I proposed deleting it. Regarding Dzogchen & Zen additions to the second paragraph (or elsewhere), I'm all for that as well. I'll implement the aforementioned half-measures sometime later today (Sunday, after I wake up) and then feel free to add the Zen/Dzogchen material then; or, add it now and when I move&shorten the section, I'll be sure to include your Zen/Dzogchen additions. I hope this makes sense. Cheers, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm afraid my addition of "notes" subsections might have messed up the easy adding of entries to these threads. Peter or Peter or Tony, please feel free to move around my append (or even delete the notes sections) for readability. Best wishes.

P.P.S. Due to an attempt to add this simultaneous with PeterM's second append, this only addresses the first append. Night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Rosenfeld (talk • contribs) 06:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, that's OK no probs. Please go ahead I am out much of the day so do your worst. I mean best! :) thanks Peter morrell 13:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the above half-measures #1 (sectional placement), #3 (dab to Reality in Buddhism), #4 (wikilink scriptures, add end note re: MN 72 and Thanissaro, 2004) and #6 (reduce blockquote). I also incorporated Victor's most recent title suggestion "Buddhism and intellectualism" because I think intuitively it is clearer than the prior title and perhaps reduced the concern about POV slightly. In addition, at the last minute, spontaneously, I added these two changes because I thought to me they seemed highly reasonable:

1. changed the wikilink of "enlightenment" from Enlightenment (concept) to bodhi (is there an even more appropriate article?)
2. changed "The scriptures explain that..." to "One explanation for this is that ..." since the canon (as well as contemporary commentators) offers a number of different explanations (e.g., see the aforementioned Thanissaro, 2004) (I'm open to different rewordings here, of course)

Also, FWIW, I didn't add the new endnote's material (Thanissaro, 1997, and Thanissaro, 2004) to the References section (although I do include piped external links) because I thought this end note might be short lived depending on further conversation here. If the end note turns out to stay in place for another two weeks, I'll add them to the References section.

Hope these changes are seen as an improvement (though far from completely satisfactory) while alienating as few people as possible. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] topic space: relationship to scholarship?

Let's get back to first principles here. The guidelines are clear about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is to collect together "facts" about, in our case, Buddhism. The definition of fact is something verifiable from a reputable authority. A reputable authority is, in most cases, a publication in a reputable peer-reviewed source, by a reputable scholar. It does not mean the writings of propagandists for particular Buddhist factions, who cannot be relied on to know about other factions or give them a fair presentation. They tend to believe their version is "real" Buddhism and present it as such. There might be an exception when the writer is the head or official spokesman of a major Buddhist organization, in which case one could present what they say as the teaching of that organization. (You can cite the Pope for Catholic teaching.) So what Namkhai Norbu says is neither here nor there, in this article; it belongs in the article about him.

Wikipedia also requires balance. Part of this is clear enough in our case: different forms of Buddhism should get space vaguely proportional to their numbers of adherents. In particular, Western Buddhism as such should get little or no space, though Westernized Buddhism in the East, if sufficiently important there, should be covered.

Other sorts of balance are not quite so obvious. How do we allocate space between doctrine and practice, for example? In principle it should be according to the importance given by Buddhism itself, but, as just explained, we ned to find out from scholars what the emphasis is, not from a few individual Buddhist writers. Is there a difference between what scholars say are the important things in Buddhism and what they spend most of their time on themselves? Possibly: it sometimes looks as if scholars spend a lot of time on things that have been researched a lot while ignoring others. Perhaps that's less true with time as more research is done.

To get back to the point at issue here. Can anyone find a scholarly account of Buddhism that has a separate section on this topic? If so, what proportion of the total length is it? Peter jackson 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi PeterJ -

If I may, primarily for the sake of clarification and to promote on-going communal discourse, I'd like to try to re-frame my understanding of your statements. I see at least two topics: WP article attributions; and, WP article space allocation. Underlying themes are the limits (if any) of Buddhist scholarship, and the place (if any) of Buddhist non-scholarship (or "propaganda" or sectarian or mass-market) works. The goal is to determine how much space (if any) this topic should take up in this article (e.g., vs. the artice on Zen, etc.).

• In terms of WP article attributions (and you started what I think was an overall fruitful, related thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Citations), WP:Attribution (WP:A) states:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

WP:A goes on to note:

"In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

So, PeterJ, you justifiably ask:

"Can anyone find a scholarly account of Buddhism that has a separate section on this topic?"

I also personally earnestly appreciate your additional statement about the possible limits of scholarly research:

"Is there a difference between what scholars say are the important things in Buddhism and what they [self-identified Buddhists?] spend most of their time on themselves? Possibly...."

So, in my mind, a question comes up of how do we determine if a topic has been largely ignored or underrepresented by scholars but is fundamental to a significant number of traditional practitioners? I'd be interested in feedback on this. And might this topic (intellectualization and Buddhism) be one of these non-scholastic rudimentary topics? How does one justify a response? (Implicitly, I intuit, if this is such a topic, then the information will necessarily be gleaned from non-scholastic sources.)

• In regards to article space allocation, PeterJ, you write:

"... different forms of Buddhism should get space vaguely proportional to their numbers of adherents."

Prima facie, I like this. Besides intuitive soundness, is there a basis for this in WP policy? If so, how would advocates for this material's inclusion properly assess to what degree this matter affects a certain number of adherents?

I hope this might elicit additional, fruitful, communal dialogue. (Sorry if I'm just adding smog.) I'm gonna likely lay back from this topic for a while now. Best wishes,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "they" is still referring to the scholars. What I meant there was that scholars might say something is important without actually saying much about it themselves for various reasons. I can't think of an example offhand but I think there may well be some.

WP guidelines do say that opinions should be allocated space according to how widely held they are (is this in NPOV? seems the most likely place). Schools of Buddhism, if not quite "opinions", can reasonably be considered analogous.

How do we know what Buddhists consider important? Same point again: generally, only scholars can tell us. No WP contributor is going to provide several million citations of individual Buddhists who consider something important. Peter jackson 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PeterJ - thanks for the clarifications! - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements made at 14:50 on 3 September 2007:
ChNN and other Tibetan teachers, Japanese roshies, Vietnamese masters of thien and Thai abbots continue live traditions that are sometimes two thousand years old.
There are methods of field work used probably for centuries in ethnography and also by people who reasearch folklore and who study traditional medicine.
If some so called scientists are too frightful or too lazy or not too bright or have other reasons not to use the field methods and prefer to study texts instead, then such have chosen nice and cozy way to make a living.
To the ignorant person: keep silence.
Klimov 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that early scholarship in the field of Buddhism concentrated on texts, but it has since taken in precisely the sorts of things you mention. 2 other points on scholars & Buddhists. 1: some scholars are Buddhists too, eg Cousins, Gethin, Harvey. 2: "official" Buddhism in Ceylon & Thailand is largely derived from Western scholars (citation in Theravada & Pali Canon). Peter jackson 08:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page notes

1. ^ The Sovereign All-Creating Mind tr. by E.K. Neumaier-Dargyay, pp. 111–112.
2. ^ The Sovereign All-Creating Mind tr. by E.K. Neumaier-Dargyay, pp. 111–112.
3. ^ Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, page 232
4. ^ "Those devoted to memorizing and analyzing the Dhamma." [This end note is by the original translator, Thanissaro Bhikkhu.]
5. ^ "Besorbed" appears to be a word fabricated by Thanissaro meant to capture the dismissive statements with which Dhamma-devotee monks disparage jhana (mediation) monks.
6. ^ From Thanissaro Bhikkhu (trans.) (2006), Cunda Sutta: Cunda (AN 6.46). Retrieved 1 Sep 2007 from "Access to Insight" at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.046.than.html. For a more contemporary explanation of the value of Dhamma study among serious Buddhist practitioners, see Bhikkhu Bodhi's "The Case for Study" (1986) available from "Access to Insight" at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_05.html.