Talk:Buddhism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RfC

As the article keeps changing it's hard to say what's a current issue, but here are my main objections to its current state:

1. 1st sentence should say "most" call it a religion (as stated in 1st ref in next footnote), not just "some" (as currently stated); discussion of 1st sentence in #Buddhism not a religion??, #Comments by Alithos, #Buddhism, not a religion, #Issues with the lead & #State of the article
2. biography claims (I haven't checked in detail) to be from the scriptures of 1 school of Buddhism, hardly NPOV
3. #POV in reality section
4. all mention of Tibetan sexual yoga has been deleted; see #Tantra
5. the history section gives a quite detailed account of the 1st few centuries & then jumps 2000 years to Buddhism today
6. the common concepts material in the Schools section should be deleted as a mixture of POV & OR; discussion in #What are undisputed core elements of Buddhism?, #No common core? & #Schools section

Others can post their objections here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have a consensus with tantra. If you want I can attribute the sentence in the reality section. Mitsube (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The bio comes from the Tipitaka. I believe it was you who added a parenthetical comment saying there are other bios from other scriptures but you never provided any additional info. If you want info from other scriptures then add it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another issue. I've reverted Sacca's changes to the history section, which falsify the opinions of scholars. Some scholars divide what Sacca, & very few other people, call Presectarian Buddhism into 2 distinct phases, claiming that the Buddha's original teachings were substantially different from those in the main body of the nikayas. Sacc's changes suppress this fact & must not be allowed to stand.

I'm not sure who Esteban means by "you". It wasn't me anyway. My point was that it's obviously biased to have this section drawn only from 1 school of Buddhism. Since most of it is historically questionable, the obvious solution would be to omit it for now until we can compare different traditions.

I'm not sure what Mitsube thinks is the consensus on tantra. I've never agreed to the deletion of this topic. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor do I know what M is referring to in the reality section. Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed Peter, but me and Esteban are two different people. Aren't you capable of reading a signature? Regarding the biography section: I feel very strongly that it should stay. As I pointed out before, it comes straight from the Tipitaka. As you know, the Tipitaka is the Buddhist scripture with the widest degree of acceptance among Buddhists. Therefore, removing the Tipitaka bio makes no sense. It would be more sensible to add summarized versions from other scriptures. As I said, I feel strongly about this. So, if you remove it, I will replace it. If you remove it again, I will replace it again and ask for assistance from an administrator to prevent an edit war. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Luis, don't you have more than one username?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, i second Luis on the bio/Tipitaka part.

You say: "My point was that it's obviously biased to have this section drawn only from 1 school of Buddhism. Since most of it is historically questionable, the obvious solution would be to omit it for now until we can compare different traditions." I too believe that the Tipitaka is the most agreed on source, (not only) for the life of Buddha. Your request for deletion seems a little bit like the tactic of those climate change sceptics: always include a "second" opinion (theirs) in public discussions for reasons of supposedly equal ("unbiased") representation. If there is widespread acceptance of one version (as there seemms to be here) we DO NOT have to do that. In fact, we shouldn`t as it would only give undue weight to a minority opinion. Obviously, in that case, deletion would be totally unacceptable. btw, the section already includes a part about historians scepticism and clearly states the Tipitaka as source for the account Andi 3ö (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. Different schools have different biographies for the Buddha, and all are fiction. Mitsube (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I can read signatures. The reference to the reality section appears above Mitsube's signature. Of course I haven't bothered checking the history to make sure nobody's messing about. Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by calling the Pali Canon the most agreed on source. Only about 1/2 of it is found in Chinese & a good deal less in Tibetan. In particular, as far as the Pali Canon is concerned,

1. the Buddha's name Siddhattha appears only in the Apadana
2. his wife's name Yasodhara appears only in the Apadana & the Thai edition of the Buddhavamsa (& the statement that she was his cousin isn't in the Canon at all so I've deleted it)
3. the statement that he saw the 4 signs appears only in the Buddhavamsa
4. These books are late additions to the canon, written about 100 BC, & unknown to Chinese & Tibetan sources. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just be reading an interesting paper by Andre Bareau on the question of the wife's name. Surveying all the literature, he says that the earliest mention is in the Maha-vastu (the Mahasanghika work) and concludes the reason why it was not mentioned before anywhere is simply because it was just not known. Bareau then suggests that she should have been known since we do know the names of Mahaprajapati Gautami and other members of the family. Bareau then concludes a plausible reason for this is that she may have died of puerperal fever soon after the death of Rahula and that was the real reason why Gotama became a renunciate, noting that the tradational four signs also make their first appearance in the Maha-vastu. So the reason why the Buddha's companions never knew or recorded her name when they all went to visit Suddhodana is because the poor woman had died long before the Awakening. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion of the question in Edward Thomas, Life of the Buddha, 1927. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Luis, I'm not edit warring. I'm trying to discuss things, in accordance with WP procedure. I haven't deleted the material & wasn't threatening to do so. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the community portal and saw the request for comments on the article in terms of how understandable it is. I think it is long. This may be stylistic, but it seems to me that the beginning of the article is simply not interesting enough to keep someone reading all the way through. I think that there should be a section that gives the gist of all of the different branches of Buddhism. I am not super familiar with Buddhism and I don't feel like I have a better understanding of it after reading the article. I am afraid that is probably not very helpful. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested this myself some time ago, tho' it's not surprising you didn't notice it in view of the large amount of material here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Types of Buddhas

Let's get a few facts straight.

1. the Pali commentaries (not just subcommentaries) say there are 3 types of Buddhas (see citations in Types of Buddha)
2. nobody has yet provided any Theravada source saying there are 2 types of Buddhas
3. nobody has yet provided any non-Theravada source saying there are either 2 or 3 types of Buddhas
4. somebody has provided a Tibetan source for the term Sravakabuddha

What, in any case, would be the basis for saying sucommentaries aren't "mainstream"? & what would that mean?

Now have a look @ the actual context. It's talking about arahants, & says there are 3 types. Does anyone dispute that? It also happens to mention that the term buddha is occasionally used as synonymous with arahant. Again, that's plainly true. It's probably true even for the Canon. Perhaps it's not important enough to mention. Peter jackson (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this Types of Buddha article. It begins: "In the Theravada Buddhist Tradition".

What tradition? Any Sutta or Vinaya or Abhidhamma mentions it? If not, what kind of Theravada tradition is that? It's not even in the Pali Canon? So then you have to say commentarial tradition of the Mahavihara. But I had to change that a bit, make it more general and just say Buddhism. Because it is also used in Tibetan Buddhism. Greetings, Sacca 05:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You've no justification for saying the term savakabuddha occurs only in that place. How would you verify such a statement? I've added 3 other sources & deleted the word "only". I can't see the point of this, tho'. I mean, why bother with all this listing of sources? If you want to do it by the book, you'd say something like this:

1. according to some scholars, Buddha is synonymous with samyaksambuddha, & no others count as Buddhas (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 71);
2. according to other scholars, there are 2 types of Buddha ... (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 87);
3. according to some Theravada writers, there are 3 types of buddhas ...

You could pile up citations to support each view, but I think it would be more sensible just to give 1 for each.

To return to your 1st point, you don't seem to understand the word "tradition". It precisely means things that are not explicitly in the scriptures. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stucture and Headlines of Concepts section

This is the structure many of us agreed upon:

1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
   1. Karma & rebirth
   2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
   3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
   4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)

1. Practice
   1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
   2. Morality
   3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
   4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra

Peter later in the discussionn renamed the sections but basically kept the poroposed structure:

Teachings, ie more theoretical, abstract

1. Theravada
   • Worldly teaching: rebirth & karma
   • World-transcending teaching: 4NT (including 8-fold path & dependent origination)
2. Mahayana: claims of course to be more advanced
   • Philosophy
   • Holy beings

The practice section already closely follows the proposed structure, the concepts section does not. I suggest restructuring the section to fit our initial planning as follows below.

The Headlines are only my first attempts, other suggestions welcome! My suggestions for the titles of the four major sections especially attempt to present more catchy, common language, intuitively understandable formulations to the reader.

Buddhist Concepts

1. Life and the World
   1. Karma: Cause and effect
   2. Rebirth
   3. The Cycle of Samsara (Twelve Nidanas. This special application/illustration of Pratītyasamutpāda seems to better fit in here rather than in the reality section. A general, slightly more in-depth discussion of the underlying philosophical concept of Pratītyasamutpāda (including Mahayana interpretation) should nevertheless be included in the reality section)
2. Transcending Suffering
   1. The Four Noble Truths
   2. The Noble Eightfold Path
   3. The Middle Way
3. The True Nature of Reality
   1. Impermanence and Non-Self
   2. Dependent Arising
   3. Emptiness (Including mind only, Madhyamaka and Buddha-Nature)
   4. Epistemology (including much of the first half of the current section on Reality concerning Buddha's approach to metaphysical questions, the usefulness of logic, words and direct perception of phenomena. I put this section here, rather than at the beginning, because i think these disussions can only be understood after having a general idea about buddhist´s views on reality by having heard of the above concepts first.)
4. Liberation
   1. Nirvana
   2. Buddhas
      1. Theravada (not sure if we shouldn´t better merge Theravada and Mahayana to one section/leave out the subheadings and put Buddha Eras one level higher)
      2. Mahayana
      3. Buddha Eras
   3. Bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)

What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist Concepts

1. Life and the World
   1. Karma: Cause and effect
   2. Rebirth
   3. The Cycle of Samsara. No mention of 12 nidanas. A general explanation of what samsara is. not too detailed with complicated concepts though.
2. Suffering: cause and solution.
   1. The Four Noble Truths
   2. The Noble Eightfold Path
   3. The Middle Way
3. Nature of Reality
   1. Impermanence, Dukkha and Non-Self
   2. Dependent Arising
   3. Emptiness - mention but length should be approximately the same as the sections on impermanence/dukkha/nonself The concepts of mind only, Madhyamaka and Buddha-Nature are exclusively Mahayana terms so this should be made clear. Brief mention of date of origin and initial proponent of these teachings..
   4. Epistemology - goes too far for this article. Really very short mention. keep a small list or 1 paragraph mentioning these subjects. For those who want to go deeper. (including much of the first half of the current section on Reality concerning Buddha's approach to metaphysical questions, the usefulness of logic, words and direct perception of phenomena.)
4. Liberation (=nirvana. basic introduction)
   1. Buddhas (small, general info. for more detail just click on the links.)
      1. Theravada (take out - delete this section)
      2. Mahayana (take out - delete this section)
   2. 4 levels of Enlightenment (Arahants, Anagamis, Sakadagamis and Sotapannas.
   3. Bodhisattvas (Amitabha & his Pure Land can be mentioned briefly as further development. But isn't he a Buddha?)
   4. Buddha Eras (possibility of enlightenment is very rare) (ok but very short)

Thus is my thinking for this. thanks. Greetings, Sacca 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

thanx :) good suggestions! only two immediate objections:

1. Name of the second section: "Buddhist practice" is treated seperately in a major section including ritual, meditation, monasticism etc... I know that the noble eightfold path eg is highly relevant for the practicre as well, but we have to make some concessions here in order to reach a coherent structure.
2. Emptiness: You are perfectly right: most of it will be Mahayana as it is a further devlopment of the (basically Hinayana/Theravada) concepts of impermanence, non-self and dependent arising. Bodhisattvas is a mainly Mahayana concept as well, 4 Levels of Enlightenment basically Theravada. We could easily find more examples for this: We have earlier agreed on treating the various concepts as well as the various practices, which differ maybe even more from tradition to tradition, in joint sections in order to not confuse the reader too much and not further complicate the structure of the article. I think, if we followed your argument, we would end up with only the most basic concepts, which some would argue, would mostly be Theravada (as the other traditions build upon those concepts) AND, some, like Peter, would argue, we'd be left with nothing at all, as the idea of a "common core" of teachings and practices is plainly rejected by some scholars.

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see u edited your remarks while i was writing my response and now suggest that Amithaba and Pure Land shouldnt go into the Bodhisattvas section. Here the same remarks apply as to the subject of emptiness: The whole idea of the overall structure, that we basically agreed upon already maybe half a year ago, was to be inclusive to all the traditions and find a place for the most important concepts of all of them in one coherent structure. Andi 3ö (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made some further changes now to the above list/content. It really depends how they (later developments) are presented. I would then want to see a specific mention that these teachings were from a later time, mentioning the century when these teachings first arose. We could use your formulation above as it is a further development of the Early Buddhist concepts of impermanence, non-self and dependent arising.

Dependent origination belongs under world-transcending teaching, not worldly. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have changed the list a bit now. Have a look again - preferably using the history and looking at this very edit. Greetings, Sacca 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, Amitabha is a Buddha, not a Bodhisattva, so this material should be appropriately positioned. It's certainly important: remember 1/3 of the world's Buddhists are Pure Land.
2. Dealing with historical origins of doctrines as you suggest would add quite a bit of length to the article.
   1. We'd have to deal with the different views of historians every time on early Buddhism:
      1. Some historians think the Buddha taught the 4 NT; some think they're a later invention; some think he taught something of the sort but the precise formulation is later; some are agnostic.
      2. Similarly for every other doctrine.
   2. As regards Mahayana doctrines, we'd have to mention theories that they developed out of earlier ideas, as well as the point that it's long been recognized that some elements of Mahayana are quite early (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2008/9, pages 1f). developments were often gradual, & dates in Indian history are notoriously uncertain anyway.
   3. The existing article does deal with the point in a more general way in the history section.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I restructured the section now according to our discussion here to the best of my ability and added a section on anicca, dukkha and anatta. (I also renamed "Epistemology" to "Buddhist Epistemology" as the reader of the contents not knowing the word epistemology might be mislead to thinking it is some sort of special buddhist concept like the others of the preceding sections) Still to do:

• improve emptiness with concise yet understandable description of concepts of mind only, Madhyamaka and Buddha-Nature
• improve/shorten epistemology
• improve Liberation section: things seem to be pretty much muddled up there: there are descriptions of nirvana in the buddhas section and vice versa.
  • delete extra section on nirvana and include content/rewrite as introductoory remarks under main heading "Liberation" as Sacca suggested?
  • merge/shorten and improve buddhas section
  • add section on 4 levels of enlightenment (if deemed important by all...i cannot comment on that)

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that mind-only & Buddha nature aren't usually considered varieties of emptiness, but distinct doctrines. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are distinct, in a way, but i still think it is very appropriate to treat them under this headline as the core distinction between Hinayana and Mahayana (indian) philosophical schools - at least from what i learned in my (mainly Gelug) studies - is their view on emptiness (or self-lessness) of all phenomena in contrast to self-lessness only of the person in Hinayana. Yogacara/Cittamatra is one of those Mahayana schools, the other being Madhyamaka (that's why i named them both in my list). I am not too familiar with the concept of tathagatagarbha but as i understand it, it too, builds on the assertion of emptiness of all phenomena, quite similar to GuruYoga (visualization of oneself as a deity but at the same time contemplating oneself and the deity as empty) also does. It is precisely the emptiness of all phenomena (and especially oneself) that enables one to, in a dialectical way, envision oneself as anything else. Emptiness being the core philosophical (or at least underlying everything else) doctrine of Mahayana philosophy, i do think it's appropriate to treat all the main Mahayana views on reality under this (catchy) headline. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual way of looking @ it is that emptiness is the particular doctrine of Madhyamika (Harvey, p 95). Of course the other schools (including Theravada) have their own interpretations of emptiness, but it's not normal practice to use those a sthe basis for classifying them. You shouldn't impose a peculiar perspective on the article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, i am a little bit disappointed by your accusing me of trying to "impose a peculiar perspective on the article". You know better: i am trying my best to keep/make it balanced. I really did/do think, "Emptiness" would be a good title for this section on mahayana views of reality as in my understanding it sure is the most important/or at least most characteristic/all-underlying concept of mahayana philosophy.

BTW, this view does'nt seem to be "peculiar" at all: just look at this part of the lead of the article on Emptiness(sunyata): '"In the Buddha's spiritual teaching, insight into the emptiness of phenomena (Pali: suññatānupassanā) is an aspect of the cultivation of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) that leads to wisdom and inner peace. The importance of this insight is especially emphasised in Mahayana Buddhism, and receives a more 'positive' explication in the Tathagatagarbha sutras."' and the following discussion of tathagatagarbha later in the article.

The task here was/is to find a headline that is a bit more catchy and contains a bit more information than a generic "Mahayana concepts/philosophy/views on reality", so that it somehow fits the titles of the preceding sections 2.3.1 Impermanence, Dukkha and Non-Self, and 2.3.2 Dependent Arising. I think, "Emptiness" does that, but of course i would be very happy about other suggestions. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a single section for Mahayana? Why not separate 1s for each school of thought? Why try to impose a particular way of looking @ things, apparently derived, from what you yourself say, from the Gelugpas, who are hardly unbiased?

I've restored the information about the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra. If we're going to have this reference @ all, it should be made clear this is a scripture recognized by only a small proportion of the world's Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First, i only mentioned my personal background as a matter of intellectual honesty, but will clarify, that i do look into other traditions a lot as well and still stand to my point of view on the subject. After all, the whole issue to me isn't so much a matter of the interpretation/range of the particular concept of sunyta but more about finding a suitable, catchy, somewhat self-explanatory headline that will catch the readers attention while giving him a very brief outlook/instant picture of what the section is "all about" (the english language word "emptiness" suits this quite reasonably, i think)

Frankly, extra sections for each didn't come to my mind at all, probably because i did not want to give mahayana views extra weight, BUT when i look at the state of the concepts section now, as nearly all other subsections including the Reality section deal with primarily Theravada views (at least judging by the headlines), i do agree, that extra sections for each school of thought, as u proposed, could easily be justified. On the other hand that will almost inevitably lead to the subsequent expansion of these subsections OR bring up claims that the other major sections should conatain more concepts as well.

Anyway, what will they be then? Madhyamaka, Cittamatra, Tathagatagarbha? And how do we name them each? Emptiness, Mind-Only, Buddha-Nature... I still have a problem with naming the Madhyamaka part Emptiness, as i do still think, this is not a particular view of that school and the other two are variations of that theme as well. On the other hand, anicca, anatta and dependent arising could be considered variations of it as well. so what about naming the whole section "The Nature of Reality: Emptiness", then? Or maybe we could add a question mark? Again, i honestly think, this is not about "imposing a particular way of looking @ things", but giving an understandable, quick-to-grasp introduction to buddhist's views on reality, that imho can easily be summarized by the english word "emptiness": reality is ,respectively, empty of a self, empty of permanent phenomena, empty of simple cause and effect relations, empty of any inherent existence, empty of anything but the mind, empty of anything but the all-encompassing Buddha-Nature... it certainly is no coincidence, that many early western Scholars thought of Buddhism as being nihilistic....

You earlier mentioned interpenetration as another concept u'd like to have mentioned...i think that can go under Dependent Arising, right? Andi 3ö (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

revert of my edits to "The Cycle of Samsara"

Mitsube, as you reverted some of my edits, and i do not want to start an edit war, i would like to discuss the changes i had in mind. Maybe my wording and syntax wasn't perfect, but i do think the points i made are valid:

• My proposal: Sentient beings are ignorant about the true nature of reality and crave pleasure and satisfaction of the six senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking) from birth to death while avoiding to feel pain. Thereby creating the causes and conditions for the next rebirth they perpetuate the cycle of conditioned existence and suffering (Samsara). This cycle is detailed in the Twelve Nidānas (from Pali nidāna "cause, foundation, source or origin"), which are the best-known application of the Buddhist concept of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising)

• Your proposal (after revert): Sentient beings crave pleasure and satisfaction of the six senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking) from birth to death. After another rebirth they do the same, and continue repeating this cycle (Samsara). Humans always expect pleasure and do not like to feel pain. This cycle of suffering is explained in the Twelve Nidānas (from Pali nidāna "cause, foundation, source or origin"), which are the best-known application of the Buddhist concept of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising), identifying the origins of suffering to be in craving and ignorance.

1. You deleted "[Sentient beings] are ignorant about the true nature of reality [and crave...]" in the first sentence, because you think it is "too cryptic in this context". Instead you want "Ignorance" in the last sentence. How is this less cryptic? Ignorance about what? In fact, i do not really understand why tanha and avija are mentioned here as the origins of dukkha. Doesn't the whole concept of Pratītyasamutpāda and the twelve Nidanas say, that they all are conditioned cyclicly? Why this special mentioning of the two at this place? Which concept exactly is it you are referring to as "identifying the origins of suffering to be in craving and ignorance"?
2. also, your version states: "After another rebirth they do the same, and continue repeating this cycle (Samsara). Humans always expect pleasure and do not like to feel pain. This cycle of suffering is explained in..." Which cycle are you referring to? There is no mentioning of a cycle before except in the Headline. In order to constitute a cycle, one thing has to cause the other and vice versa. There is no causation mentioned in your version, only pleasure and pain, which hardly constitute a cycle on their own. Your claim of incorrect syntax probably refers to this sentence of mine: "Thereby creating the causes and conditions for the next rebirth they perpetuate the cycle of conditioned existence and suffering (Samsara)." what about this rewording: "In this way, they create the causes and conditions for the next rebirth and thereby perpetuate the cycle of conditioned existence and suffering (Samsara)."?
3. also, you reverted my addition "with/by sense objects" to "parśa: variously translated contact, impression, stimulation (with/by a sense object)" Why? I think my addition helps a lot to understand what "contact" means.
4. next, you reverted my version:
   • Human beings always suffer throughout samsara, until they free themselves from this suffering when attaining Nirvana. Then the absence of the first Nidāna, ignorance, subsequently leads to the absence of the others. to
   • Human beings always suffer throughout samsara, until they become free from this suffering when attaining Nirvana. Then the absence of ignorance leads to the absence of the others as above.
   1. Why? Beings do "free themselves" rather than "become free", at least in my understanding and
   2. I think it can help, mentioning that ignorance is one of the twelve, (actually the first in the list.) The reader might not have noticed that, so it is a helpful hint imho.

Lastly, i have to say, i am not too happy about you reverting my edits altogether. As you can see, i invested quite a bit of thinking into my edits and i suspect, you reverted them altogether for reasons of convenience rather than really disagreeing with every single one of them. Andi 3ö (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the "causes" of suffering being ignorance and craving. I believe that they are the "proximate" causes in the Theravada commentaries, though someone with more knowledge can confirm or deny this. "Ignorant about the ultimate nature of reality." In what way? What is the true nature of reality? Let's not be have a "closed fist" here. I'll put back some of the things I may have reverted incorrectly. Mitsube (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

thanx :) Andi 3ö (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a semantic question: does "rebirth" specifically refer to the moment of entering a new life or does it rather refer to the whole instance of one life, making it synonymous with "life" as we (in the west) see it? I think i have often heard/read sentences like: "The Buddha, in one of his earlier rebirths, did..." or "This karma will lead to... in your next rebirth(s)." This would support the latter version. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

found this in the article on rebirth: both usages seem to be valid:

In the traditional Buddhist languages of Pāli and Sanskrit, there is no word corresponding exactly to the English "rebirth". A rebirth, that is, the state one is born into, is referred to as jāti, i.e. simply "birth", also referring to the process of being born or coming into the world in any way. The entire process of change from one life to the next is called punarbhava (Sanskrit) or punabbhava (Pāli), literally "becoming again"; it is also known simply as bhava, i.e. "becoming". The process seen from a universal perspective, encompassing all living beings, is called saṃsāra.

Andi 3ö (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also: is it possible to enter more than one article as main? I think, here Twelve Nidanas and Samsara should better both be referenced. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also patisandhi: relinking. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggestions:

1. rename section called 'Gautama Buddha' to 'Life of the Buddha' (as in the Buddhism article of the Encyclopedia Britannica)
2. rename section called 'Buddhist Concepts' to 'Message of the Buddha' (as in Encyclopedia Britannica)
3. section on 'Reality in Buddhism' is much too long. Let's try to remove about 75% of it.
4. The section on 'Buddhas' is quite different in nature from the rest of the section 'Buddhist Concepts'. I propose to make this much smaller and put it somewhere else, or rename the section. It is diverging into philosphical issues and differences between the schools, not so helpful for the beginner. Maybe parts could be moved to the sections on the Buddhist schools (Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana). Also: since Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are mentioned here, the big subject which is left out is Arahants and the 3 lower levels of Holiness. A section called attainment/ enlightenment?
5. one more: The encyclopedia britannica article on Buddhism has a section called 'major systems and their literature'. It seems quite OK to join these two. The Wikipedia article separates the schools and the literature. It could make the article simpler if we would join the two sections into one section.

This would make the article easier for the beginner looking for basic info on Buddhism, and it would take care of the 'longness' of the article. Agree/disagree? Greetings, Sacca 14:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1. fine with me
2. fine with me, too, but as there will be strong opposition from Peter and possibly others along the lines of "We do not know the message of the Buddha. This article has to deal with what Buddhist's think (about what Buddha's message was and its subsequent interpretation)" i am against it.
3. i do not think it is too long. Certainly some discussions can/must be shortened (not only in this section) and i do think it has to be organized into subsections (see my proposal above).
4. I suggested merging Theravada and Mahayana subsections here too. Peter will want to keep the Buddha Eras, as this is the place to mention the decline of dharma. Arahants have to be included, as they are important in Theravada, agreed. 3 lower levels of Holiness, never heard of it...(i come from a Mahayana(Gelug) background). Section called attainment/enlightenment? Yep...i suggested naming the whole section "Liberation" earlier (see above). Some introductory remarks could then be added directly following this heading.

I would be very happy if u commented on my extensive suggestions on "Stucture and Headlines of Concepts section" as well. Cheers, Andi 3ö (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As predicted I object to 2 on the grounds mentioned, but also because it implies that the message is/was primarily theoretical rather than practical, which is contentious.

The Buddha ers section I have no strong attachment to in itself, but yes, I do think the decline bit should be mentioned fo rits importance. I don't object if someone canthink of another place for it. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to extend ban on new users

Also; today is the day when everybody (meaning new and anonymous users) can come back and make edits to the article again. This is the main cause for the troubles of this article. Can we extend the ban for new users with another week please, so we can make some more progress on the article first?Greetings, Sacca 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

agree Andi 3ö (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

keep readability in mind! (help needed)

I just edited the section on Karma. Please take a look at my changes. I really think it was a prime example of how some contributors simply forgot about readability. Even to me as someone whith a Buddhist background it was nearly unintelligable at first reading with all those Pali and Sanskrit words all over the place and the respective translations given in parentheses only.

I think it's fine giving the original expressions; in some rare cases, like Karma, Samsara etc, it might be advisable to use the original word primarily, but most of the time, we should stick to the english (approximate) translation as readability and understandability for the non-buddhist reader has to be be our prime objective!

I haven't scanned the whole article yet in that respect, but i am pretty sure there are other sections that need a similar treatment. The 8fold path e.g. seems to be one of those candidates... Maybe some of you would like to contribute to this effort? Andi 3ö (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

minor correction: samsara

In the Samsara section on this page "it's" is used instead of "its." Could someone please change that?

... Buddhists strive to end this cycle of suffering and involuntary rebirths by eradicating it's causes and conditions through the application of the path the Buddha has laid out.

Sure! /Ninly (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

recomendation to those that keep making longer...

what can be much more simple:

meditate more... with a bit of arupa-dhyaanas if you can't let go so much intelectualism.

however, the fourth dhyaana (as samyak samaadhi, plus the rest of the noble path) is enough for attaining Nirvaana.

I simply cann't help with the main article if it is over 100 KB. Esteban Barahona (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Empty Notes section

This section has a Reflist template that does not yield any entries. It is the {{reflist|group=note}} template. Since this section appears empty to readers, it ought to be deleted. It is done.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pure Land

I've now found a citation saying explicitly that it's the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia: Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditition, Routledge, 2009, page 208. People might like to consider whether it's given negatively undue weight in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

is Pure Land basically Buddhism + Cultural Chinese Philosophies and Religions? ...just curious --Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi 15:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think this abstract "Buddhism" might be. There are various religious traditions called Buddhism: Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren, Tibetan ... I haven't been able to find any Buddhologist who gives a coherent account of what "Buddhism" is, though few actually deny there's such a thing. Most simply ignore the issue, just describing the different forms.

As regards PL specifically, 2 of its 3 scriptures were written in India, though there was no significant PL movement there. It really took off in Central Asia, but only in China is it regarded as having become a "school". In Communist China it's essentially the whole of Buddhism. It forms the main component of the religion of most ordinary Vietnamese Buddhists, with only the elite following Zen. It has about 17,000,000 adherents in Japan.

As regards Chinese cultural influences, this applies to all Chinese forms of Buddhism, including Zen. Peter jackson (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Year of Buddha's birth.

Actually the year of Buddha's birth should be 624 BCE. According to Buddhist calendar maintained in major Theravada countries, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka, which started at the year of Buddha Parinibanna, Buddha's death at the age of eighty, it's now ( AD 2009 ) 2552-3. So by simple calculation it should be 624 BCE and Parinibana in 544 BCE. Wikikyaw (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

However, modern scholars have argued that this chronology is too early. Chinese sources traditionally give the date of the parinirvana as 949 BCE, but I think it's better to stick with current critical scholarship.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Tibetan tradition has another date again (838?). Most specialist scholars now date his death around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

around 2500 after today, probably...--Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that remark. Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

user:Comancheros made a series of uncited, poorly written edits. I restored the article to its previous state. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You also deleted a whom tag added by another editor, whom I'd already informed where to find some answers. Perhaps we'll hear back.

The stuff about Euclid is just crackpottery of course. Perhaps the work of the lunatic fringe of Indian nationalists who claim they invented everything & bedevil WP's history-of-science articles.

I noticed while examining these edits in detail that the article says Zen became popular in China & Japan. This is rather misleading as to China. Although at one time most Chinese monks were Chan (Zen), & most still have nominal Chan teaching lineages, the actual practice of Chan declined over the centuries & was finally killed off by the Communists. Peter jackson (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More careless editing: [1]. A statement has been inserted in between another statement & the source cited for it, "highjacking" the citation, which in fact is nothing to do with it, but is talking about the Buddha's date. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

give him/her 2 months since the 15th of July... it's a newbie.--Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image for "Buddhism today"

For the Buddhism article I added a pic of a modern Buddha under "Buddhism today," which mentions Buddhism in the west, which was taken away. The pics there are of a monk using a cell phone and a relatively traditional statue of the Buddha. I think the pic I added has a lot more to do with Buddhism today than the other two, as the cell phone has nothing to do with Buddhism, unless he is texting sutras. A famous Zen teacher once said that Buddhism would never come to the west until the west started making their own Buddhas. I think the pic I added was better chosen to represent western Buddhism than the two that are there, which in a way are redundant to other pics already in the article. Can I put it back, or is this a problem? Modernyoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with them. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them either. But when I added a more contemporary Buddha figure, it was removed because "it didnt add anything new to the subject". My point is, since the paragraph talks about Buddhism today, the pic I selected seems to illustrate it better than the two already there. I am not suggesting that those be taken away, but there are no pictures really represing "Buddhism today in the west". All of the people shown are not westerners, and none of the sculptures or pictures are made by westerners. In fact however, westerners currently play a huge role in Buddhism. I know Chinese who have come to the USA to study Buddhism, because it was difficult to in China. Modernyoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts... one, the sculpture in question is somewhat idiosyncratic, even for Western Buddhism. Western Buddhists that have images of the Buddha in their home or temple tend to have images that are closer to traditional forms. The posted image is the view of a particular artist, but isn't particularly representative of depictions of Buddha in the West. Neither is it (as far as I know) a particularly well-known or iconic as a piece of Western art.

Second, we also should keep in mind that the views and practices of Buddhist Westerners are generally over-represented in Wikipedia articles about Buddhism because of WP:Systemic bias. Westerners are very influential because of political and media power, but by number represent a tiny percentage of Buddhists worldwide, and an even smaller percentage of Buddhist clergy and artisans (image makers). There are four pictures in the article currently where the ethnicity of the people in them is determinable; replacing one of those images with a picture of a Westerner would be major over-representation. There is also already a picture from a temple in France at the top of the article, giving some impression of Buddhism's global reach. A lot of the temple and Buddha image pictures are historical, so it makes sense that there is little evidence of Western influence in them, since the West is rather a latecomer to the Buddhist world.

Finally, I think the image of the monk with the cell phone is a pretty good one for Buddhist modernity; preconceptions about Buddhists, and particularly monks, hold that they live 'outside the world' and they are more likely to recite stanzas that sound like they were cribbed from fortune cookies than to keep abreast of modern technology. A lot of issues facing the Buddhist community have to do with keeping people interested in Buddhism in the face of technological distractions, how the growth of state-run secular schooling and new economic opportuniteis has changed the appeal of joining the clergy, how to handle modern technology and conveniences (like phones and the internet) in the context of the vinaya... A guy sporting a robe and haircut that have changed only a little in 2500 years while holding a device that has quickly reshaped communication in the 21st Century seems to express in a more iconic way the meeting of Buddhism and modernity, compared with a sculpture that, while calling itself a Buddhist image, looks like a lot of other pieces of modern sculpture in its form and materials, and as such might not be recognizable as a piece of 'Buddhist art' if it weren't labelled as such. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough: But even though westerners by number might not make up that high of a percentage, there is a very good reason that many important teachers have migrated to the west: there is a lot of enthusiasm. And I am not even sure if the percentage of practicing Buddhists isn't higher in the USA than in China. Actually, I would be surprised if it wasn't at least as high, since in many circles, Buddhism is currently heavily looked down upon. I won't press the point, but considering how profound an effect Buddhism has had in the west, it seems odd that there is so little to represent it in the article--Modernyoo (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by practising Buddhist. Among Westerners (as distinct from "ethnic" Buddhists in the West) it's generally taken to mean practising meditation. By that criterion there are virtually no practising Buddhists in China, as Chinese Buddhism post 1949 is essentially entirely Pure Land. On the other hand, I was told by a Sinhalese friend that over there a practising Buddhist is one who gives alms to the monks: rather thin on the ground among Westerners perhaps, & maybe illegal in China. No doubt Chinese Buddhists consider a practising Buddhist as one who chants nanwuo omito fo (if that's the correct transcription): virtually no Westerners. Peter jackson (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion.

its a set of spiritual practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have heard a few people say this, but none of them are Buddhists. Some people like to think it is not a religion, because it is convenient, but it is a religion. Some of the "spiritual practices" also have to do with things that are typical to all religions: men not sleeping with men, not drinking alcohol, etc. It also is more than practices. There are also beliefs: reincarnation for example. modernyoo--Modernyoo (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, quite a lot of Western(ized) Buddhists do say it's not a religion.

There are different views about what Buddhism is. There are different views about what religion is. Wikipedia policy is to give a balanced account of different views, without taking sides. The introductory section could only reasonbaly give a brief account of the main view, that it's a religion, while using wording that makes clear this isn't the universal view. The place for a detailed disussion would be in the body of the article.

The discussion might cover things like

1. different kinds of Buddhism, some of which are more "religious" than others: see for example the article on Pure Land Buddhism
2. statements by sociologists that all religions include people who claim they're not a religion, with the subtext that they're better than religion.

Peter jackson (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you and stand by my position that Buddhism is not a religion. I have many freinds that are buddhist's and who keep their religious beliefs seperate. I myself am a christian.

Please do me the courtesy of not speaking to me as if automatically your view is superior or factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at a teaching with a very high level Lama, a Jewish woman asked if you could be both Jewish and Buddhist. The Lama explained that though in the west many people do practice both things, at the core you could not be both religions, because of the beliefs. The main belief that seperates Christianity and Judaism from Buddhism is reincarnation. But even believing in that is not enough. In the old days, Buddhists would debate with Vedantists strongly and the loser would convert to the other's religion. They both even believed in reincarnation. So, your Christian friend might very well practice Buddhist meditation, and possibily even recieved some initiations, but at the core, the two things cannot go together. Furthermore, every traditional Buddhist teacher I have ever met, would call Buddhism a religion. So, I would go by what the Tibetan, Japanese, Chinese and Thai teachers say much more than what some westerners might say. And frankly, from a purely technical point of view, Buddhism is in fact a religion. You might not like religions, but that does not lessen this. Or we could just say that there are no religions, but it seems like a bit of a crazy point to stress. This is from drepung.org: To the approximately 300 million practitioners worldwide, Buddhism is considered their religion. Like all major religions Buddhism contains an explantion of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors. However, as generally Buddhists do not ascribe to the belief in a sentient, all-pervasive Creator, some claim that Buddhism fails to be a religion. However, this reflects both an extremely narrow definition of religion and fails to consider what Buddhists would regard as the "nature of god," which is extremely close to the description of God offered by many of the earlier "Fathers" of Christianity. Nevertheless, like the other major religions, Buddhism presents a transformational goal, a desire to improve one's situation, and a distinct moral code. http://www.drepung.org/resources/kbase/faq/2.cfm So, if the folks at the monestary say so, shouldn't we respect their point of view? To be honest though, I wonder what your point is in challenging Buddhism as a religion. Maybe it seems threatening to your Christianity? My point of view is to respect the people who actually practice it. And the vast majority of Buddhists consider it a religion. I don't think this hurts anyone.--Modernyoo (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Jackson. There's no way to settle this argument in a Wikipedia article. It's been raging for centuries. What complicates things further is the existence of many Buddhist sects, some of which seem like religions while others don't. Therefore the article must mention both positions without taking sides. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Buddhist sects that say that Buddhism is not a religion? Or is this just individuals?--Modernyoo (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the many watered down versions of Buddhism practiced in Western Europe and the US are usually not considered religions by many of their practitioners. (By the way, please indent your comments). Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I am not aware of any major Buddhist school in the East (China, Japan, Tibet, Thailand, etc.) that says that Buddhism is not a religion. Perhaps there is some Western sect that makes a big point of Buddhism's not being a religion (perhaps connected with Stephen Batchelor's 'take' on Buddhism?). But I have never heard of such a sect, if one exists. What makes Buddhism a religion, it seems to me, is (amongst other things) that it is concerned with a) the law of karma (this is a religious concept, as it extends into the realms beyond death and the lives to come) and b) the notion of Nirvana / Bodhi, which is not presented in the Buddhist suttas/ sutras as a blotting out of awareness but as a transcendental fulfilment and perfection of awareness or knowledge - a knowledge (jnana) which is vast and deathless. This is the sphere of religion - not of rationalistic philosophy or of a mere 'way of life' (as though religion were not also a 'way of life'!). So while there are numerous individuals in the West who take the view that Buddhism is a 'philosophy' or non-religious 'way of life', this position is not supported by the foundational sutric texts (or indeed the traditional practices of Buddhism) in the East. Suddha (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, even in all the watered down versions, I have never heard Buddhism presented as anything other than a religion. The only people I have actually heard say this are people who don't seem to know a lot about it. The people I have heard say this are also people who tend to be a little "anti-religious". So I think a lot of it might stem from the liking of Buddhism and the disliking of organised religion. --Modernyoo (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Modernyoo. I must say that I agree with you. Your experience mirrors my own. The people whom I have encountered who casually say that Buddhism is 'a philosophy' and not a 'religion' generally seem to have only a superficial acquaintance with the Dharma. Of course, this is not to say that all those who see Buddhism as a non-religion are entirely ignorant of the subject. There are loads of things in Buddhism, however, which are part of the sphere of religion or even of the 'supernatural', as some might term it. Think of all the many miracles performed by the Buddha, for instance (not least at the time of the Buddha's birth - when this little baby, the infant Siddhartha, was immediately able to walk and speak!). People who like to claim that Buddhism is all rationality and philosophy usually never mention such things - or the existence of ghosts and demons, and gods, etc., etc. Even in the Pali suttas (which are perhaps not as overtly 'religious' as some of the Mahayana sutras) there is plenty of evidence that this strange thing called Dhamma is ultimately beyond rational grasping and needs (finally) to be directly and fully apprehended via a spiritual faculty ('panna' or - in Mahayana - 'prajna-paramita') beyond the circumscribed sphere of worldly logic and of the 'ratio'. Anyway, different people see Buddhism in different ways, and probably always will -despite what the main suttas and sutras clearly indicate. Regards. Suddha (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

213, I said "

1. Actually, quite a lot of Western(ized) Buddhists do say it's not a religion.
2. There are different views about what Buddhism is.
3. There are different views about what religion is.
4. Wikipedia policy is to give a balanced account of different views, without taking sides.
5. The introductory section could only reasonbaly give a brief account of the main view, that it's a religion, while using wording that makes clear this isn't the universal view.
6. The place for a detailed disussion would be in the body of the article.
7. The discussion might cover things like
   1. different kinds of Buddhism, some of which are more "religious" than others: see for example the article on Pure Land Buddhism
   2. statements by sociologists that all religions include people who claim they're not a religion, with the subtext that they're better than religion.

" You said "

I disagree with you and stand by my position that Buddhism is not a religion. I have many freinds that are buddhist's and who keep their religious beliefs seperate. I myself am a christian.

" Which of my statements do you disagree with? I've numbered them for convenience of reply. You then said "

Please do me the courtesy of not speaking to me as if automatically your view is superior or factual.

" What view are you referring to? Peter jackson (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the official religion (?!), the government department of education decreed that school textbooks for 6-year-olds should tell them Buddhism wasn't a religion. As ism & religion are the same in Sinhalese this caused great confusion. The authorities were so Westernized that they thought in English & hadn't realized this. I don't know whether the policy has changed. (From Gombrich, (Buddhist) Precept and Practice.) Peter jackson (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism is a religion, especially he Mahayan varieties, it is not a debatable subject lets not create a wikiality here, often western import reduces eastern religion to appear just a philosophies for popular consumptionIshmaelblues (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My original reply was actually intended for comments made by Modernyoo at the top of this article. I am new to wikipedia. Forgive me.

My belief is that words are to help me organise and understand the world around me. In this respect I do not feel that labeling Buddhism, as practiced in the west, as a "religion" is helpful or accurate.

For this reason I disagree with your use of the term "religion" as a fact.

It may be that in the east Buddhism is practiced as a "religion", in the broader sense of the word, and that eastern definitions of "religion" have slight differences from that of the west.

I do not feel these destictions are present in this article which there for must be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i could say that i am muslim but i do not like the word religion in describing islam, this does not make me right, infact it might prove that i am not fully muslim, wikipedia can not tend to the sensitivities of everybody, nor can it accept the everyone is entitled to their views mentality, becuase in reality people can be wrong, and when speaking of Mahayan Buddhism - which is the vast majority of adherents you are wrong.Ishmaelblues (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Hinayana is as much a religion as the Mahayana. In the Bramajala sutta, we here about not killing, stealing or commiting adultery, telling lies, or drinking intoxicants...(Sounds like a religion to me!).... In the Sampasadaniya Sutta we hear about Supernormal Psychic Powers (certainly this is out of the range of just philosophy)...and again and again there is talk of Gods (devas) etc. I also will add that having been studying Buddhism for over 20 years in the USA, none of the formal places that I have been to that give teachings declare Buddhism to be anything but a religion. I think the Muslim example above is good: a person can individually say whatever they want about religion/non-religion, but that does not make it true from the standard world view. I can say that I am green, but that does not make every one see me as green.--Modernyoo (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

agreed, i consider this issue settled. Ishmaelblues (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should speak more slowly so that you can understand ...no one has said they do not "like" the term Religion. I have stated it is not accurate. Would you like me to repeat that even slower for you?

There are many many western practitioners of Buddhism, probably the majority, who do not consider Buddhism a religion and who are missrepresented by this article.

I may be missunderstanding this site but it seems that this article is grouped as part of the Wikipedia Atheism project which is a little ironic given the postings on this subject.

I have tried to refrain from joining the, continued, ongoing debate of whether Buddism is or is not a religion, I am merely bringing the existence of such a debate to Wikipedia's attention and pointing out that it is not covered in their article.

The majority of westerners do not consider Buddhism a religion as far as I am aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Its both, I think the buddha would have a chuckle at these discussions being all eternalistic and defining ;P I have a book by Mahathera Narada great little book, its by the Buddhist Publication society in sri-lanaka, everything is sourced from the Pali Canon, it just makes it more...uh Chewable, anyway it states that buddhism is both a religion and not a religion. I hope that Clears things up for you. :)Kungfukats2 (talk)

Definition of Religion

I turned to Dictionary.com [2]. By definition alone written here, Buddhism IS a religion. It's full of rituals, practices that MANY MANY people follow. There's a set of beliefs here, where if peope follow the practices of Buddhism, they'd achieve enlightenment. And so on so forth. キュウ (KyuuA4) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can see I am going to have real difficulty communicating simple concepts on this site...

I will try speaking even slower...see if you are able to hear me this time...

I am not interested in your arguments or the ongoing debate...can you hear that?

I am only saying that many many people in the west practice Buddhism and consider it to be NOT a religion...did you understand what I have just said this time? ...people ....practicing Buddhism ...NOT as a religion ...speaking slowly for you ..got it that time?

If Wikipedia is not interested in these people's beliefs or their Buddhist practices then that is fair enough but it highlights the inaccuracy of these articles. UkFaith (talk)) 22:13, 24 July 2009

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think you are getting a bit out of hand. The fact is, I studied Buddhism at a monestary. I have been to many teachings, known many, many Buddhists in the USA, and have not heard a single one of them say that Buddhism is not a religion. Unless you provide some actual links to legit places that say this (Monestaries, temples, Buddhist associations), I don't really see how you can make your point stick. I would also venture to say, that ANY article in ANY encyclopedia would call Buddhism a religion. The definition of Buddhism in the Webster's Dictionary begins "A system of religion..." Provide some sources if you are going to insist on this point, otherwise I would suggest dropping it.--Modernyoo (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For the record I think it is you who is getting out of hand since you have bombarded this topic with your posts, more than any other person, from the very beginning so as to have your way, and talked down to other posters.

I am not interested in getting further into a detailed debate, as I have repeatedly said, on whether Buddhism is or is not a religion. We will obviously never agree. And that ..is my point.

Why do you refuse to accept that in the west many people consider Buddhism not to be a religion? ...other commenters have already agreed this is the situation.

You are only kidding yourself if you believe otherwise or if you believe that there is no debate currently going on as to whether Buddism is or isn't a religion either in the west or possily even further afield. UkFaith (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

most wikipedians will refrain from saying something like this, but, your an idiot.Ishmaelblues (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thats pretty much what I expected from you given the tone of your previous post's. Dont like when someone stands up to you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, anonymous poster, you are the one who started the debate. It is basically a non-issue really, as I don't think any of this is going to change how the article is currently written. Anyhow, if you won't drop it, I will, unless I somehow feel I have something new to add to this discussion, which at the moment I don't.--Modernyoo (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I did start this post...whats your point? ...You still have not commented on the the way Buddhism is practiced in the west by the majority of westerners...what you affraid of?

Why do you also keep speaking as if this is your article and that you will decide who is alloud to post and what they must say and whether an article will change and everything else???? ...are you a senior official representative of Wikipedia with special authority???

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Above unsigned comments nothing to do with me.

Trying to apply definitions of religion for ourselves is original research.

213 is certainly correct to the extent that some Western Buddhists claim it's not a religion. If you look back through the archives of this page you'll find numerous previous discussions of this topic, some of which include citations of sources to that effect. However, I'd also remind people that sociologists say this is wrong, that Buddhism is a religion sociologically, & that Buddhists' claims to the contrary are themselves a sociological phenomenon found in all religions (citation in section further up this page). Peter jackson (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At this point I have very little respect for Wikipedia.

I dont care what arguments you keep presenting to prove Buddism is or isn't a religion...it doesn't matter to me what you believe...what matters is that there is a substantial body of people who see it differently from you...do you even understand what I am saying? ...Its not about me and you...its about the west being divided on this subject...not about me and you...do you understand? ...and on that point...this article is not honest or accurate.

I have desperately tried to refrain from getting deeper into a debate with you on whether Buddhism is or isn't a religion. We each could find a hundred articles in favour of our position...but where would that lead. My point, which has been ignored, is that such a debate is already taking place in the west and that many practitioners of Buddism in the west, maybe the majority, do NOT view Buddhism as a religion. I also stated that there are slight differences in western definitions of religion to that of eastern definitions, an important point that has also been ignored.

I am really beginning to feel that it is a complete waste of time trying to reason with you. Below are a couple of links that show there are people who see things differently from you.

I doubt you will bother looking - you will probably just post on here how wrong everyone else is but your right. I had no idea that Wikipedia was so biased and uninterested in truth and factual information. If your other articles are built with the same attitudes as this then what is the value in trusting any of the information in them.

http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm UkFaith (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To user:213: Instead of getting angry about this issue, why don't you simply edit the article to make the changes you want? By the way, you should create an account for yourself. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I am new to Wikipedia and not aware of how it works. Anyone can edit any article?

Wont that just be chaotic?

What stops people making changes everyday constantly?

Is there no overseeing authority?

I could make any change I wished to this article?

Yes I need an account but did not wish to change part way through this topic. Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

regardless of what western "Buddhists" think they believe in, they are well in the minority, perhaps less than 5% of the world Buddhist population, and amoung them many would say it is a religion, we cannot let a very small minority and its sensitivities distort the reality of the whole. Ishmaelblues (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"regardless of what western "Buddhists" think they believe in"...that is an utterly arrogant thing to say!

Whats next? ...all western Buddhists can go 'F' themselves? ...Your attitude stinks.

You can have your definition of anything you wish...but you have no right to tell the entire western Buddhist community what they MUST believe!! ...that is just incredulous! ...get over yourself!

This article does not accurately cover western Buddhist beliefs and practices....You must have massive inferiority complex if you can not allow this article to include the full scope of Buddhism within the west as well as the east.

look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country the western buddhist account for only 32 million in the best estimates, even if the majority believed your religous views it would still barely registerable on the radar as even the lowest asian estimates has Buddhist adherence in the 700 millions, now go away. Ishmaelblues (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Go away?, You really do get nasty when you dont get your own way!

You keep saying the same thing and yet you have not taken the time to read what my point is nor understood it.

whats the point in that?....scroll up...understand...then make a useful comment...comprehendi?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

so far you are the only one not getting her way. the issue is settled. We cannot tailor the perception of all of buddhism based on your individual beliefs or religion. Once again the issue is settled. Ishmaelblues (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to speak for everyone?

The matter is not settled just because you say so!

I honestly do not know why you have such a problem with the article being honest and accurate???

Why do you want it to be inaccurate?...whats in it for you???

And for the record...this statement of your shows you have not understood a single thing I have been saying -

"We cannot tailor the perception of all of buddhism based on your individual beliefs"...can I suggest yet again that you actually try reading what I have been saying??? UkFaith (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

over. Ishmaelblues (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is listening to you...least of all me,

but certainly have opened my eyes to the type of people that write these articles on Wikipedia and the quality and reliability of the information contained in them.

I shall draft something and change the article myself since it seems that is my right, and you can stamp your feet and scream all you like. UkFaith (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I added the lines made of plus signs because it was getting really difficult to determine who is saying what. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a western Buddhist and believe Buddhism is a religion. Anonymous user is Christian. So, thanks, but I don't need you to try and stand up for western Buddhists. As I said before, all the PRACTICING western Buddhists I know say it is a religion. I am laughing to keep from crying. --Modernyoo (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you weren't going to say anything more?

Why dont you read the articles I linked...which are same Buddhism is not a religion????????? UkFaith (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009

I am beginning to wonder if Modernyoo & Ishmaelblues are the same person! UkFaith (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just am so disapointed that Wikipedia articles are so poorly put together and contain so much incorrect and inaccurate information. This again highlights the dangers of the Internet.

I certainly will not be relying on Wikipedia articles for accurate information anymore and I will forward links of this discussion to my colleagues at work, a software house in london.

I just think this entire conversation has been a complete waste of time and has been like talking to a bunch of silly school children. UkFaith (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 213 your posts have ceased to be productive any further coments by you on this page and on this matter will be reverted. Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Touch mine and I will touch yours.

As I said I will draft some changes for the main article.

and you can stamp your feet all you like. UkFaith (talk)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To "Ishmaelblues" ...You have no right to keep threatening people on here or describing yourself as an official representative of Wikipedia.

Everyone has the right to say what ever they feel regarding any article on Wikipedia without fear of being intimidated or beration.

I wish to bring to your attention Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, which include -

"Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA ...If you violate this policy by "reverting" ..deleting or editing other user's posts you will be reported.

You have campaigned against me personally and have ignored my points about Buddhism entirely which I raised. I will be forwarding copies of these posts to Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I must warn you that such threatening behaviour could eventially be subjected to a community ban.

There seems to be an ongoing criticism of this kind bullying on Wikipedia and the link below is a commentary example of such

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowritescomments UkFaith (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In fact I have just read there is an ongoing petition to Wikipedia because of the amount of bullying currently going on. Absolutely astonishing! Read for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benapgar/Bullying UkFaith (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

a practicing, well studied Buddhist, modernyoo, has informed you of your error you can threaten me all you want but the issue is settled, any significant changes would be ignoring the many years of past discussions and edits. Ishmaelblues (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no error..if you look at this link which I provided earlier, and asked you to look at, and will do again -

http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm

you will see that even higly respected masters from the east, who travel the world lecturing in this subject at top universities, including the US, who have over fifty years of experience, and who hold professorships and degrees in a number of countries, also consider Buddhism not to be a religion. His testimony must carry enormous weight in any argument, but this is not about me trying to convince you or vice versa...

My point has always been that there is

1 A difference in deffinition of the term "religion" in the west from that of the east, an important point.

2 That in the west Buddhism is practiced by many, maybe the majoirty, not as a religion. Possibly the differences in the deffinitions of the term "religion" have even contributed to this.

All I have asked is for is for the main article to include these factual points which are important to anyone looking for further, accurate, information on this subject.

There is nothing unreasonable in that. UkFaith (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What concrete changes are being proposed here? The intro section has been wrangled over in this respect over and over again for years now. If someone can find a better way of phrasing the intro that 1) makes it clear that Buddhism is considered to be a religion by the majority of scholarly sources available in the West, 2) acknowledges that most practitioners of Buddhism world-wide either consider it a religion or do not think in terms of that socio-linguistic category, 3) clarifies that some Buddhists have begun calling Buddhism something other than a religion, and that these statements might apply to some branches of Buddhism but not others, and some ways of practicing Buddhism but not others 4) is referenced, and 5) is concise and clear enough to serve as an introduction to the topic for non-specialists without making the intro 10,000 characters, then go for it. The current versions are a compromise forced by the weight of numbers in terms of sources and the inappropriateness of placing a complex and ultimately primarily semantic discussion in the forefront of an article that is intended to introduce non-specialists to a very complex and multi-faceted tradition. Earlier versions of the intro gave too much weight to the position that Buddhism was something other than a religion; the current one is attempting to reflect the fact that while these definitions of Buddhism as a non-religion have some currency among a minority of Buddhists, as near as I can tell they are generally regarded as semantic jerymandering in the academic world. A previous version of the intro attempted to hint at this by saying Buddhism was 'regarded by most as a religion'; the current version appears to say something more definitive, which may need to be re-examined.

If someone wants to make an article on 'Views on Buddhism as a Religion' and link there from the body I think that would be a great idea. However, whatever Buddhism is, whether or not it is a religion is clearly not the most important thing about it, and thus the introduction shouldn't be dominated by a rehearsal- or an attempt to synthesize- the various positions held by Buddhists and non-Buddhists on this topic. We do not need more opinions on this topic, we need a sourced, neutral summary of positions; the fact that someone's Buddhists uncle says that Buddhism is a religion or that a lama someone met in a tea shop in Bhutan says that it isn't isn't going to tilt the matter one way or the other, and doesn't provide a good entre into inserting new material in the article. What is needed is a neutral, third party discussion of what the prevalent views on Buddhism's status are; that might provide enough of a summary to update the intro, but more likely will just provide a framework for a separate article on the topic. Gombrich might do a little of this in (possibly the intro to) How Buddhism Began. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clay Collier. In the end, I don't think it is that important what one calls something: especially to the people who are looking to this article for information.

203, actually, did you know anything about Master Chin Kung (your link) before googling him? I honestly have never heard of him. You also might want to think about this: He is Chinese, and religion in China is highly difficult to practice, especially Buddhism. So much so that I know of many Chinese who have had to go abroad, at great risk to their safety, in order to study Buddhism. So this might very well be a way of self-protection. But anyhow, I am not exactly sure how world renowned this particular teacher is. It is not the Dalai Lama or something. All the best--Modernyoo (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we have an article on Chin Kung. He hasn't lived in mainland China for a long time, and there are no restrictions on him practicing Buddhism. Almost nobody is quite like the Dalai Lama, except for the Dalai Lama, but Chin Kung is fairly well-known.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clay's remarks about the lead seem reasonable to me, but there's a middle way between discussing things in the lead & having a separate article: have a section in this article.

Someone has changed the first statement in the article but left the citation in place. The article is now making a false assertion about what the sources cited say. The same is true for the first statement in the roots section.

MY, don't you read anything anyone says? I've already told you the authorities in Sri Lanka claimed Buddhism wasn't a religion, & invited you to look through the archives of this page for the numerous previous discussions on this topic, in some of which citations were given for other Buddhists claiming the same thing. It really is a notorious fact that many Buddhists in the West claim it's not a religion, just as many insist it is. You can see them doing just that in this column.

A more useful question is how Wikipedia should treat biased claims by people who aren't experts in the concept of "religion". Should it mention them at all? If so, presumably it would have to make clear that experts disagree.

213, you seem to be getting the right idea about how Wikipedia "works". Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The link you give isn't the "best" estimates. It's propaganda from a Buddhist organization giving wildly exaggerated numbers. There are about 5 million in the West, the majority immigrants. Peter jackson (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is there anyway to track which users are editing this article??? I believe the article has changed about three times in the last day or so and is now in a worse state than ever.

For the record I have not made any changes to the article myself as yet since I am still gathering reference material. UkFaith (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's visible in the history tab of the article, located at the top of the page near the edit button: link. Also, could you please either sign your posts to the talk page or stop deleting the signature information that is being auto-added by sign bot? This makes it much easier to keep track of who says what on talk pages. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I accept it is not appropriate to to have no name

As of today this is my account name.

I have adjusted my previous posts for consistency and clarity. UkFaith (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Viriditas: You made a series of edits that changed the lead paragraphs of this article. That lead was the result of considerable discussion. It represented the concept that not all people view Buddhism as a religion. Please participate in this conversation on the article's talk page before making further changes to this article's lead paragraphs. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My changes were entirely supported by the previous lead and adhere to the guidelines of WP:LEAD. Please use the talk page to discuss your specific opposition to my changes, using examples you feel are inaccurate. My changes did not alter the meaning of the content in any way but rather tightened the material and removed poorly written, poorly formatted, and poorly sourced items. The main points are still in the lead section. Please try to discuss your opposition to my changes rather than blanket reverting. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you check the article's talk page you'll see that I have participated in a discussion regarding this matter, something you haven't done. Also, as I said before, you removed the concept hotly debated on the talk page: that some praticitioners of Buddhism do not view it as a religion. Also, I disagree with you regarding the quality of the writing. I saw nothing wrong with it. All these being true, I shall change the article back to how it was before you edited it. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and point out specific examples you disagree with. I do not have to participate on any talk page to edit an article, and I am familiar with the discussion on the talk page and the history of the article. If you cannot point to any specific criticisms of my changes, then you have no business reverting them. Please use the talk page to discuss your opposition to my edits. As for whether a practitioner views it as a religion or not, that is implicit in my use of the term philosophy in the lead section. Please try to read more carefully. As for the quality of the writing, the former version did not adhere to best practices regarding the Manual of Style nor WP:LEAD, and is greatly improved. If you can't point out specific criticisms, or contribute in a collaborative fashion, then perhaps this isn't the right article for you. To recap, "philosophical beliefs and religious practice" encapsulates the belief that Buddhist adherents believe in it as a religious practice and as a philsophy, so your objection has been met. If you don't have any other specific criticisms I can address, then I will surmise that you have no more objections to the current version. For example, we don't generally use bullet lists to describe two items in a lead section; we use embedded lists in the form of prose. We also don't give undue weight to tertiary sources, or poorly sourced criticisms. Finally, the previous language was jumbled and confused, and I made efforts to clean it up. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with all of the reasons you have for continuously reverting me. I am willing to compromise but I will not allow you to revert me over and over again. Are you willing to compromise? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention. You just blanket reverted my changes three times. You did not come to the talk page to discuss your edits, rather I had to drag you over here from your talk page, and finally my talk page. You have also not explained your reverts in any detail. You seem only interested in edit warring and restoring a poorly written, poorly formatted, and poorly composed lead section. On Wikipedia, we generally try to improve articles, not make them worse. Now, again, you are speaking in generalities and avoiding directly addressing my points. You say, "I disagree with all of the reasons" but you fail to understand that you are the one who has to explain your reversion. Now, please do so. The "reasons" I have given you are based on WP:LEAD, the MOS, and best practices. I see from your contribution history that you've only been on Wikipedia for less than eight months, so I can understand if you aren't familiar with how we write articles. But, you need to stop blanket reverting and start discussing, in detail, your objections to my changes. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss any aspect of this article but you keep reverting me as if you have more authority than me. I checked the list of wp administrators and you're not on it. So, regardless of how long you've been editing, your opinion carries no more weight than mine. I AM willing to compromise but all you seem to do is edit and threaten me 3RR warnings. Propose a compromise and I will consider it.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I am still here, is because I am waiting for you to discuss your reversion. This means compromise. You apparently oppose the current version in the lead. Can you explain why you oppose it? I believe I have met your opposition and do not see a need to fix it. What would you like to see fixed? Nobody should be edit warring in any article, and your blanket reversions without using the talk page for justification are without merit. Since you've used up all your reverts for the next 24 hours, please use your time on the talk page to discuss the changes you would like to see. Continually responding with "I disagree" isn't helping further your goal. Point out specific problems with the current lead so I can help fix it. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[Discussion continued ~ indents reset for readability] I disagree with your changes because you have not mentioned anywhere in the lead section that some view Buddhism as a religion while others don't. The lead had this info before you changed it. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I addressed this twice in this discussion alone. Please read carefully: "Philosophical beliefs and religious practice" encapsulates the idea that Buddhist adherents believe it is a religious practice and philsophy. Do you feel that this statement is inadequate? If so, why? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with wording itself. I see no mention of Westerners viewing this as a philosphy instead of a religion. Keep in mind you have used up your reverts for 24 hours as well.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "religion" is basically a western concept that we use to describe Buddhism. I am not certain that these types of ideas were used by the original Buddhists, and there is some discussion on this matter. However, in light of the fact that we are writing encyclopedia articles in the English language, we tend to use English words and concepts, and these words are often rooted in our own cultural assumptions and carry tremendous baggage. This is true when we are writing about any non-western idea, and it cannot be ignored. The fact that some people view Buddhism as a religion and a philosophy is already mentioned. What part of this does not meet your standards, and what source(s) are you using to support your idea? It might help to provide quotes and passages so I can what you are trying to say. The fact that Buddhism is considered a religion and a philosophy is not in dispute and is already mentioned in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are practioners of Buddhism who view it as a philosophy is a matter of common knowledge. Asking for citations for such information is a bit like asking for citations that the sky is blue or that sex feels good. You've said a few times that you've already addressed this but I've read the lead several times since you've changed it and I don't see any evidence of you addressing it. Specifically I object to you removing the following wording:

...there is a small minority in the West whom practice Buddhism as a philosphy...

This is hardly what I consider compromise. By the way, I'm member of a Theravada Buddhist temple where most of the other members are from Thailand. They seem to have no problem distinguishing the difference between a philosophy and a religion and saying such a thing strikes me as ridiculous. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Moby, you know perfectly well that the statement "most adherents consider to be a religion, although there is a small minority in the West whom practice Buddhism as a philosphy" was unsourced and marked as "citation needed". Do you have a source for that statement? We write articles based on sources, not on opinions. And the lead section should summarize the most important points in the article. Is this discussed in the body of the current article? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Any mention of a "small minority" of Westerners viewing Buddhism as something other than a religion should have no place in the lead, certainly not in the lead sentence. It is not WP:DUE weight. JN466 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The point that Buddhism may be considered either philosophy or religion may be valid and, if so, is not really fully addressed by the current phrase in the lead; is there a good source to back it up?hgilbert (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[Discussion continues ~ Indents reset for readability] I think it is perfectly addressed by the current lead section with the use of the word and. The user was asked for sources and refused to provide them, claiming that "Asking for citations for such information is a bit like asking for citations that the sky is blue or that sex feels good", ignoring the fact that the sky is blue for a reason (Rayleigh scattering) and that sex feels good because evolution favors adaptive traits that increase survival. We can provide sources for why the sky is blue and why sex feels good, so Moby-Dick3000's argument doesn't hold. The real question is how is Buddhism different from other religions in the sense that the differences between the philosophy and the religion are significant enough to expand upon in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: I can see you're not interested in compromise. You're interested only in pushing your point of view. I'm done talking to you. I'm going to wait a few days then I'll change this article however I see fit. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is based on the premise of compromise. After all, what else is the purpose of discussion? The exchange of ideas takes place within the matrix of concession. The unsourced material in question was removed, and you were asked for sources. You conceded that you don't have any, and here we are. I know you are still a new user, but threats to "change this article however I see fit" are not acceptable. This is a collaborative enterprise that consists of editors working together, harmoniously, to improve the coverage of a subject. We write based on the best sources we have at hand. Have you thought about doing some research to support your ideas? And have you thought about asking others to help you? I know, for example, that there are leaders and practitioners in the American Vipassana movement who would not come out and take a position on either side, so I am curious what you are basing your opinion upon. Thinking about this further, I am fairly confident that when you say "a small minority in the West practice Buddhism as a philosophy" you are referring directly to aspects of the Vipassana movement which focus more on meditation practice rather than religious belief; We also see this in the medical setting, where Buddhist-derived mindfulness meditation can be found in hospitals and is covered by some health insurance plans. Again, there is nothing religious about this practice. Buddhism is both a philosophy and a religion, and that's what the lead says. On Wikipedia we prefer to talk in specifics, not generalities. So, when you say, "most adherents consider to be a religion", we ask "who and how many"? And when you say, "a small minority in the West practice Buddhism as a philosphy", we ask "who and how many"? This way, we are forced to rely only on the sources for what would otherwise appear to be editorial opinion, and the information allows us to write accurate articles based on facts and figures. So, if you are trying to refer to aspects (as only one example) of meditation practices that are based on Buddhist philosophy rather than religious beliefs - which indeed exist - you would need to do some more research and find some good sources, and perhaps expand upon it in the article. I doubt this is something that would be mentioned more than what is said in the first sentence now, however, I could see the lead expanding to cover it. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The current lead sentence says, Buddhism is a family of philosophical beliefs and religious practices. I think that describes the matter well, at the general level at which a lead sentence should be held. For a source discussing assertions that Buddhism is "not a religion", see e.g. [3]. Here is several hundred more: [4] In the West especially, you will come across all kinds of new religious movements who claim that they are not religious, but offer something "real" and experience-based, these latter qualities being construed as oppositional to traditional religion. It is not really much more than public relations and confirmation of oneself as different. Once you get so many people who are all "different", they become kind of alike. Of course, to the adherent, it may at best also serve as an internal reminder to remain engaged with the core teaching. But in the end I think the question of how to label something is quite peripheral, really. --JN466 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but after thinking about this and trying to interpret Moby's comments, I think it is safe to say that Moby is referring to (as only one example) the use of Buddhist meditation in contexts devoid from overt religious belief, such as some Vipassana practices, and the use of mindfulness meditation in either a medical or psychological context. (for example Mindfulness (psychology)) So, there is some support for what Moby is saying, but I don't think he's going about saying it very clearly. I figured it out because I'm familiar with the practice. So what we are really talking about here is Buddhist technology, although I think Moby is confusing things by calling it "philosophy". I think another sentence or two at the end of the lead talking about this idea (as long as it is in the article) is just fine. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, it depends on "who" this minority is, and how "small" it actually is. Could you say whom you had in mind, Moby? It will be easier for us to find sources then. --JN466 02:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the new version reads better, so mybe Viriditas is on to something.--Modernyoo (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I read the more clouded this is becoming. Constantly talking down to each other and trying to win arguments by discrediting each other rather than on the merits of factual information.

Can we stop making it so personal please?UkFaith (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reset the indents above several times, because it is rather difficult to read comments that have ben indented so many times they end up as a single stack of words. Give us a break guys ! Pls think about resetting after a max of six to eight indents. -- अनाम गुमनाम 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lead sentence about 'philosophical beliefs and religious practices' is all that good. It implies that the beliefs are purely philosophical whereas the practices are religious (a clear distinction is implied by the statement as it currently stands). But many of the beliefs are scarcely 'philosophical', but rather religious: the idea of a hell or hells in which one can be tortured for aeons; the idea of heavens of varying degrees of sublimity; the idea of a seemingly supernatural 'law' that arranges in a moral way effects in accordance with their causes, over lifetimes and death-times; the idea of a transcendental state called Nirvana that is incorruptible, ageless, deathless, unconditioned; the idea of being able to pass on 'merit' to other people who have died; the idea of being able to read the minds of other people and look back over their countless past lives, etc., etc. These are not 'philosophy' as usually understood; they are religious notions. I personally thought the 'original' wording was much better, where it was stated that 'Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion'. That was, after all, referenced. But seeing as that has been dropped, how about: 'Buddhism is a family of religious / philosophical beliefs and practices ....'? Suddha (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd considered before the possibility of dropping all qualifiers- just say something like 'Buddhism is a diverse family of beliefs and practices that share an origin in the life and teachings of a 5th Century BCE philosopher and sage Siddhartha Gautama'. A sort of end-run around the question of who says what about what these beliefs and practices are. We could then have a section in the body that discusses this issue, as Peter suggested, and/or link off to another article if there is too much material for a section. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, Clay. In principle this could be a good idea. But I think we would have similar problems over defining who or what Siddhartha Gautama was! I, for one, would not describe him as 'a philosopher'. He did not work out a rational 'philosophy'; instead, he had a revelation - a transcendental breakthrough or vision of what samsara is (seeing all the past lives and deaths of himself and other people, and the causes that led to the various renewed incarnations, etc.) and an experience of what Dharma / Nirvana is - something that is ultimately beyond words. He then gave practical guidance on how to escape the suffering of samsara and reach Nirvana or Bodhi. We must remember that both in Pali Buddhism and Mahayana the Buddha describes Dharma as 'akalika' (transcending time) and 'acintya' (unthinkable, beyond the thinking processes, outside the realm of conceptualisation): this is not normally what a 'philosopher' deals in and promulgates. I personally don't see why we don't stick with something of the original wording, such as 'a family of diverse beliefs and practices considered by most, although not all, to be a religion.' A section could then be added on the different 'takes' on Buddhism as between the East and the West (although I myself do not think that the West overwhelmingly rejects Buddhism as a 'religion', pace the intense discussion on this topic above!). Cheers. Suddha (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think the openning sentence should just call it a religion. It is sort of like having an article talking about the earth and saying "A heavenly body which most, but not all, consider to be round." I mean, standard belief is that it is a religion. Every English language dictionary and encyclopedia begins their articles with this statement. By trying to accomodate every possible view point, we end up with a confusing first line that does little to serve as a source of information, because it brings up a semantic point that most people don't really care about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.5.107 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you will have guessed, I have a lot of sympathy with the above viewpoint. I think it is undeniable that most dictionaries and encyclopaedias define Buddhism as a religion. But to accommodate those who see it as a philosophy, we could perhaps follow the example of The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which defines Buddhism as "a religion and philosophy". Might that not be a good solution to our problem? Suddha (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think its accurate and I don't believe it solves the problem.

Please can everyone try to read all of the previous posts to fully understand what the problem is and what points have already been made otherwise we're just be going round in circles.

I also agree with has already been said about dropping all qualifiers as I believe they are the root of the problems. I have spent the last few days drafting a citable intro with that in mind. Certainly a seperate section should deal with the endless contention over western views as per the WP:LEAD which was pointed out earlier.UkFaith (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, Buddhism is a religion. I am not sure what anyone's point is in trying to say otherwise. My personal feeling is that UKFaith's point is to try and somehow undermine Buddhism in the face of Christianity, by somehow making the latter "more important" than Buddhism. Maybe we should go to the Christianity page and argue whether that is a religion or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are having trouble understanding this discussion why not try reading some of the other posts, no just your own, like its already been suggested? For the record I was introduced to Buddhism 15 years ago which is probably more than your age given the rediculous things you keep saying.UkFaith (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion for the first line: "Buddhism is a family of beliefs based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama." We don't have to say whether it is a religon or not, but I think it is the clearest possible way to draw people into the article. Any other debate belongs somewhere else.--Modernyoo (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Modernyoo, I think that is a good suggestion in the present circumstances of dispute, except that Buddhism is not just belief - it is also practice. Perhaps we could add 'various practices': 'Buddhism is a family of beliefs and various practices based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama'. How does that sound? Suddha (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.Modernyoo (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like your still going it alone.UkFaith (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[reset indentations] Has anyone seen this article from reference.com almost the entire Wikipedia Buddhism article has been ripped from here. Is that usual? I dont know whether to laugh or blush. UkFaith (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am getting really fedup with people editing and moving my posts. Please do not touch my posts as it is an act of vandalism and we need to respect each other before It gets out of hand.UkFaith (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC guide to Religion and ethics describes it this way: "Buddhism is a spiritual tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life." On the other hand, this book: Buddhism:Its Essence and Development by Edward Conze strongly makes a case that traditional Buddhism was a religion - a path of salvation - rather than a philosophy as we normally understand the term. hgilbert (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Conze would know. He was one of the greatest Buddhist scholars in the west. As far as the BBC, they are currently just a coroprate machine and hold no weight with me whatsoever.--Modernyoo (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be systematic. Buddhism is very varied. Buddhists don't usually know much about other forms of Buddhism. When they say Buddhism is a religion/philosophy/..., they're generally talking about their own version. What do they actually say? According to a source cited in a section above, most call it a religion. Some say it's not. That is, they claim their version of Buddhism isn't a religion. Such claims might even be true, for their versions of Buddhism.

What do ordinary people think? We have a source, again cited above, saying most people call it a religion. This must be true, because, as someone mentioned above, all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias &c say so.

What do scholars think? As far as I know, no scholars think Buddhism is a philosophy. Some, at least, think some forms of Buddhism are philosophies. Some think Buddhism is a family of religions. Most seem to think it's a religion. Sociologists say that claims by Buddhists that it's not a religion are a standard phenomenon found in all religions in an attempt to make theirs out to be different.

How does this all relate to Wikipedia policy? To say without qualification that Buddhism is a religion would be in accordance with policy only if those who disagree are a tiny/insignificant minority. To say it's a philosophy would simply be false. Even to say, without explanation, that some people call it that would be misleading, because nobody, as far as I know, who's actually studied Buddhism as a whole, rather than just one version of it, would call it that. Just have a look at the article on Pure Land Buddhism. Would anyone seriously call that philosophy? Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As this section is supposed to be about the lead, I'll make a couple of other comments about the current (MD) version.

1. Some scholars say there's no common core to the different forms of Buddhism (see User:Peter jackson#Common core for exact wording of 4 citations). Any form of lead that's liable to give readers the impression it's describing such a common core would violate NPOV.
2. 2 divisions "broadly recognized": weasel words: this is the division preferred by Buddhists (Keown, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1996, page xi) & the general public (dictionaries), but scholars mostly prefer a 3-fold division (New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions; Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998; Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routlege, 2009; &c):
   1. Theravada/Southern
   2. East Asian/Eastern
   3. Tibetan/Northern

Peter jackson (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The divisions are 1)Theravada, 2) Mayahana, 3)Tantrayana. I am not sure what could possibly be intended by East Asian Buddhism. There are those who don't regard the Mahayana Sutras as valid, and those that do. Theravada does not follow Mahayana, but Mahayana includes Theravada. But I still don't see what this has to do with an openning statement, unless the point is that their is no "4th school" i.e. one that believes it is philosophy or "way of life" though not a religion. --Modernyoo (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the relevant paragraph in the lead as it stands now.

"Two major branches of Buddhism are broadly recognized: Theravada, which has a widespread following in Southeast Asia, and Mahayana, which is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism and Tendai. In some methods of classification, Vajrayana is considered a third branch. Buddhist schools disagree on the historical teachings of the Buddha and on the importance and canonicity of various scriptures. "

The 3 branches recognized by most scholars are as follows.

1. Theravada/Southern: Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos
2. East Asian/Eastern: China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Christmas Island
3. Tibetan/Northern: Tibet, Bhutan, Greater Mongolia, Kalmykia

The 3-yana classification was invented by Tibetans to classify the Indian teachings they inherited. Modern scholars still use it in that way, though not all Tibetans do. It was never intended to cover East Asian Buddhism, about which the Tibetans knew essentially nothing. At first, Western scholars used the names of the 3 yanas as names for the 3 branches listed above, but they gradually realized that this was inappropriate, because in fact all 3 branches include elements of all 3 yanas, the differences, though great, being of emphasis (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004, page xxi). Most scholars have now abandoned this terminology in favour of one or other of the schemes listed above.

The wording of the paragraph quoted is also liable to mystify the uninformed reader. "In some methods of classification, Vajrayana is considered a third branch." So what's it considered as in other methods? The paragraph doesn't say anything else about it. Readers might well conclude that the other methods don't count it as Buddhist at all.

The citations given at the end of that paragraph are yet another example of false citations: they don't say what the article says they say. This is because people have messed about with the article without paying any attention to the citations. I've mentioned 2 other cases of this above. I know all this because I was the one who put all these citations in in the first place, along with most of the other reliable sources in the article. These particular ones are citations for the statement that some scholars consider the different forms of Buddhism have no common core. I gave the link to the full wording above. The other citations that have been misapplied are that there is a more or less established consensus that the Buddha died around 400 BC, & that most people consider Buddhism a religion, though some have deined religion in ways that exclude it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not strictly correct to say that Mahayana includes Theravada, though it does include at least most of its main ideas/practices. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As regards a 4th form, some scholars regard socially engaged Buddhism as so new and significant that it ought to be considered as a fourth vehicle (Edelglass & Garfield, Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2009, page 373). Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that anyone who strongly practices tantric Buddhism would call it a third vehicle. At least all the Tantric Buddhist things I am familiar with look at it that way. Is there any source for Tantric practice that simply considers it as part of Mahayana?

Also, for Theravada, what part is not in Mahayana? All the Theravada Sutras and Jataka tales are in the Mahayana Canon. So what part is not included?--Modernyoo (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave your 1st paragraph for now. Maybe I'll find something relevant.

Your 2nd paragraph is simply wrong. For a start, there's simply no such thing as "the Mahayana Canon". There are 2 different canons, in Chinese & Tibetan. Most, but not all, of the Pali suttas exist in Chinese, but only a few dozen, out of thousands, in Tibetan. Most of the Pali jataka tales don't exist in either Chinese or Tibetan. For that matter, the tales themselves, in general, aren't even in the Pali Canon. They're commentary. Only the verses are usually canonical. The entire Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka is absent in both Chinese & Tibetan. So are several other books of the Canon. The Vinayas in Pali, Chinese & Tibetan are different. So are the suttas, in so far as they're found in different versions, in most cases. Peter jackson (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vajrayana#Vajrayana as a subset of Mahayana Buddhism gives a citation, which I'll look up sometime. Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Mahayana Canon (though maybe not on Wikipedia, the source for all information :) ). The Chinese and Tibetan canons are identical. Both came from the original Sanskrit canon. The only differences are that certain sutras were not translated into the different languages; but this was simply from a lack of original texts, not that they were two seperate things. Also, the reason it may not seem like the Pali stuff is in the Mahayana is that often the names of the sutras are different. The same thing applies to the Jataka tales. In the Pali they are part of the Khuddaka Nikaya. In Tibetan they exist often in the form of Sutras (such as The Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish). As for the Pali Abhidhamma it actually does exist in Mahayana (six books were translated into Chinese and one in Tibetan), though obviously they are not identical. So far, there has been no comprehensive study to compare Tibetan texts to those in Pali (at least that I know of), so to really acurately compare them is near impossible unless you have had the time to read through all of the texts in the original languages (the only possible method since only a very small portion of the Tibetan texts have been rendered into English)---which is probably not the case.--Modernyoo (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, to counter the argument that the versions of the Suttas and Sutras, while they might be the same, have major differences, therefore they are two different things: Many of the Mahayana Sutras in Chinese appear in mupltiple versions that were brought from India at different times and translated by different scholars. Many of these also are very different one from the next, but they are still the same Sutra.--Modernyoo (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OOps my mistake, even Wiki has an entry for Mahayana Canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Canon--Modernyoo (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese and Tibetan canons are not identical; the Tibetan is much larger, containing a lot of tantra and other Tibetan-specific material not contained in the East Asian Canon. There are scriptures accepted in both the Tibetan and Chinese canon for which there either is no Sanskrit precursor, or the Sanskrit precursor is a forgery (a back-translation from Chinese or Tibetan into Sanskrit to give the document a better pedigree). If I'm not mistaken, the abhidharma present in the Chinese schools canon is not the Pali abhidhamma, but the abhidharma of the Sarvastivadin school, whereas the Tibetans tend to regard post-abhidharma commentaries like the Abhidharmakosha of Vasubandhu as being the most important abhidharma texts. Differences between versions of text include large amounts of added material in some cases, in addition to different translation practices. I've always seen the three collections of text discussed independently, though obviously acknowledging that there is some overlap. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch I don't know of any Mahayana sutras without a Sanskrit precursor. Not to say the original text still exists, but it did. Care to provide any examples? I am talking about the body of sutras here. Obviously, if you get into commentaries etc, it is a different story. --Modernyoo (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never said that they were identical. I said that they were the same thing. I did not say there is a "concrete" Mahayana Canon. I said there is a canon. Big difference. Otherwise why not drag in the Mongolian texts also. Many are also different than either the Tibetan or Chinese. Where do you put those in the scheme?--Modernyoo (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Mongolian Kanjur is a translation of the Tibetan Yong-le Edition, completed in 1623 and and nothing else ~ it is identical in content. Ditto the Mongolian Tenjur which was translated in the c18th.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at the intro to a book I have I see that I misread a statement and the translation from the Mongolian was in fact translated directly from the Tibetan. So yes, you must be right.--Modernyoo (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One last point just to make sure everyone is bored by the subject: If we are going to talk about "concrete" canons, then I am not really sure there is a Theravada one either. There are also different versions of this, as some texts exist in the Burmese version that are not in others, etc. My own feeling is that there are two types of Buddhism: Mahayana and Theravada. These then can be broken down into various sub-categories. That would be the way to do it with the least confusion. The Mahayana sutras were all spoken by the same Buddha, and I have not heard any of the schools of Mahayana Buddhism say that any of the sutras are not valid or are somehow false. (Though with Tantra it is a different story).--Modernyoo (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be forwarding all acts of vandalism to Wikipedia for their attention. Vandalism undermines Wikipedia. UkFaith (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are really honest about this, the entire lead section is badly structured and poorly written, containing inaccuracies and obvious omissions hence my previous comments regarding this article reference.com and questioning the source of this lead section. Maybe its time to rewrite the entire lead containing only cited facts in a well structured sensable way? UkFaith (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it UKFaith. I have complete confidence in your grasp of Buddhism.--Modernyoo (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm a little flattered that you feel that way. I am more than happy to present something. It will be my pleasure.UkFaith (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are Mahayana sutras that weren't translated from Sanskrit. Perhaps the most important is the so-called Brahmajalasutra, which was written in Chinese. Peter jackson (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are differences in the contents of different editions of the Pali Canon, just as there are for Chinese & Tibetan. Nevertheless, the differrences between the 3 canons are much greater than those between different editions of the same canon. What you saids about different titles is simply wrong. Scholars aren't stupid enough to suppose that texts with different titles must be different, just as they're not stupid enough to suppose that texts with the same title must be the same. Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"... the Pāli, the Tibetan, and the Chinese canons ... are quite different, even if there is some overlap between the three. ... both the Chinese and the Tibetan canons include Mahāyāna sūtras that are absent from the Pāli canon, and the Tibetan canon in addition includes many tantras that are not found in any other collection. ... This is important to point out, lest it be thought that there is consensus among different Buddhists concerning what constitutes scripture. ... there is in reality no such thing as a single "Buddhist Bible"." (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2004 (Volume Two), page 756) Peter jackson (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Brahmajalasutra written in Chinese? I have a copy of it and have read it, but no where does it say it is a later writing. I am not saying that it is not possible, but just curious where the authority for this statement comes from. As for different titles: it is not that these people were stupid, but as I have said, even the Jataka tales exist under a sutra called the mdo bdanz blun, which means in Tibetan "Wise and Foolish" (same as the Chinese title). The mongolians call it "The Ocean of Narratives". In the Pali canon is part of the Suttas, but the in a totally different form. Having actually worked with some of these texts before I can say it is often very difficult to figure out which sutra is which when comparing the different languages. Even the popular Lotus Sutra is often presented under different titles.

And as for the statement from "The Encyclopedia of Buddhism" that "both the Chinese and the Tibetan canons include Mahāyāna sūtras that are absent from the Pāli canon"....Well, this is obvious since the Theravada canon is not Mahayana! As I said before, there is not a "concrete" canon, but that does not mean there is not a canon. Of course there is not a "Buddhist Bible". Buddhism is vastly more complex than Judaism or Chritianity (at least textually). The fact is though that Mahayana Buddhism is one thing. From there there are different categories, but it still is a complete division of Buddhism.--Modernyoo (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[reset indentations]

Any changes that are made to the article need to be accompanied by respected citations. Third party or extended arguments are redundant in this respect since this is a discussion about the lead/intro.UkFaith (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it UKFaith, there is this paragraph in the lead section: "Two major branches of Buddhism are broadly recognized: Theravada, which has a widespread following in Southeast Asia, and Mahayana, which is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism and Tendai. In some methods of classification, Vajrayana is considered a third branch. Buddhist schools disagree on the historical teachings of the Buddha and on the importance and canonicity of various scriptures."

We are talking about how to classify the different types of Buddhism. I personally find this paragraph acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me try again in a way that you can understand Modernyoo...Whether the article should state two, three, or a different number of major branches is dependant on the quality and reliability of direct citations rather than extended arguments on the details of each individual branch. I hope that helps. UkFaith (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

UkFaith, you really are out there. We have been citing text after text in this discussion. So far in all your coming and going here I have only see you mention a few websites that you have googled. I am really not sure what you think you can add to this subject at all aside from snarky comments. Enlighten me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) --Modernyoo (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you understand the point I just made?

By the way if you scroll back though these post's you will see that you have made more personal and insulting comments than any other person here.UkFaith (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

MY, if you follow the link to Brahmajala Sutra, I think you'll find it's a disambiguation page. There are 2 totally different texts with this name. One is found in the Pali Canon. The other is in Chinese, purporting to be a translation from Sanskrit, but in fact generally accepted by scholars as of Chinese origins.

If you feel like studying Grey's Concordance of Buddhist Birth Stories (Pali Text Society), you'll find that what I said is correct. There are of course some jatakas in Chinese & Tibetan. That's a far cry from saying all of them are there. Similarly, Akanuma's Comparative Catalogue of the Nikayas and Agamas (I think that's the exact title, from memory) goes through the sutras in detail.

UKF, the last point you made seems to accord with policy & common sense. I've already cited a number of sources to illustrate that the general scholarly classification of Buddhism is 3-fold, as detailed above. Peter jackson (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to MY. The Chinese origin of the text is stated in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, where the article is under the Chinese title fanwang jing. Peter jackson (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel so worn down by all the silly arguments during the last few weeks, personal remarks, and together with the knowledge that imediately after the article is improved it will be undone that I just can't see the point of even bothering anymore.

It seems I am not alone and that a large number of people have already abandoned Wikipedia including colleges and schools.UkFaith (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all! Sorry, but i really am too lazy to read all of your discussions about the religion/philosophy thing (AGAIN...*sigh*). I just wanted to say that the lead sentence as it stands now, especially with the nasty "citation needed" tag, is very unfortunate. Maybe someone can sum it up: What are the actual proposals here? Otherwise i suggest we go back to the long-proven version before the recent edits...wait, i think i don't even have to look it up ;) "'Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion." We had nice references for that, provided by Peter.

Another possibility incorporating the new wording would be "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices mostly described as religious, but also as spiritual and philosophical." Peters references could go behind "religious"; we could still need citations for the spiritual and philosophical part then, right?

I also think skipping the subject altogether would be ok (but somewhat odd i guess): "B. is a fobap based on the teachings of..."

Ok, that's it from my side, c'mon let's quickly conclude this debate (for ;) ) now! Andi 3ö (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't feel the wording of this is correct "Buddhism as traditionally conceived is a path of salvation attained through insight into the ultimate nature of reality" I've always understood buddhism to be a path of liberation or realisation, not salvation. I think a more appropriate word could, and should be found and used Kungfukats2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

What's the difference between "salvation" and "liberation" in this context?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Philsophical roots section

I have removed the section. The objectionable material has been sourced to this website: [5]. This site does not seem to meet the standards of WP:RS as it has some kind of informal submission process. The Warder material could be reincorporated in another version of the section.

It is not clear what part of the Vedas the Buddha said to be "originally good." There are numerous refernces to the Buddha ridiculing statements from the Vedas, see Buddhism and Hinduism for some examples, or Gombrich's books referenced there.

Furthermore, the word "yoga" in Brahmanical tradition is only attested in post-Buddhist texts (see yoga), so the material is incorrect. Furthermore, the user who added this material placed an excessive emphasis on Brahmins.

Also, as Gombrich has shown, the superficial similarities between Buddhism and other early Indian religions is often only that; in many cases, the Buddha spoke in the language of religious seekers of the time but gave the terms a new meaning. This is explained further in Buddhism and Hinduism and elsewhere. Mitsube (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely unfair and against Wiki guides to remove an entire section in this way. Please discuss specific points on this page with a view to improving this section.

The referenced material at Encyclopedia britannica is co authored by Giuseppe Tucci who is very highly thought of in the field of Buddhism history and world renowned. You are unlikely to find a more respected contributor than him. This citation is completely within WP:RS. UkFaith (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The people responsible for the latest version are unknown to me, who is Amy Tikkanen? Also why did you remove the material I added? Mitsube (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The section didn't seem too unbalanced to me; it was mostly discussing the continuity between the general sramana movement in India and Buddhism, and the roots of Buddhism in the religious thought of that time. There were a couple of sentences that could stand to be tweaked or where some additional material would provide beneficial context, but I don't see that the whole section should go. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

... and I see that Mitsube added some information to add that context. Don't see why that was removed, so I reverted the deletion. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this topic has been raised, I suppose I may as well point out for the 3rd time in this column (someone else also pointed it out in an edit summary) that the 1st ref cited in this section is false. It's the citation I put in myself a long time ago for the statement that the Buddha died about 400 BC. It has nothing to do with the statement it's now attached to, but people keep messing about with the article & seem totally unconcerned with references.

Professor Joanna Jurewicz of Warsaw University has argued that the doctrine of rebirth is found in the Vedas (samhitas). Gombrich agrees with her & mentions this in the 2nd edition of Theravada Buddhism. I think it was in the foreword. I'm sure I posted this ref somewhere, but I can't remember where. Peter jackson (talk)

09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Rig Veda, man is thought to be born and die only once. By performing rituals man can guarantee eternal afterlife in a pitrloka. See Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988. The issue is not whether or not reincarnation appears in brahmanical literature. If you look at the sources used in this article you will see that the early Upanishads record Brahmins being surpised when they learn about reincarnation from non-Brahmins. I would not be surprised if, for example, the Atharva samhita refers to reincarnation, as much of it post-dates the early Upanishads. Mitsube (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the Jurewicz paper and also Obeyesekere's book that she mentions. It seems that the early Indo-Aryans may have had (if Jurewicz' new translation of two sentences in the Rig Veda is correct) a simple concept or rebirth which is common among "small-scale" cultures worldwide, in which one cycles between the earth and the realm of the fathers, always staying in the same kinship group. There is no concept of ethical causation; the theory of karma as we think of it in the Buddhist concept that is the later, possibly non-Vedic, development. I will remove edit the text accordingly and expand upon this when I have more access to the texts. Mitsube (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The text has been reverted because the changes did not 'add' information...they changed what was being said.

As per my previous post can you please discuss here any specific points you disagree with rather than just rewriting the article to suit your own view.UkFaith (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nothing was removed. Mitsube (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree...UkFaith (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are the one removing a massive amount of material with no justification. Please explain yourself. Mitsube (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording of this section has once again been restored to its original wording. As yet there is no factual evidence to dispute any of the points in the current version. There for it is not within Wiki guidelines to remove or change any of these points. Please can you discuss specific points you disagree with rather than making huge changes to the section. Thankyou. UkFaith (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• The EB source does not distinguish between Vedic religion and Brahmanism. You are, as far as I know, the creator of that distinction.
• Please explain in detail why you have removed the sourced content I added, sentence by sentence.
• Page 33 of Warder says: "The shramanas rejected the Veda, and the authority of the brahmans, who claimed to be in possession of revealed truths not knowable by any ordinary human means. They ridiculed the complicated rituals, and tried to show the absurdity of the Veda, as a canon of ultimate truths ... The shramanas went further than this and declared that the entire Brahmanical system was fraudulent: a conspiracy against the public by the brahmans for the purpose of enriching themselves by charging exorbitant fees for the performance of bogus rites and the giving of futile advice." [6]. So that is why I removed the qualification "absolute": they rejected the authority altogether.
• I removed added "Brahmanical" after traditional because ancient India also had other religious traditions, i.e. the muni cults mentioned in the Rig Veda, etc. There are many secondary sources available on this that I can direct you to if you are interested.

Now please explain why you have undone all these points. Mitsube (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The wholesale deletions of scholarly and referenced materials by UKfaith are not within the wiki guidelines. The proper references of Sramanas should reflect the factual position for this article to remain NPOV.--Anish (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Online EB source

Peter, what is your opinion of the online Encyclopedia Britannica source linked to above? Do you know anything about it? How is it written? It has an edit history like a wiki. It translates nirvana as "transcendent freedom" which is wrong. Mitsube (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to access the site, without success, so I can only make some general comments. If it's a wiki, then it doesn't count as a reliable source: policy says that explicitly. EB in general counts as RS, but you have to remember that RS is a fuzzy category. Some sources are more reliable than others. This depends on a variety of criteria:

1. how reputable is the publisher? this is the most importnt one in WP policy
2. how up-to-date is it?
3. how specialized is it?

EB comes low on the last criterion, & in fact perpetuates myths demolished by specialists decades ago, such as that the Pope & the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other in 1054 & the Catholic & Orthodox churches have been separated ever since (see 1054, alphabetized under T; virtually every word is false, as shown by many scholars from 1955 on).

From a quick glance over the discussion above, you seem to be doing a quite good job of looking up RSs without my help. Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A further thought: Tucci is author of a standard book on Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps he isn't so much of an expert on early India. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'Buddhism' and the 'Dhamma and Discipline'

Buddhism is a general term used to denote the myriad of traditions that have developed based on the teachings of the Buddha. I think it is definately worth mentioning what the Buddha himself referred to his teaching as, and how this may contrast with the connotations that the more recent term 'Buddhism' has taken on. I find this is a frequent point of confusion for those who are searching for what is 'Buddhism', and separating out the various teachings from diferent traditions. Part of the problem stems from the lumping together of all of these traditions under 'Buddhism'. Although this is unavoidable, when some people are searching for 'Buddhism', what they really mean is they are searching for the Dhamma and Discipline of the Buddha. Therfore to have this clarification at the outset, in terms the Buddha himself used to frame his teachings, is most benficial.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus among historians as to what the Buddha's original teaching was. See Talk:View (Buddhism) for citations of 12 different scholars to this effect. Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is a consensus on the fact that it was referred to as the "Dhamma and Discipline", as this is found across a wide range of suttas in various early canons. There is also a clear consensus on what it was not, as we can separate some of the later Mahayana and Vajryana teachings as later historical additions. The closest we will ever know to 'what the original teachings were' is to cross refernce the earliest soorces of the Pali Canon, Sanskrit and Gandhar Canon and the Agamas.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim made in the statement, that "The Buddha himself referred to his teaching as . . .", was not in the reference link given.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in the citation it is clearly mentioned a number of times in that sutta. Go to the second half of the sutta. In fact it is a description he used in many sutta's.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did double check it KAV, and there is nothing in there that supports your claim that the Buddha referred to these teachings as his own. I'm giving you the opportunity to find a reliable source that backs up your claim that these teachings are Buddha's own. If you cannot find a reference, then the claim will have to be removed.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to the fact that this sutta does not contain the words 'Thus have I heard, at one time the Blessed One...', I have added a reference from a sutta where this is the case.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have just checked the reference that KAV has given (para 13 of the cited sutta), and I see that the Buddha does speak there of the 'Dhamma and Discipline [Dhamma-Vinaya] proclaimed by the Tathagata'. I think this is what KAV means when KAV expresses the wish to call 'Buddhism' by a more accurate name. However, I do not agree that Mahayana doctrines (as opposed to the specific verbose literary forms in which they are cast) are necessarily far from the teachings of early Buddhism. They seem to be intensifications of certain teachings, or approaches to those teachings from other angles and perspectives, rather than some newly concocted religious dogmas (not that KAV is saying that). A number of scholars see continuity as between early Buddhism and the Mahayana, rather than cleavage (the late Dr. Walpola Rahula was one such scholar). It has been stated by relatively recent scholars that Mahayanists and non-Mahayana Buddhists lived quite peacably together and only had major 'conflicts' over the vinaya, rather than the doctrines. There seems to have been an acceptance of a plurality of doctrinal presentation modes from a relatively early date. But I am no expert on this and may be in error. Suddha (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The point Paine's making, I think, is that Wikipedia cannot regard scriptures as reliable sources for the truth of the statements they contain. (Else you could cite the Bible for the existence of God, & similarly for numerous other religious statements, often contradicting each other.) Therefore you cannot cite the Pali Canon as proof that the Buddha said something. It's a matter of history, & you must cite historians.

KAV, you may be right in saying there's a consensus on that. Or you may not. Wikipedia policy requires citations for such claims.

Suddha, I think you've misunderstood your sources. It's certainly true that some sources speak of Mahayanists living peacefully with traditionalists. However, the language used in some Mahayana texts to refer to the traditionalists suggests this can't always have been the case. Disputes about vinaya were nothing to do with Mahayana vs traditionalists (until 822 when the Japanese started abandoning the traditional vinaya altogether, ending up since 1872 with a mostly married clergy). Vinaya disputes split Buddhism before Mahayana emerged. As regards "an acceptance of a plurality of doctrinal presentation modes", that's mainly something that happened within Mahayana. I don't think there's any clear evidence that the traditionalists actually accepted the new teachings as a valid altrenative. Of course in recent times there's an ecumenical tendency. Peter jackson (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what Paine is trying to say, or what sources he expects from historians regarding this type of ancient history. Certainly it is an incorrrect example to compare this with 'citing the bible for the existance of God'. 'God' as conceived in the bible is an abstract metaphysical entity that would be unknown to anyone in terms of existance or non-existance. In contrast Siddhartha Gotama was a human being and we know he lived as there are numerous references to him across different traditions and historical records, and this is a matter historian have gone beyond doubt as to whether he really lived or not. As to what he said, how do you know that Aristotle or Plato said what they are cited as saying? That is a far better analogy in terms of what we are trying to determine and the Pali Canon is I am sure comparable as a source to any of Aristotle's recorded material. The Pali Canon does in fact have a statement of 'Thus have I heard...' at the beginnning of most suttas which indicates it should not be blindly accepted as absolutely necessesarily word for word acurate. Therefore it may be more accurate even in terms of what the Pali Canon claims, to say something like "It is said that the Buddha spoke thus..."

I have therefore ammended the statement to say that "Early sources indicate he said...", thus it is not making an absolute claim that he definately said this, but as this is a statment made by the earliest sources of the Pali, Gandhari and Sanskrit Canons we can say it is indicated by the early traditions that this is what he said. I am also certain that what the Buddha himself referred to his teaching as is unlikely to have been something that was subject to alteration by anyone as the oral tradition passed these teachings down.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your new wording seems perfectly reasonable. Whether it's appropriate material for the lead, others may have something to say.

We needn't discuss philosophical questions like "how do you know?" Wikipedia policy is simply to follow reliable sources. Those say that most of the works attributed to Plato & Aristotle are authentic. On the other hand, very few historians claim that even most of the materil shared between the nikayas & agamas goes back to the Buddha. What most do accept is that the major ideas are at least something like the Buddha's original teaching. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think before people change something, they should first ask for opinions here. Otherwise we have to battle it out after the fact. Personally, I think this whole thing weakens the article. It doesn't really matter that the word "Buddhism" is recent. The way you wrote this makes it seem like it is some sort of New Age invention. Buddhism is commonly called Buddhism. Whatever the Buddha may have called his teachings really is another point entirely. It is not like Jesus said "I am going to teach you Christianity." I mean...There might or might not be something in what you are saying, but it certainly does not belong in the openning of the article, and it probably does not belong in the article at all. I strongly recommend that the article be reverted to its former state and if you want to continue discussing this you do it from the basis of the original article. Anyone agree for changing the article back to its original state until KnowledgeAndVision gets some sort of consensus? --Modernyoo (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement is also refernced to Conze. I couldnt find anything there that says "Buddhism is a recent invention"...Am I missing something?--Modernyoo (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Modernyoo, I agree with you. I think it is rather strange for the 'Buddhism' article to make such a big issue (in the lede of all places) out of a point that is not really terribly noteworthy in the first place. As you imply, we do not say, 'Jesus did not call his teachings "Christianity" ' or 'the ancient Jews did not call their faith Judaism', etc. Why single out Buddhism in this way? Of course, 'Buddh-ism' is a Western term. That is obvious. Nobody would expect the Chinese, for example, to use the English word, 'Buddhism', in their Chinese discourse. We could and should, however, mention at some point in the article that the traditional name for Buddhism (in Pali and Sanskrit) is 'Dhamma', 'Dharma' or 'Dhamma-Vinaya'. But I don't think that belongs in the lead. It simply is not a burning debate in Buddhist circles. Having said that, I have some sympathy for the idea that what is called 'Buddhism' may well be very different from what the historical Buddha taught, or even from what is contained in the suttas and sutras. I think that Peter Jackson's oft-made point that much of 'Buddhism' as discussed in the West is in fact a Westernised version of that religion is very true. Anyhow, on balance I tend to agree with Modernyoo that it would be better to remove the bit about Buddhism's being a modern invention. I don't really think it is justified in so highlighted a position within the overall article. But I think I know where KAV is coming from, and I do have some sympathy with his/ her feelings and views on this matter. Suddha (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The central point is that 'Buddhism' is an extremely vague and ill defined modern term. The teachings of Islam and Christianity are fairly codified in that they have a 'sacred book'. Therefore when someone is searching for 'christinanity', they can look at the bible and their view of christianity will have a basically identical reference point (barring differing translations) as someone else somwhere else in the world who wants to know about christianity and looks at the bible. The situation with 'Buddhism' is however very different, as there is no 'sacred book', and different traditions have added their own scriptures and interpretations over the centuries so that one persons 'Buddhism' can have a completely different point of reference from another persons 'Buddhism'. Therefore the word 'Buddhism' itself, being so vague and refering to such a wide variety of traditions implies a common reference point in the way that 'Islam' or 'Chritianity' has, which is not the case. However, a more or less equivalent 'point of reference' would be the 'Dhamma and Discipline', as this is the source material. Certainly it should be mentioned I thinkl somewhere in the lead, what the Buddha himself called his teaching as this draws to light the fact that there is a difference between that and waht may be called 'Buddhism'. I agree that the point about the modern invention of the term 'Buddhism' maybe should be elswhere in the article perhaps hunder a section entitled 'Western encounters with the Buddha's teachings'.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly Dhamma and Dharma should be talked about, but anything in the lead should just be laying out the basic info. Definately it is important what the historical Buddha taught. It just seems like it would be easier to start from a discussion here and then add stuff after instead of the other way around. I sort of think this article should be locked, and maybe a handful of administrators could make changes after consensus builds. It is one of the more popular articles in Wikipedia (7,000 hits a day) and I think many people want to change things and insert their opinions. But I don't think the article proper is the place for them. --Modernyoo (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1. "I think before people change something, they should first ask for opinions here." The standard recommended procedure is WP:BRD. You make the change you want to. If it stays there, no problem. If someone reverts it, then you discuss it.
2. KAV, what you say about the Bible is roughly true, but not entirely. The Catholic Church includes a number of books and passages in the Bible that Protestants exclude.
3. "Certainly it should be mentioned I thinkl somewhere in the lead, what the Buddha himself called his teaching as this draws to light the fact that there is a difference between that and waht may be called 'Buddhism'." Well, no. Different things can have the same name, & the same thing can have different names. Difference of name tells you nothing about whether the things are the same or different.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata' does have a very clear meaning, as defined by what we can ascertain the Buddha taught. This is what is meant by a common reference point. It is a term found in the Pali suttas, tha Sanskrit canon and the Agamas and a reference to what the early teachings recorded as being 'Word of the Buddha'. 'Buddhism' on the other hand is a vague modern term, made intitally by people who had a very limited understanding of what it was they were trying to define. To someone in Sri Lanka, when they come across the term 'Buddhism', it may mean to them the Pali Canon, or the Pali Canon and the commentaries. To another, 'Buddhism' may indicate Zen Koans and to another 'Buddhism' may mean all of the above as well as the teachings of Padmasambhava.

Your statement "Different things can have the same name, & the same thing can have different names. Difference of name tells you nothing about whether the things are the same or different", is true but stating the obvious and I am not sure what your point is. The point I am making is that what is considered to be the Buddha's teachings by all traditions and what scholars can ascertain to be the closest we can come to knowing what he really taught, is found in the sutta Pitaka's of the early schools. And in these, the Buddha himself is recorded as reffering to the 'Dhamma and Discipline', which is a reference to some of what is found in these early canons, as well as principles outlined in these canons which have been taught unmodified in later traditions . This no doubt deserves a mention in any article purporting to be about the 'teachings of the Buddha', by whatever name you want to call it.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to revert it, but because of all the intermediate changes, I am not sure exactly what the version looked like before KAV put this in. Can anyone else do this? As it stands KAV, you are the only person here who agrees with leaving your changes, as far as I can see, so I think they should be reverted.--Modernyoo (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The point, KAV, was simply to respond to what you said as quoted in 3. For the article, or the lead, to say that the Buddha used a different name doesn't in any way tell the reader that his teachings were different. In fact most scholars think his teachings were roughly the same as Theravada, though some disagree. I don't think any would say the same of any sort of Mahayana, though some would no doubt say Mahayana follows the "essence" or some such. Perhaps the lead should say this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the opener slightly to remove the 'recent invention' part. Although it is true that the term 'Buddhism' is a recent invention, it may be confusing to some. I have however left the remainder in place as I believe this clarifies that the term 'Buddhism' encompasses a wide range of traditions and practices and a variety of teachings. This can be distinguished from what is considered to be the Buddha's teachings by all traditions and what scholars consider to be as close as we can get to the 'original teachings'. Knowing this distinction is important for someone who has no reference point in the myriad of 'Buddhist' teachings that are out there. I also think that what the Buddha is thought to have called his teaching deserves a place in the lead.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No disprespect intended KAV, but the phrase about what the Buddha referred to his teachings as, I still think should be reverted. You have sourced one Sutta. But there are thousands. I dont think it is really a major point what the Buddha called his teachings. This bit could be in the article, but in the lead it still seems out of place. The "historical Buddha" is certainly important, but this bit should be there rather than in the introduction. Even as far as respecting the actual historical figure, the mere name of what he called something is far less important than other things, such as the Four Noble Truths. But leaving this in makes it seem like this is one of the first things to be thought about in Buddhism, and I think you will find a hard time gaining consensus for that point of view.--Modernyoo (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Dhammapada is generally considered to be most likely the best example of what the historical Buddha said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernyoo (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What source are you referrring to when you say that the Dhammapada is considered the most likely example of what the Buddha taught? I have never heard that. If anything the Dhammapada is considered an anthology of Buddhist and non-Buddhist verses, and much of the Khuddaka Nikaya originates from a later date than the rest of the Sutta Pitaka. Certainly there is no reason to believe it is any more authentic than what is found in the Samyutta or Mahjima Nikaya's.

Of course 'the name' that the Buddha gave to his teachings is not important. What is important however is that the words 'dhamma and discipline' will point the reader in the direction of what we can ascetain to have been the earliest teachings of the Buddha. Therefore Dhamma-Vinaya, is a common reference point across all traditions to much of the early material found in the Pali, Sanskrit, Gandhar Canons and Agama's. 'Buddhism' is so vague that anyone trying to orient themselves if wanting to start learning abut the Buddha's teachings is not helped at all, and is equally likely to find material about Tibetan deities as they are about zen koans or pure land ricitation when looking up 'Buddhism' . So the point is to try to give a common reference point for the teachings, a refernce point that as far as we can know is one that the Buddha himself defined. It perhaps doesn't need to be in the opening paragraph of the lead, but maybe can be worked somewhere else into the lead, maybe near the part where is mentioned that "Buddhist schools disagree on the historical teachings of the Buddha and on the importance and canonicity of various scriptures," as this is a linked topic.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the Dhammapada. Warder, for example, gives it an average date of 3rd century BC, on the basis of metrical analysis.

I see no reason why "the words 'dhamma and discipline' will point the reader in the direction of what we can ascetain to have been the earliest teachings of the Buddha." If Wikipedia is to have a detailed discussion of different scholars' theories of the original teachings of the Buddha (& why shouldn't it?), the most natural place for that, it seems to me, would be initially in the article about him. If it expands enough, it could go to a separate article, presumably called something like Teachings of the Buddha. In either case, once it exists, a link from this article, or even the lead, would seem reasonable. Likewise, you could have an article about the overlap between the nikayas & agamas, & the various Buddhist & academic interpretations thereof. I'm not sure what would be an appropriate name for that, but I can't imagine that readers would naturally think of looking it up under Dhamma and discipline.

"what is considered to be the Buddha's teachings by all traditions and what scholars consider to be as close as we can get to the 'original teachings'." 2 points here:

1. I know you're just talking to us here & not writing the article, but bear in mind that the wording of the 1st clause is very misleading. Yes, there is a collection of material that all traditions regard as the Word of the Buddha. But no tradition regards this collection as a complete collection of the Word of the Buddha, & they regard some of the other material as very important, sometimes more important.
2. The 2nd clause perhaps represents what most scholars believe, but there are a number who've tried to reconstruct an earlier form of the teachings.

Peter jackson (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tradition has it that the Dhammapada was compiled three weeks after the Buddha's death. Here is one link that backs this view up: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/dhamma/dham-hp.htm I am not sure how reliable this source is, but it does back this point of view. Also "Buddhist Ethics" by Saddhatissa mentions the Dhammapada and the first half of the Digha Nikaya (in that order) to be the oldest. I have also heard this elsewhere, but would need to look about for the sources. In any case, if this was compiled three weeks after the Buddha's passing away, it would make it the oldest. Isn't this the tradition in Theravada?--Modernyoo (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Tradition has it that" most of the Pali Canon was compiled shortly after the Buddha's death. Historians don't accept this, though they disagree on how far from it they'd depart. Peter jackson (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But since KAV's main point in including that line about what the Buddha called Buddhism is to track down "what the Buddha really said," we have to go on tradition, since no one can prove that the Buddha even existed. The source cited for including this line is completely a traditional one, since no one can really say what the Buddha said. My argument is that that line should be removed more than trying to prove what text is the oldest etc. Because there are so many texts and so many traditions it seems incorrect to assume that promoted by KAV is correct, particularly since it is not well sourced. --Modernyoo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't just go by what tradition claims all the time, especially since one 'tradition' may directly contradict another. Tradition develops later, and for example in the case of the Abhidhamma, some parts of Theravada 'tradition' make the claim it was taught by the Buddha during his lifetime, whereas other early schools claimed their abhidamma was written 200 years or so later as do some withthin Theravada, which is in accordance with what scholars and historians generally think. We can certainly be sure that the Buddha existed however, as he is mentioned in other historical sources and we do not have to rely only on the record of his teachings. I have amended the opener slightly now to link the two points. I believe this makes clear from the outset the important point that 'what the buddha taught', and 'Buddhism' may not be the same things. This is something many who are new to the Buddha's teachings do not realise. As to whether 'dhamma-vinaya' is indeed what the Buddha called his teaching, although we do not absolutely know that for sure, we can be certain that the 'dhamma-vinaya' contained in the early canons is far closer to what he taught than for example the pure land school calling on the name of Amitabha or Tantric Vajrayana practices. People who are aware of this will understand this distinction from the beginning, whereas the word 'Buddhism' makes no such distinction and people not aware of this may falsely think that all that comes under 'Buddhism' is the Buddha's teaching.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are the other historical sources that mention the Buddha?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

. Interesting point by Nat. I was under the impression that there is not really any hard historical evidence that the Buddha ever physically existed. That is why talk of the 'original teachings' of 'the historical Buddha' can be deemed rather speculative, at best. OK, there are the Asoka rock inscriptions, but they date to more than 2 centuries after the Buddha's Parinirvana. Some Buddhists say that it really does not matter whether there was an 'historical Buddha' or not - what matters is the practicable Path to Awakening, which many others have trodden and tread. Anyway, I'd be interested to learn about the fresh research which has pinpointed hitherto unknown historical references to the Buddha's historicity. Cheers. Suddha (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

KAV, I still don't see the sourcing to the changes you made. Also, I still don't see any sort of consensus. So I still think your change should be reverted. That is really the main point here, is about the changes you made. If they are not on "tradition" then I think you will have a hard time backing them, since as Suddha has pointed out, there is very little historical evidence that the Buddha actually existed. I personally think he did, but personal feelings and opinions shouldn't really be part of the openning statement. You say that "early sources indicate," but what sources are more valid than others is even under debate. Also, while scholars generally agree that the Pali texts are older, I would fancy that many Mahayana Buddhists would disagree and certainly consider the Mahayana sutras to be the actual words of the Buddha. And a Wikipedia article is not a scholarly manifesto, but an encyclopedia. There are lots of places for a debate on what the historical Buddha might and might not have said, but the lead of this article just isn't the proper venue.--Modernyoo (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly and historical consensus is that he existed. If you can find some reputable scholarly sources that make the claim he did not, then please post them. However, almost all historians and scholars as well as 'Tradition' are clearly of the view that he was a real historical figure. Therfore opinion doesn't really come into this. Historians look for references to the historical Buddha such as in Jain texts, and by cross referencing dates, places and people mentioned in the early canons with known historical figures.

Again, there is no need to make mention of what 'Mahayanists' or 'Theravadists' think are earlier teachings, we go by what historians can decifer was earlier. Therfore my view is that the Pali Canon serves as an 'early source'. If it becomes consensus that should be changed to 'early tradition indicates...' then I am happy to alter it. However, by all known early canons, 'Dhamma-Vinaya' is a term that is found as a designation for the teachings. And as far as we can tell, it is the earliest known designation and earliest record of these teachings. So the purpose is served of differentiating what is thought to be closest to the 'original teachings', from all that is not and comes under the vague 'Buddhism'.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof on Wikipedia is for the person who wants to include information in the article to provide evidence, not for someone to give evidence refuting a claim. However, I never said that I don't think the Buddha existed or that we should say that in the article. I simply asked for more information about these historical sources you refer to. Which Jain texts?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause, the burden of proof is on you to justify the changes that you made, not for us to prove the contrary. So far, I still have not seen anyone agreeing with the changes you made, so I think they should be reverted. So far KAV, you really haven't addressed this or provided adequate sources for why your changes should stay. My actual opinion is that you may very well be right about what the historical Buddha called his teachings. But I think that it muddles the article to keep it there, and I think it is controversial. You are saying that tradition doesn't have anything to do with it, and that this is simply a scholarly point of view, but I have yet to see any abundance of scholarly sources that you have brought in to validate your claim. And, even if you were to bring in such sources, is the lead of a general article on Buddhism really the right place for it? So, first you need to bring in adequate sources, and then you need to argue about where this information belongs. You yourself previously conceded that maybe the lead was not the correct place for the statement.--Modernyoo (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your making a claim that goes against the vast amount of reputable historical and scholarly work such as 'there is no evidence the Buddha existed' as well as tradition, you should provide evidence from where you got that claim. I scarcely need to mention historians who accept the Buddha's existance as they pretty much universally do, but you might try reading some of Gombrich writing on the issue for one. I have come across the fact that Jain texts mention the Buddha. If your curious you might try doing some searching yourself or investigation of the issue but both Nigantha Nattaputta (Mahavira of the Jains) is mentioned in the Pali Canon as likewise the Budda is mentioned in Jain teachings as a contemporary of his. I believe he is mentioned in the Sutrakritanga or one of the early Jain collection but I am not sure which ones exactly.

As to Dhamma-Vinaya, I don't see any 'controversy' about the fact that this is what is believed to be the earliest name for the teachings, and from the earliest known records. I have already adressed why I think it clarifies things and should be there, which is the main reason.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also KAV, I think this idea that you want to make a seperation between "original teachings" and "everything else" is quite dangerous, and has the potential to make the article biased. There are very few historical records from ancient India, and no one is really sure about dates for most of ancient Indian history. Furthermore, it actually does matter what different Buddhist traditions think, because we are talking about a religion, not a historical episode. If this were an article about Alexander the Great, then I would completely agree that we should be trying to sort through the historical facts. But there are millions of people who follow Buddhism as a religon, and I can guarantee that Mahayana Buddhists would be offended to imply that somehow their sutras were less authentic than others. The article here is also on Buddhism, the religion, not Buddha the historical figure.--Modernyoo (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, there were 'the original teachings' and there is 'everything else'. This is just a matter or chronology and how the teachings developed. Now, I am not claiming that we know for certain what the orignal teachings were. Neither am I claiming that the early canons necessarily contain a word for word record of these original teachings. The Pali Canon has to be considered as part of the 'everything else'. But we can be certain by all evidence, that the early canons are more likely to contain the original teachings or a closer version of them than much of what is later 'Buddhism' or tradition.

Of course sensitivity is important, but that should not prevent us from getting to the truth of the matter. You can look at it from many angles. Yes some from Mahayana may not like to think that some of their scriptures are later additions. Yet if the evidence indicates this is the case, it is our duty to make this clear as it would be the impartial truth. You can even look at another angle from 'Tradition', where the pali texts conatin passages where the Buddha says that 'The true Dhamma will start to be corrupted after 500 years' or words to that effect. Therfore many in Theravada would see it as their duty to prserve what they see as 'the real teachings'. Of course, our intention will be merely to make clear what is historically considered the most authentic.

Those who read the English articleon Buddhism deserve to know that this from the beginning, and from there they will be in a much better position to conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions which ever tradition or no tradition they decide to furtehr investigate.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

KAV, I think the difference in our stances here is three fold:

1) You are approaching the article from a historic perspective. I believe that is probably not the correct way to view the article, since it is on a religion, not a historical person.

2) You want people to understand what the original teachings are, and you are saying that they are those found in the Pali canon. I agree that this might be the case, but millions of people would disagree very strongly with this point of view. The subject is very complex, and I doubt someone who wants some basic knowledge is interested in being plunged into the intricate debates in the first three or four sentences.

3) You believe your point is vital to the article. So vital that it needs to be said in the lead. I think it might be worth mentioning in the article, but this should be under some header like "the historical Buddha". More likely though, this information belongs under "Buddha", which I imagine there is an article for.

Finally, you need to provide adequate sources and gain consensus here for your changes to remain.--Modernyoo (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

KAV, I have gone ahead and removed the disputed passage. If you want to put it back, I suggest you build consensus first. So far, it seems you are the only person who actually thinks this belongs even though a number of people have commented on your changes. To me this means that it does not belong, since the article is about more than what one person believes to be correct. If a few other people actually agree with you, I will not argue about it, but you need to get those few other people.--Modernyoo (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Several people have commented on it but there has as yet been no consensus on whether it should be removed outright or altered slightly. Certainly it should not simply be removed as it contains important and clarifying information. However, I have already said that it doesn't need to be in the opening paragraph of the lead. There is a line further down in the lead which mentions that different schools disagree on the content of the historical teachings so I will try to work it into that part.

I am not saying that the Pali Canon necessarily contains 'the original teachings', but that the Pali, Chinese Agama's and remnants of Sanskrit and Gandhar Canons all predate material from other traditions, therefore are likely to contain earlier versions of the teaching. And this is somehting that many would be interested and benefit from knowing. I am not saying that the Pali Canon contains these teachings necessarily, as we cannot be sure as to the dates of even the separate parts of the Nikaya's of the Pali canon and what as added later. However, the 'Buddhism' article is extremely general and that is part of the problem. It is so general that someone searching for Buddhism may be looking for the Buddha's teachings, or or 'Buddhist traditions' or for Zen buddhism or Tibetan buddhism and to lump it all together under one title is part of the problem. However, I have already started to make a page about Original teachings, and perhaps will add a link once that page is more filled out with referenced material. The information or link certainly belongs under 'Buddhism' however and not 'Buddha' becasue many who search for Buddhism are looking for what they think are the Buddha's teachings, and we can only provide them with various traditional understandings of what this was, as well as what is historically considered to have been what this was.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Much of the above is original research. Wikipedia isn't supposed to examine the evidence for itself. It's supposed to report what scholars say.
2. "As for his specific teachings, scholars have always debated about what the Buddha actually taught, since even the earliest texts that record his teachings were written down hundreds of years after his death. However, scholars usually agree that there are certain basic teachings, which, since they are presented in so many places throughout the early texts, must represent at least the kinds of things the Buddha actually taught." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 34)
3. See User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism.
4. This article is included in WP:VA, a list of 1000 articles that any good Wikipedia should have (ie in any language). Why? Because of what some bloke said thousands of years ago? Of course not. Because it's the religion of 350,000,000 people today. So thta's what the article is supposed to be about.
5. Should the article mention that historians have their own ideas about what the Buddha taught, which may differ from those of some Buddhists? Seems reasonable. Should it be in the lead? Not so obvious.
6. It might be simpler just to cite Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 1, to say that Theravada is generally closest to the Buddhism of early centuries (the italics are his).

Peter jackson (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning 'Dhamma and Discipline' perhaps doesn't need to be right in the opener although I still think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. However I am prepared to wait until the 'Original Teachings' article develops then it is more beneficial to link a reference to this. I have however amended the opener slightly to integrate the main points I was making.

Firstly "Family of beliefs and practices" is not true. Maybe from a broad perspective of Mahayana, what they regard as 'Hinayana' or Theravada is a (lesser) part of the big family of teachings. From a Western academic, he might find it useful to class everything to do with he Buddha as a 'family' of related beliefs and practices. However, many within Theravada do not see Mahayana teachings as part of a large 'family'. They would regard them as corruptions and later additions, and whilst based in part on the Buddha's teachings, not part of some grand scheme or 'family'. They regard the Pali Canon as complete in itself, and what is added later in Mahayana scriptures is not part of a 'family' but rather is heterodox and not part of the Buddha's teachings. So to accomodate both perspectives, I have amended it to 'Buddhism refers to wide a variety of traditons, beliefs and practices' which is more accurate.

A related point is that it is indeed generally accepted by most scholars and historians as well as those in Theravada that many 'Mahayana' and Vajrayana teachings are NOT based on the teachings of the Buddha. Hence I have ammended the sentence to read 'based on or influenced by', to make clear that some of the teachings that come under 'Buddhism' are not necessarily thought to be based on what the Buddha taught. Of course many Mahayana practioners would disagree, but again to accomodate both perspectives it is necessary to say 'based on or influenced by' since this reflects the various opinions.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As an immediate reaction, 1) i think "wide" might take the point a bit too far, but not sure myself. 2) regarding the "based on or influenced by", i understand your intentions, but firstly i do not think they come across to the uninformed reader, secondly, even if not everything Mahayana practioners believe would originate from the historical Buddha it is not at all a stretch to say that they are still "based on" those teachings and thirdly, "influenced by" is waay to broad of a term. Think about it: "beliefs and practices influenced by the teachings of Buddha": That would include basically all present day western and eastern religion and philosophy, ranging from the influence of Buddha's teachings on greek philosophers and possibly even Jesus Christ (Greco-Buddhism#Religious_influences) to the entirety of New Age and most New religious movements including the beliefs of Tom Cruise(Scientology) and Oprah(Eckhart Tolle). I don't think, this can stay. Please also read my recent remarks above under "Leads section". Andi 3ö (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the change KAV. It seems to me you are coming to the article with a pre-concieved biased in favor of Theraveda, which is skewing everything you are putting in the article. In other words, it seems like you might have an axe to grind. All styles of Buddhism are based on the teachings of the Buddha. What the actual words out of the Buddhas mouth might have been and who is really following them might be a debate. But all schools of Buddhism believe they are following the path set out by the Buddha. Just as all schools of Christianity believe they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ, though of course Christians have killed each other in the millions due to different ideas. So, I would definately call for a revert in agreement wtih Andi.

--Modernyoo (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just have a couple of thoughts on source citations and the way references seem to be getting used here. Apologies if this is less relevant to the discussion now than it was a few days ago, or if this is just stating the obvious. I need to review further, but tend to agree that reversion is in order here.

Review the discussion of primary vs. secondary sources at WP:PRIMARY. Scriptures are primary sources, and as such they are dangerous and often inappropriate for use in making many kinds of claims.

To elaborate: If you want to say "XYZ appeared in Sutra A", it's entirely appropriate to cite Sutra A. However, to make any derivative claims or implications it is necessary, for Wikipedia's purposes, that the material in primary sources be "filtered" through the published work of experts in the derivative field. That is, to make a claim at the historical truth of something, we need to cite historians who are trained in recognizing the reliability and provenance of those primary sources. To make derivative claims based solely on primary sources amounts to original research. /ninly (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I take on board the points made by Andi and Modernyoo, however I still think this is a very important issue. I can see how 'influenced by' can be contrued as too wide although it may be the case with some teachings. I have no 'axe to grind', but am certainly coming from a perspective of making the clear distinction that not all that comes under 'Buddhism' is thought to originate with the Buddha. This certainly includes in my opinion differentiating a huge part of the Theravada traditon as well as not originating with the Buddha or based directly on what he taught, such as much of the commentaries, Buddhagosa, much of the Abbhidhamma and parts of the Pali sutta pitaka's itself as well as some Mahayana teachings.

There is a real problem with lumping 'everything to do with the Buddha' under 'Buddhism'. Since that is what has happened however, the reader should know that what 'Buddhism' means has different implications for different people. Many people who attack 'Buddhism', including agenda driven scholars such as Lopez use this to their advantage to attempt to discredit the entirety of the Buddha's teachings in the average persons eyes by citing some of the more perculier and obscure aspects of for example Vajrayana teaching to show that 'the Buddha taught some bizaare teachings' that are incompatible with any scientific or rational thinking. Or he has referenced the ancient Indian mythological cosmology of 'Mount Meru', which was current in India at that time and has made it into parts of the Pali Canon to show that 'the Buddha didn't know the basics about the world or solar system'. Of course, he makes no attempt to point out that these passages are not credited to the Buddha in the Pali Canon, or that there were many later additions to the canon and the Buddha was normally silent on these kinds of questions so is exceedingly unlikely to have provided any confirmation or denial about 'cosmology'. He likewise makes an attempt to say that 'Buddhism is one big family' and that 'everything in any Buddhist text is all taught by the Buddha', with this view therfore a Vajrayana teaching might discredit the Buddha in some peoples eyes as 'they are all Buddhism' and 'how do you explain that'. Clearly, this is a problem since the Pali Canon is separate in itself and not accountable to what some other writers may have added later or hindu practices that may have crept in. Even parts of the Pali Canon can be distiguished from each other as later additions and even on account of what the Buddha said should be a criteria of what is his teaching, as I put in the 'Original Teachings' article. However to say a 'family of beliefs' is far too broad and doesn't adequetly differentiate that there are different views, traditions and texts, and different opinions as to what the Buddha taught.

Therefore, I think that as a compromise I can remove the 'influenced by', at least until I can think of better way of putting it. Although it is true, it may give too broad a definition and include New age spirituality as well. However, I think that 'a variety of traditions...' is more fitting than 'family of beliefs...' for the reasons outlined above so should remain.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that family is too vague and metaphorical a term for our purposes. That the beliefs and practices are "related" (familially or otherwise) can be more than sufficiently covered by the rest of the phrase, whatever gist of the notion is used — the fact that all of the beliefs and practices acknowledge common origins, however differently those origins are understood. /ninly (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

KAV, I can live with the new wording as it stands. I do think this first paragraph needs to be sourced though. Not the statements necessarily that you changed, but this thing "variously discribed as...." Who discribed them this way? A Pygmy might discribe Tom Cruise as tall, but it shouldn't be included in the article. In other words, who has discribed Buddhism as a philosphy? It has to be an authority to make it stick. Because it says "variously discribed" it means that it has been discribed as a philosophy apart from a religion. Because all religions come with philosophies, but are not called philosophies. So I think there needs to be some real citations here or else the line should be cut, as it just seems like it might be there to accomodate unsourced points of view.--Modernyoo (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think i can "live with" that, too, but i think i still somehow favor "is" and "family". I always find it unfortunate when an article begins with anything else than "is" or "was". WP is not a dictionary, describing words, but an encyclopedia, describing the concepts/things the words point to. I don't necessarily agrre with the recent editor who refers to "refers to" as "a brainless stock phrase"....i rather find it a bit abstract/lifeless...

Anyway... regarding "family": i don't think that the phrase expresses anything more than that the beliefs and practices are related. In no way does it imply that 'Buddhism is one big family', as in cosy/close. From your above comments, KAV, i understand that it is your desire to protect what you think is what the Buddha really taught from being caught up in the criticism that arises towards more "obscure" teachings, practices. Although understandable, i don't think this is a valid argument for our discussion here, as it is not WP's responsibility to protect our favorite form of Buddhism.

I'm sometimes thinking that we might be taking this whole "many Buddhisms" and "religion vs. philosophy" thing a bit too far. Just take a look at Hinduism: They say it "is the [singular, *gasp*] predominant religion [sic!] of the Indian subcontinent." although Hinduism surely "encompasses a wide variety of traditions, beliefs and practices" (not even all based on or influenced by the same single teacher), which can "variously [be] described as religious, spiritual and philosophical".

Lastly, i'd like to remind everybody that the introductory sentence as it was before was quite stable over a period of a year or so, which is 1)a very good thing in itself (less work for us regular editors :)) and 2)speaks to the broad acceptance of the wording. Andi 3ö (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1. As with other religions, most Buddhists are fundamentalists: most Theravadins believe most of the Pali Canon is the literal word of the historical Buddha; most Mahayanists believe most of the Mahayana Sutras are the literal word of the historical Buddha.
2. Historians reject both these positions.
3. In modern times there are plenty of Western-educated, non-fundamentalist Buddhists in the East. The Theravada ones claim the Pali Canon preserves the substance of the Buddha's teaching, a claim most historians wouldn't reject. The Mahayana ones claim the Mahayana sutras put the essence or spirit of the Buddha's teaching into new forms to suit changed circumstances, a claim I tend to think historians have no particular qualification to judge one way or the other.
4. Remember the distinction made above: Buddhism, in the encyclopaedic sense intended for this article, is a collection of varied things. I'm not aware of anyone who'd say that Buddhism in this sense is philosophy, & it seems implausible that any informed person would do so. See Pure Land Buddhism, for example, & ask yourself whether anyone would call that philosophy. So that wording is misleading.
5. Spirituality is just an aspect of religion, so that part of the statement seems rather pointless.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the "Buddhism is a philosophy" thing is also unsourced, I suggest we change it. Also the word "spiritual" bothers me. Because if something is religious, it is also spiritual. I suggest the following. Either we:

1) cut the line altogether (my preference)

or

2) change "variously" into "jointly"

Since the whole thing is unsourced though, I think a cut is in order.

Any other suggestions, ideas, thoughts?--Modernyoo (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(regarding recent edits) Hehe, see what i mean, that's what happens when the intro doesn't start with "is"...  ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the current opener is preferable to the previous versions. Where you are running in circles Pj, is when you say 'Buddhism is a collection of varied things'. Everyone is already in agreement over that and it is in fact what the wording currently is and why it was emphasised that it can refer to a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices. The whole point however is to clarify that these traditions can vary greatly and be completely different in view as well as not necessarily being based on any historical teachings of the Buddha. As I said, it is very misleading to lump all these traditions together or refer to them as a 'family', which implies they are all considered related which is not the case. You say that 'Buddhism cannot be called philosophy' because of Pure Land. And that is the whole problem with this type of argument. Pure Land is indeed very much faith basd religion and not philosophy, but generally flies in the face of most other traditions and teachings. To say that 'Buddhism' cannot be called 'philosophy' due to the Pure Land school is like saying 'Christianity' cannot be called 'religion' because of Christians who accept the theory of evolution. Therfore it is quite clear that to say it has been 'variously referred to as...' is an acceptable statement.

As such, what Buddhism 'is' is not something that can be clearly defined, and will vary from tradition to tradition and between scholars and even individuals. It can only be stated what it 'is' from certain specific perspectives and this must be made clear.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a Buddhist myself i actually like the current opener very much as well, i'm just not quite sure if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to start off with stating the traditional/inside view as opposed to a more removed scholarly/outside view. On the other hand it might be acceptable as a way of avoiding this ugly enumeration we had there before and it might in fact be as close as we can get to capturing the essence of what Buddhism is. Andi 3ö (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned PL as simply the clearest example. In fact all traditions, as opposed to their modernist versions, have strong devotional elements.

KAV, I'm not sure how else to explain my point if you don't understand it. The word "Buddhism", in its normal usage, refers to this collection of things as a whole. Nobody would claim that that collection, as a whole, is philosophy. So nobody would claim that Buddhism, in the sense in which the term is normally used, is philosophy. Therefore, for the article to say that Buddhism is sometimes regarded as a philosophy misleads the reader. What you're actually trying to say is that some forms of Buddhism are sometimes regarded as philosophies. Your last sentence seems to recognize this.

Andi, there's no such thing as the traditional/inside view. Peter jackson (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And here Pj, is where I disagree with you. The word 'Buddhism' does not refer to this collection of teachings as a whole. It only refers to them as a whole from a certain perspective, that is perhaps for some western scholars or the some of the average people without much knowledge of the Buddha's teachings. However to someone else, the word "Buddhism" may only refer to specific teachings. You in fact contradict yourself and prove the point I am making by referring to "Buddhism" in two different ways, first as the coleection of teachings as a whole, and then later by saying "some forms of Buddhism". So even you have used the word from two perspectives as both "all traditions as a whole" and then "some forms of "Buddhism". See my point?

Therfore, a correct definition would be to say that the word Buddhism refers to various specific traditions, or sometimes to the entirety of these traditions as a whole. But clearly this will vary between individuals, cultures and interpretion when they see the word "Buddhism". To say however that "in its normal usage it is this", is merely stating your specific interpretation at that time, which is "the teachings a whole", altough later on in the same paragraph you refer to it as "different forms of Buddhism" seemingly disproving your idea that "its common usage is the collection of teachings as a whole". Its common usage is also clearly to refer to specific various traditions. So we must be clear that what we are defining, is something that can mean different things to different people, (or even different things to the same person) rather than putting forth one specific interpretation.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

KAV, here I strongly agree with Peter Jackson. There is no place in Buddhism where it is only regarded as a philosophy. Buddhism has tons of philosophy in it, but it is never only regarded as a philosophy. Again, where is the source for that statement?

I also don't understand your point about Christians who accept evolution. We are not talking about Buddhists who disagree with the religion of Buddhism because they believe in its philosophy. Your logic here slips by me.

Also, we have not a single source for the statement that Buddhism has been referred to a philosphy seperate from a religion. For that reason, I'll remove the statement. Until soomeone can source it with some kind of scholarly reference, it is just opinion.--Modernyoo (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Peter Jackson is wrong by using "some forms of Buddhism". Because, really, there is no single form that regards itslef as a philosophy and not a religion. Or something "spiritual" but not religious. Certainly Theravada does not consider itself solely a philosophy. The same can be said of Tibetan Buddhism, Zen, and Pure Land. Tantric Buddhism also does not consider itself as a philosophy.--Modernyoo (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere was it stated that Buddhism is solely referred to as "a philosophy". It was stated that it is referred to as "philosophical" which is quite true and has a different connotation as this is not stating it is purely a philosophy. To say it has been described as Philosphical is therfore rightly satting that it contains these elements to a great degree.

The point I was making about Christianity, is where Pj was lumping together all of the various traditions as 'Buddhism', and then picking out Pure Land and saying that because some of the 'Pure Land Buddhists' have a strong fath based aspect, the entirety of the Buddha's teachigns cannot be called philosophical. If this was the case, then one could pick out Christian scienctists who accept evolution (a similar group of people not representative of the whole) and therfore judge the whole Christian tradition as being not 'religious' because of these people. It is exactly the same flawed argument.

It is also clear that in common usage 'Buddhism' refers to specific tradtions, and not a 'collection of these teeaching as a whole', e.g. Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism etc. The word 'Buddhism' really only has any meaning if given from a certain perspective, suchas one of these traditions, or the scholar talking of all the traditions, or the average person who probably thinks that it means 'belief in the prophet Buddha'. However in all these cases, the word has a wide range of different uses and this has to be clear.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So what do you want? Do you think this article should be a disambiguation page? Something like this, maybe:

Buddhism can refer to:

• Theravada
• Pure Land Buddhism
• Zen
• Nichiren Buddhism
• Tibetan Buddhism
• Shingon
• ...
• all of the above collectively
• the original teachings of the Buddha

Is that how you think Wikipedia should work? I must admit I find your understanding of the use of language unintelligible. And why should belief in evolution be incompatible with religion? You might say that Buddhism, in some forms, is philosophical. But the wording in the article, last I looked, suggested religious, spiritual & philosophical as alternatives.

MY, there are some modern forms of Buddhism that insist they aren't religious. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you find it difficult to understand Pj, I can guide you through it using your own very examples. 'Buddhism' refers to different things to different people. To therefore talk about 'Buddhism' or mention the word in an Encyclopedia article, all the senses in which this term is understood must be mentioned, not just those which happen to be a personal preference. It is a necessarily vague term that as you point out, can refer to numerous traditions as described above. It also sometimes is used in an even more general sense to refer to all of the above collectively. It is also used sometimes to refer to the 'original teachings' whatver they may be. Unfortunatley, it is not as simple as either setting up a disambiguation page or simply lumping everything together . I actually think a disambiguation page wouldn't be such a bad idea. However, in either case, if you look at the actual Buddhism article as it stands, it IS for all intents and purposes, a disambiguation page from top to bottom, with numerous references to different traditions, beliefs, practices and scholarly opinion. Take another look at the Buddhism article, and you will se that in every section, there is some degree of disambiguation. The Buddhism article has developed the way it has into basically a diambiguation article by necessity.

About evolution and religon, without getting drawn into another separate discussion about if evolution is comopatible with religion, the point is the same regardless. There are relatively small groups of people who have a basically scientifc view and also adhere to Chritianity. Therfore, by your argument Christianity could not be called 'religous' due to these small groups, just as you are saying that 'Buddhism' in the broadest sense cannot be called 'philosphical' due to the small groups of Pure Land followers. Clearly, both these propositions are ridiculous, and to say for example that Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is not 'philosophical' would be absurd, since it is philosphically equal to or surpassing the deepest kinds of 'philosophy' produced by anyone East or West who has ever been called a 'philosopher'.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I think I'm starting to get some idea what you mean.

On the specific point we were discussing, I think if the article starts by saying something like Buddhism is the name given to a collection of ... then following statements, unless otherwise specified, would be assumed by the reader to be about Buddhism in that sense. Nobody was suggesting there's no philosophy in Buddhism. It's just that the actual wording, in context, was liable to mislead some readers into supposing that some people claim that Buddhism, in the sense of a collection of whatever, is a philosophy, which in fact nobody with a serious knowledge of the contents of that collection would claim. Peter jackson (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The line I removed said that Buddhism has "variously" been called philosophical. Variously implies apart from a religion. As I said, there was no citation for this statement at all. As for Nagarjuna, he was a Buddhist philosopher, but that does not make Buddhism a philosophy or "variously" called philosophical. Just as there are Christian and Hindu philosophers, but the Wikis for those do not right off declare it to be "philosophical". It all seems pretty clear to me, but if you feel strongly about it, you need to produce some sources that back the statement up. A source that actually says Buddhism is "variously" philosophical. I still don't follow a lot of the logic you are presenting. Your thing about Christianity is: You are saying that I am saying: A disagrees with C; B agrees with both A and C; therefor A can't agree with C. What I am really saying is that A agrees with C; B agrees with both A and C; therefor there is no disagreement between A, B and C. I think what Peter just said though, sums up the problem: the statement as it stood was misleading.--Modernyoo (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

MY, you lost me on the A,B,C stuff, but i strongly agree with you and Peter that any statement that somehow, even unintentionally or due to poor interpratation by the reader, suggests that Buddhism or certain forms of Buddhism can equally be viewed as a Religion or Philosophy is (potentially) misleading and has to be avoided. There are are philosophical elements for sure (trust me, i know that, i study in the Gelug tradition ;)), but that has to be true true for probably all religions to a varying degree. I bet there even are some Pure Land philosophers.

KAV, first, As a side note, i strongly have to disagree with this: "There are relatively small groups of people who have a basically scientifc view and also adhere to Chritianity." Perhaps this is true for some backwards counties of midwestern USA but certainly not for the majority of Christianity. I live in a predominantly (overwhelmingly so) christian country, germany, and the only people i ever met who take the bible literally and don't believe in evolution are the two amiable Jehova's witnesses that knock on my door from time to time.

Secondly, i agree with your point on the article being sort of a disambiguation page already. This is the very function of such an article that serves as introduction to a field that is as rich as Buddhism is in it's various forms. (Just take a look at physics or religion, it's basically the same there). I think the structure and the approach we agreed on after long discussions, and which resulted in the current state of the article serves that purpose very well and should basically stay as it is. We have concepts/beliefs, we have practices, we have history, we have schools/traditions and we have scripture. And in every part of the article we point out important differences between the most important forms/schools of Buddhism.

It is the nature of every word of every language to have different meanings for different people. Such is the case with "Buddhism". But it is not the primary function of an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a dictionary) to discuss those uses, much less every minority use of the word, but to introduce and describe (a) certain concept(s)/thing(s)/part(s) of our world and life. The title of the article/the word or even multitude of words associated with/referencing this/these concept(s)/thing(s)/part(s) of our world and life actually is of secondary importance; it is merely a means of finding the article. And the word "Buddhism" seems to do a pretty good job in referencing this "path of salvation" that appears and is followed in a variety of forms in "a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices that are largely based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha", don't you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

hey, there even is a guideline, i just discovered, covering part of what i said: WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Andi 3ö (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusing A, B, C....Anyhow, just as a sidenote: Pure Land does indeed have its philosophers. I think Ching-ying Hui Yuan could be used as an example.--Modernyoo (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

deleted reference in intro to stub "Modern Buddhism"

The line i deleted was: "Increasingly, other forms of Modern Buddhism are encroaching upon the traditional recognized mainstream branches." It is not sourced, doesn not reference a section in the article itself and instead it points to a newly created stub that imho either has to be completely rewritten or deleted. I guess what the author intended was a reference to westernized forms of Buddhism and New religuous movements. We already have a section "Buddhism today" in the article, where any such info could go before writing an entirely new article and there is also already an article Buddhism in the West. What do you think? Should Modern Buddhism be put up for deletion? Andi 3ö (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, especially as the sentence you deleted was rather value-laden in its choice of words. Although it would make the Buddhism article at least temporarily even longer, it seems that most of what's at Modern Buddhism could fit comfortably under "Buddhism today", or a subheading thereof. Of course, if that section continues to grow, it could be forked into a new and much more comprehensive article (i.e. covering what we now see in the "Buddhism today" section). Should it come to that, I also wonder if "modern" is too vague a term. /ninly (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Jemesouviens32 (talk contribs) on his talk page to join us in the discussion here. Hopefully he'll show up... Andi 3ö (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's already an article on Buddhist modernism, which is much the same thing. See also User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for some interesting citations on this topic. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I posted on Andis' talk page

Disagreed with your reversal of my link to Modern Buddhism as well as you suggestion that the stub be considered for deletion. Modern Buddhism encompasses beliefs not found in the original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism. Buddhism has become for many a laundry list of nice to adopt precepts while deliberately ignoring more unpalatable edicts. An example, being a vegetarian is not necessarily being a Buddhist although there exists a tangible association. Finally secterianism has also found its way into Buddhism and the reader should be informed that all labelled Buddhism is not necessarily what was originally intended...

Look forward to you comments. Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think the "modern Buddhism" thing should be taken out. Maybe a line could be injected into Buddhism today mentioning this aspect, but I dont think it warrants an entire section.--Modernyoo (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

JMS, your understanding of the situation is one that goes further than most scholars at least would want to go. Baumann may be an exception. 'original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism'? The only form of Buddhism that has any serious claim to being original is Theravada, & even that is approximate & disputed. The other major forms of Buddhism date from about a millennium after the Buddha, except for Nichiren, which dates from the 13th century. As Theravada is a minority of world Buddhism today, mainstream & original can't go together like that. Buddhism has been extremely varied for a very long time. Baumann is the only scholar I've come across who seems to say Modern Buddhism does anything more than add to that variety. 131.111.163.106 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, accidentally logged out. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a "fundamentalist" movement within modern Theravada that seeks to get to the earliest possible teachings, using the tools from western theory. In particular the abhidhamma is largely ignored, if not rejected. Mitsube (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for your academic perspective, If Baumann considers Modern Buddhism relevant then maybe the article could be expanded to examine the modern perspectives of Buddhism, I will add his book in the references to the article.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, all, which term would you think appropriate for the article on newly developing non-traditional forms of buddhism? Certainly not "Modern Buddhism", right? That would be equivalent to "Buddhism today" and would have to describe (all) present forms of Buddhism. So is "Buddhist Modernism" more appropriate? or is there another term that would fit even better? I think it's pretty clear that we need only one of those articles.

I think after we have agreed on the most appropriate name for that article, we should merge the two and link to it from within the "Buddhism today" section, where we should put one or two sentences expressing what you, JMS, were intending with your addition to the intro.Andi 3ö (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Th term "Modern Buddhism" is in use by some scholars, so can't be simply rejected. It is, though, as you say, ambiguous, so perhaps it should have a disambiguation page. "Buddhist modernism" is my guess for the commonest term. "Protestant Buddhism" is also used. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One can argue that all Buddhism practiced in the 20th and the 21th century is modern, not many Buddhist monks walking the streets in industrialized countries these days. That said, many people practice a form of Modern Buddhism often their own. Modern Buddhism has a place and should be retained. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's still traditional Buddhism in the East, particularly in rural areas. Peter jackson (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a reference Peter jackson don't know of any Buddhist clusters anywhere in the industrialized countries Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, we seem to agree that new forms of buddhism have to be covered somewhere. They are already covered in Buddhist modernism. Also "Buddhist modernism" seems 1) the most common 2) the most unambiguous choice of article name and 3) Buddhist modernism was there before Modern Buddhism. Therefore i have merged the two articles and redirected Modern Buddhism to Buddhist modernism and later, if there arises the need for an article fork of "Buddhism today" that may or may not be named "Modern Buddhism" we can make it a disambiguation page.

I hope everybody is ok with that, especially you, Jemesouviens? I guess you would like to keep the article the way it is... after all, you created it, but i think the approach i outlined here is the most reasonable one. We can certainly not keep Modern Buddhism and Buddhist modernism at the same time while covering the exact same thing. So it would be really nice of you to cooperate and not revert the merger. Maybe you find some time for improving the merged article. It definintely could need some additions and reorganization... :) Andi 3ö (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Andi you have not followed the trend in this discussion group, encourage you to reread the above and you will find that there is place for Modern Buddism as a stand alone both on an academic and on a discretionary basis not to mention the logic of Modern Buddhism per se. Additionally you should have consulted and gotten support from this page prior to your merge, understand you wish to have your way but please consider that opinions that are not your own must also be weighed carefully.

Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe you should reread again. Nobody here is in favor of your view.

Ninly: "it seems that most of what's at Modern Buddhism could fit comfortably under "Buddhism today", or a subheading thereof. Of course, if that section continues to grow, it could be forked into a new and much more comprehensive article (i.e. covering what we now see in the "Buddhism today" section). Should it come to that, I also wonder if "modern" is too vague a term. "

Modernyoo: "I also think the "modern Buddhism" thing should be taken out. Maybe a line could be injected into Buddhism today mentioning this aspect, but I dont think it warrants an entire section."

Peter says the article on Modern Buddhism is pretty much the same thing as Buddhist modernism (which i agree with and is pretty obvious btw). He also says he guesses that "Buddhist Modernism" is the most common term and thinks "Modern Buddhism" is ambiguous. Ninly (see abve) also "wonder[s] if "modern" is too vague a term.

You have not stated a single argument why "Modern Buddhism" should be favored over "Buddhist Modernism", much less anything that would justify two (!!) distinct articles. I will therefor revert your revert and urge you not to escalate this thing. Apart from some possible ego-related issues (no offense, please, i'm a buddhist after all ;) i really can't see any reason why you oppose the merge. All you stated here is some support for an article on modern forms of Buddhism deviating from traditional forms. You will have that article, it is just not named "Modern Budhism", because there existed an article before that describes the same thing and has a more appropriate name... that's all! (and on top of that your term "Modern Buddhism" even is preserved by linking to the other article). So please stop this silly game before it gets ugly.Andi 3ö (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You have ignored several published scholar who disagrees with your view, Baumann, who is referred to in the article and is, by the way, a part of this discussion, furthermore the article lists THREE other published references to Modern Buddhism maybe your apple fell to close to the tree with you stating that after all you are a Buddhist your reference to 'things' getting ugly' if you really are a Buddhist then you would respect other points of view how about this one on this same page, in fact, you seem to be everything modern and little or nothing Buddhist:

"Th term "Modern Buddhism" is in use by some scholars, so can't be simply rejected. It is, though, as you say, ambiguous, so perhaps it should have a disambiguation page. "Buddhist modernism" is my guess for the commonest term. "Protestant Buddhism" is also used. (Quote from Peter Jackson, above)

Andi 3ö, you seem emotionally involved with this issue maybe you should let someone else take over from here Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to forget and I quote "Thanks for your reply on my talk page! I'd very much appreciate though if you could (re-)state your reasoning on talk:Buddhism as i suggested. This is not a matter we can resolve just between the two of us. Thanks, Andi 3ö (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)" Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is not a matter we can resolve just between the two of us." Right, that's why we discussed it here at length. There was not a single voice in support of keeping the "Modern Buddhism" artcicle. Merging the two already is a compromise or would you have liked it better to simply delete your article? At some point we simply have to move on. We cannot discuss everything over and over and over. And btw. You still haven't even stated once why you prefer the title "Modern Buddhism" over "Buddhist Modernism". Andi 3ö (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the article in question for deletion (or redirecting). I encourage everyone to take part in the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism), provided constructive arguments and civil behaviour are used, as usual. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

oh my...User:Jemesouviens32 and i both got blocked for 24 hours after i reported his violation of the 3 revert rule. Didn't think i was doing anything wrong since i only implemented what seemed to be the consensus here (with the exception of User:Jemesouviens32 obviously) and always stayed very polite, but i did nevertheless participate in kind of an "edit-war", which i regret. Anyway, i got unblocked again...and i hope you all will participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism

Since i promised to an admin not to post on that page until tomorrow afternoon, when my block would have regularly expired, for the time being i'll post my little summary of what i think right now here:

There are at least two questions involved here:

1. Is there a need for an article on the subject? (Before, of course, we need to know what exactly is the subject)
2. If so, What should the name of the article be?

ad 1)

• From the little information contained in the article itself and some hints given by its creator in the discussion here, the article seems to be aimed at covering newly emerging, non-traditional/modernist/westernized forms of Buddhist beliefs and practices and Buddhist New Religious Movements.
• Although it can be argued that the newest developments are in fact nothing new and Buddhism already exists in such a variety of forms that the new ones merely add to that variety, there definitely seems to be a growing number of modernist approaches to being a Buddhist that would imho justify an article on the subject in principle. There also seems to be enough academic literature to properly source such an article.
• But: There are already two articles aiming in that direction: Buddhism in the West and Buddhist modernism

ad 2)

• Altough some scholars use the term "Modern Buddhism" it is a very vague term that can easily be understood as equivalent to what the section Buddhism#Buddhism_today tries to cover, describing the status quo of present day Buddhism and covering all modern developments, not only the ones deviating from more traditional forms.
• the term "Buddhist modernism", is much more precise in that regard as it's reference to Modernism provides more of an ideological qualification (which is what we want) rather than a temporal one. It also seems to be the most common and precise term used in academia.

Therefore, taking into account all the views expressed in the previous discussion here as well as the newly expressed views on this AfD page, my conclusion is:

• merge the content of the page with Buddhist modernism (already done by full copy/paste, needs improvement!)
• make Modern Buddhism a disambiguation page with two, possibly three links:
  • Buddhism#Buddhism _today
  • Buddhist modernism
  • and possibly Buddhism in the West
• someday in the future forking out the Buddhism Today section could become necessary at wich time we should switch the first link to the new page which may or may not be called "Modern Buddhism" then itself.

This is an even better solution than merely redirecting Modern Buddhism to Buddhist modernism, which is, of course, what i first did tried to do. What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

JMS asked for a reference for the survival of traditional Buddhism: Faure, Unmasking Buddhism, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, page 139. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: as a result of the deletion discussion i have now made Modern Buddhism a disambiguation page. Please feel free to make changes and discuss on Talk:Modern_Buddhism. I hope that User:Jemesouviens32 will finally quit his opposition to the redirect/disambiguation and accept the reasoning of the overwhelming majority. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see in the deletion discussion there are complaints that this article is too long. Peter jackson (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know that it's long, don't we? but too long, i don't know... maybe it is a necessity for an article on such a complex issue... Andi 3ö (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

JMS is still very stubborn and unwilling to accept the consensus. It would be highly appreciated if you all left a short comment in the dispute resolution (Request for Comments) i filed, so we can finally close this unnecessarily tedious discussion. BTW don't be mislead by JMS' interpretation of the result of the deletion discussion. Please read the statement by the closing admin, NW, here carefully. He says, "I closed the AfD as keep merely on procedural grounds" and "it seems that there is a definite consensus to have this article as a disambiguation page, not as a separate article." Andi 3ö (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Buddhism"

This pertains to the {{when?}} template I placed in the lede. The word "recent" is the problem here. Readers may want to know "how recent?" was it last century? last millennium? and so forth. I have been informed on my talk page that the word "Buddha" came into use (in English) in 1681, and "Buddhism" came later in 1801. I'm told that the sources for these dates are some dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster. So the editor who added in the "recent" claim has the option to either find and enter one of these sources as a reference citation, or create a brief new first section on the etymology of "Buddhism". As long as the article already is, it appears to need a brief etymology section at the beginning, after the lede.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire phrase should be removed. If it is in fact the case that "Buddhism" is a recent addition to the English language, that is a fact about the English language, and, as such, is not very relevant to the history of Buddhism. If this linguistic fact can be tied to a larger phenomenon more relevant to Buddhism in general, that could be worth mentioning, but it would need to be well sourced.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense that the phrase was removed. I still think the etymology of import, tho. There may be relevant questions, e.g., "If the term 'Buddha' came into use in 1681, what was the practice by millions of people of honoring the Buddha actually called up until 1801, when it came to be known as 'Buddhism'?", or in other words, "If this practice was seen by English-speaking peoples (and the 'West' in general) as a 'religion', then what was it called before it was called 'Buddhism'? Since many English-used words find their origins in other languages, one wonders if there is any like connection with the word and practice of Buddhism? What did its practitioners call it from about 600 BCE until 1801? What do the practitioners of Buddhism call it now? etc. Is any of this explained in other related Wikipedia articles?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing about that is that there are various languages involved: four active scriptural languages, a few more obsolete ones, and a large number of local languages in countries with significant Buddhist culture. Some of them may have multiple terms referring to what we would call "Buddhism"; for instance, in Pali one might say dhammavinaya ("the phenomenology and discipline") or buddhasasana ("the teaching of the Buddha") or perhaps other terms as well. So, it would add up to descriptions of a lot of different words. It could still be interesting to try, though.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I have a bit of time to answer Paine's question. The 1681 reference speaks of Buddha as a god worshipped in Ceylon. This was typical. Buddhists were just included in heathens/pagans/idolators. Scholars in the 18th century gradually developed the idea that various traditions formed a single entity, & by 1801 they'd reached the point of inventing a name for it.

As regards what Buddhists call it now, you can have a look down the left margin of the article page for equivalent articles in Wikipedia in other languages. If you can recognize the language for a traditional Buddhist culture then you've got 1 answer. Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I started at the bottom and caught 4 translatables so far – 3 Chinese and 1 Vietnamese – and they all Google into "Buddhism". Can we be sure that this is accurate? Is it a literal translation? or do some languages literally translate into several descriptive words to something like "the practice of following (or worshiping) Buddha"? I suppose these are not easy questions to have answered. At any rate, thank you very much, Peter, for your help and for the tip about the language list!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it surprise anyone if the words foreigners use for Buddhism translate as Buddhism? Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Google translations are likely to be idiomatic rather than literal, because of the method that Google uses for providing translations. I think Paine Ellsworth is wondering if some of these non-English terms have literal components that might give some insight into how Buddhism is discussed in other languages- relevant maybe to the various classification arguments that have gone on here previously. Google translates whole terms, and in some cases whole sentences, rather than individual components of words, so if, say, the term for Buddhism in some language was made up of roots or other sub-units meaning 'Buddha' and 'teaching', Google would translate that word as 'Buddhism' rather than giving the underlying literal translation- Google basically creates translations by looking versions of the same page in different languages on the web, and then using some clever machine learning algorithms to build a map from strings in one language to another. If you want the etymology or literal translations of the terms you're finding, you'll need to consult a language-specific dictionary, or break the words down into the component roots or characters and get translations for those individually. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the "literal" meaning of "Buddhism"? Peter jackson (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'ism' (a distinct if somewhat vague category in the thoughts of English speakers) associated with the Buddha? I wouldn't be surprised if some words for Buddhism are equally unenlightening in their broken-down form. But I think what Paine is wanting is the equivalent of typing 'pomme de terre' into a translator and being told 'the French word for Potato literally means 'apple of the earth'. --Clay Collier (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it exactly... even precisely, Clay. And such literal translations of Buddhism, if they indeed exist and when appropriately researched and well-sourced, belong in this article in an etymology section. Then what "Buddhism" is actually all about might be even better understood by readers.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You can also look at the 1st half of the word. After all, Buddha is a title, not a name, & has a meaning. So you could distinguish languages that translate it (Tibetan?) & those that merely transcribe it phonetically (Chinese?). Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Teachings of the Buddha

Due to the fact that it is the right time, I have created a page entitled Original Teachings of the Buddha. I have been meaning to create this page for a while and it is not long ago I remember raising a topic of discussion on here about "Buddhism and the original teachings". It has now also been mentioned again and since the Buddhism page is now getting very big I think that this topic can do with its own page, with a link from the main Buddhism article created once the article has become sufficiently well referenced and developed. The discussion on dhamma and discipline has also largely been about this issue and there is much that can be said in a separate article. The central benefit will be so that a clear diffferentiation can be made between the vague term 'Buddhism' which encompasses various tradtions, scriptures, practices and beliefs, and what we can ascertain to have been the original teachings that gave rise to all of these tradtitions. Of course that is the subject of academic enquiry and discussion, but I know there are many good sources posted on this topic already so hopefully the page can be developed into a good resource.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe you can revert your statement about "what the Buddha called his teachings" on the main Buddhism page. It is not well sourced and clearly controversial. So far, no one has actually agreed that it should be there as it stands. You can discuss this on your new article, and let the Buddhism article be as it was.--Modernyoo (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an article called Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga which gives the views of some sholars. I'll also point out here, as this is where we're discussing the matter at present, that there's no such thing as the Gandhari Canon, & there's no surviving Sanskrit Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article you cited is very interesting. Parts of the Sanskrit canon have survivied only in fragments. The Gandhari scrolls that have recently been discovered are thought to contain fragments of what was at one time a substantial Gandhari Canon. In fact the Gandhar and Sanskrit Canons are thought to have been very influential in being used as foundation texts for translation into Chinese, such as the Agamas.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, but only bits of them. There are no such canons at the present day. Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: there was never "the" Sanskrit canon (ie of the Agamas). The parent sects of the 18 Schools, at the very least, had their own recensions. Thus, from ms evidence etc, there is known to have been a Sarvastivadin canon, a Mula-Sarvastivadin canon, a Mahasanghika canon (originally in a Pakrit, but later Sanskritized), a Sammitiya canon, and probably a few other other sub-sect variant canons. This problem is mentioned by Vasubandhu in his auto-commentary of the Abhidarma-kosha where the non-acceptance of common canon of authoritative sutras is discussed, for example, in the case of the section on the Intermediate State.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Intermediate state

The new version is very biased. From "The Intermediate-State Dispute in Buddhism", Alex Wayman, in Buddhist Studies in Honour of I. B. Horner, ed L. Cousins, A. Kunst, & K. R. Norman, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (Nether;ands)/Boston (Massachusetts), 1974, pages 227-39:

page 227: "The Theravāda rejection of the intermediate state is set forth in Points of Controversy" [The Kathavatthu, 1 of the books of the Abhidhammapitaka of the Pali Canon]

page 236: "My investigation indicates that ... the old Buddhist scriptures ... present the rival theories of "no intermediate state" and "intermediate state". ... In the Buddhist sects the difference is partly temperamental, to wit, those rejecting the state preferring to have a rational control of Buddhist doctrine; and those accepting the state willing to allow mytholo[page 237]gical exuberance. Once one accepts the intermediate state, there is no end to the elaboration, as evidenced in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

This research also leads to the curious conclusion that the same ancient Buddhist scriptures can lead to opposing doctrines with partisans equally divided among the old Buddhist sects."

Peter jackson (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

He is wrong, see Harvey The Selfless Mind on this issue. The argument in the Kathavatthu is specious. The Sarvastivadins also claimed that their "sarvam asti" doctrine followed from the sutta material but that is also false. Mitsube (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not for anything, Peter, but it seems that the implication is that the Buddha should be blamed for the human frailty of polarization, taking sides, arguing and perhaps bloody battling for their "cause". Isn't this like blaming God for Catholics vs. Protestants? or even for Muslims vs. Christians? It seems that it doesn't matter what some great(?) man writes, people just have to argue, and perhaps kill each other, over it.

“ The Bardo Thödol [Tibetan Book of the Dead] began by being a 'closed' book, and so it has remained, no matter what kind of commentaries may be written upon it. For it is a book that will only open itself to spiritual understanding, and this is a capacity which no man is born with, but which he can only acquire through special training and special experience. It is good that such to all intents and purposes 'useless' books exist. They are meant for those 'queer folk' who no longer set much store by the uses, aims, and meaning of present-day 'civilisation'. ”

— Carl Jung

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube, it's not Wikipedia policy to decide who's right & wrong. Nor am I clear what you think Wayman is wrong about, out of the things I quoted. The main issue is this. Bodhi & others say there are passages in the early texts that point 1 way. Wayman agrees with this, but says there are other passages that point the other way. Do Bodhi, Harvey et al disagree with this? Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Mitsube (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How about supplying citations of exactly what they say? Assuming you're right, that gives 2 views on 1 question & so far 1 view on the other. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)