![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
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:
Others can post their objections here. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's get a few facts straight.
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)
This is the structure many of us agreed upon:
Peter later in the discussionn renamed the sections but basically kept the poroposed structure:
Teachings, ie more theoretical, abstract
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.
What do you think? Andi 3ö ( talk) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thus is my thinking for this. thanks. Greetings, Sacca 16:16, 13 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:
Andi 3ö ( talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Some suggestions:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
its a set of spiritual practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
213, I said "
" You said "
" Which of my statements do you disagree with? I've numbered them for convenience of reply. You then said "
" 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 consumption Ishmaelblues ( 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)
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
over. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 20:32, 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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 -
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 -
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
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
[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)
[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)
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)
[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)
[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)
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).
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)
09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Now please explain why you have undone all these points. Mitsube ( talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:04, 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)
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)
. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Jemesouviens32 ( talk) 12:42, 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)
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:
ad 1)
ad 2)
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:
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)
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)
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.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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'. | ” |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
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:
Others can post their objections here. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's get a few facts straight.
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)
This is the structure many of us agreed upon:
Peter later in the discussionn renamed the sections but basically kept the poroposed structure:
Teachings, ie more theoretical, abstract
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.
What do you think? Andi 3ö ( talk) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thus is my thinking for this. thanks. Greetings, Sacca 16:16, 13 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:
Andi 3ö ( talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Some suggestions:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
its a set of spiritual practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
213, I said "
" You said "
" Which of my statements do you disagree with? I've numbered them for convenience of reply. You then said "
" 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 consumption Ishmaelblues ( 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)
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
over. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 20:32, 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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 -
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 -
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
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)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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)
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)
[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)
[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)
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)
[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)
[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)
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).
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)
09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Now please explain why you have undone all these points. Mitsube ( talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:04, 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)
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)
. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Jemesouviens32 ( talk) 12:42, 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)
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:
ad 1)
ad 2)
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:
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)
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)
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.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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'. | ” |