![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
the discussion page uses 218 KB, it should be archived. — Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this edit. Although it seems not totally unreasonable to insert some qualification of who Siddharta Gautama was, i'm not sure if this really belongs here. Also qualifying him as "Indian" bears some problems (discussed that a couple of times before). Also i looked at the contributions of this IP: the editor seems to be primarily focused on inserting the word "india" into various articles and some of his other edits create the impression that he's generally editing from an indian nationalistic WP:POV. Can somebody else maybe take a look at his contributions as well? Andi 3ö ( talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did "path of salvation" come from, right up there in the lede? Salvation seems to me a fairly solidly Christian concept. Buddhism is all about suffering, the understanding of, letting go of, avoidance of, compassion for, conquest of, maybe 'deliverance from'. Surely "path of salvation" is at best some well-meaning, 19th-century missionary's mistranslation of the Pali or something? -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that 'salvation', whilst etymologically decent in meaning, is too much accociated with a skewed Christian view. 'Deliverance' or liberation may be better and more descriptive.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with PJ, I think that the opening section as it is is reasonably good now. It could be better sourced no doubt, but far from reflecting the personal opinions of editors, it reflects scholarly, academic and traditional opinion acurately. Everything in the opener can be referenced and should be in due course as they are all claims made quite often amongst scholars. I wonder if PJ could point out any part of the lead that he feels is not representative of scholarly or traditional views? As far as I can see, the lead is now an accurate description of how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted by the tradition itself as well as in popular understanding of it as a religion.
As for the term 'spiritual', again it is one that has been problematic for a while now, yet a better single descriptive term seems beyond the capacity of the English language. Perhaps 'practical philosophy' may be a better term, yet that too has its issues. As such, 'spiritual philosophy' however inadaquate a term may still be a reasonable option.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Conze reference is actually not appropriate or correct - I do think that using the term 'path of salvation' is framing things from a Christian point of view that is not fitting. I have replaced it with a reference from Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, where he specifically mentions that the Buddha's teachings, like the Upanishads, teach of attaining to the true natire of reality via 'liberation through insight'.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
The new source clearly states that the Buddha's path is one of liberation through insight, also a view that the Upanishads taught. The use of the term 'path' is perfectly correct. The phrase says, 'Buddhism as traditionally conceived is a path', and it is indeed traditionally presented as 'the eightfold path'. Therfore both elements of the sentence are accurate, and not 'made up'. In actual fact they are the traditional definitions. The last part about attaining to the ultimate nature of reality can also be referenced. There are no doubt other sources that support the phrase, but the current source also states: "Only the indefinable "Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality." Also "Nirvana is a reality which differs entirely from all dharmas as manifested in Samsara"
Insight into 'the ultimate nature of reality', is an appropriate way of describing this. It is also a term that I have come across many times before as used by scholars, the entire lead could do with more sources but at least the beginning section is accurate and has been sourced.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually if that is your perspectivbe it is a mistaken one. Wikipedia is about finding reliable sources that support reliable views. It is not about simply generalizing. There are many sources that speak of Buddhism as religion, and also many that do not. Hence our purpose should be to reflect the different sides of the main views fairly. To only speak of Buddhism as religion would not be fair to the alternate ways it has been viewed, or the many scholars and practitioners who do not regard it as such.
I also must say that I fail to see your sense of logic regarding Buddhism traditionally being presented as a path. In Theravada it is very much presented as a path. This is becasue reference to the Pali literaure comprises a huge aspect of Theravada, and the eightfold path is very much a well known core aspect of that teaching. I can't think of any Theravidin who wouldn't be familiar with the conception of Buddhism as path. Again, it may be less emphasisied in Mahayana but it is still there. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't contradict the claim that Buddhism is traditionally considered a path, even if this was mainly in the Theravada tradition. Again, do you have any useful suggestions that you feel are prefereable?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Within Theravada particularly, Buddhism is always conceived of as a path. The eightfold path is central to the Pali Canon. The highly influential Visudimagga treatise that has been used as a main reference for 1500 years in Theravada, is also translated as "the path of purification". The earlier Vimmutimagga is translated as 'the path of freedom". It is quite clear that path, in one form or another is central to Theravda conceptions of Buddhism. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. As for Mahayana, remember that the traditional Canons (i.e. the sutta's) are all present in Mahayana as well, The Chinese Agama's and the Tibetan translations of Sanskrit Canons are all present within Mahayana, and although they took a back seat to the later doctrines, they are still very much a part of the tradition. The path description would be known to Mahayana practitioners as well.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of 'path', there is ample evidence that has been refered to regarding the conception of path. I can only advise that you re-read the section above, and think about it more. The path conception is present in all schools of Buddhism.
As to your other points, an example of one more scholar is the one I have referenced already, Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, who says at the beginning of the article that "Vedanta and Buddhism are the highlights of Indian philosophical thought." There are many others, especially those who do nto regard it as religion according to how that term is understood commonly in the west. As to your comments about 'practitioners', that is very much a generalization and simplification. "Practitioners aren't experts on concepts such as religion & philosophy" - how do you know? Have you met and worked with all the practitioners, including thopse who practice meditation as a psychological exercise, and questioned them about their credentials? So because someone calls themself a 'scholar', that is enough to get your unchalleneged confidence in them, and make sweeping unsubstantiated comments about practitioners. This type of generalized categorical thinking is most naiive.
And do you really think scholars are not frequently biased? They are coming from a westernized framing of religion for the most part, and carry their preconceptions with them. Sociologists also speak of those who like to categorize groups of people in broad terms, such as calling them 'religious', 'fundamentalist' etc , as this gives them a feeling of separateness and superiority. Maybe food for thought?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Glasenapp obviously regards it as a philosophy, as evidenced by his quote saying that "Buddhism is the highlight of Indian philosophical thought", and also as a non-theistic religion, which would fit the defintion of 'religion, though not as this is usually considered in the West'. This is my view, that it must be referred to as both religion and philosophy, as this is undoubdetdly how it has been characterized. To only refer to it as 'religion' would be profoundly misleading, especilly since this is not 'relgion' in the usual western sense. Similarly to only mention the practical phiolosophy, would not include the religous aspects that have developed such as going to temples and ritual etc. To mention both is therefore the only acceptable conclusion.
However, only comparing it with 'religion' in a broad sense is again misleading. The vast majority of people regard chsristianity and Islam as faith based religions. If you asked the average person, or the average scholar I would say 99.99% woould respond that these are religions. Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith, and it is well known to both academics and laypeople that it is 'not religion in the usual sense', or it is usually characterized as a 'way of life', or a 'philosophy'. Labelling it is clearly no easy task. The broad scope and overlap of Indic religions and philosophies makes simplistic categorization that may apply to faith based Western religions redundant.
Rememeber that it is on the content of what the individual is saying, not on their 'status', that we judge the validity of thir argument, based on what we know from studying a wide variety of different sources. To restrict yourself to the views of a small group of scholars from a small area of the globe viewing things from a limited western scholarly perspective is not representative of the full picture, and will not result in a balanced view. For example, a large number of these western scholars are practicing Christians. So by your argument, their views should be disregarded, as they are biased, and viewing things from within a framework which renders their opinions partial and invalid on the topic of religion and philosophy. Who then is left for you to be citing as giving non biased opinion?
Another scholar who characterized Buddhism as philosophy and religion is Ninian Smart, who included Buddhism in the beginning section of his book 'World Philosophies', under 'South Asian philosophies', he calls Buddhism "one of the two main streams of tradtional Indian philosophy".Of course, he also includes it in his book on 'world religions. He states that "Buddhism is one of the great religions (and philosophies) of India". Clearly this is territory that shcolars have gone over extensively, and reached the conclusion that the best way of describing it is as both philosophy and religion.
Christianity by contrast is never characterized as being one of the wests 'great philosophies'. It is always regarded as religion. It is safe to say that your view that Buddhism is generally seen as purely a 'religion' is entirely POV and unsubstantiated, and clearly goes against the traditional, scholarly and practicing views all of which regard it as both 'religion' and philosophy, or containing elements of both.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." Peter jackson ( talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith": KV above.
"... traditional Buddhism, where faith is preliminary to practice.": Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 259.
"Most traditions of Buddhism consider saddhā, 'trustful confidence' or faith, as a quality which must be balanced by wisdom, and as a preparation for, or accompaniment of, meditation.": Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 170.
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"... Buddhists ... usually consider themselves to be followers of a religion ..." (Chryssides & Greaves, Study of Religion, Continuum Press, 2007, page 13)
"Essentially all religions have adherents who claim that their religion is not a religion. ... [examples, including Buddhism] ... For the sociologist and for the statistician (as for most people [this also stated for Buddhism in Silk, paper in Numen, volume 49, 2002, reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403]), these are all religions. Claims about not being a religion are pithy slogans contrived by people inventing a new definition of "religion" for the express purpose of emphasizing the benefits of their particular religious preference."(
[1]).
Elsewhere on the same website it gives lists of religions "described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes", "the religions most likely to be covered in world religion books" ( [2]) & "most described used [sic] in contemporary comparative religion literature" ( [3]). Buddhism is in these lists
It must obviously be true that most people consider Buddhism as a religion, because that's what most dictionaries, encyclopaedias & books about religions say. How could they think otherwise? Peter jackson ( talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
More on faith:
"The Pure Land school of Mahayana is the most widely practised today." (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 86)
"What proved to be the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia, Pure-Land ..." (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2009, page 208)
"Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206)
If you'd looked over my user page as I suggested, I wouldn't have to keep cluttering up this page with these citiations.
The basic problem is this. Buddhism is extremely varied (the 2nd most diverse of the "classical" religions: [4]). But virtually all Western Buddhists, & a lot in the East, belong to a modernist form of Buddhism, & many of them are under the impression that Buddhist modernism is Buddhism. See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for a whole pile of citations on this point. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(They think their part of the elephant is the elephant.) Peter jackson ( talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Again PJ, there is a clear flaw in your argument, which is that there are and have been many scholars who categorize Buddhism as both religion and philosophy. You need to come up with a better argument than 'some of them are dead'. So what? Wikipedia policy is to take scholarly opinion as credible sources - this means recent and relevant shcolarly opinion. Surely if there were a leading scholar tragically killed in a car accident today, it would not render all his recent work irrelevent? I do not know quote where you have picked up that bizaare idea but I suggest you abandon it as it is a very strange and untendable concept. When academics do die, their work is not suddenly abandoned and considered irrelevant! It is published and presented in academic circles and still considered just as relevant. This occurs in all fields. Ninian Smart died a couple of years ago. Him dying is no good reason to hold against his excellent scholarly contribution.
I have and continue to argue that within the scope of Indian thought, concepts of 'religion' and philosophy are very much intertwined, and to mention one without the other simply does not make sense. The comparisons with homogenous, entirely (as opposed to partially, in some branches) faith based religions such as Christinity is again untenable. Simply put, unless you can find scholarly sources that speak of Christianity as 'one of the great philosophies of the West' and compare it with known Western philosophical schools, your attempt to class 'Buddhism' as simply 'religion' in the same sense as Christianity, with " a few within the religion who consider it not a religion", is entirely false, unsubstantiated and baseless. It relys on seemingly one quote by a single sociologist attempting to overgeneralize, and in so doing going against a large body of academic and scholarly opinion, not just recent but over the centuries. In contrast, 'Buddhism' is frequently mentioned as being "one of the great philosophies of the East", is frequently considered alongside Eastern and Western philosophical schools, and is often classed as both philosophy and religon in scholarly work.
Yet another scholar who classes Buddhism as philosophy as well as religion - M. Siderits, who states in his book 'Buddhism as Philosophy' (2007), that it is a study of "Buddhism as philosophy, and as a form of philosophy". He also makes the clear point that many scholars before have made and that I am asserting, that this is not to say that it is not also a 'religion' of some form. He says "To say that would be to assume that it must be one or the other". That pretty much sums up what this argument comes down to. Within the Indian tradition, western concepts such as 'religion' and 'philosophy' are often interlinked and inseparable, Buddhism being the prime example.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Buddist live lifes of sacrfice. Always looking for ways to give in the God. They have lots of religious holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.92.107 ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A statement has been tagged as dubious. Here's the exact wording of the source cited.
"With very few exceptions, Chinese Buddhists accept that the chances of attaining enlightenment so complete that it guarantees one an exit from saṃsāra through the unaided strength of one's own practice are very slim, and that one must have Pure Land practice as a kind of insurance policy, regardless of what other practices or scholarship one does. Thus, Pure Land thought and practice pervades [sic] all of Chinese Buddhism as the guarantor of the path one treads toward Buddhahood." (Damien Keown & Charles S. Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 611)
The same or very similar wording appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, presumably written by the same contributor.
In support of this, here's some material from a field anthropologist who studied Chinese Buddhism 1st hand.
"Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ... (Holmes Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism, Harvard University Press, 1967, pages 89f)
"Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Holmes Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard University Press, 1972, page 288)
The term 'practical philosophy' seems far more appropriate than 'spiritual', and the term no doubt has some merit to being used. I think that even this does not do justice by fully describing the Buddha's teachings, but it is at least more fitting that using the term spiritual. Practical philosophy encompasses the elements of putting ethics into action, living with wisdom and reflecting on daily life, all elements anyone familiar with Buddhism will recognise.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the use of the term 'spiritual philosophy' is preffereable? And you are again wrong as this is not personal opinion, it can be referenced. I must also say that you seem fond of criticizing but seemingly quite lacking in ability to provide suitable alternatives or suggestions. So I repeat, what are you suggesting as a more appropriate alternative, and why?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"it would be inadequate to define Buddhism simply as a philosophy, a way of life, or a code of ethics. It includes all of these things" (Keown, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1996, p 14)
"... we should not continue to keep Buddhism in that category of being just a philosophy and somehow above these more rough-and-tumble forms of religious life." (Lewis & Lewis, Sacred Schisms, Cambridge University Press, 2009, page 82)
I don't know of any present-day scholar who'd call Buddhism a philosophy. The late Professor Conze did so in the book cited above, but even he qualified this by saying (page 15) that it's not in the usual Western sense, i.e. presumably the sense in which most readers of this article would understand it.
What am I suggesting? Some time ago those of us around at the time had some such wording as "Buddhism is usually considered a religion". What's wrong with that, or something similar? It's obviously true, & even cited, & it clearly implies there are other views. The details could be discussed in a section called What is Buddhism? or The nature of Buddhism, which nobody got round to writing. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think removing the sentence entirely is justified. It is of value to mention what the tradition presents itself as, not merely what scholars think it is. We are not saying that "Buddhism is a path of liberation through insight", we are saying that from the point of view of the tradition itself, this is what it is regarded as being. And I do think that putting this definition first is warranted. It defines what Buddhism means to 'Buddhists' / practitioners, which is ultimately what comprises this thing called Buddhism.
Secondly, the phrase is not pov or unqualified. It is in the cited source on 'Vedanta and Buddhism'. I mentioned it already but I can mention it again, the specific characterization of it as 'liberation through insight' is mentioned, in the section of the artice labelled (1). Furthermore, I mentioned in the above section that 'ultimate nature of reality' is a way of decribing what the insight practice is aimed at. The same source by Glasenapp mentiones why this, saying that "Only the indefinable Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality."
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Let us be clear about the sociological argument that PJ is trying to make based on his one quote froma sociologist that "all religions contain people who deny their a religion". Whilst the Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition have produced philosophical thinkers as one would expect, this is in stark contrast to the situation with Buddhism, where 'Buddhism' itself has been decribed by scholars as a philosophy, as well as producing further philosophical thinkers.
Religions such as Christinaity may well contain the odd individual who prefers to think of his religion as being something other than religion, such as 'a relationship with God'. This again contrasts with Buddhism, where scholars outside of Buddhism call it a philosophy. So we are talking about two different phenomena. Ninian Smart, who was one of the worlds leading experts on comparative religion and philosophy is quite clear when he states (p12, World Philosophies , N. Smart) that Buddhism is "one of the two main streams of traditional Indian philosophy". The attempted sociological argument therfore does not hold up at all, unless you want to make the claim that "scholars also like to deny that religions are religions". The Glasenapp quote is also unequivocal, calling Buddhism one of "the highlights of Indian philosophical thought". Clearly both of these leading scholars thought of 'Buddhism' as encompassing both religion and philosophy, and that it would be absurd to mention one without mentioning the other.
The phrase about 'liberation through insight' still has a place, perhaps as description of "Buddhism as originally conceived". The rest of the wording as it stands is alright, although the use of the word 'spiritual' is still problematic.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Among the main things I have disliked about defining Buddhism as philosophy in the lead is the way(s) it has been worded, which struck me as unencyclopedic. Assuming we keep it, I've taken a stab at rewording it; please comment or contribute. In particular I thought the conjunction, "~ is a religion or spiritual philosophy ..." was awkward and ambiguous. /ninly ( talk) 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See also #Buddhism as Philosophy. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
People who follow Buddhism believe in many things. They believe in reincarnation, karma, dharma, and ahimsa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon9057 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite the belief of Buddhists that Buddha's comprehension of dhamma (doctrinal truth) is perfect, they do not rely on him in the way that Christians often rely on their religious leaders. There is a rejection of anything except the authority of experience and experimentalism (not to be confused with empiricism). Buddha urged his disciples to come and see (ehi passika) for themselves in a way that makes personal realization (not to be confused with empirical verification) paramount. Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins, like blind men touching various parts of an elephant and taking reality to be limited to partial perception." [10] (188)
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Some readers ... may have heard that ... Ch'an ... died out long ago in China, choked by superstition and decay. After an inspection tour of Chinese Buddhism in 1934, Dr. Suzuki wrote: "Japanese Zen travellers ... [ellipsis in Welch] deplore the fact that there is no more Zen in China." [source cited] The facts are otherwise. At a small number of monasteries right up to the year 1949, hundreds of monks continued the strict practice of collective meditation under common masters. Ch'an Buddhism in China was destroyed, while still alive, by the land reforms of 1950. Meditation takes time, and time takes unearned income." (Holmes Welch, The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950, Harvard University Press, 1967, page 47)
"Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ..." (Welch, 1967, pages 89f)
"... as time passed, all schools came to be regarded as mutually complementary. ... in the past century the attitude of the sangha has been that the doctrines of every school are equally valid." (Welch, 1967, page 395)
"Because a monk could have several different kinds of masters, he could belong in different ways to different sects. Usually when he entered the sangha, the master who shaved his head was of the Lin-chi lineage, since it was by far the most common. ... The disciple may not have known who Lin-chi was, much less what he taught, but if someone asked him what sect he belonged to, he would reply "Lin-chi." Or if, for example, some years after his head was shaved, he had received the dharma from a mater of the Ts'ao-tung lineage, then he might alternatively say that his sect was Ts'ao-tung ... if someone asked [a monk] "in respect to religious practice, what sect are you?"—the chances are that he would answer "Pure Land" or perhaps "Pure Land and Ch'an combined."" (Welch, 1967, page 396)
"Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard, 1972, page 288)
This backs up the 2 tertiary sources saying PL is the most popular, bearing in mind that most estimates of the numbers of Chinese Buddhists are around 100,000,000, i.e. near 1/3 of the world Buddhist population. I can also cite sources for plenty in Vietnam & Japan.
There's a phenomenon I call the afterthought mentality. You get it in a lot of books on Christianity in English. They say things along the lines of "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." Catholics are treated as an afterthought, even though they're the majority on most estimates. How far can you take this? "Buddhists believe in following the path of the bodhisattva. Oh but actually Theravadins don't." I think most people would say that's biased. Yet Theravadins number around 1/3 of world Buddhist population, similar to Pure Land. So it would also be biased to treat PL as an afterthought. Going further, though, it seems reasonable to say most Budddhists are led by monks, with Japan the only major exception. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Does a practice become more "true" depending on how many adhere to it?" WP isn't about truth. This article is supposed to be about "Buddhism", i.e. a major religion followed by 350,000,000 people. In other words, what large numbers of people believe & practise is precisely what it is supposed to be about.
Ninly, "On the other hand, I do agree that the global prominence of Pure Land believers should not be allowed overly to color the presentation of Buddhist cosmology and tradition as a whole. While it is a significant part of Buddhism, that doesn't mean it is Buddhism."
If you look back, you'l see that what I was talking about was balance. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Few notions elicit more debate and vague associations than the family of concepts associated with the word faith and its various approximate synonyms (e.g., belief). Needless to say the English faith has no exact equivalent in the languages of Asia. The word means many things in English and in other Western languages as well, and the proximate Asian equivalents also have many meanings in their Asian contexts. This is not to say that faith cannot be used as a descriptive or analytical tool to understand Buddhist ideas and practices yet one must be aware of the cultural and polemic environments that shaped Buddhist notions of faith."
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
At the end comes a section headed Summary Interpretation, which I again give in full:
"Ideals of nondiscursive apprehension straddle the dividing line between faith and knowledge, humble surrender and recognition of a state of liberation that cannot be acquired by the individual's will. In some ways the tradition seems to assume that one has faith in that which one respects and trusts, but also in that which one wishes to attain, and that which one imagines oneself to be or able to become."
I can post more later if it helps. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had another look at the link given by Viriditas, & it appears to be mainly about a book by Paul Williams that I haven't come across. We don't seem to have it here, so I can't check what it says (yet), but here are a few comments.
"You are essentially arguing that a 12th-century interpretation of Buddhism by Shinran is more important than those of the Buddha himself, which is a strange thing to say." What an absurd thing to say. It's completely wrong in several ways:
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. While I was archiving the Buddhism talk page, I took a minute to look at your contributions. You've made somewhere around ~4,724 edits, 39% of which have been made to the talk page. From 2006-2009, you've focused mostly on Buddhist topics, however I do not see any GA or FA work. Keep in mind, the talk page is used to improve articles, not to debate the merits of Buddhism or scholarship on the issue. I don't know if you remember Skipsievert ( talk · contribs) or not, but he held up the improvement of Sustainability and related topics for years. What is interesting, is the pattern of his contributions, which look very much like your own. Now, I have been reading your discussions in the archives, and there does appear to be a pattern of presenting a revisionist view of Buddhism that is not reflected by most sources on the topic. Most disturbingly, is your repeated claim throughout the archives that it is "not possible to define what, if anything, Buddhists as a whole believe in, as that too is a matter of dispute." Either you keep saying this to prevent people from working on and improving the article, or you have a misunderstanding about Buddhism and how Wikipedia works. It is most certainly possible to define what Buddhists believe in, using the essential teachings of the Buddha, which all sects have in common. This is not in dispute, and Buddhist organizations agree on this one fact. You could go a long way to alleviating my concern by choosing one single Buddhist topic and bringing it to GA or FA class. This would show that you are really here to improve articles, and not to hold up or prevent their improvement. What do you think? Viriditas ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Buddha urged his disciples to come and see (ehi passika) for themselves in a way that makes personal realization (not to be confused with empirical verification) paramount. Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins, like blind men touching various parts of an elephant and taking reality to be limited to partial perception. [13]
It seems clear to me that there cannot possibly, in the light of all this evidence, be a scholarly consensus on some common core. Therefore it would violate NPOV for the article to treat some such theory as fact. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, to respond to what you said above.
"That's fine, but Peter has a bad habit of posting long screeds in response to direct questions, and never answers the question. Furthermore, he makes claims that are either false, somewhat false, or can be misconstrued as true. I don't know if he is doing this on purpose or by accident, but its gotten to the point where something needs to be done. As only one of many examples, for several years now, Peter has been making this claim about the failure to find a "common core" of Buddhism."
See also #More on common core. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"In response to this, Peter writes above, "The organization that produced this isn't mentioned in (four examples of encyclopedias) as far as I can tell. It's obviously a small & unimportant organization." What is so interesting about Peter's response is what he omits from his list of encyclopedias. The organization is in fact, mentioned in the entry for Buddhism in the Encyclopædia Britannica online"
[See also #Common core. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]]
I don't see how you could possibly cover this in the lead in any detail. You could only say something like "Buddhism is the second most diverse of the "classical" religions, [14] and scholars are not agreed on what, if anything, is the common core of its different forms." You could then have a section discussing it in detail. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Burnouf's discovery of the connecting thread among these Buddhist traditions was such a major intellectual feat that it has continued to shape perceptions about those traditions: that despite their superficial differences, they share a common core. Thus the West has perceived Buddhism as a single religion, much like Christianity or Islam, with the differences among its various permutations analogous to the differences among Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. For more than a century after Burnouf's discovery, Buddhologists-- scholars of the Buddhist tradition- tried to delineate the essential characteristics of that common core, but the data refused to fit into any clearly discernible mold." (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, 2004, page xx; more context can be found at User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal).
"... some historians of Buddhism will likely find unsatisfactory the distinction presented in the introduction between the "vast array of Buddhist religious cultural forms" and its "profound spiritual quest" or "the more fundamental depths of Buddhist experiences" (p. 1). Such language, although widespread, perpetuates the "core philosophy and practice"–versus–"culturally accumulated baggage" picture of Buddhism constructed by early western Buddhologists, implicitly suggesting that scholars can extract this original tradition from later cultural accretions ..." (McMahan, review in Philosophy East and West, volume 54 (2004), pages 269f; context from the book being reviewed can be found at
User:Peter jackson/Mitchell).
"There is probably no clear-cut, unchanging core to Buddhist doctrine. Buddhism as a religion in history has no essence ..." (Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 1st ed, Routledge, 1990, pages 275f; 2nd ed, 2008, page 266, looks about the same; more context can be found in
/Archive 6#Essentialism).
"... continuities ... within the tradition. These continuities cannot be found in any static essence or core threading its way through all of Buddhist history." (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, volume 2, page 336)
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"Now, note the role given to Pure Land in the context of Mahayana: "The Mahayana tradition encompasses a great many different schools, including the Madhyamika; the Yogacara or Vijnanavada (Vijnaptamatrata); the Avatamsaka school, which recognized the special importance of the Avatamsaka Sutra; a number of different schools that recognized the special authority of the Saddharmapundarika (Lotus Sutra); various Pure Land devotional schools; and several Dhyana (“Meditation”) schools."
"For example, you cite a source that claims that "Buddhism is the oldest of the great world religions", which of course, isn't true."
"Buddhism is the oldest of the great 'world religions'. Like both the others – Christianity and Islam – it not only addresses itself to all mankind but has found adherents in almost all parts of the world."
"You also cite a source that says "there have been about 10,000,000 Buddhist martyrs, and about 1,811,000 Christians have been martyred by (Mahayana) Buddhists." When asked what this means and for details on the subject, you throw your hands up in the air. So there are just two instances of bad sources for disputed statements you've added to your user page."
Peter jackson ( talk) 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
citation needed Peter jackson ( talk) 11:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We're currently at 142,296 bytes, and the article is not only unmanageable, but unreadable. Should the article start with "Life of the Buddha" or some other topic? The prose can be tightened up a bit; I see a lot of needless words. Is the current date of birth correct? I read in another source that it had been adjusted by several centuries, so it should probably read as a range rather than as an exact date. Viriditas ( talk) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
as one of the leading religions of the world.But in India the Vedic Hindus retaliated.According to Ambedkar key Buddhist monks were killed so that further propagation of Buddhism should be weakened.All the Buddhist viharas were occupied and Hindu idols installed in them and Caste system brought back.The gods and customs of sudras, Dalits and Adivasis were thus mAarginalized and the cultural integrity of these groups attacked.Buddha never prescribed pure vegetarianism to his followers. The Budhist Sangha people were eating meat, beef, pork, vegetables etc.Udupi’s Pejawara Swamy even now insists that Budhism is anti-Hindu.(Deccan Herald, Nov.3, 2008).-- Nrahamthulla ( talk) 10:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The last date in archive 17 is 7 June 2008. The first date in archive 18 is 15 May 2009. There seems to be a massive gap. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to discuss changing the lead image to reflect its adherents, such as a monk, Sangha, or something people-oriented. Viriditas ( talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In any wikipedia article, basic info should be in the first few parapgrahs. And nowhere in the beggining does it say that Buddhism comes from India or was founded in Ancient India or rose from the Indian sub-continent. Nothing. I have mentineod this before, and sometimes someone puts something like that, and other times its not thier. I mean do some of you people have something against India then? What is going on here. I mean when you go to the Buddha's page it has the info about India then I think. So why not here in the beggining of the article then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Where the Buddha was born or lived is really not hugely significant to the issue of 'Buddhism', nor to the teaching. We know that he lived in north east of the Indian subcontinent, and this can be mentioned but it is not of any real importance in having in the lead. The topic necessarily emerges when talking of the teaching since the Buddha's teaching is also partly a reaction to brahmanism and a rejection of the validity of the Veda's and caste system. Also, 'India' as a whole did not exist at that time as a unified entity, and furthermore soures indicate the Buddha actually was born in Nepal, not modern India. Hence I am editing to acknowledeg these points. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[See also #Practical Philosophy. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about this: Outside of colloquial usage, there is no such thing as "a philosophy". Philosophy is a study, a systematic examination of questions and problematics, a process. As such, Buddhism may be constituted in part by a body of philosophical ideas, work, and thought – by the Buddha himself as well as several subsequent Buddhist thinkers – but to say that Buddhism (or anything else – existentialism, whatever) is a philosophy is a misuse of the word in a formal context. Please review my recent (reverted) changes and suggest improvements. /ninly ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So are you posting these points on all the philosophy articles on wikipedia like 'existentialism', metaphysics etc' as well? That would be a very time consuming and unneccesary activity. The word philosphy adaquately defines the meaning. You could make exactly the same argument about the use of the term religion. Afterall, the word 'religion' is a western concept largely based on how Christinity is viewed. The word doesn't really have an equivalent in Asian languages and hence it may be inappropriate to refer to another cultures traditions with it since it is unlikely to match what those countries practitioners define it as. So both the terms 'religion' and 'philosophy' may be problematic with regards to Buddhism. Yet we can agree that with reagrds to a western terminology, it would be hard to find closer descriptive terms.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The use of numbered lists throughout this article is excessive and unprecedented. I am not aware of any GA or FA on religion or philosophy that uses this format and this style is not encyclopedic. I suggest that the vast majority of such lists are converted to prose, with the use of prose in introductory paragraphs instead of embedded lists. It's time to bring this article inline with standard formatting and layout conventions. Viriditas ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The foundation of the practice is ethical conduct. One need not formally take refuge in the triple gem in order to put the teachings into practice. There are many today who practice Buddhist meditation yet have not taken refuge in the triple gem. Likewise there are many who put the ethical teachings into practice or have been influenced by Buddhist teachings, yet have never heard of taking refuge. The common bond of the practice is however ethics which comes first and foremost. This is what unifies those who have been influenced to put Buddhist teachings into practice, whether to a small extent or large, and whether they have formally 'taken refuge' or not. There are also many many people who have formally 'taken refuge' yet do not put the teachigns into practice at all. Most people born in countries with strong Buddhist tradition such as Sri Lanka, Thailand etc will take refuge as a formality. However, many of these do notput anything into practice at all. On the other hand, there are many who live by the teachings but have not formally taken refuge. Therfore the teaching is about first putting ethics into practice, the formality of taking refuge is often just that- an empty formality. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The Three Jewels are the foundation of all forms of Buddhism, and the first jewel is the Buddha...the most important element of Buddha to us, until we become buddhas ourselves, is that Buddha is a teacher, and he gives us a teaching...a set of methods that we can use to develop ourselves, to learn, to think over, to meditate upon, and finally, to gain deep, profound, transforming insight, wisdom, and understanding...We take refuge in the Buddha...we turn to the teaching...of the possibility of happiness...in whatever form it comes to us...the second refuge-we take refuge in the Dharma...Virtues and ethics and practices are also Dharma...the real jewel of refuge in Buddhism...we take refuge in reality, the second jewel...The third jewel is the Sangha, the community of those who enjoy the jewels of refuge, who learn the teaching, seek that understanding, and work to embody the Dharma. [16]
"Few teachers in the West possess both the spiritual training and the scholarship to lead us along the path to enlightenment. Robert Thurman is one such teacher. Now, in his first experiential course on the essentials of Tibetan Buddhism, adapted and expanded from a popular retreat he led, Thurman -- the first Westerner ordained by His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself -- shares the centuries-old wisdom of a highly valued method used by the great Tibetan masters. Using a revered, once-secret text of a seventeenth-century Tibetan master, along with a thorough explanation for contemporary Westerners, The Jewel Tree of Tibet immerses you fully in the mysteries of Tibetan spiritual wisdom. A retreat in book form as well as a spiritual and philosophical teaching, it offers a practical system of understanding yourself and the world, of developing your learning and thought processes, and of gaining deep, transforming insight."
That doesn't sound like an academic book to me. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
...Jewels occupy important narrative and ritual spaces throughout the history of Buddhism...Buddhists incorporated jewels into their teachings as part of a discourse on value...The Buddha routinely employed the metaphor of the jewel (ratna) in a variety of sutras to refer to the unlimited value of enlightened wisdom...the jewel was often used as a metaphor to depict the conquest of death that is accomplished in Buddhist liberation...to illustrate enlightened vision of the absolute character of the interpenetration of all phenomena (dharma)..the jewel was also used in the phrase "Three Jewels" (triratna) to refer to the Buddhist tradition in its three basic, most treasured aspects: Buddha, his teaching (dharma), and his community (sangha).
'Taking refuge', in the true sense of the meaning, is to put the teachings of the Buddha into practice. However, many who go through the formality of taking refuge (i.e the ritual of bowing 3 times to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) in Buddhist countries do not put anything into practice at all. Hence they are not really 'taking refuge', they are merely reciting the name of the Buddha Dharma sangha. Simliarly, many practice meditation without formally taking refuge. Yes it is true- one need not be a 'buddhist' to practice the teachings. In actual fact there is no such thing as a 'Buddhist', at least according to what we can ascertain to be the original teachings. Buddhist practice is grounded in ethics, whether this is seen as 'original research' depends on whether it has been discussed in academia which I am quite sure it has . However there is also no doubt that the practice is also rooted in the Buddha, Dharma and sangha. One may say that the Buddha and knowledge of the Dharma is a necessary prerequisite for undertaking practice, but not necessarily 'taking refuge' in them. Taking refuge in the triple gem is mainly understood as a formal declaration and ritual in Buddhist countries. Clealry, one can be influneced and practice Buddhist teachings without being a 'Buddhist'. One can put Buddhist teachings into practice without 'taking refuge'. One can simply be inlfuneced by them and put them into practice. Therfore to say that the foundation of all Buddhist practice such as practicing meditation is 'taking refuge in the triple gem' is false. It may be said that the foundation of the practice is the triple gem itself, but taking refuge in them is another matter. If someone were to practice vipassana, that does not mean they have 'taken refuge in the triple gem'. However, it does mean they are putting Buddhist teachigns into practice. This is not a matter of original researh it is reasoning and logic. So we can see that putting the teaching into practice need not require 'taking refuge', it only requires having some degree of confidence in the teachings. And there is both modern day evidence as well as evidence from the sutta's to support this. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can find references that support the view that everyone who practices vipassana has 'taken refuge in the triple gem' then you are alright. Otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding the practice and are yourself pushing only your personal opinion and view without a basis. The wording must then be changed to say something along the lines of "It is generally regarded that taking refuge in the triple gem is an outward declaration of being a 'buddhist' and making a comittment to practice". However, what I am stating is that in order to put Buddhist teachings into practice, one must first have some degree of confidence in the Buddha and Dharma. Without this one will not practice. It is the conrfidence in the teachings that is the foundation.
There is clear evidence from the sutta's for this for example the Kandaraka sutta (p6) [21]. Here, Kessa listens to the teachings and the Buddha says he gains benefit- however he does not take refuge in the triple gem he only respectfully salutes the Buddha. This contrasts with the ending of many sutta's where the listener states clearly at the end "I go to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha for refuge' . So the Sutta's clearly distinguiosh between the two. Hence this is a clear scriptural example of someone aquiring confidence in the Buddha and his teaching enough to put them into practice and benefit but not taking refuge. This situation is found many times in the Suttas. So like I said, either you can find sources that explain both of these points, or else your view is incorrect and mainly a POV misunderstaing of what 'taking refuge' means. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the Wikipedia policy and citing shcolarly sources. What I am adressing is your misunderstanding of what constitutes 'Buddhist practice', and how to use sources to support what one is saying. So lets clarify it for you now. Scholarly sources have to support the claims made on wikipedia. If the sources do not match the claims that are being made, then either new sources must be found in support of these claims, or else the claims themselves must be removed or reworded. Please review some of the policy you mentioned such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS so that you can correctly understand how this apllies to Wikiedpia and distinguish between 'origianl reseacrh' and interpretation of current research. So your claim that all 'Buddhist practice' is reliant on taking refuge in the triple gem is not substantiated by any of the sources currently on wikipedia. If you can find a source for example that says all those who practice vipassana have taken refuge in the triple gem, then your claim that all buddhist practice is based on refuge in the triple gem would be correct. Otherwise it is simply misunderstanding what the sources are actually saying as it is not supported by any of the sources. This is not a matter of 'original reserach'- it is a matter of correctly understaning what the established research is actually claiming, which is where you have been lacking. Again, let me clarify. There is a difference between:
1/. Buddhist practice and
2/. Being or considering onself a 'Buddhist'
So you have added a statement that is not supported by the sources. Therefore there is no burden of proof for me to find new sources, since the current sources already support what I am saying.
The topic of being a Buddhist is itself problematic since there is no real traditional equivalent. However, we could assert that taking refuge in the triple gem is a good indicator of being or considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. This however is not necessary, nor a foundation for Buddhist practice, such as practicing the teachings or meditation. This is clearly demonstrated by both the primary sources as well as modern practice. Stating this is not new research, rather it is about understanding what the current research actually says. So essentially you are misundersating what the scholarly sources are saying. The schoarly sources are not saying that refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of Buddhist practice. They support the view that some degree of confidence in the Buddha and his teaching is the foundation of Buddhist practice, but that taking refuge is more or less equivalent to formally stating or considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not simply the primary sources, it is correctly interpreting the secondary sources as well. Currently the lead says that 'taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of Buddhist practice'- this is neither supported by primary or secondary sources. What the secondary sources say, is that taking refuge is equivalent to declaring or considering oneself a Buddhist. And as I have said, one need not consider oneself a 'Buddhist' in order to put Buddhist teachings into pratice. Hence both the primary and secondary sources that are here support only that the foundation of all Buddhist practice, whether one considers oneself a 'Buddhist' or not is to have confindence in the Buddha and Dharma not necessarliy to the extent of 'taking refuge' in them. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"For over two thousand years, the simple recitation of "going for refuge" - Buddha Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Buddha"), Dharma Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Teachings"), and Sangha Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Community") - has marked an individual's conversion to Buddhism and the start of Buddhist rituals. Today these three repetitions are still heard across Asia and increasingly beyond, in Japan and Nepal, from Mongolia to Thailand, by immigrants and converts to the West." (169) [22] -Orlando Espin (Editor), James B. Nickoloff. (2007). An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies
"The canonical Nikāya literature makes a concerted attempt to inculcate a sense of moral and ethical values among the laity, based on Buddhist ethics and loyalty to the Triratna (three jewels), that is, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Discourses contained in the Brahmajāla Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya emphasize the importance of adhering to the five shīlas, or moral values, and stress that the lay devotee should concentrate on religious talks on the fortnightly uposatha days...The involvement of Ashoka with the dharma was by no means limited to propagation of an ethical way of life, as is evident from his records. Minor Rock Edict III was addressed to the Sangha and the laity, and it contains an unequivocal expression of the emperor's respect and faith in the "three jewels." -Himanshu Ray. (2006). "Buddhism in Ancient India". Encyclopedia of India. Ed. Stanley Wolpert. Vol. 1.
"A person first becomes a Buddhist by taking refuge in the Three Jewels...This is done in early childhood before a lama, who cuts the tip of the person's hair and gives him or her a new name. Bhutanese Buddhists use names received from a lama in this manner and do not share family names. The practice of taking refuge and naming is often repeated several times in a person's lifetime as a ritual of blessing...It is through taking refuge in the Three Jewels—accepting the Buddha as the teacher, the dharma as the path, and the sangha as the companions on the path—that one truly becomes a Buddhist. Most Bhutanese, however, consider themselves to be Buddhists by birth." - Karma Phuntsho. (2005). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices. Ed. Thomas Riggs. Vol. 2.
"Taking this triple refuge is nowadays an essential criterion for being considered a Buddhist. The dharma is the truth and protector. The Buddha is the teacher of the dharma and becomes its personification. The disciples were advised to take the dharma as their guide after the Buddha's death. The dharma is the essence of the Buddha. Upon discovering the dharma, Śākyamuni attained buddhahood. The sangha, the monastic order, puts dharma into practice in daily life." -Charles Willemen. (2004). "Dharma and Dharmas". Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Ed. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Vol. 1.
"Dharma, together with the Buddha and the samgha, constitute a "threefold jewel" (triratna) before which one makes prostrations and in which one takes refuge. Here dharma does not so much represent a body of teachings as it assumes a character of awesomeness, protection, and deliverance wholly appropriate to the Truth. One stands in awe of dharma as a self-sustained righteousness whose universal legacy is to protect through its righteousness those who profess it. Soon after his enlightenment, realizing that there is no one more perfect than himself in virtue, wisdom, and meditation under whom he could live in obedience and reverence, Sākyamuni decided that he would live honoring and revering dharma, the universal truth he had just realized. As one of the Three Jewels, the Buddha is dharma's embodied personification, revealer, and teacher. The samgha constitutes a body of dharma's followers among whom dharma thrives as the norm of daily life, becoming an inspiration and a path to deliverance. The Three Jewels as conceived in the early period can be paralleled, as a somewhat general comparison, with the later concept of the three buddha bodies. Dharma as dharmakāya represents its own sublime and absolute aspect, the Buddha as a sambhogakāya represents the pure and glorified state of dharma, and the samgha as nirmānakāya represents dharma as discovered and operating within the world." - Tadeusz Skorupski. (2005). "Dharma: Buddhist Dharma and Dharmas". Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 4. 2nd ed.
"In attempts to identify what it is that Buddhists share and that makes them Buddhist, one of the most commonly cited and least controversial candidates is the custom of taking refuge in the "three jewels'"...It is probably the case that virtually all Buddhists would accept this custom as part of their religion, though the fact that it is not very controversial should warn us that it may also not be very important, and in any case their acceptance tells us little about what they might mean by it. Still, in beginning to sort out some of our options for understanding the issue of unity and diversity in the tradition, it might be helpful for heuristic purposes to bear in mind the schema of the three jewels and the distinctive models for interdenominational accomodation that seem to be suggested by each of the three kinds of refuge." - Carl Bielefeldt. (1990). "The One Vehicle and the Three Jewels: On Japanese Sectarianism and Some Ecumenical Alternatives". Buddhist-Christian Studies. University of Hawai'i Press. Vol. 10, (1990), pp. 5-16.
"The fundamental declaration for Buddhists is taking refuge in the Three Jewels: the Buddhas, the truth that they understand and teach, and the community that preserves that teaching." - William Tuladhar-Douglas. (2005). "Pūjā: Buddhist Pūjā". Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 11. 2nd ed.
"Usually, it is said that a deep faith in the three treasures is the foundation of Buddhist religious life."(86) [23] - Sung Bae Park, Assistant Professor of East Asian Religions at the Center for Religious Studies, State University of New York at Stony Brook. [24]
"...taking refuge [in the Three Jewels] is the indispensable foundation for all Buddhist precepts. Taking refuge marks the difference between being a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist. And without depending upon the protection of these objects of refuge, there is no way to attain emancipation from samsara." - Jamgon Kongtrul, Light of Wisdom, Volume 1 [25]
"it may also not be very important, and in any case their acceptance tells us little about what they might mean by it." So is there any point in having it in the lead? Peter jackson ( talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
""The dramatic growth in scholarship on Buddhism over the past half century, both in the quantity and the quality of that scholarship, has made it virtually impossible for a single scholar to claim knowledge of the entire tradition across its vast geographical and chronological sweep." (Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism, Harper/Penguin, 2001, page ix)
So statements about Buddhism as a whole are tertiary, not primary. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: [1] [2]
Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
Note in particular this sentence:
"Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources."
Peter jackson ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As per the above discussion, the change would reflect what the sources actually say. 'Buddhist practice' encompasses far more than just what 'Buddhists' do. It also encompasses buddhist meditation practice done by those who would not condsider themselves buddhists. No one would argue that vipassana meditation is not a Buddhist practice. Likewise no one would argue that everyone who practices vipassana is a 'buddhist who has taken refuge in the three jewels'.
The statement, It is generally regarded that taking refuge in the triple gem is an outward declaration of being a 'buddhist' and making a comittment to practice, would reflect what taking refuge in the triple gem means, as in basically 'being a buddhist'. However, if the statement is about the foundation of all buddhist practice, as in all practice directy based on buddhist teachings such as practciing vipassana meditation, then one could only accurately say that
The foundation of all buddhist practice is having confidence in the Buddha and his teaching.
I wouldn't even say that one need necessarily have confidence in the 'sangha'.
So one or the other must be reworded in line with the sources. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The argument is quite clear as stated above. If you still don't get what is wrong with the wording after all that has been described above, then I won't be able to help you further. It comes down to the fact that one does not need to be or consider oneself a 'buddhist' in order to practice Buddhist teachings. All of the above secondary sources that have been posted support this. All of these secondary sources say that refuge in the three jewels is akin to 'being a buddhist', not to putting the teachings into practice. So again, the current wording as it stands is incorrect. Unless you can provide a source that says that all those who practice vipassana have taken refuge in the triple gem, I will revert in line with the sources. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue boils down to the words and meaning of 'taking refuge'. I have said that confdence in the three jewels, or even just the Buddha and dharma is the foundation of the practice. Confidence in the three jewels, is different from, taking refuge in the three jewels. As all of the sources have stated, 'taking refuge' is akin to an assertion and declaration of being a 'buddhist'. There are many many vipassana oragnisations that teach buddhist meditation to people devoid of mentioning the three jewels at all. Many of the people who go on these courses or maintain a vipassana practice are clearly not buddhists. Yet they are clearly doing a buddhist practice. So 'taking refuge' does not apply to them. Taking refuge, both in historical sources and in present day tradition, has a specific meaning of basically a declarion of being a buddhist. One could thus say that the three jewels are the foundation of Buddhist practice - this is different form saying that taking refuge in the three jewels is the foundation of buddhist practice. The second version ignores the specific meaning of taking refuge within Buddhist tradition, whilst the first version could accurately describe all the comes under the term 'buddhist practice'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, Viritidas you need to pay more attention to what is being said. I am not arguing that the three jewlels are not the foundation of the practice. I am arguing that taking refuge in them is not the foundation. Taking refuge has a specific meaning. So again, this is down to accurately defining the terms 'taking refuge', and also the terms 'Buddhist practice'.
Buddhist practice encompasses all those practices that originate from the Buddhist tradition. One need not be on the Buddhist path to do a Buddhist practice.
Taking refuge means specifically that one is now on the Buddhist path. The primary sources are clear about this - After taking refuge one either declares oneself a lay follower of the Buddha, or one asks to be accepted as a monk. The secondary sources you have included also demonstrate this as they all say that taking refuge separates a 'buddhist' from a 'non-buddhist'.
A wording to reflect this could more accurately therefore say that -
The three jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha have been the central pillars of the Buddhist tradition, and having confidence in them is the foundation of all Buddhist practice. 'Taking refuge' in the three jewels has traditionally been a declaration and committment to being on the Buddhist path and akin to considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The act of taking refuge certainly denotes a ritual in most Buddhist countries as well as an affirmation of being a 'buddhist'. The primary and secondary sources are clear that if one takes refuge, one is considered a 'buddhist'. As I have stated, doing a buddhist practice such as vipassana does not make one a buddhist. Your argument would gain more suppport if you could find a reliable source that stated that all people who pratice vipassana are buddhists, and that they have taken refuge, since you have introduced the claim into the lead that 'taking refuge is the foundation of Buddhist practice'. However this claim is simply not supported, as all the sources thus presented support only the view that taking refuge is an affirmation of being on the Buddhist path, an affirmation that can be made more than once.
Examine the meaning of the term 'to take refuge'. Refuge = shelter, asylum. One seeks refuge in the triple gem from the perils and sufferings of samsara. In order to take refuge in triple gem, one must have already accepted the teachings to a certain level based on both examining the meaning and faith. Taking refuge only has meaning from within the Buddhist framework of samsara. It is far more than just confidence or an attidude of respect to the Buddha. Citing references by monks is not always a particularly reliable source, especially since there are so many contrasting opinions. Certainly respect is a prerequistie to taking refuge and is part of it, but truly taking refuge denotes accepting the triple gem as being a 'shelter' from samsara and being on the Buddhist path. The sources are quite clear about this, as is the use of the word refuge to describe this. So, whilst it may be accurately stated that the triple gem is the foundation of all Buddhist practice since practices such as vipassana originate from it, taking refuge in the triple gem is an affirmation of being on the buddhist path and accepting the Buddhist framework of samsara, karma and rebirth as a whole. Taking refuge is not however a prerequisite to doing a Buddhist practice in itself and there has been no evidence thus far to support this claim. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide sources that support your position? I would be grateful to see some. The onus is on you to provide relevant sources, since you have introduced the new claim that taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of buddhist practice, a claim thus far utterly unsupported by any of the primary or secondary sources that have been provided. Clearly, taking refuge in the sense we are discussing, is more than just reciting the ritualistic 'refuge formula'. It centres on your misunderstanding of what taking refuge means. Yet another reference that may help you to understand the distinction is here. [29]. It also makes the important point that refuge in the sangha does not mean the community of monks and nuns. It means the noble sangha of those who have attained to any of the four stages of enlightenment. Since this discussion is really not progressing, I will give you some options to source your claim.
1/. Find a suitable reference that supports the claim that vipassana (a buddhist practice) is done only by buddhists (those that have taken refuge and accepted the Buddha's path as salvation).
2/. Find a suitable reference that vipassana is not a buddhist practice (ridiculous, but your arguement depends on one of these two claims)
3/. Reword the section to remove the claim that taking refuge is the foundation of Buddhist practice. Instead, as all the sources are clear about, taking refuge is the acknowledgement and foundation of 'being a buddhist'.
If you are unable to provide sources for any of the above, then I will reword the section along the lines of taking refuge as commitment to being on the Buddhist path and being a buddhist, cited with some of the many references that have been provided to support this. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My posts have been entirely directed to Viriditas, since we have been the only ones participating in this discussion save for the small paragraph you have inserted about taking refuge being a part of formal ceremonies and something that is done more than once. If you would like to elaborate on where that puts you in terms of this debate, then my all means do so. My position is clear enough however and unless I see the evidence in support of the counter argument, I see no reason not to edit the lead to reflect a more accurate description of what taking refuge signifies. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is some more direct evidence that will end this argument- an article with some quotes from S.N. Goenka [30] in which it is clearly stated by him:
While Vipassana is firmly rooted in the true teachings of the Buddha, Mr. Goenka emphasizes that it is not a religion and involves no dogma, rites, rituals, and no conversion. "The only conversion involved in Vipassana is from misery to happiness, from bondage to liberation," he told an applauding audience at the World Peace Summit at the United Nations, New York, in 2000.
"Thousands of Catholic priests, Buddhist monks and nuns, Jain ascetics, Hindu sanyasis come to Vipassana courses along with other religious leaders".
As all of the sources have been clear, taking refuge in the triple gem separates a Buddhist from a non-buddhist. This is entirely different from having some degree of confidence in the Buddha and his teachings, enough to do a buddhist practice such as vipassana, yet maintain whatever religious affiliation one wants.
We can discuss how to alter the lead to accomodate this understanding, my suggestion would be as follows:
The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, collectively known as the three jewels, are the central pillars of the Buddhist tradition. Having some measure of confidence in them is the foundation of all Buddhist practice. 'Taking refuge' in the three jewels has traditionally been a declaration and committment to being on the Buddhist path and akin to considering oneself a 'Buddhist'.
Please offer any alternate suggestions as to how this may be worded. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the wording that 'taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of buddhist practice' is unsupported and disproven by the above sources, I am proceeding with the alternate wording as suggested. I am including references in support of it as provided here. There is plenty of support already for the alternate wording as provided above so I take it since there are no alternate suggestions the wording is fine. Viridatus, you are acting much like a petulant child I see no basis for what you are saying and I suggest we leave it to others to decide which wording is more suitable since you seem unwilling to accept that your position is untenable despite the clear fact of it. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." ( WP:PSTS
As you so frequently do, you're ignoring what I said. I gave you an example, & referred you to others, which clearly don't fit your description of what tertiary sources do.
The more general point is this. Any presentation of Buddhism as being all about X, whether X is one thing or a group, or any presentation that's liable to give readers that impression, doesn't represent a consensus of scholarly opinion. If it did, why wouldn't the scholars say that? Why wouldn't they present Buddhism that way? Most of them don't. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I will like to know what is buddhiim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.145.2 ( talk) 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'Buddhism'. There is the only the Dhamma. Next question- what is the Dhamma? Dhamma has many meanings. 'Phenomena', 'reality', 'universal law', 'truth', 'teachings of an awakened mind'. Probably best to stick to two definitions: the first being how the Buddha himself defined and summarised his teachings, and the second a passage that is said throughout the earliest sources to be the 'vision of the dhamma'.
I teach only suffering, and the cessation of suffering
All that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Having just written the above definition, it strikes me as perhaps worth including these core teachings in the lead somehow. They are both core principles that define what the Dhamma, or 'Buddhism' is, and they are both only a short sentence each. Certainly for someone coming to the Buddhism page, there would be no better summary or definition of the teachings than these which are universally accepted by all traditions. Of course the lead also talks of 'Buddhism' as a tradition of religion and philosophy, but I think including the above statements would certainly not go amiss, and would illuminate anyone who read the lead as to what the fundamental teachings are and cut through what can seem like a confusing landscape of teachings to begin with. Before PJ states the obvious, yes the lead covers all aspects of what 'Buddhism' means, which is 'Buddhism' as the teachings, 'Buddhism' as the religious/philosophical traditions and the practices, and 'Buddhism' as the western conceptualisation of these traditions and practices. The statments would be to clarify in simplest terms the 'teachings' aspect in the lead. Any thoughts on including the above two statements into the lead?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
...
All that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing"
That is indeed extremely interesting PJ, I had assumed that the phrase "all that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing" was found in all the early canons. It is first attributed to Anna Kondanna in the very first discourse where it is stated he gains the "dustless vision of the dhamma" after hearing the Buddha speak. Certainly I would assume the statement all formations are subject to disintegration, also attributed to the Buddha as part of his last words and found many times in the Canon, would be equivalent to the above passage and that this is found in the Chinese versions as well.
The distinctions I am making are between what scholars and/or dhamma practitioners think the Buddha actually taught, and also the various traditions and practices that have arisen that comprise 'Buddhism' as a religion such as going to temples and venerating Buddha statues , none of which has anything to do with what we can ascertain to have been the teachings.
There is no such thing as Buddhism. This is my point about the Western conceptualisation of whatever it is the Buddha taught, which includes giving it the name 'Buddhism', and trying to understand it and fit it into a western notion of what constitutes 'religion'. That is part of the reason that it is only ever referred to as the Dhamma, and the term Dhamma is not given any precise defintion but has a number of meanings. The meaning can only really be known through the practice, although similies the Buddha gave such as the Dhamma is like a raft give us an understanding of what is the intention.
The Raft Simile
[31]
"I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
Once the 'flood' of Samsara has been crossed through skillful use of the Dhamma, only then can the Dhamma be abandoned. If even skillful action of body, speech and mind is to be abandoned when there is no further need for action, there is no question as to the abandoning of non-skillful action in the here and now.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"As for his specific teachings, scholars have always debated about what the Buddha actually taught, since even the earliest texts that record his teachings were written down hundreds of years after his death. However, scholars usually agree that there are certain basic teachings, which, since they are presented in so many places throughout the early texts, must represent at least the kinds of things the Buddha actually taught." (Mitchell, Buddhism, 1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 34)
Note the qualifications: "usually"; "the kinds of things ".
Now to what Buddhists think. The following are regarded as "the Word of the Buddha" by major Buddhist groups:
I'm oversimplifying, of course.
The traditional positions of the main Buddhist traditions, still widely held, are roughly these:
Now it would seem reasonable enough to cover all this in a subsection of the History section of the article, but I doubt you could produce a reasonably useful & neutral summary brief enough to fit sensibly in the lead.
"The distinctions I am making are between what scholars and/or dhamma practitioners think the Buddha actually taught, and also the various traditions and practices that have arisen that comprise 'Buddhism' as a religion such as going to temples and venerating Buddha statues , none of which has anything to do with what we can ascertain to have been the teachings."
As you can see from the above, there are a lot of differences among both scholars & practitioners on what the Buddha taught. Also, what do you mean by "dhamma practitioners"? Is it the same thing as Buddhists? If not, what does it mean? Does it perhaps mean those people who conform to your idea of what the Buddha taught?
"going to temples and venerating Buddha statues"
Well, there's nothing in the Pali Canon about Buddha statues, though there might well be in the Mahayana sutras. there's certainly a fair amount in the Pali Canon about shrines. Also note that Pure Land is based on Mahayana sutras.
"There is no such thing as Buddhism. This is my point about the Western conceptualisation of whatever it is the Buddha taught, which includes giving it the name 'Buddhism', and trying to understand it and fit it into a western notion of what constitutes 'religion'. That is part of the reason that it is only ever referred to as the Dhamma, and the term Dhamma is not given any precise defintion but has a number of meanings. The meaning can only really be known through the practice, although similies the Buddha gave such as the Dhamma is like a raft give us an understanding of what is the intention."
I think all specialist scholars have long since got beyond confusing what the Buddha actually taught with what Buddhists actually believe & practise.
Running out of time now. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"*A simple example of original synthesis:
Yes, it's perfectly OK to report that scholars say some Buddhists are wrong, but it's against policy to give the impression of arguing for a conclusion unless the scholars actually do so themselves.
Likewise, selective citation of scholars who agree with one's own point of view while ignoring those who disagree is obviously against policy.
On the question we were actually discussing, namely the authenticity of scriptures, the fact is that very few scholars are prepared to maintain even that the content of most of the overlap between the nikayas & agamas goes back to the Buddha. This is not surprising. After all, we know that, from the time of the schisms onwards, whenever that was, Indian Buddhists kept on composing new scriptures. Isn't it reasonable to suppose that they'd been doing so all along?
On the other hand, many scholars agree that the substance of the teachings in those texts does go back to the Buddha. Quite a number hold either that the basic ideas of abhidharma methodology may go back to the Buddha, or that abhidharma is just a systematization of the early teachings anyway, or otherwise that they're compatible. Cousins, Cox, Gethin, Harvey, Kalupahana & Warder come to mind. As to claims by some modern Mahayanists that their scriptures simply express the essence/spirit of the teachings in new forms, I don't know that you'll find many scholars expressing opinions one way or the other. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if what I'm about to say will be be helpful, but I think it is worth considering. The above discussion is a pretty good example of what happens when adults think about things that children learn by observation. Buddhism isn't about the teachings of Buddha any more than Christianity is about the teachings of Christ; what these people actually taught is secondary to what people believe and practice, and historicity discussions are a bit of a psych-out (like thinking you don't know what a car is because you don't have the design blueprints for the Model-T). just a grain of salt. -- Ludwigs2 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope I'll be forgiven for somewhat simplifying and clarifying the life of the B. With very extensive entries elsewhere, with much scholarship etc, it seems to me that what's needed here is the bare bones of the standard biog in the fewest number of words. Now I think it brings out the point of the story, which is good for an encyclopedia, where people (maybe including young people) are coming on these things for the first time. Some things are gone - eg his marriage etc - but IMO they are really meaningless in the context of setting up an article on Buddhism. Bluehotel ( talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the be honest, if anybody had the time, the most sensible thing, IMO,would be to generate a tree of all the main Buddhism pages, list and map the links between them, and build the "Buddhism" page as if it were the index page of a website. Then that page could be a narrative that essentially summarised the materal.
I also don't think it's possible to tell the story without essentially putting it into a crude chronological order. The Theravada and it's Buddha goes first, with the four truths, the Brahma vihara (which I didn't see on the page), etc; how this was all pre-literate; Pali Canon (es[ppecially the Dhamappada) and so forth; including something on the history of the period, the social circumstances. And then the Mahayana story. Many Buddhas, gods, celestial boddhisattvas etc.
If it's set out as a history, then I think it works better than as a static listing of dogmas.
At the end of the day, the Theravada Buddha and his simplicity, in my understanding, doesn't disappear from anybody's pantheon. All the rest are add-ons, whether of a "greater vehicle" or not.
Maybe it's like telling the story of a city. Bluehotel ( talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted edits to the intro secton for the following reasons. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to be respectful to people who wish to find out about Buddhism. It's not really a place to grandstand what we know, or try to force into every narrative our personal viewpoints. It needs to be readable. This is the foundation of consideration to visitors who have come here to find answers to their questions.
To start listing obscure modern scets in the second paragraph of a single article on Buddhism not only holds the reader back from getting the broad sweep of the subject, but it also fails to use hyperlinks for their purpose of allowing people to click to something they want to know more about, and invites retainers for every last one of probably tens of thousands of Buddhist organisations from the last 2,500 years to want that in the second paragraph.
Please, be kind to readers. Let them get on with the story. If you really want to namecheck Eskimo Buddhism, or the NKT, please put it further down, as they don't quite rate alongside the Theravada and the Mahayana. Bluehotel ( talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Precepts 6-8 are listed under the "Buddhist ethics", but they are not about ethics or morality, they're about ascetism, I guess to improve meditation. As somebody looking into Buddhism, it rather unpleasantly shocked me when, on first reading, that it looked like Buddhism considered music and dancing immoral. Nothing wrong with a religion unpleasantly shocking me with considering music and dancing immoral, of course. But Buddhism doesn't. Also, this page states that the first 5 precepts are common to all Buddhism, but it looks like 6-8 are not, and that should be more clearly stated. Or, more likely, precepts 6-8 should just be removed from this page. They're covered in the main article this section links to. If I don't get feedback soon I'm likely to remove these three. Darxus ( talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In view of our speculation above about how many people might be reading our discussions without taking part, I thought it might be interesting to look up how many people have the article on their watchlists. If I've used the system right, the answer is 1056. That presumably includes some who've left Wikipedia without blanking their watchlists, but it does seem rather a lot. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Should be mentioned in the lead. Viriditas ( talk) 10:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge Buddhism, on the level of the signifier, emerged in the year 1801 [34]. Buddhism has a history also in the west prior to this, so I'm curious of how westerners designated Buddhism prior to the modern era? And, I think the selfdesignation of Buddhists should be considered in the article. I hope somebody may provide information on this. -- Xact ( talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Though a talk page is not a forum, I find the question interesting: - Self designation is always rather curious. Borges says in "The sect of the Phoenix": Unless I am mistaken, the same phenomenon is observable among the Buddhists: the name by which they are known to the world is not the same as the one they themselves pronounce. (He isn't totally mistaken).
According the to OED, "The Sanskrit Bouddha 'follower of Buddha' was previously used: hence the form Bouddhist " The 1801 basis is from Joinville's article in Asiatic Res. vol VII, p398 - where he says In the opinion of the Boudhists, there has been no creation. and on p400: If Boudhism could not have established itself among the Brahmi'ns, etc... The spelling we are familiar with came in 1816, in the Asiatic Journal Vol. 1, page 19: The name and the peculiarities of Buddhism have a good deal fixed my attention. (no author given) and on p21 The harmless sacrifices of the Chinese are .. obviously Buddhist. -- ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
"curious of how westerners designated Buddhism prior to the modern era?" Well they didn't of course. Generally speaking they weren't aware there was such a "thing". Buddhists were just lumped in under heathens/pagans/idolators. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I find this business of names rather pointless. Of course most Buddhists don't call themselves that, because they don't speak English. So what? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A term used in the Canon is 'Savaka', which literally means 'Dhamma Hearer' and is sometimes less acurately translated as 'follower of the Dhamma' . The term 'Sakyaputtiya' literally means '[the sect] born of the Sakyan son'. It is referred to in the canon when designating a monk using the term 'Sakyaputtiya Samana' meaning 'A Renuncient who has gone forth under the Sakyan Son'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Savaka is, as you say, a "term". It's not a "name". Similarly, Christians may call themselves "believers". A term, but not a name. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is the other way around. The use of a 'name' can be more general, as it can refer to any object or class of objects whereas the use of a 'term' more commonly denotes a certain object or class of objects within a particular group or field. To reiterate the point made below, a discussion of this nature however is neither particularly relevant to the purpose of the discussion and does not expand on the subject matter.
The term Savaka is used as a self designation- clearly it would be used within the context of a 'Savaka who has gone forth under such and such a teacher'- the common designation for those practicing Indic religion/practical philosophy.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion page is used to help improve the article. Please focus on that task. Viriditas ( talk) 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is important to understand that efforts towards syncretism of views only provide yet another view. I refer you all to WP:RNPOV, which must be the bedrock for any discourse on Buddhist articles on WP (although admittedly, WP:RNPOV is possibly more salient to the Ibrahimic religions.). Likewise, regarding the meaning of NPOV, we are told "NPOV policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them."
Demonstrating that there are opposing views or opinions regarding a specific issue does not mean that the issue does not deserve mentioning. Neutrality is not centrality. Wikipedia articles are not written to imply that all positions are equal; Wikipedia articles are to be written in a way that does not evaluate positions. By writing from a neutral point of view about something to which you're opposed, you are not implying that the belief is equal, you are merely accepting that an encyclopedia is not the place to be evaluating the contrasting views. You may believe that the other opinion is wrong objectively. You are not contradicting that belief by accepting that Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that to other people before it has become accepted human knowledge.
An example: 4NT. There is plenty of evidence to show, just from reading the religious literature of different cultures, that the 4NT is almost always a central or core topic. AFAIK, there is no tradition that denies that Gautama Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma at Sarnath, and that his sermons was based on the 4NT. There really should be no problem in stating the centrality of the 4NT, albeit with a mention that some Buddhists do not consider the 4NT to be so important to themselves. E.g., there are those that say the 4NT are for those of less ability - but they do not deny that the 4NT are the teachings of Buddha.
I tired of contributing to this article a long time ago because these simple rules are either not properly acknowledged, or they are not adhered to. I suggest that current contributers spend less time discussing, and more time mending and repairing the Buddhism article. ( 20040302 ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
"the 4 NT have a modest importance for Buddhism as a whole, which should be reflected in the article" - Peter jackson
Wow. What a soundbite for demonstrating a lack of understanding of this subject. PJ, this has to be the most ridiculous argument I have yet seen from you, and surely one of the most ridiculous arguments yet seen on a discussion about Buddhism or indeed, probably most articles on Wikipedia.
You seem to justify it with the bizaare statement that "you'll find the tables of contents of a number of scholarly books about Buddhism. 3 of them have a chapter on the 4 NT. 7 don't, relegating them to a section within a chapter." So becuase a number of 'scholarly books' don't decide to dedicate a chapter heading on the 4 noble truths but still all talk about them, you reach the conclusion it is not significant for Buddhism. Again, quite frankly emabarrassingly inept logic, I strongly, strongly advise you to abandon this argument to save your self what little credibility you have left, if indeed it is possible.
Clearly a better example of 'missing the point' could rarely be found. In both Theravada and Mahayana, the 4 noble truths are of central importance. The truth of suffering, the cause, cessation, and practice leading to that cessation form the basis of all of these practices and schools. To read scholarship or any text on this subject and fail to see this is simply astounding. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
One other point I shall adress to PJ- you seem to have an unfailing blind acceptance of anything labelled 'scholarship', in other words, your own selection of texts, representing the opinions of a small group of people, from a small part of the world viewing things from a skewed world view and filled with bias . This is a recurrant theme in most of your dialogue, and it is probably one of the things that lends to you making unsupportable arguments, since many of these 'scholars' are frequently in disagreement with each other. The irony of this PJ, is that you also make sweeping statemnts about 'Mahayanists' etc, when in actual fact all of your sources are from a small handful of western scholarly works. Even then, as stated above your interpretation of these shcolarly works is often most dubious.
How do you know what 'Mahayanists' think? A view on what 'they think 'is another sweeping generalization based on no evidence. For example, unless there have been well analysed, detailed mass survays of millions of people regarding their views on this issue, any such statment that 'Mahayanists think such and such' is little more than baseless speculation. You simply cannot answer such a question, other than through observing the purpose and practices conducted by such individuals. The 4 NT are foundational to ALL Mahayayana and Theravada practice- they are practices done with the recognition of suffering, and the intent to reduce it for oneself and others. This is clear from understanding practice, as well as scholarship on all of these issues. Your rudimentry attempt at a basic survey of 'chapter headings', based on a random selection of 7 books on Buddhism you happen to have, without attempting to look at the context, is a good example of why such misguided conclusions can be drawn when one loses the correct perspective for understanding an issue. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory? I suggest you look up the definition of the term 'conspiracy'. This is the plain truth, and has been written about much being quite clear. Many scholars are viewing things from a skewed world view within the Judeo-Christian framework of Western religious scholarship, building on scholarship that was even more that way inclined. Now, this does not mean that they are deliberately misinterprating or misrepresenting things much of the time. Far from it, many of these scholars are so far down the path of being conditioned to think a certain way and make nonsensical assumtions (D Lopez being a perfect example)as to render the capacity to have an objective view largely unavailable. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So you label my statement 'conspiracy theory', yet then use this same 'conspiracy theory' yourself to criticize what I was saying. Make up your mind if your not going to contradict yourself from one sentance to the next. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't claim there are 3 types of Buddhists; these are aspects of the same Buddhism. He stresses that all 3 are found in the Pali Canon, a point that's often ignored. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example. Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism. He interviewed lots of Chinese monks, crosschecking them against themselves & each other. One interesting thing he says is about schools. If you ask a monk what school he belongs to, he'll probably say Lin-chi (Linji in the new spelling, Rinzai in Japanese). That is, his teaching lineage goes back to that branch of Chan/Zen. But if you ask him what school of practice he belongs to, he'll probably say Pure Land. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"As a side note, in history and historiography, it is generally considered best to use primary sources where available. (see Primary_source#History_and_historiography), and this could be considered relevant to those parts of the Buddhism articles which are concerned with history and historiography."
Regarding the Four Noble Truths, the Heart Sutra states: "In emptiness [...] There is no suffering, no accumulation, no elimination, and no path." All four are shot down in succession for the bodhisattva path of Prajnaparamita. This same line is echoed in longer Prajnaparamita texts as well as in the Shurangama Sutra. They are viewed as empty because they fundamentally have no basis, and are just interdependent phenomena -- transient images, all depending on a self. In this type of Mahayana teaching, all suffering is ultimately an illusion, and to say "I suffer" is ignorance, further creating causes and seeds of karma to add to "your" suffering. The real highest teaching of the Mahayana is usually represented by the Buddha's silence. Then when his disciples do not understand, then he teaches them with a discourse. In Mahayana, the Four Noble Truths and all other Buddhist teachings ever spoken (including the bodhisattva path) are simply skillful means to attain True Suchness and Anuttara Samyaksambodhi. This True Suchness of the mind is the proper basis of Mahayana. In this regard, I do not see the Four Noble truths as fundamental to Mahayana at all, but rather as an early form of skillful means in Buddhism. I believe the Lotus Sutra echoes these sentiments over and over again as well.
As for the Wikipedia Zen article, it's sort of a joke to quote that as anything authoritative. Quite frankly, on pages such as that with subjects carrying such mystique in the western world, the quality is so very low. Half of the people probably think Zen is a type of samurai philosophy invented in Japan. In contrast, the quality of a page written by specialists on an obscure sutra is more likely to bear much more resemblance to the truth, simply due to the nature of the subject.
As for how important the Four Noble Truths are in the larger scheme of Buddhism, I believe they were accepted as core teachings largely due to the still-pervasive tendency to equate "Theravada = All Early Buddhism." From reading Mahayana sutras and their references to the Sutra Pitaka, I believe they may be more important to Theravada than to the other early schools in India. For example, the Theravadins commonly sum up the core teachings of the Buddha into the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. However, I never seem to see these two sets of teachings referenced together in the Mahayana sutras. The Noble Eightfold Path seems to be more commonly referenced than the Four Noble Truths, but the teaching of the five skandhas is referenced more than both of them combined. In the Sandhinirmocana Sutra (2nd century CE), it cites different teachings of the time proposed by forest monks: analyzing the skandhas, bases of consciousness, phenomena, various realms, stations of mindfulness, supernatural abilities, sense faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of bodhi, and the noble eightfold path. Nowhere does it cite the Four Noble Truths as something to analyze for understanding. In the Amitabha Sutra, it also cites the five powers, the seven factors of bodhi, and the eightfold noble path among others. No Four Noble Truths, though, yet again. Tengu800 ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I know he was born in what is Lumbinin today. But shouldn't it imply that he was born in ' Ancient India in what is now Lumbini? I mean this has been brought up before. And it was put down as something like. And then it get's changed. The water and ground. 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
the discussion page uses 218 KB, it should be archived. — Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this edit. Although it seems not totally unreasonable to insert some qualification of who Siddharta Gautama was, i'm not sure if this really belongs here. Also qualifying him as "Indian" bears some problems (discussed that a couple of times before). Also i looked at the contributions of this IP: the editor seems to be primarily focused on inserting the word "india" into various articles and some of his other edits create the impression that he's generally editing from an indian nationalistic WP:POV. Can somebody else maybe take a look at his contributions as well? Andi 3ö ( talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Where did "path of salvation" come from, right up there in the lede? Salvation seems to me a fairly solidly Christian concept. Buddhism is all about suffering, the understanding of, letting go of, avoidance of, compassion for, conquest of, maybe 'deliverance from'. Surely "path of salvation" is at best some well-meaning, 19th-century missionary's mistranslation of the Pali or something? -- Nigelj ( talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that 'salvation', whilst etymologically decent in meaning, is too much accociated with a skewed Christian view. 'Deliverance' or liberation may be better and more descriptive.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with PJ, I think that the opening section as it is is reasonably good now. It could be better sourced no doubt, but far from reflecting the personal opinions of editors, it reflects scholarly, academic and traditional opinion acurately. Everything in the opener can be referenced and should be in due course as they are all claims made quite often amongst scholars. I wonder if PJ could point out any part of the lead that he feels is not representative of scholarly or traditional views? As far as I can see, the lead is now an accurate description of how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted by the tradition itself as well as in popular understanding of it as a religion.
As for the term 'spiritual', again it is one that has been problematic for a while now, yet a better single descriptive term seems beyond the capacity of the English language. Perhaps 'practical philosophy' may be a better term, yet that too has its issues. As such, 'spiritual philosophy' however inadaquate a term may still be a reasonable option.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Conze reference is actually not appropriate or correct - I do think that using the term 'path of salvation' is framing things from a Christian point of view that is not fitting. I have replaced it with a reference from Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, where he specifically mentions that the Buddha's teachings, like the Upanishads, teach of attaining to the true natire of reality via 'liberation through insight'.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
The new source clearly states that the Buddha's path is one of liberation through insight, also a view that the Upanishads taught. The use of the term 'path' is perfectly correct. The phrase says, 'Buddhism as traditionally conceived is a path', and it is indeed traditionally presented as 'the eightfold path'. Therfore both elements of the sentence are accurate, and not 'made up'. In actual fact they are the traditional definitions. The last part about attaining to the ultimate nature of reality can also be referenced. There are no doubt other sources that support the phrase, but the current source also states: "Only the indefinable "Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality." Also "Nirvana is a reality which differs entirely from all dharmas as manifested in Samsara"
Insight into 'the ultimate nature of reality', is an appropriate way of describing this. It is also a term that I have come across many times before as used by scholars, the entire lead could do with more sources but at least the beginning section is accurate and has been sourced.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually if that is your perspectivbe it is a mistaken one. Wikipedia is about finding reliable sources that support reliable views. It is not about simply generalizing. There are many sources that speak of Buddhism as religion, and also many that do not. Hence our purpose should be to reflect the different sides of the main views fairly. To only speak of Buddhism as religion would not be fair to the alternate ways it has been viewed, or the many scholars and practitioners who do not regard it as such.
I also must say that I fail to see your sense of logic regarding Buddhism traditionally being presented as a path. In Theravada it is very much presented as a path. This is becasue reference to the Pali literaure comprises a huge aspect of Theravada, and the eightfold path is very much a well known core aspect of that teaching. I can't think of any Theravidin who wouldn't be familiar with the conception of Buddhism as path. Again, it may be less emphasisied in Mahayana but it is still there. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't contradict the claim that Buddhism is traditionally considered a path, even if this was mainly in the Theravada tradition. Again, do you have any useful suggestions that you feel are prefereable?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Within Theravada particularly, Buddhism is always conceived of as a path. The eightfold path is central to the Pali Canon. The highly influential Visudimagga treatise that has been used as a main reference for 1500 years in Theravada, is also translated as "the path of purification". The earlier Vimmutimagga is translated as 'the path of freedom". It is quite clear that path, in one form or another is central to Theravda conceptions of Buddhism. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. As for Mahayana, remember that the traditional Canons (i.e. the sutta's) are all present in Mahayana as well, The Chinese Agama's and the Tibetan translations of Sanskrit Canons are all present within Mahayana, and although they took a back seat to the later doctrines, they are still very much a part of the tradition. The path description would be known to Mahayana practitioners as well.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of 'path', there is ample evidence that has been refered to regarding the conception of path. I can only advise that you re-read the section above, and think about it more. The path conception is present in all schools of Buddhism.
As to your other points, an example of one more scholar is the one I have referenced already, Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, who says at the beginning of the article that "Vedanta and Buddhism are the highlights of Indian philosophical thought." There are many others, especially those who do nto regard it as religion according to how that term is understood commonly in the west. As to your comments about 'practitioners', that is very much a generalization and simplification. "Practitioners aren't experts on concepts such as religion & philosophy" - how do you know? Have you met and worked with all the practitioners, including thopse who practice meditation as a psychological exercise, and questioned them about their credentials? So because someone calls themself a 'scholar', that is enough to get your unchalleneged confidence in them, and make sweeping unsubstantiated comments about practitioners. This type of generalized categorical thinking is most naiive.
And do you really think scholars are not frequently biased? They are coming from a westernized framing of religion for the most part, and carry their preconceptions with them. Sociologists also speak of those who like to categorize groups of people in broad terms, such as calling them 'religious', 'fundamentalist' etc , as this gives them a feeling of separateness and superiority. Maybe food for thought?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Glasenapp obviously regards it as a philosophy, as evidenced by his quote saying that "Buddhism is the highlight of Indian philosophical thought", and also as a non-theistic religion, which would fit the defintion of 'religion, though not as this is usually considered in the West'. This is my view, that it must be referred to as both religion and philosophy, as this is undoubdetdly how it has been characterized. To only refer to it as 'religion' would be profoundly misleading, especilly since this is not 'relgion' in the usual western sense. Similarly to only mention the practical phiolosophy, would not include the religous aspects that have developed such as going to temples and ritual etc. To mention both is therefore the only acceptable conclusion.
However, only comparing it with 'religion' in a broad sense is again misleading. The vast majority of people regard chsristianity and Islam as faith based religions. If you asked the average person, or the average scholar I would say 99.99% woould respond that these are religions. Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith, and it is well known to both academics and laypeople that it is 'not religion in the usual sense', or it is usually characterized as a 'way of life', or a 'philosophy'. Labelling it is clearly no easy task. The broad scope and overlap of Indic religions and philosophies makes simplistic categorization that may apply to faith based Western religions redundant.
Rememeber that it is on the content of what the individual is saying, not on their 'status', that we judge the validity of thir argument, based on what we know from studying a wide variety of different sources. To restrict yourself to the views of a small group of scholars from a small area of the globe viewing things from a limited western scholarly perspective is not representative of the full picture, and will not result in a balanced view. For example, a large number of these western scholars are practicing Christians. So by your argument, their views should be disregarded, as they are biased, and viewing things from within a framework which renders their opinions partial and invalid on the topic of religion and philosophy. Who then is left for you to be citing as giving non biased opinion?
Another scholar who characterized Buddhism as philosophy and religion is Ninian Smart, who included Buddhism in the beginning section of his book 'World Philosophies', under 'South Asian philosophies', he calls Buddhism "one of the two main streams of tradtional Indian philosophy".Of course, he also includes it in his book on 'world religions. He states that "Buddhism is one of the great religions (and philosophies) of India". Clearly this is territory that shcolars have gone over extensively, and reached the conclusion that the best way of describing it is as both philosophy and religion.
Christianity by contrast is never characterized as being one of the wests 'great philosophies'. It is always regarded as religion. It is safe to say that your view that Buddhism is generally seen as purely a 'religion' is entirely POV and unsubstantiated, and clearly goes against the traditional, scholarly and practicing views all of which regard it as both 'religion' and philosophy, or containing elements of both.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." Peter jackson ( talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith": KV above.
"... traditional Buddhism, where faith is preliminary to practice.": Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 259.
"Most traditions of Buddhism consider saddhā, 'trustful confidence' or faith, as a quality which must be balanced by wisdom, and as a preparation for, or accompaniment of, meditation.": Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 170.
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"... Buddhists ... usually consider themselves to be followers of a religion ..." (Chryssides & Greaves, Study of Religion, Continuum Press, 2007, page 13)
"Essentially all religions have adherents who claim that their religion is not a religion. ... [examples, including Buddhism] ... For the sociologist and for the statistician (as for most people [this also stated for Buddhism in Silk, paper in Numen, volume 49, 2002, reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403]), these are all religions. Claims about not being a religion are pithy slogans contrived by people inventing a new definition of "religion" for the express purpose of emphasizing the benefits of their particular religious preference."(
[1]).
Elsewhere on the same website it gives lists of religions "described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes", "the religions most likely to be covered in world religion books" ( [2]) & "most described used [sic] in contemporary comparative religion literature" ( [3]). Buddhism is in these lists
It must obviously be true that most people consider Buddhism as a religion, because that's what most dictionaries, encyclopaedias & books about religions say. How could they think otherwise? Peter jackson ( talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
More on faith:
"The Pure Land school of Mahayana is the most widely practised today." (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 86)
"What proved to be the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia, Pure-Land ..." (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2009, page 208)
"Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206)
If you'd looked over my user page as I suggested, I wouldn't have to keep cluttering up this page with these citiations.
The basic problem is this. Buddhism is extremely varied (the 2nd most diverse of the "classical" religions: [4]). But virtually all Western Buddhists, & a lot in the East, belong to a modernist form of Buddhism, & many of them are under the impression that Buddhist modernism is Buddhism. See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for a whole pile of citations on this point. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
(They think their part of the elephant is the elephant.) Peter jackson ( talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Again PJ, there is a clear flaw in your argument, which is that there are and have been many scholars who categorize Buddhism as both religion and philosophy. You need to come up with a better argument than 'some of them are dead'. So what? Wikipedia policy is to take scholarly opinion as credible sources - this means recent and relevant shcolarly opinion. Surely if there were a leading scholar tragically killed in a car accident today, it would not render all his recent work irrelevent? I do not know quote where you have picked up that bizaare idea but I suggest you abandon it as it is a very strange and untendable concept. When academics do die, their work is not suddenly abandoned and considered irrelevant! It is published and presented in academic circles and still considered just as relevant. This occurs in all fields. Ninian Smart died a couple of years ago. Him dying is no good reason to hold against his excellent scholarly contribution.
I have and continue to argue that within the scope of Indian thought, concepts of 'religion' and philosophy are very much intertwined, and to mention one without the other simply does not make sense. The comparisons with homogenous, entirely (as opposed to partially, in some branches) faith based religions such as Christinity is again untenable. Simply put, unless you can find scholarly sources that speak of Christianity as 'one of the great philosophies of the West' and compare it with known Western philosophical schools, your attempt to class 'Buddhism' as simply 'religion' in the same sense as Christianity, with " a few within the religion who consider it not a religion", is entirely false, unsubstantiated and baseless. It relys on seemingly one quote by a single sociologist attempting to overgeneralize, and in so doing going against a large body of academic and scholarly opinion, not just recent but over the centuries. In contrast, 'Buddhism' is frequently mentioned as being "one of the great philosophies of the East", is frequently considered alongside Eastern and Western philosophical schools, and is often classed as both philosophy and religon in scholarly work.
Yet another scholar who classes Buddhism as philosophy as well as religion - M. Siderits, who states in his book 'Buddhism as Philosophy' (2007), that it is a study of "Buddhism as philosophy, and as a form of philosophy". He also makes the clear point that many scholars before have made and that I am asserting, that this is not to say that it is not also a 'religion' of some form. He says "To say that would be to assume that it must be one or the other". That pretty much sums up what this argument comes down to. Within the Indian tradition, western concepts such as 'religion' and 'philosophy' are often interlinked and inseparable, Buddhism being the prime example.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Buddist live lifes of sacrfice. Always looking for ways to give in the God. They have lots of religious holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.92.107 ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A statement has been tagged as dubious. Here's the exact wording of the source cited.
"With very few exceptions, Chinese Buddhists accept that the chances of attaining enlightenment so complete that it guarantees one an exit from saṃsāra through the unaided strength of one's own practice are very slim, and that one must have Pure Land practice as a kind of insurance policy, regardless of what other practices or scholarship one does. Thus, Pure Land thought and practice pervades [sic] all of Chinese Buddhism as the guarantor of the path one treads toward Buddhahood." (Damien Keown & Charles S. Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 611)
The same or very similar wording appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, presumably written by the same contributor.
In support of this, here's some material from a field anthropologist who studied Chinese Buddhism 1st hand.
"Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ... (Holmes Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism, Harvard University Press, 1967, pages 89f)
"Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Holmes Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard University Press, 1972, page 288)
The term 'practical philosophy' seems far more appropriate than 'spiritual', and the term no doubt has some merit to being used. I think that even this does not do justice by fully describing the Buddha's teachings, but it is at least more fitting that using the term spiritual. Practical philosophy encompasses the elements of putting ethics into action, living with wisdom and reflecting on daily life, all elements anyone familiar with Buddhism will recognise.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the use of the term 'spiritual philosophy' is preffereable? And you are again wrong as this is not personal opinion, it can be referenced. I must also say that you seem fond of criticizing but seemingly quite lacking in ability to provide suitable alternatives or suggestions. So I repeat, what are you suggesting as a more appropriate alternative, and why?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"it would be inadequate to define Buddhism simply as a philosophy, a way of life, or a code of ethics. It includes all of these things" (Keown, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1996, p 14)
"... we should not continue to keep Buddhism in that category of being just a philosophy and somehow above these more rough-and-tumble forms of religious life." (Lewis & Lewis, Sacred Schisms, Cambridge University Press, 2009, page 82)
I don't know of any present-day scholar who'd call Buddhism a philosophy. The late Professor Conze did so in the book cited above, but even he qualified this by saying (page 15) that it's not in the usual Western sense, i.e. presumably the sense in which most readers of this article would understand it.
What am I suggesting? Some time ago those of us around at the time had some such wording as "Buddhism is usually considered a religion". What's wrong with that, or something similar? It's obviously true, & even cited, & it clearly implies there are other views. The details could be discussed in a section called What is Buddhism? or The nature of Buddhism, which nobody got round to writing. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think removing the sentence entirely is justified. It is of value to mention what the tradition presents itself as, not merely what scholars think it is. We are not saying that "Buddhism is a path of liberation through insight", we are saying that from the point of view of the tradition itself, this is what it is regarded as being. And I do think that putting this definition first is warranted. It defines what Buddhism means to 'Buddhists' / practitioners, which is ultimately what comprises this thing called Buddhism.
Secondly, the phrase is not pov or unqualified. It is in the cited source on 'Vedanta and Buddhism'. I mentioned it already but I can mention it again, the specific characterization of it as 'liberation through insight' is mentioned, in the section of the artice labelled (1). Furthermore, I mentioned in the above section that 'ultimate nature of reality' is a way of decribing what the insight practice is aimed at. The same source by Glasenapp mentiones why this, saying that "Only the indefinable Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality."
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Let us be clear about the sociological argument that PJ is trying to make based on his one quote froma sociologist that "all religions contain people who deny their a religion". Whilst the Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition have produced philosophical thinkers as one would expect, this is in stark contrast to the situation with Buddhism, where 'Buddhism' itself has been decribed by scholars as a philosophy, as well as producing further philosophical thinkers.
Religions such as Christinaity may well contain the odd individual who prefers to think of his religion as being something other than religion, such as 'a relationship with God'. This again contrasts with Buddhism, where scholars outside of Buddhism call it a philosophy. So we are talking about two different phenomena. Ninian Smart, who was one of the worlds leading experts on comparative religion and philosophy is quite clear when he states (p12, World Philosophies , N. Smart) that Buddhism is "one of the two main streams of traditional Indian philosophy". The attempted sociological argument therfore does not hold up at all, unless you want to make the claim that "scholars also like to deny that religions are religions". The Glasenapp quote is also unequivocal, calling Buddhism one of "the highlights of Indian philosophical thought". Clearly both of these leading scholars thought of 'Buddhism' as encompassing both religion and philosophy, and that it would be absurd to mention one without mentioning the other.
The phrase about 'liberation through insight' still has a place, perhaps as description of "Buddhism as originally conceived". The rest of the wording as it stands is alright, although the use of the word 'spiritual' is still problematic.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Among the main things I have disliked about defining Buddhism as philosophy in the lead is the way(s) it has been worded, which struck me as unencyclopedic. Assuming we keep it, I've taken a stab at rewording it; please comment or contribute. In particular I thought the conjunction, "~ is a religion or spiritual philosophy ..." was awkward and ambiguous. /ninly ( talk) 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
See also #Buddhism as Philosophy. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
People who follow Buddhism believe in many things. They believe in reincarnation, karma, dharma, and ahimsa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon9057 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite the belief of Buddhists that Buddha's comprehension of dhamma (doctrinal truth) is perfect, they do not rely on him in the way that Christians often rely on their religious leaders. There is a rejection of anything except the authority of experience and experimentalism (not to be confused with empiricism). Buddha urged his disciples to come and see (ehi passika) for themselves in a way that makes personal realization (not to be confused with empirical verification) paramount. Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins, like blind men touching various parts of an elephant and taking reality to be limited to partial perception." [10] (188)
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Some readers ... may have heard that ... Ch'an ... died out long ago in China, choked by superstition and decay. After an inspection tour of Chinese Buddhism in 1934, Dr. Suzuki wrote: "Japanese Zen travellers ... [ellipsis in Welch] deplore the fact that there is no more Zen in China." [source cited] The facts are otherwise. At a small number of monasteries right up to the year 1949, hundreds of monks continued the strict practice of collective meditation under common masters. Ch'an Buddhism in China was destroyed, while still alive, by the land reforms of 1950. Meditation takes time, and time takes unearned income." (Holmes Welch, The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950, Harvard University Press, 1967, page 47)
"Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ..." (Welch, 1967, pages 89f)
"... as time passed, all schools came to be regarded as mutually complementary. ... in the past century the attitude of the sangha has been that the doctrines of every school are equally valid." (Welch, 1967, page 395)
"Because a monk could have several different kinds of masters, he could belong in different ways to different sects. Usually when he entered the sangha, the master who shaved his head was of the Lin-chi lineage, since it was by far the most common. ... The disciple may not have known who Lin-chi was, much less what he taught, but if someone asked him what sect he belonged to, he would reply "Lin-chi." Or if, for example, some years after his head was shaved, he had received the dharma from a mater of the Ts'ao-tung lineage, then he might alternatively say that his sect was Ts'ao-tung ... if someone asked [a monk] "in respect to religious practice, what sect are you?"—the chances are that he would answer "Pure Land" or perhaps "Pure Land and Ch'an combined."" (Welch, 1967, page 396)
"Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard, 1972, page 288)
This backs up the 2 tertiary sources saying PL is the most popular, bearing in mind that most estimates of the numbers of Chinese Buddhists are around 100,000,000, i.e. near 1/3 of the world Buddhist population. I can also cite sources for plenty in Vietnam & Japan.
There's a phenomenon I call the afterthought mentality. You get it in a lot of books on Christianity in English. They say things along the lines of "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." Catholics are treated as an afterthought, even though they're the majority on most estimates. How far can you take this? "Buddhists believe in following the path of the bodhisattva. Oh but actually Theravadins don't." I think most people would say that's biased. Yet Theravadins number around 1/3 of world Buddhist population, similar to Pure Land. So it would also be biased to treat PL as an afterthought. Going further, though, it seems reasonable to say most Budddhists are led by monks, with Japan the only major exception. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Does a practice become more "true" depending on how many adhere to it?" WP isn't about truth. This article is supposed to be about "Buddhism", i.e. a major religion followed by 350,000,000 people. In other words, what large numbers of people believe & practise is precisely what it is supposed to be about.
Ninly, "On the other hand, I do agree that the global prominence of Pure Land believers should not be allowed overly to color the presentation of Buddhist cosmology and tradition as a whole. While it is a significant part of Buddhism, that doesn't mean it is Buddhism."
If you look back, you'l see that what I was talking about was balance. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Few notions elicit more debate and vague associations than the family of concepts associated with the word faith and its various approximate synonyms (e.g., belief). Needless to say the English faith has no exact equivalent in the languages of Asia. The word means many things in English and in other Western languages as well, and the proximate Asian equivalents also have many meanings in their Asian contexts. This is not to say that faith cannot be used as a descriptive or analytical tool to understand Buddhist ideas and practices yet one must be aware of the cultural and polemic environments that shaped Buddhist notions of faith."
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
At the end comes a section headed Summary Interpretation, which I again give in full:
"Ideals of nondiscursive apprehension straddle the dividing line between faith and knowledge, humble surrender and recognition of a state of liberation that cannot be acquired by the individual's will. In some ways the tradition seems to assume that one has faith in that which one respects and trusts, but also in that which one wishes to attain, and that which one imagines oneself to be or able to become."
I can post more later if it helps. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had another look at the link given by Viriditas, & it appears to be mainly about a book by Paul Williams that I haven't come across. We don't seem to have it here, so I can't check what it says (yet), but here are a few comments.
"You are essentially arguing that a 12th-century interpretation of Buddhism by Shinran is more important than those of the Buddha himself, which is a strange thing to say." What an absurd thing to say. It's completely wrong in several ways:
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Peter. While I was archiving the Buddhism talk page, I took a minute to look at your contributions. You've made somewhere around ~4,724 edits, 39% of which have been made to the talk page. From 2006-2009, you've focused mostly on Buddhist topics, however I do not see any GA or FA work. Keep in mind, the talk page is used to improve articles, not to debate the merits of Buddhism or scholarship on the issue. I don't know if you remember Skipsievert ( talk · contribs) or not, but he held up the improvement of Sustainability and related topics for years. What is interesting, is the pattern of his contributions, which look very much like your own. Now, I have been reading your discussions in the archives, and there does appear to be a pattern of presenting a revisionist view of Buddhism that is not reflected by most sources on the topic. Most disturbingly, is your repeated claim throughout the archives that it is "not possible to define what, if anything, Buddhists as a whole believe in, as that too is a matter of dispute." Either you keep saying this to prevent people from working on and improving the article, or you have a misunderstanding about Buddhism and how Wikipedia works. It is most certainly possible to define what Buddhists believe in, using the essential teachings of the Buddha, which all sects have in common. This is not in dispute, and Buddhist organizations agree on this one fact. You could go a long way to alleviating my concern by choosing one single Buddhist topic and bringing it to GA or FA class. This would show that you are really here to improve articles, and not to hold up or prevent their improvement. What do you think? Viriditas ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Buddha urged his disciples to come and see (ehi passika) for themselves in a way that makes personal realization (not to be confused with empirical verification) paramount. Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins, like blind men touching various parts of an elephant and taking reality to be limited to partial perception. [13]
It seems clear to me that there cannot possibly, in the light of all this evidence, be a scholarly consensus on some common core. Therefore it would violate NPOV for the article to treat some such theory as fact. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, to respond to what you said above.
"That's fine, but Peter has a bad habit of posting long screeds in response to direct questions, and never answers the question. Furthermore, he makes claims that are either false, somewhat false, or can be misconstrued as true. I don't know if he is doing this on purpose or by accident, but its gotten to the point where something needs to be done. As only one of many examples, for several years now, Peter has been making this claim about the failure to find a "common core" of Buddhism."
See also #More on common core. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"In response to this, Peter writes above, "The organization that produced this isn't mentioned in (four examples of encyclopedias) as far as I can tell. It's obviously a small & unimportant organization." What is so interesting about Peter's response is what he omits from his list of encyclopedias. The organization is in fact, mentioned in the entry for Buddhism in the Encyclopædia Britannica online"
[See also #Common core. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]]
I don't see how you could possibly cover this in the lead in any detail. You could only say something like "Buddhism is the second most diverse of the "classical" religions, [14] and scholars are not agreed on what, if anything, is the common core of its different forms." You could then have a section discussing it in detail. Peter jackson ( talk) 12:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Burnouf's discovery of the connecting thread among these Buddhist traditions was such a major intellectual feat that it has continued to shape perceptions about those traditions: that despite their superficial differences, they share a common core. Thus the West has perceived Buddhism as a single religion, much like Christianity or Islam, with the differences among its various permutations analogous to the differences among Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. For more than a century after Burnouf's discovery, Buddhologists-- scholars of the Buddhist tradition- tried to delineate the essential characteristics of that common core, but the data refused to fit into any clearly discernible mold." (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, 2004, page xx; more context can be found at User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal).
"... some historians of Buddhism will likely find unsatisfactory the distinction presented in the introduction between the "vast array of Buddhist religious cultural forms" and its "profound spiritual quest" or "the more fundamental depths of Buddhist experiences" (p. 1). Such language, although widespread, perpetuates the "core philosophy and practice"–versus–"culturally accumulated baggage" picture of Buddhism constructed by early western Buddhologists, implicitly suggesting that scholars can extract this original tradition from later cultural accretions ..." (McMahan, review in Philosophy East and West, volume 54 (2004), pages 269f; context from the book being reviewed can be found at
User:Peter jackson/Mitchell).
"There is probably no clear-cut, unchanging core to Buddhist doctrine. Buddhism as a religion in history has no essence ..." (Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 1st ed, Routledge, 1990, pages 275f; 2nd ed, 2008, page 266, looks about the same; more context can be found in
/Archive 6#Essentialism).
"... continuities ... within the tradition. These continuities cannot be found in any static essence or core threading its way through all of Buddhist history." (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, volume 2, page 336)
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"Now, note the role given to Pure Land in the context of Mahayana: "The Mahayana tradition encompasses a great many different schools, including the Madhyamika; the Yogacara or Vijnanavada (Vijnaptamatrata); the Avatamsaka school, which recognized the special importance of the Avatamsaka Sutra; a number of different schools that recognized the special authority of the Saddharmapundarika (Lotus Sutra); various Pure Land devotional schools; and several Dhyana (“Meditation”) schools."
"For example, you cite a source that claims that "Buddhism is the oldest of the great world religions", which of course, isn't true."
"Buddhism is the oldest of the great 'world religions'. Like both the others – Christianity and Islam – it not only addresses itself to all mankind but has found adherents in almost all parts of the world."
"You also cite a source that says "there have been about 10,000,000 Buddhist martyrs, and about 1,811,000 Christians have been martyred by (Mahayana) Buddhists." When asked what this means and for details on the subject, you throw your hands up in the air. So there are just two instances of bad sources for disputed statements you've added to your user page."
Peter jackson ( talk) 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
citation needed Peter jackson ( talk) 11:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We're currently at 142,296 bytes, and the article is not only unmanageable, but unreadable. Should the article start with "Life of the Buddha" or some other topic? The prose can be tightened up a bit; I see a lot of needless words. Is the current date of birth correct? I read in another source that it had been adjusted by several centuries, so it should probably read as a range rather than as an exact date. Viriditas ( talk) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
as one of the leading religions of the world.But in India the Vedic Hindus retaliated.According to Ambedkar key Buddhist monks were killed so that further propagation of Buddhism should be weakened.All the Buddhist viharas were occupied and Hindu idols installed in them and Caste system brought back.The gods and customs of sudras, Dalits and Adivasis were thus mAarginalized and the cultural integrity of these groups attacked.Buddha never prescribed pure vegetarianism to his followers. The Budhist Sangha people were eating meat, beef, pork, vegetables etc.Udupi’s Pejawara Swamy even now insists that Budhism is anti-Hindu.(Deccan Herald, Nov.3, 2008).-- Nrahamthulla ( talk) 10:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The last date in archive 17 is 7 June 2008. The first date in archive 18 is 15 May 2009. There seems to be a massive gap. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to discuss changing the lead image to reflect its adherents, such as a monk, Sangha, or something people-oriented. Viriditas ( talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In any wikipedia article, basic info should be in the first few parapgrahs. And nowhere in the beggining does it say that Buddhism comes from India or was founded in Ancient India or rose from the Indian sub-continent. Nothing. I have mentineod this before, and sometimes someone puts something like that, and other times its not thier. I mean do some of you people have something against India then? What is going on here. I mean when you go to the Buddha's page it has the info about India then I think. So why not here in the beggining of the article then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Where the Buddha was born or lived is really not hugely significant to the issue of 'Buddhism', nor to the teaching. We know that he lived in north east of the Indian subcontinent, and this can be mentioned but it is not of any real importance in having in the lead. The topic necessarily emerges when talking of the teaching since the Buddha's teaching is also partly a reaction to brahmanism and a rejection of the validity of the Veda's and caste system. Also, 'India' as a whole did not exist at that time as a unified entity, and furthermore soures indicate the Buddha actually was born in Nepal, not modern India. Hence I am editing to acknowledeg these points. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[See also #Practical Philosophy. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about this: Outside of colloquial usage, there is no such thing as "a philosophy". Philosophy is a study, a systematic examination of questions and problematics, a process. As such, Buddhism may be constituted in part by a body of philosophical ideas, work, and thought – by the Buddha himself as well as several subsequent Buddhist thinkers – but to say that Buddhism (or anything else – existentialism, whatever) is a philosophy is a misuse of the word in a formal context. Please review my recent (reverted) changes and suggest improvements. /ninly ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So are you posting these points on all the philosophy articles on wikipedia like 'existentialism', metaphysics etc' as well? That would be a very time consuming and unneccesary activity. The word philosphy adaquately defines the meaning. You could make exactly the same argument about the use of the term religion. Afterall, the word 'religion' is a western concept largely based on how Christinity is viewed. The word doesn't really have an equivalent in Asian languages and hence it may be inappropriate to refer to another cultures traditions with it since it is unlikely to match what those countries practitioners define it as. So both the terms 'religion' and 'philosophy' may be problematic with regards to Buddhism. Yet we can agree that with reagrds to a western terminology, it would be hard to find closer descriptive terms.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The use of numbered lists throughout this article is excessive and unprecedented. I am not aware of any GA or FA on religion or philosophy that uses this format and this style is not encyclopedic. I suggest that the vast majority of such lists are converted to prose, with the use of prose in introductory paragraphs instead of embedded lists. It's time to bring this article inline with standard formatting and layout conventions. Viriditas ( talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The foundation of the practice is ethical conduct. One need not formally take refuge in the triple gem in order to put the teachings into practice. There are many today who practice Buddhist meditation yet have not taken refuge in the triple gem. Likewise there are many who put the ethical teachings into practice or have been influenced by Buddhist teachings, yet have never heard of taking refuge. The common bond of the practice is however ethics which comes first and foremost. This is what unifies those who have been influenced to put Buddhist teachings into practice, whether to a small extent or large, and whether they have formally 'taken refuge' or not. There are also many many people who have formally 'taken refuge' yet do not put the teachigns into practice at all. Most people born in countries with strong Buddhist tradition such as Sri Lanka, Thailand etc will take refuge as a formality. However, many of these do notput anything into practice at all. On the other hand, there are many who live by the teachings but have not formally taken refuge. Therfore the teaching is about first putting ethics into practice, the formality of taking refuge is often just that- an empty formality. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The Three Jewels are the foundation of all forms of Buddhism, and the first jewel is the Buddha...the most important element of Buddha to us, until we become buddhas ourselves, is that Buddha is a teacher, and he gives us a teaching...a set of methods that we can use to develop ourselves, to learn, to think over, to meditate upon, and finally, to gain deep, profound, transforming insight, wisdom, and understanding...We take refuge in the Buddha...we turn to the teaching...of the possibility of happiness...in whatever form it comes to us...the second refuge-we take refuge in the Dharma...Virtues and ethics and practices are also Dharma...the real jewel of refuge in Buddhism...we take refuge in reality, the second jewel...The third jewel is the Sangha, the community of those who enjoy the jewels of refuge, who learn the teaching, seek that understanding, and work to embody the Dharma. [16]
"Few teachers in the West possess both the spiritual training and the scholarship to lead us along the path to enlightenment. Robert Thurman is one such teacher. Now, in his first experiential course on the essentials of Tibetan Buddhism, adapted and expanded from a popular retreat he led, Thurman -- the first Westerner ordained by His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself -- shares the centuries-old wisdom of a highly valued method used by the great Tibetan masters. Using a revered, once-secret text of a seventeenth-century Tibetan master, along with a thorough explanation for contemporary Westerners, The Jewel Tree of Tibet immerses you fully in the mysteries of Tibetan spiritual wisdom. A retreat in book form as well as a spiritual and philosophical teaching, it offers a practical system of understanding yourself and the world, of developing your learning and thought processes, and of gaining deep, transforming insight."
That doesn't sound like an academic book to me. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
...Jewels occupy important narrative and ritual spaces throughout the history of Buddhism...Buddhists incorporated jewels into their teachings as part of a discourse on value...The Buddha routinely employed the metaphor of the jewel (ratna) in a variety of sutras to refer to the unlimited value of enlightened wisdom...the jewel was often used as a metaphor to depict the conquest of death that is accomplished in Buddhist liberation...to illustrate enlightened vision of the absolute character of the interpenetration of all phenomena (dharma)..the jewel was also used in the phrase "Three Jewels" (triratna) to refer to the Buddhist tradition in its three basic, most treasured aspects: Buddha, his teaching (dharma), and his community (sangha).
'Taking refuge', in the true sense of the meaning, is to put the teachings of the Buddha into practice. However, many who go through the formality of taking refuge (i.e the ritual of bowing 3 times to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) in Buddhist countries do not put anything into practice at all. Hence they are not really 'taking refuge', they are merely reciting the name of the Buddha Dharma sangha. Simliarly, many practice meditation without formally taking refuge. Yes it is true- one need not be a 'buddhist' to practice the teachings. In actual fact there is no such thing as a 'Buddhist', at least according to what we can ascertain to be the original teachings. Buddhist practice is grounded in ethics, whether this is seen as 'original research' depends on whether it has been discussed in academia which I am quite sure it has . However there is also no doubt that the practice is also rooted in the Buddha, Dharma and sangha. One may say that the Buddha and knowledge of the Dharma is a necessary prerequisite for undertaking practice, but not necessarily 'taking refuge' in them. Taking refuge in the triple gem is mainly understood as a formal declaration and ritual in Buddhist countries. Clealry, one can be influneced and practice Buddhist teachings without being a 'Buddhist'. One can put Buddhist teachings into practice without 'taking refuge'. One can simply be inlfuneced by them and put them into practice. Therfore to say that the foundation of all Buddhist practice such as practicing meditation is 'taking refuge in the triple gem' is false. It may be said that the foundation of the practice is the triple gem itself, but taking refuge in them is another matter. If someone were to practice vipassana, that does not mean they have 'taken refuge in the triple gem'. However, it does mean they are putting Buddhist teachigns into practice. This is not a matter of original researh it is reasoning and logic. So we can see that putting the teaching into practice need not require 'taking refuge', it only requires having some degree of confidence in the teachings. And there is both modern day evidence as well as evidence from the sutta's to support this. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can find references that support the view that everyone who practices vipassana has 'taken refuge in the triple gem' then you are alright. Otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding the practice and are yourself pushing only your personal opinion and view without a basis. The wording must then be changed to say something along the lines of "It is generally regarded that taking refuge in the triple gem is an outward declaration of being a 'buddhist' and making a comittment to practice". However, what I am stating is that in order to put Buddhist teachings into practice, one must first have some degree of confidence in the Buddha and Dharma. Without this one will not practice. It is the conrfidence in the teachings that is the foundation.
There is clear evidence from the sutta's for this for example the Kandaraka sutta (p6) [21]. Here, Kessa listens to the teachings and the Buddha says he gains benefit- however he does not take refuge in the triple gem he only respectfully salutes the Buddha. This contrasts with the ending of many sutta's where the listener states clearly at the end "I go to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha for refuge' . So the Sutta's clearly distinguiosh between the two. Hence this is a clear scriptural example of someone aquiring confidence in the Buddha and his teaching enough to put them into practice and benefit but not taking refuge. This situation is found many times in the Suttas. So like I said, either you can find sources that explain both of these points, or else your view is incorrect and mainly a POV misunderstaing of what 'taking refuge' means. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the Wikipedia policy and citing shcolarly sources. What I am adressing is your misunderstanding of what constitutes 'Buddhist practice', and how to use sources to support what one is saying. So lets clarify it for you now. Scholarly sources have to support the claims made on wikipedia. If the sources do not match the claims that are being made, then either new sources must be found in support of these claims, or else the claims themselves must be removed or reworded. Please review some of the policy you mentioned such as WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS so that you can correctly understand how this apllies to Wikiedpia and distinguish between 'origianl reseacrh' and interpretation of current research. So your claim that all 'Buddhist practice' is reliant on taking refuge in the triple gem is not substantiated by any of the sources currently on wikipedia. If you can find a source for example that says all those who practice vipassana have taken refuge in the triple gem, then your claim that all buddhist practice is based on refuge in the triple gem would be correct. Otherwise it is simply misunderstanding what the sources are actually saying as it is not supported by any of the sources. This is not a matter of 'original reserach'- it is a matter of correctly understaning what the established research is actually claiming, which is where you have been lacking. Again, let me clarify. There is a difference between:
1/. Buddhist practice and
2/. Being or considering onself a 'Buddhist'
So you have added a statement that is not supported by the sources. Therefore there is no burden of proof for me to find new sources, since the current sources already support what I am saying.
The topic of being a Buddhist is itself problematic since there is no real traditional equivalent. However, we could assert that taking refuge in the triple gem is a good indicator of being or considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. This however is not necessary, nor a foundation for Buddhist practice, such as practicing the teachings or meditation. This is clearly demonstrated by both the primary sources as well as modern practice. Stating this is not new research, rather it is about understanding what the current research actually says. So essentially you are misundersating what the scholarly sources are saying. The schoarly sources are not saying that refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of Buddhist practice. They support the view that some degree of confidence in the Buddha and his teaching is the foundation of Buddhist practice, but that taking refuge is more or less equivalent to formally stating or considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not simply the primary sources, it is correctly interpreting the secondary sources as well. Currently the lead says that 'taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of Buddhist practice'- this is neither supported by primary or secondary sources. What the secondary sources say, is that taking refuge is equivalent to declaring or considering oneself a Buddhist. And as I have said, one need not consider oneself a 'Buddhist' in order to put Buddhist teachings into pratice. Hence both the primary and secondary sources that are here support only that the foundation of all Buddhist practice, whether one considers oneself a 'Buddhist' or not is to have confindence in the Buddha and Dharma not necessarliy to the extent of 'taking refuge' in them. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"For over two thousand years, the simple recitation of "going for refuge" - Buddha Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Buddha"), Dharma Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Teachings"), and Sangha Saranam Gacchami ("I go for refuge in the Community") - has marked an individual's conversion to Buddhism and the start of Buddhist rituals. Today these three repetitions are still heard across Asia and increasingly beyond, in Japan and Nepal, from Mongolia to Thailand, by immigrants and converts to the West." (169) [22] -Orlando Espin (Editor), James B. Nickoloff. (2007). An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies
"The canonical Nikāya literature makes a concerted attempt to inculcate a sense of moral and ethical values among the laity, based on Buddhist ethics and loyalty to the Triratna (three jewels), that is, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Discourses contained in the Brahmajāla Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta of the Dīgha Nikāya emphasize the importance of adhering to the five shīlas, or moral values, and stress that the lay devotee should concentrate on religious talks on the fortnightly uposatha days...The involvement of Ashoka with the dharma was by no means limited to propagation of an ethical way of life, as is evident from his records. Minor Rock Edict III was addressed to the Sangha and the laity, and it contains an unequivocal expression of the emperor's respect and faith in the "three jewels." -Himanshu Ray. (2006). "Buddhism in Ancient India". Encyclopedia of India. Ed. Stanley Wolpert. Vol. 1.
"A person first becomes a Buddhist by taking refuge in the Three Jewels...This is done in early childhood before a lama, who cuts the tip of the person's hair and gives him or her a new name. Bhutanese Buddhists use names received from a lama in this manner and do not share family names. The practice of taking refuge and naming is often repeated several times in a person's lifetime as a ritual of blessing...It is through taking refuge in the Three Jewels—accepting the Buddha as the teacher, the dharma as the path, and the sangha as the companions on the path—that one truly becomes a Buddhist. Most Bhutanese, however, consider themselves to be Buddhists by birth." - Karma Phuntsho. (2005). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices. Ed. Thomas Riggs. Vol. 2.
"Taking this triple refuge is nowadays an essential criterion for being considered a Buddhist. The dharma is the truth and protector. The Buddha is the teacher of the dharma and becomes its personification. The disciples were advised to take the dharma as their guide after the Buddha's death. The dharma is the essence of the Buddha. Upon discovering the dharma, Śākyamuni attained buddhahood. The sangha, the monastic order, puts dharma into practice in daily life." -Charles Willemen. (2004). "Dharma and Dharmas". Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Ed. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Vol. 1.
"Dharma, together with the Buddha and the samgha, constitute a "threefold jewel" (triratna) before which one makes prostrations and in which one takes refuge. Here dharma does not so much represent a body of teachings as it assumes a character of awesomeness, protection, and deliverance wholly appropriate to the Truth. One stands in awe of dharma as a self-sustained righteousness whose universal legacy is to protect through its righteousness those who profess it. Soon after his enlightenment, realizing that there is no one more perfect than himself in virtue, wisdom, and meditation under whom he could live in obedience and reverence, Sākyamuni decided that he would live honoring and revering dharma, the universal truth he had just realized. As one of the Three Jewels, the Buddha is dharma's embodied personification, revealer, and teacher. The samgha constitutes a body of dharma's followers among whom dharma thrives as the norm of daily life, becoming an inspiration and a path to deliverance. The Three Jewels as conceived in the early period can be paralleled, as a somewhat general comparison, with the later concept of the three buddha bodies. Dharma as dharmakāya represents its own sublime and absolute aspect, the Buddha as a sambhogakāya represents the pure and glorified state of dharma, and the samgha as nirmānakāya represents dharma as discovered and operating within the world." - Tadeusz Skorupski. (2005). "Dharma: Buddhist Dharma and Dharmas". Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 4. 2nd ed.
"In attempts to identify what it is that Buddhists share and that makes them Buddhist, one of the most commonly cited and least controversial candidates is the custom of taking refuge in the "three jewels'"...It is probably the case that virtually all Buddhists would accept this custom as part of their religion, though the fact that it is not very controversial should warn us that it may also not be very important, and in any case their acceptance tells us little about what they might mean by it. Still, in beginning to sort out some of our options for understanding the issue of unity and diversity in the tradition, it might be helpful for heuristic purposes to bear in mind the schema of the three jewels and the distinctive models for interdenominational accomodation that seem to be suggested by each of the three kinds of refuge." - Carl Bielefeldt. (1990). "The One Vehicle and the Three Jewels: On Japanese Sectarianism and Some Ecumenical Alternatives". Buddhist-Christian Studies. University of Hawai'i Press. Vol. 10, (1990), pp. 5-16.
"The fundamental declaration for Buddhists is taking refuge in the Three Jewels: the Buddhas, the truth that they understand and teach, and the community that preserves that teaching." - William Tuladhar-Douglas. (2005). "Pūjā: Buddhist Pūjā". Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 11. 2nd ed.
"Usually, it is said that a deep faith in the three treasures is the foundation of Buddhist religious life."(86) [23] - Sung Bae Park, Assistant Professor of East Asian Religions at the Center for Religious Studies, State University of New York at Stony Brook. [24]
"...taking refuge [in the Three Jewels] is the indispensable foundation for all Buddhist precepts. Taking refuge marks the difference between being a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist. And without depending upon the protection of these objects of refuge, there is no way to attain emancipation from samsara." - Jamgon Kongtrul, Light of Wisdom, Volume 1 [25]
"it may also not be very important, and in any case their acceptance tells us little about what they might mean by it." So is there any point in having it in the lead? Peter jackson ( talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
""The dramatic growth in scholarship on Buddhism over the past half century, both in the quantity and the quality of that scholarship, has made it virtually impossible for a single scholar to claim knowledge of the entire tradition across its vast geographical and chronological sweep." (Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism, Harper/Penguin, 2001, page ix)
So statements about Buddhism as a whole are tertiary, not primary. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: [1] [2]
Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
Note in particular this sentence:
"Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources."
Peter jackson ( talk) 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As per the above discussion, the change would reflect what the sources actually say. 'Buddhist practice' encompasses far more than just what 'Buddhists' do. It also encompasses buddhist meditation practice done by those who would not condsider themselves buddhists. No one would argue that vipassana meditation is not a Buddhist practice. Likewise no one would argue that everyone who practices vipassana is a 'buddhist who has taken refuge in the three jewels'.
The statement, It is generally regarded that taking refuge in the triple gem is an outward declaration of being a 'buddhist' and making a comittment to practice, would reflect what taking refuge in the triple gem means, as in basically 'being a buddhist'. However, if the statement is about the foundation of all buddhist practice, as in all practice directy based on buddhist teachings such as practciing vipassana meditation, then one could only accurately say that
The foundation of all buddhist practice is having confidence in the Buddha and his teaching.
I wouldn't even say that one need necessarily have confidence in the 'sangha'.
So one or the other must be reworded in line with the sources. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The argument is quite clear as stated above. If you still don't get what is wrong with the wording after all that has been described above, then I won't be able to help you further. It comes down to the fact that one does not need to be or consider oneself a 'buddhist' in order to practice Buddhist teachings. All of the above secondary sources that have been posted support this. All of these secondary sources say that refuge in the three jewels is akin to 'being a buddhist', not to putting the teachings into practice. So again, the current wording as it stands is incorrect. Unless you can provide a source that says that all those who practice vipassana have taken refuge in the triple gem, I will revert in line with the sources. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue boils down to the words and meaning of 'taking refuge'. I have said that confdence in the three jewels, or even just the Buddha and dharma is the foundation of the practice. Confidence in the three jewels, is different from, taking refuge in the three jewels. As all of the sources have stated, 'taking refuge' is akin to an assertion and declaration of being a 'buddhist'. There are many many vipassana oragnisations that teach buddhist meditation to people devoid of mentioning the three jewels at all. Many of the people who go on these courses or maintain a vipassana practice are clearly not buddhists. Yet they are clearly doing a buddhist practice. So 'taking refuge' does not apply to them. Taking refuge, both in historical sources and in present day tradition, has a specific meaning of basically a declarion of being a buddhist. One could thus say that the three jewels are the foundation of Buddhist practice - this is different form saying that taking refuge in the three jewels is the foundation of buddhist practice. The second version ignores the specific meaning of taking refuge within Buddhist tradition, whilst the first version could accurately describe all the comes under the term 'buddhist practice'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, Viritidas you need to pay more attention to what is being said. I am not arguing that the three jewlels are not the foundation of the practice. I am arguing that taking refuge in them is not the foundation. Taking refuge has a specific meaning. So again, this is down to accurately defining the terms 'taking refuge', and also the terms 'Buddhist practice'.
Buddhist practice encompasses all those practices that originate from the Buddhist tradition. One need not be on the Buddhist path to do a Buddhist practice.
Taking refuge means specifically that one is now on the Buddhist path. The primary sources are clear about this - After taking refuge one either declares oneself a lay follower of the Buddha, or one asks to be accepted as a monk. The secondary sources you have included also demonstrate this as they all say that taking refuge separates a 'buddhist' from a 'non-buddhist'.
A wording to reflect this could more accurately therefore say that -
The three jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha have been the central pillars of the Buddhist tradition, and having confidence in them is the foundation of all Buddhist practice. 'Taking refuge' in the three jewels has traditionally been a declaration and committment to being on the Buddhist path and akin to considering oneself a 'Buddhist'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The act of taking refuge certainly denotes a ritual in most Buddhist countries as well as an affirmation of being a 'buddhist'. The primary and secondary sources are clear that if one takes refuge, one is considered a 'buddhist'. As I have stated, doing a buddhist practice such as vipassana does not make one a buddhist. Your argument would gain more suppport if you could find a reliable source that stated that all people who pratice vipassana are buddhists, and that they have taken refuge, since you have introduced the claim into the lead that 'taking refuge is the foundation of Buddhist practice'. However this claim is simply not supported, as all the sources thus presented support only the view that taking refuge is an affirmation of being on the Buddhist path, an affirmation that can be made more than once.
Examine the meaning of the term 'to take refuge'. Refuge = shelter, asylum. One seeks refuge in the triple gem from the perils and sufferings of samsara. In order to take refuge in triple gem, one must have already accepted the teachings to a certain level based on both examining the meaning and faith. Taking refuge only has meaning from within the Buddhist framework of samsara. It is far more than just confidence or an attidude of respect to the Buddha. Citing references by monks is not always a particularly reliable source, especially since there are so many contrasting opinions. Certainly respect is a prerequistie to taking refuge and is part of it, but truly taking refuge denotes accepting the triple gem as being a 'shelter' from samsara and being on the Buddhist path. The sources are quite clear about this, as is the use of the word refuge to describe this. So, whilst it may be accurately stated that the triple gem is the foundation of all Buddhist practice since practices such as vipassana originate from it, taking refuge in the triple gem is an affirmation of being on the buddhist path and accepting the Buddhist framework of samsara, karma and rebirth as a whole. Taking refuge is not however a prerequisite to doing a Buddhist practice in itself and there has been no evidence thus far to support this claim. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide sources that support your position? I would be grateful to see some. The onus is on you to provide relevant sources, since you have introduced the new claim that taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of buddhist practice, a claim thus far utterly unsupported by any of the primary or secondary sources that have been provided. Clearly, taking refuge in the sense we are discussing, is more than just reciting the ritualistic 'refuge formula'. It centres on your misunderstanding of what taking refuge means. Yet another reference that may help you to understand the distinction is here. [29]. It also makes the important point that refuge in the sangha does not mean the community of monks and nuns. It means the noble sangha of those who have attained to any of the four stages of enlightenment. Since this discussion is really not progressing, I will give you some options to source your claim.
1/. Find a suitable reference that supports the claim that vipassana (a buddhist practice) is done only by buddhists (those that have taken refuge and accepted the Buddha's path as salvation).
2/. Find a suitable reference that vipassana is not a buddhist practice (ridiculous, but your arguement depends on one of these two claims)
3/. Reword the section to remove the claim that taking refuge is the foundation of Buddhist practice. Instead, as all the sources are clear about, taking refuge is the acknowledgement and foundation of 'being a buddhist'.
If you are unable to provide sources for any of the above, then I will reword the section along the lines of taking refuge as commitment to being on the Buddhist path and being a buddhist, cited with some of the many references that have been provided to support this. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 09:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My posts have been entirely directed to Viriditas, since we have been the only ones participating in this discussion save for the small paragraph you have inserted about taking refuge being a part of formal ceremonies and something that is done more than once. If you would like to elaborate on where that puts you in terms of this debate, then my all means do so. My position is clear enough however and unless I see the evidence in support of the counter argument, I see no reason not to edit the lead to reflect a more accurate description of what taking refuge signifies. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is some more direct evidence that will end this argument- an article with some quotes from S.N. Goenka [30] in which it is clearly stated by him:
While Vipassana is firmly rooted in the true teachings of the Buddha, Mr. Goenka emphasizes that it is not a religion and involves no dogma, rites, rituals, and no conversion. "The only conversion involved in Vipassana is from misery to happiness, from bondage to liberation," he told an applauding audience at the World Peace Summit at the United Nations, New York, in 2000.
"Thousands of Catholic priests, Buddhist monks and nuns, Jain ascetics, Hindu sanyasis come to Vipassana courses along with other religious leaders".
As all of the sources have been clear, taking refuge in the triple gem separates a Buddhist from a non-buddhist. This is entirely different from having some degree of confidence in the Buddha and his teachings, enough to do a buddhist practice such as vipassana, yet maintain whatever religious affiliation one wants.
We can discuss how to alter the lead to accomodate this understanding, my suggestion would be as follows:
The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, collectively known as the three jewels, are the central pillars of the Buddhist tradition. Having some measure of confidence in them is the foundation of all Buddhist practice. 'Taking refuge' in the three jewels has traditionally been a declaration and committment to being on the Buddhist path and akin to considering oneself a 'Buddhist'.
Please offer any alternate suggestions as to how this may be worded. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the wording that 'taking refuge in the triple gem is the foundation of buddhist practice' is unsupported and disproven by the above sources, I am proceeding with the alternate wording as suggested. I am including references in support of it as provided here. There is plenty of support already for the alternate wording as provided above so I take it since there are no alternate suggestions the wording is fine. Viridatus, you are acting much like a petulant child I see no basis for what you are saying and I suggest we leave it to others to decide which wording is more suitable since you seem unwilling to accept that your position is untenable despite the clear fact of it. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 10:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." ( WP:PSTS
As you so frequently do, you're ignoring what I said. I gave you an example, & referred you to others, which clearly don't fit your description of what tertiary sources do.
The more general point is this. Any presentation of Buddhism as being all about X, whether X is one thing or a group, or any presentation that's liable to give readers that impression, doesn't represent a consensus of scholarly opinion. If it did, why wouldn't the scholars say that? Why wouldn't they present Buddhism that way? Most of them don't. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I will like to know what is buddhiim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.145.2 ( talk) 00:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as 'Buddhism'. There is the only the Dhamma. Next question- what is the Dhamma? Dhamma has many meanings. 'Phenomena', 'reality', 'universal law', 'truth', 'teachings of an awakened mind'. Probably best to stick to two definitions: the first being how the Buddha himself defined and summarised his teachings, and the second a passage that is said throughout the earliest sources to be the 'vision of the dhamma'.
I teach only suffering, and the cessation of suffering
All that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Having just written the above definition, it strikes me as perhaps worth including these core teachings in the lead somehow. They are both core principles that define what the Dhamma, or 'Buddhism' is, and they are both only a short sentence each. Certainly for someone coming to the Buddhism page, there would be no better summary or definition of the teachings than these which are universally accepted by all traditions. Of course the lead also talks of 'Buddhism' as a tradition of religion and philosophy, but I think including the above statements would certainly not go amiss, and would illuminate anyone who read the lead as to what the fundamental teachings are and cut through what can seem like a confusing landscape of teachings to begin with. Before PJ states the obvious, yes the lead covers all aspects of what 'Buddhism' means, which is 'Buddhism' as the teachings, 'Buddhism' as the religious/philosophical traditions and the practices, and 'Buddhism' as the western conceptualisation of these traditions and practices. The statments would be to clarify in simplest terms the 'teachings' aspect in the lead. Any thoughts on including the above two statements into the lead?
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
...
All that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing"
That is indeed extremely interesting PJ, I had assumed that the phrase "all that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing" was found in all the early canons. It is first attributed to Anna Kondanna in the very first discourse where it is stated he gains the "dustless vision of the dhamma" after hearing the Buddha speak. Certainly I would assume the statement all formations are subject to disintegration, also attributed to the Buddha as part of his last words and found many times in the Canon, would be equivalent to the above passage and that this is found in the Chinese versions as well.
The distinctions I am making are between what scholars and/or dhamma practitioners think the Buddha actually taught, and also the various traditions and practices that have arisen that comprise 'Buddhism' as a religion such as going to temples and venerating Buddha statues , none of which has anything to do with what we can ascertain to have been the teachings.
There is no such thing as Buddhism. This is my point about the Western conceptualisation of whatever it is the Buddha taught, which includes giving it the name 'Buddhism', and trying to understand it and fit it into a western notion of what constitutes 'religion'. That is part of the reason that it is only ever referred to as the Dhamma, and the term Dhamma is not given any precise defintion but has a number of meanings. The meaning can only really be known through the practice, although similies the Buddha gave such as the Dhamma is like a raft give us an understanding of what is the intention.
The Raft Simile
[31]
"I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
Once the 'flood' of Samsara has been crossed through skillful use of the Dhamma, only then can the Dhamma be abandoned. If even skillful action of body, speech and mind is to be abandoned when there is no further need for action, there is no question as to the abandoning of non-skillful action in the here and now.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 12:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"As for his specific teachings, scholars have always debated about what the Buddha actually taught, since even the earliest texts that record his teachings were written down hundreds of years after his death. However, scholars usually agree that there are certain basic teachings, which, since they are presented in so many places throughout the early texts, must represent at least the kinds of things the Buddha actually taught." (Mitchell, Buddhism, 1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 34)
Note the qualifications: "usually"; "the kinds of things ".
Now to what Buddhists think. The following are regarded as "the Word of the Buddha" by major Buddhist groups:
I'm oversimplifying, of course.
The traditional positions of the main Buddhist traditions, still widely held, are roughly these:
Now it would seem reasonable enough to cover all this in a subsection of the History section of the article, but I doubt you could produce a reasonably useful & neutral summary brief enough to fit sensibly in the lead.
"The distinctions I am making are between what scholars and/or dhamma practitioners think the Buddha actually taught, and also the various traditions and practices that have arisen that comprise 'Buddhism' as a religion such as going to temples and venerating Buddha statues , none of which has anything to do with what we can ascertain to have been the teachings."
As you can see from the above, there are a lot of differences among both scholars & practitioners on what the Buddha taught. Also, what do you mean by "dhamma practitioners"? Is it the same thing as Buddhists? If not, what does it mean? Does it perhaps mean those people who conform to your idea of what the Buddha taught?
"going to temples and venerating Buddha statues"
Well, there's nothing in the Pali Canon about Buddha statues, though there might well be in the Mahayana sutras. there's certainly a fair amount in the Pali Canon about shrines. Also note that Pure Land is based on Mahayana sutras.
"There is no such thing as Buddhism. This is my point about the Western conceptualisation of whatever it is the Buddha taught, which includes giving it the name 'Buddhism', and trying to understand it and fit it into a western notion of what constitutes 'religion'. That is part of the reason that it is only ever referred to as the Dhamma, and the term Dhamma is not given any precise defintion but has a number of meanings. The meaning can only really be known through the practice, although similies the Buddha gave such as the Dhamma is like a raft give us an understanding of what is the intention."
I think all specialist scholars have long since got beyond confusing what the Buddha actually taught with what Buddhists actually believe & practise.
Running out of time now. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"*A simple example of original synthesis:
Yes, it's perfectly OK to report that scholars say some Buddhists are wrong, but it's against policy to give the impression of arguing for a conclusion unless the scholars actually do so themselves.
Likewise, selective citation of scholars who agree with one's own point of view while ignoring those who disagree is obviously against policy.
On the question we were actually discussing, namely the authenticity of scriptures, the fact is that very few scholars are prepared to maintain even that the content of most of the overlap between the nikayas & agamas goes back to the Buddha. This is not surprising. After all, we know that, from the time of the schisms onwards, whenever that was, Indian Buddhists kept on composing new scriptures. Isn't it reasonable to suppose that they'd been doing so all along?
On the other hand, many scholars agree that the substance of the teachings in those texts does go back to the Buddha. Quite a number hold either that the basic ideas of abhidharma methodology may go back to the Buddha, or that abhidharma is just a systematization of the early teachings anyway, or otherwise that they're compatible. Cousins, Cox, Gethin, Harvey, Kalupahana & Warder come to mind. As to claims by some modern Mahayanists that their scriptures simply express the essence/spirit of the teachings in new forms, I don't know that you'll find many scholars expressing opinions one way or the other. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if what I'm about to say will be be helpful, but I think it is worth considering. The above discussion is a pretty good example of what happens when adults think about things that children learn by observation. Buddhism isn't about the teachings of Buddha any more than Christianity is about the teachings of Christ; what these people actually taught is secondary to what people believe and practice, and historicity discussions are a bit of a psych-out (like thinking you don't know what a car is because you don't have the design blueprints for the Model-T). just a grain of salt. -- Ludwigs2 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope I'll be forgiven for somewhat simplifying and clarifying the life of the B. With very extensive entries elsewhere, with much scholarship etc, it seems to me that what's needed here is the bare bones of the standard biog in the fewest number of words. Now I think it brings out the point of the story, which is good for an encyclopedia, where people (maybe including young people) are coming on these things for the first time. Some things are gone - eg his marriage etc - but IMO they are really meaningless in the context of setting up an article on Buddhism. Bluehotel ( talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the be honest, if anybody had the time, the most sensible thing, IMO,would be to generate a tree of all the main Buddhism pages, list and map the links between them, and build the "Buddhism" page as if it were the index page of a website. Then that page could be a narrative that essentially summarised the materal.
I also don't think it's possible to tell the story without essentially putting it into a crude chronological order. The Theravada and it's Buddha goes first, with the four truths, the Brahma vihara (which I didn't see on the page), etc; how this was all pre-literate; Pali Canon (es[ppecially the Dhamappada) and so forth; including something on the history of the period, the social circumstances. And then the Mahayana story. Many Buddhas, gods, celestial boddhisattvas etc.
If it's set out as a history, then I think it works better than as a static listing of dogmas.
At the end of the day, the Theravada Buddha and his simplicity, in my understanding, doesn't disappear from anybody's pantheon. All the rest are add-ons, whether of a "greater vehicle" or not.
Maybe it's like telling the story of a city. Bluehotel ( talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted edits to the intro secton for the following reasons. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to be respectful to people who wish to find out about Buddhism. It's not really a place to grandstand what we know, or try to force into every narrative our personal viewpoints. It needs to be readable. This is the foundation of consideration to visitors who have come here to find answers to their questions.
To start listing obscure modern scets in the second paragraph of a single article on Buddhism not only holds the reader back from getting the broad sweep of the subject, but it also fails to use hyperlinks for their purpose of allowing people to click to something they want to know more about, and invites retainers for every last one of probably tens of thousands of Buddhist organisations from the last 2,500 years to want that in the second paragraph.
Please, be kind to readers. Let them get on with the story. If you really want to namecheck Eskimo Buddhism, or the NKT, please put it further down, as they don't quite rate alongside the Theravada and the Mahayana. Bluehotel ( talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Precepts 6-8 are listed under the "Buddhist ethics", but they are not about ethics or morality, they're about ascetism, I guess to improve meditation. As somebody looking into Buddhism, it rather unpleasantly shocked me when, on first reading, that it looked like Buddhism considered music and dancing immoral. Nothing wrong with a religion unpleasantly shocking me with considering music and dancing immoral, of course. But Buddhism doesn't. Also, this page states that the first 5 precepts are common to all Buddhism, but it looks like 6-8 are not, and that should be more clearly stated. Or, more likely, precepts 6-8 should just be removed from this page. They're covered in the main article this section links to. If I don't get feedback soon I'm likely to remove these three. Darxus ( talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In view of our speculation above about how many people might be reading our discussions without taking part, I thought it might be interesting to look up how many people have the article on their watchlists. If I've used the system right, the answer is 1056. That presumably includes some who've left Wikipedia without blanking their watchlists, but it does seem rather a lot. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Should be mentioned in the lead. Viriditas ( talk) 10:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge Buddhism, on the level of the signifier, emerged in the year 1801 [34]. Buddhism has a history also in the west prior to this, so I'm curious of how westerners designated Buddhism prior to the modern era? And, I think the selfdesignation of Buddhists should be considered in the article. I hope somebody may provide information on this. -- Xact ( talk) 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Though a talk page is not a forum, I find the question interesting: - Self designation is always rather curious. Borges says in "The sect of the Phoenix": Unless I am mistaken, the same phenomenon is observable among the Buddhists: the name by which they are known to the world is not the same as the one they themselves pronounce. (He isn't totally mistaken).
According the to OED, "The Sanskrit Bouddha 'follower of Buddha' was previously used: hence the form Bouddhist " The 1801 basis is from Joinville's article in Asiatic Res. vol VII, p398 - where he says In the opinion of the Boudhists, there has been no creation. and on p400: If Boudhism could not have established itself among the Brahmi'ns, etc... The spelling we are familiar with came in 1816, in the Asiatic Journal Vol. 1, page 19: The name and the peculiarities of Buddhism have a good deal fixed my attention. (no author given) and on p21 The harmless sacrifices of the Chinese are .. obviously Buddhist. -- ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
"curious of how westerners designated Buddhism prior to the modern era?" Well they didn't of course. Generally speaking they weren't aware there was such a "thing". Buddhists were just lumped in under heathens/pagans/idolators. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I find this business of names rather pointless. Of course most Buddhists don't call themselves that, because they don't speak English. So what? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A term used in the Canon is 'Savaka', which literally means 'Dhamma Hearer' and is sometimes less acurately translated as 'follower of the Dhamma' . The term 'Sakyaputtiya' literally means '[the sect] born of the Sakyan son'. It is referred to in the canon when designating a monk using the term 'Sakyaputtiya Samana' meaning 'A Renuncient who has gone forth under the Sakyan Son'. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Savaka is, as you say, a "term". It's not a "name". Similarly, Christians may call themselves "believers". A term, but not a name. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is the other way around. The use of a 'name' can be more general, as it can refer to any object or class of objects whereas the use of a 'term' more commonly denotes a certain object or class of objects within a particular group or field. To reiterate the point made below, a discussion of this nature however is neither particularly relevant to the purpose of the discussion and does not expand on the subject matter.
The term Savaka is used as a self designation- clearly it would be used within the context of a 'Savaka who has gone forth under such and such a teacher'- the common designation for those practicing Indic religion/practical philosophy.
KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion page is used to help improve the article. Please focus on that task. Viriditas ( talk) 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It is important to understand that efforts towards syncretism of views only provide yet another view. I refer you all to WP:RNPOV, which must be the bedrock for any discourse on Buddhist articles on WP (although admittedly, WP:RNPOV is possibly more salient to the Ibrahimic religions.). Likewise, regarding the meaning of NPOV, we are told "NPOV policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them."
Demonstrating that there are opposing views or opinions regarding a specific issue does not mean that the issue does not deserve mentioning. Neutrality is not centrality. Wikipedia articles are not written to imply that all positions are equal; Wikipedia articles are to be written in a way that does not evaluate positions. By writing from a neutral point of view about something to which you're opposed, you are not implying that the belief is equal, you are merely accepting that an encyclopedia is not the place to be evaluating the contrasting views. You may believe that the other opinion is wrong objectively. You are not contradicting that belief by accepting that Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that to other people before it has become accepted human knowledge.
An example: 4NT. There is plenty of evidence to show, just from reading the religious literature of different cultures, that the 4NT is almost always a central or core topic. AFAIK, there is no tradition that denies that Gautama Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma at Sarnath, and that his sermons was based on the 4NT. There really should be no problem in stating the centrality of the 4NT, albeit with a mention that some Buddhists do not consider the 4NT to be so important to themselves. E.g., there are those that say the 4NT are for those of less ability - but they do not deny that the 4NT are the teachings of Buddha.
I tired of contributing to this article a long time ago because these simple rules are either not properly acknowledged, or they are not adhered to. I suggest that current contributers spend less time discussing, and more time mending and repairing the Buddhism article. ( 20040302 ( talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
"the 4 NT have a modest importance for Buddhism as a whole, which should be reflected in the article" - Peter jackson
Wow. What a soundbite for demonstrating a lack of understanding of this subject. PJ, this has to be the most ridiculous argument I have yet seen from you, and surely one of the most ridiculous arguments yet seen on a discussion about Buddhism or indeed, probably most articles on Wikipedia.
You seem to justify it with the bizaare statement that "you'll find the tables of contents of a number of scholarly books about Buddhism. 3 of them have a chapter on the 4 NT. 7 don't, relegating them to a section within a chapter." So becuase a number of 'scholarly books' don't decide to dedicate a chapter heading on the 4 noble truths but still all talk about them, you reach the conclusion it is not significant for Buddhism. Again, quite frankly emabarrassingly inept logic, I strongly, strongly advise you to abandon this argument to save your self what little credibility you have left, if indeed it is possible.
Clearly a better example of 'missing the point' could rarely be found. In both Theravada and Mahayana, the 4 noble truths are of central importance. The truth of suffering, the cause, cessation, and practice leading to that cessation form the basis of all of these practices and schools. To read scholarship or any text on this subject and fail to see this is simply astounding. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 19:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
One other point I shall adress to PJ- you seem to have an unfailing blind acceptance of anything labelled 'scholarship', in other words, your own selection of texts, representing the opinions of a small group of people, from a small part of the world viewing things from a skewed world view and filled with bias . This is a recurrant theme in most of your dialogue, and it is probably one of the things that lends to you making unsupportable arguments, since many of these 'scholars' are frequently in disagreement with each other. The irony of this PJ, is that you also make sweeping statemnts about 'Mahayanists' etc, when in actual fact all of your sources are from a small handful of western scholarly works. Even then, as stated above your interpretation of these shcolarly works is often most dubious.
How do you know what 'Mahayanists' think? A view on what 'they think 'is another sweeping generalization based on no evidence. For example, unless there have been well analysed, detailed mass survays of millions of people regarding their views on this issue, any such statment that 'Mahayanists think such and such' is little more than baseless speculation. You simply cannot answer such a question, other than through observing the purpose and practices conducted by such individuals. The 4 NT are foundational to ALL Mahayayana and Theravada practice- they are practices done with the recognition of suffering, and the intent to reduce it for oneself and others. This is clear from understanding practice, as well as scholarship on all of these issues. Your rudimentry attempt at a basic survey of 'chapter headings', based on a random selection of 7 books on Buddhism you happen to have, without attempting to look at the context, is a good example of why such misguided conclusions can be drawn when one loses the correct perspective for understanding an issue. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory? I suggest you look up the definition of the term 'conspiracy'. This is the plain truth, and has been written about much being quite clear. Many scholars are viewing things from a skewed world view within the Judeo-Christian framework of Western religious scholarship, building on scholarship that was even more that way inclined. Now, this does not mean that they are deliberately misinterprating or misrepresenting things much of the time. Far from it, many of these scholars are so far down the path of being conditioned to think a certain way and make nonsensical assumtions (D Lopez being a perfect example)as to render the capacity to have an objective view largely unavailable. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So you label my statement 'conspiracy theory', yet then use this same 'conspiracy theory' yourself to criticize what I was saying. Make up your mind if your not going to contradict yourself from one sentance to the next. KnowledgeAndVision ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't claim there are 3 types of Buddhists; these are aspects of the same Buddhism. He stresses that all 3 are found in the Pali Canon, a point that's often ignored. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example. Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism. He interviewed lots of Chinese monks, crosschecking them against themselves & each other. One interesting thing he says is about schools. If you ask a monk what school he belongs to, he'll probably say Lin-chi (Linji in the new spelling, Rinzai in Japanese). That is, his teaching lineage goes back to that branch of Chan/Zen. But if you ask him what school of practice he belongs to, he'll probably say Pure Land. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"As a side note, in history and historiography, it is generally considered best to use primary sources where available. (see Primary_source#History_and_historiography), and this could be considered relevant to those parts of the Buddhism articles which are concerned with history and historiography."
Regarding the Four Noble Truths, the Heart Sutra states: "In emptiness [...] There is no suffering, no accumulation, no elimination, and no path." All four are shot down in succession for the bodhisattva path of Prajnaparamita. This same line is echoed in longer Prajnaparamita texts as well as in the Shurangama Sutra. They are viewed as empty because they fundamentally have no basis, and are just interdependent phenomena -- transient images, all depending on a self. In this type of Mahayana teaching, all suffering is ultimately an illusion, and to say "I suffer" is ignorance, further creating causes and seeds of karma to add to "your" suffering. The real highest teaching of the Mahayana is usually represented by the Buddha's silence. Then when his disciples do not understand, then he teaches them with a discourse. In Mahayana, the Four Noble Truths and all other Buddhist teachings ever spoken (including the bodhisattva path) are simply skillful means to attain True Suchness and Anuttara Samyaksambodhi. This True Suchness of the mind is the proper basis of Mahayana. In this regard, I do not see the Four Noble truths as fundamental to Mahayana at all, but rather as an early form of skillful means in Buddhism. I believe the Lotus Sutra echoes these sentiments over and over again as well.
As for the Wikipedia Zen article, it's sort of a joke to quote that as anything authoritative. Quite frankly, on pages such as that with subjects carrying such mystique in the western world, the quality is so very low. Half of the people probably think Zen is a type of samurai philosophy invented in Japan. In contrast, the quality of a page written by specialists on an obscure sutra is more likely to bear much more resemblance to the truth, simply due to the nature of the subject.
As for how important the Four Noble Truths are in the larger scheme of Buddhism, I believe they were accepted as core teachings largely due to the still-pervasive tendency to equate "Theravada = All Early Buddhism." From reading Mahayana sutras and their references to the Sutra Pitaka, I believe they may be more important to Theravada than to the other early schools in India. For example, the Theravadins commonly sum up the core teachings of the Buddha into the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. However, I never seem to see these two sets of teachings referenced together in the Mahayana sutras. The Noble Eightfold Path seems to be more commonly referenced than the Four Noble Truths, but the teaching of the five skandhas is referenced more than both of them combined. In the Sandhinirmocana Sutra (2nd century CE), it cites different teachings of the time proposed by forest monks: analyzing the skandhas, bases of consciousness, phenomena, various realms, stations of mindfulness, supernatural abilities, sense faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of bodhi, and the noble eightfold path. Nowhere does it cite the Four Noble Truths as something to analyze for understanding. In the Amitabha Sutra, it also cites the five powers, the seven factors of bodhi, and the eightfold noble path among others. No Four Noble Truths, though, yet again. Tengu800 ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I know he was born in what is Lumbinin today. But shouldn't it imply that he was born in ' Ancient India in what is now Lumbini? I mean this has been brought up before. And it was put down as something like. And then it get's changed. The water and ground. 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)