This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buddhism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Buddhism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Buddhism at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Buddhism:
|
Additional info (sources & quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes |
Additional info (sources & quotes) on the topic of Buddhism and religion can be found at Buddhism and religion sources |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have moved over 50 works into "Further reading" as they are not being used as citations. The section is now huge. For guidance on what, if anything, should be included see Wikipedia:Further reading. Someone familiar with the subject should give it an extensive prune. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi friends i spoke to many teravada buddists and they claimed that Lord Buddha never asserted existence of god and rebirth. All he said is to believe once own experience. But this article is misleading. It talks lot about rebirh. Can some one refer me to right source of info and also pls correct this wiki page pls. RamaPandita ( talk) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The lede heavily implies that Buddhism can be considered a religion
or a philosophical tradition
. This is a relatively-new addition for the page,
only added in 2021 with the justification that many religious and philosophical scholars see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy or "way of life"
.
Buddhism is, of course, both; as are all religions. But in the context of Buddhism there is a significant push to secularizing it to make it more palatable for Westerners. [1] [2] [3] [4] Though Buddhism causes problems for very narrow definitions of religion based around what Durkheim and others called the "theistic conception", it is nonetheless a religion and among living Buddhists in, for example, Sri Lanka, it is parallel to Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam. [5] [6] This push is related directly to orientalism in the Indian subcontinent and what Obeyesekere calls "Protestant presuppositions":
From Olcott's catechism grew the tradition of Buddhist ambivalence (if not outright hostility) toward the concept of religion, but his catechism had a religious origin in Olcott's own liberal Protestant Christian background. He took his challenge to be one of purifying Buddhism by returning to the fundamental teaching of the founder as recorded in its authoritative scriptures. The teaching he found in these texts had much in common with the liberal Protestantism of the late nineteenth century. It was opposed to "superstitious" practices, suspicious of miracle sand the supernatural, and respectful of the canons of reason. [7]
The source given for the claim that Buddhism can be a religion "or" a philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does not deny that Buddhism is a religion or propose it is something else, and only gives consideration of the historical Buddha as a philosopher (which the author admits is "controversial".) [8]
Second, lead follows body. There is no discussion of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not anywhere in the body. It is purely these two minor asides (in the lead and the etymology section) that seem to be there only to placate a very small number of Western Buddhist-adjacent people who are uncomfortable with the word "religion."
Lastly, while it might be interesting in an introductory religious studies class to discuss what makes Buddhism is a religion, or where philosophy ends and religion begins; it will only confuse new readers who want to know the basics about Buddhism. That is to say, it is an Indian religion with millions of adherents across Asia and the rest of the world. "It's not a religion, mannnn, it's a philosophy" drones notwithstanding.
References
Tryin to make a change :-/ 03:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Numerous editorsdo not trump WP:RSs. The "widespread objections" occur almost entirely outside of good-quality sources ("it's not a religion, mannn, it's a way of life") and undue weight should not be given here. Also, I explicitly noted that it is also used in the etymology section (I noted
two minor asidesin
the lead and the etymology section). If you have an objection based on policy and not nameless editors who "prefer" to call it a philosophy, please state so here. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
philosophical traditionis considered in opposition to
religion. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
reliable sources and due weight, I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition," whether exclusively such or in addition to being a major world religion in some sense. The only article that allegedly does this is the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which of course does nothing of the sort -- it concerns an overview of the historical Buddha within a Western philosophical framework ("The Buddha will here be treated as a philosopher.") There are a significant number of sources (which I've elucidated in the "Classification" section) which do the opposite, including several which talk about this problem in detail (describing Western attitudes towards religion and philosophy and Buddhism in particular.) The three sources which Aoidh ( talk · contribs) provided, save the one by Tricycle which simply problematizes the binary between philosophy and religion, are essentially an Alan Watts quote (a notoriously bad source for Buddhist views and a scholar not taken seriously in Buddhist or religious studies circles) and a single Dzogchen teacher. Regarding the latter, Brazier discusses the modes in which Asian Buddhist teachers engage Westerners -- they know their American and European students view "religion" as a dirty word and are hesitant to use it as upāya. Again, actual Buddhists in Asia have no problem with this, and for example in Sri Lanka it is considered parallel to Islam or Christianity as an āgama or (religious) teaching.
a compromise here, calling it bothto placate
numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. wound theology ◈ 08:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition"I'm not aware of anyone on this talk page (I certainly haven't) that has suggested that it is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion. As I said above these descriptors are not mutually exclusive either in the article or in reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "actual Buddhists" but that seems like a No true Scotsman argument, and more importantly how the lede is written is not dictated solely by adherents to Buddhism whether they are "actual Buddhists" or not. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
actual Buddhists.
rather thana religion: the idea that Buddhism as a "philosophical tradition" can be separated from Buddhism as a "religion" is heavily implied by the lede (originally, when I started this discussion, it actually read "religion or philosophical tradition".) Religion already encompasses philosophy, the addition is thus redundant and adds nothing (it certainly does not contribute to a summary style): it serves only as a concession to
numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. Again, Christianity and Judaism are never described as "philosophical traditions" -- either in addition to, or as an alternative to, being a religion -- because that would be redundant or incorrect, respectively. The "Buddhism, religion or philosophy?" debate is well-documented in scholarly literature; the current lede exists, primarily, as an acknowledgement of both sides despite one being far more accurate than the other and the latter being a rhetorical strategy to make a Western projection of "rational" Buddhism palatable to people who are uncomfortable with religion. This isn't "just" my opinion, but elaborated in the academic sources I initially gave.
an Indian religion or dharma. wound theology ◈ 09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Why do we mark buddism as an Indian religion? Unlike Judaism, for example, anybody can convert into buddism regardless of their nationality, so it's definitely not a national religion. Christianity, for example, was created in the Roman empire on the land of the modern Palestine ond Israel, but we donot call it Roman or Palestinian religion, so I think it's unfair to mark Buddism as an Indian religion only because of its origins Кокушев Сергей ( talk) 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Alexei Michael ( talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Buddhism was started from Nepal and it has nothing to do with india , it later came to India after 20 years when the previous time Nepal i.e. Bihar where Buddha went to teach some life values and medical sciences. Buddhism has a lot to do with Nepal and Tibet and there are people who follow ancient Buddhist rituals but in India even who follows those rituals are either Nepali origin people or Tibet origin people and some Bhutan origin people. Making such false claim on our sacred deity i.e Buddha makes our heart sad Buddha's child ( talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
To Zoozoor... I thought the vrddhi form (bauddha) referred to the followers of the buddha. (So the followers of the "buddha" would be the "bauddhas," just as the followers of the "jina" would be the "jainas.") Are you sure "bauddha dharma" fits here? Mark Froelich ( talk) 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Wound theology: Greetings! Regarding this revert - your edit summary was a bit unclear. Are you objecting to not attributing the origins of Buddhism to what is now the Republic of India, or to the phrasing "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to something like "South Asia"? From what I can tell from the article, the geography of origin seems to span modern boundaries? -- Beland ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition.These people should take up their misgivings with the scholarly literature, not us.
[I]s the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article?No one is making this claim. The Buddha was born in modern-day Nepal and preached mainly in the modern-day Republic of India. Both Nepal and (the Republic of) India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are on the Indian subcontinent. The Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain spanning both modern-day India and Nepal in an era long before modern nationalism, and indeed ancient India was a loose collection of different polities connected more by economics and long-ranging social networks rather than a national or ethnic identity. If you insist on adding (what I consider to be) superfluous information already explained in the text, then I would not object to an explanatory note with something like:
The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain, spanning both modern-day India and Nepal.wound theology ◈ 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
ShakyamuniBuddha was born and lived first in the Shakya Republic. I say "founded his order" but that's not entirely accurate -- Vulture Peak was in Magadha and this is where he is traditionally held to have first preached. However he began his ascetic journey in the Shakya Republic according to the sutras (or suttas, more likely in this case.) If not the Sakya Republic, then Magadha;
the Buddha was born in the S[h]akya Republic spanning India and Nepal and first preached in Magadhaor what have you. wound theology ◈ 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The term Indian religion is linked, so readers can easily find an explaanation. And it is indeed a common term; not sure if a direct explanation is necessary. But we've done without a direct explanation for ages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buddhism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Buddhism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Buddhism at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Buddhism:
|
Additional info (sources & quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes |
Additional info (sources & quotes) on the topic of Buddhism and religion can be found at Buddhism and religion sources |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have moved over 50 works into "Further reading" as they are not being used as citations. The section is now huge. For guidance on what, if anything, should be included see Wikipedia:Further reading. Someone familiar with the subject should give it an extensive prune. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi friends i spoke to many teravada buddists and they claimed that Lord Buddha never asserted existence of god and rebirth. All he said is to believe once own experience. But this article is misleading. It talks lot about rebirh. Can some one refer me to right source of info and also pls correct this wiki page pls. RamaPandita ( talk) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The lede heavily implies that Buddhism can be considered a religion
or a philosophical tradition
. This is a relatively-new addition for the page,
only added in 2021 with the justification that many religious and philosophical scholars see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy or "way of life"
.
Buddhism is, of course, both; as are all religions. But in the context of Buddhism there is a significant push to secularizing it to make it more palatable for Westerners. [1] [2] [3] [4] Though Buddhism causes problems for very narrow definitions of religion based around what Durkheim and others called the "theistic conception", it is nonetheless a religion and among living Buddhists in, for example, Sri Lanka, it is parallel to Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam. [5] [6] This push is related directly to orientalism in the Indian subcontinent and what Obeyesekere calls "Protestant presuppositions":
From Olcott's catechism grew the tradition of Buddhist ambivalence (if not outright hostility) toward the concept of religion, but his catechism had a religious origin in Olcott's own liberal Protestant Christian background. He took his challenge to be one of purifying Buddhism by returning to the fundamental teaching of the founder as recorded in its authoritative scriptures. The teaching he found in these texts had much in common with the liberal Protestantism of the late nineteenth century. It was opposed to "superstitious" practices, suspicious of miracle sand the supernatural, and respectful of the canons of reason. [7]
The source given for the claim that Buddhism can be a religion "or" a philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does not deny that Buddhism is a religion or propose it is something else, and only gives consideration of the historical Buddha as a philosopher (which the author admits is "controversial".) [8]
Second, lead follows body. There is no discussion of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not anywhere in the body. It is purely these two minor asides (in the lead and the etymology section) that seem to be there only to placate a very small number of Western Buddhist-adjacent people who are uncomfortable with the word "religion."
Lastly, while it might be interesting in an introductory religious studies class to discuss what makes Buddhism is a religion, or where philosophy ends and religion begins; it will only confuse new readers who want to know the basics about Buddhism. That is to say, it is an Indian religion with millions of adherents across Asia and the rest of the world. "It's not a religion, mannnn, it's a philosophy" drones notwithstanding.
References
Tryin to make a change :-/ 03:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Numerous editorsdo not trump WP:RSs. The "widespread objections" occur almost entirely outside of good-quality sources ("it's not a religion, mannn, it's a way of life") and undue weight should not be given here. Also, I explicitly noted that it is also used in the etymology section (I noted
two minor asidesin
the lead and the etymology section). If you have an objection based on policy and not nameless editors who "prefer" to call it a philosophy, please state so here. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
philosophical traditionis considered in opposition to
religion. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
reliable sources and due weight, I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition," whether exclusively such or in addition to being a major world religion in some sense. The only article that allegedly does this is the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which of course does nothing of the sort -- it concerns an overview of the historical Buddha within a Western philosophical framework ("The Buddha will here be treated as a philosopher.") There are a significant number of sources (which I've elucidated in the "Classification" section) which do the opposite, including several which talk about this problem in detail (describing Western attitudes towards religion and philosophy and Buddhism in particular.) The three sources which Aoidh ( talk · contribs) provided, save the one by Tricycle which simply problematizes the binary between philosophy and religion, are essentially an Alan Watts quote (a notoriously bad source for Buddhist views and a scholar not taken seriously in Buddhist or religious studies circles) and a single Dzogchen teacher. Regarding the latter, Brazier discusses the modes in which Asian Buddhist teachers engage Westerners -- they know their American and European students view "religion" as a dirty word and are hesitant to use it as upāya. Again, actual Buddhists in Asia have no problem with this, and for example in Sri Lanka it is considered parallel to Islam or Christianity as an āgama or (religious) teaching.
a compromise here, calling it bothto placate
numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. wound theology ◈ 08:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition"I'm not aware of anyone on this talk page (I certainly haven't) that has suggested that it is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion. As I said above these descriptors are not mutually exclusive either in the article or in reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "actual Buddhists" but that seems like a No true Scotsman argument, and more importantly how the lede is written is not dictated solely by adherents to Buddhism whether they are "actual Buddhists" or not. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
actual Buddhists.
rather thana religion: the idea that Buddhism as a "philosophical tradition" can be separated from Buddhism as a "religion" is heavily implied by the lede (originally, when I started this discussion, it actually read "religion or philosophical tradition".) Religion already encompasses philosophy, the addition is thus redundant and adds nothing (it certainly does not contribute to a summary style): it serves only as a concession to
numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. Again, Christianity and Judaism are never described as "philosophical traditions" -- either in addition to, or as an alternative to, being a religion -- because that would be redundant or incorrect, respectively. The "Buddhism, religion or philosophy?" debate is well-documented in scholarly literature; the current lede exists, primarily, as an acknowledgement of both sides despite one being far more accurate than the other and the latter being a rhetorical strategy to make a Western projection of "rational" Buddhism palatable to people who are uncomfortable with religion. This isn't "just" my opinion, but elaborated in the academic sources I initially gave.
an Indian religion or dharma. wound theology ◈ 09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Why do we mark buddism as an Indian religion? Unlike Judaism, for example, anybody can convert into buddism regardless of their nationality, so it's definitely not a national religion. Christianity, for example, was created in the Roman empire on the land of the modern Palestine ond Israel, but we donot call it Roman or Palestinian religion, so I think it's unfair to mark Buddism as an Indian religion only because of its origins Кокушев Сергей ( talk) 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Alexei Michael ( talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Buddhism was started from Nepal and it has nothing to do with india , it later came to India after 20 years when the previous time Nepal i.e. Bihar where Buddha went to teach some life values and medical sciences. Buddhism has a lot to do with Nepal and Tibet and there are people who follow ancient Buddhist rituals but in India even who follows those rituals are either Nepali origin people or Tibet origin people and some Bhutan origin people. Making such false claim on our sacred deity i.e Buddha makes our heart sad Buddha's child ( talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
To Zoozoor... I thought the vrddhi form (bauddha) referred to the followers of the buddha. (So the followers of the "buddha" would be the "bauddhas," just as the followers of the "jina" would be the "jainas.") Are you sure "bauddha dharma" fits here? Mark Froelich ( talk) 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Wound theology: Greetings! Regarding this revert - your edit summary was a bit unclear. Are you objecting to not attributing the origins of Buddhism to what is now the Republic of India, or to the phrasing "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to something like "South Asia"? From what I can tell from the article, the geography of origin seems to span modern boundaries? -- Beland ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition.These people should take up their misgivings with the scholarly literature, not us.
[I]s the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article?No one is making this claim. The Buddha was born in modern-day Nepal and preached mainly in the modern-day Republic of India. Both Nepal and (the Republic of) India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are on the Indian subcontinent. The Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain spanning both modern-day India and Nepal in an era long before modern nationalism, and indeed ancient India was a loose collection of different polities connected more by economics and long-ranging social networks rather than a national or ethnic identity. If you insist on adding (what I consider to be) superfluous information already explained in the text, then I would not object to an explanatory note with something like:
The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain, spanning both modern-day India and Nepal.wound theology ◈ 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
ShakyamuniBuddha was born and lived first in the Shakya Republic. I say "founded his order" but that's not entirely accurate -- Vulture Peak was in Magadha and this is where he is traditionally held to have first preached. However he began his ascetic journey in the Shakya Republic according to the sutras (or suttas, more likely in this case.) If not the Sakya Republic, then Magadha;
the Buddha was born in the S[h]akya Republic spanning India and Nepal and first preached in Magadhaor what have you. wound theology ◈ 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The term Indian religion is linked, so readers can easily find an explaanation. And it is indeed a common term; not sure if a direct explanation is necessary. But we've done without a direct explanation for ages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)