This page 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. |
I have requested that the article Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) be moved back to it's original title Yidam. The article was previously moved on grounds of consistency with the titles of other related articles which are derived from Sanskrit, which was a reasonable motive - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually traditionally used in Buddhism and is found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it first occurred in this context in some outdated western books which conflated Buddhist tantra with Hinduism) - and the current title (and some of the current content) only perpetuate that mis-conception. The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism so I am requesting it be moved back to Yidam for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME. Please see: Talk:Iṣṭadevatā_(Buddhism)#Requested_move_15_December_2014 and Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_discussions -- Chris Fynn ( talk) 12:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Most books by Tibetan lamas are translations. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Does a scholar who writes a thesis on a narrow area of study really understand their subject better than someone who trains in this way?
original research? There are great scholars on Buddhism in Japan. Bernard Faure and John McRae, great scholars themselves, studied with Yanagida Seizan. They are (were; McRae died three years ago) idolate of him. "Dedicated to Yanagida Seizan, with inexpressible gratitude" (John McRae, "Seeing Through Zen"). See the introduction written by Yanagida Seizan for The Record of Lin-ji to get a taste of his writings. Yanagida Seizan (I don't know which name is his surname...) was a practitioning Buddhist. YS studied the manuscripts from the Mogao Caves, and discovered that those tects deviate in important respects from the histpry of the Zen-school as reported by that school itself. YS was not afraid to take a critical stance, just like Masao Abe, another famous Japanese scholar and practitioning Buddhist. See also "Sudden and Gradual", a supern collection od publications on the sudden-gradual debate in Zen. Really oustanding. McRae's contribution opened my eyes for the value of scholarly research: scholars see discrepancies, and reveal information, which faith-practitioners can't see, simply because their training has not learned to see and tolerate such discrepancies. So, scholarly studies and practicing Buddhism are not anti-thetical. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This is were a quote is relevant:
Notice the usage of terms like "speculation" and "suggest". It marks true scholarship: a scholar explains what makes them think so (see also Gombrich 2009 chapter 7)
As for Prayudh Payutto: this sounds quite different from what you said earlier. Nevertheless, scholars like Schayer,
Frauwallner, Conze, Norman, Schmithausen, Vetter, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Wynne, to name only a few, argue that the Pali Canon has internal incongruencies which betray a development of doctrine. For example, the difference between calm and insight, to name a famous one, as already note in 1937 by Lamotte.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK folks, let me try this using a model that I'm more familiar with, Christianity (full disclosure: I am not a practicing Buddhist, I am merely interested in the topic, but I'm actually a mainstream Methodist Protestant). In that tradition, we have, of course, the equivalent of the Buddha in Jesus (OK, so I'm super-duper-oversimplifying, but stay with me here). We also have a core holy book called the Bible, that itself is highly debated as to whether it has historical accuracy, if it is literally or metaphorically true (or both), if it was inspired by God directly or if it was written by a series of Hebrew scholars and assorted disciples of Christ based on their own understanding of events - or some blend of the two. We also have a series of theologians and scholars who have wrestled with this tradition, both in Judaism and in Christianity, particularly Catholicism. So how are their works handled on WP and is there any value in comparing what WP Christianity is doing. There, they have even more hotly contested issues than here - the fundamentalists and the liberals (to say nothing of agnostics and atheists) along with the various sects within each major division all have huge differences of opinion (consider new earth creationism, just for starters). So, I suspect they have some standard procedures for determining what is considered a primary source (the Bible? Always? Sometimes? In certain contexts?) on WP, what is a secondary source, and how to distinguish "pop culture" books (by people like, for example, Joel Osteen) from books by respected scholars (like Augustine) and how someone who is a contemporary minister (perhaps Billy Graham) is compared to someone like Pope Francis. I'm going to ping them and see if anyone there can offer us some ideas on navigating religion in wiki-land. Montanabw (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- To me it is not so important what the Buddha or the early Buddhist Sangha originally thought and taught, but what Buddists think. And by that i mean primarilly what they think (and teach and practice) about concepts like Karma and the 4NT but also - to take it one step further and illustrate my point by means of (slightly) exageratiing: For me it is even more important what Buddhists think what the original teachings of the Buddha were than what western academics think what "objectively" were those teachings.
- Please think about it: After all, as our well thought out and thoroughly debated famous very first sentence about Buddhism in this wonderful digital encyclopedia states (emphasis added):
"Buddhism is a [...] religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha [...]"
- So for me it seems quite obvious that an article about a Buddhist concept like karma should first and foremost report what the believers (of different traditions respectively) think about the concept, how it is taught and how it is incorporated into their practices. And by the way, the Buddhism article - right after the lead - continues with a traditional account of the life of the Buddha - not an historical (!)
- Of course there should be room for historical critical analysis and comparative studies, which is what (western) academics seem to be mostly occupied whith. But if you think about what matters to the world, i.e. the reader? How does karma, i.e. the concept of karma, not the "real" thing, come into the world, leaving the ivory tower? It is through its workings in the minds of Buddhist believers. So it is our foremost duty to report what believers say, think, do - again: not (western) scholars!
- Of course, in order to report this accurately there are many ways and one of them - undoubtedly one that Wikipedia actively encourages - is to use academic secondary or tertiary sources (that report those beliefs).
John Carter, just a few of points by way of background, may be helpful. First, yes, there are Buddhist equivalents of Augustine - such as Nagarjuna, Aryadeva (second and third century CE). But - there is also a tradition of scholarship that built up after that. There have been scholars writing works on these topics and discussing them through first India until the end of the twelfth century in Nalanda then in Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Korea, Japan, China etc. The Eastern scholars are continuing in this tradition. The Dalai Lama for instance, in his books - he represents a tradition of scholarship of this type that continued in Tibet without interruption since the fall of Nalanda University in the C12. So the Eastern scholars are coming to the subject with this background of a continuous tradition of previous works on the subject. For the most part we in the West are unaware of these works.
Then another point is, there is critical evaluation of the Buddha's teachings built in. So, somewhat less tendency I think just to repeat and paraphrase the teachings. The Buddhist teachings are not regarded as "revealed truth". There is no creed, in the sense, that there is nothing that any Buddhist is required to recite, to say "I believe this and I believe that and I believe the other thing...". He taught many teachings in great detail, at least so it's thought by most Buddhists. But he also taught that we shouldn't take accept any of his many teachings on his "say so". But examine them for ourselves. And also should listen to other teachers too, in any tradition, but again not accept anything they say either on their say so. So there is this background of critical evaluation of everything he said built into Buddhism.
Also, finally, it's worth noting I think that most of the Western academics have been brought up in a society where one of the Abrahamic religions is the "state religion". So - that makes a difference I think. And we also don't have a tradition of meditation here in quite the same way that they have in the West. We do have a tradition of a contemplative life of course, seclusion in the desert as with the desert fathers, and so on. But not the detailed methods of the Eastern meditative traditions. As far as I know there are no surviving teachings on how to meditate in the Old Testament, or New Testament (I don't know about the Koran). At any rate certainly not the detailed treatment that you get in the sutras. I think both of these lead to a difference of perspective when Western academics examine the Eastern scholarly texts. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Please help with the discussion of Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 17. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have more information on the above mentioned group? The only thing I could gather is that the organisation is relatively new, but apart from links to its own homepage I could not gather much information so far. How many members does it have? -- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this? Dorje108 ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.
See also Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1#Sources:
Jonathan, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly, are you asserting that texts by Buddhist writers and teachers (who do not have Western academic training) should be considered primary sources? Dorje108 17:53, 30 November 2014 (previously unsigned cmt)
- Yes, I think so. See WP:PRIMARY:
- "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."'
- This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much. See also WP:WPNOTRS:
- "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. 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."
- Even someone like Heinrich Dumoulin, who was an academic scholar on Zen, and a professor, is nowadays regarded as a primary source! So, when possible, secondary should be used. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fair when my exact wording is given, instead of the black-and-white phrasing of some people here. Note my nunace: "This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much", and "when possible, secondary should be used". The same nuance has been given by Dorje108: "as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines."
I repeat again: there are two issues here:
WP:OVERQUOTE; and overreliance on publications from popular, western-oriented teachers, aimed at a general audience (c.q. students of specific teachers and religious groups), while there are also plenty of secondary and tertiary sources from highly regarded scholars, including practicing Buddhists.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I am amazed that I have to propose this question, but a group of current editors have decided that texts by Buddhist writers must be considered primary sources. I do not believe that current Wikipedia policies support this view. Regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The RFC is too broadly worded. The reliability and appropriateness of a source depends on the specific material being sourced. In some cases practitioners of the faith may be acceptable sources but academic sources are always preferred. In Buddhism we have: "Different schools of Buddhism place varying levels of value on learning the various texts. Some schools venerate certain texts as religious objects in themselves, while others take a more scholastic approach." I would be wary of assuming the writer of one school hold views common to all schools. -- NeilN talk to me 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a feelng @ Shii: would probably be the best person to deal with this topic. My reservations are not so much about the fact of the scholars having any particular academic credentials, but that there are a rather widespread number of Buddhist schools, and that the statement of a practitioner of a particular school may be only applicable to his school. The situation would be much the same as using Billy Graham as a source for material on Christianity. In both cases, I think the source probably qualifies as broadly reliable, but in both cases I would think that there could be serious questions regarding the positions or possible bias of the source such that academic sources would probably be preferable. John Carter ( talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW - (this is meant as a new point, not continuing previous discussion) interesting sideline, the Dalai Lama is cited as a source on Buddhist teachings in the wikipedia article on the Sermon on the Mount on modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus such as the Sermon on the Mount and some Buddhist teachings. So if he was excluded as a secondary source in the Buddhist articles on Wikipedia - we'd be in the interesting situation where he is regarded as a valid secondary source on Buddhism in articles on Christianity but not in articles on Buddhism. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
His book, Buddhism and Animals, has featured on the list of recommended books for Buddhist study at the University of Toronto, and he has been invited to international symposia on the tathagatagarbha doctrine and asked to lecture on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Buddhism more than once at the University of London (SOAS). Moreover, the Oxford scholar and Tibetan Buddhist lama, Dr. Shenpen Hookham, has publicly called Dr. Page "a creditable Buddhist scholar" in her Preface to Buddhism and Animals and has spoken of his keen scholarship in connection with his German translation of the Tibetan Nirvana Sutra. Equally significantly, Professor Paul Williams - an international authority on Mahayana Buddhism - wrote a Foreword in support of Dr. Page's book, Buddhism and Animals, and in the 2009 edition of Williams' own acclaimed book, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Professor Williams promotes the present 'Nirvana Sutra' website as a reference resource for those interested in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Furthermore, Tony Page worked in close collaboration with the highly respected Nirvana Sutra expert, Stephen Hodge, on the ideas contained in the Nirvana Sutra for many years.
@Andi 3: I see yout point here, but I've got two objections: there's a lot of scholarly research available, so "we would end up with not much in hand" is not correct. And I don't think that it's "quite obvious" that most readers of these articles are interested solely in an insiders-perspective. Most readers (imagine, for example, all the readers who side with Sam Harris) won't be Buddhists, and want the relevant information, not just the insiders-view. On the contrary: the "outsiders" can point out the differences between the various schools of Buddhism, and the developments that the Buddhist faith underwent, based on independent research. The four truths are a nice example: scholarly research shows that they are not an indispensable artefact of the Buddhist traditions, but are the result of an ongoing development. Knowing this may help in understanding Buddhism. It did for me, at least, as a practitioning Buddhist. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If we narrow the list of reliable sources on Buddhism down to those few individuals worldwide who were lucky enough to acquire a (paid) position in a western academic institution that allows them to conduct their research on Buddhism, we would end up with not much in hand.
I think John Carter got it right: this is not the place to discuss about changes concerning WP:RS. Besides, the discussion is going in circles and commentators keep continuously ignoring the fact that we have to evaluate the source itself, not the author.
I feel stupid to repeat myself, but: a) we cannot label any individual as primary nor secondary source per se, and b) nobody has said that one has to be "a western academic"; instead, all the academics stand on the same line. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It was said earlier:
In some traditions there is little information in English. [...] Catflap08 ( talk) 00:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Catflap08, no one hasn't even opposed using non-English sources. Even the Wikipedia Policy doesn't prohibit using non-English sources ( WP:NONENG). There are no restrictions in using non-English sources. What's been under discussion here, however, is if non-academic sources can be used. Again, nobody has said that "primary sources could be used under no circumstances". Not true, sure they can. I have commented several times already that we don't care whether the academic scholar is Western or Eastern, Southern or Northern. Scholar is a scholar. And if the one - whoever it is being quoted - is notable enough, sure there are at least sources from his/her own country, (or) in his/her own language, available there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Joshua, it is not that unusual to find a new citation that is not yet included in an article in Wikipedia. And sometimes they express significantly different viewpoints from sources already used in the article. And if saying something significantly different from the other sources used in the article, it might deserve a new section in the article, I'd discuss on talk page first if I'd found it after only just half a day of research, most likely. But is not a reason to rewrite the entire article, if that was your reason for doing so. Individual authors often have views that others regard as highly individual or eccentric for instance. Though sometimes notable enough to deserve mention and maybe extensive treatment. I don't know anything myself about this particular book or author, can't comment on her notability, reputation or reliability. Just making this as a general point about use of sources. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Lindsay Jones'"Encyclopedia of Religion" refers both to Anderson, and to Norman, K. R. "Why are the Four Noble Truths called ‘Noble’?"' In Ananda: Papers on Buddhism and Indology: A Felicitation Volume Presented to Ananda Weihena Palliya Guruge on his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Y. Karunadasa, pp. 11–13. Columbo, 1990. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So, conclusion: yes, a respected scholar, which is also clear from the fact that all the great names I've mentioned contributed to a Festschrift for him. But also a scholar who's hardly, or not, being cited anymore, and, when he's cited, is being criticised. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking this over, and remembered that WR has got something to do with "Buddhist Protestantism"; see David Chapman, Protestant Buddhism. Brought me to David McMahan, "The Making of Buddhist Modernism":
And page 51:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Geshe Tering's "Four Noble Truths" is an uncritical account; he's a Geshe, a qualified spiritual teacher, but the book misses essential insigths from contemporary western academic studies. Some quotes:
Copied thread
There is an extensive biography of 14 items for the article "Karman: Buddhist concepts" written by Dennis Hirota in 2005 for the 2nd Lindsay Jones edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, on page 5101 in volume 8. The article itself runs to around 4 pages [...] I would think that the works included there would probably all be preferable, given their being cited in that article [...]
John Carter (
talk)
16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd say something about the Dalai Lama, and why he is regarded as a good secondary source, to fill out in more detail what I said in my own support statement. First, User:Dorje108 and anyone reading this expert on the Dalai Lama please correct any mistakes here.
Also for anyone more familiar with other religions - in no way is the Dalai Lama a "leader of Buddhism" in Tibet like the Pope.
He did have a status as a political leader which he no longer has since he gave up that role. But in Buddhism then Buddha told his followers not to take anyone else on as a leader of the community after he died.
So - he can't issue proclamations or such like. He has no authority at all to tell other Buddhists, even in Tibet, how to interpret the Buddha's teachings. He can say how he understands the teachings himself. But those listening will not feel any need to follow any advice or suggestions he gives regarding the Buddha's teachings, or anything else for that matter. The only people who would expect to follow his advice would be his own personal students whoever they are, who have decided, for one reason or another that he is their spiritual friend who they want to go to for personal advice as practitioners.
And in that case also, as teacher and spiritual friend, the role of a teacher in Buddhism is to help his or her students to develop their own understanding of the teachings, not to tell them what to believe. The Buddha himself had no creed for his followers, and though he taught many things, he asked his students to look into everything for themselves, and not to believe anything just on his "say so".
So the Dalai Lama doesn't have a "conflict of interest" or anything like that when presenting the teachings, is just presenting them as best he understands them himself.
So, according to general Buddhist ideas of rebirth, and also Tibetan ideas in particular, there is no reason at all for successive Dalai Lamas to be similar in personality or interests. And though generally they tend to be bright, intelligent as children, they don't have to be scholarly. In particular, the sixth Dalai Lama was not interested in scholarship and was noted as a poet. They say his poetry is still popular today. Perhaps the Tibetan equivalent of our William Blake?
If our present Dalai Lama was like that, he would not be regarded as a secondary source on Tibetan Buddhism.
However the present Dalai Lama was noted from an early age for his interest and also expertise in scholarship. He passed all his exams with flying colours and amazed the monks with his proficiency in debate.
Then he went on to master the teachings and receive the transmissions of all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. For the ordinary practitioner this is not an easy task, rather mind boggling indeed, as they have conflicting ideas and practices. But for people like this, it is no problem.
So though he is normally thought of as a Gelugpa, he has also completed the training needed to be a noted Kagyupa or Nyingmapa or Sakyapa teacher as well. In the Nyingmapa tradition, for instance, his principal teacher is Dilgo Khyentse in the traditions of Dzog Chen and the Nyingmapa tradition. See Dilgo_Khyentse#Buddhist_studies.
Dilgo Khyentse was an especially noted teacher. Though head of the Nyingmapa tradition, he also similarly received transmissions and teachings in all the four schools. And was taught in old Tibet, so one of the few teachers who escaped to the West who completed his training in Tibet. And he is regarded as the teacher who single handedly saved most of the teachings of old Tibet as a living lineage so that they can be passed on in that way to future teachers.
So, when we talk about secondary sources in Tibetan Buddhism, then the Dalai Lama has a special position here, not because he is the Dalai Lama, but because he has mastered all the four traditions, and also done so in the Rime style where the emphasis is on preserving the variety in the teachings and presenting each one as it is understood within its own tradition. And because he is also fluent in English, especially written English, able to write down his understanding and communicate it in ways that can be understood by a Western audience.
There are a few other Tibetan teachers who have achieved this level of scholarship in Tibetan Buddhism, and User:Dorje108 tends to use them as sources by preference where available. Another example is one of Dilgo Khyentse's students, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche.
These are all teachers in the Rimé movement where the idea is that different beings need different teachings, and so it is important to preserve all the schools and to present their teachings exactly as understood within the schools, and to treat other schools of Buddhism and other religions in the same way. Which makes them particularly good sources for an accurate treatment of Tibetan Buddhism as understood by Buddhists in Tibet.
We actually don't have any Westerners who are as good sources as this, I believe - correct me if I'm wrong here anyone. [NB Dorje answered this, some Westerners have also mastered the primary sources in the Tibetan tradition, see below - I don't know if any of them are at the level of proficiency in the Tibetan texts and practices to be a Rime master said to have mastered the teachings of all four schools like the Dalai Lama - but - there are some very dedicated Tibetologists, maybe some are??]
The problem is - that just as a Pali scholar has to understand Pali and to understand the Pali canon and commentaries - a Tibetan scholar has to understand Tibetan and the Tibetan canon and commentaries - and the various teachings of the later schools in Tibetan Buddhism also. So - that requires an in depth understanding of Tibetan first, which is a difficult language, apparently, to understand at this level of subtlety. And as well as that - it requires knowledge of a huge number of written texts also. The typical course of study to complete this in just one of the schools takes about ten years. And to understand all four schools would presumably take longer.
So, as far as I know, again correct me if wrong, I don't think any Westerner Tibetan Scholars have yet reached that level of study to be able to say they have understood the Tibetan texts as thoroughly as someone like the Dalai Lama. Though they may have in depth studies of say one particular text. [corrected below]
In any case he is certainly a good secondary source on Tibetan Buddhism, I'd say. And my understanding is, that I don't think many would contest that - except for a few Westerners in the New Kadampa Tradition which is itself of course controversial.
Of course you don't need that level of scholarship of the Tibetan texts to either practice as a Buddhist or have an in depth understanding of the teachings of the Buddha. But to be an accomplished Tibetan scholar with understanding of all four schools, that's what you need.
Please don't hesitate to correct any mistakes I make here, however minor. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The Gelug school, including the Dalai Lama, has highly unusual perspectives on many topics which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. See HERE for example. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think what we have here is not a distinction between primary and secondary sources, but a distinction between primary sources - in this case principally the sutras and the commentaries and other original texts - and various levels of secondary source.
So for instance, a Pali scholar studying the Pali canon and its commentaries would of course need an in depth level of knowledge of both Pali and the texts. Similarly for a Tibetan scholar studying the Tibetan texts. So there, though there may be a few Westerners who have attained the same in depth understanding, the best scholars are often those from traditional Buddhist countries because they are the main ones who have had the time and background to be able to do the amount of study needed here, especially in the vast Tibetan tradition.
But this doesn't make them primary sources. They are just secondary sources expert in the Pali, or Tibetan, or Chinese canon respectively.
Then you have other scholars who use them as sources, while also making occasional direct reference to the primary sources. So this doesn't make the first group of scholars primary because they do that. Just gives another level of secondary scholarship.
Then you also have other scholars who don't specialize in Buddhist studies but are perhaps philosophers, or anthropologists or theologians, and they then use a mixture of all the other secondary sources, but rarely make direct reference to the primary sources themselves. And again this doesn't make any of the previous sources "primary" because they do this.
So - I think this might be a more helpful way of looking at things. And - the ones who are furthest away from the groundwork of the Pali, or Tibetan scholars and such like - they are not necessarily always the best informed. Just depends. And it is possible for some of the scholars like Walpola Rahula and the Dalai Lama to be both expert in the details of scholarship in the original language of the texts - and also able to have an overview and be able to present those to a general audience. So these are particularly valued as secondary sources here, in my view because they have this direct access to the original primary texts as well as ability to communicate their understanding in a clear way.
So they should be regarded as excellent sources to use in articles on Buddhism, where available.
Where of course it all needs to be looked at carefully on a case for case basis. Expertise in the Pali canon doesn't make you necessarily someone who also has a good overview and general understanding. Doesn't automatically mean you are going to be respected as a scholar at that level. But it is a good thing to have in someone who does have that as well.
Robert Walker ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I am supplying this list to provide a bit of perspective regarding the implications that there is a some kind of great gap between Buddhist practitioners and modern scholars. Jonathan has repeatedly expressed concerns about keeping up-to-date with the "latest research" of modern academics. The most significant trend that I am aware of over the past generation is that a large number of students who started out in academia have become practicing Buddhists and have also continued their academic careers. (There is also an increasing number of younger Buddhist students entering into academia.) The list below is just a partial list of prominent scholars that I am aware of. I am sure that there are many more.
Note that most (if not all) of the above scholars continue to study with Tibetan lamas. (I am most familiar with this tradition.) Jonathan, please clarify if you consider the above scholars to be secondary sources for explanations of basic Buddhist concepts (such as karma)? Do you consider these scholars to be reliable sources for basic Buddhist concepts? Dorje108 ( talk) 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I do. And I like, for one, David Brazier. I find his book on the four truths highly recommendable - from a Buddhist point of view. From a scholarly point of view, I think that his re-interpretation of samudaya is questionable, to put it mildly. But from a Buddhist point of view, well, I like it personally. And then, again, I also know of orthodox Theravadins who think it's crap...
Dorje, thanks for coming up with this list. I think you're making a good point here (though "great gap" is too boldly stated, I think). I've been thinking it over, and I think that NeilN's comment from December 1 was a good one:
You're asking now for a general assessment; it might be better to assess specific instances. The basic issue for me was that you've kind of copied the writing-style of Tibetan Buddhists: a statement, and several quotes to illustrate or support the statement.
Regarding the use of "statements", or "definitions" which "cover it all", Gombrich has a good observation:
With other words: why do Buddhists use the term "karma", or the "four (noble) truths", how did these terms evolve into concepts, how were they used in subsequent phases of Buddhist history? Context, not just "karma is..."!
Gombrich quotes Popper in the accompanying footnote:
An encyclopedia should condense information, and reflect all the relevant points of view. Using a lot of quotes is not condense. By choosing mainly modern Buddhist writers, who aim at a large western audience, you're not representing "all the relevant points of view", but specific modern interpretations. See McMahan's The Making of Buddhist Modernism.
So, to repeat: it depends on the context. And personally, I'd like to see how a concept evolved, to understand what it meant to specific people. And I'd like to see a reflection of the relevant scholarship, not just popular Buddhist teachers. The popular teachers we can all easily find; how do we make scholarship accessible?
See also WP:WPNOTRS:
Also,
Making a statement, giving a couple of quotes from modern teachers, is a kind of interpretation, c.q original research. Instead of saying "teacher X, Y, Z says...", it's turned into "Buddhism says". That's interpretation, and it's not a guarantee that "Buddhism" says so. The editor concludes so. Let me give one example: "The Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" [5]. "The theory" - is there any general idea of karma, common to all Buddhist schools throughout time? And theory - since when is karma a "theory"? Is there any empirical research from which a theory of karma is developed?
This being said: keep going. Both Buddhist teachers and Buddhist scholars (those from the universities) have a lot to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved your discussion thread here, Joshua Jonathan, as the RfC is focused on what counts as valid secondary sources, not about use of quotes. That would need a separate RfC, where it would be relevant in the support / oppose sections, but here it belongs in the Discussion I think. Done the same for my own reply on the same matter.
Discussion in the thread on Softlavender's Support statement:
Unless texts are controversial or minority viewpoints or unless the author is a primary creator of doctrine or thought. If and/or when in doubt, just put "According to ...", and this puts to rest all problems. If someone wants to add a differing view, then another "According to" can be added as contrast. Most Buddhist theological historians and commentators are Buddhists, just as historically most Christian theological historians are Christian, etc. This is to be expected. Softlavender ( talk) 06:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
and my comment on the matter in my Support:
And my comment on the scholarship of the New Kadampa Tradition
Note, reason for moving the discussion here is that we are getting no new Support or Oppose statements and I felt that it may help to keep focus on the main matter of the RfC in the Support and Oppose sections. Also good to have a separate section to discuss use of quotes to avoid getting derailed in the other discussion sections here. In the interest of keeping focus, I also trimmed my own Support statement down a bit as well. Also added a comment to hopefully help make the issue clear, neutrally worded. Hope this is acceptable. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
As NielN has pointed out previously, my orginal wording of this RFC could have been more clear. Note that I have reworded this RFC once to try to narrow the focus, but NielN has kindly suggested that the question could still be more clear. See User_talk:NeilN#RFC_re-worded_for_clarity
It has also become clear based on previous discussions that we need to clearly distinguish between the terms secondary sources and reliable sources. So I propose creating the following two new RFCs to deal with these issues separately:
In this case, the current RFC discussion would serve as a reference for the new RFCs. I think we really need to focus on one issue at a time to get to a resolution. Dorje108 ( talk) 15:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"
Just a thought, Dorje108, might help to keep the discussion focused to include some example scholars in the RfC to focus the discussion on.
So for instance:
"Is it suitable to use Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula, Prayudh Payutto and other Eastern trained scholars who are highly regarded for their erudition in the ancient texts as secondary sources for Buddhism for citations in articles on Buddhism in Wikipedia".
Where, you can choose whatever you think are the most highly regarded traditionally trained scholars, a selection of Tibetan, Therevadhan, etc, just a few, a list of some of the very most highly regarded current (or recent enough to be citable) non "Western academic" Buddhist sources in the world.
Then people can answer Oppose then is quite clear they are saying they don't think any of these are suitable as a secondary source in the articles. If they say support they think they are suitable. Those who think maybe they can be used occasionally or are not sure about some of them can vote with a comment or a "partial support" or whatever to make their position clear.
Then we might get a clear picture of - at least first stage of what may well be several RfCs to get it clear. If these are acceptable as sources, then others can be argued for on a case by case basis on article talk pages. It might also help editors to have a list like that of sources that are generally regarded as suitable sources to use for articles on basic concepts in Buddhism, it might be a useful project, just an idea, to start to map out such a list (not with the aim of being exhaustive but to help shortcut discussions for the scholars of most repute for newbie editors who might not have heard of them and might challenge them).
Just an idea as usual. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The Gelug school, including the Dalai Lama, has highly unusual perspectives on many topics which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. The Dalai Lama writes from the perspective of the Gelug tradtion and is thus a primary source. Even when he talks about Dzogchen, he tries to correlate it to his own school's teachings. VictoriaGrayson Talk 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the main problem lies in the question itself. You see, no person can be "reliable source" per se. Instead, it totally depends on the piece of work. We've already discussed these things in the RfC above, so I guess there is no need to repeat the very same arguments here all over again?
Robert Walker, I admire your enthusiasm towards the topic, but perhaps you could also consider the possibility that we should not judge any source categorically based upon it's author / religious affiliation / ethnic backgrounds, but evaluate each source per the nature of the source? I mean, this is how I see it: a Buddhist scholar might carry out religious commentaries over some primary source(s), but the scholar might also perform academic studies on the subject. Equally, a Christian scholar might carry out religious commentaries, but still being able to have academic studies on the subject. Summa summarum, the religious background / ethnicity / identity of author shouldn't matter, but should only pay attention to the source itself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 20:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To me this somewhat like a case of getting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to determine what content the article in question should have. In a lot of cases, although clearly not all, particularly topics which have been subject to recent significant developments, the content of existing reference works of some sort dealing with the topic at hand are a very good indicator. Then, once you have some idea of what should be included in the article, and to what approximate weight, then it would certainly be reasonable to discuss which sources of whichever kind should be used for any particular statements. John Carter ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I was attracted to this conversation at the village pump. I don't have a dog in the fight. On general principle, I believe the more sources the better. More specifically, it seems to me that most editors who try to define and reject a source as a "primary source" do so as a way of wiki-lawyering in order to obstruct the development of articles in areas which they dislike.
A true "primary source" is one that is heavy on data and has no synthesis of that data. A table of recorded temperatures over the world over the last 100 years is a primary source. An analysis of that data, published in a scientific journal which includes a literature review of related studies is actually a secondary source -- both because it provides an analysis of the primary source (the data) and a review of other studies.
Similarly, works on religion and philosophy which include an interpretation and analysis of sacred texts, commentaries, and traditions is a secondary source -- especially to the degree the author is asserting to be expounding on what has already been taught or learned. To the degree that an author steps out and describes a "new discovery" -- then, that portion of the work may be considered a "primary source." But the fact that a single source may include both secondary source material and primary source material should not prevent it from being used as a secondary source in regard to the material being synthesized and reviewed.
Now, I read above that part of the problem is with people deleting content based on their preferred sources. I think it is best practice to retain content, but add additional content reflecting other viewpoints and sources. The fact that sources disagree is itself significant. One of the main values of these articles is that it gives someone who is beginning to research the topic an opportunity to find references to a wide variety of angles on the topic.
To the question: ""Is it suitable to use Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula, Prayudh Payutto and other Eastern trained scholars who are highly regarded for their erudition in the ancient texts as secondary sources for Buddhism for citations in articles on Buddhism in Wikipedia?", I would answer an unequivocal yes. I would add, however, that in any cases where one of these parties is relied upon making statements others find controversial, that the text in the article be amended to say something of the sort, "according to Rahula," so that the attribution is not limited simply to the footnote, but is made more clearly in the body of the article, thereby emphasizing that it is one opinion on the matter, not necessarily shared by all. -- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 04:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are not "banned" from use in Wikipedia articles — provided they are used properly and with care. Chris Fynn ( talk) 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed a compromise to Robert: he says which parts of the "old" version he really likes, and would like to preserve, and then we go through it and see how to preserve it. A lot of the info from the old versions is still there, but condensed; Djlaiton4 jsut reinserted some info at "Four Noble Truths"; and I'll have to look again at the Theravada-part. Also, Andi3o just re-ordered the Four truths-article, which is fine with me too. A list can be made at the talkpage of "Karma in Buddhism", and then we can try to work this out together. See also WP:ONLYREVERT:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The precise results of a karmic action are considered to be one of the four imponderables.
In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest. Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states: ( Karma - Rigpa wiki)
Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains: (Bhikkhu Thanissaro|2010|pp=47-48)
Which we are discussing at present on the talk page. There he has cited one Therevadhan source, quoting from "The Wings to Awakening: an Anthology from the Pali Canon" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu - surely an acceptable Therevadhan source, and Ringu Tulku, of the Rimé movement, a movement that respects the differences between the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and tries to simply set them all out clearly as they are.
Anyway whatever you say about the sources, all I could say is that - definitely this section is needed, in all this detail. But if any attempt was made to paraphrase what they say - I would respectfully decline. I don't want to paraphrase material like this and have what I write be put up in wikipedia in the content of an article. I'd be bound to make mistakes. Sorry I just won't be drawn into paraphrasing this content or commmenting on the accuracy of the paraphrases. It is just too subtle for me, beyond my abilities.
So - for all this - for what should be included, for choice of sources, and paraphrasing and quotes, use Dorje108. He is a good editor, and he knows what he is talking about. And engage in discussion with him. He is not dogmatic, he will listen to what you say. If it is still an issue and you can't resolve it, do an RfC on whatever the issue is. I will help as I can e.g. comment on discussions or RfCs. But I don't want to be involved as an editor of the article myself. Sorry! Robert Walker ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But - I wonder if Dorje is interested, is this a suitable way ahead, User:Dorje108. To talk about sections of the old article one at a time, and reintroduce them? Given that it doesn't seem likely that a rollback can be forced if Jonathan doesn't want to do it. And Jonathan - are you willing to work with him? I wonder if there is any possibility of a way forward here.
So anyway don't know if this is possible, but suggest, if we do this, that still we need to resolve the matter of whether it is okay to use Tibetan and Thai and Sri Lankan scholars as sources first - you need those ground rules sorted out as otherwise it can never work.
Also, on use of quotations in footnotes (there if we do an RfC on that, I would be interested to see what are your detailed reasons for removing them all) - and the matter of whether to use quotes or paraphrasing in the articles themselves. Otherwise those would be questions that keep coming up over and over on the talk page for each section discussed.
If we do paraphrasing, I think you need to be aware that this is likely to be a long process needing careful work and much discussion for each of the quotes paraphrased. Would be easier if that was established policy long ago, as we would now have paraphrases for them all. But in case where there are now many collected quotes, and none of them paraphrased, it is likely to be a lot of work to go through paraphrasing them all. I could imagine some hours of editor time, and a fair bit of discussion needed to work out a good paraphrase of just the two quotes given above. To me this seems rather unnecessary when we already have the quotes that express the ideas so clearly. But that's my own POV on this question, and of course a case where differences of opinion are understandable :). Robert Walker ( talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Both Ringu Tulku and Bhikkhu Thanissaro are internationally respected scholars, translators and authors. In the above quotes they are explaining a very subtle point (that is frequently misunderstood) extremely clearly. It is difficult to understand why Jonathan felt the need to delete this material from the article. Here is a quote from Peter Harvey emphasizing the same point:
And here Rupert Gethin also emphasizes the same points:
I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar. Dorje108 ( talk) 03:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Karma in Buddhism#Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision - rewrite
Would the original person who opened this up as an RfC please speedy close it? It was poorly worded, overbroad and now we are generating more heat than light. The real issue here is that some sources have to be handled on a case by case basis. The question was one incapable of generating a hard and fast rule. The WP MOS offers guidance on primary and secondary sources, and primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, while WP:RS secondary sources are preferred. End of story. Montanabw (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I began this RFC to address one of the issues regarding recent edits by Joshua Jonathan. Joshua has been systematically re-writing the articles on Buddhism in a manner that emphasizes the point of view of selected Western academics and minimizes the point of view of contemporary Buddhist scholars, teachers and translators. One of Jonathan’s justifications for these edits has been that all texts by Buddhist practitioners must be considered as primary sources, and only texts by Western academics can be considered as secondary sources. One result of this RFC is that we have been able to clarify the meaning of primary and secondary sources and demonstrate that Jonathan’s assertions were not correct. The distinction between primary and secondary sources depends on the context. As one editor stated in a parallel discussion on the RS noticeboard
I think we have also at least clarified some other issues. While the wording of the RFC could have been more clear, I think the intention is clear and it is helpful to clarify the views of different editors. I will leave the RFC open for additional comments. Regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 02:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And - if in your view, an article does make too much use of quotes, the solution is not to simply delete all the sections that use quotes! At the very least, the quotes should be kept while one discusses what to replace them by. In this case there are good reasons for the quotes
Where quotes are appropriate, as several of us think they are here, then the wikipedia guideline is just to make sure the article is not a page of quotes. Which it was not. They were introduced, and explained to the reader, exactly as expected here.
And an editor who comes to a mature article, full of quotes, has never edited it before themselves, article has been stable for a long time with only minor changes, well - the first thing is surely - to discuss what to do next on the talk page? Go through one quote at a time, deciding what to do?
Not to just immediately remove all the quotes without discussion, and remove most of the sections also ditto? Do you not think a slower approach might have been advisable?
Might that perhaps still be advisable, to roll back and go through the process more slowly, explain your reasoning, and let us all discuss if this is the right way to proceed, or what to do? For both of these articles that you treated in this way? Robert Walker ( talk) 03:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I never edited this article (except to fix one broken link using the wayback machine) and to my mind Dorje is the one with the deepest understanding of the sources of all those who edited Karma in Buddhism while you have shown several times that you are unaware of basic concepts, for instance in Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#The_citations_in_the_Karmic_results_are_not_a_judgement_section_which_you_deleted where you first called the section you removed and the sentence summarizing it, an "incredible generalization" and then later, just added that very same sentence to your article as a summary of the deleted material. How can you claim to have a thorough understanding of Karma in Buddhism and yet not know something as basic as that Karma is not a Judgement in Buddhism until you re-read Dorje's quotations in his footnote for that section?
If this was a new article by an inexperienced editor, I don't know possibly I might be able to help you. But not as an editor of a mature article and when there are editors available with a deep and thorough understanding of the material being discussed, and in a situation where you have just deleted much of the material that I thought was of value in the previous mature article. That's why I don't want to help you by editing your version and correcting the mistakes I see in it. While I could correct some mistakes, for sure, I know it is an extremely subtle topic and I'd be sure to add more errors myself if I got involved as an editor. While the previous version had none of these many issues your new version has. So the obvious thing is to roll back to the mature article rather than try to fix the existing one. And then introduce to it whatever new material you have and improve its presentation and so on as necessary. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When copy-pasted to word, this RfC is already 58 pages long. I guess it's time to close this one finally? Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This page 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. |
I have requested that the article Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism) be moved back to it's original title Yidam. The article was previously moved on grounds of consistency with the titles of other related articles which are derived from Sanskrit, which was a reasonable motive - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually traditionally used in Buddhism and is found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it first occurred in this context in some outdated western books which conflated Buddhist tantra with Hinduism) - and the current title (and some of the current content) only perpetuate that mis-conception. The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism so I am requesting it be moved back to Yidam for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME. Please see: Talk:Iṣṭadevatā_(Buddhism)#Requested_move_15_December_2014 and Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_discussions -- Chris Fynn ( talk) 12:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Most books by Tibetan lamas are translations. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Does a scholar who writes a thesis on a narrow area of study really understand their subject better than someone who trains in this way?
original research? There are great scholars on Buddhism in Japan. Bernard Faure and John McRae, great scholars themselves, studied with Yanagida Seizan. They are (were; McRae died three years ago) idolate of him. "Dedicated to Yanagida Seizan, with inexpressible gratitude" (John McRae, "Seeing Through Zen"). See the introduction written by Yanagida Seizan for The Record of Lin-ji to get a taste of his writings. Yanagida Seizan (I don't know which name is his surname...) was a practitioning Buddhist. YS studied the manuscripts from the Mogao Caves, and discovered that those tects deviate in important respects from the histpry of the Zen-school as reported by that school itself. YS was not afraid to take a critical stance, just like Masao Abe, another famous Japanese scholar and practitioning Buddhist. See also "Sudden and Gradual", a supern collection od publications on the sudden-gradual debate in Zen. Really oustanding. McRae's contribution opened my eyes for the value of scholarly research: scholars see discrepancies, and reveal information, which faith-practitioners can't see, simply because their training has not learned to see and tolerate such discrepancies. So, scholarly studies and practicing Buddhism are not anti-thetical. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This is were a quote is relevant:
Notice the usage of terms like "speculation" and "suggest". It marks true scholarship: a scholar explains what makes them think so (see also Gombrich 2009 chapter 7)
As for Prayudh Payutto: this sounds quite different from what you said earlier. Nevertheless, scholars like Schayer,
Frauwallner, Conze, Norman, Schmithausen, Vetter, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Wynne, to name only a few, argue that the Pali Canon has internal incongruencies which betray a development of doctrine. For example, the difference between calm and insight, to name a famous one, as already note in 1937 by Lamotte.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK folks, let me try this using a model that I'm more familiar with, Christianity (full disclosure: I am not a practicing Buddhist, I am merely interested in the topic, but I'm actually a mainstream Methodist Protestant). In that tradition, we have, of course, the equivalent of the Buddha in Jesus (OK, so I'm super-duper-oversimplifying, but stay with me here). We also have a core holy book called the Bible, that itself is highly debated as to whether it has historical accuracy, if it is literally or metaphorically true (or both), if it was inspired by God directly or if it was written by a series of Hebrew scholars and assorted disciples of Christ based on their own understanding of events - or some blend of the two. We also have a series of theologians and scholars who have wrestled with this tradition, both in Judaism and in Christianity, particularly Catholicism. So how are their works handled on WP and is there any value in comparing what WP Christianity is doing. There, they have even more hotly contested issues than here - the fundamentalists and the liberals (to say nothing of agnostics and atheists) along with the various sects within each major division all have huge differences of opinion (consider new earth creationism, just for starters). So, I suspect they have some standard procedures for determining what is considered a primary source (the Bible? Always? Sometimes? In certain contexts?) on WP, what is a secondary source, and how to distinguish "pop culture" books (by people like, for example, Joel Osteen) from books by respected scholars (like Augustine) and how someone who is a contemporary minister (perhaps Billy Graham) is compared to someone like Pope Francis. I'm going to ping them and see if anyone there can offer us some ideas on navigating religion in wiki-land. Montanabw (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- To me it is not so important what the Buddha or the early Buddhist Sangha originally thought and taught, but what Buddists think. And by that i mean primarilly what they think (and teach and practice) about concepts like Karma and the 4NT but also - to take it one step further and illustrate my point by means of (slightly) exageratiing: For me it is even more important what Buddhists think what the original teachings of the Buddha were than what western academics think what "objectively" were those teachings.
- Please think about it: After all, as our well thought out and thoroughly debated famous very first sentence about Buddhism in this wonderful digital encyclopedia states (emphasis added):
"Buddhism is a [...] religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha [...]"
- So for me it seems quite obvious that an article about a Buddhist concept like karma should first and foremost report what the believers (of different traditions respectively) think about the concept, how it is taught and how it is incorporated into their practices. And by the way, the Buddhism article - right after the lead - continues with a traditional account of the life of the Buddha - not an historical (!)
- Of course there should be room for historical critical analysis and comparative studies, which is what (western) academics seem to be mostly occupied whith. But if you think about what matters to the world, i.e. the reader? How does karma, i.e. the concept of karma, not the "real" thing, come into the world, leaving the ivory tower? It is through its workings in the minds of Buddhist believers. So it is our foremost duty to report what believers say, think, do - again: not (western) scholars!
- Of course, in order to report this accurately there are many ways and one of them - undoubtedly one that Wikipedia actively encourages - is to use academic secondary or tertiary sources (that report those beliefs).
John Carter, just a few of points by way of background, may be helpful. First, yes, there are Buddhist equivalents of Augustine - such as Nagarjuna, Aryadeva (second and third century CE). But - there is also a tradition of scholarship that built up after that. There have been scholars writing works on these topics and discussing them through first India until the end of the twelfth century in Nalanda then in Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Korea, Japan, China etc. The Eastern scholars are continuing in this tradition. The Dalai Lama for instance, in his books - he represents a tradition of scholarship of this type that continued in Tibet without interruption since the fall of Nalanda University in the C12. So the Eastern scholars are coming to the subject with this background of a continuous tradition of previous works on the subject. For the most part we in the West are unaware of these works.
Then another point is, there is critical evaluation of the Buddha's teachings built in. So, somewhat less tendency I think just to repeat and paraphrase the teachings. The Buddhist teachings are not regarded as "revealed truth". There is no creed, in the sense, that there is nothing that any Buddhist is required to recite, to say "I believe this and I believe that and I believe the other thing...". He taught many teachings in great detail, at least so it's thought by most Buddhists. But he also taught that we shouldn't take accept any of his many teachings on his "say so". But examine them for ourselves. And also should listen to other teachers too, in any tradition, but again not accept anything they say either on their say so. So there is this background of critical evaluation of everything he said built into Buddhism.
Also, finally, it's worth noting I think that most of the Western academics have been brought up in a society where one of the Abrahamic religions is the "state religion". So - that makes a difference I think. And we also don't have a tradition of meditation here in quite the same way that they have in the West. We do have a tradition of a contemplative life of course, seclusion in the desert as with the desert fathers, and so on. But not the detailed methods of the Eastern meditative traditions. As far as I know there are no surviving teachings on how to meditate in the Old Testament, or New Testament (I don't know about the Koran). At any rate certainly not the detailed treatment that you get in the sutras. I think both of these lead to a difference of perspective when Western academics examine the Eastern scholarly texts. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Please help with the discussion of Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 17. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have more information on the above mentioned group? The only thing I could gather is that the organisation is relatively new, but apart from links to its own homepage I could not gather much information so far. How many members does it have? -- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this? Dorje108 ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.
See also Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1#Sources:
Jonathan, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly, are you asserting that texts by Buddhist writers and teachers (who do not have Western academic training) should be considered primary sources? Dorje108 17:53, 30 November 2014 (previously unsigned cmt)
- Yes, I think so. See WP:PRIMARY:
- "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."'
- This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much. See also WP:WPNOTRS:
- "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. 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."
- Even someone like Heinrich Dumoulin, who was an academic scholar on Zen, and a professor, is nowadays regarded as a primary source! So, when possible, secondary should be used. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fair when my exact wording is given, instead of the black-and-white phrasing of some people here. Note my nunace: "This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much", and "when possible, secondary should be used". The same nuance has been given by Dorje108: "as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines."
I repeat again: there are two issues here:
WP:OVERQUOTE; and overreliance on publications from popular, western-oriented teachers, aimed at a general audience (c.q. students of specific teachers and religious groups), while there are also plenty of secondary and tertiary sources from highly regarded scholars, including practicing Buddhists.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I am amazed that I have to propose this question, but a group of current editors have decided that texts by Buddhist writers must be considered primary sources. I do not believe that current Wikipedia policies support this view. Regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The RFC is too broadly worded. The reliability and appropriateness of a source depends on the specific material being sourced. In some cases practitioners of the faith may be acceptable sources but academic sources are always preferred. In Buddhism we have: "Different schools of Buddhism place varying levels of value on learning the various texts. Some schools venerate certain texts as religious objects in themselves, while others take a more scholastic approach." I would be wary of assuming the writer of one school hold views common to all schools. -- NeilN talk to me 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a feelng @ Shii: would probably be the best person to deal with this topic. My reservations are not so much about the fact of the scholars having any particular academic credentials, but that there are a rather widespread number of Buddhist schools, and that the statement of a practitioner of a particular school may be only applicable to his school. The situation would be much the same as using Billy Graham as a source for material on Christianity. In both cases, I think the source probably qualifies as broadly reliable, but in both cases I would think that there could be serious questions regarding the positions or possible bias of the source such that academic sources would probably be preferable. John Carter ( talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW - (this is meant as a new point, not continuing previous discussion) interesting sideline, the Dalai Lama is cited as a source on Buddhist teachings in the wikipedia article on the Sermon on the Mount on modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus such as the Sermon on the Mount and some Buddhist teachings. So if he was excluded as a secondary source in the Buddhist articles on Wikipedia - we'd be in the interesting situation where he is regarded as a valid secondary source on Buddhism in articles on Christianity but not in articles on Buddhism. Robert Walker ( talk) 21:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
His book, Buddhism and Animals, has featured on the list of recommended books for Buddhist study at the University of Toronto, and he has been invited to international symposia on the tathagatagarbha doctrine and asked to lecture on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Buddhism more than once at the University of London (SOAS). Moreover, the Oxford scholar and Tibetan Buddhist lama, Dr. Shenpen Hookham, has publicly called Dr. Page "a creditable Buddhist scholar" in her Preface to Buddhism and Animals and has spoken of his keen scholarship in connection with his German translation of the Tibetan Nirvana Sutra. Equally significantly, Professor Paul Williams - an international authority on Mahayana Buddhism - wrote a Foreword in support of Dr. Page's book, Buddhism and Animals, and in the 2009 edition of Williams' own acclaimed book, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Professor Williams promotes the present 'Nirvana Sutra' website as a reference resource for those interested in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Furthermore, Tony Page worked in close collaboration with the highly respected Nirvana Sutra expert, Stephen Hodge, on the ideas contained in the Nirvana Sutra for many years.
@Andi 3: I see yout point here, but I've got two objections: there's a lot of scholarly research available, so "we would end up with not much in hand" is not correct. And I don't think that it's "quite obvious" that most readers of these articles are interested solely in an insiders-perspective. Most readers (imagine, for example, all the readers who side with Sam Harris) won't be Buddhists, and want the relevant information, not just the insiders-view. On the contrary: the "outsiders" can point out the differences between the various schools of Buddhism, and the developments that the Buddhist faith underwent, based on independent research. The four truths are a nice example: scholarly research shows that they are not an indispensable artefact of the Buddhist traditions, but are the result of an ongoing development. Knowing this may help in understanding Buddhism. It did for me, at least, as a practitioning Buddhist. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If we narrow the list of reliable sources on Buddhism down to those few individuals worldwide who were lucky enough to acquire a (paid) position in a western academic institution that allows them to conduct their research on Buddhism, we would end up with not much in hand.
I think John Carter got it right: this is not the place to discuss about changes concerning WP:RS. Besides, the discussion is going in circles and commentators keep continuously ignoring the fact that we have to evaluate the source itself, not the author.
I feel stupid to repeat myself, but: a) we cannot label any individual as primary nor secondary source per se, and b) nobody has said that one has to be "a western academic"; instead, all the academics stand on the same line. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It was said earlier:
In some traditions there is little information in English. [...] Catflap08 ( talk) 00:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Catflap08, no one hasn't even opposed using non-English sources. Even the Wikipedia Policy doesn't prohibit using non-English sources ( WP:NONENG). There are no restrictions in using non-English sources. What's been under discussion here, however, is if non-academic sources can be used. Again, nobody has said that "primary sources could be used under no circumstances". Not true, sure they can. I have commented several times already that we don't care whether the academic scholar is Western or Eastern, Southern or Northern. Scholar is a scholar. And if the one - whoever it is being quoted - is notable enough, sure there are at least sources from his/her own country, (or) in his/her own language, available there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Joshua, it is not that unusual to find a new citation that is not yet included in an article in Wikipedia. And sometimes they express significantly different viewpoints from sources already used in the article. And if saying something significantly different from the other sources used in the article, it might deserve a new section in the article, I'd discuss on talk page first if I'd found it after only just half a day of research, most likely. But is not a reason to rewrite the entire article, if that was your reason for doing so. Individual authors often have views that others regard as highly individual or eccentric for instance. Though sometimes notable enough to deserve mention and maybe extensive treatment. I don't know anything myself about this particular book or author, can't comment on her notability, reputation or reliability. Just making this as a general point about use of sources. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Lindsay Jones'"Encyclopedia of Religion" refers both to Anderson, and to Norman, K. R. "Why are the Four Noble Truths called ‘Noble’?"' In Ananda: Papers on Buddhism and Indology: A Felicitation Volume Presented to Ananda Weihena Palliya Guruge on his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Y. Karunadasa, pp. 11–13. Columbo, 1990. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So, conclusion: yes, a respected scholar, which is also clear from the fact that all the great names I've mentioned contributed to a Festschrift for him. But also a scholar who's hardly, or not, being cited anymore, and, when he's cited, is being criticised. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking this over, and remembered that WR has got something to do with "Buddhist Protestantism"; see David Chapman, Protestant Buddhism. Brought me to David McMahan, "The Making of Buddhist Modernism":
And page 51:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Geshe Tering's "Four Noble Truths" is an uncritical account; he's a Geshe, a qualified spiritual teacher, but the book misses essential insigths from contemporary western academic studies. Some quotes:
Copied thread
There is an extensive biography of 14 items for the article "Karman: Buddhist concepts" written by Dennis Hirota in 2005 for the 2nd Lindsay Jones edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion, on page 5101 in volume 8. The article itself runs to around 4 pages [...] I would think that the works included there would probably all be preferable, given their being cited in that article [...]
John Carter (
talk)
16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd say something about the Dalai Lama, and why he is regarded as a good secondary source, to fill out in more detail what I said in my own support statement. First, User:Dorje108 and anyone reading this expert on the Dalai Lama please correct any mistakes here.
Also for anyone more familiar with other religions - in no way is the Dalai Lama a "leader of Buddhism" in Tibet like the Pope.
He did have a status as a political leader which he no longer has since he gave up that role. But in Buddhism then Buddha told his followers not to take anyone else on as a leader of the community after he died.
So - he can't issue proclamations or such like. He has no authority at all to tell other Buddhists, even in Tibet, how to interpret the Buddha's teachings. He can say how he understands the teachings himself. But those listening will not feel any need to follow any advice or suggestions he gives regarding the Buddha's teachings, or anything else for that matter. The only people who would expect to follow his advice would be his own personal students whoever they are, who have decided, for one reason or another that he is their spiritual friend who they want to go to for personal advice as practitioners.
And in that case also, as teacher and spiritual friend, the role of a teacher in Buddhism is to help his or her students to develop their own understanding of the teachings, not to tell them what to believe. The Buddha himself had no creed for his followers, and though he taught many things, he asked his students to look into everything for themselves, and not to believe anything just on his "say so".
So the Dalai Lama doesn't have a "conflict of interest" or anything like that when presenting the teachings, is just presenting them as best he understands them himself.
So, according to general Buddhist ideas of rebirth, and also Tibetan ideas in particular, there is no reason at all for successive Dalai Lamas to be similar in personality or interests. And though generally they tend to be bright, intelligent as children, they don't have to be scholarly. In particular, the sixth Dalai Lama was not interested in scholarship and was noted as a poet. They say his poetry is still popular today. Perhaps the Tibetan equivalent of our William Blake?
If our present Dalai Lama was like that, he would not be regarded as a secondary source on Tibetan Buddhism.
However the present Dalai Lama was noted from an early age for his interest and also expertise in scholarship. He passed all his exams with flying colours and amazed the monks with his proficiency in debate.
Then he went on to master the teachings and receive the transmissions of all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. For the ordinary practitioner this is not an easy task, rather mind boggling indeed, as they have conflicting ideas and practices. But for people like this, it is no problem.
So though he is normally thought of as a Gelugpa, he has also completed the training needed to be a noted Kagyupa or Nyingmapa or Sakyapa teacher as well. In the Nyingmapa tradition, for instance, his principal teacher is Dilgo Khyentse in the traditions of Dzog Chen and the Nyingmapa tradition. See Dilgo_Khyentse#Buddhist_studies.
Dilgo Khyentse was an especially noted teacher. Though head of the Nyingmapa tradition, he also similarly received transmissions and teachings in all the four schools. And was taught in old Tibet, so one of the few teachers who escaped to the West who completed his training in Tibet. And he is regarded as the teacher who single handedly saved most of the teachings of old Tibet as a living lineage so that they can be passed on in that way to future teachers.
So, when we talk about secondary sources in Tibetan Buddhism, then the Dalai Lama has a special position here, not because he is the Dalai Lama, but because he has mastered all the four traditions, and also done so in the Rime style where the emphasis is on preserving the variety in the teachings and presenting each one as it is understood within its own tradition. And because he is also fluent in English, especially written English, able to write down his understanding and communicate it in ways that can be understood by a Western audience.
There are a few other Tibetan teachers who have achieved this level of scholarship in Tibetan Buddhism, and User:Dorje108 tends to use them as sources by preference where available. Another example is one of Dilgo Khyentse's students, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche.
These are all teachers in the Rimé movement where the idea is that different beings need different teachings, and so it is important to preserve all the schools and to present their teachings exactly as understood within the schools, and to treat other schools of Buddhism and other religions in the same way. Which makes them particularly good sources for an accurate treatment of Tibetan Buddhism as understood by Buddhists in Tibet.
We actually don't have any Westerners who are as good sources as this, I believe - correct me if I'm wrong here anyone. [NB Dorje answered this, some Westerners have also mastered the primary sources in the Tibetan tradition, see below - I don't know if any of them are at the level of proficiency in the Tibetan texts and practices to be a Rime master said to have mastered the teachings of all four schools like the Dalai Lama - but - there are some very dedicated Tibetologists, maybe some are??]
The problem is - that just as a Pali scholar has to understand Pali and to understand the Pali canon and commentaries - a Tibetan scholar has to understand Tibetan and the Tibetan canon and commentaries - and the various teachings of the later schools in Tibetan Buddhism also. So - that requires an in depth understanding of Tibetan first, which is a difficult language, apparently, to understand at this level of subtlety. And as well as that - it requires knowledge of a huge number of written texts also. The typical course of study to complete this in just one of the schools takes about ten years. And to understand all four schools would presumably take longer.
So, as far as I know, again correct me if wrong, I don't think any Westerner Tibetan Scholars have yet reached that level of study to be able to say they have understood the Tibetan texts as thoroughly as someone like the Dalai Lama. Though they may have in depth studies of say one particular text. [corrected below]
In any case he is certainly a good secondary source on Tibetan Buddhism, I'd say. And my understanding is, that I don't think many would contest that - except for a few Westerners in the New Kadampa Tradition which is itself of course controversial.
Of course you don't need that level of scholarship of the Tibetan texts to either practice as a Buddhist or have an in depth understanding of the teachings of the Buddha. But to be an accomplished Tibetan scholar with understanding of all four schools, that's what you need.
Please don't hesitate to correct any mistakes I make here, however minor. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The Gelug school, including the Dalai Lama, has highly unusual perspectives on many topics which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. See HERE for example. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think what we have here is not a distinction between primary and secondary sources, but a distinction between primary sources - in this case principally the sutras and the commentaries and other original texts - and various levels of secondary source.
So for instance, a Pali scholar studying the Pali canon and its commentaries would of course need an in depth level of knowledge of both Pali and the texts. Similarly for a Tibetan scholar studying the Tibetan texts. So there, though there may be a few Westerners who have attained the same in depth understanding, the best scholars are often those from traditional Buddhist countries because they are the main ones who have had the time and background to be able to do the amount of study needed here, especially in the vast Tibetan tradition.
But this doesn't make them primary sources. They are just secondary sources expert in the Pali, or Tibetan, or Chinese canon respectively.
Then you have other scholars who use them as sources, while also making occasional direct reference to the primary sources. So this doesn't make the first group of scholars primary because they do that. Just gives another level of secondary scholarship.
Then you also have other scholars who don't specialize in Buddhist studies but are perhaps philosophers, or anthropologists or theologians, and they then use a mixture of all the other secondary sources, but rarely make direct reference to the primary sources themselves. And again this doesn't make any of the previous sources "primary" because they do this.
So - I think this might be a more helpful way of looking at things. And - the ones who are furthest away from the groundwork of the Pali, or Tibetan scholars and such like - they are not necessarily always the best informed. Just depends. And it is possible for some of the scholars like Walpola Rahula and the Dalai Lama to be both expert in the details of scholarship in the original language of the texts - and also able to have an overview and be able to present those to a general audience. So these are particularly valued as secondary sources here, in my view because they have this direct access to the original primary texts as well as ability to communicate their understanding in a clear way.
So they should be regarded as excellent sources to use in articles on Buddhism, where available.
Where of course it all needs to be looked at carefully on a case for case basis. Expertise in the Pali canon doesn't make you necessarily someone who also has a good overview and general understanding. Doesn't automatically mean you are going to be respected as a scholar at that level. But it is a good thing to have in someone who does have that as well.
Robert Walker ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I am supplying this list to provide a bit of perspective regarding the implications that there is a some kind of great gap between Buddhist practitioners and modern scholars. Jonathan has repeatedly expressed concerns about keeping up-to-date with the "latest research" of modern academics. The most significant trend that I am aware of over the past generation is that a large number of students who started out in academia have become practicing Buddhists and have also continued their academic careers. (There is also an increasing number of younger Buddhist students entering into academia.) The list below is just a partial list of prominent scholars that I am aware of. I am sure that there are many more.
Note that most (if not all) of the above scholars continue to study with Tibetan lamas. (I am most familiar with this tradition.) Jonathan, please clarify if you consider the above scholars to be secondary sources for explanations of basic Buddhist concepts (such as karma)? Do you consider these scholars to be reliable sources for basic Buddhist concepts? Dorje108 ( talk) 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I do. And I like, for one, David Brazier. I find his book on the four truths highly recommendable - from a Buddhist point of view. From a scholarly point of view, I think that his re-interpretation of samudaya is questionable, to put it mildly. But from a Buddhist point of view, well, I like it personally. And then, again, I also know of orthodox Theravadins who think it's crap...
Dorje, thanks for coming up with this list. I think you're making a good point here (though "great gap" is too boldly stated, I think). I've been thinking it over, and I think that NeilN's comment from December 1 was a good one:
You're asking now for a general assessment; it might be better to assess specific instances. The basic issue for me was that you've kind of copied the writing-style of Tibetan Buddhists: a statement, and several quotes to illustrate or support the statement.
Regarding the use of "statements", or "definitions" which "cover it all", Gombrich has a good observation:
With other words: why do Buddhists use the term "karma", or the "four (noble) truths", how did these terms evolve into concepts, how were they used in subsequent phases of Buddhist history? Context, not just "karma is..."!
Gombrich quotes Popper in the accompanying footnote:
An encyclopedia should condense information, and reflect all the relevant points of view. Using a lot of quotes is not condense. By choosing mainly modern Buddhist writers, who aim at a large western audience, you're not representing "all the relevant points of view", but specific modern interpretations. See McMahan's The Making of Buddhist Modernism.
So, to repeat: it depends on the context. And personally, I'd like to see how a concept evolved, to understand what it meant to specific people. And I'd like to see a reflection of the relevant scholarship, not just popular Buddhist teachers. The popular teachers we can all easily find; how do we make scholarship accessible?
See also WP:WPNOTRS:
Also,
Making a statement, giving a couple of quotes from modern teachers, is a kind of interpretation, c.q original research. Instead of saying "teacher X, Y, Z says...", it's turned into "Buddhism says". That's interpretation, and it's not a guarantee that "Buddhism" says so. The editor concludes so. Let me give one example: "The Buddhist theory of karmic action and result" [5]. "The theory" - is there any general idea of karma, common to all Buddhist schools throughout time? And theory - since when is karma a "theory"? Is there any empirical research from which a theory of karma is developed?
This being said: keep going. Both Buddhist teachers and Buddhist scholars (those from the universities) have a lot to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved your discussion thread here, Joshua Jonathan, as the RfC is focused on what counts as valid secondary sources, not about use of quotes. That would need a separate RfC, where it would be relevant in the support / oppose sections, but here it belongs in the Discussion I think. Done the same for my own reply on the same matter.
Discussion in the thread on Softlavender's Support statement:
Unless texts are controversial or minority viewpoints or unless the author is a primary creator of doctrine or thought. If and/or when in doubt, just put "According to ...", and this puts to rest all problems. If someone wants to add a differing view, then another "According to" can be added as contrast. Most Buddhist theological historians and commentators are Buddhists, just as historically most Christian theological historians are Christian, etc. This is to be expected. Softlavender ( talk) 06:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
and my comment on the matter in my Support:
And my comment on the scholarship of the New Kadampa Tradition
Note, reason for moving the discussion here is that we are getting no new Support or Oppose statements and I felt that it may help to keep focus on the main matter of the RfC in the Support and Oppose sections. Also good to have a separate section to discuss use of quotes to avoid getting derailed in the other discussion sections here. In the interest of keeping focus, I also trimmed my own Support statement down a bit as well. Also added a comment to hopefully help make the issue clear, neutrally worded. Hope this is acceptable. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
As NielN has pointed out previously, my orginal wording of this RFC could have been more clear. Note that I have reworded this RFC once to try to narrow the focus, but NielN has kindly suggested that the question could still be more clear. See User_talk:NeilN#RFC_re-worded_for_clarity
It has also become clear based on previous discussions that we need to clearly distinguish between the terms secondary sources and reliable sources. So I propose creating the following two new RFCs to deal with these issues separately:
In this case, the current RFC discussion would serve as a reference for the new RFCs. I think we really need to focus on one issue at a time to get to a resolution. Dorje108 ( talk) 15:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"
Just a thought, Dorje108, might help to keep the discussion focused to include some example scholars in the RfC to focus the discussion on.
So for instance:
"Is it suitable to use Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula, Prayudh Payutto and other Eastern trained scholars who are highly regarded for their erudition in the ancient texts as secondary sources for Buddhism for citations in articles on Buddhism in Wikipedia".
Where, you can choose whatever you think are the most highly regarded traditionally trained scholars, a selection of Tibetan, Therevadhan, etc, just a few, a list of some of the very most highly regarded current (or recent enough to be citable) non "Western academic" Buddhist sources in the world.
Then people can answer Oppose then is quite clear they are saying they don't think any of these are suitable as a secondary source in the articles. If they say support they think they are suitable. Those who think maybe they can be used occasionally or are not sure about some of them can vote with a comment or a "partial support" or whatever to make their position clear.
Then we might get a clear picture of - at least first stage of what may well be several RfCs to get it clear. If these are acceptable as sources, then others can be argued for on a case by case basis on article talk pages. It might also help editors to have a list like that of sources that are generally regarded as suitable sources to use for articles on basic concepts in Buddhism, it might be a useful project, just an idea, to start to map out such a list (not with the aim of being exhaustive but to help shortcut discussions for the scholars of most repute for newbie editors who might not have heard of them and might challenge them).
Just an idea as usual. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The Gelug school, including the Dalai Lama, has highly unusual perspectives on many topics which are not shared by the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. The Dalai Lama writes from the perspective of the Gelug tradtion and is thus a primary source. Even when he talks about Dzogchen, he tries to correlate it to his own school's teachings. VictoriaGrayson Talk 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the main problem lies in the question itself. You see, no person can be "reliable source" per se. Instead, it totally depends on the piece of work. We've already discussed these things in the RfC above, so I guess there is no need to repeat the very same arguments here all over again?
Robert Walker, I admire your enthusiasm towards the topic, but perhaps you could also consider the possibility that we should not judge any source categorically based upon it's author / religious affiliation / ethnic backgrounds, but evaluate each source per the nature of the source? I mean, this is how I see it: a Buddhist scholar might carry out religious commentaries over some primary source(s), but the scholar might also perform academic studies on the subject. Equally, a Christian scholar might carry out religious commentaries, but still being able to have academic studies on the subject. Summa summarum, the religious background / ethnicity / identity of author shouldn't matter, but should only pay attention to the source itself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 20:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To me this somewhat like a case of getting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to determine what content the article in question should have. In a lot of cases, although clearly not all, particularly topics which have been subject to recent significant developments, the content of existing reference works of some sort dealing with the topic at hand are a very good indicator. Then, once you have some idea of what should be included in the article, and to what approximate weight, then it would certainly be reasonable to discuss which sources of whichever kind should be used for any particular statements. John Carter ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I was attracted to this conversation at the village pump. I don't have a dog in the fight. On general principle, I believe the more sources the better. More specifically, it seems to me that most editors who try to define and reject a source as a "primary source" do so as a way of wiki-lawyering in order to obstruct the development of articles in areas which they dislike.
A true "primary source" is one that is heavy on data and has no synthesis of that data. A table of recorded temperatures over the world over the last 100 years is a primary source. An analysis of that data, published in a scientific journal which includes a literature review of related studies is actually a secondary source -- both because it provides an analysis of the primary source (the data) and a review of other studies.
Similarly, works on religion and philosophy which include an interpretation and analysis of sacred texts, commentaries, and traditions is a secondary source -- especially to the degree the author is asserting to be expounding on what has already been taught or learned. To the degree that an author steps out and describes a "new discovery" -- then, that portion of the work may be considered a "primary source." But the fact that a single source may include both secondary source material and primary source material should not prevent it from being used as a secondary source in regard to the material being synthesized and reviewed.
Now, I read above that part of the problem is with people deleting content based on their preferred sources. I think it is best practice to retain content, but add additional content reflecting other viewpoints and sources. The fact that sources disagree is itself significant. One of the main values of these articles is that it gives someone who is beginning to research the topic an opportunity to find references to a wide variety of angles on the topic.
To the question: ""Is it suitable to use Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula, Prayudh Payutto and other Eastern trained scholars who are highly regarded for their erudition in the ancient texts as secondary sources for Buddhism for citations in articles on Buddhism in Wikipedia?", I would answer an unequivocal yes. I would add, however, that in any cases where one of these parties is relied upon making statements others find controversial, that the text in the article be amended to say something of the sort, "according to Rahula," so that the attribution is not limited simply to the footnote, but is made more clearly in the body of the article, thereby emphasizing that it is one opinion on the matter, not necessarily shared by all. -- GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 04:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are not "banned" from use in Wikipedia articles — provided they are used properly and with care. Chris Fynn ( talk) 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed a compromise to Robert: he says which parts of the "old" version he really likes, and would like to preserve, and then we go through it and see how to preserve it. A lot of the info from the old versions is still there, but condensed; Djlaiton4 jsut reinserted some info at "Four Noble Truths"; and I'll have to look again at the Theravada-part. Also, Andi3o just re-ordered the Four truths-article, which is fine with me too. A list can be made at the talkpage of "Karma in Buddhism", and then we can try to work this out together. See also WP:ONLYREVERT:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The precise results of a karmic action are considered to be one of the four imponderables.
In the Buddhist view, the relationship between a single action and its results is dependent upon many causes and conditions, and it is not possible for an ordinary being to accurately predict when and how the results for a single action will manifest. Ringu Tulku Rinpoche states: ( Karma - Rigpa wiki)
Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains: (Bhikkhu Thanissaro|2010|pp=47-48)
Which we are discussing at present on the talk page. There he has cited one Therevadhan source, quoting from "The Wings to Awakening: an Anthology from the Pali Canon" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu - surely an acceptable Therevadhan source, and Ringu Tulku, of the Rimé movement, a movement that respects the differences between the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and tries to simply set them all out clearly as they are.
Anyway whatever you say about the sources, all I could say is that - definitely this section is needed, in all this detail. But if any attempt was made to paraphrase what they say - I would respectfully decline. I don't want to paraphrase material like this and have what I write be put up in wikipedia in the content of an article. I'd be bound to make mistakes. Sorry I just won't be drawn into paraphrasing this content or commmenting on the accuracy of the paraphrases. It is just too subtle for me, beyond my abilities.
So - for all this - for what should be included, for choice of sources, and paraphrasing and quotes, use Dorje108. He is a good editor, and he knows what he is talking about. And engage in discussion with him. He is not dogmatic, he will listen to what you say. If it is still an issue and you can't resolve it, do an RfC on whatever the issue is. I will help as I can e.g. comment on discussions or RfCs. But I don't want to be involved as an editor of the article myself. Sorry! Robert Walker ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But - I wonder if Dorje is interested, is this a suitable way ahead, User:Dorje108. To talk about sections of the old article one at a time, and reintroduce them? Given that it doesn't seem likely that a rollback can be forced if Jonathan doesn't want to do it. And Jonathan - are you willing to work with him? I wonder if there is any possibility of a way forward here.
So anyway don't know if this is possible, but suggest, if we do this, that still we need to resolve the matter of whether it is okay to use Tibetan and Thai and Sri Lankan scholars as sources first - you need those ground rules sorted out as otherwise it can never work.
Also, on use of quotations in footnotes (there if we do an RfC on that, I would be interested to see what are your detailed reasons for removing them all) - and the matter of whether to use quotes or paraphrasing in the articles themselves. Otherwise those would be questions that keep coming up over and over on the talk page for each section discussed.
If we do paraphrasing, I think you need to be aware that this is likely to be a long process needing careful work and much discussion for each of the quotes paraphrased. Would be easier if that was established policy long ago, as we would now have paraphrases for them all. But in case where there are now many collected quotes, and none of them paraphrased, it is likely to be a lot of work to go through paraphrasing them all. I could imagine some hours of editor time, and a fair bit of discussion needed to work out a good paraphrase of just the two quotes given above. To me this seems rather unnecessary when we already have the quotes that express the ideas so clearly. But that's my own POV on this question, and of course a case where differences of opinion are understandable :). Robert Walker ( talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Both Ringu Tulku and Bhikkhu Thanissaro are internationally respected scholars, translators and authors. In the above quotes they are explaining a very subtle point (that is frequently misunderstood) extremely clearly. It is difficult to understand why Jonathan felt the need to delete this material from the article. Here is a quote from Peter Harvey emphasizing the same point:
And here Rupert Gethin also emphasizes the same points:
I find the assertion that someone should just "paraphrase" these very subtle points to be naive. It is extremely difficult to sum up these concepts succinctly. All of the scholars quoted above have spent most of their lives contemplating these concepts and trying to figure out how to best explain them in plain English. To paraphrase these explanations without a deep understanding of what they are saying is extremely difficult. In most cases the reader will be far better served by reading the original quote from the scholar. Dorje108 ( talk) 03:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Karma in Buddhism#Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision - rewrite
Would the original person who opened this up as an RfC please speedy close it? It was poorly worded, overbroad and now we are generating more heat than light. The real issue here is that some sources have to be handled on a case by case basis. The question was one incapable of generating a hard and fast rule. The WP MOS offers guidance on primary and secondary sources, and primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, while WP:RS secondary sources are preferred. End of story. Montanabw (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I began this RFC to address one of the issues regarding recent edits by Joshua Jonathan. Joshua has been systematically re-writing the articles on Buddhism in a manner that emphasizes the point of view of selected Western academics and minimizes the point of view of contemporary Buddhist scholars, teachers and translators. One of Jonathan’s justifications for these edits has been that all texts by Buddhist practitioners must be considered as primary sources, and only texts by Western academics can be considered as secondary sources. One result of this RFC is that we have been able to clarify the meaning of primary and secondary sources and demonstrate that Jonathan’s assertions were not correct. The distinction between primary and secondary sources depends on the context. As one editor stated in a parallel discussion on the RS noticeboard
I think we have also at least clarified some other issues. While the wording of the RFC could have been more clear, I think the intention is clear and it is helpful to clarify the views of different editors. I will leave the RFC open for additional comments. Regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 02:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
And - if in your view, an article does make too much use of quotes, the solution is not to simply delete all the sections that use quotes! At the very least, the quotes should be kept while one discusses what to replace them by. In this case there are good reasons for the quotes
Where quotes are appropriate, as several of us think they are here, then the wikipedia guideline is just to make sure the article is not a page of quotes. Which it was not. They were introduced, and explained to the reader, exactly as expected here.
And an editor who comes to a mature article, full of quotes, has never edited it before themselves, article has been stable for a long time with only minor changes, well - the first thing is surely - to discuss what to do next on the talk page? Go through one quote at a time, deciding what to do?
Not to just immediately remove all the quotes without discussion, and remove most of the sections also ditto? Do you not think a slower approach might have been advisable?
Might that perhaps still be advisable, to roll back and go through the process more slowly, explain your reasoning, and let us all discuss if this is the right way to proceed, or what to do? For both of these articles that you treated in this way? Robert Walker ( talk) 03:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I never edited this article (except to fix one broken link using the wayback machine) and to my mind Dorje is the one with the deepest understanding of the sources of all those who edited Karma in Buddhism while you have shown several times that you are unaware of basic concepts, for instance in Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#The_citations_in_the_Karmic_results_are_not_a_judgement_section_which_you_deleted where you first called the section you removed and the sentence summarizing it, an "incredible generalization" and then later, just added that very same sentence to your article as a summary of the deleted material. How can you claim to have a thorough understanding of Karma in Buddhism and yet not know something as basic as that Karma is not a Judgement in Buddhism until you re-read Dorje's quotations in his footnote for that section?
If this was a new article by an inexperienced editor, I don't know possibly I might be able to help you. But not as an editor of a mature article and when there are editors available with a deep and thorough understanding of the material being discussed, and in a situation where you have just deleted much of the material that I thought was of value in the previous mature article. That's why I don't want to help you by editing your version and correcting the mistakes I see in it. While I could correct some mistakes, for sure, I know it is an extremely subtle topic and I'd be sure to add more errors myself if I got involved as an editor. While the previous version had none of these many issues your new version has. So the obvious thing is to roll back to the mature article rather than try to fix the existing one. And then introduce to it whatever new material you have and improve its presentation and so on as necessary. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When copy-pasted to word, this RfC is already 58 pages long. I guess it's time to close this one finally? Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).