Talk:Buddhism

Please place comments in the appropriate section and keep comments short.

Misplaced material will be moved as needed to preserve page structure.

Long discussions may be moved to (or better, started as) talk sub-pages, with appropriate links.

Revisions are Sandboxed at talk:Buddhism/Revised. Please use the talk page while editing.

Template:WP1.0 Template:Archive box collapsible

archive of discussions

Permalink Archive 01

what discussions (by thread) can be archived?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You've just been adding to some a long way back. Peter jackson (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

because I'm new to contributing in en.wikipedia (well, more than a few minor corrections). And that matters how? We can still archive at least some discussions. IMO, all this threads can be archived:

• Lead
• Neutrality tag
• Editing and Copyediting
• Semi-Protected
• cosmically-dimensioned faith?
• Sanbox Version
• General comments, complaints, and/or observations not covered in the above
• recent edits
• Conflict with other Buddhist articles

Note: I will archive this list of threads if no one disagrees. I prefer the "permalink" method of archiving (no creation of extra pages), so if no one disagrees about it, I will use this simpler method.

Since this discussion is still very long (310 kilobytes), I will archive more threads in this month. The next archives will be (if no one disagrees, I will archive them when the list has 9 or 10 items):

1. Arrangement
2. Former Featured Article
3. merge "Suggested reading" with references
4. No mention of ancient India?
5. Is Buddhism a religion? Don't most religions address themselves to the world?
6. Cousins, "Dating"
7. can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?
8. Structure
9. Asian Buddhism articles

Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Revise/refine lead in accordance with WP:LEAD to make it comprehensive, neutral and readable.

• at this point we have decided to leave the lead section as is. we need to return later to incorporate a section about buddhist beliefs, but have agreed that the task will be easier after we have developed the page body more.

Central concepts

Evaluate the possible use of a section that summarizes important concepts common to all streams of Buddhism.

highlights of old discussions

Click on show to view the contents of this section

let me suggest, in the light of the family resemblance concept, that we approach it somewhat on the following lines. We can start with the conceptual, historical & demographic intro as we've been working on. Then we make roughly the following points:

1. Nearly all Buddhists practise devotion to 1 or more Buddhas, & often other beings as well. The most popular are the historical Buddha, & the celestial Buddha Amitabha.
2. Most/nearly all believe in rebirth (strictly, reconception) ...
3. This is regarded as usually being in accordance with karma (which also influences experiences during life) ... However, many/the majority believe that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually can determine their own & others' rebirths. In particular, many believe Amitabha will ensure his devotees are reborn in his Pure Land.
4. Buddhists believe in the importance of generosity, particularly to support monks.
5. Most Buddhists accept, at least as an ideal, a morality based on the Five Precepts: refraining from killing living beings, stealing, sexual immorality, lying & intoxicants.
6. Most Buddhists are led by an order of monks, & often nuns (tho' the latter, where they exist, are subordinate.
7. Buddhists believe in the necessity of meditation at some stage of the path, tho' most do not regard themselves as having reached that stage yet.
8. Nearly all recognize scriptures, tho' they disagree on which texts are authentic & important. Reading, study, memorization, recitation & devotion are widespread practices.
9. Some Buddhists study various doctrinal systems to provide a framework for the development of insight in meditation. Others regard conceptual thought as an obstacle to insight into reality.
10. Buddhists recognize 1 or more concepts of liberation, ususally liberation from rebirth. Some/many talk of renouncing liberation to help others spiritually.
11. All recognize the ideal of dedication to helping others spiritually, & the majority believe everyone should follow this.
12. Nearly all participate in rituals, & some regard this as very important.
13. Some believe in the practice of sexual yoga, but most disapprove.

The order here is roughly progressive. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now let me elaborate the situation as regards scriptures.

• historians 1st
  • a very few believe most of the contents of the agamas, corresponding to about 1/4 of the Pali Canon, go back to the Buddha
  • some believe the Buddha's original teachings entirely lost
  • some have produced a wide variety of intermediate theories
  • increasing numbers are agnostic
  • nobody believes the Mahayana sutras go back to the Buddha
• Theravada fundamentalists believe most of the Pali Canon goes back to the Buddha
• Mahayana fundamentalists believe:
  • most of the Vinaya, Agamas & Mahayana sutras go back to the Buddha
  • the agamas give an elementary teaching suitable, in theory, for some people who aren't ready for Mahayana
  • it is better to follow Mahayana from the start
• In practice the agamas play no role in Chinese & Japanese Buddhism, & were never even translated into Tibetan
• Vinaya is another matter. In theory, all Buddhist monks follow similar vinaya, tho' it must be remembered that the Japanese clergy aren't monks in this sense, so it doesn't apply to them.
• non-fundamentalist Buddhists believe whatever someone has told them historians believe

Peter jackson (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, it's obvious that when "Buddhism" existed in Ashokan times it was just Buddhism. (This was before there was "Theravada" or "Mahayana" or "Vajrayana," although I am aware there were already various Buddhist "schools" or Nikayas, during Ashoka's times. But from what I know they were all the old schools from which Theravada is a descendent.) I'm not a historian, but doesn't one of the Ashokan pillars record Ashoka as paying homage to the Triple Gem: Buddha-Dharma-Sangha? Today, if you were to ask any number of practicing "Buddhists" as diverse as a Theravadin in Sri Lanka to a Pure Land follower in South Korea, what it means to pay homage to Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha, I'm sure they'll have a good idea what you're talking about. Indeed, if you read any of the Pali suttas where the Buddha or one of his disciples is teaching a lay person, most of the suttas end with said lay person paying homage to the Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha. So my point is that although the various "Buddhist" sects are quite different from one another, they're not at all historically or doctrinally independent of one another, in the same way that two completely different Indian linguistic groups are independent in the sense that they're mutually unintelligible. Therefore, the various Buddhist sects are still "speaking the same language" in that they all purport to be the authentic route to the nirvana of which the Buddha spoke. I'm not really sure about how else to demonstrate Buddhism as a single religion without merely restating the obvious.

In regards to karma & rebirth, I don't think that these teachings are ink-blot tests where one person may interpret it one way and another may do so another way. I agree that some generalizaton is desirable, but they should not be misleading. In the Pali Canon, the Buddha's teachings on karma & rebirth are quite specific, especially when the Buddha contrasted his teachings on karma with the Jains. See: Devadaha Sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya (Pali Text Society citation: PTS: M ii 214). I believe a Pali scholar could help us to define Buddhist teachings on this topic...of course, I imagine that most Pali scholars would be Buddhist, since they've chosen to devote so much of their time to these texts.

Coolbo (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nearly all Buddhists practise devotion to 1 or more Buddhas" Nearly all? You mean a very specific form of Mahayana interpretation that is not founded on any sutric passage?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The vast majority of Theravadins do too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nearly all participate in rituals, & some regard this as very important." ...by definition they won't become even sotapannas on this life (sotapannas are free from "attachment to rites and rituals"). Not saying there are no Buddhists that believe in rituals... but how Budhism has changed!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

new discussions

Presumably, if we're leaving the lead to later, that would apply to this too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

Develop an effective and comprehensive structure for the article that provides readers with a sense of the sweep of Buddhist philosophy and practice. Note that to reduce overall article length, some sections could use summary style, with links to appropriate sub-articles

Talk:Buddhism/Structure#highlights of old discussions

new discussions

Talk:Buddhism/Structure#refractored text

current (developing) consensus

1. Beliefs and Practices
   1. General (maybe)
      1. Worldview
      2. Karma
      3. Dharma
      4. Rebirth
      5. Buddha
      6. Sangha
      7. Vinaya
      8. Monastic vs. lay practice
   2. Denominational Variations
      1. Theravada
         1. Scriptures and texts
         2. (variations?)
      2. Mahayana
         1. Scriptures and texts
         2. Zen/Chan
         3. Pure Land (Amida)
         4. Nichiren
         5. Vajrayana
            1. Tibetan
            2. Shingon
      3. Defunct schools
2. History (adapted from above)
   1. Early Buddhism
      1. Origins: the Buddha &c
      2. karma & rebirth, 4 noble truths, 5 precepts, monastic order, stupas, abhidharma ...
      3. Diaspora
   2. Theravada
      1. arrival in Ceylon
      2. spread through southeast asia
      3. conservative
   3. East Asian (Mahayana) Buddhism
      1. origins of Mahayana
      2. introduction to China
      3. teachings &practices: bodhisattvas, emptiness, mind-only ... Pure Land, Zen &c
      4. radical reform of earlier tradition
      5. spread through China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan
   4. Vajrayana
      1. origins of tantra
      2. introduction to Tibet
      3. Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Kalmykia
      4. practices
      5. spread to Tibetan Buddhism close to this
      6. less radical relative to Mahayana
3. Buddhist Ethics
   1. five precepts
   2. compassion and generosity
4. Demographics
5. Major historical Figures
6. Sacred Places
7. Current Buddhism
   1. Modern Mission
   2. Women in Buddhism

ok, pardon me for continuing to build structure. I've refractored Peter's lists into the sub-page, and incorporated some of the ideas here.

my suggestion is that we begin by taking the historical material on the main page and rebuilding it into the history structure as given above. once the history section is laid out, then it should be easier to work on the Beliefs and practices section. the sections at the end are more like isolated topics that can be cleaned up later. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to appear negative, but I see a lot of problems with the above.

1. I'm not sure what you can say about dharma in a general way
2. Pure Land should come before Zen, being more popular & of similar age
3. Do you know what diaspora means? It refers to Buddhists outside the "homelands", whether emigrants, their descendants, or converts. So it belongs later, not here.
4. Including later Indian Buddhism in East Asian & Tibetan is not usual practice, tho' the Penguin Handbook does it to some extent. It seems inappropriate in a section on history. Furthermore, to do it with the later schools but not the earlier is discriminatory.
5. There seems to be a lot of duplication between the history & the beliefs/practices section. Perhaps inevitable, but doesn't look good & is probably disapproved of by WP guidelines &/or FA/GA assessment criteria.
6. The term Vajrayana is used in 2 different senses in different parts of this contents list. That would look really bad.
7. Why is ethics separated out from practices?
8. "###spread to Tibetan Buddhism close to this" presumably an error

On the question of a general beliefs/practices section, here are a couple of citations to think about:

• "About all Buddhists few valid generalizations are possible." Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, page 2
• "... diversity prevents, or strongly hinders, generalizations about Buddhism as a whole." Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, page 1

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's way too long. Why are the three gems interpolated with 'rebirth' ? Do we really want to glob old schools together, regardless of their background? eg Jonang (ok, it was only THOUGHT to be defunct) and Sarvastivada?

Also, surely most of this stuff should link to main articles.. eg. History --> Vajrayana, and then just a summary with a link to the main article. This is important, because otherwise there are synchronisation errors between the main articles and the boundary article.

I also reject the idea that there is one Buddhist worldview. Any syncretized amalgamation of views ceases to maintain the flavour and impact the component views, and syncretism itself becomes yet another view. However, there ARE facts. All Buddhists accept the trikaya triratna, the buddha, the four noble truths, etc. Of course, the interpretations of even these core beliefs is varied.

I am further very wary of all this division of Buddhism - as if that is the main concern of Buddha and of Buddhists.

But hey.. I've been off wp. for 2 years. What do my views matter? (20040302 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

• I like your point about using summary style with links to main articles. Peter's concern (below) about the quality of the other articles needs to be addressed as well. As to whether your views matter. They do as far as I'm concerned. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your mention of Jonang raises complicated issues of what is a school? Its teachings are followed by many Nyingma & Kagyu teachers.

The problem with links to main articles, as I said before, but has now been refactored somewhere, is that a lot of them need drastic rewriting just like this article. So do we have to rewrite all the others before we can rewrite this one?

I agree with you about worldview. That's just the point I've been trying to make. It's not true that all Buddhists accept the trikaya. That's a Mahayana doctrine. Or did you mean triratna? All Buddhists accept the 4 NTs, but Mahayana regards them as more or less unimportant. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths. It's vital not to confuse shared with important, or arrange the article in such a way as to confuse the 2 for the reader. Therefore I oppose any sort of shared teachings section. Calling these sorts of things "core" is misleading. The idea that there is a core becomes another view!

I forgot to add earlier that, if the lead is to say Buddhism is usually considered a religion, which it doesn't at present, then there should be an opening section mentioning the alternative POVs. Perhaps it should do other things too. Peter jackson (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I was saying triratna (amended). Indeed - what is a school? Division by vinaya makes some sense - and vinaya provides very clear distinctions. Division by school is very complex - look at the subdivisions in eg the Kargyu. Also, what about small schools, closed schools, or short-lived schools. Divisions by philosophy, (Jonang for example) I contend, is impossible. Overlaps, re-interpretations, and so on just won't work. Also - even though I applaud that (at last) we see Vajrayana as a grouping under Mahayana - there is actually an Eastern Nepalese tradition of 'Sravaka Vajrayana'. So even these major divisions could be too complex. Another problem with pigeon-holing is that it can lead to an artificial alienation - and we are still in the throes of the reconciliation of traditions due to the information age and fast transportation: I believe that every tradition has been learning that ancient enemies are modern friends.

Re. Links to main articles - I understand your fears of the informational diaspora - but it is a central intention of WP to organise information that way, and it allows for respective experts to manage the minutae of each section. There is NO need to rewrite all the others before this - things are far more organic than that. I would suggest that this is actually inevitable. May as well get started.

As for 'religion' - there is no doubt that secular buddhism is a major modern movement that crosses most of the traditional schools, but there is also no doubt that Buddhism's roots in ideas that are beyond empirical experience ( rebirth, karma, nirvana ) entail that it is reasonable to call it a religion. Of course, traditionally there are also lots of gods - just no creator, no judge, and no intercession. I feel this issue could be best addressed with a link to secular buddhism, which appears not to exist at the moment. (20040302 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Re: Links to main articles: Your point about the central intention of WP in organizing information (via wikilinks) is bang on, IMO.

With respect to religion, I think we should state that Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy. And I agree we should get started. Sunray (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is disagreement about whether Buddhism is a religion. Therefore that is a POV, not a fact, & stating it as fact violates WP:NPOV. That's probably true of philosophy too. I see below that you seem to accept my suggestion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter - I don't want to disagree with any of your points, but the fact of the matter is we need to start. you're comments are all good, but by piling them on the way you've so far tended to do, you completely inhibit any progress on the page. we're not going to work out all the kinks in advance, and trying is just going to make us all crazy. so here's what I say (again): let's mock up the history section, which seems fairly well-sourced and unambiguous. one we have the history fleshed out, then we can start worrying about about the beliefs section, and start discussions about overlap, content, and ordering.

I don't know who keeps removing the 'usually considered' phrase - I keep putting it back, but I'll look into it.

Jonang - I don't know. lol. it'll get worked out. where do you think they should go?

20040302 - I hear you.

I'm thinking we should remove the NPOV tag and add an 'under revision' type tag. it will carry the same meaning to readers, and maynbe get editors to participate on the talk page rather than continuing to edit the main page. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To start with starting. I have no objection to starting with the history section. However, the way it's arranged above is not the way it's usually done. The usual arrangement has again been refactored away:

1. Indian
2. Theravada
3. East Asian
4. Tibetan
5. Modern/Western

An alternative I've seen is

1. "Sectarian": ie early, pre-Asokan period, when Buddhism was probably a quite small sect
2. "Civilizational": spread thro' India & beyond, with plenty of interaction between diferent areas
3. "Cultural": period of separate development:
   1. Theravada
   2. East Asian
   3. Tibetan
4. Modern period, with strong interactions between different Buddhist traditions, & also between Buddhism on the one hand & other religions & secular traditions of thought on the other

I don't think the arrangement above, with middle-period Indian Buddhism grouped with East Asian & late Indian with Tibetan, is a good idea, particularly with the former: East Asian Buddhism is quite different from Indian Mahayana. (Indeed, one might argue that the main divisions of Buddhism are Indic & Sinic.)

What is a school? We might say it's a Western invention imposed on Buddhism, perhaps. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, in the article on Schools, Buddhist, distinguishes 3 different forms of classification:

• movements (yanas)
• nikayas
• schools of thought

Organizationally, Buddhism consists of

• Theravada
• Chinese, Korean & Vietnamese Buddhism, led by monks & nuns following (at least in theory) the Dharmaguptaka vinaya
• Tibetan Buddhism, led mainly by monks following (at least in theory) the Mulasarvastivada vinaya
• numerous Japanese subsects, led by clergy with bodhisattva ordination instead of monastic, & mostly married
• odds & ends

Traditions of thought & practice often cut across these "denominational" groupings (& each other).

Links: the point I'm concerned about is this: do we have to summarize what the linked subarticle says, or are we allowed to correct it & summarize what it ought to say?

I think that we should correct it and summarize what it ought to say. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion. Remember we're supposed to be following reliable sources, not our own opinions. Most RSs call Buddhism a religion, but

• some specialist scholars say it's more than 1
• some theorists of religion define it in ways that exclude Buddhism

I suggested a compromise: the lead should start "Buddhism is usually considered a religion, one of the three major universal religions." The body of the article should start with a section repeating this & mentioning the other views. Some people agreed with at least the general idea. Nobody in this column has disagreed since Luis left, but the article doen't follow.

I like the formula "usually considered a religion." However, if we say it is "one of the three major universal religions," I fear we may start a multi-party religious war!  ;-) Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's straightforward. The next largest universal religion, Bahaism, is way behind, with adherents only in 7 figures, as against 9 for Buddhists & 10 for Christians & Muslims. So 3 major universal religions make up a clear objective category. The fact that Buddhism is universal, not ethnic, seems to me a pretty important fact to mention. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of number of adherents, it is: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, some may argue that. For example, make the case that Chinese Folk Religion has more adherents. I don't think that we should saying it is the third or fourth largest. "One of the largest" would be fine by me.Sunray (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism & Chinese religion are not universal religions; they're ethnic religions. the fact that a few small Hindu groups accept converts doesn't affect the overall picture, as they're a minute proportion of the total. Similarly, altho' one could presumably become Chinese by marriage or adoption, & some Koreans call themselves Confucians & some Westerners Taoists, the same stituation applies there. There are only the 3 major religions that address themselves to the whole of humanity in a realistic sense. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that Hinduism and Chinese religion are not universal. There is no doubt in my mind that you are right. However, I do think we should avoid saying "third" largest. We will wind up with endless changes and reverts. However, I have now said my piece. If you don't agree, I will cede to you on this. Sunray (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say 3rd largest; I said 1 of the 3 major. I can even dig up a citation to support that if necessary, tho' it seems to me a WKF. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that I'm leery of putting a number on this as well. it adds nothing to the discussion, and opens up the probability of huge, steaming you-know-what fight. I myself would enjoy arguing with you about hinduism (since modern advaita hinduism is clearly universalistic...  :-D ). is there a reason we need to go there that I'm not seeing? --Ludwigs2 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd look odd to say "... a religion, a universal one". "... a religion, one of the three major universal ones" looks better reading to me. Perhaps you can suggest wording. Peter jackson (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

try how I've done it now. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tendency of some Buddhists, as against scholars, to say it's not a religion is a different matter. Sociologists have noted that this happens in all religions. (See link from User:Peter jackson#Buddhism.) Perhaps people want to assert their group's distinctiveness.

What do you think of saying that it is "a religion and a philosophy"? Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be consistent on this point. You said this above, then agreed with my suggestion, now you revert to this. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No I do agree with your suggestion to say "usually considered a religion." I actually typed the other statement first and then responded to your suggestion, though I know it didn't look that way. I sometimes get confused with these long threads. :-( I've since struck the religion & phil comment entirely. Sunray (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me again try to state the position. It's a notorious fact that Buddhism is usually considered a religion. However, some specialists disagree, so WP cannot treat this as a fact. I suggested the compromise wording so we don't have all other views in the lead; we put them in an intro after the lead. However, this will only work if no other view is mentioned. If any others are mentioned, it's no longer clear to the reader that there are views other than those mentioned in the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"no intercession"? Well, perhaps in the literal sense, which I think refers to saints interceding with God. However, let me mention yet again that 1/3 of the world's Buddhists believe that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the path themselves, & so practice devotion to Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Does that fit your idea of intercession?

There is no doubt that devotional practices in China, Tibet and Southeast Asia qualify as religion. When I observe some of these practices, I wonder where they find this in the teachings of the Buddha. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They may not find it in what you regard as the teachings of the Buddha, but they find it in what they regard as such. Anyone can invent an "original" Buddhism (or Christianity) to suit their own prejudices & dismiss any evidence to the contrary as later interpolation. Like any other conspiracy theory, such ideas can never be disproved. there's plenty of devotionalism in the Pali Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. However, I think there is enough scholarship on the basic teachings to know a great deal about what the Buddha did say. And it is thus possible to infer what he would not have said. Sunray (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See the article for the only statement I've managed to find about scholarly opinion as a whole. Most scholars most of the time give their own opinions without making clear whether others agree with them, which makes our job a lot harder. Do you think that minimal material is enough to draw these sorts of conclusions? I suppose this is irrelevant, as we're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article rather than decide the truth ourselves. I often join in such discussions myself, & was surprised to discover from (I think) Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts that it's considered perfectly proper for anyone who wishes simply to delete extraneous discussions. I'd been under the impression that talk pages weren't supposed to be censored. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag: if you can supply a link to one, I'll see whether I'd consider it adequate.

As requested, I'll leave discussion of sections other than history till later, unless others wish to raise them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the way the history section is organized at present. I again had to restore some sense to the hierarchy of headings, but the broad structure already follows what seems to be the standard arrangement used by historians. Why change it to something you've artificially concocted yourself?

I am in strong agreement with you here. The current history section is a good structure to work with, IMO. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Details are another matter. For example, there's probably too much proportionately on India. More to the immediate point, the outline above takes in a lot of ideas from an earlier discussion in a different context. The proposal there was for the entire article to be arranged historically, so the teachings/practices had to be included. That remains an option, which would at least save us a lot of arguing about how the section(s) should be done. If not, do we want to duplicate here? Peter jackson (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A concern I have about changing the tag is that, while we're carefully discussing here how to make the article better, other people are coming along & making it worse. The article has such a high editing/reverting/vandalism rate that it's quite a task trying to keep track, & then am I supposed to restart the process every time? Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

well, honstly, I've gotten so caught up in the talk page discussions that I've almost forgotten what's on the page itself - lol. If you think the current history section is pretty much ok, then let me go and see if I can clean it up to the with respect to what you've said above.

to your other point, I say we add a 'work in progress' tag, but then sandbox the page, and let people know that we're working on it there. I'll create a work version right now - I'll put it at 'Talk:Buddhism/Revised' (I'll make a link at the top of the page) that ought to take care of casual vandalism and spurious edits... --Ludwigs2 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about being caught up in the talk page discussions. I am in awe of the work you are doing on this page. Please keep it up!

I think your idea of a "work in progress" tag is excellent. It will give us far more control over the vandalism, IMO, as we will be within our rights to revert any edit that is not in keeping with what we are discussing on the talk pages. I vote we make this change. Sunray (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is not appropriate here (& according to policy it should not usually be taken too seriously anyway. The tag says it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. I'm still waiting to see the exact wording of the replacement you propose. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - Peter, I think that was more of a show of support than an actual request for a vote.  :-)

I've been going over the page on the 'revised' version, and I think that the 'rise of mahayana' and 'east asian buddhism' sections need to be combined. I'll take a look at it this afternoon and see what I can do, but I'd appreciate you guys making any necessary revisions, because I'm sure to get something wrong.  :-)

also, I think we need to find some place to talk about the the story of the buddha, because if it's not there, someone will keep adding it. I've put it in its own section for know, but where do we want to place it? in the history section before the 'early buddhism' bit? in a section of its own? --Ludwigs2 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be getting confused, so let me repeat how the history section should be organized:

1. Indian
2. Theravada
3. East Asian
4. Tibetan
5. Modern/Western

The general material on Mahayana currently in East Asian should presumably move to Indian#Rise of Mahayana &/or the teachings/practices section(s), unless we want even more duplication. Combining the 2 violates the above structure, which you seemed to have just agreed to.

The story of the Buddha should perhaps go in teachings/practices. I think we need to distinguish clearly between the few generally accepted historical facts, which belong under History, & the legend, which is effectively part of Buddhism. For the latter, we must be careful not to censor out the miracles. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. I agree with Peter's suggested structure above. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: I will admit that confusion is a natural (and I think healthy) state with me. sorry if it gets too visible, though.  :-)

with that in mind, let me ask for clarification. the major headings in the current history section read like this:

1. Early Buddhism
2. Rise of Mahayana Buddhism
3. Emergence of the Vajrayāna
4. Southern (Theravāda) Buddhism
5. Eastern (East Asian) Buddhism
6. Northern (Tibetan) Buddhism
7. Buddhism today

this conforms to your structure, except for 2 and 3. should they be subheadings of 1, like this:

1. Early Buddhism
   1. Rise of Mahayana Buddhism
   2. Emergence of the Vajrayāna
2. Southern (Theravāda) Buddhism
3. Eastern (East Asian) Buddhism
4. Northern (Tibetan) Buddhism
5. Buddhism today

or if not, how should they fit into the structure? --Ludwigs2 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Indian
   1. Early
   2. Mahayana
   3. Vajrayana
2. Theravada
3. East Asian
4. Tibetan
5. Modern/Western

Peter jackson (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

got it. --Ludwigs2 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

structure of 'some teachings' section

I've begun working on the 'some teachings' section - I renamed it 'important concepts'. my thought here is to go through the list of important concepts in buddhism, clarifying differences between denominations as I go. slow going though. does that work for everyone? --Ludwigs2 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To save reinventing the wheel again, I give here Lopez' list of topics. Each chapter starts with an introductory section without separate title.

1. Universe
   • Reality
   • The end
2. Buddha
   • 4 NTs
   • Last days
   • Bodies
   • 2 yanas
   • Bodhisattva
   • Other Buddhas & worlds
   • Images
   • Buddha nature
3. Dharma
   • Word of Buddha
   • Interpretation
   • How many vehicles?
   • Power of the word
4. Monastic life
   • Rules
   • Ordination
   • Bodhisattva vows
   • Monastic life
   • Nuns
5. Lay Practice
   • Sangha & state
   • Role of the book
   • Karma
   • Pilgrimage
6. Enlightenment
   • Tantra
   • Pure Land
   • Zen
   • Meditation on emptiness

That should give ideas on what to include. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat idiosyncratic, but seems to be the only author who covers the subject topically. Most simply embed teachings/practices in history, tho' Olson arranges by schools.

Remember, there are teachings already embedded in the history section. If we have a separate teachings section they should be copied or moved. Peter jackson (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I know that, but that's a fairly non-problematical cleanup issue. I'm more concerned about getting the topics into a coherent form at this point. this is a useful list to work with. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling my way here, but it may be best to arrange the teachings something like this:

1. karma, rebirth, cosmology
2. devotion, generosity, 5 precepts, monastic order: ie merit-making practices that make sense within the framework of 1
3. samatha meditation: as 2, but higher level; mainly Theravada
4. Theravada concepts of insight, the nature of reality, arahantship, Buddhahood
5. Mahayana concepts of Buddhas & bodhisattvas, including (not necessarily in this order)
   1. emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature (ie different Mahayana ideas of the nature of ultimate reality)
   2. perfections; crossref Theravada ideas on the point, or combine in some way
   3. ideas on lifetime of Buddha & corresponding different ideas about bodhisattvas (see User:Peter jackson#Bodhisatt(v)a for the odd bits of information I've managed to find so far
   4. powers of a Buddha according to Mahayana; including in particular the Pure Land
   5. practices of Mahayana: Zen & Tantra mainly, but also Nichiren & miscellaneous

Peter jackson (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think it might be better to separate theory & practice, as Harvey does:

1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
   1. Karma & rebirth
   2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
   3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
   4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)
   5. ? not sure where to put decline of the dharma: part of all traditions, but very important in East Asia
2. Practice
   1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
   2. Morality
   3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
   4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra

Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this last approach very much. Keeping the Theory and the practice seperated is a very good idea as it gives us the opportunity to introduce the very sophisticated ideas of the buddha and their subsequent interpretations through buddhist scholars without mixing them up with what is actually believed and practised by the uneducated masses. These practises, their regional and denominatational differences, popular beliefs etc. can then can be explored in depth in the practice section. Andi 78.34.212.125 (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether you actually understand about the difference between "the very sophisticated ideas of the buddha and their subsequent interpretations through buddhist scholars" & "what is actually believed and practised by the uneducated masses". I suspect you may imagine, as many Western(ized) Buddhists do, that anything that disagrees with their ideas of Buddhism comes in the latter category. Not so. In particular, Pure Land, which I'm emphasizing a lot as the grossest example of the article's bias, is based on scriptures recognized by all Mahayanists & scholars included in standard East Asian collections. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter, firstly, i think i do know the difference well enough, but, secondly, i will admit, you are maybe not that far off with your suspicion: Yes, i am a western buddhist and yes i don´t know much about pure land buddhism which brings me to my third point: Even if i do not know, i do somehow have the little hope that even among those pure land teachers and scholars there may be some regard for the core ideas/foundations of the buddha´s thinking as i know them (from the Buddha´s own words, from Theravada and those Mahayana teachers and scholars deemed important by Tibetan Buddhists), like suffering, samsara, karma, ignorance about the true nature of reality, dependant origination, some form of anatta and/or emptiness, some ethics like practicing generosity, some form of renunciation, usefulness of meditation/training the mind by turning inside rather than looking for happiness on the outside, enlightenment, buddhas&bodhisattvas... ...but on the other hand, i really do not know, so please correct me if i am completely wrong.

Maybe my suspicion is fed by my observation and study of Tibetan Buddhism: as you may certainly know there is a huuuge difference between the theory, that is taught in the monastic universities and the actual practices of the masses, which mainly consist of lighting incense, chanting mantras, turning prayer wheels (which is a more eficient way of reciting mantras) and other devotional acts.

So after all you are actually quite right: i really cannot believe that all the ideas of the Buddha as i know them have been completely lost even in the theory of pure land buddhism. I realize that they cannot be that important if the best thing you can do to reach enlightenment is plainly worshipping Amitabha, but i do have the suspicion that pure land teachers and scholars/philosophers will not object to most of the ideas i mentioned; and if they do, well, then we can write that down under the particular concept and - of course - add some of THEIR basic thoughts. Andi 213.196.197.109 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that they actually reject those things. Rather, they consider other things important. To present things like that as "the" teachings of Buddhism is to give a false impression. We need to do the article in such a way as to avoid that. Peter jackson (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have added that the recitation of mantras is a standard Vajrayana practice, not a popular superstition.

Remember, the basic point of NPOV is that WP does not take sides. In particular, it cannot decide for itself what is "real" Buddhism & what isn't, & must not give some particular version a privileged position in the way the article is arranged. It must cover all the main things conventionally classified as Buddhism in a fair & balanced way. Therefore, it must give due prominence to things considered important by important forms of Buddhism. What is an important form of Buddhism can be determined simply by number of followers. What is important in it may be more difficult. To treat shared teachings as synonymous with important teachings is a fallacy. For the lead, or an introductory section, to treat them so would give a false picture of the reality of Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are in much of a disagreement here. Of course we cannot define what "real" Buddhism is. And i agree: "shared" is not necessarily = "important". But 1) I would say ("shared" and at the same time "not shared by other major religions/belief systems") = "important for this article". And 2) Given, there really were not many important doctrinal similarities between Theravada/Indo-Tibetan Mahayana (whose similarities i personally know of) and pure land buddhism - which i still tend to doubt - but given that case, i would say we simply add some of their central concepts to the article (like you suggested in your above structure). Additionally we should head the whole section by a cautionary note where we make it perfectly clear that not all concepts are deemed important by all traditions, and - if necessary - add a short assessment of the importance of each particular concept in the different traditions to the description of each concept.(like e.g. in the part about the 4NT). Andi 78.34.213.217 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

i hope we won't have too much difficulty with the article proper, but it may be hard to summarize Buddhism in 3 or 4 paras for the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Additions to article

Note additional sections that need to be incorporated into the article; add specific references and comments below

Examine listings of contents in previous section to see whether any topics there should be added. Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now refactored into subpage. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pure Land done

Karma done

Rebirth done

Demographics

is there even a secondary article about "Buddhist Demographics"? In es.wikipedia there's a "Numbers of Buddhism by Region", but the secondary article is "Buddhism by Region".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Offer reliable and verifiable sources from authoritative practitioners and respected academics, that apply to buddhism generally. please note source context (i.e. how, where and why it might be used in the article

I should repeat here, as it's diappeared in the reorganization, that Buddhist sources are reliable sources only for their own views, not those of other Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you just trying to further your POV? Buddhists should be able to "quote themselves" on "their article".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

academic sources

• "The early teaching (Harvey, Introduction, p. 47) and the traditional understanding in the Theravada (Hinnels, John R. (1998). The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0140514805.,pages 393f) is that these are an advanced teaching for those who are ready for them. The Mahayana position is that they are a preliminary teaching for people not yet ready for the higher and more expansive Mahayana teachings. (Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, p. 92) They are little known in the Far East. (Eliot, Japanese Budhism, Edward Arnold, London, 1935, page 60)" Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "many Buddhisms (Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 2) or "Buddhist religions". (Robinson et al., Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 2004) Others again define religion in ways that exclude it. (Numen, vol 49, page 389; reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403)" Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures and other resources

Further develop the article to be as interesting and informative as possible.

Timeline of geography vs. time, doctrines vs. denominations

Might this be of interest?

	500 BCE	250 BCE	100 CE	500 CE	700 CE	1200 CE
Indian Buddhism	Early Buddhism			Mahayana	Vajrayana
Southern Buddhism		Theravada Buddhism
Eastern Buddhism			Mahayana Buddhism
Northern Buddhism					Tibetan Buddhism

It's based on something I've been developing for another project and thought it might be of possible use here? (It might even have a facet of truth?) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Should start a bit after 500BC
2. Early Buddhism continued to the end of Indian Buddhism
3. Indian Buddhism continued to exist for centuries after 1200
4. Mahayana isn't a good synonym for East Asian Buddhism, as it usually has a different meaning

Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I appreciate the feedback. Frankly, I was trying to make things simple by leaving all the end notes off but I'll try to make time this afternoon to dig them up in response. Again, I appreciate the feedback and will respond soon. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Using Peter's numbering scheme above:

1. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism (1988, rep. 2002), p. 32:

"The Buddhist era begins at the Buddha's Enlightenment. Modern Theravadins date this in 544/3 BCE, but this tradition is of uncertain antiquity and all western scholars agree that it puts the Buddha too early. For a long time scholars favoured either 486 or 483 BCE as the year of the Buddha's death, so that the Enlightenment would fall in 531 or 528 BCE. But the consensus now is that for this date too the evidence is flimsy and we really do not know the Buddha's exact dates. It raises fewer problems if he is dated a bit later. So the best we can say is that he was probably Enlightened between 550 and 450, more likely later rather than earlier."

This can probably be parsed in a number of ways. The mean is 500 BCE and, especially given the scale being used on this graphic (where the smallest interval is 200 years), I placed the starting date just after that label ("500 BCE"). Relateldy, in Robinson & Johnson, The Buddhist Religion (3rd ed., 1982), p. 108, Fig. 1, there's a somewhat similar timeline (representing countries over time, without reference to doctrines or traditions) which also represents Buddhism in "India" as starting at "500 B.C.E."

2. Your point is well-taken. What I was trying to reflect here is, for instance, vaguely represented in Williams, Mahayana Buddhism (1989, rep. 2007), p. 6:

"... As far as inscriptional evidence is concerned, Mahayana appears to have been an uninfluential minority interest well into the Common Era, originating firmly within the framework of other monastic traditions though of as non-Mahayana (Schopen, 1979; and forthcoming). It seems clear that Mahayana was in its origins and for some centuries almost exclusively the concern of a small number of monks and nuns from within the non-Mahayana schools, and as such subject to non-Mahayana Vinayas. The idea of schism or radical break, and dramatic religious changes, simply fails to cohere with what we now know of Buddhist religious development as it occurred, not in texts but in actual practice."

(Somewhere I recall reading the explicit dates for this above-identified co-existence as being between 100 CE and 500 CE, but I'm having trouble finding this source at the moment.)

I find this issue of Mahayana and "non-Mahayana" co-existing to be fascinating and valuable and thus I wanted to represent it somehow graphically. Perhaps, if we decide to pursue this graphic further, we can find a meaningful way to represent both what you are addressing and what I would like to see represented.

3. To make a long story short, I guess I was impressed somewhere with the sacking of Nalanda in 1198. I also see again in Robinson & Johnson (1982), p. 108, Fig. 1, they too terminate Buddhism in "India" at "1200 C.E." In their text, pp. 100-1, they write:

"... Nalanda was pillaged and burned in 1198, and, though it continued to function on a reduced scale for several decades, repeated attacks by Muslim marauders eventually exterminated the institution. Buddhism lingered for a few centuries as a folk cult in Bihar, Bengal, and Orissa, then disappeared. In south India, a renowned Buddhist center was located at Kancipuram (Conjeeveram), and as late as the fifteenth century a Theravada community existed there."

Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism (1990, 15th rep. 2007), pp. 139-40, writes:

"... The north-eastern stronghold of Buddhism then fell, with the destruction of Nalanda university in 1198. In the north-east, east, and Kashmir, Buddhism lingered on for another two centuries or so, with some royal patronage in the latter two areas. In Kashmir it was forcibly stamped out by the Muslims in the fifteenth century. Buddhist refugees fled to south India (where Hindu kings resisted Muslim power), South-east Asia, Nepal and Tibet. The Theravada school flourished in the south until at least the seventeenth century, before it withdrew from the war-torn region to Ceylon...."

So, I guess after ca. 1200 CE Buddhism "lingered" in what I've seen referred to as the "fringes" and Himalayan area of India ... and then there's that southern Theravada community in the south that lasted until the 15^th or ^17th century? None of these latter elements are represented in the Robinson & Johnson graphic (p. 108, Fig. 1). Perhaps it's worth discussing criteria (e.g., number of adherents, geographic range) for inclusion on this graphic? Perhaps too there's the issue of the 20^th revival (?) of Buddhism in India as well?

4. Frankly, a key reason for my developing this graphic (and as I indicate above, it wasn't originally for WP) was to try to make sense of the relationship between "Hinayana" and "Theravada." In my original graphic, the area that is here labeled "Early Buddhism" is labeled "Hinayana / Early Buddhism." I left off the "Hinayana" portion above because I thought it best to avoid that whole firestorm again. Nonetheless, I think it is worth considering a possible tautological fallacy many make:

doctrines: Hinayana:Mahayana:Vajrayana

traditions: Theravada:Mahayana:Tibetan

I think people often confuse doctrines and traditions, extrapolating from the above that "Hinayana = Theravada." So, I like labeling as "Mahayana" both the doctrines and the subsequently developed traditions (e.g., Ch'an, Tendai, Shingon, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren) to raise this issue to conscious awareness. (FWIW, in the WP Mahayana article, it seems to me that it provides the latter definition [as a school juxtaposed with Theravada Buddhism] as primary. Also, tangentially, the WP Hinayana article appears to quote Ven. Rahula as objecting to "Hinayana" to "Theravada," but it does not necessarily indicate his views regarding "Hinayana" as applied to "pre-Mahayana" Buddhism. Another time?)

All this being said, I don't feel strongly about this. If you'd like different wording here, I'm completely open to it.

Honestly, I unhappily recall that our community's last attempt to develop a diagram for this page (here) — after a month of lively and thoughtful discussion by a number of people — was ultimately futile. I spent many hours working on those fruitless diagrams and, I think understandably, am disinclined to do so again. So, if the response to this diagram is solely negative (as it thus far has been), I'll not pursue this further here. Regardless, Peter, as always, thank you for sharing your take on the diagram as it is.

With metta,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. If you can find the 2nd ed of Gombrich's book (2006), you'll see that he's revised the passage to follow his conclusion that the Buddha died around 400. This seems to be the majority view among specialists (see User:Peter jackson#The historical Buddha. In round numbers, therefore, Buddhism would start around 450.
2. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (article on Mahayana, I think), Mahayana didn't become a self-identified movement until the 4th century.
3. The statement about Theravada in 17th cent is contested. It's based on archaeological evidence. However, there was certainly a substantial presence in one kingdom in the 16th century. Strictly speaking, Indian Buddhism never died out absolutely, even if we stick to the borders of modern India. It just became extremely small.
4. I think notions of doctrines/traditions/schools ... need to be looked at carefully. Yanas are primarily traditions of practice. Elements of all 3 yanas exist within all 3 branches of the Buddhist tradition (Robinson et al, 5th ed, p xxi; see User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal).

I do remember, & understand your attitude. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the follow up.

(a) Regarding your assertion about the presistence of what we've labeled here as "Early Buddhism" into the so-called "Mahayana" and "Vajrayana" periods of Indian Buddhism, might the adjustment I made above to the diagram — extending a thin gold line across the bottom of "Mahayana" and "Vajrayana" — represent your understanding more clearly? Does the Mahayana line also need to be extended beneath the Vajrayana box?

(b) What text (words) would you recommend in the place of what is labeled above in the brown box as "Mahayana Buddhism"?

(c) I quickly scanned Gombrich's second book without success. Might you recall a page number for the later date re: the parinibbana?

Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) Yes

(b) Do we have to have a name other than East Asian?

(c) This is one of those books I have acces to only in bookshops, so I can't go into much detail. He does mention it in the preface to the 2nd ed.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

Develop a strategy for article assessment, including reaching FA status.

What about GA? I'm afraid I don't know anything about either. Should they be dealt with simultaneously or not? Peter jackson (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given a link to the guide for article assessment, above. WP:GA and WP:FA each have their own set of criteria and nomination processes. We may want to go for GA before FA, although this was once a featured article. Sunray (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the link. GA seems to come before FA. Peter jackson (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it might give us good feedback if we were to ask for a GA assessment at some point. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest ask for this after the rewrite... or any point in time (depending on the development of the article) that we all agree.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Former Featured Article

Here's what the article looked like when it was featured on April 6, 2004. Let's just use this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism&diff=3076889&oldid=3076834 The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How can we "just use this"? The article is going to have to keep changing over time, right?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

well, yes. but that is a useful link. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at that version earlier when someone suggested it. The lead is almost entirely POV. this current version, bad as it is, is a great improvement. I did explain this, but it's been refactored. Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

merge "Suggested reading" with references

Maybe this question has been answered in the past or in policy, but I don't see it here. We have a "Suggested reading" section in the article. Whose suggestions are these? Is this maybe somewhat original/POV/presumptuous for Wikipedia editors to be offering suggestions for readers? (Now if these are the suggestions of experts that can be reliably sourced, then I guess all is well. That's not how I see the list, though.) --Ds13 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, that's the least of our worries. Peter jackson (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

aren't they actually references?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of ancient India?

You know when you go the Buddha article (not this one) it says that Buddha was born in ancient India. And that makes sense. Here it says he was born in Lumbini and he grew up in NE India....which is very misleading. I am amazed that there are still people who dont want to admit that Buddhism came from India. I mean Buddha first taugh in India. He gained englightenment in India. He died in India. And he was born on the border of India and Nepal. ANd yet this article wants to say he was born in Nepal? And that he lived in Nepal and India? No it should say he was born in ANCIENT INDIA, in what is now known as Lumbini Nepal. Thats the honest way to put it. And this is not just my opinion. If you go to the Buddha article thats what it says. And yet on this article it doesnt say that.....I mean folks Buddhism came from ancient India. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up the same topic on this talk page over and over? This has been responded to many times.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And we get other people complaining from the Nepal point of view. Peter jackson (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out before, it's not now known as Lumbini. Lumbini is the ancient name. The modern Nepalese name is Rummindei. Peter jackson (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wouldnt bring up the same topic over and over if it wouldnt keep changing all the time.....I mean nobody is answering my side.....When u go to the Buddha article it clearly says how the religion originated from Ancient India. Yet on this article it says different. Isnt that a contradiction?.......And i dont care what the Nepalis are saying because there was no such place as NEPAL in those days....In those days it was all one land. Now i understand that the place wasnt called India back then, but it did go by Bharat, or Hindustan. And since Bharat & Hindustan are not common names known to people who are not from that area, the correct name is Ancient India......Buddha first taught in India. Lived alot of his life in India. Gained englightenment in India, and Died in India. And yet we used Nepal as the answer because today its known as Nepal? That makes no sense.......How bout we come to a compromise and say both? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe people keep ignoring you because you say the same thing over and over.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW what a catch 22....People ignore me becuase I say the same thing over and over. And yet I wouldnt say the same thing over & over if people wouldnt ignore me....Ya u really make alot of sense there Nat......By the way.....my edit got deleted which is amazing because my edit was very fair. I mentioned India, Ancient India, Nepal and Lumbini (which covers all bases) and yet it got deleted. This is a prime example of how wikipeida users are annoying. I mean a guy like me puts in an edit that covers all bases to make everyone happy and yet it still gets edited out.....But u know what the funniest part of all is.....if u go to the Buddha article (not this article) it clearly says he came from Ancient India....and yet in this article it doesnt say ancient India....what a joke 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a religion? Don't most religions address themselves to the world?

Peter: Why do you feel these first two sentences are necessary in the first paragraph of the sandbox version?

"Buddhism is usually considered a religion. It addresses itself to all humanity, and has had a large measure of success in doing so."

The first sentence implies Buddism might not be a religion despite the 350 million people who believe in it. There are those who believe Christianity is not a religion but that doesn't alter its status as a religion. The second sentence is worded awkwardly and states the obvious. Most religions address themselves to all humanity and Buddhism's 350 million faithful demonstrate its success. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that some scholars regard Buddhism as more than one religion, while others define religion in ways that exclude it. (For references see User:Peter jackson#Buddhism.) Therefore, under Wikipedia policy as given at WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot take sides & assert one view as fact.

It's misleading to say that most religions address themselves to all humanity. Possibly true, if new religions outnumber tribal ones, but misleading. Hinduism is essentially an ethnic religion, a few small movements notwithstanding. Most religious Chinese are usually classified by comparative religionists under something variously called Chinese (folk/traditional) religion, which is also obviously an ethnic religion. Hinduism has more followers than Buddhism, as probably does Chinese religion. User:Peter jackson 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked & see you're responsible for the wording "one of the world's five largest religions". Again true, but why five? Just because we're not sure whether it's 4th or 5th? I did suggest saying it's one of the 3 major universal religions, but someone objected on the grounds it would start a fight. Perhaps yours would too. User:Peter jackson 14:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter: It seems to me you're bogging yourself down in issues that the average reader would not take much interest in. I suppose I could search around the Internet to better support my claims but I suspect you'd only use some of yours to refute them. That kind of tit for tat is frustratingly time consuming, especially when I'm not receiving money for it.

I noticed you're the one who placed the neutrality tag on the article. There's no way to create a completely neutral article given the nature of the material. Somebody’s bound to complain. Why don't we simply leave the first three paragraphs of the main article as they are? If they only attract a few complaints rather than a deluge then I think we will have done OK. To be honest, most of the main article looks pretty good to me. It needs just a bit of fine tuning rather than a major rewrite. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just me. You're the one who put that wording in, as I said, & other people have put other statements of the sort. Either we say something about the place of Buddhism among the world's religions or we don't. At present we don't seem to have established a stable consensus.

By 1st 3 paras do you mean the lead (2 paras) & the next section? That section is

• propaganda from a particular Buddhist organization
• original research

Of course neutrality is an ideal never quite reached, but we can do a lot better. The attitude you outline above is the theory of how Wikipedia should work. The problem here is an example of WP's systemic bias: that is, the bias implicit in the sorts of people who are mainly involved. In this particular case, most of the contributors involved are Western(ized) Buddhists, so the article relects their ideas about Buddhism. I've therefore appointed myself as representative of all traditional Buddhists to try to ensure their ideas of Buddhism are fairly represented. Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant to refer to the first two paragraphs of the main article. The third paragraph obviously needs citations.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cousins, "Dating"

There's a reference for citation 19 in the sandbox version called Cousins, "Dating". What's this for? Is this a mistake? The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone introduced a system of using abridged titles for citations given in the ref list. You can find the full details there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Asian Buddhism articles

Peter said he's appointed himself the representative of traditional Buddhists. Here are the links to some of the Asian articles on Buddhism. Perhaps these will help him. I don't read these languages but perhaps one of you does.

• Thai article

• Chinese (Mandarin) article

• Vietnamese article

• Japanese article

The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP policy is that it should not cite itself as a source. Therefore, even if I knew the languages, those articles couldn't be cited. Instead, I use sources such as those given at User:Peter jackson#General scholarly works on Buddhism, together with more specialized ones. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping these articles could give you and other editors an idea of what Asian Buddhists find important in Buddhism. I didn't expect you to cite them. Also, there's nothing wrong in using their sources. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing to stop those who can read those languages & write English doing as you say. Nevertheless, I'd point out that those articles are likely to reflect mainly the attitudes of Westernized Asian Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, they are likely to contain material which was translated directly from the English Wikipedia or a structure which was based on a reading of the English Wikipedia article, since many Wikipedians read English in addition to whatever other language they are working in.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of both of your claims, we would have no choice but to accept any Asian editor who is willing to contribute in a constructive way. Frankly, I think the input of an Asian editor would be very helpful. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a non sequitur? Obviously, Asian editors are eligible to work on this article. Having editors with a range of backgrounds can't hurt.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At 1841, 19 June, Luis Gomez added the following comment to the above.

Nat:Peter refered to Westernized Asians. I was pointing out any Asians who want to contribute, Westernized or not, are eligible.LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the use of the word "I", which seems to imply Luis & Thin Man are the same person, tho' there's no mention I can see on either's user pages. A few minutes later, thin Man deleted the comment. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history in further detail, I see that Thin Man 1st changed the signature from Luis' to his own, & then deleted the comment altogether. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?

I came here and searched for "neutral" and "dispute" before I finally found a few items scattered hither and yon by searching for "NPOV". I gather that part of the neutrality dispute is about whether we can assert that Buddhism is a religion or not a religion, but I'm completely unclear as to whether this is the gist of the dispute or whether there are other more pressing neutrality concerns.

Given the absence of any real discussion on the current talk page, I'd go ahead and remove the tag, if I hadn't found a specific request from one editor that the tag not be removed. But to keep the tag in place, you really need to keep the dispute clearly visible to new editors coming to the article for the first time, and that's not happening here right now. Please don't archive NPOV disputes from the main talk page unless it's also time to remove the tag. Thanks.

P. S. Could someone explain the neutrality dispute to me, or give me a pointer into the talk-page archive? --arkuat (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality dispute is whether Buddhism is a religion. However, I don't see how we're going to settle it. That debate has been raging for centuries. User:Peter jackson placed the tag on the article and feels stongly that it should remain there. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would ask User:Peter jackson to clearly state the case that this article as it currently stands lacks a neutral point of view, and suggest means by which this lack may be corrected, on this talk page, or else remove the tag. Thanks, Thin Man. --arkuat (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As to where to find the details, I'm afraid they're scattered thro' lots of archives, as I've been raising this issue for a long time, starting long before I got fed up & tagged the article. I'm not the one responsible for removing all the relevant material from the face of this page, & I'd prefer not to have either to write it out yet again (much of it has already appeared a number of times) or search for it. So I hope you'll accept for now some major points repeated for the umpteenth time, & perhaps take the issue up with Ludwigs, who i think is responsible for the archiving.

Whether Buddhism is a religion is not the main point. The main point is that the article is unbalanced, being written mainly from the POV of Western(ized) Buddhists.

Let me just mention again the grossest point: 1/3 of the world's Buddhists believe that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the path, so they call on the Buddha Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Someone whose only previous knowledge of Buddhism derives from the way it's usually presented in the West would I think be very surprised to learn this & feel they'd been misled. The article needs to give much more prominence to this sort of thing.

What to do, again has been archived. Basically:

1. Reorganize into coherent structure: this is currently being attempted in the sandbox linked above
2. Add material on neglected topics; possibly also cut down other topics
3. Check reliable sources to see whether the interpretations given represent their views

There has been a vague suggestion that the tag be replaced with a work in progress tag. No definite proposal has yet appeared. If one does, I'll consider it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter jackson, you may not maintain an NPOV dispute tag on an article without sustaining an actual NPOV dispute on the article's talk page. User:Ludwigs, whoever you are, please do not automatically archive talk-page material relating to an outstanding NPOV tag on the article under discussion, unless you are also willing to remove the NPOV tag.

Buddhism is an important and encyclopedic topic. The frivolously-maintained NPOV tag at the head of the article on this topic informs readers coming to wikipedia that this article is not a reliable source of information about Buddhism. Please do not maintain this tag unless you have serious reasons to warn readers away from this article as a source of information about Buddhism. If you do have serious reasons, please state them succinctly and clearly, or else how can you expect us poor editors to correct the problems for you? --arkuat (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter: I was very surprised to read your reason for the NPOV tag. I've been editing this article on and off for the past week now and I was NEVER aware of it, which is Arkuat's point. I assumed the dispute was over whether Buddhism is a religion which is impossible to settle because it's probably as old as Buddhism itself. Your reason sounds more like an objection to the content and overall structure of the article. While all of your complaints may very well be valid, they are, in fact, YOUR complaints and nobody else's. Given how you feel, why haven't you added the Pure Land information to the main article? That would have been the obvious solution to your complaint.

In light of Arkuat's statement and your complaints about the article I've decided to remove the NPOV tag. I know you're going to disagree with this so please add your infomation about Pure Land Buddhism to the main article. By the way, thanks Arkuat, for your input.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Arkuat, I don't really anything that justifies your description of this NPOV tag as frivolous. Peter has been dedicatedly raising and discussing these issues on this talk page for a long time. It was entirely reasonable for you to request that a succint description of the dispute on the talk page rather than in the archive; Peter just gave a succint description, to wit, "the article is unbalanced, being written mainly from the POV of Western(ized) Buddhists."—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do regret my use of the word frivolous, and apologize for it. It was directed at the state of affairs in which I can see a request for keeping an NPOV tag in place, without any visible dispute on the talk page. It was not directed at Peter personally. I understand (now) that this is a result of an unfortunate collision between well-intentioned efforts on Peter's and Ludwigs2's part. --arkuat (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arkuat - my apologies: the talk page was an incredible sprawling mess when I archived it to try to focus our efforts on revising the page, and it never occurred to me that I might be archiving something needed. my bad.

that being said, I think there are two issues behind the original instantiation of the NPOV tag. first Peter was concerned that this article was overly western (about which I think he is entirely correct). the NPOV tag did not go up, however, before we had a particular editor who began making insistent edits from within a particular perspective (heavy emphasis on the 4NTs as the central concept of buddhism, insistence on the story of Buddha's life as factual truth, resistance to any lead that didn't declare buddhism as a religion...). this is one of the difficulties in editing this article - the intellectual/academic understanding of Buddhism is often at odds with the personal/religious understanding, and while I think we need to privilege the academic views as being more neutral, this causes a lot of ruffled feathers. People care about this article a lot. now I will say that I've had part of this argument with Peter myself - clearly there are academics who see buddhism as a collection of things rather than a unified religion per se, but that strikes me as a bit too post modern of an approach for the average reader. I'd been happy with the 'buddhism is usually considered one of the world's major religions' formulation as being a comprehensible compromise, but...

I will go and put an under construction template on the main page (I may even make a new one to deal with the odd situation we have here. I think that will still get across the neutrality issue without making the page look actually disputed. will that be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate the attention to talk-page maintenance. Thanks for your efforts. --arkuat (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the dispute tag for now. It can go if there's no dispute, ie if TM & Arkuat agree that the article needs serious rebalancing. Pure Land was only the grossest example. The article needs a coherent structure so i know where to put missing material. More later. Peter jackson (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I've got some more time. The article has a section called "Some teachings". It's only called that because I changed it at least 3 times from "Teachings", "Main teachings", "Principal teachings" or whatever. It's an arbitrary selection, & other teachings are buried in various places in the history section (quite apart from those omitted altogether). This discrimination itself violates NPOV. As the quotes in User:Peter jackson#General & User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal show, any claim that anything is "the basic teachings of Buddhism" or words to that effect is at best POV, & cannot therefore be used as the basis for structuring the article. (For the 4 NTs in particular see User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths.) All major teachings of major forms of Buddhism must be treated in parallel. I've seen 3 ways of doing this in scholarly works on Buddhism:

1. embed them in the history; this seems to be the most popular approach
2. arrange them by schools
3. arrange them by topic; this is what Ludwigs is trying to do

It's not a matter of scholars v practitioners. Rather, those practitioners who get cited, who write in English & are read by most of the contributors to this page, are not representative of practitioners as a whole. Buddhism is far more varied than that. They just represent one subfamily, Western(ized) Buddhism. Scholars try to get a broader view, some by studying literature, some by fieldwork (& Gombrich by both), some by collating the work of other scholars. This is far from infallible, & I've no objection to the inclusion of POVs from Buddhist writers that haven't been found in scholarly sources. What I do object to is when people try to censor the views of scholars because they happen to contradict those of those Buddhist writers they happen to have read. This is totally contrary to WP policy.

'buddhism is usually considered one of the world's major religions': that wording doesn't make clear that "usually" doesn't qualify "major". Neutrality requires a wording that makes clear that it's a matter of some dispute whether Buddhism is a religion. The most recent wording I tried in the sandbox fills as litle space as possible: the numbers imply major, & "worldwide" implies universal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so now that I've actually started reading the new version of the article that is under development, I no longer really object to such tags at the head of the (more or less abandoned, as I understand it) current version, as long as a link to the sandboxed article, with brief explanation, is also at the head of the abandoned article, as was the case last time I checked. One tag that explains the whole situation is better than two, however. Sorry I judged the situation so impatiently. I'll focus my attention on the sandboxed article in future, because I'd like to see the sandboxed article out of the sandbox and into the real wikipedia as soon as possible.

I agree with Peter (I think) that the article must not neglect the actual practice of the majority of those who practice and transmit the Buddhadharma. I like the new revision's use of the word "faith" rather than "religion or philosophy" to translate "dharma" here. (At least, that's what was there last time I checked.) --arkuat (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The "neutralization" of this article should take into account that it is written by:

1. Buddhists that speak english (in any area of the world)
2. People that are interested in learning about Buddism (including criticism) that speak english (in any area of the world)

It cann't be "neutralized" easily for people that doesn't fall under this 2 large groups (or who communicate directly or indirectly with someone in this 2 groups), because they're not editing it.

Besides this, I hope that some basic discipline be used. Sanskrit or Pali words should be revised from a source (mostly dictionaries) instead of "transliterated from IAST to devanagari" (without revisions)... If someone writes a "quote" from the Pali Tipitaka, a sutric reference should be provided... Main controversies of practices or interpretations should be written as exclusive to N schools... and so on.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand most of those remarks, except the last 1. Also, it's hard to find them from the history. Perhaps you could continue the disscussion near the foot. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pure Land Info

I just checked the main article and I saw an entire segment dedicated to Pure Land Buddhism. Here's what I found:

There are estimated to be around 100 million Chinese Buddhists. Pure Land Buddhism is the most popular form in China, particularly among the laity. In the first half of the twentieth century, most Chinese monks practised Pure Land, some combining it with Chan (Zen); Chan survived into the 20th century in a small number of monasteries, but died out in mainland China after the communist takeover. In Taiwan Chan meditation is popular, but most Buddhists follow Pure Land. Nearly all Chinese Buddhists accept that the chances of attaining sufficient enlightenment by one's own efforts are very slim, so that Pure Land practice is essential as an "insurance policy" even if one practises something else.

There are estimated to be about 40 million Buddhists in Vietnam. The Buddhism of monks and educated lay people is mainly Thien (Zen), with elements of Pure Land and tantra, but that of most ordinary Buddhists has little or no Thien element, being mainly Pure Land. In Korea, nearly all Buddhists belong to the Chogye school, which is officially Son (Zen), but with substantial elements from other traditions. In Japan, the numbers of adherents are estimated as follows:

*Pure Land 17.7m

*mainstream Nichiren 13m (excluding radical groups like Soka Gakkai/Nichiren Shoshu, which are not always counted as Buddhist)

*Zen 13m

*Shingon 11.9m

*Tendai 2.9m

Given the above info I really don't understand your complaint, Peter. May I suggest that you move the Pure Land info higher up in the article and expand it to give it greater emphasis? The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the complaint is that philosophical aspects of pure land are conspicuously absent. but that shouldn't be too hard to fix given this start. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that every word quoted above was added to the article by me. In addition, a short para on Pure Land that TM missed was added by Tony (I think) only after I raised the issue. In other words, before I came along, there wasn't a single word about the religion of 1/3 of the world's Buddhists. This is just an illustration of the inherent bias of the article & the need for a radical reconstruction. Just tinkering isn't good enough. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Then make whatever changes you think are necessary to solve the problem and stop insisting the article is biased even though always been free to change it. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is, has this entire segment from the main (abandoned?) article been transferred to the sandboxed article yet or not, and if not, why not? I know I could search the question for myself, but these sorts of things need to be made explicit on the talk page for new editors. The situation will become much less confusing once the sandboxed article is moved into main article space, replacing the text of the abandoned article. --arkuat (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The following appeared at the top of the sandbox. I've deleted it it from there as it doesn't belong there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I, a devout and independant buddhist, an enlightened man, see this construction as db vandalism. It adds no clarity missing in the original composition and adds a gross amount of confusion inconsequential personal opinion -not of Dharma. This composition is obviously made by persons with no first-hand knowledge of Buddhism. It is patently dilitante and the quality can be construed the last minute gleanings of a highschool book synapses. The one tantamount to vandalism is this is no way to introduce others to Buddhism nor is it conducive to buddhist study. Really awful -I can't stand it -It was a beautiful sight -Now it's just some idiots tromping around pretending to be Journalists. And IF they are journalists it does not qualify them to edit this body of work id est the previuos longstanding edition of Sikipedia/Buddhism 72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)db-g3

Would you at least put this monstrosity under Buddha not Buddhism -Non of what you have added has anything to do with Buddhism -Buddha Dharma nor Sangha. You must understand under Buddhism readers are looking for an INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM -A huge load of extraneous and really as you yourselves say ,Questionable Material, is not a Welcome Introduction. THis is a Sacred Duty to Edit this Compostion, not a Playground. Just to get an idea something can be improved doesn't qualify one to essay an improvement -let alone a lengthy discourse. Have respect for an edifice!72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Sean Alan Romanek72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this is entirely too vague to reply to, except to point out that this is just a sandbox, work in progress, not a final product. Perhaps you can be more specific about your concerns. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe i´ll try to translate a bit, how i understand the remarks: here are people who obviously have sympathy for or even practice some kind of Buddhism. They are concerned, that the core of there beliefs/way of life is not represented in the article.

They feel, that by dissecting the history of all the different schools with all their smaller or bigger differeneces, citing this scholar, then that one... - they fear, that in this process the essence of what Buddhism is for them and for all the people who actually find those teachings/way of life/religion helpfull for their actual lives - that this essence is lost in the process. They think, and i strongly agree with that POV, that some essential characteristics of the belief system have to be portayed at a very prominent place. I know, that this will not be easy (because of all the differences) but the solution can never be to then simply leave them out or place them somewhere way down in the article.

I am strongly convinced that most of the future reader of the article want to know one thing: What is it all about. History is just one little aspect, which is - frankly - mostly uninteresting for someone who wants to learn about Buddhism as a way of life/mindset/religion.

Talking about Buddhism in the way a western scholar with a mainly historical POV does is like talking about humanity by concentrating on the reconstruction of different genetic lineages. For the practitioner, Buddhism is a central part of their lives, a LIVING phiolsophy/religion/mindset - u name it. Not a dead historians subject.

Therefore I strongly urge you all to keep both perspectives in mind, that of the outsider/western scholar, and that of the insider/practitioner.

P.S: maybe you should include a section about "NPOV from a buddhist perspective" - guess buddhist scholars would have a lot of fun deconstructing this outright silly concept  ;-))

P.P.S.: May all beings be well and happy :-))

Andi 213.196.199.47 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!

--Klimov (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Andi,
your approach of considering what people want to know is very promising. --Liebeskind (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Andi: Please take the time to read both the sandbox version and the main article. You'll find at least some information on customs and practices. There are also links and web site references that will lead to more information.Also, you're always welcome to add any information you feel is missing.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Andi, explaining "what it's all about" is a fine thing. I applaud that goal. But, is Wikipedia the right forum for it? This is not a repository for every kind of writing. It is always going to tend to reflect the views of modern scholars. Criticising NPOV on Wikipedia doesn't make sense, because Wikipedia is based on NPOV. If the criticism is valid, then one is bound to quit Wikipedia!—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, & have said before in this column (archived of course), that I expect most people who come to this article want to know mainly what Buddhism is, not its history. When I 1st started working seriously on this article, there was a very long section purporting to deal with the history of Buddhism. In fact it was a history of Indian Buddhism, with only a few passing mentions of its spread to other countries. I tried to cut it down to size, but most of my cuts werre reverted.

"the belief system": but the point I'm trying to make is there's no such thing as the belief system. Beliefs vary, & practices too. I agree the article should deal mainly with the actual beliefs & practices, but not some artificially constructed "basic Buddhism" or whatever. We're trying to develop an arrangement that will give a proper prominence to the most important things for the most important forms of Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter, good to hear that we agree on what people expect from this site. Regarding coherence of "the belief system" i see your problem. I think that the new structure you proposed for that section will go a long way towards solving that problem as we can seperate theory/doctrine from the actual practices of sangha and lay people - with admittedly still A LOT of differences between the schools, but imho more than enough to agree upon. In that way it should be a lot easier to give the readers an idea what "Buddhism" or should i say "Buddhadharma" or "Teachings/Philosophy of the Buddha" "is all about". Andi 78.34.212.125 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thin Man, i started with the section about the "four noble truths" by doing some rearranging, deleting little, but most importantly adding a rough explanation on "what they are all about". Before, it did say that they are about suffering and ending it, but failed to mention why and how. There was not a single word about attachment, delusion or liberation. Instead there was a section about how important they are to different schools and an explanation of how western scholars recently discovered that the 4NT are "things" rather than statements. Well, i know this is true, at least from a certain perspective, but is that really important to the first-time reader of the 4NT, isn´t it rather a bit confusing? To understand what buddhist scholars mean by stating that the 4NT are "things" you would first have to take a course in buddhist phenomenology in order to learn that mental factors and even the different paths to enlightenment itself are regardes as "things" in that sense. I left that part in for now, but i hope you see the point i am trying to make. You can´t just take some part of a "higher" philosophical view or maybe even parts of the tantric teachings and mix them up with what apparently was intended by the buddha to be one of his basic teachings. There are always deeper meanings and differing points of view to be explored and there certainly is room for these on the main page of the respective concept/teaching but on this introductory page i think we have to focus on the first time reader and deliver an understandable summary of what its about/what it means, even at the cost of oversimplifying and of not exactly fiting all the views of scholars, be they from the different buddhist schools or even non-buddhist. Please take a look at the changes i made and you will hopefully get an idea of what i mean. Also, as i am not a native english speaker i am always happy if you find better wordings for what i was trying to say :-) Andi 81.173.160.242 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The understanding of the truths as things rather than statements isn't really philosophy, it's just grammar. The idea that they're statements is a misunderstanding by 19th century Western scholars, which, like a lot of their ideas, fed back into Buddhism. This is original research of course. All WP can say is that there are 2 different interpretations. You have to be very careful to maintain NPOV in accordance with WP policy. 1 interpretation is that of Western(ized) Buddhism; the other is that of traditional Buddhism, eg in Burma & Tibet. Therefore, the article mustn't take sides, at least it mustn't side with Western Buddhism. In some cases, there may be so few Eastern Buddhists agreeing with a Western view that it can be ignorede statistically, but in general both views, or neither, must be given. Peter jackson (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify something in the above that might give a misleading impression. I'm not saying that in general traditional Buddhism is 1 thing & modern/Western(ized) Buddhism is another. Rather, traditional Buddhism is already many things, to which modern Buddhism just adds another (or more than 1, depending on your depth of classification). Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, they are stated as "things" grammar-wise and they "are" "things" as well, in the understanding of buddhist scholars. But that´s not my point. My point is: It doesn´t matter! This information is of absolutely no value at all for the first time reader and we should therefore best leave it out altogether. And even if it was "just grammar", then even more so! What difference does it make? Even if they are stated in the form of nouns, they are still able to confer exactly the same message, which is not only stated there but is all over the place in the scriptures as they really do present some of the most foundational thoughts of buddhist philosophy/worldview.

For me this is a perfect example of the kind of discussion and the type of knowledge that is symptomatic of the overly academic approach to the subject that we should avoid in this article. It is only relevant to a certain group of western scholars who at best manage to nowadays slightly improve on some of the gross mistakes of their predecessors and who are still studying the subject from the "outside", often from a historian, a linguistic or even art-historian´s point of view. They still mostly make little effort to actually understand buddhist thinking - and if they did, they probably wouldn´t get much published about it. These things should be studied by philosophers, not linguists! The ideas should be discussed along with those of Aristoteles, Seneca, Kant, Hegel and Nitzsche. I find it ridiculous to leave them to some miserably underfunded department of east-asian studies...

...fortunately we are in no way obliged to repeat their mistakes :) Andi 213.168.106.153 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the 1st point, it's a matter of NPOV. We're not allowed to state anything as fact if a significant body of opinion disagrees. Therefore we must mention that there are different interpretations, & in general mention the main ones.

On the 2nd, actually we are obliged to repeat scholars' mistakes. One of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. In any case I think you're too harsh on them. For a start, it's been estimated that 1/4 are openly Buddhist & another 1/4 keep quiet about it for fear of being considered biased. Peter jackson (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1st point:I still don´t happen to have brought across my point well enough: My suggestion is: Do not mention it at all. Don´t say: "they are statements" and don´t say "they are things". I simply assume, nobody really cares about that, who actually hopes for a brief introduction to the main concepts of buddhist thinking by reading this section. It would only confuse readers, as they would have little to no chance of grasping the significance of that kind of distinction, be it from a linguistical or from a philosophical point of view. Let´s better leave that kind of stuff to the main article about the 4NT.

2nd: Is this really so? Do we really have to repeat every major mistake a significant group of researchers made over a significant period of time? I don´t think so. There can always be "new" findings that simply render earlier ones obsolete. For a controversy to have to be mentioned, i think at least 2 points have to apply: 1. There has to be a real controversy, i.e. an ongoing dispute about the subject. In our specific case e.g., i really am not sure if anyone actually disputes the fact, that the 4NT are stated as "things", at least grammar-wise. Hard to imagine, actually, as it is so easy to check. I rather suspect that the earlier researchers simply just overlooked that fact/didn´t care about the form the 4NT are given in. 2. The subject of the controversy has to be significant enough for the reader of the specific article/section. The subject of the assumed controversy here seems to be the form the 4NT are given in, not the message they confer. I think, the latter is, the former is not significant to the reader.

By the way, i have heard many times, that "the 4NT" actually contains another mistranslation/interpretation. It should actually say "truths of the nobles (aryas)" rather than "nobel truths". It´s not the truths that are "noble" but those who perceive these truths as part of their realizing the true nature of reality, or to be more precise, their realizing them by means of direct perception shortly after finishing the path of seeing. What do your sources say about that one and do you think we should mention that "controversy" too? Andi 81.173.162.66 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, we might get away with some sort of wording that avoids the question. I think someone came up with something in an earlier draft. In the main body of the article I don't see how you could say much about the subject without using a phrasing that involves one interpretation or other.

Perhaps I was confusing you with the large number of people who turn up on this talk page & say we should ignore what scholars say & only report the views of ()their favourite) Buddhist writers. What you say is in principle correct. We should follow current scholarship, not out-of-date. The problem lies in telling whether someone actually disagrees with recent research or has simply never heard of it. Recent can actually cover a very long time. Eg the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism says in more than one article that the Burmese recognize 4 extra works in the Pali Canon. This is drawn,directly or indirectly, from a book published in 1909, & ignores

• a 1911 review denying they regard these works as canonical
• the inclusion of 3, not 4, in the 6th Council Burmese edition, mentioned in 2 scholarly publications in 1962
• the inclusion of the same 3 in the 5th Council inscriptions, mentioned in a scholarly publication about 1968
• my own paper in JPTS a few years ago,showing that the head of the Burmese sangha 2 centuries ago recognized at least 2 extra books as canonical
• the fact that the Sinhalese edition of the Canon includes 2 of these books

That's just an illustration of the sort of problems we have.

Peter jackson (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the sandbox version

I spent some time trying to improve it. Frankly it needs a lot of work. I also notice there's at least one anonymous editor who is mutilating it. I think you guys should delete it. I don't see how it's ever going to be useful. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

lol, and oy... welcome back, Luis.  :-)

Can you give us an IP for the anonymous editor you have in mind? --arkuat (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be troubled by the number of edits made to Buddhism while Talk:Buddhism/Revised develops slowly. I don't think making a summer project of this is a good idea, although you might be able to talk me out of that. The revised page was sandboxed on June 11; one month seems a little excessive to me for this sort of experiment, and we're closing in on that pretty soon now. But I'd like to ask for editors to give reasons why the sandboxed version ought not be moved to main namespace this week rather than next week. --arkuat (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at present going to express an opinion directly on this. What I want to say is that the sandbox version is in the middle of reorganization. Ludwigs, who's been doing that, seems to be on holiday or something. There are a number of different ways the reorganization could be done. The sandbox is in the middle of developing one of them. So is this the appropriate time to move the sandbox version to the main article? I leave that for people to consider. Peter jackson (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that if the sandboxed version of the article languishes in the sandbox for too long, an edit war may break out when the sandboxed version replaces the main namespace article that, however inadequate, is steadily being altered (and possibly improved) by other editors for as long as the divergence continues. Such a conflict would do no good to this article nor to those who seek information from it.

Allow me to suggest that if the forking project has had two principal participants, and one of the participants has gone on vacation, it may be a time to draw the project to a close one way or another. --arkuat (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said for what you say. When we tried reorganizing the article before, using a subpage, people simply ignored several notices on the talk page, & then kept reverting when we tried importing it to the main article. After that, they almost entirely ignored attempts at discussion & requests to suggest their own arrangement. I'd hoped this might work better, but perhaps it isn't. Do you have any suggestions? The article still needs a coherent structure. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sects

The following has appeared in the sandbox version:

"However there are many other sects besides these."

What's this supposed to mean?

1. Other than Theravada & Mahayana?
2. Other than Theravada, East Asian & Tibetan?
3. Other than Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren, Shingon, other East Asian, & Tibetan?

There are of course other groups: Newari, Tendai, Won, Hoahao, FWBO, Ritsu, Kegon, Hosso, Agon ... Just what do we need to say?

Also, sect is not an appropriate term. Peter jackson (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are differences in practice and teaching among different branches of Buddhism. If sect is not the appropriate term, what, pray tell, is the appropriate term in the English language? --arkuat (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The usual terms are school & tradition. Possibly they might be considered biased, but I haven't come across anything to that effect so we might as well stick to them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "Sect" is just as biased, if not more, but in the opposite direction. I'll try to keep this in mind when editing sections that discuss the different schools. --arkuat (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It can get quite complicated. Eg Pure Land & Zen are completely separate denominational families in Japan, but in China, Korea & Vietnam they coexist within a united Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrangement

Can I ask people to stick to 1 arrangement at a time? There are at least 3 ways to arrange the article:

1. historically
2. by schools
3. topically

At present, the sandbox is attempting to follow 3. If people disagree with this, can I suggest that edit warring over a sandbox is particularly pointless? It's perfectly possible to have 3 (or more) sandboxes if people want to explore different ways of doing the article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty big and important article, Peter, and it may be that we need to present all three arrangements, briefly and in parallel. There are plenty of other more specific articles about Buddhism that can fill in the details. This article ought to be, at least in part, a guide to reading those other articles. The separate existence of a real visible article side-by-side with a to-be-promoted-someday sandbox article concerns me. My feeling about the sandbox article is that it ought not languish on for years and years; that is a bad situation for giving readers and editors accurate information about Buddhism. I have not yet thoroughly studied both versions, but my intuition is that the sandboxed version should be either promoted or deleted as quickly as possible. --arkuat (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the sandbox shouldn't exist for too long. It may provide some breathing space for editors in dispute but it also discourages input from any but those who have quite an attachment to a vision for the article... in the long run it may only promote partizanship... I took one look at the sandbox the other day and thought "bugger that for a game of soldiers" and headed off into the Wikiverse... of course that may well have been a good thing for all concerned! Dakinijones (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all both of you say. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Aims

Why has this been deleted? "The aim of Buddhism is to get free from the cycle of birth and death meaning suffering and suffering by attaining socalled Nirwana. The Question of God does not exist in Buddhism."

Is this too simple and non-intellectual?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.87.255 (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your 1st statement is true only for Sravakayana & Pratyekayana. For Bodhisattvayana the aim is to help others. Theravada & some Mahayanists believe the most effective way of doing this involves getting free oneself 1st. Other Mahayanists believe the most effective way involves refraining from doing so.

I think your 2nd statement would leave readers puzzling about what you meant. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, regarding the aim of escaping samsara, your answer is only half the story; the real aim of a bodhisattva is not just to help others, but to help them get out of samsara. So, in that sense, the aim is still to get (others) out of samsara. Interestingly enough, Tibetan Buddhism lists 3 levels of aims: a good rebirth, liberation of samsara and Buddhahood. But as the main aim of Buddhism is to stop suffering, liberation is the most essential part I would think in all traditions? If this article should contain any relevant information, we surely cannot leave out what the aim of Buddhist practice is? rudy (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about neutrality. Buddhism is much more varied than most Western Buddhists realize, & the article must reflect that.

Also, we must remember the principles of verifiability & NOR. We mustn't try to invent our own summaries of Buddhism. All statements must be directly verifiable from reliable sources, & not contradicted by other reliable sources. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "foregoing rebirth" thing is quite misunderstood. You vow to save all beings, but this vow is only effective as long as you are under the misapprehension that there are beings to save. The vow is just a skillful means to developing compassion. This is covered well in the latest Buddhadharma magazine. Mitsube (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

it's unlikely that magazine counts as a reliable source. No doubt the article you cite reflects the opinions of its author, but it can't be assumed to represent thos eof Mahayana generally. That would have to be proved by citation of scholars who've studied Mahayana as a whole, & can summarize its views. Peter jackson (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The editors are professors so I believe it counts as a reliable source. The Mahayana was all about skillful not necessarily true. But at this point many people take things too literally so I suppose the religion actually as it is practiced is different from the original intent which was really as a reform movement, with no radical changes to the Buddha's message intended. I will get the quote regarding that Mahayana vow. Mitsube (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right in saying it would count as RS. However, as you say, "The Mahayana was all about skillful not necessarily true." The problem with this is that it seems to make it impossible to tell what the Mahayana "really" believes in. Each type of Mahayana has tended to say it's the "real" teaching, & all the others, along with "Hinayana", other religions, & even some things not ostensibly religious at all, are merely skilful means. We have to be very careful what we say about this sort of thing. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Hinaya is a derogative term as is "sects". My only conclusion of this thread is: add a bodhisatva section (or not)... maybe under an "attainments" or "aims" section (nah, I'm kidding... that will move this article to 100 KB).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dharmic or brahmanic religion?

The term "Dharmic religion" or "Dharmic faith" is very uncommon, see e.g. this search on Google Scholar, and this one on Google Books. Because it is not verifiable (WP:PROVEIT), I removed the adjective "Dharmic". Crowsnest (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The first reference in the article, to http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/HealthWelfare/MentalHealth/Religion/Buddhism/, is not a reliable source (in the sense of WP:V). This is a link to the Service and Administrative Offices (Health and Welfare) of a university. Not a reference that one would expect as a source in the lead section of this article. Crowsnest (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest: I'm afraid I disagree with you over the usage of the word "dharmic". Please carefully read the new citation I provided for it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, in fact it is not even acceptable, see WP:SPS: "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." So I removed the not verifiable term "dharmic religion" as well as the reference. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The en.allexperts link, unfortunately, is a mirror of Wikipedia content. I say "unfortunately" because it is all too easy to stumble on those mirrors on the internet and be caught off guard, not realising what it is. Obviously, since it is a mirror, we cannot cite it, since it is tantamount to citing Wikipedia itself.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not managed to find this term in a single English dictionary. Peter jackson (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Then at least we should categorise Buddhism. What about Brahmanic religion of the Nastik subfamily/subdivision? ...because Buddhism DOES have a generaly accepted family along with Hinduism, Jainism, and so on (ancient indian religions).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tathagatagarbha

Para 3.4 reads: "The teaching of the tathagatagarbha is said by the Buddha in the tathagatagarbha sutras to constitute the "absolutely final culmination" of his Dharma—the highest presentation of Truth (other sūtras make similar statements about other teachings). This has traditionally been regarded as the highest teaching in East Asian Buddhism." That last line appears as POV to me, for example, in mainstream Tibetan Buddhism (Prasangika Madhyamika), the Tathagatagarbha idea is interpretable as the potential to become a Buddha, not 'some thing' that we already have, which may come too close to the Hindu concept of Atman. rudy (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

East Asian means Sino-Japanese, not Tibetan. Peter jackson (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, slip of the mind...rudy (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, tathagatagarbha was the name that Gautama Buddha prefered to be called because of its meaning... and it's an poetic explanation of a Buddha and of Nirvana.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of Tathagata. Tathagatagarbha is a late Mahayana concept. Whether or not it is implied by or even consistent with the ideas in the Pali canon is not clear. It depends on the interpretation you have of both. It is possible to interpret things that way. Mitsube (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, yes I was thinking of Tathagata.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-theistic

What does this mean? Non-monotheistic or non-polytheistic? Statements should be unambiguous. in fact all traditional Buddhism (as distinct from modernist Buddhism) believes in gods, & Indonesian Buddhism claims to believe in God. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know this means that
1. Buddhism does not rely on a creator god
2. Gods in general are regarded as sentient beings also to be liberated.
Indonesia: Very special religious and political circumstances… ;-)

--Liebeskind (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that statements in WP, especially lead sections, are supposed to be self-explanatory. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see – it might depend on what the words monotheistic and polytheistic mean:
If monotheistic means that there is a god creator somewhere outside the samsara, then it might be stated that we don't know (maybe can't know), but – as this is not relevant for enlightenment – buddhism does not care that much.
If monotheistic means that there is only one deva which is a sentient being, then buddhism might be regarded as polyhteism.
But: As the buddhist point of view concerning "Gods" is very special one must be careful with that term.
In general I think that the european/western scheme of theisms does not work very well with buddhism… --Liebeskind (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See also God_in_Buddhism#God_in_early_Buddhism, which discusses this subject, and has references and quotations. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual wording doesn't even go so far as to mention monotheism or polytheism, so is as ambiguous as both, & more. Peter jackson (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One could say that Buddhism is non-theistic in the sense of not being classifiable in terms of the theism scheme. ;-) --Liebeskind (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's such a thing as "the" theism scheme. Peter jackson (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the term "non-theistic" — without explanation, as by Liebeskind above — is raising more questions than it solves, please feel free to remove it, or move it elsewhere. My main objections were with the adjective "dharmic", which is not verifiable.
Although: I think that something on the "core elements" of Buddhism has to be said close to the beginning of the article (in the lead or the first section). Both versions, the present official one as well as the sandbox one, are in that respect not very accessible and readable for someone not familiar with the subject. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the strong assertion of 'non-theistic' of the first sentence of the (and sandbox) article is a gross error, regardless of the fact that Southwold states a case for it. This is why: (Nontheism) tells us: 'Non-theism is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of —or the rejection of— theism or any belief in a personal god or gods.'. So for Buddhism to be non-theistic, it cannot have any personal gods. However, Personal God tells us: "The broadest definition of this term is a god who is a personal being, i.e. a being with a personality, including the capacity to reason and feel love." Okay, so that could be Sakka, Brahma, Indra, anyone from the heaven of the 33 - most of the devaloka. Who was it who first encouraged Lord Buddha to teach Dharma? Okay so that's a broad definition - but in God we find, "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." And Buddhism has always acknowledged those also - except that they are worshipped by others, rather than Buddhists.

My thought on this is that many Westernised Buddhists see Buddhism as a release from the dictates of the YHVH religions, and therefore feel a need to dispose of what is felt to be irrelevant to them. Fine. But way up into the 20th Century, so for at least 2,400 years, Buddhism has acknowledged Devas - and also Nagas, Yakshasa, Rakshasa, and many other 'supernatural' beings.

Moreover, for anyone who has spent time in Buddhist cultural areas, it is quite clear that the common person's attitude to Buddha is almost precisely - and maybe exactly - the same as the common YHVH cultural person's attitude towards God. My own experience with this was a real shock to me, having only previously had discussions with highly educated Buddhist monks. It is not at all uncommon for (common, lay) friends from various Buddhist regions to send me Xmas cards, suggesting that may God (ie Buddha) watch over me and protect me over the next year. This is in the knowledge that I and my family have been Buddhist for three generations.

I know that there has been some long dispute about the is Buddhism theistic / a religion argument. If we accept the common man's view, as does the Trisaṁvaranirdeśa:

Ordinary people argue with me, but I do not argue with them because whatever is asserted to be in the world I also say exists. Whatever is asserted to be non-existent in the world I also say is non-existent

we must accept that not only is Buddhism a religion, but it is also theistic. This probably disturbs me as much as it does my opponents. (20040302 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

I want to add more. What Buddhism must deny however, is what is in direct contradiction of the Dharma - especially the core teachings of the four noble truths, and the Twelve Nidanas of dependent origination. Therefore, there cannot be any being whatsoever (God or not) which has the specific quality of omnipotence (because it negates Karma), and therefore any 'Creator God' cannot create beings in a manner which conflicts with their existing Karma. Likewise, there is no beginning of time in Buddhism, due to the beginninglessness of mind. So even creators are possible - just as a potter creates pots - but their creations are not solely under their control (just like potters) even if the creator believes it to be so (just like arrogant potters!! ). Likewise there cannot be any being which is self-existent (because of Annata), or anything produced which is permanent (Anicca), and so on. These specific issues are not delineated carefully enough by stating 'theistic' or 'non-theistic', or any other such term. (20040302 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't think that argument's valid. Pure Land Buddhism believes Amitabha can override people's karma & grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pure Land Buddhism believes Amitabha can override people's karma." What give you that idea? Mitsube (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that reinforces the basic thrust of my argument, rather than detracting from it. I'm not going to dispute the Pure Land beliefs - though my curiousity is heightened - if Amitabha is omnipotent, then why is there any suffering? As our contact with Buddhas is solely limited by our Karma, which he can override, then why not spontaneously liberate all beings into his Pure Land ? There would be no need for the six realms any more. Just curious! (20040302 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

From the teachings of Genshin, as explained by Lopez (Story of Buddhism, page 239/Buddhism, page 248):

"... seeing in Amitābha the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra ..."

More generally, but less explicitly (Mitchell, Buddhism, page 206):

"Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land."

The question you ask applies to God as well, of course, & has been asked many times in that context.

To return to something Crowsnest said earlier:

'Although: I think that something on the "core elements" of Buddhism has to be said close to the beginning of the article (in the lead or the first section).'

The problem with this is the whole idea of 'the "core elements"'. Scholars, despite studying Buddhism for well over a century, have failed to identify such "core elements" in ways that satisfy each other that they actually fit the available information about the different forms of Buddhism (including Pure Land): see User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On that point, we did try earlier, but eventually came to the tentative conclusion that it might be better to wait until the article as a whole gives a reasonably accurate & balanced account of Buddhism as a whole before trying to summarize it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes. Amitabha does not destroy karma. He helps you do it for yourself upon rebirth in the Pure Land. Saying Namu Amida Butsu is only a sign of gratitude. You assured yourself rebirth the moment you first had faith in Amitabha. Getting to the point where you realized faith in Amitabha was a good idea is a result of your work creating good karma to the point where you could discern the willing teacher Amitabha's call out. I personally don't believe this but it's an intriguing formulation. Suzuki agreed. It's a way to have your cake and eat it too; you theoretically save yourself having done it in the past, but effectively are saved by Amitabha who instructs you in his Pure Land after your death. Mitsube (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one interpretation of Pure Land. There are others. Peter jackson (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal, but I feel I was only partially answered regarding my question of Pure Land Buddhism and Amitābha. If Mitchell is correct, and if "Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land.", it begs the question - what is it that prevents Amitābha from bringing all beings to his Pure Land - considering that it is 'normally' the said to be the bonds of Karma which limits the capabilities of Buddhas to directly assist sentient beings. Of course, I may be appearing to ask for a rational explanation when there isn't one.

Core Elements is a different issue - and it probably warrants it's own section.... (20040302 (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Okay - so no-one has any substantial argument against removing 'non-theistic' from the opener? Last call... (20040302 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

As regards soteriology, divine beings do not play a role. Because the idea of an individual's salvation is the most important problem religions address it makes sense to classify religions at that point as theistic or non-theistic, polytheistic, whatever. This is really what people want to know anyway. Mitsube (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding soteriology, divine beings do play a role, if we call Buddhas divine beings, which many Buddhists do (and have done for millenia). There is no doubt of this - Buddha is the primary refuge. So then it comes down to just exactly what is meant by a 'divine being', in order to distinguish Buddha from, for instance, YHVH. As I mentioned above, the specific distinction is a lack of omnipotence (though PJ points out even this distinction is blurred within some Pure Land schools). So non-theistic still is not appropriate (20040302 (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

The Buddha is not a savior, just a teacher. Each person has to save himself. "No one can purify another." As regards liberation you have to do it yourself. Do you agree with that? Mitsube (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind whether we agree. Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions. This article is supposed to give a balanced view of all significant views within Buddhism, including Pure Land. Peter jackson (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, I agree that in Buddhism in general, each person has to save himself - though there are interpretations of the pure land schools (whether or not correct) which says that Buddha can do that for you to some degree. But this isn't an issue regarding theism. We cannot say that Buddhism is non-theistic on that basis, because non-theistic means something else altogether. PJ, though I get your point, WP depends upon the contributions of editors - and I'm pretty sure that Mitsube is asking my opinion as an editor, rather than asking my personal opinion. (20040302 (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Makes no difference. As editors we're supposed to follow WP policies. In particular, no original research. That means we can't interpret or summarize for ourselves. We have to go by what the reliable sources say, & of course not just the ones that say what we want them to say. Peter jackson (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the source for "non-theistic" being used as a reference reliable? If so is there a reliable source stating that Buddhism is not "non-theistic?" Finding a source saying that it is polytheistic is not the same thing. Mitsube (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take such a literal view, it gets ridiculous. How would it look if the article said Buddhism is non-theistic & believes in gods? I think many readers would be bemused. Peter jackson (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "non-theistic" is wider than "atheistic" to the point that it does not exclude belief in the existence of unimportant deities. If you accept that we should use the varied sources with our discretion then what about my argument that a religion should be classified with whatever ( )theistic marker based on its soteriology? I appreciate your desire to give the Pure Land ideas their fair weight. But please keep in mind that even these schools say that an individual can only save himself (though this may be in a Pure Land after receiving instruction from Amitabha). "No one can purify another" unites the schools of Buddhism, at least all would agree to it. Mitsube (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As Peter says, we can find references that say anything we like. Especially with Buddhism, and even more so if we allow ourselves to use any publication. If we are to accept Western scholarship here (and I don't think we can do that safely, unless we point out that nearly every academic publication, outside of modern translations, regarding Buddhism is filled with POV) then Williams (in Mahayana Buddhhism, p169) says this about the issue:

The Buddha was never simply a human being and is not seen this way by any Buddhist tradition. He always embodies our three dimensions - physicial, 'spiritual' (for want of a better word), and magical. If after the Buddha's death interest shifts from the physical to the spiritual and magical this is only natural and embodies a change of emphasis rather than growing falsification. Moreover, the image of deification is apt to convey for Western readers a radical de-(or super-) humanization which is misleading in the Indian context. Divinization investing a being with divine attributes, was common in Ancient India, and by no means carried with it the dramatic implications which we assume in a monotheistic culture - that the being divinized enters a radically different order from common humanity

So basically, Williams is saying that Buddha was divine, but so what? What does theism mean in a culture where even clarified butter is divine? Therefore, I continue to assert that to lead the article with such a declaration of 'non-theistic' is both erroneous, and counter-contextual

If we want to state that such-and-such states that Buddhism is non-theistic, while so-and-so says they aren't - then let's do that and allow the reader to decide who to believe on the issue. Making a statement thats based on a publication and declaring it as summing up the issue is a poor approach. (20040302 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

My main point about this term is that it has no clearly defined meaning that the reader can be expected to understand, so simply isn't informative. Peter jackson (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of using the word "non-theistic" we could say "a religion according to which each person must rely upon himself and save himself?" Something like that? Mitsube (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but saying it baldly would be very misleading in relation to Pure Land, so you'd have to add qualificatory explanations. Why do we have to go on about this? Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

theistic okay that's enough chat about that - I'm pulling it. We can work on a substitute if we need to, Mitsube. We can also spawn an entire article regarding the question of Buddhism and Theism if we wish to (there's nearly enough material in the talk already). I have seen NO argument that substantially follows why we should use an author in an an qualified context on the first sentence of the article that makes an assertive statement about the 'theism' of Buddhism. (20040302 (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Original phrase that's been pulled: non-theistic.

I see a place for this in the article, if it is NOT the first sentence, and if it is qualified. Something like: Southwold asserts that Buddhism is non-theistic, whereas Williams states that Buddhism is theistic, although that doesn't mean much in cultures where even clarified butter is divine. I feel that there is probably enough primary and secondary material to warrant a full WP article on the question of God in Buddhism- Oh. there is an article already. (20040302 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

once again,let me say we must avoid unclear language. We must explain what we mean by theistic. If we do,we may find there's no disagreement. Peter jackson (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why my suggestion is to use the language of the various authors - qualified citations (eg Southwold says this - , Williams says that - ) do not require interpretation. They are merely cites. Of course, what we choose to cite and not to cite is clearly relevant. But it's not the place of the Buddhism article to define the meaning of 'theistic' there's another article for that. What I reject is the use of unqualified cites as assertions of fact - such as the original statement "Buddhism is a non-theistic religion", regardless of whether or not I believe it. (20040302 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

But what's the point of citing statements without a clear meaning? I agree with your rejection, of course. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pure Land

I think that the interpretation that Amithaba overrides karma rather than it is the practitioner who creates the karma to be born in a pure land in which he has he abilities to progress in realization as far as it is necessary to “attain” enlightenment is absolutely wrong. It is the practitioner who prohibits existing karma of ripening by getting enlightened after his birth in a pure land for which he had created the karma by doing pure land practice.
To get sure about that issue it would be very helpful if Peter jackson could denominate those schools in which it is taught that Amithaba would overrride karma.
All the very best --Liebeskind (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to decide what interpretation is correct. We have to follow reliable sources. I've already given a citation. Perhaps someone can find one that contradicts it, in which case NPOV comes into play. Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are undisputed core elements of Buddhism?

My view on this (and that says it all) would be (regardless of whether or not there are beings capable of using the teachings) the assertion that

• Buddha lived and taught a way to Nirvana, and he taught this way based upon personal experience (rather than revelation).
• Buddha taught that any (human) being can reach Nirvana.
• Buddhas teachings were often given as discourses, and are known as Sutras
• Buddha developed monasticism, based on a set of regulations (Vinaya)
• These 3 things - the Teacher, his Teachings, and the Community - are called the three jewels, and are known as the refuges.
• The first discourse given by Buddha disclosed the Four Noble truths
• Based on the Four Noble Truths,
• Truth of Suffering - Buddha disclosed the basic nature of three marks of existence, and the three types of suffering.
• Truth of Suffering's Origin - Buddha disclosed the Twelve Nidānas, which indicate the assertions of Buddhist karma and Buddhist rebirth.
• Truth of Suffering's Cessation - Buddha disclosed that Suffering can cease permanently - the assertion of Nirvana.
• Truth of the Path - Buddha disclosed the three higher trainings, which are often presented as the eightfold path.

I don't know of any Buddhists that dispute that Buddha taught these Dharmas, or that he was qualified to do so. (20040302 (talk)) sth

It's not so much that anyone would disagree with these, except perhaps the statement that anyone can reach nirvana. Rather, these are not traditionally regarded as the core, except in a sense for Theravada. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths for details. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in this, don't forget the wiki article 'Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna' - perhaps a good basis, although I'm sure there are some obscure traditions out there that make exceptions to that list as well. Seems to the karma of Buddhists of this time :-) rudy (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, as ever, thank-you for your enlightening response. However, I vehemently disagree with your statement re. the 4NT on your talk page. My personal background has been 100% Mahayana - mostly from the Indo-Himalayan ( 'Tibetan' ) Nalanda tradition and also a significant amount of Rinzai Zen, with the odd bits from other Buddhist cultures. In both the Nalanda tradition, and also the Zen tradition, the 4NT are laid as the bedrock for the rest of the teachings given - all the way up into the HYT of Vajrayana. Likewise the 3 higher trainings are never veered from either. I would agree that the 8-fold Path is very much more found in the Theravada tradition - but even that is really a lay presentation of the 3 higher trainings anyway. Rudyh, I hear you. So, as for those mentioned above, maybe the eightfold path is the only point that may not be 'core'. Of course, I'm aware that especially in the Pure Land Traditions, there is very little emphasis on anything other than the key texts - but still there are the refuges, the acknowledgement of monasticism, and even acknowledgement of the 4NT and the three higher trainings - just that they are 'too hard' for the modern age or something. (20040302 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

The document you refer to is from an organization calling itself the World Buddhist Sangha Council. I've been unable to find any mention in a reliable source. It seems to be a quite unimportant organization, possibly not even notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Certainly it could hardly be authoritative enough to be used for the structuiring of this article. More later. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(The document being referred about is the 'Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna') I have no opinion on that. (20040302 (talk))

I see I got confused about who "you" were, & in fact it was Rudy who cited that document.

I expect after 4 years you know the basic rules. The statements I give are all cited from reliable sources, so count as verifiable "facts" for WP purposes. Of course, if we find other scholars who disagree, then they're magically transmuted from "facts" into POVs. Also, if there's a significant body of opinion in present-day Buddhism disagreeing, then that fact also can be mentioned.

As a personal view (original research), I think the phenomena you mention may well be examples of the common tendency of modern Buddhism in the East to be influenced by (earlier) Western scholars' ideas about Buddhism itself, a strange sort of colonialism. For citations for the general trend, see User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism.

Now to return to something Rudy mentioned: "obscure traditions". I'm not sure what this refers to. WP:NPOV does say tiny minorities should be ignored. But Pure Land in particular isn't a tiny minority. In fact it may well be the largest school of Buddhism, tho' estimates have such a wide margin of error that one can't tell whether PL or Theravada is bigger. Each numbers in the region of 1/3 of the world's Buddhists, with the remaining 1/3 as a ragbag for Zen, Vajrayana, Nichiren &c.

"Of course, I'm aware that especially in the Pure Land Traditions, there is very little emphasis on anything other than the key texts - but still there are the refuges, the acknowledgement of monasticism, and even acknowledgement of the 4NT and the three higher trainings - just that they are 'too hard' for the modern age or something." Exactly so: those teachings are acknowledged, but they're not "core". Monasticism, by the way, has been abandoned by all the major schools in Japan. Most of their clergy are married.

The bottom line is this. WP:NPOV says you can violate neutrality even with a completely true collection of statements. It's necessary to give a true overall picture. So just imagine someone who knows nothing of Buddhism, & then reads whatever summary of Buddhism you might be considering. Suppose they then go on to learn all about it, including PL & the fact that about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists follow it. Do you think they would feel they'd been given a fair & balanced picture? Peter jackson (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, First of all, please be more aware of your terms when grouping tens of millions of people across a range of cultures with a history of thousands of years as 'ragbag'. I understand what you are saying, but I can also understand that many would take deep offence at such a throw-away remark. Next, I don't dispute the demographics, which are ropey - but what you mean by 'core' and what I mean by 'core' is different in this case. I'm not talking about what are core features of the different schools - we would be writing the article forever in that case - but we can certainly talk with meaningfulness about the core features of Buddhism, regardless of whether or not they are still considered efficacious. The challenge will be to find much primary literature from PL schools - or is it a very literate movement? Certainly the Indo-Himalayan traditions have one of the richest literary traditions in history, which makes them very WP-friendly and worked hard to preserve hundreds of volumes of Sanskrit Sutras and commentaries (mainly thanks to Buton Rinchen and like-minded individuals); likewise the Theravada have preserved their Canon. Buddhism is very rich with primary literature, both within the Sravakayana and the Mahayana (and Vajrayana) traditions. If you read all the texts, you will end up with some core elements being repeated again, and again, and again. This is a fact. Even within the PL, the points above are included, if not emphasised. Within Buddhism as a whole - there is really very little doubt. (20040302 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Okay, well first of all, I would reject out of hand (as being POV) any interpretation made by Non-Buddhists, or Western academics who are not citing from primary sources anything that is at least 150-200 years old. We need to examine any translations very carefully also - especially those which are disputed by other academics, or considered to be inaccurate by later translators. We must discard hearsay, personal opinion or other judgement also. We can find all the core concepts from primary sources in the Pali Canon, the Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur (both Nyingma and Sarpa), as well as later commentaries from commentators such as Tsongkhapa.

• (regarding refuge) Candrakirti states in the Trisarana-gamana-sptati "The Buddha, teaching and community Are the refuge for those who desire liberation" (Peking K, 281.1.3, Trans. LRCM Translation committee).

• (regarding the three higher trainings) Sutra requested by Brahma: "Ethical Discipline has six branches, Concentration is the four blissful abodes, The four aspects of the four noble truths are always pure sublime wisdoms (Yogacaryabhumi Peking K, 309.3.2/3)

• (the 12 nidana) Asanga's "Compendium of Knowledge" states: What are the projecting factors? Ignorance compositional activity and consciousness. What are the projected factors? Name-and-form, the six sources, contact and feeling. What are the actualising factors? Craving, grasping and existence. What are the actualised factors? Birth, aging and death"

So that covers us for all but the Sino-Japanese schools. They generally support Asanga as well, but I am unable to offer primary cites, outside of the rather cryptic Rinzai texts.

It is NOT hard to find cites from Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana that demonstrate the centrality of the core elements as I have listed them. (20040302 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

From WP:PSTS:

"For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
• Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.
• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

"It is NOT hard to find cites from Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana that demonstrate the centrality of the core elements as I have listed them." True. However, it's also not hard to find cites that (apparently) contradict them. The fact is that the enormous quantity of Buddhist literature is full of (apparent) contradictions. There's a saying that you can prove anything from the Bible, & we're talking about a much larger quantity here. This is why we need secondary sources to simplify things. recording everything in the primary literature would be horrendous. Just to take one example in the present context, the Karandavyuha (I think) says Avalokita created the world, the gods & the Buddhas.

Secondary sources here means mainly scholars, tho' teachings of contemporary Buddhists can be included as alternatives if they're sufficiently notable. Also, the rare cases where official statements by major Buddhist denominations are available.

"I would reject out of hand (as being POV) any interpretation made by Non-Buddhists" Why should Buddhists be immune? It's arbitrary to dismiss all non-Buddhists as POV. Try reading WP:NPOV. There's no such distinction between POV & non-POV. There are facts, & there are questions of POV. You can't have both together. Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - maybe I was being too ovver-assertive here. However, we have all the literature we want in primary sources already. Buddhism is very reflective in it's writings. There are thousands of texts that talk about what Buddhism is. Also, the primary/secondary marking is severely blurred with regards to Tibetan scholarship, which has an unbroken tradition of academic literature that goes back to at least the 10th Century. Is Tsongkhapa an academic, or a scripturual source? He writes like an academic. I'm not going to split hairs here, but we have a huge corpus of academic materials written from within the source cultures. Why cling onto poor interpretations by westerners who have maybe been in the field for a couple of decades, and who are primarily, and almost without exception, linguists? Even worse, some of them are art historians. (20040302 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

What we have to bear in mind is that Wikipedia is supposed to be about "facts". A "fact" is defined as something that's essentially undisputed. Anything else is POV. As regards scholars' interpretations, they themselves say that's what they are (User:Peter jackson#Interpretation) & I have no objection to the article's saying so. But the same applies to "theologians".

The point I'm trying to make is that Buddhist sources are reliable sources only for the opinions of those sources themselves, not for those of any other Buddhists. You will never prove a statement about Buddhism as a whole by listing sources that say it. In theory, if there were an organization to which all major denominations were affiliated, its declarations could be treated as authoritative, but none such exists. The only sources we have for any such general statements are scholars who have studied Buddhism as a whole. Not directly of course; only a Buddha could do that. But the work of those who've studied Buddhist literature, & field anthroplogists, is continually being collated. This process is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got. We can correct scholars by other, more specialized or up-to-date scholars, or present their views side by side. We can present views from primary sources, ie Buddhist writings of any date, again alongside. What we're not allowed to do is

1. collate & interpret for ourselves (WP:NOR)
2. censor out reputable views (WP:NPOV)

Now, "core". My understanding of this is it means something all major forms of Buddhism regard as the really important things. It is not the same thing as overlap. Shared is not the same as important. WP policy is that the article & the lead should give a balanced view of the most important facts. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the sources we rely on, i think we have to discuss a little further what we actually mean by "core" and "important". Peter says, the "core" is "something all major forms of Buddhism regard as the really important things". Ok. Then in order to answer the question what belongs to this "core" (or if there even is one - and if not, how we still manage to present some major concepts), we will first have to find out, what is "important" for a particular tradition. But before we can do that, we have to be clear about what we exactly mean by that. To whom exactly are these "things"(concepts and practices i suppose) "important" in that particular tradition and in what context are they regarded as "important".

First of all i think we always have to keep in mind the distinction between what is thought and what is tought, for the Buddha as well as for today´s living traditions.

So what is "important" then? Is it what the scholars of the particular tradition think is what the Buddha himself meant to be the "core" of his teachings when he gave them? And if so, is this "core" the general philosophical theory/worldview underlying his teachings or is it the part of the teachings that has the most practical implications?

Then again, maybe it isn´t so much about what the Buddha thought or tought but what (ordained) "professionals" nowadays deem the most important theoretical foundations of their practices. Or is it rather what they see as the theoretical base for lay people`s practice? Or is it even only that part of the teachings the "professsionals" deem the most suitable for the masses and therefore teach them the most?

Or is it, finally, what lay people then actually know about/hold important of the teachings of the Buddha, again theoretically and practically?

To sum it up, the dimensions i suggest thinking about when discerning the different aspects of "important for a particular tradition" are:

• important" to whom? Buddha (as interpreted by that tradition),"dharma professionals"(scholars, monks),lay people?
• what kind of thoughts/teaching do we mean? general theory/worldview, most important theoretical foundations of practices, actual practices

One last thought on the difference between what is thought and what is tought: Apart from the (particularly mahayana) concept of the Buddha´s teaching different things to different audiences it is just a matter of common sense, that there will be different levels of understanding such complex topics as are the subject of the Buddha´s insights and teachings. So like the Buddha and the scholars/teachers and practitioners that followed we will have to decide: what level do we present here? Like in an article about physics or any other complex matter, it should be our first priority to make central concepts understandable to the reader even if it is at the cost of sacrificing some academic accuracy. And by the way, we all know that if we really wanted to present "the real thing", the "core core" of the Buddha´s insights, we, like everyone else and even the Buddha himself, could only fail ;)

May all beings be well and happy :) Andi 81.173.163.186 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic answer to all that is simply that we have to give a balanced picture of all those things. Anything else would give a distorted picture of Buddhism. A balanced picture, of course, includes explaining the sorts of distinctions you mention. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Whoever sees dependent arising sees the dhamma." -The Buddha. Mitsube (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

1. There's no certainty what the Buddha actually said
2. What counts is what Budhists think he said
3. That differs between Buddhists
4. There are numerous doctrines said in various scriptures to be the essence of the Teaching

Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But we know the truth on this talk page. Mitsube (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How could we possibly do that? Let's get back to basics here. WP policy is to follow reliable sources. Where they disagree, WP is neutral. There are certainly RSs that reject the idea of core teachings, so we cannot present such as fact. If there are RSs that say there are core teachings, then those POVs can be presented alongside the opposite POV. We could have a section called Theories of the essence of Buddhism or similar. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Mitsube was making a joke? But anyway, Peter, i tend to think think we´d be taking this scientific approach a bit too far if we seriously meant to include this kind of meta-discussion in the article, like "There are those who think there is a core and then there are those who think that only tradition A and B have a common core, while C stands alone a bit, but then again there is this one doctrine, that some scholars say is in a shared core while others say, it is not relevant enough for B to actually constitute a core teaching....".

This is not an article for scholars, so I suggest leaving that to scientific publications and for this article to leave it at - if any - a short mentioning with/in footnote(s) and/or maybe a link to an extra article. First priority here has to be readability and giving the reader what he wants to know when he reads this introductory article. And btw, i thought we already kinda settled that "core" discussion by naming the section "important concepts" or similar, stating clearly that not all presented concepts/beliefs are shared by all traditions and including a short statement about each concept´s relevance to each respective tradition where necessary. Andi 77.25.238.104 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, if it is, in fact, true that "there are those who think there is a core and then there are those who think that only tradition A and B have a common core, while C stands alone a bit, but ...", then it becomes difficult to see what the alternative to saying it is. If what you're describing is simply a different way of presenting the same information, then that's great. It would also be okay to not mention the controversy at all if we also omit anything that implies the opposite—applying the omission method across the board, however, is not compatible with "readability and giving the reader what he wants". Using it selectively might be productive.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..."the omission method" indeed :) I really do think we should omit everything overly or purely academic. The "core" question seems to fall into that category. We should simply stick to describing the concepts/practices and state in which tradition they are important, respectively. There is no need to call any subset of them a "core". Leave that to the academics! My suspicion is, that the "controversy" is more about the definition of "core" than about which concept actually is important in which tradition. The latter is what counts to the reader, and that part should be fairly easy to agree upon. Please also see my above remarks regarding the definition of "core" and "important". For the structure of the section i favor Peter´s last suggestion following Harvey

1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
   1. Karma & rebirth
   2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
   3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
   4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)
   5. ? not sure where to put decline of the dharma: part of all traditions, but very important in East Asia
2. Practice
   1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
   2. Morality
   3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
   4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra

Andi 77.25.238.104 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't favouring the idea of a section dealing with that issue. Rather, I was saying that

1. if some people insisted on including a section on core
2. & if they could supply reliable sources claiming there is one

then that's how it would have to be done. I prefer my earlier suggestion that you quote above. That's only a starting point of course. We'd have to investigate how to do it in detail, if we can reach consensus on the general idea. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in Tibetan Buddhism, the "Four seals" are often mentioned as the real 'basics' of Buddhism. An extract of a page from Shambhala Sun's website (http://shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1814) website: "Therefore, these four characteristics are called “the Four Seals of Dharma.” They are:

• All compounded things are impermanent.
• All emotions are painful. This is something that only Buddhists would talk about. Many religions worship things like love with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, “This is all suffering.”
• All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence. This is actually the ultimate view of Buddhism; the other three are grounded on this third seal.
• The fourth seal is that nirvana is beyond extremes.

Without these four seals, the Buddhist path would become theistic, religious dogma, and its whole purpose would be lost. On the other hand, you could have a surfer giving you teachings on how to sit on a beach watching a sunset: if what he says contains all these four seals, it would be Buddhism. The Tibetans, the Chinese, or the Japanese might not like it, but teaching doesn’t have to be in a “traditional” form. The four seals are quite interrelated, as you will see." Might this be a starting point?rudy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Tibetans, Chinese or Japanese might not like it, then we can't do it. WP:NPOV requires we mustn't take sides if there's a dispute about what is & isn't Buddhism. Let me formulate the objection to alleged core teachings in terms of WP policy. Where do we get them from?

1. If we put them together ourselves, that violates WP:OR
2. If we take them from Buddhist sources, that violates WP:V, because Buddhist sources aren't reliable sources for the views of other Buddhists
3. If we take them from scholars, that violates WP:NPOV, because other scholars disagree

Conclusion: any presentation of certain teachings as core would violate WP policy. The most we could do would be to have a section on Theories of the essence of Buddhism, tho' I don't think that's a good idea. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like throwing away the child with the bathing water... Can't we just formulate the header differently and explain the problem we are discussing here? So the header could be something like 'Important aspects of Buddhism', and first explain in a couple of lines that there are many different traditions etc., so that not every tradition may agree to all of these as 'core' elements. In that way, we can still explain about Buddhist basics, but also clarify the problem of the different approaches/traditions. rudy (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudy, what you describe is exactly the kind of approach we appear to be heading for. If u look at the sandbox version, the header is already called "important concepts" not "core" and there already is a short introductory sentence like you proposed. Please also read the earlier discussions here and in the "structure" section, especially 3.2.1 structure of 'some teachings' section. We have already discussed your point in quite a bit of detail. We seem to be reaching a consensus here. I think, you/we should try to fit the 4 seals into the structure Peter suggested following Harvey (see my last post, just a few lines above). Andi 77.24.222.61 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right there. We must let Rudy speak for himself, but he is still talking about "basics". He still seems to want to discriminate between different teachings, but I hope he can be persuaded to join what I hope is the emerging consensus. Peter jackson (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure! Didn´t want to impose any specific view on Rudy :) That´s simply how i understood his remarks and you may know from our earlier discussions that i deeply share his concerns about the baby and the bath. Anyway, i think, "explaining the Buddhist basics" is exactly what we should do in the section about "important concepts" - there will be no room for more, to begin with - and i think the structure you suggested is perfectly suited for that task. I think it constitutes a very good "compromise" between your, "Peter´s", school of thinking and "Rudy´s". As long as we always include a short(!) assessment of the importance of each concept in the different traditions it lets us provide a balanced overview of the most important concepts of all schools and at the same time give a good (readable, comprehendible, giving-the-reader-what-they-want-to-know kind of) introduction to "basic" buddhist concepts without giving the impression of them resembling a "core" of all traditions.

The proposed structure starts with really basic (more cultural than specifically buddhist) "basics" of karma and rebirth, then explains the 4NT (with noble 8fold path), maybe middle way. Dependent arising with anica and anatta then provides a perfect possibility for a smooth transition to the ideas of emptiness from a more Mahayana perspective and other basically Mahayana concepts like Buddha-Nature etc. The following section about Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, while also explaining Theravada and Indo-Tibetan Mahayana views then opens the door to Buddha Amithaba and the Pure Land teachings, which apparently constitute the most important teachings for approx. 1/3 of contemporary Buddhists.

I think this structure will please Theravadins, Mahayanists (incl. Indo-Tibetan and Pure Land) and - provided the respective concept-importance-assessments - (western) scholars as well. Speaking from a western Buddhist perspective, i can agree to the structure, especially because the first three sections loosely resemble the way of teaching (skillfull means) and studying i am most familiar with ((Tibetan) Mahayana (Gelug)): starting with (basically Hinayana) phenomenology and cosmology(Abidharma) and by implementing their system of logic (Pramana) and philosophy of the Middle-Way (Madhayamaka) they slowly work their way through the different schools´ views on the ultimate nature of reality, i.e. emptiness (Prajnaparamita). So, i´m all in for this (hopefully) emerging conensus! Andi 77.25.27.149 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut to the chase. Gautama said that life is suffering. That is the core tenet of Buddhism. But Westerners don't want to hear that. He also tried to show how suffering can be partially relieved by limiting our desires. Schopenhauer described it perfectly. But, as I said, we don't want to hear it.Lestrade (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That's not true. The life of an enlightened being is free from suffering. What he said is that all contingent phenomena are not ultimately satisfactory. Suffering can be eradicated by moving from a desire/aversion controlled life to one free of clinging. For this there are the Buddhist suggestions on how to improve. Mitsube (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I did mix up the sandbox version with the main article, I fully agree how the basic setup is now in the sandbox. rudy (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you agreeing to my proposal above, supported by Andi? You don't seem to be opposing it.

As far as I know, Schopenhauer never read any Buddhist literature or met a Buddhist. His views are unlikely to be of much value.

What the Buddha actually said is not central to this article. It can go in the article on him. What this article is about is what Buddhists (especially organized Buddhist groups, approved writings &c) believe he said, & what they think he meant by it, & how they think that ought to be applied in practice. That's what the word "Buddhism" means in common usage, just as "Christianity" means the teachings & practices of Christian churches, regardless of what anyone else thinks Jesus taught (or whether he even existed). Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, completely agree. :-) rudy (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer read an enormous amount of Buddhist literature. He listed the titles in his book On the Will in Nature. Your comment reveals that you have not read that philospher's works. I find it incredible that the Buddha's own words are not to be considered the basic elements of Buddhism. That other readers immediately agree is beyond my comprehension. I can't respond to such thinking. My comments are finished.Lestrade (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Certainly I haven't read Schopenhauer. I was simply going by the fact that virtually no Buddhist literature had been translated into any Western language in his day. What little I've read about him doesn't, as far as I recall, make any mention of his learning any oriental languages.

Rudy appears to agree with our proposal. If Lestrade is withdrawing from participation, that leaves only Mitsube currently in this discussion. If M agrees, I suggest we post the proposal in a separate section in case anyone hasn't seen it here. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. We all know, however, that as the Buddha said "He who sees dependent arising sees the dhamma," dependent arising is the core of Buddhism. What exactly that means would take a book or two to explain, however. I have some new material on "non-theistic" by the way; check that section of the talk page tomorrow. Mitsube (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lestrade, please don´t be upset. Nobody is saying, that the Buddhas words don´t count. After all they are the basis of all Buddhist traditions! Peter said "What the Buddha actually said is not central to this article.". I think, what he is trying to say, is, firstly, that we, in this article cannot (and don´t have to) decide about what the Buddha actually said; we can only report what the different traditions think he said (there are quite a few differences as you may know). And secondly, even if we exactly knew what he said (because, e.g. being a Bodhisattva or a long-lived Deva we have been there and witnessed the teachings ourselves), we should best report our insights in the article about the Buddha, not here (actually not even there because of the no original research policy of WP ;-)), because, as Peter rightly put it, this page is about Buddhism as a belief system/religion/philosophy and therefore the section about "important concepts" has to be about "what Buddhists (especially organized Buddhist groups, approved writings &c) believe [the Buddha] said, & what they think he meant by it, & how they think that ought to be applied in practice." This seems quite a logical approach, don´t you think? Andi 77.24.90.187 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I might add that I did put in what I've found of what scholars think the Buddha said, in the history section. Peter jackson (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashoka not mentioned

Didn't Ashoka create buddhism? How is his name not even mentioned here? His story is at least a great one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deville75 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is based on a faulty premise, viz that Aśōka is not mentioned. Aśōka is mentioned; try searching for "Aśoka" or "Asoka" (I don't know why the article vacillates between the Sanskrit and Pāli spellings).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It vacillates, like other articles, because people have added things in their own style & nobody's gone thro' for consistency. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the closest thing to a consensus on Wikipedia for spelling Indian names indicates that we should use the ISO 15919 standard romanisation, which would be a third and fourth variant: Asōka or Aśōka, which I used above for comic effect.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal at present says prefer IAST for Sanskrit. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. When I first saw that page a long time ago, it said ISO 15919 for everything, but someone changed it last year. It doesn't really matter, since the page is stale and never gained full consensus.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

some comments on the current sandbox version

1. the note at the top that all terms are in Sanskrit unless noted otherwise does not seem to be consistently follwed in the article at all
2. I find sub-sections of para 2.5 confusing: what is the difference between Early Buddhism and Theravada, and the order of these sub-paras does not seem logical (first Mahayana, then Theravada)? (see also below, re para 5)
3. I would suggest the title 'Bodhi and Nirvana' for 2.5
4. para 4.3 mentions: "inclusive, cosmically-dimensioned faith" what is that supposed to mean?
5. It seems that para 5 should come much earlier in the article as it explains the distinctions used much earlier in the article.
6. para 7 specifies many symbols of secondary meaning, whereas the oldest symbols, like the bodhi tree, the Buddha's feet etc. are missing? rudy (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still very muddled, very much WIP. Peter jackson (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I especially agree to point 5. Divisions/main traditions have to be mentioned early. I would say in the lead. The main section on the divisions doesn´t necessarily have to be too far up, then. Andi 213.168.122.111 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't overemphasize the Mahayana vs. Theravada distinction. In theory the two are quite similar. If you get down and look at it there's little difference in the theories about the mind and phenomenology and things of that nature. For example the Heart Sutra (minus the first line) and Mulamadhyamakakarika could be Theravada documents. I have quotes to that effect from scholars. Even most of the Tathatagatagarbha stuff isn't inconsistent with the Canon and could be inspired by some of the things in there. Theravada isn't one of the schools Nagarjuna and the other early Mahayanists had philosophical differences with. Transfer of merit and the pantheon of deities are not "core" Mahayana concepts.

In this article and elsewhere we should balance the "on the ground facts" differences, i.e. most Theravadins and most Tibetans or Japanese for example have very different approaches to the dharma, and the fact that the fundamentals are the same. In the Mahayana the skillful means have become mistaken for Truth that's really it. Mitsube (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly scholars who interpret Mahayana & the Pali Canon as consistent with each other, but others disagree. We can't treat such ideas as facts. they can be mentioned as possible interpretations, alongside others.

How do you tell what's skilful means & what's the real teaching? Each type of Mahayana tends to say it's the real teaching & all the others are skilful means. Wikipedia policy says extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It seems to me that any claim that people'e religion is not what they themselves say it is is an extraordinary claim, & would require clear proof of a scholarly consensus. Peter jackson (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG for that.Peter jackson (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Define Buddhist

The term Buddha and Buddhist must have one meaning. Just noticed Buddhist redirects to Buddhism and Buddha ends up being DMB. Perhaps this link Buddhist should be directed to Buddha as the term Buddhist defines the qualities of a Buddha. Its common sense, and then i noticed Buddhists redirects to List of Buddhas all this mess needs to be put up to Wiki standards. Just noticed one fat message on the top of the page and restricts any editing perhaps some editors could realise that Buddha has its own term and meaning and Buddhist should be redirected to Buddha as Buddha describes and defines a Buddha. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is the path to becoming a Buddha. The path is different from the goal. Mitsube (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

and the path is also different from those that walk it but have not yet reached it (buddhists) ;) ...seriously, this mess shouldn't be that difficult to clarify...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Iwanjka: Very important, spelling: Buddhist or Budhist?

I find both 'spellings' on the internet: "Buddhist" and "Budhist". This causes confusion for me and a lot of other people. Thankfuly on the wikipedioa only one spelling. It think it is an good idea to add (at definition, or at another section): - Why the spelling with two 'd's is used

- If there is no ratio, than the reason is simple: use only one unique label for a certain concept.

- Add 'Budhism' (one d) as well in the Wiki, and reference forward to Buddhism. In the section of Budhism -next to the link- only list the reason why Budhism with one b is not chosen as a spelling, and that spelling with one b should be avoided (creates 'Bableing', reference to section under this topic on the .org wiki, under 'Language purification')

I hope you find this a good idea. Please give me a sign whith the outcome (iwanjkawiki@it-inspiratie.nl)

Thank you, Iwanjka Iwanjka (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed the incorrect spelling. Budhism comes from बुध (Budha) and बोधि (Bodhi); It's phonetical (ध = dh-a). In spokensanskrit.de dictionary, there's not even an entry for "boddhi". However, there's an entry for बुद्ध (Buddha). Since बुध comes from बोधि, it's etymologicaly more correct to use Budha, Budhism (BudhaDharma) and Budhists (Sangha).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Esteban, thanx for your reaction. For me it does not matter which spelling it is, as long as one spelling is choosen (and the other is abandoned). Otherewise bableism will continue... Good luck with the further revision of the Bud(d)ha article, it is quite an attempt!

Esteban is wrong. The etymology of Buddha is budh + ta. It's perfectly correct & standard in both Pali & Sanskrit as well as English. Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide citations? Shouldn't that be spelled Budhta? or Budhata?! If Budha is spelled Buddha then it's because it comes from: B/u/dhdh/a (double dh). I searched for sanskrit words using a dictionary, and if indeed Budha comes from Bodhi and Budh it's correct spelling is with just 1 d. If it's an inflection used in derived words, then provide citations. I won't take your word for it.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I will sometime. Why is the plural of lapiz lapices? many languages have such transformations. Personally, I don't much care what you believe, as long as you don't try to impose your eccentricities on WP. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try asking at Sanskrit, or look up past participles in a Sanskrit grammar. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we seriously having a discussion now about whether the spelling "Budhism" or "Buddhism" is correct? As a matter of fact, I do have a citation: Michael Coulson, Teach Yourself Sanskrit, pg. 54, "The t of a past participle may assimilate the voicing and aspiration of a root final sound: so budh 'awake', buddha (for *budh-ta) 'awakened'." Despite what Esteban thinks, no such thing as "dht" in Sanskrit ... that sequence of letters never occurs.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It takes enough of my time finding citations on Buddhism without having to diversify into linguistics. Peter jackson (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm very interested in learning sanskrit and pali (and am starting with reading and writting in devanagari). I'm very happy to have found that there are enough courses of sanskrit to study it for 3.5 years on a local University. It just sounded strange the "dh"+"t"; unless because of grammar it changes to "ddh". I stand corrected, thanks for the citation--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Discussion closed?

Towonderer: It is a bit unclear for me what has been decided... Decision: We take 'Buddhism' as our spelling? (My oppinion: better stop this discussion and just CHOOSE a spelling. And maybe the best ratio is to look at the number of already existing occurences: how more occurences, the more likely spelling is accepted globally (and the less rework has to be done on replacing all 'incorrect' spelling), remember it is about millions of occurences...

It is by the way better not to speak about 'correct' or 'incorrect'. I prefer the term 'wiki_defined' (can be abbreviated to 'wifenid'? (suggestion)). So for the wiki world (and all sources which use it, the 'wifined' spelling of the concept [Buddha, Budha, Butha, or whatever spelling is used] = 'Buddha' (and as a consequence 'Budddhism, etc.'.

Process on decision making: If there is no one who disagrees before 10 September, 'Buddha' is the wifined spelling from now on. And in addition: I think that Buddha would laugh about is. 'Wasting' time on spelling, isntead of being spiritual...

Hopefully, we can focus back on the semantics!

Regards, TowondererTowonderer (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Ai, Nat said something interesting: the 'concept' [Budha, Buddha, etc.] means both '(to?) awake' (one b) and 'awakend' (two bb's)? To Nat: is this true, or I'm a making things up (it is my interpretation)? So it depends more or less on the state you arr in? So when adressing Buddha as the enlighted, we should use 'Buddha', for non awakened people we should use 'Budha'? (As I understand Bhuddism correctly, there is a Buddha in everyone? So everyone is Budhist (one d) (when not awakened)? Buddha laughs again;-). What to do?

Note: It might be interesting to take a look at the Language Purification article, the related wikipeople did a little research on the Google hit rate on various spellings of Buddha.

if it's about which one is more common; it's Buddha and Buddhism without a doubt (but Buda and Budismo in spanish... in this case it was "españolisado").--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes & References?

Why is there a "Notes", a "References" and a "Further Reading" section? The "References" section seems redundant. If these sources are directly referenced in the article, they should be cited as such and would appear in the "Notes" (which would usually be called "References"). If they are not directly cited, they should be listed with the other "Further Reading". It is not clear what distinction (if any) is at work between these sections. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, someone decided that those sources "often" referred to in the notes would be written out in full in a references section, & then given only in abbreviated form in the notes, to save lots of repetitions in the latter. As things keep on being edited by a variety of people, it's unlikely this idea is applied consistently at present. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

just put them all on a "notes and references" Actually they're fine as they're now--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

4 of us now seem to have agreed on the following rough starting point for covering Buddhist teachings in this article:

1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
   1. Karma & rebirth
   2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
   3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
   4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)
   5. ? not sure where to put decline of the dharma: part of all traditions, but very important in East Asia
2. Practice
   1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
   2. Morality
   3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
   4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra

This is of course subject to modification in the light of discussion & experimentation. Does anyone want to disagree or question this before we start to implement it in the sandbox? Peter jackson (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably missing something, but I would certainly think a history section is necessary: it explains the arising of the various schools, the geographic spread and that section could also describe the decline in certain areas, rather then in the basic teachings?rudy (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is specifically about Buddhist teachings. Of course they should be most of the article, because they're the main thing most readers are interested in, but not all of it. there should be a history section, tho' probably a good deal shorter than now, & certainly more balanced: it's still mostly indian (not long ago it was entirely Indian). Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, with no objections after a week, I'm going to start reorganizing the sandbox in accordance with this scheme. If anyone subsequently comes upwith an alternative structure, it's always possible to start another sandbox. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it should roughly has the same sections as Template:Buddhism, at least there should be a "foundations" major section. No reference for the Noble Eightfold Path under practice? That about summarizes practice.--[[Esteban.barahona|Esteban Barahona]] (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's the other way round: the template should conform to the arrangement here, or some other appropriate system. The template,like the article, has a massive Westernm bias, which must be corrected. There shouldn't be a section called foundations, or core teachings, or anything like that, because there's no consensus that there is a common core to the various forms of Buddhism (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, 2004, page xx; Philosophy East and West, volume 54, pages 269f). We could of course have a section on theories of a common core if anyone can find any scholars who've studied Buddhism as a whole & claim that such exists.

The 8-fold path goes under doctrine because it's too abstract for practice. Peter jackson (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism not a religion??

Buddhism isn't a religion?? Are you guys serious? I want proof. WinterSpw (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is religion. I've reverted the edits. Thanks for your comments, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should've checked the history heh. WinterSpw (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on this question. Most people recognize Buddhism as a religion, but some consider it a family of religions, while others define religion in ways that exclude it. See User:Peter jackson#Buddhism for citations. The article should follow WP:NPOV here. I suggested earlier that the simplest way todothis would be to start with "Buddhism is usually considered a religion", & then discuss the question in a bit more detail immediately after the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, in almost all countries, Buddhism is officially considered/designated as a religion. --Ragib (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. However, Wikipedia is not bound by government decrees. Quite the contrary,in fact: it has to maintain neutrality. Peter jackson (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely not bound by government decrees. However, per WP:V, it can be shown from verifiable official sources that the subject is considered to be a religion by (most) countries. --Ragib (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all popular opinion would have it that Buddhism is not only a religion but one of the great world religions. (Truthbody (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Popular opinion, though popular, is not inevitably accurate. Might I suggest that use of the term religious tradition, as advocated by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, one-time divinity professsor at Harvard, would resolve the matter. Wingspeed (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This is not to say that the Buddhist tradition is not one of the world's great religious traditions. imho, though it's invidious to choose: the greatest. Wingspeed (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I think that Wingspeed's wording is good. Do you have a source for Cantwell using the term? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He goes on about this at length in his The Meaning and End of Religion. Must find my copy. That's what the book's all about. That's why I, for what it's worth, and the best-selling writer on comparative religion Karen Armstrong think the book is so important. Since 9/11 it's acquired a relevance it previously lacked. See the article on Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Wingspeed (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One problem I can see with using non-standard terminology like "religious tradition" is that it may be difficult to tell what opinion is. This relates to the general concept of fringe theories, perhaps. If someone suggests some outlandish theory, it may be quite hard to find any authority that explicitly rejects it, because nobody's ever heard of it. On a smaller scale this might happen here. Finding one source that calls Buddhism a religious tradition, or whatever other term someone may come up with, can't be taken as implying general agreement.

We must distinguish between the lead section & the body of the article. The latter could have a detailed discussion of the different views on the question. The former shouldn't fill a lot of space with it, but should try to find some brief statement that gives a fair picture. Peter jackson (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The term religious tradition, or its use in any given instance, is not at all the consequence of any fringe theory. To the contrary, it's a perfectly ordinary phrase and what it refers to, I should have thought, is obvious to all; nor does it carry the more constricting connotations of religion or philosophy which some may find, for their respective reasons, problematic. Because it's unburdened by the epistemological baggage of the more specific is precisely the reason I started using it. As one who long ago concluded the Buddha's key teachings to be the best available for the practical transcendence of (my then) stress & misery, the term religious tradition enabled me to set aside the needlessly theoretical entanglements of whether those teachings constitute a religion on the one hand, or a philosophy on the other. Attachment to the increasingly vociferous realm of 'isms is much of what we need to escape.

As I'm sure you know, neither the term Dhamma nor Buddhadhamma, let alone Buddhasasana, enjoy a one-to-one translational correspondence with the term religion. (You're less likely to know, I venture, that Islam - some may find this astonishing - similarly lacks a word for religion in the contemporary European sense. The Arabic word din, translated as religion, does not quite mean that. This, I suggest, is no mere coincidence.) Religious tradition permits in each case the required elasticity. You say that the body of the article "could have a detailed discussion of the different views on the question." The term religious tradition, I suggest, enables us to avoid entrapment in this particular sticky net of views. It facilitates consensus. That's the very reason I suggest it. Wingspeed (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess all is empty, so let's concentrate on the present moment. Just as Sakyamuni Buddha have said, "What's past is past, The future is unknown, Concentrate your mind on the present moment." Sayonara guys, and great luck to everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.124.253 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wingspeed, I don't think that "religion" has a very specific meaning in English, so it seems insufficient to say that some word in a foreign language doesn't mean the same thing. One could just as well say that "religion" doesn't mean the same thing as itself, and that would be true. That said, I wouldn't normally translate "dhamma" as "religion" (and I don't know enough about the nuances "buddhasasana" to attempt a translation). My point is, I don't think that the word "religion" is so specific that we need some related-but-different term to make it broader.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember the policy: no original research. It's not for us to decide these things for ourselves. We're supposed to report expert opinion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Habito, Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005, page xi, calls Buddhism a family of religious traditions. Peter jackson (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Import sandbox?

OK, I've finished (I think) reorganizing the sandbox in accordance with the scheme above. All I've done is put things in a different order & change some headings. I haven't changed anything that's said, tho' there's a lot that needs changing. I want to try to concentrate on 1 thing at a time.

At least 2 people have expressed concerns about the length of time the sandboxing is taking. It's been pointed out that people are continuing to edit the main article, resulting in progressive forking, which might lead to edit war.

I therefore propose we now import the reorganized version & await reaction before proceeding to the next stage. If it's accepted, I suggest we then proceed by taking 1 section at a time to sandbox for rewriting in accordance with verifiability & neutrality. This might help avoid discussions wandering about all over the place as they often tend to do. Peter jackson (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, from my point of view. --Liebeskind (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I imported the sandbox version. I also added a copy editing tag because I believe this article needs it. Let the editing begin. --Caped Crusader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.74.83 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Anyway.. as the sandbox now has been imported i quickly edited the lead to roughly reflect our previous discussions. Please feel free to improve it quickly as i think the lead is important for the acceptance of the restructuring. My wording may not be perfect and the selection of concepts and practices neither, but i hope the general approach of the lead finds your approval. Andi 77.25.74.237 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the reconstruction tag as there's still a massive amount of work to be done. Perhaps someone knows of a more appropriate one. I repeat my suggestion that we work on 1 section at a time, starting with karma & rebirth. That particular section needs a lot more material to make it comparable with the others. What we need to do with all the sections is check them for verifiability & neutrality against reliable sources.

When we've got the article as a whole giving an accurate & balanced account of Buddhism as a whole, we can then think about how to summarize it all in the lead. The present version is unacceptable, like a lot else, but I think it's easier to leave it to last. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On the current lead, let me just mention that the talk of emphasis on different aspects of the Buddha's teachings implies that Buddhists agree what those were, which is totally false.

Also, as I've also said repeatedly before, even the statement that Buddhism is a religion is contentious, let alone that that it's a philosophy.

However, as I said, I'd prefer to leave this to later. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple more points:

1. Statements about the Buddha are invalid, as there's no consensus among historians as to what he actually taught.
2. The wording seems to imply there's some difference between the Dharma & the traditions of teachers. Is this trying to sneak in some concept of core teachings by the back door?

Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. right. fixed that

2. no. fixed that too.

Added reference to different canons of authentic teachings as well

I agree that the "final" version of the lead can best be written after the article proper. But we do need some fairly agreeable lead in the mean time.

I´m a bit confused right now whether to edit the sandbox or the main page. Took the sandbox this time. Everybody please feel free to at least improve my wording (i am not a native speaker) I will move the sandbox version to the main page after 24 hours in order to allow for wording improvements and/or urgent objections. Andi 77.24.8.96 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

regarding the "presumed typo" you removed, actually i thought 230 was the typo as it only appeared in the sandbox and 230-500 mio. seemed too far a spread to me. (the main article said 430) Andi 77.24.8.96 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, 230 is the correct figure as given in the source, which also says most estimates are around 350: a more useful statement for the lead, I think. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. The whole thing needs to be looked at properly later. Much of it as it stands is original research. However, that can wait to later. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, I'd say the presentation of Buddhism as different paths to the same goal is unacceptable, as most Buddhists, & probably most scholars, would disagree. Peter jackson (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is good. I think that my favorite topics such as nirvana and dependent origination aren't covered enough currently. I will try to expand them. The karma discussion also needs to be more sophisticated in my view. Overall its a good article on a difficult subject to write an article about. I think the "is Buddhism one religion or many" problem should just be ignored. Mitsube (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the article is good. It's still very unbalanced, & everything needs to be checked against reliable sources. There are few RS citations at present, & I put most of those in myself. Nirvana goes in the ultimate reality section, & needs careful thought. The present separate article seems to be mostly POV of some Buddhists. In principle dependent origination belongs here, but it would be very difficult & complicated to give a properly neutral account. We need a lot more in the karma & rebirth section to make it comparable in size to the others.

On your other point, it depends what you mean by ignore. We can't ignore NPOV, so we can't say Buddhism is a religion, because there's significant specialist opinion against that. & I don't know of any specialist who calls it a philosophy. However, it may be possible to evade the question altogether. I tried a wording along the lines of "Buddhism is the name given to the various beliefs and practices ascribed by their respective followers to the Buddha." It would still be necessary, tho', to make sure the wording of the rest of the lead doesn't give an impression of unity not justified by the authorities. I'm currently trying to summarize expert opinion at User:Peter jackson#Introductory texts. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The treatment of karma should not imply that the Buddhist idea of karma is in line with the fatalistic ideas regarding the consequences of actions espoused by other religious groups. Mitsube (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording

ThinMan changed "traditions" into "sects" in the lead. Do you all agree that this is a better wording?(in german "sect" has quit a negative connotation) Should we try to agree on one wording or shall we use them in alternation? Andi 77.24.174.253 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me 1st copy some remarks I made on another talk page:

As regards schools, the situation is far more complicated than is allowed for in such simplistic terminology. There are a variety of overlapping classifications of Budhism:

1. The most popular among scholars seems to be geographical/cultural:
   1. Theravada
   2. East Asian: China, Korea, Japan & Vietnam
   3. Tibetan
2. The main organized denominational groupings are as follows:
   1. 3 main monastic nikayas:
      1. Theravada
      2. Dharmaguptak: China, Korea & Vietnam
      3. Mulasarvastivada: Tibetan
   2. 5 main denominational families of Japanese lay Buddhism:
      1. Jodo (Pure Land)
      2. Nichiren
      3. Zen
      4. Shingon
      5. Tendai
3. Dominant doctrinal traditions:
   1. Theravada abhidhamma
   2. Madhyamika: Tibetan
   3. Tiantai: China & Japan (& Vietnam?)
   4. Hwaom: Korea
4. Practice traditions:
   1. According to Erik Zürcher (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 2, page 440):
      1. Theravada
      2. Mahayana
      3. Vajrayana
   2. According to Ruben Habito (Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005):
      1. Theravada
      2. Zen
      3. Tantra
      4. Pure Land
      5. Lotus/Nichiren (probably including Tendai)
   3. According to Carl Olson (The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005):
      1. Theravada
      2. Mahayana
         1. Bodhisattva
         2. Emptiness
         3. Pure Land (including Nichiren)
         4. Tibetan
         5. Zen
         6. Recent movements
   4. Probably others
5. Possibly others

Nearly all Chinese Buddhism now is Pure Land, which is also followed by ordinary Vietnamese. Monastics & educated lay people in Vietnam follow Zen, as do, at least officially, Korean Buddhists. Shingon is usually classified under Vajrayana, which is usually considered synonymous with tantra.

As you can see, the situation is far from straightforward. & the above is itself an oversimplification.

As regards "sect", it isn't usually used in this context, & often has a somewhat derogatory tone. Sociologists use it in a quite specific sense, in which it would apply only to some modern movements. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation is unique and interesting in Taiwan. Mitsube (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In Spanish "sect" also has a negative meaning. We should use "schools" or "traditions", and "emerging schools" instead of "sects", otherwise it's not neutral (and academic, and encyclopedic)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Alithos

The following insert was correctly deleted by Sunray from the sandbox, with a suggestion that comments be made here. There seems to me no reason to wait for this, so I copy the remarks here.

"(I'm new and so I apologize b/c im sure this is bad form but i am having a conniption with the first sentence, buddhism is not a religion and should not be misconstrued as such b/c the lay person who is coming here to be informed will be misinformed buddhism is not a system of faith or worship, buddha is not a god, never claimed to be 'The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification.' http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm Wed. 13 2008 this was the most concise source I could find in short notice please review and edit accordingly. Alithos (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC))"

Now, let me respond to this. Wikipedia's purpose is simply to report expert opinion (see WP:V & WP:NPOV), not to decide whether it's right(WP:OR). It's certainly the case that most experts on Buddhism or comparative religion call Buddhism a religion. Some disagree. Some have definitions of religion that exclude it. Others say it's more than 1 religion. these views should also be mentioned in the article. The source you quote is by the look of it a Buddhist source. That means all it proves is that some Buddhists say Buddhism is not a religion. Others say it is, & others say it's more than 1. In fact all religions have some followers who say they're not religions. The favourite is "It's not a religion, it's a way of life." The obvious response to that is that a religion is a way of life. Others vary with the religion. Some Christians say "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with God/Jesus." Again, one might say that any theistic religion is ideally a personal relationship with G/god(s).

There are lots of different definitions of religion, & it might well be that the 1st sentence is unhelpful thro' not having a clear meaning. Perhaps we can come up with something else. I did try earlier something on the lines of "Buddhism is the name given to the various beliefs and practices ascribed by their respective adherents to the Buddha."

As to your various statements, I'm afraid it all depends what you mean by faith/worship/god, & also on which particular form of Buddhism you're talking about. About 1/3 of the world's Buddhists follow the Pure Land tradition, which holds that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the Buddhist path, so they pay homage to the celestial Buddha Amitabha in the hope/belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Some people might say that's not "proper" Buddhism, but Wikipedia has an absolute policy of neutral point of view. It mustn't take sides in such disputes. It can only report them. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't westernize what is not westernizable

One of the most common errors in westernizing Buddhism is calling Gautama Buddha just "the Buddha", as if they are no countless Buddhas. This is also accompained with the other error of confusing a Buddha with a God... and also related to talking of Gods and angels instead of (mortal) brahmas and devas... and the list goes on. Nirvana and other terms should be prefered (used more commonly) to westernizations like "enlightened", in the original Pali and Sanskrit it's more about "aware", "awake" and even "cessation" (of suffering) than "one who sees the light" (or whatever way westernization changes the Buddhist meaning of Nirvana). In the article there's also the "doctrinal division of schools" based on the language of the text they use. That can arguably be the case of "tibetan buddhism", but it's not a common categorization. I changed those lines.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"What's past is past, The future is unknown, Live your life in the present moment." - Sakyamuni Buddha.--Rudolph WeeSeng (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.9.149 (talk)

The errors of the past can be corrected. What's your point?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The errors of the past cannot be undone. Mitsube (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it's not for us to decide what should be Westernized & how. We simply report expert opinion. I think most authorities talk about "the Buddha", tho' of course the article should mention that he's not the only 1 (last I looked it did). When we finally get round to going thro' the article against reliable sources that'll be 1 of the things we look at.

No source is cited for the above alleged remark by the Buddha. Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a reference to this. Mitsube (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

fine, then lose whatever was lost in translations... better study Sanskrit and Pali and traslate it myself (AFAIK there's no Spanish translations of the Pali Canon)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sanskrit, pāli, devanagari and romanizations

Hi all, I suggest we standarize in sanskrit with not a single word in devanagari for the main article, and sanskrit including devanagari for the secondary articles (that are read for a more in-depth study of Buddhism). pāli can be included too, but also romanized on the main article. Commentaries? Suggestions?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Core Buddhism

The article contains only a little about concepts and have moved them to other main articles. I see editors have been more concentrated on history and other facts. Why not move history to other articles and add more deep/core Buddhism? Think what people will think after reading. We should give a great idea about Buddhism.

We need to concentrate on the fact that Lord Buddha's primary intention was to teach how to end suffering. Buddha taught the "Universal Cycle of Suffering", depicting twelve facts which describes how living beings' suffering cycles throughout Samsara.

Also, we can rationalize terrorism and natural disasters (Tsunami etc.) and world end using The Universal Cause Effect Theory, The Universal Cycle of Suffering and Karmic Action and Reaction without going against Neutral point of view; we can use Buddha's own words. And how about adding teachings that have been scientifically proven? Editors should have wisdom, however!

Who support? Any suggestions?--Chamath Mc (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What I think can be done is summarize the "history" section and add more to the "concepts" section that are described with 1 to 3 paragraphs. I've done many changes to the es.wikipedia Buddhism article, and IMO that structure is more balanced than the one on en.wikipedia--Esteban Barahona (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, here is a short summary what I've planned.

The Universal Cause Effect Theory - Buddha said nothing happens without a cause.

The Universal Cycle of Suffering - Buddha taught 12 facts which cycles suffering throughout Samsara.

Karma - Action and Reaction - Characteristics of Karma.

Rationalization of real world crimes, terrorism, natural disasters and world end according to the above three concepts - Why terrorism exist? When people die because of a suicide bomb, isn't it because of Karmic reaction? There is a cause for everything that happens in the universe, so do bombs and natural disasters.

The cause for the differences among human beings (rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, intelligent and unintelligent, why some people die at a lower age why some enjoy the life longer, why some people suffer by deadly diseases and others do not. etc.), using Buddha's own words.

The suffering of Samsara (Cycle of rebirth). - Buddha said the amount of blood poured throughout an individual's Samsara is greater than all the oceans.

The hell and the heaven, especially how dangerous in hell.

"The hell is like this", Buddha clearly explained,

"From head to toe, and again from toe to head, you are spiked rapidly. You cry loudly with death pain but you are not dying and the death pain does not end. Then, a giant vehicle with burning wheels on it, goes over your body, giving you unlimited death pain."

The six laws that controls the world. (Karmic law, biological law etc.)

Nirvana and psychic powers.

The teachings that have been scientifically proven. - The similar concept of the Big Bang (The truth of the universe).

Perhaps more to come!

All of the above should not go to other articles but they all should be in the Buddhism main article despite the length. Because anyone who come and read the article should get a clear understanding about Buddhism.

Ok, it seems like a major reconstruction, when are we getting started? Why not right now? --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea that we should have more about the actual teachings of Buddhism & less history. In detail, tho', the above is just 1 POV. We must maintain NPOV & try to summarize the general opinion of scholars. It's hard to find any recent specialist scholar who's prepared to summarize Buddhism briefly. We therefore have to cover quite a range of topics, as we've been trying to do in the new structure. The process is slow, as we're trying to do it the recommended WP way by trying to arrive at consensus by discussion. So far all we've achieved is a coherent arrangement for the article. I suggested we then go thro' the sections 1 by 1 for rewriting, but others wanted to try the lead 1st. Also of course August is slow. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to find any recent specialist scholar? How about me? That's why I'm here.

We need to concentrate on the fact that Lord Buddha's primary intention was to end suffering. So the structure of the article must clearly focus on that. Peter jackson, why do you take the policy Neutral point of view so serious and superfluous? Are you going to stick to that policy or are you going to do a service to the entire world in the name of humanity? If we know the truth, then actually, there is no need to take sides. What I'm trying to say that it's editor's responsibility to filter the truth. Tell me, what does the world gain by adding myths?

We need to emphasize that there is no similarity between Buddhism and other religions. Buddhism is MORE than a religion, which does not have religious laws or commandments. Creationism is false. Buddha said that believing in a creator means you are disrespecting your own parents who created you to this world.

By the way, we need to start the major reconstruction right now. I think I should first move history to the end of the article and add basic information about more concepts. Then we can rationalize deep circumstances such as terrorism and world end. Buddha clearly stated about real world crimes and why they occur in his teaching, Universal Cycle of Suffering.

Ok. The time has come to start. Better late than never, let's start this right now! --Chamath Mc (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Buddhist conception of karma. Karma is mental conditioning in Buddhism. The Buddha said "what I call karma is intention." Mitsube (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But what do you mean by "this"? Where did I go wrong?

Do you mean the sentence "Karma - Action and Reaction"?

Now, let me complete your sentence which Buddha's words about Karma.

Buddha said, "I call Karma as intention. By actions of physical body, words and mind, living beings collect karma."

So a living being collects karma for any action done intentionally. I mean "Action" as any action done using physical body, mouth(words) and mind.

I meant Karmic action and Karmic Reaction to give a good meaning in English. It is also according to the cause-effect theory (because everything happens according to this theory). Karmic actions are actions done intentionally and Karmic reactions are the "fruits"/results which the living being gets in return because of their particular karmic actions that are done intentionally. Is this OK now? Any other doubts? --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter of fundamental Wikipedia policy, which you can find at WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:OR. Briefly, what Wikipedia is for is not to decide the truth for ourselves & put it out. It's simply to report expert opinion. Where experts are agreed, that counts as a "fact". If they disagree, then Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but simply gives a fair & balanced account of the different POVs. If you want to do something different, I think WP:NOT has some suggestions about where you might go to do it. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I know. But I thought what Wikipedia authors expect from us to do is a service to the world. Anyway, we stop arguing about policies, and start working on the article.

Hey you said you can't find a scholar? I need a response, why not me?

Did you read my plans and theories? I'm going to edit the entire article within next 24 hours. --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Chamath, how can you write about the core of the Buddha's teachings without mentioning the career of the bodhisattva, the ultimate truth of tathāgatagarbha, and the Great Vow of Amitābha? What about the inner tantras and the practice of Great Perfection? What about the daigonhonzon?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying to first write about those things before writing Buddha's teachings?

What I understood for many years, is that people forget core teachings. Tell me, what was Buddha's primary objective? Isn't it teaching how to end suffering? Then why did Buddha taught all of the core teachings to end suffering? Then what should we give the priority for? How do your facts become more important than the Cause-Effect theory?

I'm actually not saying that core teachings must be given the priority. But, updating the article with your facts might not be my job. Why can't you add them?

What I'm just trying to do is to share my knowledge especially about suffering. If Buddha's first teaching was to end suffering, why not we tell about suffering first? Don't you remember Buddha said that we take the rebirth in the hell more than having pleasure like in the heaven? If I'm right, then in every Buddha's teaching, ends with a common fact. That is to end suffering. So I think the core Buddhism I'm talking will fully contain about suffering how to break through it.

I don't think I'm supposed to tell both core Buddhism and all of your facts. If core Buddhism is a one section, then your one is a different section, I don't think they are related to me and I might not take the responsibility of both two sections.

The majority of readers who read might not be Buddhists, means they lack the knowledge of reality in the world. What did Buddha teach people who were lacking the knowledge of reality? Isn't it core Buddhism? Didn't Buddha teach that human body is impermanent according to the cause effect theory?

And didn't Buddha teach Universal Cycle of Suffering which is also according to the cause-effect theory for people who had knowledge about the reality of the world? (Cycle of suffering may be for people who have wisdom because it might be complicated, anyone, however, may be able to understand by thinking logically).

I've currently not planned to delete anything from the article. Only to move history to the end and I just want to add core teachings and you are always free to share your knowledge. --Chamath Mc (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't really understand your response. I'm not interested in arguing with you about philosophy. What I'm saying is that, if you go out and ask Buddhists what the core teachings of the Buddha were, among the things they will tell you about are the career of the bodhisattva, the ultimate truth of tathāgatagarbha, the Great Vow of Amitābha, the inner tantras, Great Perfection, the name of the Lotus Sutra and/or the daigonhonzon, and various other things. There is no justification for writing about something called the "core teachings" of the Buddha while including some things and excluding others.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. You're planning to make a major rewrite in structure. You may copy and paste the information of wikipedia, following the license of use, into some other website like knol or wordpress and further whatever theories you have. Or you may start writting a book. Your plans for rewritting are not in accordance to what has worked for years on wikipedia.org and which almost all wikipedias agree on. Remember: harmonious discourse/talking (part of correct/right speech).

Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nat Krause, I didn't say I won't. That's where you can support. And Esteban.barahona, are you also saying me to stop adding important concepts to "Buddhist Concepts" section? I won't do that alone and all of you can support this. Are you really sure to stop this? Even adding Buddhist concepts? --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said "scholar" I meant a reputable scholar published by a reputable publisher. If you are such or know of such, then those views can be added alongside those scholars who disagree. There is no consensus among scholars that there even is a common core to the various schools of Buddhism, let alone what it might be, so for the article to say, or be liable to be interpreted as saying, that there is would violate WP policy.

As regards what is in the sections on doctrines/practices, it's obviously impossible to include everything. A number of scholars have said you can't even cover Buddhism properly in a book. We have to confine ourselves to what's important. That of course is something we can discuss, but it's not for us to decide what we consider important & select that. What's important is what Buddhism itself considers important, but that includes all major forms of Buddhism. Here's a table by size range:

1. 100 + million followers:
   • Theravada
   • Pure Land
2. 10-40 m:
   • Nichiren
   • Zen
   • Vajrayana; it makes no difference if we split it in 2:
     • Tibetan
     • Shingon
   • Also Falun Gong, if we count that as Buddhist, which most authorities seem not to
3. 2-3 m:
   • Tendai
   • Hoa Hao
4. < 1 m:
   • All others, I think

So, in accordance with NPOV, & in particular the section on undue weight, we should give a lot of weight to grade 1, a fair amount to grade 2, & little or none to grades 3 & 4.

Determining what's important in a particular school can be more difficult. In particular, opinions vary widely even within schools. Most major religious groups are nothing like as monolithic as the Roman Catholic Church. This means that citations of particular Buddhist writers prove little. There's no way of telling how many Buddhists agree with anything. This is why WP policy is to rely on academic scholars who've studied vast amounts of Buddhist literature, & also field anthropologists who've observed what happens in real life.

Therefore, what is important within a school is determined by examining the writings of scholars who've studied it & seeing how much space they devote to things. Peter jackson (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter jackson, you and Esteban.barahona both agreed that we should summarize history and add more concepts. At least, when are we going to do that? Isn't moving history to the end of the article a good idea? If all of you are bored, can I do that alone then? --Chamath Mc (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind this is a very complicated subject on which many people have strongly held & widely differing beliefs. For example, every so often someone turns up here & insists vehemently that Buddhism is a religion. & every so often someone turns up & insists vehemently that Buddhism is not a religion. It might be quite amusing if they happened to turn up simultaneously. The point is, in such a sensitive subject, we have to proceed carefully. This is a very slow process, & I get impatient about it just as you do, but I think it's better to proceed in a slow & orderly manner. Moving the history to the end isn't a serious matter. You can do that as far as I'm concerned, but someone presumably moved it back to the start so you might get into a fight. Wikipedia policy is to avoid revert wars. What you're supposed to do 1st is talk to the opponent. If they ignore attempts at discussion, & just keep reverting, or if the discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, then there are procedures, which boil down to inviting other people to join in. The theory is that if you place the widest notice then large numbers of mostly unbiased people will turn up, discuss things rationally & arrive at a consensus, which can if necessary be enforced against a small minority of dissenters. Whether it really works like that in practice I've no idea.

So, given the above general approach, I want to get consensus 1st on the agenda. My suggestion is

1. Restore the agreed arrangement.
2. See whether anyone has an alternative arrangement to suggest. If so, discuss that/those & try to reach consensus 1 way or another.
3. Once the article is arranged in a way that (nearly) everyone's prepared to accept, we should then go thro' it 1 section @ a time, rewriting in accordance with reliable sources.
4. All sorts of final tidying up.

As I note below, it's difficult to keep discussions going on more than 1 thing, because a lot of people look just at the bottom of the page instead of the history, & it can be hard to find things from the history anyway. That's 1 reason why I think it's better to try to stick to 1 thing @ a time. Peter jackson (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

agree on your proposed agenda, Peter. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chamath, please restore the previously agreed arragement, move the history section down again and make the section about the historical Buddha (now under history) the first section after the lead again. The arrangement was changed at 23:51, 25 August 2008 by Esteban Barahona without prior discussion. I would have reverted that myself but i can't edit the page since it is semi-protected and i have only yesterday, after editing anonymously for years, created an account which is still not auto-confirmed. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree also on the agenda. I come from es.wikipedia, and the biography of Gautama Buddha is part of the history section. We can discuss where to place it, but please don't revert because I made other changes. Instead, please change the biography of Gautama Buddha to the new level (something like: ===title=== instead of ====title====)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The history section should include the opinions of historians about how much of the traditional life story of the Buddha is historical. The story itself belongs somewhere else. Ay present the relevant section is the latter, not the former, so shouldn't be in the history section. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

modularize the rewrite

I started contributing in a nice time... the main article is developed but still needs some changes :) I suggest we modularize the rewrite. By this I mean that we discuss either changes to the structure itself (merge add or substract subsections, {{main|article}}s, and hierarchy of subsections) or the content itself (the content of each module/subsection)

Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that some time ago. Once the structure has been settled, we should go thro' 1 section @ a time. Experience shows it's quite difficult to maintain discussions on more than 1 thing @ a time, because a lot of people simply look at the bottom of the page rather than the history. Even if you do look at the history it can be hard to find the relevant sections if the page is long as the system is not designed for easy location. Peter jackson (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean to discuss everything here? Or are we going to create a new section called "discussion" at the bottom? --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Esteban, your contributions are much appreciated :) But please do not make any major changes, especially to the structure / overall arrangement of the article without prior discussion on this page! Also it would be helpful if you eventually found the time to read through some of the disussions on this page in order to inform yourself about the current consensus on the overall approach. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry... I'm used to major rewrites in editing Buddhist articles because there's few active wikipedians working on them (at this time maybe 3).

this is the english TOC of Buddhism:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Gautama Buddha
         o 1.2 Indian Buddhism
               + 1.2.1 Early Buddhism
                     # 1.2.1.1 Pre-sectarian Buddhism
                     # 1.2.1.2 Councils
                     # 1.2.1.3 Further developments
         o 1.3 Buddhism today
   * 2 Buddhist Concepts
         o 2.1 Karma: Cause and Effect
         o 2.2 Rebirth
         o 2.3 The Four Noble Truths
         o 2.4 Reality in Buddhism
         o 2.5 Nirvana
         o 2.6 Buddhas
               + 2.6.1 Theravada
               + 2.6.2 Mahayana
   * 3 Practice
         o 3.1 The Noble Eightfold Path
         o 3.2 Middle Way
         o 3.3 Refuge in the Three Jewels
         o 3.4 Buddhist Ethics
   * 4 Schools and Traditions
         o 4.1 Theravāda
         o 4.2 Mahayana
               + 4.2.1 Pure Land Buddhism
         o 4.3 Vajrayāna or Tibetan Buddhism
         o 4.4 Buddhist texts
         o 4.5 Pāli Tipitaka
   * 5 See also
         o 5.1 Comparative studies
         o 5.2 Buddhist symbols
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
         o 7.1 Suggested reading
   * 8 External links

This is the Spanish TOC of Buddhism (translations at the right unless it's a sanskrit or pali word, comments further right):

   * 1 Perspectiva general (General Perspective) // in en.wikipedia this is covered in the lead section
   * 2 Definiciones del Budismo en Occidente (Definitions of Buddhism in the West)
   * 3 Historia del Budismo (History of Buddhism) // this section is much smaller than in en.wikipedia and centered on Gautama Buddha's life)
         o 3.1 Siddhārtha Gautama
         o 3.2 Nirvana de Siddhārtha (Siddhārtha's Nirvana)
         o 3.3 Tradiciones y escuelas (Traditions and schools) // this section is much smaller than in en.wikipedia
         o 3.4 Cifras de Budismo por región (Numbers/statistics of Buddhism by region)
   * 4 Fundamentos budistas (Buddhism foundations)
         o 4.1 Tri-Laksana: Tres Características de la Existencia
         o 4.2 Karman: Causa y Efecto
         o 4.3 Surgimiento condicionado (pratītya-samutpāda)
         o 4.4 Renacimiento (Rebirth)
         o 4.5 Nirvāņa: El Despertar, La Iluminación
         o 4.6 Las Cuatro Nobles Verdades (Four Noble Truths)
   * 5 La Práctica Budista (Buddhist Practice)
         o 5.1 Noble Camino Óctuple (Noble Eightfold Path)
         o 5.2 Ética budista (Buddhist ethics)
         o 5.3 Meditación budista (Buddhist meditation)
         o 5.4 Las tres joyas (Triratna)
   * 6 Bibliografía (References)
   * 7 Véase también (See also)
         o 7.1 Figuras budistas históricas // historical buddhists
         o 7.2 Filósofos budistas // buddhist philosophers
         o 7.3 Políticos y activistas budistas // political and activist buddhists
   * 8 Enlaces externos (external links)
         o 8.1 Directorios de centros y grupos budistas
         o 8.2 Enlaces didácticos

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article as discussed. Now I think we must start rewriting one by one instead of wasting time by arranging because we can rearrange at any time. As you all agreed, we need to rewrite Concepts section. Please confirm this. --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The arrangement I see in the article right now isn't what was agreed, & is pretty nonsensical. It should be something like this:

1. Story of the Buddha
2. Principal divisions
3. Doctrine/Teaching
   1. Rebirth & karma
   2. 4NT
   3. Ideas on ultimate reality
   4. Buddhas, bodhisattvas & arahants
4. Practice
   1. Devotion
   2. Morality
   3. Monastic life
   4. Meditation &c
5. History
   1. Indian
   2. Theravada
   3. East Asian
   4. Tibetan
   5. Buddhism today
6. Scriptures
7. &c

The concepts section is still a very large field. What I suggested was doing it 1 section @ a time, starting with Rebirth & karma.

What I suggest as a procedure for each section is something like this:

1. Pile in sourced statements anyoldhow into the sandbox
2. Then discuss how to arrange them, whether some are surplus to requirements, & any issues arising
3. Once everything is sorted out to a generally acceptable standard, import it to the main article

We would start a new section on this page each time we move on. I would suggest blanking the rest of the sandbox, just leaving the section currently under discussion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only Rebirth, karma and 4NT? It's almost nothing. What about the Cause-Effect theory? I think it should come first. It says for everything, there is a cause. Even Karma, rebirth, the entire universe and everything depends on this theory. Peter, did you read the theories I've told in Core Buddhism? We've agreed to add more concepts.

In fact, if Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia on Earth, then I think we must add deep information about concepts, not just basic information for small babies to read. There are hundreds and hundreds of lines in the History section to describe history, but only just 5 lines to describe rebirth. What a shame. --Chamath Mc (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only those 3. Also ultimate reality & Buddhas &c. This arrangement we agreed is based on Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism. There, dependent origination is included under the 2nd NT. Harvey's arrangement is based on putting the elementary teachings 1st, followed by the advanced 1s. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Your theories are banned from WP unless they've been published by a reputable publisher.

I've already said a no. of times that we need more on karma & rebirth. Even the little there is now I put there myself. There was nothing at all before.

The amount of length & detail in the article is a very hard question. I said once before that I suspect we'll end up having to write a very long article in order to include everyone's pet ideas & still maintain balance. If we don't include everyone's pet ideas they'll keep altering the article, & it may be better to include them rather than keep having to activate WP procedures for dealing with such problems. However, that's only a thought, & I don't know what other people think on the subject. There's also the question of readers' attention span. I think there's a guideline about length somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. Peter jackson (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can have a look @ WP:SIZE. Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputed publisher? If I say about a book published by Education Department of Sri Lankan Government, are you going to take that as a reputed publish or not? I don't think it's easy to find sources on the internet. Anyway, I can give sources as books and television programmes, which you won't be able to check them, unless you are in my country! :)

Peter, why can't you take Tripitaka as a source? --Chamath Mc (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Peter, I also need more on Karma and rebirth. Who want me to expand that? --Chamath Mc (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS should give a link to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such questions can be raised.

TV programmes as such aren't verifiable. Only a published recording of them would be. The fact that a publication is not very accessible is not itself a bar to citation, tho' more accessible ones should be preferred where available.

The scriptures are a primary source. Primary sources are to be avoided as citations as far as possible, & used with great care. They are subject to interpretation, can be quoted selectively, taken out of context &c.

There's also the question of what you're trying to do with citations. Remember, our job here is to report expert opinion. That means we have to give a balanced overall picture of their agreements & disagreements. So think carefully about eccen tric views, minor points &c. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

structure

Peter jackson, don't say it's non-sensical arrangement instead make arguments. But I see your point, Gautama Buddha story can contain mythology or disputed episodes (althouth it's quite straightforward and real; someone wanted to know how to be free from suffering, meditated and practiced, and later found an answer which is Buddhism). I agree, it should be on a separate section. About using just 1 source for the arrangement of an encyclopedia article: it's too simplistic, we wikipedians can chose our own arrangement based on many sources. However, we agree on most of this structure. Oh, and I will be thankful if you provided the index (structure) for your source.

Chamath Mc, sure you can say which book it's by telling us the ISBN number. But still, just propose an arrangement based on the current one as a list, you don't say much. You talk about "cause and effect" theory, it will be better if you said the sanscrit word. Are you refering to karma, pratitya-samutpada, other?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I might know in Pali language, but I'm afraid I'm not really sure of the word. I don't think that Buddha taught Cause-Effect theory as a separate teaching.

At Buddha's time, a person asked "Assaji" monk, "What kind of a teaching does your teacher teach?".

His response is said to be the CORE MEANING OF BUDDHISM. I doubt if you could understand his response, so I will try to tell as simple as possible.

He said, "If an effect happens because of a cause, then Lord Buddha teaches the elimination of its cause and the effect."

Now, I think it should be added to Lead section since it has a meaning of Buddhism. --Chamath Mc (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt if you could understand his response" this is enough, you're talking to an anāgāmin, who also collaborates in 3 different wikipedias and is learning Sanskrit and Pāli. After reading many sutras I've come to the conclusion that Gautama Buddha taught in a clear, inteligible and legible way. Your replies are unclear; you may be confused. If you cann't cite the Buddhist concept in Sanscrit or Pāli this is the end of our discussion.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You may well be an anagami, but there is no way for Chamath to know whether or not that is actually true. It would be best if we stick to the arguments, not the arguers. Mitsube (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

indeed, but I won't discuss with someone who doesn't collaborate. What is this "cause and effect"? Using the sanskrit or pali definitions (the standard words, not translations). He/she also doesn't propose an alternate indexing for the article. He/she blanks his pages and just now added an insult (yelling, using all caps) on my discussion page. Some where indeed grammar mistakes, so I will leave them. I will change now his/her last edition building from it, not just reverting. I will appreciate more amability from Chamath, it's not easy talking with someone who uses insults the second time he/she adds a comment on my page.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? I never want to insult anyone in my life! What are you talking about? Why do you say I'm not collaborating? I didn't mean to do any wrong thing. What do you mean I blank my pages? I don't understand. When talking about rebirth, are you going to tell its Pali word?

Look, I actually wanted to support for building the article. I didn't know that you are rude that much. I didn't know Anagamins responds in such a way. You said, "Remember: harmonious discourse/talking (part of correct/right speech)". I've no idea why do you care grammar errors. Are you that serious? And what kind of English are you reffering to? US or Brithish or Australian or what English?

Sorry, I confused you with another editor.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will give the response in Pali Language. If you had told that the Pali meaning is actually necessary, I would have given it at least by checking a book.

Here, I got.

"Ye Dhamma Hethuppabhava, Thesan Hethun Thathahgatho Aha, Thesan cha yo Nirodho, Evan Vadhi Maha Samano". --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not confused. I've been learning and practising Buddhism for many years and telling the truth which I've learned. And I don't know why you're an Anagamin and can't understand cause-effect theory in English. I told that for everything happening in the universe, there is a cause. That is connected with every other teachings. Karma is cause and effect, rebirth is cause and effect.

You said that you've read many sutras. Then, do you know "Patichcha Samuppadaya"? I won't give English translation because you seem to hate English translations. If you know, then why don't you allow me to add that to the article?

lol, I don't hate English. In fact I like to learn new languages (currently focusing on Italian and starting to learn Sanskrit). Neat, you're talking of pratitya-samutpada. That concept needs a section (as it's in spanish wikipedia in section 4.3).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And, if you are an Anagamin (I hope you are serious, because if that's a lie you are doing a big mistake in life), then congratulations, you only have few births to find Nirvana (perhaps, at this birth). So, good luck. I also want to achieve Nirvana soon.

I'm not lying, I don't lie. Thanks, good luck to you too ^_^--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I need a response for the question I've asked before. May I improve the Karma and rebirth section? --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above discussion is OR so irrelevant. I return to the points raised @ the start of this section.

"nonsensical" referred to having a history section that jumped straight from India to Buddhism today. That's a separate point from the consensus, which concerned only the teachings/practices sections.

Certainly we can choose our own arrangement, but for the moment we've chosen that 1.

Quoting from memory, so this is not word-for-word titles, Harvey's book is arranged in the following chapters:

1. Buddha
2. Karma & rebirth
3. 4NT
4. Later developments
5. Mahayana philosophy
6. Mahayana holy beings
7. Spread
8. Devotion
9. Morality
10. Monastic life
11. Meditation
12. Modern Asia
13. Elsewhere

There's also an appendix on scriptures.

The book's subtitle is Teachings, History and Practices. Chapters 2, 3, 5 & 6 are teachings; 1, 4, 7, 12 & 13 are history; 8-11 are practices. I've modified the titles of 5 & 6 to include Theravada views on the same topics in parallel. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

that is but one book. Why you ignored my quote of the spanish wikipedia's structure in the Buddhism article? That's the consensus in what sections should be on a Buddhism article. I collaborated lately on that article, but I preserved almost all the original structure (it's a "good article" and much more concise than here).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, when can I add more details to Karma and Rebirth section? Now? Are we still arranging the article? --Chamath Mc (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just find a source for your additions. Mitsube (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

pratītya-samutpāda is enough as source. It's a different concept than karma and rebirth (all related, but also different), but is still a foundation of Buddhism.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your previous remark, my understanding is that even the policies of English WP are not binding in Spanish WP & vice versa, so a fortiori any consensus there is not applicable here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the Spanish table of contents, the main point of contention is section 4, on foundations. The important point to be aware of here is that there's no consensus among scholars in favour of the claim that there is a common core to all major forms of Buddhism (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004; Philosophy East and West, volume 54, pages 269f; Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 2nd ed, Routledge, 2008, page 266). In fact I haven't managed to find any recent scholar who unequivocally makes such a claim, tho' there may be some. So any arrangement that implies such a claim violates NPOV.

Instead, what we've been trying to do with this arrangement is deal with major topics, treating the views/practices of various schools on each topic. That isn't the only way of doing things, of course. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Karma and rebirth

Should be on separate sections because they're separate (related but different) concepts. So much that one may "believe in just one but not in the other".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take a definite position on this now, but I suspect when we get down to detail we'll find them so interlinked a single section would be more sense. Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See now #Harvey's structure. Peter jackson (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

pratītya-samutpāda

Should have its section too. Even if short (it's a concept which can be explained first by using a list). It's different, describing reality.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At last, pratītya-samutpāda. I think it's my favorite lesson taught by Lord Buddha. That has 12 items, right? (And another 12 which is the opposite of the cycle which describes Escape from Samsara?)

That's what I have meant as "Universal Cycle of Suffering" in the Core Buddhism section. Is it a good translation?

I know the Pali words and already translated into formal English. When are we going to add that?

I saw in Spanish wiki that the pratītya-samutpāda is sorted as a list. Isn't it supposed to be a cycle? On the hand, I think it would be better if we can describe it in a detailed cyclic way. So people can understand. For example, Avijja = The living being does not know the reality of the world. Sanskara = Because of not knowing the reality of the world, the living being collects Karma (The living being reacts to the world), And so on.. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be written as a list explaining that it's a cycle. And yes, it's actually 2 lists (one being how to be free from the first). If you already have one translation, then you can add it as a new section; it's an important Buddhist concept--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just added pratītya-samutpāda. I hope I did perfectly. Anyway, please correct it if anything has gone wrong. Thanks. --Chamath Mc (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The structure can be improved. I changed up to the first 12 points, you can change the later ones. Or if not, I can change them later.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to a heading, but I think it should be a subhead within 4NT, to make clear the general remarks on their place in various Buddhist traditions apply to it too. Peter jackson (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the second section. It seems perfect, and now to do a major improvement to the other concepts. --Chamath Mc (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've almost totally rewritten this section:

1. Wikipedia should never state as fact that the Buddha taught such-&-such, as there's no consensus among historians as to what he taught.
2. What was written in this section before was almost entirely someone or other's interpretation, & didn't even say whose. I've replaced it with mainly a literal rendering for now, with a few notes. If we want to include interpretations it could get very complicated.

Peter jackson (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Buddha has said" is more meaningful and positive. Your sentence is inappropriate and can obviously make a doubt in the reader's mind if Buddha has actually said or not. So I've removed the entire sentence, which seems to be better than before. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's meaningful & positive is irrelevant. It's not a "fact" as defined by WP policy, so shouldn't be here. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Noble Eightfold Path

Should be on Practice. Why is it on concepts? If not, rename "concepts" with "foundations".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's under teachings/doctrines/theory/concepts, the last being the current title, because it's quite abstract. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2ndly, the 8-fold path is part of the 4NT so covered by the material on their place in various Buddhist traditions. Separating them loses this.

3rdly, Harvey's arrangement, which we're following @ present, arranges both teachings & practice progressively. Separating out the 8-fold path into the practice section would mess this up. Peter jackson (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

how separating 8-fold path from 4 NT "loses this"?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it won't be obvious to the reader that the remarks apply there too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? All it takes is say: 4th part of the Four Noble Truths is the Noble Eightfold Path (see below)... we shouldn't assume that readers are SO clueless.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See #Harvey's structure. Peter jackson (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thri-Lakshana - The reality of the world

This is an important concept which depicts the reality of the world - Anithya, Dukkha and Anathma. This has to be added as we are expanding the concepts section. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

it can go under "reality in Buddhism" maybe? It's indeed an important concept, but keep it short for now (until we summarize more the article).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

This article is huge; basically warranting that only Buddhists are willing to read it all. How to make it shorter? We can summarize, or even delete some sections.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If length is really a matter, then I think the only way is Summarizing or deleting some sections in history and Schools and Traditions. We aren't going to summarize concepts, right? --Chamath Mc (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

actually concepts are already summarized... I read through history but couldn't think on what to take out. There may be redundancy throughout the article, which I haven't read all yet. Also, in the lead section I took out some phrases but they are reverted to the longest version. At the very least, we can take some extensive phrases without changing the meaning.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do concepts actually need to be summarized? However, all of us were going to expand the concepts section. Therefore, it will use more space in near future, making the article lengthier. Perhaps it may not be possible to make the article smaller, unless we decide what are superfluous to the article. First, we need to decide which sections should be given the priority. I think all of you will undoubtedly agree that the teachings of Buddha are more important than history.

Here are the current statistics of the article as of the last edit at 04:58, 3 September 2008

(Following may not be 100% accurate, however)

Buddhist Concepts Section - 3288 words

Practice Section - 677 words

History Section - 1682 words

Schools and Traditions Section - 2825 words

Buddhist Concepts Section + Practice Section = 3965 words

History Section + Schools and Traditions Section = 4507 words

Therefore, to describe Buddha's teachings, 3965 words are used, and to describe other things not taught by Buddha take 4507 words. That's 542 more words than teachings.

If we aren't comfortable with summarizing or deleting things that aren't the teaching of The Buddha, then, yes; the only way I think is summarizing long phrases without changing the meaning (except the Concepts and Practice Section). --Chamath Mc (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The present arrangement will require expansion. (Blame me for suggesting it in the 1st place.) The reason is that it's based on the principle of giving each school's attitude to each topic. Everyone's attitude to everything naturally takes up space.

If we decide we really want a shorter article, here's 1 way:

1. start with the various POVs on common core. Don't bother with evidence/arguments for/against.
2. then go thro' the schools summarizing their main points. Don't bother with what they think of each other.

This would save space. Whether it would be satisfactory is another question. Peter jackson (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if we take something off the main article it should be moved to the secondary articles...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Those word counts are useful in indicating where we might think about going. As I note below, there's not enough about most aspects of practice. I certainly agree that the article should be mainly about the teachings & practices, simply because that's what most readers will be expecting from the article. History should be comparatively brief. Explanation of schools, in this structure, is needed to make clear what the taechings/practices sections are talking about when they mention differences among schools. Also, information is needed about sizes of schools, if not locations. @ present the 2 can't be separated as nobody seems to have added up the figures so we need to give details by country to provide sources. Peter jackson (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the 'decomposition' concept?

To my opinion sumarizing is not the way (not before the 'semantics' (content) are correct. I was triggered on this by reading an article which pointed out the relevance of 'semantics', see Language Purification. When we would start summarizing at this stage, an endless process will start. In the opposite, I think the basic principle is that we should 'use the words we need' (even if it is many). The 'normal' rules of thumb when writing a book should be applied: a section should never be longer than eg 1/3 page, a chapter should not contain more than eg 7 sections, use maximum 15 chapters, etc. This implies however (taking in account that the 'article concept' is the 'lowest node', that at max 15*7*1/3 = +/-25 pages are available ar max in an article. This is far to few for Buddhistic material! So OR the wikipeople should introduce one or more new 'nodes' concepts, such as 'part' (containg multiple articles) and 'book' (containing multiple parts). On this way the amount of available space is increased in a huge way, in a controlled manner. The other solution is that somebody has the role of 'structure editor' and must take care that all the written material is stored in a proper way in the 'article' format. But is it alright that a wiki transformes into books about certain topics? I think it is. Why not? For me an important reason is that all the material must be maintained as well. And readability? When decomposed properly, readers start at the highest level and can zoom further each time they are interested to do so. In information engineering, this is a common way of structuring information. But than, when every country /language has its own wiki... (and detailed books about Buddha, etc.), ai... Won't be easy to keep them syncronized! The Language Purification article (see the figure at the section 'Bableism over multiple languages') also proposes a solution for this topic. Until (and if!) this is implemented, we should help ourself. Does anyone know iformation engineers in their neighbourhood? They could may be help (together with an experienced project manager)? By the way, are we the only wikipeople encountering this problem? Aren't there already (for us useful) guidelines available (otherwise they should be defined quickly!). Note: I also heard of a concept called 'refactoring' (within software), anybody knows if can use this concept (cyclic process: write, restructure and summarize (=refactoring), write, etc.? Marielejeu (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

if you're going to write a book about Buddhism you're more than welcome, but not on wikipedia. This is supposed to be a first reading about Buddhism, it should be shorter. If you still want to use a wiki for the book try in: en.wikibooks.org

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A few words on consensus

I just scanned through this talk page and I noticed three or four editors insisting that others comply with their consensus before editing this article. I checked Wikipedia's policy on this issue and I found this little gem:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale."

Unfortunately, it doesn't provide a way to determine what the wider community consensus is, but it's clear that a small group of editors can't use a consensus they've devised to control an article's content.

Therefore, to those few who insist on this consensus, don't be surprised when others ignore it, including me. LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

it will be VERY useful that you say specifically in what aspect of ALL the article you think there is no consensus. Your rethoric isn't conducive to further discussion.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you (or your 2 other accounts on the same wikipeda) want a war of editions? My reply: you won't have it. I will just wait to see what is the consensus among other wikipedians.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted an edit war. However, I will ignore any consensus created by a small clique of editors. This is WP policy. Just read the the quote and link I provided above if you don't believe me.LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the policy. Easy enough to do, given the way it's scattered among so many pages.

You're perfectly correct in saying that local consensus cannot override global consensus, but there are proper procedures to follow. In this particular case, a consensus was reached on this talk page on 1 particular point: the structure of the teachings/practices sections. If you want to make major changes in that, the correct procedure to follow is this:

1. Do not make the changes.
2. Instead, present your proposals & arguments on this talk page.
3. Discuss the matter here.
4. If, after a reasonable amount of discussion, you fail to persuade the local community, then is the time to appeal to the global community.
5. Their consensus is final for the time being, except in rare cases where the authorities intervene, generally for legal reasons.

You can find more details of this on varius policy pages, such as dispute resolution. When you 1st set up an A/C someone will have posted @ the top of your talk page some sort of introductory guide to WP, including links to policy. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now restored the basic structure of those sections, tho' I haven't bothered with some relatively minor changes. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring:If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions." Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here following the note at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, and I have no previous involvement with this article.

My understanding has always been the following:

(A) "Consensus" means that everyone's concerns have been addressed. It does not mean a particular version that receives some numerical threshold of support.

(B) If someone is editing the article in a way that is different from simple vandalism, it means they have a concern that has not been fully addressed, which means that there is no consensus.

(C) Bold edits are allowed, no matter how much previous consensus there has been. Those same bold edits may be reverted, if someone feels that those edits make the article worse.

(D) There is no excuse for edit warring, no matter what anybody thinks about consensus, previous or current. As soon as different versions are being put forward, the correct course of action is for all involved editors to stop reverting (no matter which version is currently live), put down the edit buttons, and have a frank and respectful discussion, seeking outside input if an agreement cannot be reached by those already involved.

That's my understanding of how consensus works here; I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for citations of policy or guidelines.

(A) This seems to equate consensus with unanimity, which wasn't my understanding. It would seem to make it impossible to get consensus ever on many issues

(C) & (D) seem to contradict each other. (C) says it's OK to revert, but (D) says it isn't.

Let me put down here the general problem. How are we going to proceed here? The article needs a pretty total rewrite:

1. Most of the statements are unsourced.
2. Most of the sources cited are simply the opinions of particular Buddhists, with no reliable information on whether other Buddhist would agree. Would you trust the Pope or billy graham for an accurqate or unbiased account of Christianity?
3. Most of the statements, & the overall picture, are in fact drawn from those Buddhist writers who happen to be popular in the West. Lopez has called "Modern Buddhism" a "sect" ([1]). Other scholars, tho' not using his terminology, have classified modern &/or Western Buddhism as something separate from the 3 major branches of the Buddhist tradition. It is an egregious violation of NPOV for the article to be mainly drawn from the ideas of 1 sect or form of Buddhism.

How do we organize this?

1. It's very difficult to keep up discussions on many topics @ once. Many people only look @ the foot of the page. Even if you look @ the history it can be hard to find things from there.
2. People keep changing the article without discussion here, in spite of the notice @ the top asking them here.
3. I've suggested concentrating on 1 thing @ a time, but that's unenforceable.

Any thoughts? Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC) A radical solution would be to ask admin to freeze the article for say 6 months, importing changes as we manage to agree them. I don't know whether they'd agree to that even if we asked. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... I think I must have not communicated very clearly. My point (A) above does not equate consensus with unanimity, although I would agree that we cannot easily achieve consensus on a great many issues. Consensus is a goal towards which to strive, and not a destination that we often reach. The best goals in life are of that nature - more-or-less unattainable, but worth striving for.

The difference between consensus and unanimity is that someone's concerns can be addressed without that person necessarily agreeing. Some people disagree with our core policies; those concerns are addressed at the project level, by the fact that Wikipedia is defined by its core policies. In the case of, say, a non-notable band article, a fan may want to keep the article, but may be unable to say why WP:BAND is at variance with the project. Whether or not they're happy, their concerns have been addressed in the development and acceptance by the community of WP:BAND as a notability guideline.

My points (C) and (D) do not contradict each other. I'm simply talking about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. A bold edit is great. A reversion is great. Any further edits made prior to thorough discussion constitute edit-warring. One does not continue to revert; one reverts once, and then discusses, bringing other, uninvolved eyes to the table as necessary.

I don't tend to communicate in terms of policy citations because I try to keep in my mind that Wikipedia is not a rules-based game. Cogent arguments always carry more weight than appeals to precedent, which is all that policy citations really are.

Finally, to address the question of how to fix the article... that's where the hard work is. The best principles I know for fixing a broken article are: WP:BRD, WP:3O, content RFC, perseverance, and patience (there's some citations for you :) ). I'm willing to help. I would begin by asking whether people agree with the overall structure of the article. If so, then we can work on it section-by-section. If not, then we should probably get a structure worked out first.

Does this seem like a reasonable direction to go? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your final suggestion is just what I suggested some time ago, & a no. of people have agreed to. The problem I was asking about now was of all the people who keep turning up on the article itself instead of the talk page & messing things up. If we have to restart the discussion of every topic all the time then it gets very hard to get very far. But you're probably right in implying, if I read you right, that there's no easy answer. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No easy answer: yes, that seems right. Perhaps what is required is a group of people who are willing to commit to consensus building on the talk page. As I said, I'd be happy enough to help with that, and I think I know of some others who might jump in as well; I'd have to do some asking... This article appeals to me as one to work on, because it's a topic about which I know very little, but am curious to learn more. Shall we start a new talk-page section to address specific issues? If so, I would be inclined to begin with the lead and the overall structure, and then to move on to individual sections, one by one. Whaddya think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are already a no. of us doing roughly that, but of course we welcome more. As regards the lead, we've had a lot of difficulty with that. One question is whether it's expected to follow the structure of the article. I don't think WP:LS actually says so, but it does seem a reasonable idea. If so, it might be quite hard to make it fit our current structure. A no. of us thought it should be left to last. Others disagreed. The latter group discussed it for a while, but those discussions seem to have ceased. I don't know whether that's because they went on holiday, got fed up, were satisfied by the end product (tho'it keeps changing) or what. Certainly its present state is unacceptable.

As to the overall structure, a no. of us did reach a consensus, tho' that of course is subject to change. At present Esteban seems to be questioning it at least, if not actually disagreeing. I'm not sure whether Luis was wanting to disagree or just asserting his right to do so in the abstract. Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a short concise description of the subject

I see someone is rewriting this, GOOD. There should be a short brief introduction to what this is. I am not a scholar, i have a passing interest in this, I am not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap. The article as it is starts out by saying its a religion, fine they quickly define what they believe in, DON'T start telling me about what country who lived in and what it is called now, or branches etc. If someone cares about this topic they would serve themselves well to keep it short at the beginning, don't think that because you think it all is totally gripping everybody else will. And don't say "the burden is on you" - no, if i wanted to an expert then perhaps, as it is i want a very brief introduction - as it stands now its more a case of thinking, "damn that's a lot of werid stuff. Ok, Buddhism is a lot of weird mumbo jumob then" and move on. If that's your goal, by all means keep it as it is. --IceHunter (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP guidelines say there should be a lead section summarizing the subject in no more than 4 paras. We certainly need to deal with that, but my own inclination is to say that we 1st need to get the article right before we try summarizing it, tho' others may disagree. There's an enormous amount to do here, & I think we have to concentrate on 1 thing @ a time to avoid total chaos. The statement that it's a religion shouldn't be in the article because that's a matter of dispute. Unfortunately, it's also not possible to define what, if anything, Buddhists as a whole believe in, as that too is a matter of dispute. So I'm afraid the lead section will have to deal with divisions. Some of the other points you make are valid enough. Unfortunately, @ present loads of people are making all sorts of changes to the article in all sorts of different directions, so any comments we make are likely to be irrelevant in a few days time. Peter jackson (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should be shorter, but what are you implying by "not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap"? If you don't want to read some concepts that were original from sanskrit and later imported in other languages, I cann't help much (study other subject). If you think that the main article is too technical, then cite specific examples so that we have an idea of what you consider "too technical crap". If not, I cann't help you.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks all

I think we already have developed a way of improving this article, each editor in a specific aspect. The "cleanup taskforce" (w-e that is), is no longer necessary.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

Just saw the list of external links. Its too long and unwinded. See WP:EL + WP:SEH to cut it down. Indirect links are frowned up. Certainly a link to official literature by a sanctioned authority should be on top of the list, but there should be some moderation in placing links. Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that about references? what about divide them by type: paper and website?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "official literature by a sanctioned authority". As with other major religions, there is no sanctioned authority for Buddhism as a whole. There are authorities for particular groups, but I don't know whether any such links exist on our page. Is it in any case appropriate to have such here? Perhaps they should be in the relevant articles. Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Pali Tipitaka, which is common among all Buddhist schools. And each school adds some other texts, AFAIK.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pali canon may be in some theoretical sense accepted by Mahayana, but that has little relevance in practice. Further, the links are to the pali text, which few coming to this articl;e will be interested in, or to unofficial & possibly inaccurate/biased translations of unofficial & possibly biased selections. Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Why are the details of the traditional narrative stated as fact? They are almost certainly apocryphal. Mitsube (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

which details exactly?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a statement that little of the story could be regarded as established historical fact, but someone seems to have deleted it. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At least it's believable; it doesn't fall at all in mythology (like the "Jesus the son of a virgin"). If it cann't be regarded as historical fact, who says that? Siddharta Gautama was the founder of Buddhism by his practice on meditation and knowledge of the "ascetic philosophies" of the era; that's a given. Or are you arguing that there was not someone named Siddharta Gautama who founded Buddhism? What are the events that are disputed of ever happenning?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be somewhat disappointing to learn that the Buddha of the biography is not enlightened by our standards. For one thing, he left his wife and child behind. Also he tells another monk who left his wife and kid, when they come to him for help supporting the family and he ignores them, that the monk did a good job. So you need to rationalize that. It is obvious that this was fabricated by some officious monks later. In fact there is another stratum there implying that the Buddha was an ascetic from his early teens. So the whole getting married and having son and then leaving wife and son thing is likely a myth to lionize celibacy. Also it's unlikely that he was a prince and all that. Further he is portrayed as a misogynist and foretells that allowing nuns will cause a huge downfall in the sangha in the future and is not a good idea, and he is reluctant to allow nuns at first. This smells very much of later monks explaining some problem by blaming women and then attributing it to the Buddha. Also there is no archaeological evidence proving that he was born in current Nepal. Also he is portrayed telling people to chant certain texts as protection from snakebites. What nonsense. There is a lot of stuff in there less believable than born of a virgin. It is quite full of nonsense. If the Buddha were exactly as he is portrayed in the Canon then all of Buddhism would be a sham because he would not be someone to emulate and the whole enterprise rests on the possibility of perfection that he is supposed to exemplify. So you should be running away from the biography as fast as you can. Even his first name, Siddhartha, means "he who achieves his aim." It is not attested in the earliest sources. His other name is much more certain. The name "Siddhartha," being the most appropriate possible name, is almost certainly a later invention, or an epithet that became a name at some point. In the modern age no religion can rest upon infallibility of texts. This makes it more difficult to be religious but it is also liberating. Relying on infallibility of texts is very un-Buddhist and smacks of deluded self-concept. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

who said something of infalibility of texts? Throughout Buddhist texts there's the "you must practice this, you must not believe in this just because but understand it" idea... it's even like a mantra of "non dogma". And you said a lot without references or context. I'm learning sanskrit and pali to translate the pali tipitaka to spanish (later to english). THEN I can make generalizations like "the pali tipitaka says so and so", no before. A Buddha is more about awakening than perfection.

"Also he is portrayed telling people to chant certain texts as protection from snakebites." on one of the sutras that I've read, such nonsense (adivination, luck amulets and the like) is explained as something to avoid.

"Further he is portrayed as a misogynist..." AFAIK, Buddhism was actually one of the most freeing religious movements for women at the time. Again, you talk much without references.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to prove anything. It's for you to prove things are accepted by reputable historians if you want them presented as historical fact. Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube's insertion has confused things. The above was a response to the preceding remark. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

cleanup taskforce

can this template be deleted? {{cleanup taskforce notice|Buddhism}}

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. We're still trying to sort it out. If they ever turn up, they might like to join in> Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey's structure

As this is the basis of what we're trying @ present, I think it would help to explain its rationale a bit more.

• Teachings, ie more theoretical, abstract
  1. Theravada
     1. Worldly teaching: rebirth & karma
     2. World-transcending teaching: 4NT (including 8-fold path & dependent origination)
  2. Mahayana: claims of course to be more advanced
     • Philosophy
     • Holy beings
• Practice, ie more concrete, down-to-earth, practical; arranged in progressive order:
  1. Devotion
  2. Morality
     1. Lay
     2. Monastic
  3. Meditation (& wisdom)

If we want to use this structure, we should stick to the principles on which it's based. There are many possible structures we could use, but taking 1 & messing it up isn't a sensible way of producing 1. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

no, that's the basis of what YOU are trying to present. It is different from the current structure of the article, why not just continue from this current structure instead of chosing the index of 1 book (or is it your own?) over everyone? The index of this article is basicaly Template:Buddhism--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many sensible ways of arranging the article. Harvey's is 1, & that was what we adopted some time ago. What I'm saying is that if you make random changes to a coherent structure you're very unlikely to end up with another coherent structure. Instead you get an incoherent 1. There's a danger of that here if we're not careful.

As regards the template, as I said before, that's biased, having a section called foundations. Peter jackson (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddha eras?

No source is cited for this concept. Is there any evidence that it's important? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

in Buddhism it does exist, see maitreya... the section just needs some references... if we plan to keep it.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Practice

There's hardly anything left in this section except the 3 refuges. Has someone deliberately deleted most of it, or is it just a lot of people deleting different bits? I don't think it's a good idea. Harvey, our source for this structure, gives roughly equal space to teachings & practices, which seems sensible to me. Giving just abstract theories without practical details gives a very unbalanced picture of Buddhism, or, I suspect, to many readers, no particularly clear picture at all. Peter jackson (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the The Noble Eightfold Path section can be moved to practice, but it was YOU who "argued against" this move.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that there's

• virtually nothing about any form of devotion except the 3 refuges
• absolutely nothing about morality, lay or monastic
• very little about meditation, & that only 1 type

Moving 8-fold path wouldn't help. What we need is more down-to-earth detail, not more abstraction. Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, what are you talking about other devotions except 3 refuges? These three are the most important and I've no idea what kind of devotions you mean.

We can add details about the five and eight precepts, types of meditations etc. This also seems to need a major rewriting. --Chamath Mc (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look @ Buddhist devotion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No common core?

Can we please have the quotes for this: "Scholars have failed to agree on a "common core" or "ideal Buddhism" behind the different forms." This is a matters of degrees. Of course they could all agree to some core elements. I think that this very short sentence is being used in a misleading way to advance a certain point of view. Mitsube (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

in this I concur.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

family of religions

what is meant by "family of religions" besides the usual schools and branches in the same religion? This is misleading. Does Buddhists (which I'm part of) claim that Buddhism is a "family of religions" instead of one religion with various schools? Are this new lines about painting a "balkanized picture" of Buddhism?!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)