Talk:Buddhism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Beyond Charles Eliot and the 4NT

Archived to Talk:Buddhism/Archive Buddhism_Policy and re-submitted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism

BUDDHISM IS NOT THE EARLIEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD

The three citations [182, 183, 184] referring to a claim that Buddhism is the earliest religion in the world is very misleading. The timeline showng the beginning of buddhism was only several hundreds years before Christ, however, in the Old Testament, one can easily find many books referring to the existence of religion far far before Buddhism. In Buddhism, the concept of causation of sin and punishment was described in the Old Testament in the Bible in book "Job", which was about 2000 years before Christ. Job was very faithful but he suffered a lot in his life. This book chapter in the Old Testament described his strong faith in God through his conversations with his best friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hk0618 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no actual physical evidence of Judaism before Buddhism, only fake stories written much later. For example, Abraham is a myth according to every scholar. LhunGrub (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hindu scripture goes back millions of years. Take that as you will ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.119.152 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

i would doubt that- there are books of the bible which are confirmed to be at least 4000 years old. also, I'm new to wikipedia, if i did anything wrong in writing this please inform me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.173.84 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(Preceding comment reformatted for display) Dru of Id (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kruger (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Why is there a false claim that there are no physical signs of Judaism before Buddhism. What about the first temple, destroyed 586 BCE? The temple was built 400 years prior to that. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls--themselves dating from 200 BCE (physical enough) and copies of Prophecies that came to modern times, (almost word for word in some cases) from other, independent sources. Also, who is "every scholar" who qualifies Abraham as a myth? Maimonides, perhaps? (sarcastic)Mark Kruger (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally find it hard to believe that any modern religion can claim to be the 'earliest' in the world. There are signs of religious activity (ritual burial, ornaments, etc) going back at least 40,000y if not 160,000y, but the remaining evidence (e.g. using red ochre during burial) of such activity bears no resemblance to any modern religions. If we are to accept religious texts as being valid, then Buddhism is indeed very old - indeed timeless, in that it predates the beginning of the universe, with Sakyamuni Buddha being the fourth Buddha of this particular universal cycle, but with an infinite number of cycles (and corresponding Buddhas) predating this one. However, if we want to examine the oldest extant religion using archeological data, we are still on incredibly difficult ground - for instance, pre-Persian (but nevertheless post-Abraham - see (see Semitic gods ) for pre-Abraham religious activity in the Levant) Judaism looked completely different from post-persian Judaism; one may claim that the thread of Judaism is long, but to claim that it's the same religion (and that it is unchanged over millennia) would not be acceptable to most scholars. Likewise, the thread of Hinduism, via the early Brahmin traditions centred on the Rg Veda, also go way back into the Copper age (7,000y). (see Proto-Indo-European religion It is hard to be precise about the age of the Rg Vedas, but they certainly involve such inventions as the bow, the chariot, and so on, so from an anthropological/archeological viewpoint they cannot predate the Copper age . Likewise, the Avestas of the Zoroastrians are ancient, and for many scholars appear to belong to an opposing but theologically related population. By the time one gets to examine the evidence of PIE religious activity it would be hard to separate 'Hinduism', 'Zoroastrianism', Pre-Abrahamic 'Judaism', from the generic Indo-European pantheon with any particularly meaningful distinction. I guess one may make an assertion that Zoroaster or Abraham popularised monotheistic religion, but that's not the same as stating that such religions are the oldest in the world. Of course, the unbroken thread of the dreamtime traditions of the Australian aborigines predate (evidence demonstrates at least 10,000y) the Copper age Indo-European pantheon (7,000y) by 3,000 years. (20040302 (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

There is a lot of evidence showing that Abrahamic/Semitic tradition predates Buddhism, which indeed inherits (and/or refutes) many doctrinal concepts from its mother religion Vedic Hinduism. I donʻt think I understand what user 20040302 means by "Pre-Abrahamic ʻJudaismʻ" since there was no ʻJudaismʻ before or during the alleged time of Abraham; perhaps a simple form of monotheism, but not the tradition originating with the prophet Moses some 400 years later.

Nevertheless, Buddhism, as past down from Siddhartha Gautama over 2400 years ago, is still fairly intact if we can accept that what is recorded in the Tripitaka is historical. The Vinaya lineage tradition (ʻcommandmentsʻ) is still practiced by both Theravada and Mahayana devotees, but are more or less limited in the Mahayana due to cultural constraints in various East Asian areas. We can at least confidently say that vinaya tradition goes back to the time of the Buddhaʻs immediate disciples, some 2400 years ago. -Ano-User (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that the sentence says 'oldest world religion', not oldest religion. A world religion is conventionally defined by having spread widely beyond the cultural group in which it originated- a description that would fit Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam but not Judaism or Zoroastrianism. Hinduism seems like a bit of an edge case- areas of Southeast Asia were certainly Brahmanist at various times, but that tradition does not seem to have spread much beyond the upper classes or to have endured historically much outside of India. --69.181.117.168 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The term world bears no weight, as the concept of the world is a cultural one. Ideas that there is a well-defined boundary of a 'cultural group' doesn't mean much either. IMO The claim is of no particular value, and is merely provocative. I would likewise state that for Buddhism, it's pervasion and or popularity doesn't demonstrate any particular quality or benefit. So what is it for? (20040302 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

astrologer

Is the reference to an astrologer who visited G shortly after his birth meant to refer to Kala Devala?Kdammers (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

--When editing the lead section keep in mind what a reader may want to know: what, who, where, when and how. Please don't delete this advice!--> Buddhism (Pali/Sanskrit: बौद्ध धर्म Bauddha Dharma) is a philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, Webdrag (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In this first part of the wiki about Buddhism i want to delete the part where they say Buddhism is a religion because its not.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Previous discussion on this issue may be found in the archives. While a good argument could be made for your position, the current version is the consensus version worked out by multiple editors through discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

rebirth

i want to know clear idea about this.i believe after death we rebirth and before birth we have some intermidite position untill we get rebirth.that mean when we die in the same time we will not go to next birth.sometime it will take time to get birth.so in that time what is happening us.ple give u r ideas about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.18 (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You may find what you are looking for at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism. Try there. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Vairocana

Hello. I'm a little bit troubled by this sentence (in Buddhism#Similar_representations), and wonder if anybody here can and would improve it. I changed it twice and I hope it's fair to say now. "Statues of Amitābha, the central figure in Pure Land Buddhism, and statues of Vairocana, in Shingon and Vajrayana Buddhism, are likewise distinct from statues of Gautama." Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Steve (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your opinion. The part "distinct from statues of Gautama" seems to have solved my problem which got into accidentally saying their identities can be confused. So I think this is okay now. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

Snoochismooches (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on karma

I think the following paragraph contains some inaccuracies:

In Theravada Buddhism there can be no divine salvation or forgiveness for one's karma, since it is a purely impersonal process that is a part of the makeup of the universe. Some Mahayana traditions hold different views. For example, the texts of certain Mahayana sutras (such as the Lotus Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra) claim that reciting or merely hearing their texts can expunge great swathes of negative karma. Some forms of Buddhism (for example, Vajrayana) regard the recitation of mantras as a means for cutting off previous negative karma. The Japanese Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.

Considering the first part:

In Theravada Buddhism there can be no divine salvation or forgiveness for one's karma, since it is a purely impersonal process that is a part of the makeup of the universe. Some Mahayana traditions hold different views. Some Mahayana traditions hold different views. For example, the texts of certain Mahayana sutras (such as the Lotus Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra) claim that reciting or merely hearing their texts can expunge great swathes of negative karma.

• The concept of divine salvation or forgiveness does not apply to Mahayana traditions, and the examples given don't support the assertion. Regarding the examples:
  1. We need to rely on reliable secondary sources, not our interpretations of primary sources, as per WP guidelines.
  2. I'm not that familiar with the sutras that are cited, but strongly suspect the word "expunge" is either an inaccurate translation or inaccurate paraphrase of the actual translation. In the Mahayana in general, there are practices such as the "seven branch offering" that are considered to be powerful means to purify past negative karma. But making offerings to the buddhas, for example, does not imply a belief in divinity; it is considered a skillful means for the practitioner to purify their own karma.

Considering the next sentence:

Some forms of Buddhism (for example, Vajrayana) regard the recitation of mantras as a means for cutting off previous negative karma.[Dr. Richard K. Payne (ed.), Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2006, p. 74]

• Again, it is not possible to "cut off" previous karma, in either Mahayana or Vajrayana. And the citation does not back up this assertion. The citation seems to refer to a quote from a primary source that is ambiguous and does not directly support the assertion. So in this case, neither the secondary source (the author of the book) nor the primary source (the quote from a sutra) support the assertion.

I strongly suspect that the last sentence is also a misinterpretation, but I haven't been able to check the source yet:

The Japanese Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.[ref name="Lopez, p. 239"][ref name="Lopez, Buddhism. p. 248"] - Dorje108 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is in fact true that the three Mahayana sutras quoted state that bad karma can be destroyed (expunged is perfectly accurate as a translation) by veneration of those sutras. This type of belief is not rare in the Mahayana. The Buddha and his pronouncements are viewed as mightily powerful. Here, for example, is a quote from the Buddha of the Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra, which is along the lines I have indicated:

“Although it is mentioned in the sūtras that such karmic actions do exist, merely by listening to this sūtra countless, countless deeds that have been done will be extinguished. Why is that ? Over many uncountable millions of aeons, the Tathāgata made a vow for the sake of the world that all beings would be free after he himself was free, that he would liberate all beings after he himself passed over [to liberation]. Due to the wholesome root of that manner of vow, the Tathāgata extinguishes the totality of karmic actions that have been done by his effulgence, [which is like] the light of the sun." Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your comment and the information, Suddha. It's really very tricky to rely on primary sources, because without understanding the context, it is easy to misinterpret these texts. But even if we stipulate that these sutras are asserting that you can purify (or extinguish) "countless actions" (or karmic actions) through reciting the sutra, that does not imply any notion of "forgiveness" or "divine salvation".

• "Forgiveness" means one being is "forgiving" another. And that is not being asserted in these sutras.
• "Divine salvation" also implies that there is a "divine" being that is intervening and saving someone from their fate. That also is not being asserted.

What is being asserted in the quote that Suddha provided is that "if you recite this sutra, it's going to be very good for you. It's going to purify a lot of your karma. It's going to purify countless actions from your past." It doesn't say "how" this is going to happen. It doesn't say that if you do this then "the buddha is going to 'forgive' you." It doesn't say anything about "divine salvation" or "forgiveness" which is what the article is asserting. We can still have different opinions about what this sutra means, but we still don't have any reliable secondary sources to back up a claim of divine salvation or forgiveness. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Dorje. Thank you for your very nice and informative reply. Actually, I agree with you: I think it is going too far to say that such actions as hearing (or venerating) a particular sutra will cause the doer to receive 'divine salvation' or 'forgiveness' - you are absolutely right. I think that the sentence in our Wiki article which speaks of wiping out negative karma by venerating (or hearing) certain sutras should indicate that this is not due to some act of divine intervention, but is, as it were, a natural effect stemming from the power of certain wholesome actions. All best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Hi Suddha, thanks for your response! I'll have some more comments/suggestions, but it will take me a little while to formulate them. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many sects of buddhism?

really...? western world has not done enough with sectarianism in its own Abrahmic religious studies where it is trying to find numerous forms of Buddhism across the world. Whats the point of saying that Buddhism in New York is different from Buddhism of Tokyo? can anyone explain this? This is the culmination of intellectual emptiness.220.255.1.149 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to something in the article? I was unable to find anything like this in the text. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reordered

Hello. Theravada, Mahayana, and sometimes Vajrayana appeared three times in the table of contents: in "Buddhist concepts", "History", and in "Schools and traditions". I moved some stuff around and now they're only in two places: "History" and "Schools and traditions". Anybody is welcome to roll back those changes. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Hi. If restoring Category:Religion was an error, please feel free to revert my change. Buddhism is a world religion by some people's estimation (and not only an Indian religion). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

More info on Siddhartha Gautam

More information should be added on this page, especially the pictures. Siddharta Gautam (Buddha) was born in Lumbini, Nepal and was raised in Kapilvastu, Nepal. He comes from a Royal family "Shakyamuni" of Kapilvastu, Nepal.

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lumbini 4.jpg File:Http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nyT0I9-H5DY/Tiexmnh f I/AAAAAAAAA7Q/93DuMNj9J c/s1600/kapilvastu.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.169.236 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

8.Tṛṣṇā: literally thirst, but in Buddhism nearly always used to mean craving;

8.Tṛṣṇā: literally thirst,in Buddhism always used as a metaphor for (strong) desire Savaka (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012

125.24.249.41 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

125.24.249.41 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No request—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Central Asian monk with blue eyes

The thumbnail image of the East Asian monk and the Central Asian monk in the article originally read "blue-eyed Central Asian monk". In the painting itself, the blue eyes are very obvious, but not at thumbnail size. This detail has been deleted repeatedly by Retrospector87. The first deletion was under the pretense that the statement was ambiguous, and could be interpreted as the East Asian monk also having blue eyes. When I corrected the sentence structure to remove the ambiguity, the detail was deleted again. This time the reason given for deletion was: blue eye debate conclusion: not all Central Asians possess blue eyes as defining feature: undoing an obvious elevation of white, Caucasian traits in 'Asian' figures.

Now, aside from the bad form of imposing a "debate conclusion" by deleting material rather than having an actual discussion on the talking page, the reason given this time is different from the original reason. Here I am being accused of "elevating white, Caucasian traits in 'Asian' figures." To begin with, I find this offensive and ill-founded, as it is wildly inaccurate on several levels. Blue eyes are not a uniquely white Caucasian feature in any way, nor do all white Caucasians have blue eyes. Since the figure is clearly labeled as a Central Asian, I don't see how this could be misconstrued as white Caucasian. What is notable, and what I have clearly written in my edit summary as well, is that people who are ethnically Indian or Chinese do not typically have blue eyes. Therefore, the "blue eyes" bit is useful in identifying the figure as Central Asian rather than Indian or Chinese.

White Caucasians are out of the question, since they would have been extremely rare in this region of the world, and probably only existed in small numbers as merchants along the Silk Road. Chinese monks had many contacts with both Indian and Central Asian monks, so it is useful to make a distinction. In general, notable details should be included in thumbnail captions. Tengu800 13:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Definately blue. Quite unusual for Central Asia. But there are also blue-eyed Turks. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake for not taking this issue on talk pages. I only expected this to be of minor significance, seeing no dispute ahead, but the Jonathan guy helped proved my own point: blue eyes are "[q]uite unusual for Central Asia." When you think of Central Asians during this time period, do you think of them as ALL having blue eyes? You're not stupid so I think your answer would be no. Therefore, you are on very tenuous grounds when you claim that "...blue eyes...[are] useful in identifying the figure as Central Asian 'rather' than Indian or Chinese." How can an unusual, arbitrary characteristic qualify as good identification of an entire people? What is this, dare I say, obsession, with keeping a detail that is coincidental and insignificant to the portrait? Retrospector87 (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not really obsessed with it, but I did not like that the detail was being deleted, because it gives concrete information about the figure. Blue eyes are not completely arbitrary, as people who are ethnically Indian or Chinese typically do not have blue eyes. However, Central Asian people may have blue eyes. For example, the Uyghur people often have blue eyes. So given the geographic location of the fresco and the blue eyes of the monk, researchers may make the educated guess that this monk was very likely from the Buddhist kingdom of Khotan, which was then an important center for Mahayana Buddhism, and for the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism. Tengu800 00:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the eye color a necessary thing to explain? Does it increase the understanding of the image in any way? The image appears to be used in a few articles, are there any reliable sources that discuss the image? Do they note the eye color as a key feature of the image? If reliable sources don't support a reasoning for the blue eyes or note it in any way then any meaning inferred from the eye color would be WP:OR. - SudoGhost 02:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If thumbnail descriptions required references, then practically all of thumbnail descriptions on Wikipedia could be deleted. Even the description of the monks as Central Asian and East Asian could be deleted and considered original research. I doubt that there is any information on this painting specifically, since the these paintings are numerous, but still an obscure subject. My point is that the detail tells us more about the figure in question, so I don't see why this information was deleted. Tengu800 11:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The thumbnail does not require a reference, but that doesn't mean we can give it any description we wish. The relevance is being questioned, if there aren't any reliable sources that can support giving weight to us pointing that out, then I don't think it's as important as suggested but rather WP:UNDUE. The image also has other features, such as the halos and many other minor details, but we don't point out tiny insignificant details unless someone can show that it isn't insignificant. - SudoGhost 14:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it was deleted either. It's ludicrous that SudoGhost wants a reference that supports its mention for a thumbnail description. SudoGhost's opinion is that it is an insignificant detail, but that opinion is ridiculous. 59Hokas45 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't insignificant, then that means there is a reliable source that can show the significance of it, and that needs to be shown. If there's no source showing that this is a notable thing, then it is WP:UNDUE for us to draw that conclusion on our own. - SudoGhost 21:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You’re misconstruing and perverting the intent and stated policy of WP:UNDUE. There is no viewpoint at stake. Your misuse of WP:UNDUE would allow for the description of the monks being Chinese and Central Asian to be removed. Your comments provoke questions of your competence. 59Hokas45 (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite your rather silly personal attacks, your silence speaks volumes and what I read between the lines is "I don't have a source and I can't prove in that the eye color is significant in any way." It's an insignificant thing, and I welcome you to show otherwise, but short of doing that it doesn't belong in the article, sorry. - SudoGhost 22:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Go back, read, and understand WP:UNDUE. There is no viewpoint at stake. Unless you can support your claim, what I read between your lines is “my competence is questionable in a significant way.” sorry. - 59Hokas45 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:UNDUE does not support what you're saying. There are no sources showing that this "blue eye" descriptor is significant in any way, and if you claim something is significant, you have to be able to show it. Otherwise, it's your viewpoint against my viewpoint, and that's not how Wikipedia articles are constructed; if you think it's significant you need to show that. Short of that, it doesn't belong, and will not be in the article. You'll also find that attacking other editors, surprisingly enough, does not help you in any way, quite the opposite. When you personally attack other editors, what it usually means is that you know your comments are without merit so you try to undermine the other editors instead. This is not as effective as you might think. - SudoGhost 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to attack you, merely stating the obvious. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you need to read the policy before you reference it. - 59Hokas45 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I did read WP:UNDUE, and I know what it says, which is why I referenced it. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If there are no reliable sources, then this aspect (the eye color) is insignificant. This is the only thing that is "obvious". If you're going to continue to attack others then we're done here. Your incivility has no place on this talk page, and your changes have no place in this article, per Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 23:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources show that it is significant, but no sources say that it is insignificant. Three people think it is significant. Two people think it is insignificant. You are the only one perverting wikipedia policy. I'm finished with you. - 59Hokas45 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And what sources show that the blue eyes in this picture are significant? That another person has blue eyes somehow makes this image significant in this way is original research. Not liking what policy says does not make it a "perversion". Editor opinion does not trump policy, especially when one of those "three" is a single purpose account that was only created to give support to this one thing. - SudoGhost 00:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Mentioning the blue eyes might be interesting, for the historical facts, namely caucasian migration to Central Asia, and for the meaning attached to blue eyes, namely western barbarians. Only a short overview, sorry, my household is waiting... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that mention of the blue eyes is relevant, given the regio of origin of the picture, and the history of the Silk Road Transmission of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian migration to Central Asia

Running out of time, just three sources:

• Baij Nath Puri, Buddhism In Central Asia
• Reuel R. Hanks, Central Asia: A Global Studies Handbook
• Chokan Chingisovich Valikhanov & Mikhail Ivanovich Venyukov, The Russians in Central Asia: their occupation of the Kirghiz steppe and the ...

Blue-eyed barbarians

• Ethnic issues in China#Against Europeans and Westerners
• Harold Lamb, Howard Andrew Jone &James Enge, Swords from the East

Bodhidharma as blue-eyed barbarian

The Wiki-article on bodhidharma mentions Bodhidharma as "Blue-eyed barbarian". Here's the source: Soothill, Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist terms

This web-article, on red-haired mummies, mentions more sources: “Blue-Eyed Barbarian” (Cleary, J. C., 1988; Cleary, T., 1978; Corless, 1989; Iryŏn, 1972; Reid and Croucher, 1983; Soothill and Hodous, 1969; ..... A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms. And to give a quote from this site (unfortunately without references...):

Chinese art shows pale-skinned, red-headed, blue-eyed monks with beards obviously from a race and culture very different from the Han Chinese. Sporting partially-shaved heads, dangling earlobes, and the lotus-shaped hand posture, these white Europoids are obviously Buddhist monks bringing the new faith to the Chinese along commercial and migratory routes that they had followed when they left the Tarim Basin for Afghanistan. The entire facial appearance of the white Buddhist missionaries is different: the original artists did not simply depict humanoids in general or Chinese men with red hair. They were portraying a very foreign racial group.

Ah, I've found a real reference: J. P. Mallory, Victor H. Mair (2008), The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. Unfortunately, no electric edition available... But the above link gives a quote:

Modern DNA and ancient DNA show that Uighurs, Kazaks, Krygyzs, the peoples of Central Asia are all mixed Caucasian and East Asian. The modern and ancient DNA tell the same story.

Indeed, this is correct. Old ideas about races and whiteness are more or less irrelevant when discussing Central Asian people. Tests such as these give historical insight into the fact that Central Asia was always a melting pot of different people and cultures. Unfortunately Central Asian Buddhist traditions have received extremely little attention from scholarship. Retrospector87 has attempted to characterize blue eyes as "white Caucasian" and fundamentally different from "Asian" characteristics. This is naive and inaccurate. Tengu800 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's naive and inaccurate for you to describe my arguments as fundamentally separating "white Caucasians" as having blue eyes vs. Asians who don't. This is another example of you underreading an argument that we both find as important in making. My main point is that it is because blue eyes are usually "white Caucasian" characteristics that Asians possessing them makes it such a special phenomenon, that it warrants pointing out in the portrait description. Again, as someone pointed out earlier, other little things like the presence of halos is not something you thought to point out, but only the blue eyes, because they supposedly point out something significant. That significant thing -let me say it now- is that blue eyes are in an Asian figure. The utter unusualness and exoticness of it is enough for you to point out in an encyclopedic setting, even though you try (and fail) to hide behind the supposed fact that having this description will give the reader objective information about the portrait in question. Retrospector87 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the detail of halos and the detail of blue eyes, is that blue eyes are not visible at thumbnail size (but very clearly seen at full size), whereas the halos are obvious at thumbnail size. There is no need to point out a major element of a thumbnail image that everyone will clearly understand by simply seeing the thumbnail. Moreover, as I have stated numerous times, the blue eyes are significant because they are evidence that the figure is Central Asian rather than Indian or Chinese. Tengu800 12:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to come back on the "unusualness" of blue eyes in Centra Asia: after scrolling through the various links I found, it's obvious that blue eyes are not that unusual in Central Asia. This reflects a fascinating history of migration and the spread of Buddhism via the Silk Route. So to mention the blue eyes does have a function, in (implicitly) pointing to this complex history. Which, at least for me, has nothing to do with the "supremacy" of one group or the other, but with curiosity which is being triggered by such details. I'd never heard before of those mummies, the Kingdom of Khotan, or given any thought to the Silk Route. Now I have. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also a Wiki-article on the mummies Tarim mummies Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the red-haired mummies article (not the Wikipedian article) is from a pro-white group, White News Now Headline News... They, at least, seem to give a racial supremacy interpretation to the blue eyes...

If they are right (a check is definately necessary), the Chinese government doesn't like these red-haired mummies and blue-eyed cave-paintings. This issue is getting complicated... (And to be very clear: though I'm blue-eyed, I don't like blue-eye supremacy theories. I'm a living falsification of such theories anyway) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Decontructing oppressive narratives

"The Jonathan guy" would prefer to be adressed as "Jonathan" or "Joshua Jonathan", instead of "the guy". It seems to me that Retrospector87 is "[inferring] meaning [...] from the eye color". I don't read any statement of "ALL having blue eyes", nor "identification of an entire people" in Tengu's remarks; this meaning is in Retrospector87's interpretation. Tengu is "identifying the figure". The eye-color apparantly is not "coincidental", nor "insignificant". And I think that there is a difference between deconstructing oppressive narratives, and constructing a narrative disguised as deconstructing oppressive narratives. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "Jonathan guy" because I don't know you personally, Jonathan. In any case, I was actually using Tengu800's words to make the point of his generalizing, albeit poorly, Central Asians with blue eyes. If it's my interpretation, Tengu800 helped make the bulk of my argument. As for your point about decontructing oppressive narratives, what do you mean by that? I'd like to discuss that point. Retrospector87 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Retrospector87. I noticed that you studied "Critical Theory and Social Justice". So did I, that is, I studied something called "Policy, Organisation and Society", mentored by a former Marxist. My thesis was on social security and disciplination.

What I mean with my remark, is that your notice of the blue eyes-description is in line with a critical approach of science and derivates like Wikipedia, which does not only represent knowledge, but also creates new realities. So being careful in what is written down, and the tone in which it is stated, is extremely important.

When you're connecting the mention of the blue eyes with "obvious elevation of white, Caucasian traits", you seem to be connecting this detail with narratives of racial supremacy, and indirectly you seem to be making accusations of racism. Whether or not this is your intention, and if so, I'm very sure it is with sincere intentions, but it is an implicit connection which at least will be made by others. And that's not fair. It's something very hard to defend against.

Decosntruction is good; it makes one aware of the implications of narratives (discourse, in Foucault's terminology). But deconstruction is also a narrative, and it creates yet another discourse. Which it is very important to be aware of, lest damage may be done. As far as I remember, Habermas was optimistic about this. Foucault rather saw Habermas' point of view as idealism, instead of optimism; Foucault was aware of this continuous construction of narratives, and deemed ongoing deconstruction important. Habermas gives me a better feeling, but I'm afraid Foucault was more "right".

And let me repeat: I don't doubt your good intentions. But please, be critical of the implications of the written word. All the best to you, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think Tengu800 is generalizing. Read careful. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jonathan. Thanks for the response. I just want to make three points. First, I more than agree with you on the value and danger of creating deconstructive narratives. That Foucauldian theme is actually a major part of my studies going into grad school. (By the way, if you're bothered by Foucault's harsh anti-empiricism, you don't want to read, nay touch, Nietzsche's writings on nihilism and the death of God (and Truth). Foucault, more than anything, was a Nietzschean, but not Nietzsche.) Second, the contentious point you made about the implicit accusation of racial supremacy is correct. I was attempting to bring into light what I saw was a committed elevation of white, Caucasian traits in 'Asian' figures. The issue of whether or not it was fair to bring up, however, is up for debate. I think you know where I stand on that. Finally, in regards to your plea for more careful reading, I'm kindly reminding you one more time that I'm quoting Tengu800 when he generalizes Central Asians. His words, not mine. Retrospector87 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we're walking (and talking) on common ground. Nice! :) Funny that you mention Nietzsche; Andre van de Braak did a PhD-research on Nietzsche and Buddhism. I'm going to Google now for sources on "blue eyes", Central Asia and Buddhism. It might be that there is some very interesting intertextuality here at play: Bodhidharma as 'blue-eyed monk from the western countries', and 'blue-eyed barbarians'. I don't know if this line of thought is going to be acceptable (OR), but it's interesting anyway. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough

I think it's time to finish the blue-eyes discussion, it's getting out of hand now. That's not worth it. The blue eyes are beginning to get a quite unpleasant look. It's clear that there are different opinions, but to my opinion we've argued enough. Let's leave it here, with blue eyes in the picture, but no mention of it in the commentary. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. That's fair. I agree to that. - 59Hokas45 (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. We may have another problem to work out, however. The talk page for the picture is a bit outdated, not to mention descriptively problematic. Retrospector87 (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Talk pages are just places for editors to discuss the article... Tengu800 03:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the remarks on the Talk Page of the photo on the origin of the red-haired monk, and given the melting pot of Central Asia, a neutral description would be "Central Asian monk teaching East Asian monk". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost was probably correct in his comments about original research and verifiability. Their applicability to thumbnail image descriptions does seem like a grey area, but these are still the closest guidelines for us to follow. He deserves some credit for maintaining this type of rigor. Tengu800 02:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

Please erase an external link "Current Japanese Buddhism", because it's not about general explanation of it. The linked video on Youtube is about expelling evil spirit out of human body by psychic priests. It is a very dishonorable prank. As a Japanese Buddhist myself, I strongly urge you to erase this link immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2X6ezH28Dc&feature=related

Ikaruga222 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. It wouldn't be particularly useful even if it weren't a prank, per WP:NONENGEL. Shrigley (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Two great criticisms of this article

Check them out!

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Criticism_of_Wikipedia_article_on_Buddhism

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Criticism_of_Wikipedia_article_on_Buddhism/Featured_Article

Shii (tock) 05:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like that was written almost entirely by User:Peter jackson, who used to be a very active participant here (check the archives). /ninly_(talk) 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not very helpful, in my opinion. - Dorje108 (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on here, neither link gets me anyplace. Is somebody playing games? Or am I just clueless...--Joel Mc (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Eliminating Hatred??

The end of the openinig paragraph states "He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering (dukkha) through eliminating ignorance (avidyā), craving (taṇhā), and hatred, by way of understanding and seeing dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and non-self (anātman), and thus attain the highest happiness, nirvāņa (nirvana)."

Where does this special focus on hatred, as opposed to other merely human emotions, come from? And why is it preseted at the outset of the article on Buddhist thought? I suspect it is making Buddhism out to have a subtle political or 'ethical' bent, which it simply does not. In Buddhism, such a focus on reducing hatred, as opposed to happiness or love, would be a reflection of 'Tanha', which as another wikipedia article states "...is the craving or desire to hold onto pleasurable experiences, to be separated from painful or unpleasant experiences, and for neutral experiences or feelings not to decline". The elimination of hatred is not one of the main tenents of buddhism, any more than eliminating it's opposite all-too-human emotion is. Buddhism is only concerned with human emotions insofar as they represent participation in samsaric existence, the world of becoming. Thus it is only concerned with human emotions in so far as they are to be a target of detachment. It is not concerned with human emotions insofar as one or another particular emotion is to be promoted above the others. Therefore it is arbitrary to write in the introduction of the article on Buddhism that one of its main properties, as a cultural phenomenon and religious, spirital and philosophical movement, is the 'elimination of hatred'. I propose this be deleted, or added to in order to include the contrasting human emotions that also reflect an attachment to samsaric existence. David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.216.58 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less correct. The problem is that we have many editors contributing to this article and there is nobody maintaining a stable version. For example, the last time I was able to verify that paragraph, it read, "He is recognized by adherents as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end suffering, achieve nirvana, and escape what is seen as a cycle of suffering and rebirth." I will restore it now. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of restoring it, I opted to just eliminate "hatred". :) Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Viriditas :). David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.216.58 (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the statement was sort of referring to the three poisons (or the three unwholesome roots), which are generally referred to as the root cause of suffering in the Mahayana tradition and the Theravada Abhidharma tradition. So the statement wasn't incorrect, but it was awkwardly worded. I think the edit is fine, though, since it reads more clearly in this case. (The aspect of aversion/hatred is implied within tanha--it is one of the "three channels" of tanha. So referring to avidya and tanha or the "three poisons" are just different ways of expressing the same concept.) - Dorje108 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, we should include the third channel, but call it not something as loaded as 'hatred' but rather 'aversion'. Because if your using 'hatred' as a synonym for the 'aversion' channel then you've no choice but to use 'love' as a synonym for the 'attachment' or 'craving' channel, surely. This is getting very semantic I know. David.

I think the sentence is OK for now just referring to avidya and tanha. Good catch. :) Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012

Under topic Nirvana, 2nd paragraph, there is a small grammatical error:

"scriptures, coming refer to only to the extinction of greed and hate,"

"refer to" should be "to refer" 72.87.192.176 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for catching that. - SudoGhost 01:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Section on the "Four Noble Truths"

I am planning on replacing the current text on the Four Noble Truths with the text at this link: User:Dorje108/FNT overview new

The reasons for this change are explained below:

Considering this presentation of the FNT:

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craving also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

This method is described by early Western scholars, and taught as an introduction to Buddhism by some contemporary Mahayana teachers (for example, the Dalai Lama).<ref>See for example: [http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html ''The Four Noble Truths'']</ref>

Regarding the presentation above:

• The above summary of the Four Noble Truths does not cite any reliable secondary sources, and I have not seen these truths presented in this manner in any of the sources that I have researched.
• This is not the way the Dalai Lama teaches the four noble truths. See Four_Noble_Truths#CITEREFDalai_Lama1998
• The reference cited, for "The Big View" website, does not meet the criteria for a Reliable Secondary source. There is no indication that the writer/editor[1] for the site has published any writing.
• For summaries of the four noble truths from Reliable Secondary Sources, see Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-40
  • Note that the summary from Macmillan within the current section is also consistent with other Reliable Secondary Sources.

Considering the following paragraph:

The traditional Theravada understanding is that the Four Noble Truths are an advanced teaching for those who are ready for them.<ref>Harvey, ''Introduction'', p. 47</ref><ref name=penguin>{{Cite book| title = The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions |author = Hinnels, John R. | pages = 393f | publisher = Penguin Books | location = London | year = 1998 | isbn = 0-14-051480-5}}</ref> The East Asian Mahayana position is that they are a preliminary teaching for people not yet ready for the higher and more expansive Mahayana teachings.<ref>Harvey, ''Introduction to Buddhism'', p. 92</ref>

Regarding the above paragraph:

• The sources are reliable, but the paragraph presents inaccurate assumptions based on these sources. For example:
  • Harvey is the only source I have encountered that presents the FNT as advanced from the Theravada POV. Most Theravada sources do not present it this way. See Ajahn Sumedho here: Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-8, and Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanisaro Bhikkhu here: Four_Noble_Truths#cite_ref-11
  • There are multiple Mahayana sources (including the Dalai Lama and Thich Naht Hahn) that state that the FNT are the central teachings of Buddhism. See Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-8
• This is a tricky topic, and it's best dealt with in the main article on the Four Noble Truths. (We have begun addressing this topic within the main article, and I hope to clarify it further.)

I am planning to make these changes later today. If anyone has comments or objections, please cite Reliable Secondary Sources where appropriate. - Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this change makes the definitions less useful for a beginner. Is it necessary to begin each sentence with "The truth of..."? This might be a useful style for, say, chanting monks but it doesn't, to me, read well for a general encyclopaedia. Also, there isn't much informational content there. Take away "The truth of..." and all you have for the first Noble Truth is "Dukkha"! Useful in a streamlined checklist for arahants, perhaps, but what about the poor layman?

Combining your succinctness, the original, reducing the formulaic aspect, and we get something like:

1. Life is suffering (dukkha).
2. Suffering is caused by craving.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends.
4. Craving is brought to an end by following the path.

Reference: "Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction", Damien Keown, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2000, p.45. Mal (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mal, Thanks for including a reference in your comment. If you refer to the text that you cited (by Damien Keown), you'll notice that Keown does actually identify the four noble truths in the traditional manner when he is quoting the suttas: that is, The Truth of Suffering, etc.

In the passage that you are citing (on page 45), he is giving an interpretation of these truths. He states: "These [truths] assert that 1) Life is suffering", etc. And most contemporary scholars and translators do not agree with this interpretation of "Life is suffering..." Please refer to the Summary section of the main article (Four_Noble_Truths#Summary) and look at the footnotes; I've given a good sampling of summaries from a number of Reliable Secondary Sources.

To reiterate: the first noble truth of Buddhism is rendered in Buddhist texts as "The Truth of Dukkha" (or you can translate it "The Truth of Suffering"). It's Dukkha ariya sacca in Pali. There is no debate about this among an Reliable Secondary Source, including the source that you cited. If your read further in the text you cited, Keown writes:

"This truth, known in Buddhism as the ‘Truth of Suffering’, is the cornerstone of the Buddha’s teaching. The Truth of Suffering states that suffering (dukkha, Sanskrit: duhkḥa) is an intrinsic part of life, and it diagnoses the human condition as fundamentally one of ‘dis-ease’." -- Keown, Damien (2000-02-24). Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction (Kindle Locations 918-920). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

What you are suggesting is to substitute a minority interpretation of this universally agreed on "title" for the first noble truth. There is room for presenting different interpretations within the main article on this topic, but please don't confuse an interpretation with the formal names used to identify these truths.

Also, for a topic like this where people (such as myself) have done a lot of research, please wait for a response to your comments before making changes. I am going to respectfully revert your edits for the reasons stated above. Regards Dorje108 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion. the definition of religion is the belief in a god or a supernatural being combined with worship of that being. none of these precepts are present in the Buddhist philosophy. Buddha is not worshiped, he is not considered a god or deity.in no way can Buddhism be considered a religion. It is a philosophy and a way of life that is devoid of the worship of any God. Only ignorant people consider it a religion. I ask anyone to prove me wrong. I have been studying Buddhism for 30 years and I am an atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.29.39 (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

The Buddha, born in Lumbini, Nepal, lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbhanu (talk • contribs)

What is it you want edited? The article already says "Gautama was born in Lumbini in modern-day Nepal, around the year 563 BCE, and raised in Kapilavastu." - SudoGhost 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

Hi,

In the rebirth section of this article "Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception[30] to death. Buddhism rejects the concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in --Sandeep1415 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Hinduism--Sandeep1415 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC) and Christianity."

But Hinduism is the first religion to support rebirth. I think it would be Islam instead of Hinduism here.
Source wikipedia itself and this and also this Sandeep1415 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Another reference

Reference 2

Reference 3

I hope those would do. The entire concept of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is Rebirth.

Wikipedia can't be cited as a source. Floating Boat A boat that can float! 09:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, so I'm closing this editrequest. If something still needs doing, anyone who can clarify is welcome to reopen it or do it themselves. -— Isarra ༆ 06:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hay!! i dont know what do you mean by reliable source.... i cant come to you with a printed book to show it to you... In that case i would ask you the same can you tell me what source you took in deciding hindusim doesn't support rebirth...any way i am adding some more book links here..regarding the rebirth concept of hinduism..

Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma

The basics of Hinduism

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Mdann52 (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The sentence in question does not state that Hinduism rejects rebirth. It states that Buddhism rejects the concept of a permanent, unchanging "soul" (in chritianity, which survives death to live on in heaven or hell) or the similar concept of "atman" (in Hinduism, which stays unchanged from one rebirth to the next). This is illustrated further down in the same paragraph: "Rebirth in subsequent existences must be understood as the continuation of a dynamic, ever-changing process of "dependent arising" ("pratītyasamutpāda") determined by the laws of cause and effect (karma) rather than that of one being, transmigrating or incarnating from one existence to the next." Andi 3ö (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes i got it. But when you put christianity and Hinduism in the same sentence under rebirth it confused me. Any way as you said ,yes! the soul is unchanging in hindusim but the characteristics that the soul carriers from one life to another depends on karma. That results in various forms and characteristic in each birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep1415 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2012

I have closed this edit request again as there does not appear to be consensus for this edit. Please continue to discuss this proposal on this talk page to reach consensus. There are enough autoconfirmed users involved in this discussion that reactivation of the {{edit semi-protected}} tag should not be necessary to make an edit if a consensus is reached. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012

Isn't it more correct to say that Buddhism is a philosophy instead of a religion, because a religion is where a distinct God entity exists (e.g. Vishnu in Hinduism, Allah in Islam etc.) whereas Buddhism is monotheistic, in terms that there is no God character whom Buddhists worship (knowing Buddha isn't God himself)?

There is no one definition of what a religion is; religion is not solely defined as a belief in a deity, and this is discussed in the article. - SudoGhost 20:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012

I think that

"Mahayana is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, Tiantai (Tendai) and Shinnyo-en."

should be replaced with

"Mahayana is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, and Tiantai (Tendai)."

because Shinnyo-en is not a big enough sect of Buddhism to be listed as a tradition within Buddhism the same way that the others are. Shinnyo-en declares itself to be a part of the Shingon tradition as well. http://www.shinnyoenusa.net/about/beginning.htm

Etbwikier (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Shinnyo-en may be small, but it is not insignificant considering the number of followers and official recognition from Japan. I think it should be kept in the sentence, and instead "traditions" might be replaced by something else, like "sects" or "schools". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If "traditions" is replaced with "sects" than other more sizable sects will have to be added into the sentence. Namely Soka Gakkai, but other sects as well, which are as big or bigger than Shinnyo-en, would have to be included in the sentence. Without Shinnyo-en in the sentence it retains the original meaning without excessive cuts. I agree Shinnyo-en is not insignificant in general but it should be included in a section on sects along with all the others. ~Etbwikier (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a reliable source, no argument for removing Shinnyo-en, arguments by Amatulic are good. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by this comment. My arguments were for removing Shinnyo-en from this sentence. What/who is not a reliable source? ~Etbwikier (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wah! Oopsie! I wrote the wrong name when I was denying the edit request. Sorry for the confusion!  still cannot accept this edit request, however. The link above is not a reliable source.

Are you talking about this link http://www.shinnyoenusa.net/about/beginning.htm? This is from Shinnyo-en's main website... How can you leave Shinnyo-en in a sentence setting it on the same level as the major traditions of Buddhism if you don't even deem it's website to be reliable?

Not done. I didn't look at the source, but I declined this request because the account making it is not autoconfirmed and should be able to edit the article. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Buddism a Religion or a Philosophy

Buddism is comonly referred to as a religeon, yet a Buddist does not really pray to another thing or being, if anything they pray or meditate to themselves. Therefore, as they have nothing to appease to but themselves how could it be a religeon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPG32 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in the article. - SudoGhost 21:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all three quotes in that section seem to say that it is not, why does the lede (which is meant to summarise the article) begin, "Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian subcontinent..."? Could the opening sentences not be, "Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli). It is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, the Buddha having lived and taught in the eastern part of which some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE." By shifting one clause into the second sentence, we neatly avoid this question until it can be treated more thoughtfully, and keep the two statements about the Indian subcontinent together. --Nigelj (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Because that section is discussing the alternative view. Scholarly consensus and common usage is that Buddhism is a religion. By narrowing and limiting the definition of what one considers "religion" it can be considered not a religion, but that would be true of of any religion. - SudoGhost 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references for that? I only ask because I don't see it mentioned as such anywhere in the article, although I may have missed it. WP:DUE says that articles should fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. If what you say is so prominent that it defines the very opening of the lede, it should be mentioned somewhere, in context, with refs, in the body of the article. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think the article would be better if it did not state categorically that Buddhism is a "religion". The term "religion" is a Western concept. In the East, there traditionally was no separation between religion, philosophy, psychology and science. I would suggest opening with something like: "Buddhism is a collection of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli). The Buddhist traditions originated on the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, where the Buddha lived and taught some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE." It makes no sense to me to say that "Buddhism is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent..." That makes as much sense to me as saying "Christianity is indigenous to the Middle East..." Buddhism may have started out in India, but the main centers or practice are elsewhere (Southeast Asia, Tibet, China, and Japan, etc.) - Dorje108 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment the article opens with the two least substantial, least important, things of all. And your suggested wording is much better than mine. --Nigelj (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of sources to support this change:

* User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources ----- Dorje108 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

With regard to SudoGhost's point about limiting the definition of "religion". I don't think we need to concern ourselves in this article with the definition of religion. The problem is that by stating categorically that Buddhism is a religion, we are limiting the definition of Buddhism--trying to fit it into a box that it doesn't quite fit into. ---- 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a Religion? - part 2

Buddism is commonly referred to as a religeon, yet a Buddist does not really pray to a thing or being, if anything they pray to, or meditate to themselves.

Nor do they have anything to appease but themselves. Some may argue that a religeon is simply something that contains a sereis of beleifs but I personly would disagree highly on that.

--LPG32 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure why we see this question so much. Buddhism is a religion. The important distinction is that a religion requires faith, not that it requires belief in a deity. Until there is universally acclaimed scientific proof for the existence of karma and rebirth Buddhism will remain a religion. Except for some very modern scholarly interpretations, Buddhism depends upon rebirth/karma to establish the 12 interdependant links, which in turn underlie the entire thesis of the four noble truths. Without karma, there is no basis for refuge. Likewise, without the four noble truths, there is no purpose to the three higher trainings. Within traditions such as Zen (Tengu may be better qualified to explain this) the Wisdom tradition (the third of the three higher trainings) is prevalent - and the motivation is that of Mahayana. Without continuity of consciousness (ie, rebirth) the very meaning of Mahayana is uprooted.

I find it hard to imagine what it would feel like to be truly a Buddhist without faith in Karma/Rebirth. How could one begin to derive meaning from Lord Buddha's teachings? Without rebirth there is a personal escape from the consequences of one's actions. Moreover, the easiest way to rid ones-self from Samsara would be to merely take one's own life! This is a very dangerous road to follow. How could one distinguish Buddhism from Nihilism?

There is only one way in which Buddhism is not a religion - and that is that most Buddhists disbelieve in an omnipotent Judge God. Buddhists often believe in omniscience, and certainly many Buddhists believe in Devas - Gods - But the important distinction is that Buddhism identifies Karma with the role of determining one's future (rather than God the Judge) and declares that there is no-one that we can call upon to forgive us for our misdeeds. Instead we must take responsibility for our actions. (20040302 (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Faith is an essential part of the Zen-tradition, at least of Rinzai-Zen: "Great faith, great doubt, great persistence". See * Park, Sung-bae (1983), Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment, SUNY Press. And prayer also seems to be an essential part of Buddhism; see for example Tibetan Buddhism. Our western understanding of Buddhism has a problem with these "supernatural" elements of Buddhism. See * McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195183276 - as a starter.

So, although I don't believe there is a personal God, I have no problem with calling Buddhism a "religion". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FROM Dorje108: No one is denying the Faith plays an important part in Buddhism, or the Buddhism has many aspects of religion. But the following points should be considered.

1. There is not clear consensus on what a religion is. For many people, religion implies belief in a creator god and some kind of creed. For example, here is a statement from the Wikipedia article on religion:

   "A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world's population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists."

   So where does Buddhism fit into this poll? Are they among the religious or atheists?

2. There are aspects of Buddhism that differentiate it from other religions: the emphasis on logic and analysis, understanding the true nature of reality, a "science of mind", and the belief that eventually one must go beyond all concepts and beliefs.
3. There is no clear consensus among scholars or Buddhists that Buddhism should categorically be considered a religion. How could there be, since there is no consensus on what a religion is? Scholars clearly disagree on this point. For example:
   • Rupert Gethin states: "I am not concerned here to pronounce on a question that is sometimes asked of Buddhism: is it a religion? Obviously it depends on how one defines ‘a religion’. What is certain, however, is that Buddhism does not involve belief in a creator God who has control over human destiny, nor does it seek to define itself by reference to a creed...
   • Damien Keown states: "Problems [...] confront us as soon as we try to define what Buddhism is. Is it a religion? A philosophy? A way of life? A code of ethics? It is not easy to classify Buddhism as any of these things, and it challenges us to rethink some of these categories. What, for example, do we mean by ‘religion’? Most people would say that religion has something to do with belief in God. [...] If belief in God in this sense is the essence of religion, then Buddhism cannot be a religion. [...] Some have suggested that a new category – that of the ‘non-theistic’ religion – is needed to encompass Buddhism. Another possibility is that our original definition is simply too narrow.

I've provided multiple sources that show ambiguity and differences of opinion on this subject: User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources. These sources are not "minority" points of view. They are from mainstream scholars (e.g. Rupert Gethin, Damien Keown) and mainstream Budhdists (e.g. the Dalai Lama, Walpola Rahula). "Buddhism is based on the teachings of the Buddha." This is all that needs to be said. This article does not need to state that Buddhism "is" or "is not" a religion. This is an open question, and the article should reflect this ambiguity.

(Note that I changed the section heading to reflect that this is a continuation of the previous section.) --- Dorje108 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FROM Dorje108: What we can accurately state is that Buddhism has been variously described as a religion, a "nontheistic religion", a philosophy, a science of mind, or a way of life. --- Dorje108 (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be accurate in some ways, but it is original research, and not the most common view of Buddhism itself, or of scholarship. The most common classification for Buddhism is that it is a religion, or more specifically, a Dharmic religion. Eastern religions are often broad, and if we say Buddhism is all of these things, then that is probably true of Hinduism, Daoism, etc. as well. Tengu800 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu800, thanks for your comments. But I'm basing my comments based on many prominent main stream sources that are stating it is either inaccurate, or not entirely accurate to categorize Buddhism as "a religion": User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources How can this be original research if I am citing over a dozen sources? And how many sources do you need before you agree that this is not an "alternative" view. I have yet to see anyone else in this discussion cite a single source. Where are your sources that state Buddhism must be categorized as a religion? Buddhism is commonly "referred to" as a religion, but it is also commonly referred to as a philosophy, a science of mind, a spiritual path, or a way of life. There is a deeper point here, and that is expressed very well in this quote from Thomas Merton:

When we look a little closer however, we find very serious and responsible practitioners of Zen first denying that it is "a religion," then denying that it is a sect or school, and finally denying that it is confined to Buddhism and its "structure." For instance, one of the great Japanese Zen Masters, Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, said categorically: "Anybody who would regard Zen as a school or sect of Buddhism and call it Zen-shu, Zen school, is a devil." To define Zen in terms of a religous system or structure is in fact to destroy it--or rather to miss it completely... --- Thomas Merton, Zen and the Birds of Appetite, A New Directions Paperbook, p. 3

Barbara O'Brien makes a similar point:[2]

In many ways, the "religion versus philosophy" argument is an artificial one. The neat separation between religion and philosophy we insist on today didn't exist in western civilization until the 18th century or so, and there never was such a separation in eastern civilization. To insist that Buddhism must be one thing and not the other amounts to forcing an ancient product into modern packaging.

In Buddhism, this sort of conceptual packaging is considered to be a barrier to enlightenment. Without realizing it we use prefabricated concepts about ourselves and the world around us to organize and interpret what we learn and experience. One of the functions of Buddhist practice is to sweep away all the artificial filing cabinets in our heads so that we see the world as-it-is.

I'm really surprised that other editors are so set upon that idea the Buddhism must be categorized as a religion. Does this have to do with coming from an academic background, where subjects are supposed to fit into the "Religion department" or the "Philosophy department." I really don't get it. ---- Dorje108 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to this I think both arguments are valid, personally I think Buddhism isn't a religion and based on the books I've read I think it's backed up that it isn't. However! Based on the discussion above it's fair to say it's not entirely certain which it is. So based on this argument I don't think the opening sentence should say it's a religion. There should be a a section with essentially this argument in it but nowhere in the article should it say that it is a religion. Does anyone else agree with me here? It's too much of a debate for anywhere in this article to say it's definitely a religion. Sephers (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Without clarifying what books you're referring to, and the context the sentence is written in, that doesn't hold a lot of weight. As the discussion here has shown, context is important, when taken out of context it would seem there are a few sources that back up the "Buddhism is not a religion" claim, but when you take a closer look and take the passages in context, it turns are that this is not the case at all. - SudoGhost 22:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi SudoGhost, Just to be clear, I am not stating that "Buddhism is not a religion". What I am pointing out is that many well-respected reliable secondary sources have asserted that it is a matter of opinion as to whether you consider Buddhism is a religion or not. It depends upon your definition of religion. Many dictionary definitions for "religion" define the term as belief in a god. I am well aware that some scholars provide a much broader definition of religion, but you can't expect everyone who reads this article to have the same understanding of the term "religion". Therefore, the term should be clarified as soon as it is introduced (not several paragraphs later, or several sections later). For these reasons, I believe that it is neither necessary or helpful to begin the article by stating "Buddhism is a religion". Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed this already, but every single source you claimed said that "Buddhism is not a religion" did not say this. Either the quote was taken out of context, or the passage was referring to something else entirely, such as your Zen example. To conclude that because many dictionary definitions give a certain definition of religion means that this is not a religion based on that criteria is original research, especially when most dictionaries give your specific example as one of several different definitions, not as the sole definition. - SudoGhost 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi SudoGhost, To try and clarify one more time. I am not claiming that the sources that I've cited say that "Buddhism is not a religion". What multiple sources state very clearly is that "it depends on your definition of religion." And the dictionary definitions support the proposition that there are in fact different definitions for the term religion. It seems to me that to say that "Buddhism is a religion" is equally incorrect as saying "Buddhism is not a religion." To put it another way, which of the following three statements is correct: a) Buddhism is a religion; b) Buddhism is not a religion; c) It depends on your definition of religion. The correct answer is "c". Statements "a" and "b" are both making assertions that are only true roughly half the time. I hope this helps clarify why I think the lead should be changed. I think the present lead is a cause for confusion for many people. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Many sources say that Buddhism is a religion but you haven't provided a single one says it is not, so the three choices you present are not as equal as is being suggested, and such a view would be extremely WP:UNDUE at any rate; we don't give equal voice to a minor opinion just because it exists, and we don't avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic just because you express concern that the term "has negative connotations." Also as a source you provided points out, every religion has multiple reliable sources that say that the given religion "depends on your definition of religion" as to whether it is a religion or not; this is nothing unique to Buddhism and is not cause to change the lede. - SudoGhost 03:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

How about adding a note to the word "religion" in the lead, shortly explaining that it is not "religion" in the "usual sense", but nevertheless has many traits of religion. See [3][4][5][6]. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that no religion is a religion in a usual sense. If you ask 100 people what religion is you'll get 100 answers; religion has no usual sense. The article has an entire section discussing the subject (and the amount of content in that section seems a bit undue and quote-happy), I think a note would be an unnecessary redundancy. - SudoGhost 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." (WP:LEDE). The fact that there is an entire section in the article means that there is something to discuss. No one is saying that the lede should say that Buddhism is not a religion, just that it should not begin by stating your opinion in the first four words, when this is clearly at odds with the cited facts in the body of the article. The facts are simply that there is a debate about this in top-level literature, and so Wikipedia should not state just one opinion in its own voice right at the start. There are no article sections discussing whether or not Judaism, Christianity etc are religions. --Nigelj (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested text for the opening has been proposed long ago by Dorje108 above: "Buddhism is a collection of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli). The Buddhist traditions originated on the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, where the Buddha lived and taught some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE." What exactly is your problem with this text? --Nigelj (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the entire section is already WP:UNDUE shoots that logic down considerably. Buddhism is a religion, to avoid this terminology would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Given that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the subject as a religion, it makes no sense to change the lede, especially when no sources can be presented to support removing the wording. WP:RNPOV clealry says that "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." Suggesting that the word "religion" be avoided is counter to that policy. - SudoGhost 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You skipped the important bit, which says, "NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."" From the range of scholarly references given here, we must admit that there is expert dispute about this point. Beginning the article by pretending that there is not, when there is no need to do so, is unjustified by sources. --Nigelj (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Here is another important point on the NPOV policy: "Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time. Even sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that "neutrality", in this sense, is perfectly consistent with their philosophy."
• SudoGhost, I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into stewarding this article. It's not an easy job. But I don't follow your logic on this point. It seems to me that the policies on NPOV and WP:UNDUE actually support making the change. The sources that I am citing are some of the most prominent Buddhists and scholars I know of. (E.g. the Dalai Lama and Rupert Gethin.) Surely there must be a reason why they are putting forth such a nuanced interpretation--that they do not make the flat out assertion that you claim to be the "majority" opinion. I believe that the reason why these sources are being so careful is because they are attempting to explain Buddhism to the broadest possible audience, to people who are not Buddhists, but who are interested in what Buddhism has to say. You would give more weight to the academic sources you have cited, but aren't these sources in most cases speaking to a much smaller audience (follow academics or students) who are likely to share their understanding of what is meant by "religion". When you are speaking to an audience of your peers, you don't need to clarify every term, because everyone shares a common understanding of these terms. But when you are speaking to a wider audience that does not share this common understanding, then you need to put things in context. When you say "religion", you need clarify what you mean by religion--otherwise your audience will not understand your intent, and they will be likely to misinterpret what you are saying. I hope this helps clarify why I think this is an important change that should be made.
• Nigelj, I am glad someone else finally weighed in on this. Hooray! :)
• Jonathan, thanks for proving the extra sources. Very interesting. As regards to your suggestion of using a footnote, I think it would be far better to rewrite the lead sentence without mentioning religion. I think the question of religion should be addressed in the lead section, but not in the first sentence. I've indicated my preferred approach in my "suggestion for revised lead." It would be nice to hear some other opinions on this. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong direction for the lead of an article. It seems to be a minority view based on the politics of the term "religion," and being pushed by Wikipedia editors rather than by any serious debate in scholarship. Needless to say, a lead should be short, clear, and concise, giving the essential information about a subject. For this page, that information should definitely include that Buddhism is a religion, which is a classification used by the vast majority of sources. Tengu800 01:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You've made that point several times, but seem to be forgetting what was already discussed. The sources you're claiming support your proposed change do not actually say what you're suggesting they do. Wikipedia does not avoid terminology out of fear that its meaning will be "misinterpreted". You haven't presented a single source that claims that Buddhism is not a religion. If such sources could be found, they are extremely minor viewpoints, and Wikipedia policy does not warrant giving such insignificant viewpoints equal consideration, especially in the lede of an article. Repeating this over and over will not get you the changes your looking for. Nigelj, there are no sources that support such a change, the only ones that do are taken out of context or are discussing something completely different. There is no scholarly dispute about whether Buddhism is not a religion, the only minor "dispute" that exists are the same disputes about every single other religion, and that's per Dorje108's own sources. - SudoGhost 02:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this discussion is starting to turn into a big circle. We're all discussing the same thing and there's a clear divide between people who think it's a religion and those who don't. It's not fair to say that no one has provided any source that it isn't and if that really isn't enough then simple google "Is buddhism a religion". There is clearly a lot of debate over this and to summarise, Buddhism is a religion but not in the usual sense, believers in buddhism do not believe in a higher power and they don't worship them. If you ask the common man on the street is buddhism like christianity the answer is no. There needs to be a descision made about the opening sentence. Its not right to say it's a religion because it's misleading. Do have a section about how it's heavily debated and state that it can be classed as a religion due to the following reasons stated above and similarly it can be argued that it is not.

Although dictionaries define it as a religion, they do not have a full page all about it, they simply have a few lines to summarise it and so obviously it's impractical to write that it's debated about whether or not its a religion but this is Wikipedia and we have the space to write about this debate. I just don't think that with this much controversy it should be so clearly defined in the opening sentence. Can people please reply to this with an open mind so that we can come to a conclusion. Sephers (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that just because there are some sources that disagree, does not mean there is any serious debate about the matter among scholars. Again, the use of terms like "usual sense" implies that the Christian notion of religion is the "usual sense," which is not an assumption that should be made for English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia readers are not all westerners who take Christianity as their starting point. English Wikipedia is not necessarily U.S. Wikipedia, in which English articles assume a grounding in western culture. Note that Buddhism and Hinduism share many of the same kinds of beings, and even cosmology. Like Hinduism, Buddhism squarely fits into the rubric of Dharmic religions, which are religions, but religions that are not very similar to Christianity. Tengu800 12:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitions for religion

This is from a google search, in the order the definitions appeared in google:

First entry:[7]

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/

Noun:

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Synonyms: faith - belief - creed - denomination

Second entry dictonary.com

re·li·gion

  :: [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Third entry: the wikipedia article - religion

Fourth entry:Webster's dictionary

1.

a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2.

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

It appears the the most common definitions define religion as "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." --- 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Dorje108 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan. That's three dictionary-definitions, and a link to a Wikipedia article. The article gives definitions by various respected western scholars. I find Clifford Geertz interesting:

[A] system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. Geertz, 1993, "Religion as a cultural system".

Moojan Momen (not in the Wiki-article) gives an apparently dimilar, but slightly less neutral "definition":

Religion, as a human phenomenon, is founded on the basis of what is described as being the experience of the 'holy' or the 'sacred'. Momen, "Understanding religion", 2009, p. 21

Note that this reminds of Rudolf Otto's Das Heilig, who in turn was inspired by William James, who in his turn was inspired by Friedrich Schleiermacher (Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience" (PDF), NUMEN, vol.42 (1995) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)). So, I still think that "religion" is about more than gods and supernatural beings, but that the connection with "the sacred" is also a biased western understanding, saveguarding religion from western science.(Sharf 1995-B). Following Geertz, Buddhism could also be called a "religion". Which, by the way, does not preclude the possibility of defining Buddhism as a set of rules & insight, or another definition without connotations to gods and supernatural realities. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for revised lead

Here's a suggestion for revising the lead, based on the discussions above. (This is obviously not perfect, but it hits the main points.)

"Buddhism is a collection of traditions, beliefs, and practices based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli). The Buddha is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who presented a system of training in conduct, meditation, and understanding that constitutes a path leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha). The Buddha is believed to have lived and taught on the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. In modern times, Buddhism has been variously described as a religion, a "nontheistic religion", a philosophy, a science of mind, or a way of life."

Second attempt:

1. Buddhism is a collection of traditions, beliefs, and practices based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli). The Buddha is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who presented a system of training in conduct, meditation, and understanding that constitutes a path leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha). The Buddha is believed to have lived and taught on the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent some time between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.

2. According to the Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught that the cause suffering (dukkha) is ignorance (avidyā) of the true nature of the self and phenomena, and that this ignorance leads to taṇhā (an unquenchable thirst, craving, or desire) to hold onto pleasurable experiences and to be separated from painful or unpleasant experiences. The Buddha also taught that the causes of suffering can be overcome by following a path that eliminates ignorance (avidya) through developing a correct insight into the true nature of the self and phenomena--this insight is based on understanding and seeing the interdependent nature of all things (dependent origination; Sanskrit: pratītyasamutpāda). Thus, according to tradition, it is possible for anyone to completely eliminate suffering and thereby attain the highest happiness, nirvāņa (nirvana).

3. In modern times, Buddhism has been variously described as a religion, a philosophy, a science of mind, or a way of life. While Buddhism is commonly referred to as a religion, modern scholars and Buddhist teachers point out that while Buddhism has key similarities with the other major world religions, it also has key differences. Similarities include the importance of faith and devotion, and the use of prayer and rituals. However, Buddhism differs from the other major religions in that: Buddhism does not involve belief in a creator God who has control over human destiny, nor does it seek to define itself by reference to a creed. The Buddhist tradition emphasizes a path leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha), and the Buddhist teachings suggest that preoccupation with certain beliefs—such as belief in a "creator god", "an eternal soul", or theories about the origin of the universe—in fact hinder our progress along the path rather than helping it. --- Dorje108 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: The sources for the points on Buddhism and religion are here: User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources --- Dorje108 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE2: I've just swapped the order of paragraphs 2 and 3, and added the numbers to help discuss this revision in case we get a discussion going. --- Dorje108 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The lede is supposed to reflect what the majority of reliable sources use, and Buddhism is most commonly referred to as a religion. That some people do not believe it fits into their definition of religion is an interesting aside that is appropriate for its own section, but doesn't belong in the lede. - SudoGhost 20:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think, at the very least, that all the work Dorje108 has presented here shows that there is certainly a degree of controversy about the matter in the relevant citable literature. With that in mind, I don't see how, with regard to WP:NPOV, we can begin the article by, in Wikipedia's own voice, coming down unequivocally on one side of such a debate within the first few words. That is completely unsupportable in any matter that can be and has been debated in the academic and other serious literature. On the other hand, I do agree that the main place for presenting the debate is in the body of the article, not the lede. For example, I would suggest that something like Dorje's paragraph 3 above could be worked into the existing section with full references, and then summarised briefly somewhere within the lede. The first clause of the first sentence is not the place, but then neither is a subsection of the last section in the article. I suggest coverage of the debate be expanded, and moved up the article a bit. --Nigelj (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Hi SudhoGhost and Nigelj. Thanks for taking a look at this.

• SudoGhost, can you cite any sources from the past 10 or 20 years to support your position? Keep in mind that 10 or 15 years ago, it was very common to refer to the Dalai Lama as the "god-king" of Tibet. The point is that older sources may be more like to refer to Buddhism as a religion, but the sources that I am looking at, which tend to be from the past 10 or 20 years, are ambivalent on the matter.
• The majority of definitions of religion still assert that the primary definition entails "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." (See my comments on this above.) I think this is why some Buddhists have difficulty with the assertion that Buddhism is a religion.
• Nigelj, thanks for your comments. Do you think paragraphs 1 and 2 above are a good start for the article? --- Dorje108 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely.[8][9][10][11][12]. As per the criteria of WP:LEDE, Buddhism is defined as a religion in mainstream reliable sources. That some sources question this by giving ever-narrower definitions of what a "religion" does not change this, especially when many of them phrase it as a question in order to stimulate discussion about the importance of certain aspects of Buddhism, not to claim that it is not one. Is it WP:UNDUE to assume that we should give equal consideration to a speculative minority description. There are reliable sources that claim Christianity is not a religion at all, or that is it a cult instead, that does not mean the relevant article's lede should give equal consideration to this viewpoint. - SudoGhost 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you SudoGhost. But with the exception of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which actually describes Buddhism as a "religion and philosophy", these sources don't seem to be the most reliable of sources. Aren't we supposed to take into account things like the author and publisher of sources, and opportunity for peer review. Regarding your sources:
  • PBS - I like PBS, but who is the author of this article? Aren't Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, and scholars like Rupert Gethin better sources according to the WP guidelines? (Because they are known experts in their field, and they are published by major publishers.)
  • University of Wyoming website - another anonymously written web article. Same points as above.
  • Columbia University, East Asian Curriculum Project This article contains the following acknowledgement: Acknowledgment: The author of this article is Lise F. Vail. The article is adapted from FOCUS, issue on Asian Religions, fall 1982, published by The Asia Society, 725 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021. Reprinted by permission. It's a recycled article from 30 years ago.
  • Japanese Temple Buddhism: Worldliness in a Religion of Renunciation (Topics in Contemporary Buddhism) - this is a book by an assistant professor in the Department of Comparative Religion at Western Michigan University. It's a legitimate source, but why give this more weight than the sources that I have cited?

• Because that source reflects scholarly consensus. Even when we go by your arbritary "only sources from the last 10 years of a ~2500 year old subject count" method, it is still overwhelmingly referred to as a religion by most reliable sources. Yes, there are sources that, for various reasons, question the religious label, but the fact that a dictionary defines something in a way that makes an editor question is no basis for rewriting the lede of the article. Buddhists teachers raising the question of "Is Buddhism a religion?" in order to encourage discussion and contemplation on the meaning of certain things is no basis for rewriting the lede of the article. That sources can be quoted saying Buddhism "isn't just a religion" or that it is "nontheistic" is no basis for rewriting the lede of the article. None of the sources presented, when taken into the context of the surrounding work, say that Buddhism is not a religion. - SudoGhost 01:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi SudoGhost, thanks again for your comments. A few more questions:
  • How do you decide what the scholarly consensus is? In my references, I've included Rupert Gethin, Paul Williams, Damien Keown, B. Allan Wallace, and Thomas Merton. Don't these folks count?
  • I think its safe to say that Western "scholarship" on Buddhism is roughly 100 years old. I think most people would agree that much of the earlier scholarship contained misunderstandings of Buddhism. I've asked for more recent sources because I believe the scholarly understanding of Buddhism has improved dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years, since actual Buddhist teachers began teaching in the West, so more recent writing would reflect more the current consensus.
  • You've mentioned twice now that Buddhist teachers are raising these questions "in order to encourage discussion and contemplation on the meaning of certain things." That's clearly a matter of opinion. I think these points are actually fundamental to the whole Buddhist path.
• Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• I must have missed the "Paul Williams says Buddhism isn't a religion" part, because I'm not seeing it. More importantly, while it may be true that Western works on Buddhism are around 100 years old, only focusing on modern Western ideas about an Eastern concept is a systemic bias. When you look at the context in which your quotes are taken, it paints a different picture. Take for example what you quoted concerning Thomas Merton on Zen. That does not come anywhere close to supporting a claim that Buddhism is not a religion, but (quoting the book) rather that "to regard Zen as merely and exclusively as Zen Buddhism is to falsify it and, no doubt, to betray the fact that one has no understanding of it whatever." The passage you quoted was saying that "Zen" is not "Zen Buddhism" and that the concept of "Zen" is not merely a religious one, not that Buddhism is not a religion. If there is a source you've presented that says Buddhism is not a religion, then please by all means highlight it because the closest I'm seeing is "it may not be a religion, depending on who you ask and what you're asking", and as the Thomas Merton book you quoted points out, that's nothing unique to Buddhism. - SudoGhost 02:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Hi SudoGhost. A few points:

• I am not denying that Buddhism is a religion, nor am I asserting that it is a religion. I am suggesting that this article will be better served if we formulate an opening sentence that does not categorically state that "Buddhism is a religion." I make this suggestion for the following reasons: 1) Many people associate the term "religion" with some sort of supernatural power. I am not agreeing with this point of view, nor am I trying to define what a religion is. I am simply saying that this is a common perception. Do you at least concede that this is a common perception? 2) Many people view "religion" in general with suspicion and distrust, associating it with superstition, etc., no matter how you define it. Again, this is not my point of view, but it is a common perception. 3) As several scholars have shown, it is perfectly possible to describe Buddhism without defining it as a religion. 4) Therefore, why not formulate an opening sentence that will not confuse, offend, or turn off a large number of people. (Roughly 10,000 people per day are visiting this page; if 20% of those people have a different concept of what religion is than you do, that's a lot of confusion.)
• Regarding Paul Williams - I think he offered a good description of Buddhism without defining it as a religion: " the system of practices, understandings ('beliefs'), experiences, visions, and so on undergone and expressed at any one time and down the ages which derive from, or claim to derive from, a Buddha". He also went on to refer to Buddhism as a religion, but he provided the above description first, and he was careful to explain what he meant by a religion.
• Rupert Gethin and Damian Keown are both quite clear that it depends how you define religion. They both demonstrated that you can describe Buddhism very will without insisting that "Buddhism is a religion."
• Regarding you point on bias: I am being told that the reason we must define Buddhism as a religion is because of "scholarly consensus and common usage." But when I point out that there is no such scholarly consensus, that contemporary scholars have different points of view on the matter, that some really good scholars are clearly stating that it "depends on your definition of religion", then I am accused of bias! I've tried to point out that the whole concept of categorizing beliefs into religion vs. philosophy vs. science is purely a Western hangup. So from my point of view, the bias is when you insist on applying this wholly Western concept to an Eastern belief system. From the Buddhist point of view, the dharma is the truth; it doesn't need a label. So why apply to it a Western label that has negative connotations for many Westerners?

I hope these points are clear. I'll try to respond to Joshua's points tomorrow or the next day. I don't have much time to focus on this during the week. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• The claim that there is no such scholarly consensus isn't reflected by the sources you gave or the sources in circulation. Again, one of the sources you yourself provides answers your own comment. There are sources that can be provided that question the "religion" descriptor of Buddhism, and none of them contest this descriptor wholesale, but rather say "it depends". As one of the sources you provided explains, this is not unique to this religion, each religion has this questioning of what religion is and how their religion fits into that definition. That does not mean it is not a religion, and does not mean the lede needs to be reworded. Yes, you can describe any religion without using that word, but that's what the article proper is for, not the lede sentence, which is supposed to be as concise a descriptor of the article's subject as reasonbly possible. The article proper then expands and explains. It seems the "negative conntations" issue is why you're seeking to remove the "religion" descriptor, but per Wikipedia policy "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." This is especially true considering that none of the sources provided come anywhere close to claiming that "religion" isn't a valid descriptor. - SudoGhost 02:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Joshua Jonathan Some more [13] [14] [15] How about changing "religion" to "non-theistic religion" and adding a footnote to explain the subtilities of definition? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure why we are having this debate here. How many readers, really, are going to read the first sentence and then take away from this article that Buddhism believes in and worships an omnipotent judge? I don't see any need to modify the lede. Buddhism is a religion. (20040302 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC))

I was having a debate with some friends about whether or not Buddhism is a religion, the first thing we did was load up wikipedia and read the first sentence. This is the reason I joined in on this debate and I believe we should be changing the first sentence so it does not say it is a religion but state somewhere that it is heavily debated and in some ways Buddhism could be defined as a religion but not in the usual sense of religion. The first sentence is very important. Sephers (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not "heavily debated"; the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Buddhism as a religion. It would be against Wikipedia policy to avoid using this terminology just because some editors either don't feel it fits in with "the usual definition" or because they believe that the word has negative connotations. Not a single reliable source has been presented that makes a claim that Buddhism is not a religion, and would be a very minor viewpoint anyways, such a minor viewpoint is not cause to change the lede sentence of the article. - SudoGhost 23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting quote here from Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Studies and Chair of the Department of Religion at Columbia University: "Buddhism is thought of as a world religion. But Buddhism is only 1/3 religion."[16]
• Here is another quote from Thurman, Mark Epstein, and Sharon Salzburg: "Buddhism is not meditation. Buddhism is not a theory. Buddhism is not a set of rules, actions or ethics. Buddhism is a process of education of the mind and heart through learning, study, meditation and loving, virtuous action."[17] --- Dorje108 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that Robert Thurman saying that "Buddhism is more than religion" warrants removing it from the lede. Saying that it is "only 1/3 religion" is saying that it is religion...and then some. Reading the entire thing just reinforces that Thurman was in no way suggesting that Buddhism is not a religion. The second thing you quoted says nothing about the subject of Buddhism being a religion. - SudoGhost 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Faure, in "Unmasking Buddhism", has a chapter on the idea that "Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion" (pp.27-34). He sees this as a narrow western interpretation, and argues to use Durkheim's definition of religion (UB p.33): "a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred which produces social behaviors and unites all the individuals who adhere to it within the same community". So, that's a clear choice: Buddhism is a religion - if your definition of religion is broader than belief in and worship of a God. I'm pro "Buddhism is a religion". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 November 2012

Hi, as far as i have been taught Buddism is not a "Religion" as such since it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being." Jörgen Grette (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - See the discussion above concerning this. - SudoGhost 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Religion and Philosophy encompassing a variety.....

Why not return to what has stood the test of time for many years (as far as i recall since the last huge discussion on this issue in 2008 or 2009):

"Buddhism (Pali/Sanskrit: बौद्ध धर्म Buddha Dharma) is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one")."

What some of us (myself included) would like to see is a representation of the fact that Buddhism is not just plain religion (at least not in the sense that english speaking, mostly christian audiences have in mind). It is different from our usual concept of religion (not necessarily the scholarly one as your discussion has proven). And it is more than just religion.

To soften the rather definitive/conclusive nature of the current wording, the revert will:

1. Add "and philosophy". (like in the Encyclopedia Britannica)

2. Remove "indigenous to the indian subcontinent". We do not need the reference here as we already have it in the next sentence (and twice would definitely be too much). By removing this part the following part about the variety of traditions, beliefs, practices moves closer and broadens/softens the definition as well.

3. change "that encompasses" to "encompassing". From my point of view (as a non native speaker) this sound more fitting. Has the same effect as the above: brings the "varieties" closer (makes them an integral part of the definition rather than a supplement)

Andi 3ö (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are there major religious traditions that have no philosophical component? Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, & Islam are all uncontroversially called religions and all include significant philosophical traditions. Why is it necessary to say something different about Buddhism? In the West, Buddhist philosophy gets more attention than Buddhist cultic and cultural practices but I can't imagine a reliable source claiming that philosophy is more important to Buddhism than it is to (say) the Christian tradition. If anything, Western discussions of Buddhism tend to give undue weight to philosophic tradition. To call Buddhism not a religion but 'a religion and a philosophy' is to say that Buddhism is something more- something that Christianity, etc., isn't. What justification for such a claim could we offer? --Spasemunki (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just briefly (got little time for wikipedia right now): You are most probably right about philosophy being a part of all major religions or at least something similar to what we nowadays classify as philosophy. After all, at least in our western, christian context, (secular) philosophy and even all other sciences like astronomy, cosmology, physics, biology etc., not to mention social sciences only began their emancipation from christian beliefs and dogma in fairly modern times (Copernicus/Galllilei, Darwin, only to mention the most prominent "revolutionaries" in that respect). Nevertheless, IMHO this argument is somewhat missing the point of our discussion. The question is not so much: "Is philosophy more important in Buddhism than it is in other religions?", or even "Is Buddhism a religion?" (which it certainly can be called), but: "Does qualifying Buddhism categorically and exclusively as a "religion" (in the lead sentence!) do the topic justice. As i already stated above, and others did more elaborately, the term "religion" evokes a lot of problematic associations which could lead to substantial misconceptions: (symplifying and generalizing a bit) Buddhism has no creator god, no all-powerfull god, no god to pray to, no divine salvation, instead there is a non-personal law of cause and effect, there is no unquestionable dogma, no central dogmatic authority, no active proselytizing, blind faith in scriptures or spiritual authorities is (sometimes more, sometimes less actively) discouraged, personal experience and reason is stressed a lot... I am no expert on religions in general, but i do know what the people i know and speak to think, when they hear the word "religion". This is in many aspects quite significantly different from what Buddhism is about! That pretty much is my point and this is what i'd somehow like to see represented in the wording of the lead.

Adding "philosophy" after "religion" is just one possibility to achieve the goal of softening the rather definitive/conclusive nature of the current wording. Avoiding the term religion would be another alternative. We had that in the lead for quite some time as well: "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices...." The term "family" by the way was very important to some editors at that time of the major restructuring/rewrite of the article in 2008/2009 because it represents the fact that Buddhism is immensely diverse (e.g. when compared to the abrahamic religions), so much so, that apparently some scholars pretty much deny the existence of anything resembling a "common core" of Buddhism (pretty huge discussion back then - can read it up in the archive, e.g. here ;)) Andi 3ö (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

uups...i just read the archives myself :) the (temporary) consensus of that time did indeed (of course, how could i forget!) contain the word religion: Heres the full first two sentences from December 2008:

::Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion. Buddhism is based on the teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as "The Buddha" (the Awakened One), who lived in the northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent and likely died around 400 BCE.

Also, reading the past discussions reminded me of three things: 1. I was quite satisfied with that solution 2. My satisfaction mainly stemmed from the fact that the disuccions around that subject - which the archives show, regularly pops up again and again and again...- miraculously stopped for a month or two and 3. There are way more important subjects to discuss and a lot more than the very first sentence to improve in this article ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Buddhists in the world

How come the estimates show 350 - 500 million? Our schoolbooks from 2007 tells us there is 550 million. And there is approximately 350 - 660 million Buddhists in China today alone. I remember two years ago Wikipedia estimated that there was 1.6 billion Buddhists in the world. Muslims were approximately 1.2 billion and Christians were 2 billion. What happened? Have a bunch of Christian fanatics from Texas discovered Wikipedia and started editing? The sources are also very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttingfacts (talk • contribs) 10:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that verify what you're saying? We can't change the article based on what you vaguely remember from years ago; that would be original research. It doesn't help to say "The sources are also very biased" without explaining what you mean by that. Without elaboration, that comment doesn't help at all; the article can't be improved without knowing what's wrong, if there indeed is something wrong in that regard. How are they biased? What reliable sources can you provide that show that the sources in the article have a demonstrable bias? - SudoGhost 10:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the user already indicated they were using a textbook (certainly an acceptable reliable source) published in 2007. The difficulty is that methodologies for deciding who counts as a Buddhist are less straightforward than methods for counting Christians and Muslims. A major sticking point is how China (which is officially Communist, culturally multi-traditional, and includes Buddhism as one of several major traditions) should be counted- a decision on this front alone would change the number by hundreds of millions. In the interest of keeping a long technical discussion out of the opening paragraph of the article, the current estimate of 300-500 million was included as a lower bound. The 'Demographics' section further down in the article discusses this in detail and includes the estimates for China that would push the number over one billion. --Spasemunki (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RSN seems to e that textbooks are not reliable sources just because they are textbooks, it seems that not all textbooks are created equally, especially when a textbook is at odds with other sources. It's also impossible to determine whether it is a reliable source without knowing what textbook it is. I'm not saying the number is right or wrong, but "I read it in a textbook" isn't cause to change the article without more information. - SudoGhost 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More scholarly perspectives on Buddhism as a religion

I've added two more scholars who have meaningful things to say about the question of Buddhism being a religion. I've included the thoughts of Martin Southwold and Ilkka Pyysiäinen: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Pyysiäinen.Scifilover386 (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugong5582 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The individual who added these has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but I think the section does need to be discussed. The Is Buddhism a religion? section seems to be nothing more than a WP:QUOTEFARM, and certainly need to be trimmed down and put into Wikipedia prose, as opposed to just a collection of quotes that seem to be pushing the edge of what WP:NFCC allows. - SudoGhost 02:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It asks for a discussion on religion as a (western) construction, and the problems of essentialism. Richard King, Orientalism and religion, does have a few remarks on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Buddha & His Disciples

The Lord Buddha was born in 623 BC in the sacred area of Lumbini located in the Terai plains of southern Nepal, testified by the inscription on the pillar erected by the Mauryan Emperor Asoka in 249 BC. Buddha was born in the warrior class (kshatriya) as his dharma (duty)indicated. He put his social class aside and started his new religion. Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from as early as the 3rd century BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.16.2 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Rather than having the first sentence stating Buddhism as a religion, the most accurate and honest thing to do would be to state that its nature as a religion is open ended and the subject of much debate. This is the truest thing to say.

if any faith based system is a religion does that make astrology a religion?

we should try to be as accurate and descriptive of the nature of the situation as possible IMO.

please consider, just a suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.168.225 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

bce

bce offends me because that takes Christ out of BEFORE CHRIST. So can you please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.142.197 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the world population is offended, or at least bypassed, by a dating-system which takes a specific religious figure as it's norm. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Killing the Buddha" external link

The following link was added to the external links section:

• Killing the Buddha by Sam Harris, Shambhala Sun

In my view, and after examining WP:External Links, this article does not appear appropriate for an external link on such a general topic. The article itself is essentially an opinion piece that conveys no factual or historical information about the subject. After reverting the link addition, User:Abstruce added it again, writing, "He's not just another guy down the street.. Sam Harris (author) is notable, His work has been on The New York Times Best Seller list for 33 weeks." Regardless of how many times the author has been on a NY Times bestseller list, this doesn't make him an expert on the topic, or make the article helpful to the average Wikipedia reader. External links should provide some level of neutral and accurate information, and this article provides neither. Tengu800 01:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that the External link should be on the Article, and there are reasons behind the thought. Yes, I did say that "He's not just another guy down the street.." And, He's not naive to the topic. I may agree that the neuroscientist Harris' article may not hold much significance for a reader who wants an average level introduction to Buddhism; but at the same time, I claim that His article holds significant value for a reader who wants to grab a good knowledge of what Buddhism actually is and what Buddhism actually asks a person to do/go for (but yes, the article is for a reader who is not naive to Buddhism). Thanks !! ← Abstruce 02:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I don't see any real information about Buddhism. It looks like mostly criticism of religion, which is not helpful for an informational article on the general subject of Buddhism. It also appears that Harris himself is not a Buddhist and not a scholar of Buddhism, and he is basically advocating atheism / secularism and the supremacy of science, not presenting meaningful information to readers about the subject of Buddhism. He even refers to religion as "contamination," and describes the world as having "long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions." Not exactly a scholarly or neutral approach to the subject, and as previously pointed out, there is no actual information being presented in the article — it's an opinion piece. Tengu800 05:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a list of links". The few links that are put in this section should be general, providing access to a rich source of information. This one "article" does not meet these criteria at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I believe that Harris' article is not an opinion piece for a reader having deep interest in Buddhism but a master piece (during free time, I used to and still sometimes have a look at Siddhārtha Gautama's hypothesis). He has touched the core of Buddhism. Let Me explain briefly ! A sentence from the article: "The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Now, this appears to be an opinion from the very first quick look, but if one is a Buddhist (that I AM not) or may read Harris' article, then He would realize that Harris following-up on/with Lin Chi's statement has made a sincere attempt to highlight what Buddhism actually is and what Buddhism actually asks a person to do/go for. Users know that "Wikipedia is not a list of links," but this is an extremely wonderful link as in it a neuroscientist is looking to target on the possible corruption in Buddhism, that too by pointing to a Buddhist master's quote that form the backbone of His article !

Even Barbara O'Brien appreciated this very article of Harris, She wrote: "Some in the West dismiss these devotional and worshipful aspects of Buddhism as corruptions of the original teachings of the Buddha. For example, Sam Harris, a self-identified atheist who has expressed admiration for Buddhism, has said Buddhism should be taken away from Buddhists. Buddhism would be so much better, Harris wrote, if it could be cleansed of the "naive, petitionary, and superstitious" trappings of religion altogether." I AM not sure whether I have anymore comments to text, here. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to consider the article a "masterpiece," but it isn't an informational article about Buddhism, and it doesn't convey facts but rather the author's opinions. Tengu800 11:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Tengu800 for the Welcome, but I have already made My points crystal clear above. I AM seriously shocked about Your and Joshua Jonathan's views about the article, but anyways, I AM sure Siddhārtha Gautama had enjoyed the article accompanied by Lin Chi, somewhere in the never-ending & forever assembling geographical Heavens ! Cheers to their upcoming heavenly party with Sam Harris Thanks !! ← Abstruce 13:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello friends, I just read this article, and I think that it definitely makes some interesting points. However, it is not appropriate for a general article on Buddhism. If you look at other external links, they are either factual information or explanation of concepts. This "Killing the Buddha" article is essentially a philosophical argument made by a western atheist against Buddhists. While it does correspond (partially) to the Zen concept of "special transmission outside scriptures" (教外别传), it is definitely an in-depth argument not suitable for the average Wikipedia audience. As a Buddhist myself, I don't think this article contributes to the big picture of Buddhism, which is supposed to be presented here. If you really think this is important, maybe you can add something in Buddhism in the West about this piece. Thanks. Zen Light (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zen Light, when You texted "This "Killing the Buddha" article is essentially a philosophical argument made by a western atheist against Buddhists," I hope by texting "Buddhists" You are talking about the persons who attempt to practice Buddhism as a religion ! And, I would specially like to post some text here to "Thank You" for Your comments: "....it is definitely an in-depth argument not suitable for the average Wikipedia audience." I have already accepted this above: "I may agree that the neuroscientist Harris' article may not hold much significance for a reader who wants an average level introduction to Buddhism." So, for now, as My Friends above are suggesting, I would refrain from pushing things in this section ! I think I will consider Your advice and move some excerpt from the piece to 'Buddhism in the West'. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 05:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum or tool through which to inject your ideas on religion and specifically Buddhism onto readers no matter what guise you put it under. "a good knowledge of what Buddhism actually is and what Buddhism actually asks a person to do/go for" is not what this article is about. Someones opinion on what they thin buddhism "actually", as you eloquently put it, is and what they feel it asks people to "do/ go for" doesn't quite fit. If you want to add inforation by this author, I think it would be more appropriate to add it to the article Criticism of Buddhism. Thanks.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism until the 1950s

Hey, I noticed someone changed the fact that Buddhism remained the world's largest religion until 1955. Most sources on the internet a couple of years ago claimed that they were the THIRD oldest world religion after Hinduism and Jainism and that Buddhism remained the world's largest religion since the Mongol Empire until the 1950s (1955). Please don't take some vague American based Christian websites seriously. Let's keep religious studies secular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Added section on Criticism and Apologetics

Such a section is common for most Wikipedia articles on specific faiths; I have added a section summarizing the article Criticism of Buddhism and also incorporating content relevant to Buddhism from Apologetics. It is important that this information be presented in a clear manner, to facilitate dialectical analysis of the differences between faiths; at the same time of course such sections should not descend themselves into either polemic or apologetic content; rather, they should merely summarize what exists and present it factually, in the interests of facilitating understanding (Some care must be taken also to avoid including in such material anything overtly racist or defamatory). It would be nice to see a separate article on the Buddhist apologetic tradition, as Buddhism is one of the religions where such a practice does exist, yet documentation regarding it is scarce on Wikipedia; I would also like to see more content on this article regarding the syncretic manner in which Buddhism integrates with other religions, for example, with Shinto (where the level of integration between the two faiths is somewhat striking to a Western observer). It might be interesting to combine this material with information on the polemic and apologetic traditions within Buddhism; in particular, since Buddhism can syncretically integrate with some other religions, to varying degrees, it would be interesting what belief systems different forms of Buddhism regard as absolutely compatible, somewhat compatible, or completely incompatible with their faith (for example, I would think the worship of Mara, as an extreme case, would be absolutely incompatible, akin to the relationship between Christianity and Satanism, but it would be interesting to the actual beliefs on this and related questions as espoused by Buddhist theologians).

Wgw2024 (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed your section because it doesn't have valid references. You can't use a wikipedia article to reference another wikipedia article. Helpsome (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the references to point at the references on the other article. Just a friendly suggestion, it would be better if when you see a minor technical problem like this, you fix it, rather than undoing the edit. Wgw2024 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have 3 points to discuss here:

/1/ Various editors envision different views about what Wikipedia article is about. What is the purpose of Wiki article on Buddhism or Christianity? Is it – as Wgw2024 - says: “to facilitate dialectical analysis of the differences between faiths”? Or as further suggested: “ ...to combine this material with information on the polemic and apologetic traditions within Buddhism”? Such combination and analysis seems to be akin to ‘original research’ type of academic study. Readers of Wiki articles expect truthful and basic information about a given subject. That’s all an Encyclopedia usually offers. However, if such analysis of combined research already exist –it can be briefly mentioned (but without unnecessary dwelling on dialectical analysis and so on).

/2/ The sentence: “In Japan, a school of self criticism exists” is wrong. There is no such ‘school’. A sect or school in Buddhism is based on a tradition, doctrines, belongs to a branch of Buddhism, has followers, has a structure and activities. What is referred to as Critical Buddhism is not a school of thought that has any believer in it. It is a product of a view or opinion of one or two researchers whose work seems to be discontinued and of no interest. Wiki article about it is called a “stub”- there is no material to make it an article. (Apart from that: a Wiki article itself is not a RS to mention it here in the sentence about Criticism).

/3/ The article lacks information about Nichiren Buddhism, a branch of Mahayana based on the Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Buddhism is widespread in Japan with followers world wide. I will include mention about it in the future.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism: Undid revision 579153646 by Druksoogs. Unexplained removal of sourced content

Hello Joshua, I think the addition of the picture (with this text) by Tobby72 did not aim to illustrate the article but to introduce a critique (welcome!) which does not really fit into the main text of the article. It seems strange that the text does not describe the image content (original description: Monks in foreground with the southern portion of the dzong visible across the Mo Chhu). The critique is also redundant: the same sentence was added to the article "Criticism of Buddhism"/ accusation of violence (where it does fit). I do not know why Druksoog changed the image description but I think the result was not so bad. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'd missed the brackets; I was also not aware of the original addition. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Joshua, The reason why I changed the image description was because I felt it was put there primarily put there to highlight a cause. The refugee expulsion issue more of an ethnic issue from what I understand rather than a relgious issue. The text seems to suggest that Buddhist expelled all hindus however hinduism is practiced freely in Bhutan a substantial percentage of the population. I think until we can ascertain that it's a clear case of religious expulsion, that critique shouldn't there. Druksoogs (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over the Buddha birth date have been settled?

The estimates for Buddha birth stretch as far back as 623 BC, but many scholars believed 390-340 BC a more realistic timeframe.

Now the new finding:

"Now, for the first time, we have an archaeological sequence at Lumbini that shows a building there as early as the 6th century BC," said archaeologist Prof Robin Coningham of Durham University, who co-led the international team, supported by the National Geographic Society

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24647-earliest-buddhist-shrine-found-at-buddhas-birthplace.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25088960

Just to share this new finding Sawadeekrap (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Need for expert input on Buddhist-related article

Personally, I feel that the article Buddhism and violence is for its part not a completely objective or sufficiently broad analysis of the issue of violence in relation to the Buddhist faith, for the most part it seems to be an attack listing collected examples of violence and an effort to use these to label Buddhism as an essentially violent religion. Is anyone here interested in maybe contributing to the discussion? Jared1219 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Please change "Buddhism is a religion" to "Buddhism is a philosophy" because this Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism can be a religion but to call it a religion as a whole is very incorrect.

CreatingTheEpidemic (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia articles should reflect the predominant view in reliable cited sources. I see no evidence that the majority of scholarly sources refer to Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion. To put it in your words, Buddhism can be a philosophy but to call it a philosophy as a whole is incorrect. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

"Iranian-speaking" should be "Persian-speaking"

samansepehr (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A reliable source to back up your request would be extremely helpful as well. Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"indigenous to the Indian subcontinent" statement

Regarding the statement in the lead sentence that Buddhism is "indigenous to the Indian subcontinent"--this seems to me to be a very peculiar statement.

The term "indigenous" is commonly used to refer to "indigenous plants" that grow naturally in a particular environment, or "indigenous people" or "indigenous culture" etc.

The first entry for the Meriam-Webster definition states:[18]

produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment <indigenous plants> <the indigenous culture>

Buddhism has been one of the main religions throughout Asia for over 1000 years. If we apply the above definition, we could accurately say that Buddhism is indigenous to China, Japan, Thailand, Burma, etc.

If the point of the above statement is to indicate that Buddhism originated in the Indian subcontinent, why not just say that? - Dorje108 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think 'originating on the Indian subcontinent' would be an improvement. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2014

There is an inaccurate statement about Buddhism. Buddhism is not inherently non-theistic nor has it ever been transtheistic. There are many sects of Buddhism that explicitly involve the reverence of deities and this reverence is a focal point thereof. Riothamus12 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

Buddha means the enlightened one Notbuter (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph already says that Buddha means "the awakened one". I don't see how substituting "enlightened" would be an improvement, unless you can offer some reliable sources that indicate that "enlightened" is a more accurate translation. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• The words 'enlightened' and 'enlightenment' (for 'Buddha'and 'Bodhi') are really inaccurate. There is no imagery of light at all contained in these Sanskrit terms. The word 'Buddha' means, indeed, 'The Awakened One' or 'The Knowing One' - one who is fully Aware. It is only bad Western habit that has persistently translated the word, 'Buddha', as 'The Enlightened One'! Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014: "1 billion+ Buddhists" - original claim artfully supported by unreliable sources

The article should focus on the teachings of Buddhism, and handle statistical demographics of Buddhist adherents only in one section, possibly at the bottom of the page. Enlightenment isn't a matter of numbers. Unfortunately, the article has been filled by one user with fake statistics, supported by totally unreliable sources which in many cases don't even report those counts. The figure of "1 billion+ Buddhists" in the world has been artfully created by lumping together statistics of religions that have nothing to do with Buddhism. The same havoc has been unleashed in other articles such as "Buddhism by country" and "list of religious populations".

The issue has been exposed in other discussions, but has remained unresolved. See for example this discussion.--95.232.83.14 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any justification for semi-protected status for the article. There is no edit waring or vandalism happening. As pointed out, the problem has been discussed previously without resolution. In that discussion, the claim that there are over one billion Buddhists in the world may relate to the difficulties in estimating the number of Buddhists in China. The way to resolve this is through discussion here and the use of reliable sources. In order to state that there are over one billion Buddhists we need a reliable source that says so. I suggest we begin compiling some reliable sources on this subject. Here's one from Pew Research The Global Religious Landscape. Has anyone seen a good source for the "over one billion" claim? Sunray (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit warring or vandalism happening because this article is semi-protected. Just look at the declined requests above that would have disrupted the article had they been made. Just look at the protection log, which shows a huge number of ever-escalating protections to counter disruption until, finally, the article reached indefinite semi-protection status.

If you want to request a change to the article, then propose the specific change you want to make, and it will be considered. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Shakya Muni Buddha Meaning

"Shakya Muni Buddha" is not a name. Siddharth Gautam was born in Shakya Dynasty.'Shakya' is name of ruling dynasty of "Lumbini". "Muni" means "saint". " Buddha" is a word derived from "Buddhi" , which means brain/intelligence in Sanskrit.Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Hence, Shakya Muni Buddha means " The man of Shakya Dynasty who was a Saint and attained Enlightment.

The word "Buddha" often means the historical Buddha named Buddha Shakyamuni (Siddhartha Gautama), but "Buddha" does not mean just one man who lived at a certain time. There have been many Buddhas and there will be many in the future. "Buddha" does not necessarily means 'Siddharth Gautam/shakya muni buddha'. Siddharth Gautam after getting enlightment called himself 'Buddha'. The word buddha is taken from pali/sanskrit language. This word "Buddha" Existed even before Siddharth Gautam was born. Siddharth Gautam simply took this word from Popular language to define himself and his religion to say "Enlightened one".

"Samyak sam buddha" in Jainology means to have right vision in life with complete disappearance of ignorance due to the functioning of awakened wisdom.There is no evidence to suggest that "Samyak sam buddha" refers to the 'historical' buddha, and "pratyekabuddha". This is a misnomer. "Samyak" in sanskrit means " to have saiyam/right vision " in life. It also means "to remain unaffected" in all situations in life like grief,happiness,sorrow etc. The word "sam" means "complete". "Buddha" means "bodhi", It is the situation of the disappearance of ignorance due to the functioning of awakened wisdom.Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani. thanks for your interesting exposition on the meaning of "Samyak Sam Buddha". I didn't know about this meaning of "to remain unaffected in all situations in life"; same for "sam". It sheds, for me, new light on the Buddha.

Nevertheless, I've removed your addition to the article; it is unsourced, and it seems a little bit out of place there. Could you please reconsider your edit, and add a source? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

I just wanted to see the source that the information came from to help me even further in a project 208.108.164.194 (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The sources are at the foot of the article page, ESP requests are for requesting changes to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation

Mindfulness meditation is a relatively new article in its present form. I wonder if it could benefit from some attention from some of the regulars here. --Nigelj (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Mindfulness (psychology). Same topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nigelj that Mindfulness meditation will benefit from Buddhism regulars. Although I thank Buddhists for inventing it, my interest in MM is purely secular (I focus on Psychology articles), and have proposed that three related short articles (Mindfulness meditation, Mindfulness-based stress reduction, and Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) be built into apt sections of Mindfulness (psychology), then redirected there. Joshua Jonathan thinks Mindfulness meditation should be merged into Mindfulness. I'm fine with incorporating the article into both, maybe with different twists. Please see discussion here. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mindfulness is noted in Pali as Satipatthana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalakannija (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Buddhism is a religion" logic

Regarding the question of whether this article should begin with the statement "Buddhism is a religion"--we have discussed this topic before, but I would like to re-open this discussion since I feel there are some flaws in the logic of using this statement as an opening remark. For reference, please see:

• Talk:Buddhism/Archive 14#Is Buddism a Religion or a Philosophy - previous discussion
• User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources - research page

As far as I can tell, the main arguments for leading with the statement "Buddhism is a religion" are:

• The only valid definition of religion is roughly speaking "an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence"
• There exists a scholarly consensus that Buddhism is a religion

I realize that the other editors have strong opinions on this, so I would like to focus the discussion on the points just mentioned, which I believe are the crux of the argument.

"Religion is a collection of beliefs" logic

The assertion that "Buddhism is a religion" is valid only if you define the term religion in the broad sense of "a collection of beliefs, etc."

However, the most common definition of religion-- as cited in most dictionary definitions--is (for example) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

So if we state "Buddhism is a religion", it must also be true that:

• The only valid definition of religion is the broad interpretation offered by scholars
• The definition of religion as "belief in a superhuman power (e.g. a god)" is not a valid definition

I think this is a very important point, because the lead of this article should be aimed at the broadest possible audience, and it is clear from the dictionary definitions that the most commonly understood definition for religion is the "belief in a superhuman power". Therefore, it is logical to assume that most people who read the statement "Buddhism is a religion" will assume that Buddhism posits a belief in a "belief in a superhuman power (e.g. a god)".

"Scholarly consensus" logic

It has often been stated in previous discussions that there is a scholarly consensus that "Buddhism is a religion". However, I do not believe that this assertion has been proven.

If there are several reliable sources that have conducted formal surveys of Buddhist scholars, and these sources concluded that the vast majority of scholars agreed that:

• "Buddhism is a religion" is the best way to begin a description of Buddhism for a broad audience, or
• "Buddhism is a religion" is the only valid way, or the best way, to categorize Buddhism
• Etc.

Then we could say that there was a scholarly consensus on the matter.

However, I am not aware of any sources that have made the assertion that there is a scholarly consensus that "Buddhism is a religion" is the best way to describe Buddhism in this context (of presenting Buddhism to a broad audience).

We have seen evidence that many scholars refer to Buddhism as a religion in scholarly papers and in courses at universities. But this is a case of scholars speaking to a limited, specific audience whom they can assume will have a shared understanding of what is meant by "religion."

However, I have also provided evidence that many eminent scholars (and Buddhist teachers) who have undertaken to explain Buddhism to a general (non-academic) audience are reluctant to label Buddhism as a "religion". For example, contemporary scholar Rupert Gethin states: "I am not concerned here to pronounce on a question that is sometimes asked of Buddhism: is it a religion? Obviously it depends on how one defines ‘a religion’. What is certain, however, is that Buddhism does not involve belief in a creator God who has control over human destiny, nor does it seek to define itself by reference to a creed."

Conclusion

In conclusion, I strongly suggest that we follow the example of Mr. Gethin and many other eminent scholars and:

• avoid a blanket assertion that "Buddhism is a religion"
• make clear that Buddhism does not involve belief in a creator god

Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the thrust of Gethin's statement, and something that I think is repeated by Gombrich, is that discussing whether or not Buddhism is a religion is 1) fundamentally neither tractable nor particularly fruitful and 2) an inquiry that academics are going to regard as pointless. Any definition in the lede that defines Buddhism concisely is going to have to include 'religion' to address the popular and historical understanding of Buddhism, and its tendency to be studied alongside other traditions that are considered religions. We would also need some other supplemental terms and previous candidates in this area have been repeatedly discussed and found wanting. It's also worth noting that conceptions of Buddhism as something other than a religion seem to be primarily confined to popular Western literature of the second half of the 20th century and beyond and in some cases reflect polemic goals rather than academic analysis.

In other words, if we are going to evict or qualify religion in the introduction, we need an alternative that reflects whatever the more nuanced understanding is without making the topic sentence three pages long. That's been tried numerous times, and nothing has really been adequate. We also need to think about this from the perspective of a novice reader, someone who is not already familiar with the material, given that this is an overview article. From 10,000 feet and for the casual reader, Buddhism is 'something comparable in role and scope to Hinduism, Christianity, etc' - i.e., a religion- is an adequate understanding. There are wrinkles to the definition of almost every world religion- is Judaism a religion or an ethnicity? Is Hinduism one religion or many?- but explaining those nuances is a task for the body of the article rather than a topic sentence.

I appreciate the attempt to confine the discussion to certain specific weaknesses in calling Buddhism a religion. I'll readily concede that there are some weaknesses to the blanket statement 'Buddhism is a religion' in the topic sentence, but years of raking over the topic have produced nothing that is not at least as bad or worse. It would be worthwhile to see what other encyclopedias call Buddhism; a quick perusal suggests that 'religion and philosophy' is one of the more common ones.

Is there a seperate 'is Buddhism a religion' article? To me, it would be better to summarize the situation in the main body of the article and send the list of quotes and some discussion of the history of the topic (comparative study, 20th century views, etc.) into its own article.

I'm unsure about the creator god issue; my intuition is that it does not belong in the lede, but it seems like a paragraph addressing Buddhist cosmology and addressing Buddhist theories of creation (or their absence) would be a beneficial addition to the article. Not addressing the realms of rebirth, Mt. Meru, etc., seems like an omission.--Spasemunki (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Spasemunki. Thank you for the thoughtful response. Much appreciated. If we are going to keep the term religion in the lead sentence (and I don't see any consensus for changing this), then I suggest that we can address the "creator-god" issue directly by qualifying the term as follows: "non-theistic religion". This approach was suggested in a previous discussion, but I did not follow up at the time because I was hoping for a more comprehensive change.

Adding the term "non-theistic" is only one extra word, but it immediately clarifies what separates Buddhism from the other major world religions. From the Buddhist point of view, this is a fundamental distinction between Buddhism and the other religions that existed in India at the time of the Buddha--and it changes everything really. It completely alters the meaning of karma, the self, etc. (as compared to the Brahmic religions).

I would prefer to go further and say "Buddhism is a non-theistic religion and philosophy", but I don't see much of a chance for a consensus on such a change.

In summary, I think that any of the following changes would be an improvement of the current phrasing:

1. Buddhism as a non-theistic religion.
2. Buddhism as a non-theistic religion and philosophy.
3. Buddhism as a religion and philosophy.

If we choose option 3, I suggest adding a footnote to the term religion to clarify the non-theistic nature of Buddhism. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that DiverDave has already made the change in favor of option 1 above! (I was off-line for a number of days so I missed it.) I think that it is a very good change! It should help remove a lot of potential confusion. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Much that there are traditions and schools within Buddhism which don't look very religious, it is pretty hard to assert that Buddhism is not a religion: Religion involves adhering to some sort of faith in something for which there is no current scientific basis; although Buddhism is one of the Dharma traditions there is a strong assertion of the following beliefs against which there is no current scientific evidence: Buddhahood, liberation (cessation of suffering) / Nirvāṇa, Karma, Rebirth, and even that Prince Gautama achieved Buddhahood.

Likewise there are plenty of deities in Buddhism (there are many traditions and varieties of Buddhism) - there are even 'creator' gods - but they are not omnipotent, and they cannot 'judge', - they cannot prevent karma from ripening. My understanding of this is that Buddha said, explicitly and implicitly, 'take responsibility for your actions'.

So, IMO, non-theistic religion really is only being used as a qualifier to say "Buddhism is not Judaism, Christianity, or Islam" - which is probably a bit redundant? However, I am not bothered enough to keep the status quo. (20040302 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC))

Addendum 1: Academic consensus guidelines

For reference, here are the current Wikipedia guidelines on academic consensus:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

I think it is clear that if we follow the above guidelines then the assertion of an academic consensus that "Buddhism is a religion" has not been established. - Dorje108 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment on "Scholarly consensus logic"

• Buddhism is for Aspirants; not for the Scholars of religion. It is a practical guide for the mental health (very practicle though)Kalakannija (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

Need to change the word Buddha to Lord Buddha Jdhdineshkumara (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:NPOV, honorifics are not added to the names of religious figures. For example, we do not write Muhammad (PBUH) or Lord Jesus Christ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

While Buddhism is practiced primarily in Asia, both major branches are now found throughout the world. Estimates of Buddhists worldwide vary significantly depending on the way Buddhist adherence is defined. Estimates range from 350 million to 1.6 billion, with 350–550 million the most widely accepted figure. 203.45.181.91 (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I know about that, population of Buddhists is still unconfirmed. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nontheistic?

Isn't a bit much to refer to it as "nontheistic" from the start despite Buddhism having numerous sects that practice it in both theistic and nontheistic ways? It already mentions the several ways it is practiced in the article further down so shouldn't it say "its a religion and philosophy" from the start so as it doesn't seem like its dismissing theistic practitioners? -Fart Waker (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. By the way, therea re a lot of deities in Buddhism, despite its "atheism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So can the protection on the page be temporarily lifted to allow for this change? -Fart Waker (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The primary definition of theism is belief in a creator god. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism) In this sense, Buddhism is definitely non-theistic. I am not sure what sects you are referring to, but I think it is important to make the distinction between beings in other realms (devas, etc.) who are subject to karma, and the theistic view of an omnipotent create god. Having said that, I think it would be fine to change "non-theistic religion" to "non-theistic religion and philosophy". However, my first preference for a revised lead is here: Talk:Buddhism/Archive_14#Suggestion_for_revised_lead - Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Even so, many sources define it as a religion and philosophy, and there are some who incorporate Buddhism into their own theistic views, so it should at least say that its a religion and philosophy but then follow with one of the statements in the link you provided, like this one: "In modern times, Buddhism has been variously described as a religion, a "nontheistic religion", a philosophy, a science of mind, or a way of life." That way the article's lead is at least not completely dismissing all the ways in which it is practiced. -Fart Waker (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here are some lead paragraphs on Buddhism from reliable secondary sources: User:Dorje108/Buddhism_lead_paragraph_sources#Lead_paragraphs.

I find the lead paragraph by I. B. Horner to be particularly inspired. - Dorje108 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There seems to be some discussion here but no consensus as of yet. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your notion of "religion" apparently includes a bias toward theism, since none of the RS describes Buddhism as theistic.

Buddhism is "a nontheistic religion", which could also be described as "a notheistic religion and philosophy", though philosophy proper (i.e., that of Ancient Greece, from where the word is derived) has a separate historical context. Both philosophy and Buddhism share the historical context of having arisen in polytheistic societies, incidentally.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The claim that Buddhism is "non-theistic" is misleading, tendentious, and in some cases just plain false. (1) The existence of "gods" (devas) such as Indra is acknowledged by most Buddhist traditions, even when it is not emphasized. (2) Despite rhetoric to the contrary, Buddhas and bodhisattvas are often the functional equivalents of the gods of other religions, in that they are superior supernatural beings who receive worship and are petitioned for help. Indeed, some Tibetan deities (Ganesh, Saraswati) have direct Hindu analogues. (3) Whether any of various Buddhist concepts of the ultimate reality might be compared to the monotheistic God is the subject of ongoing inter-religious dialogue, whose outcome (if there ever is one) should not be prejudged by Wikipedia. (4) In Indonesia and Malaysia, Buddhism is one of several government-recognized religions, all of which are affirmed / required by the prevailing national political ideologies (Pancasila, Rukunegara) to believe in God, albeit under different names, and Buddhists there accordingly cite concepts such as Buddha Nature as the Buddhist equivalents of "God." --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.176.199 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed Criticism subsection

I have removed the criticism and apologetic section. There was criticism of Buddhist doctrine, but it is neither frequent nor it has been accurate in last few decades.

When this section was inserted to the article, it was simply because the Criticism of Buddhism was long, with citations citing some of the SPS and personal blogs. It is not big anymore. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Frequent? Don't understand. I've restored the section for now. How is it not accurate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI's profession is to speak against all religions except his own. His opinion cannot be considered as constructive criticism. 3rd paragraph is not really criticism. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed. What do you think about incorporating some of the "Women in Buddhism" criticism in the child article into here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ad Stuart Lachs. His criticism of Japanese Zen has been influential. And there's fundamental criticism on "guruism" in (Zen)Buddhism, also by Stuart Lachs, among others. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI, and I say this as a non-Catholic, his argument was a valid criticism of some aspects of some branches of the Buddhist faith. Naturally as the leader of a rival religion, he will criticize other faiths but that does not mean that what he says is automatically untrue or unworthy of mention. What is more, in criticism of religion, his opinion is valid, in that it represents a sober critique of the Buddhist faith on a par with the criticism of Christianity by Shinto priest Guji Yukitaka Yamamoto. If I could find relevant criticisms of Buddhism from other religious leaders I would add them as well, and vice versa. When I first added the section Criticism and Apologetics, I did so to ensure that the article on Buddhism shared common features with those of other religion articles, including those for Christianity, Islam, et cetera. No religion is above criticism, as much as some fundamentalists of every religion, and indeed militant atheists, might wish it to be the case.

At the same time it is equally vital to combine criticism with apologetics, so that from a common reference people can find answers to the criticisms proffered by others. The goal of Wikipedia, as an NPOV encyclopedia, must be to expose this information as transparently and elegantly as possible, without prejudice either for or against the subject matter.

Pursuant to this I am going to reconstruct the section based on your feedback, and the criteria outlined above. For the moment I am going to restore it and then as I see it we can jointly co-edit it until we are satisfied, but for me including Ratzinger's opinion, and also including apologetics, is vital. What I would eventually like to do is create a standard model for criticism sections related to religion, and apply them to every religion article and to the articles on atheism and agnosticism. That would give us complete fairness, and would elegantly reflect the diversity of opinion on this most interesting of subjects.

Wgw2024 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've split Criticism and Apologetics into two separate sections, restored the Ratzinger's quote, and deleted references to news items, like Bhutan's purge of non-Buddhists, which are not strictly speaking criticism of the religion, but rather evil acts conducted in its name.

Wgw2024 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not soapbox. Something done in its name cannot be criticism towards religion. Pope's main aim is to generate followers for his own sect. How his criticism could be constructive? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism does not have to be constructive. Competing views are just as valid for an encyclopedia article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I had found the criticism from 14th Dalai Lama to be pretty well for the article. If we can add Pope's research, we can summarize it, not to add quote. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted Bladesmulti's reversion as it does not appear to reflect the consensus. Pope Benedict's opinion carries weight on the basis of his status as a theologian and does not require citations to support it; the subject matter is subjective and impossible to prove. There is a necessary element of polemics in any criticism of religion, and Wikipedia must transparently expose this criticism to avoid bias and provide a solid information base.

Now, more importantly, I reverted Bladesmulti's deletion of the Apologetics section. Bladesmulti, for reasons unknown, keeps deleting that vitally important section, which has nothing to do with criticizing Buddhism, and which does not contain any content mirrored elsewhere on the Wiki. Apologetics are vital, and we need an apologetics section.

Now at this point, I can do nothing further, and nor can Bladesmulti; we are both at the threshold of the three-reversion rule and any further reversion on either of our parts would constitute an edit war. The ball is in NeilN's court to resolve this issue, or to simply do nothing, for the next 24 hours. I'm going to walk away from this for a week or so to avoid even the temptation to edit war with Bladesmulti, and hope that NeilN and other editors of this page act correctly to preserve relevant content and ensure that the criticism of Buddhism presented is balanced and of the same quality as the criticism sections on the pages describing other major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, et cetera).

Wgw2024 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wgw2024 It is irrelevant propaganda and I don't see how you agree with NeilN. He did his job. If you can read and hear, you have seen that NeilN himself trimmed it. It has been already told that "Beyond Belief is a book which refutes the arguments..." or "In the mid-19th century, encounters between Buddhists and Christians in Japan prompted"(unsourced) have nothing to do with the article. If you are going to add something, propose here first. I can agree about adding criticism from 14th Dalai Lama and little summary from Pope, but anything else is just irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti has violated the three-edit rule and is now technically edit warring. However I will hold off for six hours before reporting him, to allow for him to restore the deleted Apologetics section. The Pope Benedict quote can be left out for the time being since it seems to be the main bone of contention, although I maintain that Bladesmulti's rationale for excluding it is both unfair and illogical.

Wgw2024 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

3rr is 3 revert under 24 hours. In last 24 hours I have made 2 reverts. But that is not even a point. Till now, I have agreed with opinion of these 2 people but not really with the encounters or famous apologetic. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wgw2024: I'd like to see your version of the reconstructed section, incorporating the feedback given earlier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I can't make any changes to this part of the article now for the next 24 hours at least due to the bright line 3 edit rule, which I fear Bladesmulti may have already violated. However, what I would suggest is the apologetics section be restored without modification, and the Criticism section expanded to feature the Dalai Lama's self-criticism of the violence of certain monks (even if this is not criticism of the religion per se, which is why I trimmed it), the material from Women in Buddhism referenced earlier, and a summary of Pope Benedict's quote, if not the actual quote itself. I'm not a controversialist and I don't want to cram that quote down anyone's throat; if Buddhists reading this article find it hugely offensive rather than a useful information resource then far be it from me to force it upon them. There is a need for sensitivity in these matters. I would urge you to construct, based on this feedback, a revised section, but also to simply restore the Apologetics section as is, because I see nothing about it that could be construed as remotely controversial, since after all, it simply cites various movements and individuals who have sought to, through the discipline of religious apologetics, a worthy field of endeavor, defend the doctrines, history, and praxis of the Buddhist faith.

Wgw2024 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have problem with Dalai Lama's view, but what he was saying is more about the Myanmar conflict. Not really Buddhism.

I have already told you about the pope. I wouldn't have problem, but it is better to summarize. Or if you can find more than one pope being critical to Buddhism, we can say "popes have criticized".

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/beyond-belief02.pdf - not a true reliable citation. No where this whole pdf has words like "Apologetic", "The Debate of King". Source was misrepresented.

19th century encounters is unsourced for a while now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I myself object to the quote of the Dalai Lama as I view it as being not an actual criticism of Buddhism but of the actions of Buddhists. I do not agree with your opinion on the apologetics, what apologetics means is material written in defense of the Buddhist faith, and this article needs it. Re summarizing the Popes remarks, that is fine with me. While I am not aware of any Popes before Benedict specifically engaging with Buddhist theology, there was a clear aversion to it; a reading of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that historically most Catholics dismissed the Buddhist faith as idolatry, If you implement the changes you just outlined I am prepared to withdraw my charge of edit warring.

Wgw2024 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How kind! But there was no edit-warring, only a miscalculation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I like the quote from the pope, and the comment by Schmidt-Leukel. It's a correct observation, I'd say. So, I don't mind to restore Wgw's edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Underconstruction... Can you propose a summary? It is just a quote(on pope's side) right now. I can agree with adding these two. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti: In the context of this article a summary (!) of criticism may be appropriate (like the criticism section of Islam). I don`t think that the quote from the pope is helpful in a summary. Wgw2024 might try to introduce this quote in the Criticism of Buddhism article. I can`t follow how the statement from the Dalai Lama does contribute to the criticism of Buddhism, it seems to be a criticism of violent buddhists in Myanmar. JimRenge (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I share in the consensus that the Dalai Lama's quote is irrelevant; the Dalai Lama was clearly criticizing the violence of some Buddhists, but not the religion itself. Thus, it does not belong in the Criticism section, unless the point of the Criticism section is merely to smear Buddhism, which I would be the first to object to. I do maintain that the Pope's opinion is valid however; the Pope expresses a legitimate concern that many Westerners have with some aspects of Buddhist spirituality; I feel it should be included, ideally along with a response by an eminent Buddhist scholar. I would also love to see if anyone is familiar with any in depth criticism of Buddhism from a Hindu or Jain, because I feel that would really add some perspective to the article.

I have withdrawn for the time being the charge of edit warring against Bladesmulti in the interest of reconciliation and getting this fixed, however, if he reverts anyone else's attempts to restore or otherwise re-implement the criticism section I will reinstate it.

Wgw2024 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

When Kardinal Ratzinger gave this interview to the French newspaper L`Express, he was not the pope but the precept of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.

The quote is: "If Buddhism is attractive, it is because it appears as a possibility of touching the infinite and obtaining happiness without having any concrete religious obligations. A spiritual auto-eroticism [...] of some sort." Since spiritual autoeroticism is synonymous with spiritual masturbation, this polemic may be seen as an insult by buddhists who honestly try to comply with the rules and obligations of their faith (Five Precepts for lay people and Prātimokṣa for monastics etc.).

WP:Quote states: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." JimRenge (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are things more offensive than that to Muslims on the Islam page and to Christians on the Christianity page. Buddhism cannot expect preferential treatment. What is more, it should be clear that Ratzinger was speaking of certain Buddhist traditions that emphasize effortless acquisition of enlightenment, as opposed to the more rigorous schools. Ratzinger remains one of the most important religious figures to have commented on Buddhism, and the fact that he did so as the head of what was at one time the dreaded Inquisition makes it even more interesting and relevant. I would love to read whatever Ayatollah Khameni had to say about it, even though it would probably vitriolic bile, it would still be interesting and worthy of mention. Wgw2024 (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Ratzinger is a reliable source on Buddhism, or that his statement reflects a significant viewpoint, so the quote may not belong to begin with. But, beyond this, Schmidt-Leukel, the source for the Ratzinger quote, clarifies that it "was apparently meant as a critique of certain forms of the Western reception of Buddhism..." Leo D. Lefebure says the comment could be taken as indicting certain contemporary Western distortions of Buddhism rather than the Buddhist tradition itself."[19] So, the quote may not fall within the scope of the article.

If the quote is left in, the wording "certain Western forms" should be corrected to "certain forms of the Western reception". Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, after some reflection, I am of the opinion that the quote is better omitted. To understand where Bladesmulti was coming from, I put myself in the shoes of a Buddhist, and realized that Ratzinger appears to essentially accuse them of spiritually masturbating, and given that in many schools of Buddhism such activity is considered sexual misconduct, I have concluded that the quote, while important, is inherently offensive, and furthermore does as you say apply more to the Western reception of Buddhism than to the Eastern praxis of it. What is more, one could level a similar charge at the Western reception of other Eastern religions.

I propose that we move forward with the integration of the relevant content from Women in Buddhism into criticism as was discussed previously. I do believe an apologetics section is strongly warranted however. There is a need in this article for a review of the main apologists of the Buddhist faith, both ancient and contemporary. I want to see what the Buddhists had to say about Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, Shintoism, et cetera, and what they have to say about Christianity and Islam. I want to see this from credible sources who have a legitimate voice in Buddhism, but this represents the threshold of my expertise.

Wgw2024 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that many Buddhists would agree wholeheartedly with the quote: any search for enlightenment that's only about ones personal relief is a form of auto-eroticism. After all, "enlightenment" is about diminishing self-concern, and working for the greater good. But alas, your concerns are well-appreciated, and are to be preferred. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

wierd

buddism is wierd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.157.2 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Very wierd indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding Middle Way to lead

Shall I add "(also known as the Middle Way)." after "by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path" or does that make the sentence too long? eu.stefan (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really long. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added it then. eu.stefan (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dubious statement

Buddhism#Life of the Buddha

What is really dubious about it? I think it was tagged because Karen had doubted the historicity, what if we can add another quote about his historicity? Slightly favorable one. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The historicity of the Buddha is a long-standing topic, as far as I know. But most scholars seem to agree that he existed, somehow (hear the irony of this sentence...). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

[Here's the diff] of the insertion of the tag. Edit summary: "important facts on the history of buddhism should be cited from a reputed scholar on buddhism" Andi 3ö (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Armstrong could be replaced, or supplemented, by Gombrich. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism: Definition

Articles on Buddhism Gautama Buddha and Faith are all inaccurate. It is not possible to correct them without rewriting them from the beginning. What is given are mere opinions and thus are biased. They all stem from the problem fact that there is no God in Buddhism yet exhibit the characteristic of a religion.

Here is suggestion to get out of the problem.

All Buddhists, irrespective of their tradition, location on the planet earth, race, caste, creed claim that their religion is based on the teaching of the Buddha.

The above statement is a fact. The statement is neutral and free from bias.

What is common about different Buddhist traditions is they all venerate the Buddha. It is more accurate to say they venerate Buddho Bhagava not the Buddha. Buddha is an English word. I shall therefore use the term Bhagvan Buddha from now onwards. It means Teacher Buddha or Lord Buddha because Bhagwan means Lord.

There are certain traditions that worship the Buddha in addition to veneration. Example, some Mahayana sects. In the Theravada tradition, Buddhist only venerate. They do not worship.

I stress what I have above all facts and are verifiable.

If people are willing to accept the above one line defintions can be written.

Example. Lord Buddha is a Teacher (Teacher who lived) about 2500 years ago in India in what is presently known as Nepal.

Buddhist: One who venerates Lord Buddha.

Buddhism: All those who venerate Lord Buddha.

Saddha: Devotion (pure and simple) (Buddhist scholars do not understand this. Simple Buddhists all over the world. Comment 1: Use of faith has created all the problems in the study of Buddhism

Note: There are and there will be no references for what I have given above except the Oxford Dictionary of English for Definitions of the few English words I have used. For example, Buddha, Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana.

A corollary of the above is Sanskrit word Sraddhaa does not mean faith. It means Bhakti.

Interpretation of Saddha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgdcw (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism: Definition

Articles on Buddhism Gautama Buddha and Faith are all opinions. It is not possible to correct them without rewriting them from the beginning. What is given as definitions are mere opinions and thus are biased. They all stem from the problem:there is no God in Buddhism yet exhibit the characteristic of a religion.

Here is a suggestion to get out of the problem.

All Buddhists, irrespective of their tradition, location on the planet earth, race, caste, creed claim that their religion is based on the teaching of the Buddha.

The above statement is a fact. The statement is neutral and free from bias.

What is common about different Buddhist traditions is they all venerate the Buddha. It is more accurate to say they venerate Buddho Bhagava not the Buddha. Buddha is an English word. I shall therefore use the term Lord Buddha from now onwards. It means Teacher Buddha or Lord Buddha because Bhagwan means Lord.

There are certain traditions that worship the Buddha in addition to veneration. Example, some Mahayana sects. In the Theravada tradition, Buddhist only venerate. They do not worship.

I stress what I have above are all facts and are verifiable.

If editiors are willing to accept the above one line defintions can be written.

Example. Lord Buddha is a Teacher (Teacher who lived) about 2500 years ago in India in what is presently known as Nepal.

Buddhist: One who venerates Lord Buddha.

Buddhism: All those who venerate Lord Buddha.

Saddha: Devotion (pure and simple devotion of traditional villagers.Buddhist scholars do not understand this. Simple Buddhists all over the world do. They do not discuss the philosophy of the Buddha) Comment 1: Use of faith for Saddha in has created all the problems in the study of Buddhism.

Note: There are and there will be no references for what I have given above except the Oxford Dictionary of English for Definitions of the few English words I have used. For example, Buddha, Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana.

A corollary of the above is Sanskrit word Sraddhaa does not mean faith. It means Bhakti.

Interpretation of Saddha and Sradda as faith is the Western perception of Buddhism and Hinduism. And misinterpreted both religions to the world.

All the above ideas are mine and solely mine. I daren't give the responsibility to any body else. The definitions above will require labelling almost all the information under the articles as opinions. Example, Kalama Sutta. All misinterpretations of a Dhamma-desana of Lord Buddha.

I am more than willing to answer any question from the editors, or even others. Dgdcw (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If all the editors without exception agree to the above, I shall present these ideas to Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'presenting them to Wikipedia'. In terms of your root definition, I'm not so certain that the distinction between veneration and worship is actually observed- it's a rather fine distinction that I think makes sense only if you accept certain underlying premises that are associated with particular monotheist dogma. I think the general plan of moving the intros on these articles a bit closer to the dictionary definitions is a good one, but the issue of bhakti vs. saddha as devotion vs faith would certainly require a more complete reference than that, particularly if the translation as something other than 'devotion' has sources in the recognized references (I know that the PED is not that highly esteemed by some, but don't know anything about specific disputes over the translation of this term) I would also encourage you to try out writing some of these introduction in userspace or a talk page- rewrites of the intros in these topics are always fraught and I do think that there is material in the existing introductions that should be kept to provide a more complete context than the dictionary definition. However, I've long advocated identifying the traditions as being united most specifically by the fact that they all trace their origin to the teachings of the historical Buddha- that at least puts an end to the argument over whether we are talking about one tradition or more than one.--Spasemunki (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect please

Is there really such a tsunami of vandalism that this page needs protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.83 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion

Original post Buddhist rites and rituals exhibit some similarity to rituals in other religions. So some three hundred and fifty million practice BuddhismDgdcw (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Buddhist philosophy is really an academic discipline. It has no relevance to the Buddhist.Dgdcw (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Many sources describe Buddhism as a religion (as you've shown above) and it is commonly discussed together with other religions so Wikipedia describes it as a religion. I doubt the number of sources describing Buddhism as an academic discipline is anywhere as great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is Dharma. Not religion. Religion is a western construct.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So is "Buddhism". Bacchiad (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I prefer the word "Buddhadharma", like many practitioners.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a suggestion for a change to the article, is it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Great analysis, solid conclusion. And I agree with Vic. As for myself: it's a fruitless discussion. Buddhism is indeed a practice, and it's a dharma. "Way of life" comes closer than "religion". For westerners, "religion" is an understandable term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous and inappropriate WP:OR analysis. Nothing but a waste of time, and suspect motives. On might even consider ti to border on being bigoted insofar as it attacks the integrity of a religion as such. WP:NOTFORUM--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel offended; he gave an alternative perspetive from an unexpected corner. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The only "unexpected corners" recognized on Wikipedia are the kind supported by WP:RS. I don't know the motivations of the user that posted that WP:OR, but I've just deleted it per WP:NOTFORUM.

Stick to reliable sources, and don't use this talk page to expound upon personal ideas that do nothing to improve the article and only waste other editors' time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the current wording proposed by Joshua. [20] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We've got the same sort of solution at Hinduism: "Hinduism is the dominant religion, or way of life". Actually, there too "dharma" might even be better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "way of life"?PiCo (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang on - this particular issue has been argued on and off since the dawn of this article. There is no doubt that Buddhism is a religion, why are we going through it all over again? There are plenty of Buddhists who are non-religious too, but that merely demonstrates the complexity and variety of Buddhist praxis. Simply put, the expositions of Karma and Rebirth involve faith and both are necessary for the acceptance of the four noble truths, the fourth of which 'the truth of the path' is what we call 'Buddhism'. Until there is incontrovertible evidence of Karma and Rebirth, Buddhism is a religion. This is also true of any other religion. For instance, until the existence of Yahweh/Jehovah as the universal creator and judge is at some point incontrovertibly demonstrated to be existent, then the Ibrahimic faiths are likewise religions. We choose our beliefs - and our beliefs are what is true, for us. Our Lord Sakyamuni Buddha told us not to believe what he said just because he said it, but that doesn't stop us from having faith in metaphysical imponderables such as rebirth, karma, or the four noble truths. (20040302 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Nontheistic

It is true that all of Buddhism from Theravada to Tibetan Buddhism lacks a belief in a Creator deity. There is no doubt about that. But does a lack of a Creator equate to being "nontheistic"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes. Karma is the governing principle, not a deity of any sort.

That is not to say that there aren't deity like beings in various forms of Buddhism, but their relation to karma is probably something that sets event them apart from the notion of deity in the otherworldly sense.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Creator deity in any Buddhist sect.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, there are creator deities in some Buddhist traditions (cf. Amitabha in some of the pure land traditions, but also some interpretations of Brahma/Vishnu as a creator, but not as an omniscient judge, found in many variants of Buddhism. ); But regarding your initial question, being the creator-god is only one qualifier for being a theistic religion god as judge is another (Amitabha is considered able to intercede, but is not responsible for suffering); non-personality is sometimes considered to be non-theistic also. Regardless, and in general, Buddhism is best described as a non-theistic religion. (20040302 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

(Thanks to an old wiki editor, Peter Jackson), I learned that it's very hard to say anything concrete about anything as large, deep, and long-lived as 'Buddhism' - If you want a source re. the Pure land = "Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206)

Likewise the Jodo Shinshu (10 million followers) were considered to be 'just Lutheranism' by the Jesuits who encountered it. (20040302 (talk))

Amitabha is not a Creator in Pure Land Buddhism. In the basic Amitabha sutras (Smaller and Larger Sukhavati Sutras) its clear that Amitabha was just an ordinary sentient being at one point.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is right, But Amitabha is credited with omnipotence, which is something that belongs to theistic religions; by the time you look at traditions (NOT sutras), one sees much that parallels theistic religions.. Likewise, Vishnu as the sustainer of the universe, is often credited with creation of all things - and this is also something that belongs to theistic religions. (20040302 (talk))

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

its not Buddhacarita, its Buddhacharitha Niranjan46 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Its Buddhacarita. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

chinese tibetan version of buddhism

There is no mention of absorption of local deities and customs in the chinese version of Buddhism. The earliest school was theravadan so I assume that is closest to Buddha's teaching who derived his knowledge from Vedic or Pre Vedic Indian philosophies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.150.167 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And your sources for this are...? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

How is Buddhism in Nepal since Buddha was born in Nepal?

I believe and whole world Buddhist believe Buddha was born in Nepal. Since Buddha was born in Nepal there should be some article write about how is Buddhism in Nepal too, how Nepalese people practice Buddhism there?? am I right or wrong? Its all about believe and it most be truth. we believed he was in Nepal until he was 29 years old after that he went here and there but I don't see any body write about it. I hope to see it better in future. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 13:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

See Buddhism in Nepal. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Suntalkha, your wish was Joshua Jonathan's command. Randy Kryn 13:52 5 April, 2015 (UTC)

hello don't make me fool. what I mean is in the main page of Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nepal did not exist when Buddha was born and there's no reason to place undue emphasis on one country's practices. Incidentally, are there any sources which indicate which branch of Buddhism is prevalent in Nepal? The child articles aren't clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

who knows, its just believe, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect first sentence of article

In the first sentence there is an extra "or" and comma that needs to be deleted. Cannot edit, sorry! Currently it says: Buddhism /ˈbudɪzəm/[1][2] is a nontheistic religion[note 1][3] or (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: dhamma), that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyxmz (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism as one of the major families of belief

Proposal for lead

My edit which was reverted here.

I propose a classification becoming more popular with scholars that is both elegant, and inclusive of everyone's view of what Buddhism is which may be at odds with each other.

Buddhism as a family of belief.

In this sense it is a theistic stance, as an alternative to "Monotheism" or "Polytheism". Within this framework outlined in "Buddhist Religions" - the fifth edition of a college text co-written by Richard Robinson, Willard Johnson, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu - Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism can be considered to be separate Buddhist Religions, although adopting this definition of Buddhism doesn't ultimately lock Buddhist schools into a particular framework (see my edit above).

Characterizing Buddhism this way has the following benefits:

1. Inclusive of all forms of Buddhism while being respectful to all of them

In the introduction to Buddhist religions, the authors discuss the problems surrounding the characterization of Buddhism as a single religion: "[scholars of the Buddhist tradition] tried to delineate the essential characteristics of that common core, but the data refused to fit into any clearly discernible mold." They then proceed to talk about how scholars tried to define an "ideal Buddhism" by which to compare all other Buddhisms, which privilege those which adhere most closely to what the Buddha most likely taught at the expense of traditions which are less close to Early Buddhism. More recently a trend has been "essentialism" or "inclusionism": the idea that Buddhism is what anyone who calls themselves a Buddhist says it is. The authors state that "when combined with the perception of Buddhism as a single religion, it has the consequence of privileging those Buddhist traditions that are also inclusionistic - enclosing the largest range of Buddhist beliefs and practices in their framework - as the most complete expressions of the religion." This has the consequence of dismissing less inclusionistic forms of Buddhism as "partial or incomplete" in a disparaging manner.

These same issues arise when attempting to characterize it as a "philosophy" or "belief system; or even a "religion, philosophy, and / or belief system". It always seems to either exclude someone, dismiss someone else as not being inclusive enough, or the model integrates some sort of workaround, prohibitive of elegance.

Characterizing Buddhism as a family allows for the inclusion of religions, belief systems, traditions, and philosophies; and unites them under what actually does make them all Buddhist, while giving each their independence where they differ from each other.

2. Occam's Razor

Another major problem with referring to it as a "Religion or Philosophy" is it attempts to jam the word Buddhism into two different meanings. Just like before, this is possible only through inelegant workarounds in which exceptions are made to the primary definition of "Buddhism".

Classifying Buddhism as a family of belief is a single, easily digestible concept. It also has the following benefits:

Elegance with existing comparative models: In the Judeo/Christian realm religions are classified as monotheistic religions descended from Abraham, and you have philosophical Monotheistic schools as well. Likewise Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism can be referred to as non-creationist Sramana religions descended from the Buddha, with it's philosophical schools also classified the same way. This avoids the perception of Buddhism as this bizzare amoeba-like thing where no one really knows what it is or what to classify it under.

Theistic or Nontheistic?: By simply defining Buddhism as belief in the concept of buddhahood, like how Monotheism is the belief in a God, problems like that go away.

3. Reliable and Notable Source

The book that this characterization is from was cowrote by three authors, reviewed, and is in current use as a college textbook.

Additionally, this characterization is supported by mentionings already in the article:

Peter Harvey states: "The English term 'Buddhism' correctly indicates that the religion is characterized by devotion to 'the Buddha', 'Buddhas', or 'buddhahood'."[201] Surya Das states: "For Buddhism is less a theology or religion than a promise that certain meditative practices and mind trainings can effectively show us how to awaken our Buddha-nature and liberate us from suffering and confusion."[203]

A close look at the section "Is Buddhism a Religion" shows that while some do call it a religion, this can be given mention, and ultimately none of the ways Buddhism is described conceptually conflict with this proposed characterization, and some actually allude to it.

Hopefully this definition of Buddhism is accepted here, as I think it solves many of the problems central to the discussion on what to call Buddhism.

- Geoff Allingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Furthershore (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)--

Reply by JJ: Hi Furthershore. Some responses:

• You've got a fine point with "family of beliefs," yet this is already mentioned with "that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices"
• Best term would be "dharma," yet that doesn't make sense to most readers. Therefor, "religion" or "philosophy." Apparently our (western) categories don't fit exactly; so be it. Fitting Buddhism into yet another comparison with western religion, stating "By simply defining Buddhism as belief in the concept of buddhahood, like how Monotheism is the belief in a God," this problem surely won't go away.
• Reliable source: Robinson, Johnson, Thanissaro (2005) is just one source, out of many; why pick this one source, and apply their methodology? At best, you can mention it as one of many possible startegies in defining "Buddhism."
• Harvey (1990) p.1. says "Buddhism [...] is characterized by a devotion to the 'the Buddhas', 'Buddhas', or 'Buddhahood'." This is quite different from "Buddhism is belief in the concept of buddhahood"
• Next you try to give a definition of what "Buddhahood" is: "the state of awakening possessed by a Buddha and characterized by an ultimate realization of the Four Noble Truths."

• "the state of awakening possessed by a Buddha" - and that is? This is meaningless; no ordinary reader will know what it mean.
• The second part of this definition may be preferred by Thanissaro and his co-authors, but is not typical for other Buddhist traditions

• Next follows a note which is incomprehensible;
• Two or three categories: more could be added too, I guess; why this characteriation?

Altogether, I understand the point you're making, but I'm afraid it's a sort of WP:OR, trying to "solve" a riddle instead of giving an overview of the relevant sources. Sorry (again). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply By Furthershore

This is all fair criticism, however I would challenge that nontheistic religion or philosophy is a best fit, even with the information we have. The basis for this is WP:DEFINING, a discussion of defining characteristics as they apply to categorization. Although this concept isn't mentioned in the guidelines for lead writing, I would assert that this is because it's such a given - only defining characteristics should be used in a definition - that it goes without mention.

The page defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". In this particular case "religion", "philosophy", and "nontheistic religion or philosophy" are not defining characteristics in the sense that it is only sometimes referred to as a "religion" or "philosophy", and calling Buddhism a "religion or philosophy" seems exclusive to Britannica and the current Wikipedia edit.

However, the concept of buddhahood is a defining characteristic, something that is commonly and consistently defined as Buddhism having by reliable sources. I would argue that it is the most central defining characteristic, as refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is what distinguishes a Buddhist from a non-Buddhist. By this reasoning while "family of belief" may be covered by "encompasses a variety of traditions . . .", referring to Buddhism as a "nontheistic religion or philosophy" is incorrect.

Then there's the question of nontheism, of which I would point to the discussion in June of 2014 where someone pointed out that Devas and Bodhisattvas are considered deities. I would also point to the page Wrathful deities, which describes a concept in Tibetan Buddhism. While "theistic" may imply a higher divinity than Buddhist deities are venerated to, this distinction probably isn't made in the mind of the average person native to a Buddhist country, nor is it likely to be understood by the average person who reads a Wikipedia vital article on such a general topic as Buddhism.

As for "Buddhism is a Dharma", I have heard both Theravadins and Mahayanists refer to the different traditions in Buddhism as "Dharmas". Even within Theravada or within Mahayana they are just too different to be referred to as a single Dharma - they are as different from each other as they are from other sramana traditions, only to be united under belief in the concept of Buddhahood and attribution to the Buddha (just as Abrahamism is united under the belief in God and attributed to Abraham), hence the idea behind the thesis of Buddhist Religions.

This isn't meant to be in support of rigidly adopting the thesis of Buddhist Religions, though perhaps a better definition would be:

"Buddhism is a family of traditions, beliefs and practices which have faith in the concept of buddhahood, and are largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one").

The reader will have to continue reading in order to understand this definition, but how many people understand what Christianity is after reading the first sentence who don't already know what Christianity is already?

As for the assertion that it doesn't fit into a Western mold, what makes the different branches of Buddhism any different from the different Abrahamic religions? In both cases you have groups which are institutionally separate, and which are united on a belief of their veneration, but differ on their conceptualization of what that veneration is (for A"Buddhismbrahamism it's God, for Buddhism it's Buddhahood). The problem wasn't in the attempt to apply western concepts to characterize Buddhism, the problem was trying to jam all of these traditions in as a single religion.

Again, not suggesting that they be characterized as different religions in the lead, just that they not be characterized as a single religion, or "nontheistic religion or philosophy".

Furthershore 04:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Hi Furthershore. Thanks for your extensive reply.

Regarding your proposal for another definition:

• You're right on "family of traditions;" it's a point that's almost a truism already among scholars (not 'in the (western) streets'). Presenting Buddhism as a single religion may indeed be contested, but if so, it may need a separate section - maybe even the first section! As it is now, the sections "Buddhist concepts" and "practice" sre almost entirely written as if "Buddhism" is one single religion
• The lead now says, "that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely", which more or less says the same as your proposal, though without emphasizing the differences;
• Buddhahood remains problematic.

Regarding "philosophy and religion" and "defining": why force a definition, if "exact" definitions don't work? Of course we can do a literature search on ""one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having", but I wonder if that's really going to help.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Scholarly

• Donald S. Lopez, Encyclopedia Britannica: "Buddhism, religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: “awakened one”)"
• Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction: emphasizes the existence of various strands of Buddhism, but also states that there is "a central bulk to which thy are attached" (p.2)

Popular

• Martin J Whelan, Relationship Split: A Helping Hand Towards Your Recovery from a Relationship: "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practises variously described as religious, spiritual and philosophical. These are all based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply By Furthershore This sounds good. So it should look something like this?: TOC

 2: Buddhist Concepts
     Definition of Buddhism

Also, with regard to the presentation, maybe change from

Concept 1

 Theravada Says
 Mahayana Says
 Theravada Says
 Mahayana Says

Concept 2

 Theravada Says
 Mahayana Says
 Theravada Says
 Mahayana Says

Concept 3

 Theravada Says

Concept 4

 Mahayana Says

To: Buddhist concepts [What they all have in common]

 Concept 1
 Concept 2
 Theravada
   Concept 1
   Concept 2
   Concept 3
 Mahayana
   Concept 1
   Concept 2
   Concept 4

Your thoughts?

Furthershore 05:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: "what they all have in common": I'm not going to do the job! Personally, I'd say: leave it as it is, and make minor adjustments where you think it's necessary. The topic is just to vast... The article is just an introduction, not a "summa of faith" or so. By the way, some common themes are mentioned at the start of the "Schools and traditions" section. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Rupert Loup: I think that whatever be the consensus, if you you will going to make specific statements make sure to use more sources, right now almost all statements in the lead relies in one source. They needs more sources that verify each content. If not, delete the sources and use more broad statements according with what it says in the rest of the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow Body

For the past few days (or week?) some back-and-forth reverting has been going on regarding the Rainbow body as the ultimate accomplishment in Tibetan Buddhism. The Wiki-article on this phenomenon states that it is a level of realization in Dzogchen, yet according to this site "The ultimate Great accomplishment in meditation is the attainment of the Rainbow body. This is widely recognized as a sign of extreme sanctity in Tibetan Buddhism and among the Bönpo." So, as more often has been the case, Vic seems to have good knowledge about very specific topics. Vic, maybe you could a few lines to the Buddhism-article on the importance given to this phenomenon in Tibetan Buddhism in general? And maybe the main article on this topic could use some expansion. Tiso's Rainbow Body and Resurrection: Spiritual Attainment, the Dissolution of the Material Body, and the Case of Khenpo a Cho may be a usuable source? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015

Buddhism, like all the other major religions, exists to help humans' souls progress to a better world & "state of being", equated with more love, more health, more longevity, etc..Nirvana, or now the "Pure Land", IS A REAL PLACE in our Universe, that we humans are not qualified to enter now on our own merits...to enter there is the cessation of suffering, which in Christian terms would be having one's soul go to Heaven. (THESE ARE THE SAME CONCEPT, only many people do not understand it clearly!) One should be able to grasp that there are civilizations in this Universe that are far superior to our own Earth's. The Buddha went to one (or more) of those and came back to Earth calling this Nirvana or the "Pure Land". I'd write more, but you've erased it before in favor of the so-called expert opinions...

96.251.16.69 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: you did not follow the instructions, I have no idea what you are actually asking, and Buddhism does not believe in souls. Also, I recommend you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ogress _smash! 02:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

Just wanted to edit location of Buddha's cremation site photo caption as Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh rather than just Uttar Pradesh Funkyatul420 (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)