Talk:Buddhism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Alternative Lead Proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think this is the lead Peter referred to above (his proposal):

"Buddhism is the beliefs & practices regarded by their respective adherents as the teaching of the Buddha (awakened 1). The Sanskrit form of his name was Gautama, & he lived & taught in or around the 5th century BC in NE India, including parts of present-day Nepal. According to the Buddhist tradition, one's karma, ie actions by thought, word & deed, tends to produce appropriate rebirths (strictly speaking, reconceptions) &/or experience. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to transcend this in some sense. In most of the Buddhist world a leading role is played by a celibate order of monks, & sometimes nuns. Japan, however, has a mostly married clergy.

Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) Buddhism teaches a graduated path. Starting from a moral foundation, one practises various forms of meditation to calm the mind. These are followed by, or combined with, meditational practices to develop insight into the true nature of reality, using doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity. By doing this sufficiently, one can attain liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

All other present-day forms of Buddhism are classified as Mahayana (Great Way or Vehicle), which emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of others. Pure Land Buddhism is an essentially devotional tradition. Its main practice is recitation of homage to the Buddha Amitabha. Followers hope or expect to be reborn in his Pure Land of the West, a spiritually advanced realm.

Zen (Meditation) Buddhism emphasizes forms of meditation intended to break through conceptual thinking. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is a devotional tradition. The main object of its homage is the Lotus Sutra, the principal scripture of this tradition. Tibetan Buddhism, also found elsewhere, is often grouped together with Shingon (True Word) under the heading Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle). These traditions emphasize various ritualistic forms of meditational practices. There are other forms of Buddhism. Falun Gong is sometimes counted as a form of Buddhism."

After reading this lead and the other one proposed above, I can say that they are FAR easier to read and comprehend than the current lead, so I hope you come to agreement so we can put in this new lead soon. Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no progress can be made until the "reverter" is kicked off the Wikipedia. Is there an administrator in the house? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.36 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. I think the only response was from someone who objected to my "emphasizing" "minor" differences. If we want to describe Buddhism as a whole we might say something like this:

"Most forms of Buddhism teach practices that they claim lead to favourable rebirths and ultimately some sort of enlightenment. The nature of the practices and the enlightenment is a matter of disagreement among schools."

Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's only a rough draft. I think we have to do things in sequence:

agree roughly how we want the lead to go
work out the details in the course of finding citations (notice that the present version, for all its faults, does provide a citation for nearly every statement)
put it in

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Alternative Lead Proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments4 people in discussion

ok, sorry to jump in out of the blue, but after reading everyone's points here, I've gone ahead and taken a stab at rewriting the lead. there are a couple of problematical points with what I've got that I can see, but I've tried to integrate most of the comments people have made. let me know what you think...

version 1

Buddhism refers collectively to a diverse set of faiths, religions, and practices derived from the 5th century BC teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. According to legend, Siddhartha was the son of a king, who at the age of 29 renounced his position and all worldly goods in order to pursue spiritual attainment. After his enlightenment - meaning in its simplest sense that he became aware of both the source and the cure for human misery, though interpretation of the word "enlightenment" is varied - Siddhartha, now known as Sakyamuni Buddha, spent the remainder of his life teaching what he referred to as "the middle path."

Sakyamuni Buddha's teachings -- collectively referred to as the Dharma, or Dhamma -- describe how practitioners can understand and escape the miseries that are a concomitant of human life. At its core are the Four Noble Truths. These explain that our suffering (literally dukkha, variously translated as suffering, uneasiness, distress...) is not caused by the world, but by our cravings, which continually reinvent themselves in our lives (and according to some traditions, across lifetimes). Freedom comes through the gradual lessening of these cravings through practicing the Eightfold Path of "right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." Some later forms of Buddhism have de-emphasized the importance of the Four Noble Truths (the escape from suffering) in favor of more universal notions of emptiness and Bodhicitta (attainment of enlightenment for the benefit of all beings).

Buddhism has tended to blend with local cultures and religions as it has moved across asia and into the west, leading to a broad and sometimes confusing range of thoughts and practices. Some forms of Buddhism are devotional in nature, where practitioners hope to attain enlightenment through worship of the Buddha; others are more esoteric, believing that enlightenment is attained through meditation and contemplation. Some forms hold that enlightenment can only be found over the course of many lifetimes; others strive to achieve it in this lifetime. Some forms have a rich pantheon of iconic "deities"; others are overtly agnostic. However, the major threads of esoteric Buddhism are generally taken to be:

Theravada - a south east asian variety that is commonly considered to be closest to the original practice of Sakyamuni Buddha
Zen and Chan - a variety of Buddhism found in east and north east Asia (China, North Korea, and Japan), that tends towards austerity, and follows the Mahayana focus on the welfare of all beings
Tibetan - a north west asian variety that follows the Vajrayana path, using tantric and other techniques as aids in spiritual development

Pure-land buddhism is the primary devotional form of Buddhism throughout East Asia.

---Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see someone else appreciates the complexity of the subject & the likely need for a long lead.

"set of faiths, religiopns ..." has the opposite problem to most people's versions: that is, it assumes the opposite POV
should read circa 5th century
the name Siddhartha cannot be regarded as historical, appearing 1st about 100BC
wording should make clear that "legend" applies to the whole para: some scholars deny that the Budha taught the middle way
Sakyamuni is mainly a Mahayana name, tho' it does occur a few times in the Plai canon
likewise, the statement that the 4NTs are at the core of the Buddha's teaching would be rejected by some scholars, as well as all traditional Mahayanists
"some later forms of Buddhism" is an understatement: this is the whole of the Mahayana, ie the majority of the world's Buddhists
Bodhicitta is not usually considered as the attainment of enlightenment
I don't think it's right to blame culture for the variety of Buddhism
"esoteric"s not usually used in this sense: it normally refers only to tantric practices
only modern/western(ized) Buddhism is agnostic
not North Korea specifically, if at all; also, I'm not sure NE Asia is an appropriate term
ditto NW Asian
it's misleading to classify these as specifically meditational schools; the fact is that, except in japan, different approaches coexist within the same "denominations"; generally, most people follow a primarily devotional form of practice & expect the path to take many lifetimes; those who consider themselves suffiently advanced meditate

Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, I really don't see how you can have a short lead on this. for instance, mine could be trimmed in a few places, but I haven't even touched on demographics, which really ought to have some place in the lead. and I'll add, I'm more of a philosopher than a historian, so I appreciate your corrections. :) so let me go through your comments and get some clarifications; maybe we can work out the kinks (and by the way, I edited your bulleted list to a numbered list for easier reference)

on your point 1: I think what needs to be emphasized is that there are many different flavors of Buddhism that all descend from the same thread. plus, I understand the problem with words like 'faith' and 'religion' - some buddhists would take offense at that, while others would think it was perfectly appropriate. what would you think about something like this? "Buddhism is an overarching idea that encompasses all the faiths, practices, and philosophies derived from the (circa) 5th century BC teachings of Gautama Buddha."
on your points 3,4, and 5: I was actually thinking that this whole 'legend' part should be cut, and that the lead should move straight to the teachings. Gautama's history belongs on his page, not the buddhism page. would that work?
your points 6, 7, and 8: well, hmmm... are you sure about this? I mean, I learned the 4 Noble Truths from a Tibetan buddhist, and I've discussed it with Zen practitioners (though, of course, that's all from a US perspective). I don't think any of them would deny that this was the core teaching of Gautama Buddha, though they do argue that it's not the most important point in practicing 'modern' Buddhism. maybe if I stress that the 4NT were gautama's teaching, and that mahayanists have rejected thought that the primary goal should be escape from the karmic wheel (in favor of an ideal of universal enlightenment...)? not well put, of course, but maybe you can see where I'm going...
your point 9: it's not intended as blame. it seems to me that Buddhism (being a very mild-mannered belief system) has always tended to adapt to its environment: taoist influences in China, Shinto in Japan, shamanic religions in southeast asia and tibet - even individualism in the US has had an impact. I think this is because buddhism doesn't try to impose itself, but rather to explain itself, and it does that references from whatever place it finds itself in. at any rate, I think it's clear that Buddhism has absorbed regional differences - can you think of a better way of putting it? or do you think it's better explained by philosophical changes?
your points 10 and 11: we can use another word, if you like. but I think I should point out that the way 'esoteric' is used in the buddhist community is not the way it's used in the greater world. we have to write to non-buddhists. that being said, I may have made the same mistake with the word agnostic.
your point 12, 13: oops. not paying attention. my bad. :-)
I think your last point gets to a deeper issue. in the west we tend to forget that buddhism is deeply integrated into asian communities, and we tend to get a rather monastic view of it (like someone from the east whose only experience with Christianity came from visiting a Catholic monastery). that integration makes it hard to define. I think we might want to take a clue from the Christianity page and really downplay the sectarian differences in the introduction.

let me know what you think about these, and I'll try a rewrite. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the numbering; I should have done it that way in the 1st place. I get in the habit of using unnumbered lists, even tho' they're more difficult to type. I don't know why. Sometimes I've gone back & changed them myself.

The point I'm getting at here is that there's a disagreement among experts on whether there is actually a single "thing" called Buddhism, so Wikipedia mustn't take sides. Therefore your latest wording won't work either. We can say it's a "term", which is obviously true & uncontroversial, & that all its varieties derive, in some sense, from the Buddha's teachings. That isn't saying much: eg one could say that Christianity derives from Judaism.
I think the reader would think it odd if the lead said nothing about the founder. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about his existence, or about the name Gautama/Gotama (but note that we don't know what dialect(s) he spoke, so he might have called himself Gotama, Godama, Goyama, Govama or Goama; in practice everyone uses either Sanskrit or Pali).
What we're dealing with here is a rather bizarre form of colonialism. It's obvious that modern/Western(ized) Buddhism is affected by all sorts of Western ideas like rationalism, feminism, Marxism, evolution ... What's not usually realized is that it's also affected by Western ideas about Buddhism itself. Since the 19th century, Western scholars have been telling Buddhists what their religion "really" is, & have been quite often believed. Those scholars, on a rather superficial reading of parts of the Pali Canon, decided that the teachings of the Buddha were summed up in the 4NTs, & so presented these as "Buddhism". The fact that real-life Buddhists didn't agree with them didn't bother them. They knew best. Why their ideas came to be quite widely adopted by actual Buddhists is another question. Suffice it to say here that this is so to a very large extent in Ceylon, Thailand & Japan. This in turn has resulted in succeeding generations of Western scholars, & Western Buddhists, assuming it must be right because "native" Buddhists (now) say so. Sort of feedback cycle. Only in qite recent decades have some scholars started to catch up with the reality, & many less specialized ones have still not done so. Also, as I said before, there is no consensus among historians on what the Buddha actually taught.
That Buddhism has adapted to local culture is generally accepted. The point I wanted to make here is that this doesn't account for all the variation, or probably even most (tho' I don't know how you'd quantify it). There's much variety even within a culture.
I'm not sure what you mean by "greater world". Scholars writing about Buddhism use the word in the sense I gave. I know of no reason to suppose that the general public would classify all meditation as esoteric. The "Buddhist community" doesn't use the term, for the most part, as it doesn't speak English, but I've never come across your usage in the English-speaking Budhist community either. The point about agnostic is not, as far as I can see, about words at all. It's simply the case that all traditional forms of Buddhism took for granted the existence of gods. Agnosticism is a modern invention.
Our job is to give a fair picture of Buddhism, both agreements & differences. If you look at practices, it's true that there aren't all that many differences that could be considered important:
1. the absence of the traditional monastic order in Japan & the presence of nuns only in China, Korea & Vietnam
2. the Tibetan practice of sexual yoga, rejected by the rest of Buddhism

Those might be all. But then, if you stick to that level of generality, what differentiates Buddhism from other religions? They also practise devotion, morality & mental cultivation.

If you go on to doctrine, there's rather more difference. In particular, what's distinctive about Pure Land is not devotionalism, or concentration on the next rebirth rather than ultimate enlightenment. Both of those are perfectly normal: most Buddhists practise them. What's distinctive is the idea that one's reborn in the Pure Land, not as a result of one's karma, but by the power of Amitabha himself: salvation by divine grace, pretty nearly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I think I'm following you. let's try this then... (still need demographics - what is the current population of buddhists in the world, and how many are in which group?)

version 2

Buddhism. There is general disagreement about the best way to classify Buddhism. For some, Buddhism is a single cohesive faith/religion with regional differences and philosophical variations. Others see a set of distinct faiths, tenuously connected by reference to a common source. Still others see Buddhism as a set of practices, or as a philosophical perspective, with or without a religious component. What is clear is that - in all of these perspectives - Buddhism traces its origins to Gautama (Gotama) Buddha (circa 5th century BC), and his teachings about the nature of human existence.

According to legend, Gautama was born the son of a king, but at the age of 29 he renounced his position and all worldly goods in order to pursue spiritual attainment, achieving enlightenment after six years of wandering. 'Enlightenment' is one of the key concepts in Buddhism, though its precise meaning and use is also subject to disagreement. In its simplest sense, it is used to signify that Buddha became aware of both the source and the cure for all human misery - this sense is a defining characteristic of being Buddha (which translates as 'Awakened'). There is a general hope for enlightenment in all forms of Buddhism, and a general belief that following a virtuous path (dharma/dhamma) will free one from the cycles of karma that are inherent to human existence. However, there are vast differences between forms with respect to the qualities and necessities of a virtuous path.

There are several major traditions of Buddhism that are commonly recognized:

Theravada - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in south-east asia. This tradition bases itself in the Pali Cannon (also known as the Tipitaka); Theravedan monastics use meditation and contemplation to free themselves of the cravings and attachments that (according to the Pali Cannon) keep them from seeing the truth of their own condition. Progress towards enlightenment is slow, often covering many lifetimes. This tradition is often considered to be closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha.
Zen and Chan (Mahayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in China, Korea and Japan. This tradition acknowledges the Pali Cannon (a version of which it preserves in the Agamas), but relies more on teachings called the Mahayana Sutras that are not recognized by Theravadans. The Mahayana tradition tends to place greater emphasis on the welfare and enlightenment of all beings as a goal, rather than personal attainment, and are fairly eclectic in their practices, accepting different kinds of meditational and devotional techniques. It is in some ways a more philosophical tradition than Theraveda.
Tibetan (Vajrayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in Tibet and other Himalayan regions. This tradition is sometimes considered an extension of Mahayana, and sometimes classed as a separate tradition in its own right. It follows the Mahayana Sutras, like Zen and Chan Buddhism, but utilizes a set of tantric yogas designed to accelerate the process of spiritual growth, so that enlightenment might even be attained in onme lifetime.
Pure-land buddhism - somewhat different than the other traditions, and often practiced in conjunction with Zen/Chan, this tradition holds that enlightenment can be achieved through devotion to Amitābha Buddha, without an express need for meditation, yogas, or any other spiritual practice.

--- doesn't feel quite complete to me, but are we getting closer? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Miscellaneous comments:

(remembered to number this time!) "Gautama (Gotama) Buddha (circa 5th century BC), and his teachings about the nature of human existence": we ought to make clear that there's disagreement among Buddhists (& historians) about what his teachings were.
"cycles of karma": rebirth should be explicitly mentioned.
Canon, not Cannon!
"Theravedan monastics use meditation and contemplation to free themselves of the cravings and attachments":
1. "monastics" seems to slur over the absence of nuns in the tradition;
2. they're supposed to, but don't always;
3. not much difference between cravings and attachments, while hate & delusion not mentioned
4. what's the difference between meditation and contemplation?
5. what about lay people?
arrangement:
1. space should be allocated roughly by numbers of followers, so:
  1. Theravada 1/3
  2. Pure Land 1/3
  3. others 1/3:
    1. Zen
    2. Nichiren (if you include fringe groups like Soka Gakkai/Nichiren Shoshu, this is probably more numerous than either Zen or Tibetan)
    3. Tibetan
    4. maybe Shingon
2. I think it would be clearer to give the general information about Mahayana before the 1st Mahayana school (whatever order we follow)
"Zen and Chan (Mahayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in China, Korea and Japan." I'm not sure whether the primarily bit is intended of Mahayana or Zen. It's probably misleading either way. I think there are more Buddhists in Vietnam than in Korea, so Mahayana is primarily in 4 countries, when interpreted exclusively of Vajrayana. Zen is primarily in Japan & Korea, + small numbers in Vietnam & probably even smaller in China.
Tibetan (Vajrayana):
1. most authorities seem to include Shingon in Vajrayana;
2. to say they follow the Mahayana sutras like the others is misleading. In fact they take a similar attitude in theory towards those as Mahayana does to the Pali Canon, regarding them as valid teaching, but not ultimate. Their own ultimate teachings are in the tantras.
3. "enlightenment might even be attained in onme lifetime": this is also the Zen position, & indeed a common Theravada one; it all depends what you mean by enlightenment, & how many people are covered
Pure Land:
1. "often practiced in conjunction with Zen/Chan": misleading:
  1. China: virtually everyone practises Pure Land; a few monks also practise Chan
  2. Vietnam: monks, nuns & educated lay people practise mainly Thien (Zen), with a bit of PL; ordinary people practise PL with virtually no trace of Thien, tho' perhaps a bit of tantra
  3. Korea: officially Son (Zen); we have to assume until further information is forthcoming that this reflects actual practice, tho' there's certainly a substantial admixture of other traditions
  4. Japan: Zen & PL are separate schools, tho' Tendai (c 3 million) includes some of both in its eclectic tradition
2. "holds that enlightenment can be achieved through devotion to Amitābha Buddha, without an express need for meditation, yogas, or any other spiritual practice": most PL doesn't claim that enlightenment can be achieved thus (tho' I think some does); what is achieved is rebirth in the Pure land, where conditions are conducive to progress towards enlightenment; & again, I think it's important to mention that this rebirth is attained thro' Amitabha's power, not one's own karma; that's the really distinctive thing
3. Be careful here about the afterthought mentality. Eg English-language books about Christianity often say "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." (Eg "The Bible has 66 books. Oh but actually the Catholic Bible has 73.") This is blatantly biased, given that Catholics are about 1/2 of Christendom. Try it on Theravada: "Buddhists believe in following the bodhisattva path. Oh but actually Theravadins don't." Sounds biased to me. Remember there are about as many PL Buddhists as Theravadins, so PL shouldn't be treated as an afterthought or exception.
general: we have to remember what we're supposed to be doing: not trying to decide the truth ourselves, but simply reporting expert opinion, including its disagreements; we need citations for everything, & are likely to have to revise things in the light of what we can actually find citations for

I don't want to sound too discouraging. As I said at the start, that looks pretty good. To answer your question, yes we are getting closer. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

no worries, I never get discouraged in conversations like this. I learned a long time ago that consensus doesn't come easy, and that it's always worth the effort. but let me make my (self-perceived) role clear: I'm a good writer, and pretty good at incorporation a set of ideas into a cohesive whole, and I know a good bit about buddhism and faith in general, but I'm no historian. I'm trying to take your insights and objections and work them into a readable construct, but I've been assuming that you have the citations and references to back them up (because I sure don't). I figure if we get something we can all basically agree to, then we can add in the support for it as we go along.

now, your points...

(1), (2), and (3): I'll see if I can fix these (with the minor objection that I think I a Pali Cannon would be pretty cool - at least, there's a few people I'd like to blow a little enlightenment into...). I do have a question about rebirth, however. while I know it's explicit in Theravada, and obviously Gotama referred to it (because he was debating philosophy with hindus), but I'm unclear on how central it is in the other sects - for instance, it does not seem to be a central issue for the zen monks I've talked to. do you have any insights on that?

(4):

I think your first two points here are not sufficiently central to buddhism to be part of the lead para. I mean, there are no female Catholic priests, and priest are not always as celibate as they are supposed to be, but those are hardly defining qualities of Catholicism. I could make similar points about Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, Hinduism, and probably most every other faith on the planet. these are maybe political/social issues that need to be discussed in the body, but are not relevant here.
I was trying to limit the extent that I got into buddhist philosophy, because that's part of the problem we've been having. I used cravings and attachments because neither word is quite correct, and I skipped hate and delusion because (arguably) they are secondary results of cravings and attachments. I can draw the discussion out more, if you think that would help, but I'm worried that the more I draw it out, the more viewpoints I need to consider, and the more congested this little bit gets.
contemplation is primarily a cognitive activity (self-reflection, self-analysis, etc), whereas meditation generally aims at reaching an a- or ana-cognitive state. at any rate, I know that discussion, reading, and learning are as much a part of spiritual progress as meditation or devotion, so...
let me roll lay people in with your next comment..

(5): Why should space be allocated according to number of followers? what we're trying to do here is capture the basic differences between the major varieties of buddhism; that should be doable as a purely linguistic exercise, without reference to political or social factors. I don't want to get into 'my faith is bigger than your faith' kinds of things...

part of this problem comes down to how we want to deal with lay people, as you suggest. Buddhism (like most faiths) has a distinct education gap between practitioners and lay people, meaning that monastics are generally far more knowledgeable about their faith than the laity. in buddhism (as in most faiths) this sets up a tension between the practitioner (who works for the benefits that accrue from the faith) and the lay person (who doesn't work for, but is considered entitled to, the benefits that accrue from the faith). For buddhism, reincarnation is one tool to deal with this tension (because everyone will eventually have a chance at enlightenment), devotion to Amitabha is a different tool (because everyone will go to the pure land, where enlightenment is easier...), and there are probably others. I mean, if you want my own bias, I would say that pure-land buddhism should have a smaller representation than the other forms, because it is the one that deals least with the complexities of Buddha's teachings, and therefore is the least Buddhist of the Buddhisms. I'm not arguing for that, mind you, I'm just trying to point out that there are other considerations than mere size that apply here, if we are going to go that route.

(6), (7), (8): ok, I see these, and I'll fix them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got citations for quite a lot (quite a few of them I've already put in the article) & can find others. Other things, as I said above, will have to be rewritten to fit. I have to be careful to distinguish between my own "original research" & what I can source, but that to some extent can be left to later.

Centrality is a tricky concept. It's certainly true that all traditions believe in rebirth, but how central they consider it is another question.

I've returned the compliment by numbering your list.

(4)

I was discussing how one might try to present Buddhism as a whole. However, the fact that many scholars don't regard it as being a whole seems to imply that we cannot present it as one without violating NPOV, so what I said there is probably irrelevant.
I'll leave this for now.

(5)WP:WEIGHT: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Running out of time. More in a couple of hours, I hope. Peter jackson (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, to continue here I left off. Forms of Buddhism aren't exactly the same thing as viewpoints, but I think analogy applies here. Prominence might mean more than just numbers here; it might also mean the prominence of the particular Buddhists concerned, so you might classify Vietnamese Buddhism as Zen rather than PL. However, Chinese Buddhism at the present day is almost exclusively PL, & has maybe 100,000,000 followers, so that doesn't make much difference: PL is still roughly 1/3 of Buddhism, within the margins of error of our estimates. Your own "bias", as you call it, can't be followed by Wikipedia, which has to be neutral. It can't take sides & decide who's more Buddhist than whom. So I come back to my previous position: I can't now see any alternative to having a 4-para lead as follows:

general
Theravada
Pure Land
others

The order, of course, is not sacrosanct. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

version 3

Here's an attempt to update my version, tho' it still needs more work.

Buddhism is conventionally listed as a religion. Whether religion is the appropriate category, which has been questioned, is a matter of definition. A more substantive issue i s raised by the great variety of Buddhism, which hsa led many scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though another point of view speaks of "similar concerns". Buddhism was founded by the Buddha, which means, literally, Awakened One, or, less literally, Enlightened One. The Sanskrit form of his name was Gautama, & he lived & taught in or around the 5th century BC in Northeast India, including parts of present-day Nepal. Buddhism spread from there around Asia, and then to the rest of the world. Experts give its presnt-day number of followers variously as 230-500 million, with most of them giving figures around 350 million. According to the Buddhist tradition, one goes through an indefinite series of rebirths (strictly speaking, reconceptions), usually or always determined by one's karma, i.e. good or bad actions by thought, word & deed, which tends also to produce appropriate experience. Buddhists aim at avoiding unfavourable rebirths, attaining favourable ones, with the ultimate goal of transcending this in some sense and attaining some sort of enlightenment. Details vary.

The primary division of Buddhism is into Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) Buddhism teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects:

morality: this is perfected in the life of the monk
concentration: various forms of meditation to calm the mind
wisdom: meditational practices to develop insight into the true nature of reality, using doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity

Mahayana (Great Way or Vehicle) emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of others, and includes a number of different forms. Pure Land Buddhism is an essentially devotional tradition. Its main practice is recitation of homage to the Buddha Amitabha. Followers hope or expect to be reborn in his Pure Land of the West, a spiritually advanced realm. This is widely believed to be through his power, not one's own karma. Followers of this tradition often believe that in these degenerate times few if any can reach enlightenment through their own efforts.

Zen (Meditation) Buddhism emphasizes forms of meditation intended to break through conceptual thinking. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is a devotional tradition. The main object of its homage is the Lotus Sutra, the principal scripture of this tradition. Tibetan Buddhism, also found elsewhere, is often grouped together with Shingon (True Word) under the heading Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle). These traditions emphasize various ritualistic forms of meditational practices. There are other forms of Buddhism. Falun Gong is sometimes counted as a form of Buddhism.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

One other point I want to mention now. I don't think we should emphasize the "Buddhism/Theravada/... is found mainly in Sri Lanka, ..." bit. That's colonial thinking: Buddhism is a religion of "natives". Look at the Christianity lead, which doesn't do that. I now follow that model. Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I wasn't trying to impose my bias (which I fully recognize as a bias...), but I was trying to avoid a numerical bias. numbers are unfortunately convincing regardless of whether they have meaning. but, we'll work it out... :)

so what I've done is taken your last lead version, and tried to roll mine into it in a way that (hopefully) works. it might be time to sandbox this, actually - it would have been easier for me to just edit yours in place... but at any rate, see how this flies with you.

version 4

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though others recognize "similar concerns" (need to elaborate this). The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. over the course of the next three or four centuries, his teachings spread throughout Asia, and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism between 230 to 500 million, with most most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is comprised of a series of rebirths (or strictly speaking, reconceptions), where the nature of a rebirth is largely determined by karma. actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves, and such 'karmic cycles' mean that our future reconceptions are predicated on what we do now and have done in the past. Buddhists aim for favorable rebirths, with the ultimate goal of awakening and transcending the cycles of karma entirely. In this sense, every Buddhist hopes to attain enlightenment; Gautama Buddha is venerated in part because he attained it originally, without the instruction that he left for the rest of the world.

The two primary divisions of Buddhism are Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism (literally the Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects: morality (perfected in the life of the monk), concentration (developed through various forms of meditation to calm the mind), and wisdom (through practices that develop insight into the true nature of reality). This form of Buddhism is largely considered to the form closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha, though it is occasionally criticized by Mahayanists as having too narrow a world-vision. Mahayana Buddhism (the Great Way or Great Vehicle) instead emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of all, even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others. Mahayana itself is split between devotional and meditational traditions, though the divisions are not rigid and Buddhists will often use elements from different traditions together. The largest devotional tradition is Pure Land Buddhism. Their central belief is that a celestial Buddha named Amitabha has - through many lifetimes of reincarnation and good karma - created a 'Pure Land' where (unlike the given world) it is easy to escape the bonds of karma. Followers recite homages to Amitabha in the hope that through his intercession they will be reborn in the Pure Land. Zen/Chan Buddhism (the name derives from a corruption of the Sanskrit word for meditation) is one of the two primary meditational forms, emphasizing meditation intended to break through conceptual structures. Zen is well-known, in fact, for its use of paradox and absurdity as teaching tools. The other Main meditational form is Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle), comprised of Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism, which add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations. These rituals and practices are intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is another common devotional tradition, and Falun Gong is sometimes considered as another meditational form of Buddhism.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got long, so I probably won't have time to say everything now.

"over the course of the next three or four centuries, his teachings spread throughout Asia": wrong: the only country outside India it is known to have spread to in that period was Ceylon. It didn't reach Mongolia until the 13th century I think. We don't need to say, but a Buddhist Mongol tribe migrated to Europe in the 17th century. Make sure wording is consistent with this. Also, I'm not sure about throughout Asia. There was little or no Buddhism in Muslim areas, SW & Central Asia.
Your description of karma & rebirth seems rather vague. Perhaps mine was too. In particular:
"actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves": true, but this is not karma in the strict sense
"with the ultimate goal of awakening and transcending the cycles of karma entirely. In this sense, every Buddhist hopes to attain enlightenment": misleading if not false; some Mahayana authorities speak of deliberately avoiding enlightenment to help others; they (or some) say this is itself a sort of enlightenment
"Gautama Buddha is venerated in part because he attained it originally, without the instruction that he left for the rest of the world.": according to orthodox Mahayana doctrine he was not a real human at all, but a magical creation by a celestial Buddha enlightened ages before

TBC Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ok. sorry about point 1 (told you I was no historian - lol). I'll change that to "after that his teachings spread slowly throughout the bulk of asia," and we can spell out the details in the body. and I'll add that part of my vagueness was generality; we humans are the only beings capable of dharmic action, but all beings are subject to karma.

now karma is a very difficult subject, but it is central to buddhism, so I suppose we can draw it out more. I mean, I think my phrase about how "actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves" was actually on the money, but maybe not completely clear. Karma is a cause-and-effect concept. let me spell out some of its aspects, and if you agree, I can work them in.:

(basic, but stemming from Hinduism) your actions (including words, and in most cases thoughts) bear fruit for you and for others, and thus you are responsible for the fruit that gets born.
(primarily Buddhist, but I think with some heavy Taoist influence) your actions (or more particularly your motivations) plant "seeds" in your mind that will grow later, which means that you will tend to recreate the actions you engage in.
(basic) dharmic (correct) action does not build karma (though in some traditions - particularly Pure Land - one can accumulate dharma)
these karmic/dharmic effects can perpetuate across reincarnations

I'm not sure your point 4 is true. in the Mahayana tradition, bodhiccitas consciously choose reincarnation. this doesn't mean that they reject enlightenment or nirvana, but rather that they are consciously working for the enlightenment of everyone. I can rephrase it a bit, though...

point 5. ugh. this can get into a real tangle. technically speaking, Buddha is not a person; Buddha is a state of existence, but... I think maybe this phrase is more trouble than it's worth, so I'll just scrap it. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What the lead is primarily talking about is karma in relation to rebirth, because that's necessary background for understanding a lot of other things. Karma in the proper sense (at least in Theravada) means something happens to you as a result of something you do. In particular, rebirth is always (in Theravada) the result of karma. This is not true for some Mahayana authorities:

many Pure Land authorities say one is reborn in the Pure Land thro' Amitabha's power, not one's own karma
some or many Mahayana authorities say a sufficiently advanced bodhisattva can be reborn by free choice

The other thing you mention, doing something because you did something before, is not karma in the proper sense (at least for Theravada), & in any case may not be important enough to go here (we're in danger of clutter).

The Theravada view on actions that do not produce karma is that this applies only to the arahant.

I was talking about your "in this sense". All Buddhists pursue enlightenment in some sense.

More later I hope. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the spread wording from Christianity for comparison:

"Through missionary work and colonisation, Christianity spread firstly in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and parts of India and subsequently throughout the entire world"

That's the model I suggest we follow. For your latest wording I'd only suggest deleting "slowly".

There are at least 4 self-proclaimedly different concepts of enlightenment:

the early Buddhist/Theravada one
the early Mahayana concept of Buddhahood, which they made a great point of claiming to be superior to 1
the idea found in Fazang that renouncing enlightenment for the sake of others is the real enlightenment
wu (satori), which early Chan deliberately so named to distinguish it from Buddhahood, tho' I don't know what the difference was supposed to be

This is in addition to different interpretations of the above.

If we assume that all those who have the idea of renouncing enlightenment to help others agree with 3 then we can say all Buddhists pursue enlightenment. However, I don't know of any source for this assumption, so at present we might not be able to say this in the article.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying only humans are capable of dharmic action. Let me give you the Theravada position here again.

All beings are capable of producing both good & bad karma, except for the unconscious gods. Humans and all gods except the unconscious gods, the gods of the Pure Abodes (because the latter have already attained Non-return) & the gods of the formless realm can attain Stream-entry. Humans and all gods except the unconscious gods can attain arahantship (in the case of the formless gods this is possible only if they attained Stream-entry before being reborn there).

To return to the question of bodhisattvas renouncing enlightenment, this is very confusing &/because scholars have not dealt with it properly. Part of the problem stems from the Lotus Sutra, which states in quick succession that the Buddha's lifetime is very long & that it's infinite. Problem: which statement is to be taken literally? One view within Mahayana is that the latter statement is literal. This is the Tibetan (or at least Gelugpa) view. On this interpretation there's no point renouncing enlightenment. However, if you take the other view, the possibility at least is open. It doesn't follow at all: eg Theravada thinks a Buddha can achieve more in an ordinary lifetime than a bodhisattva in eternity, & maybe many Mahayana authorities take a similar position. Nevertheless, the possibility is there of drawing the conclusion that a bodhisattva might achieve more in eternity than a Buddha in a very long life, & some Mahayana authorities did draw just this conclusion.

A distinct question is whether this renunciation is actually for ever. A bodhisattva in this way of thinking renounces enlightenment as long as there are beings to help. Does that mean for ever? Fazang doesn't say so explicitly, tho' some other Mahayana authorities do.

This is all very complicated and difficult to find out about. I really think we should try to avoid cluttering up the lead with more than a necessary minimum of complications.

"intercession" is the wrong word: it means prayer

Your classification of Mahayana into devotional & meditational looks like "original research": what is the basis for saying that tantric rituals are meditation but devotion is not meditation?

"Buddhists will often use elements from different traditions together": "often" is a bit of an overstatement; "sometimes"?

You've deleted the point I made about vipassana being based on docrinal frameworks. These may be very complicated, as in Abhidhamma, or just 1 or 2 simple formulae, but this distinguishes vipassana from Zen.

"corruption" is probably not the right word either: words often change between languages; one doesn't usually call it corruption.

"This form of Buddhism is largely considered to the form closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha, though it is occasionally criticized by Mahayanists as having too narrow a world-vision." Considered by whom? Historians are not agreed on what he taught/practised. Theravadins obviously consider this, Mahayana fundamentalists equally obviously not. What historians probably do agree is that it's closest to the Buddhism of early centuries. "occasionally" is probably an understatement.

Now, back to numbers. You were talking earlier about "what we're trying to do here is capture the basic differences between the major varieties of buddhism; that should be doable as a purely linguistic exercise". Your model seems to be of hierarchical classification on an Aristotelean model:

define the genus religion
give the differentia of the species Buddhism
give the differentia of the subspecies Mahayana
...

It doesn't work like that. As far back as 1912, Leuba (Psychology of Religion) listed 50 theretofore proposed definitions of religion. There must be far more by now. Certainly some scholars have suggested that the concept "religion" should be looked at in the light of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblance: members of a family resemble each other in various ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines membership of the family. Similarly, these scholars suggest that religions resemble each other in various ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines "a religion". I don't know how widespread this idea is among theorists of religion.

Similarly, it's likely that Buddhism itself should be looked at in that way, tho' I haven't come across anyone saying so. Very likely those who say Buddhism is more than one religion would call it a family of religions, but again I have no citation. At any rate, if Buddhism isn't 1 thing, then it wouldn't have a definition. The idea of understanding in terms of family resemblance has certainly been suggested for Mahayana, so again there are problems.

In conclusion, then, I say we can't give hierarchical definitions after your model without violating NPOV between scholars of differing views on that point. & I can't see what other reason in terms of WP principles could justify violating fair allocation of space to different forms of Buddhism according to their numbers of adherents. Even if you give some allowance for the past, it wouldn't reduce the prominence of Pure Land: before Communist persecution & indoctrination there were far more PL Buddhists, which would surely offset early Buddhist history before PLB. It would, on the other hand, introduce various extinct forms of Buddhism into the equation, tho' on the 3rd hand it would eliminate various modern movements. Easiest is the ethnographic present. 131.111.164.220 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me, logged out by "loss of session data". Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'm working on a revision that covers most of your points (which are all good, so assume that I'm addressing them unless I have questions below...), but there are still some things that we need to clarify. I am beginning to see part of our communication problem, though - you're approaching the issue from the ethnographic present, whereas I tend to approach it from the philosophical ideal. different means; we'll have to find some way to work with them. so, some thoughts...

Karma. I am aware that karma and reincarnation are connected in buddhism, and I am working that in more carefully, but clearly karma is a broader concept. there would (for instance) be no possibility of enlightenment in this lifetime unless there was a way of dispersing karma in this lifetime. and since you mentioned theravada explicitly, I'm pretty sure they would hold that the work of improving your rebirth involves freeing yourself from cravings and etc. in this lifetime. let me see what I can do with it...

Enlightenment. you have to beware of mahayana philosophical mind-traps. when Mahayanists speak out against enlightenment, they are speaking out against the idea of enlightenment, which (for them) is simply a mental construct to which one can develop attachments. they do not so far as I can tell have a problem with enlightenment as a concrete event, but do feel that craving after some abstract notion of enlightenment is not likely to get one very far. and I'll add (re the lotus sutra discussion) that it seems clear to me that Buddha is not speaking as a man (which is why you get those references to 'many names' and 'appearing to pass from the world'). but regardless, I think that's all way out of scope for the lead.

I hope I'm not doing original research; I'm just trying to create an effective rubric that captures some of the differences between sects (differences which, honestly, you've made me more aware of). and while I am a fan of Wittgenstein (and Beethoven - Ludwigs2, yah?), I lean more towards his language games in this case. it seems to me that Buddhists (for all their internal differences) do recognize each other as Buddhists in a way that can't be attributed purely to colonial imposition. rather than a family resemblance, though, what you have is a collective context in which the term is used, that binds the various forms together

see, this is what worried me about the 'ethnographic present' approach: it comes dangerously close to reducing buddhism to a set of ethnic/cultural phenomena. it doesn't account for any common philosophical roots, even though (I suspect) most buddhists would argue that they are more alike than they are different precisely because of those philosophical roots. see what I mean?

by the way, I'm adding sub-sub headings for each revision - this is starting to get long...--Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've indented your last remark to avoid confusion.

1st, let's remember the WP principles we're supposed to be working to:

verifiability: everything we say must be clearly stated in a reliable source
NPOV: this means that when reliable sources contradict each other we have to give a balanced presentation (except perhaps if 1 can be simply dismissed as too out of date or non-specialist)

This is actually quite hard. We keep getting the sort of problems we've been discussing. Therefore, I strongly suggest keeping things simple, trying to avoid complicated issues as much as possible.

Karma. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "dispersing". Let me again explain the Theravada doctrine. Anyone other than an arahant generates karma all the time. This can operate in various ways:

it can produce a result directly; this can be
- a rebirth
- an experience in life
it can strengthen other karma
it can weaken other karma

It also operates in different time scales:

some karma can only have its effect in the same life
some only in the next life
some only in some lifetime subsequent to those 2

If karma in the 1st 2 doesn't manage to take effect in the appropriate lifetime, or if karma in the last doesn't before the final life (ie arahantship) then it becomes ahosi-kamma, lit "has-been" karma.

Are you beginning to get some idea of how much detail & complexity exist in just 1 school? I don't know much about the doctrines of other schools. Do you? It's really difficult to find out: there's a lot of study required, a lot of the literature hasn't been studied &/or translated ...

"mahayana philosophical mind-traps": indeed, but the problem is far worse than you indicate. The main problem is that Mahayana often uses a pragmatic notion of truth: doctrines are "true" in the sense of being spritually beneficial. As a result, Mahayana is quite happy with all sorts of contradictory doctrines. Sometimes they devise detailed schemes (some of which may be easy to find out about, but others not, as remarked just above) in which they present hierarchies of truths. However, these schemes contradict each other, & also many Mahayanists regard all doctrines as equally true (which is equivalent to saying they're equally false). Overall, then, it's impossible to say what Mahayana "really" believes, so we have to be very careful here. If there were a clearly established scholarly consensus then we could follow that, but I'm not aware of any such.

Now, on the specific question of enlightenment, let me say here that Fazang's position seems to be quite explicit (of course I can't read Chinese so have to go 2nd hand). He says that a bodhisattva should carefully avoid eliminating the defilements in order to avoid enlightenment. That's not about conceptions of enlightenment. The reasons he gives are as I explained above.

There was certainly a lot of mutual recognition of Buddhists long before the colonial era. It's by no means universal, tho'. Many Theravadins, particularly in Burma, don't recognize Mahayana as proper Buddhism.

"most buddhists would argue that they are more alike than they are different precisely because of those philosophical roots": no. Most Buddhists know nothing of those philosophical roots, if indeed one could correctly say that the roots of Buddhism are philosophical, which is questionable. Also, most Buddhists know nothing about other forms of Buddhism so have no (worthwhile) opinion about them.

I have 2 main reasons for suggesting the article, & so the lead, should be mainly about the present:

it's what most readers would expect to see in this article (as opposed to History of Buddhism)
it's simpler

The ethnographic present would fit 2 even better, but 1 worse. Possibly the article might be organized thus:

history
ethnographic present
modern developments

Then we'd have to sort out allocation of space.

"Zen is well-known, in fact, for its use of paradox and absurdity as teaching tools." This is mainly Rinzai (Soto is bigger in Japan; not sure about Korea).

"The other Main meditational form is Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle), comprised of Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism, which add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations. These rituals and practices are intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development.":

Do Shingon & Tibetan group themselves together, or is it only Western scholars? I know no citation for the former.
There are 2 different views in tantric Buddhism:
1. tantra is a faster route to enlightenment
2. tantra is ultimately the only way to enlightenment (eg this is the Gelugpa position)

Consider the wording in the light of these points. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

version 5

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though others recognize "similar concerns" (need to elaborate this). The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. After that his teachings spread throughout the bulk of asia (add date/means specifics), and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism between 230 to 500 million, with most most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed'). In its loosest sense, karma connects causality and responsibility, such that our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - are influenced by our past experiences and influence our future experiences. Buddhism in general holds that karma extends across lifetimes, so that one is reborn (or strictly speaking, reconceived) into conditions appropriate to one's karmic state, and it suggests that one can find release from these karmic cycles (samsara), though again, the process generally requires being reborn into more favorable conditions over multiple lifetimes. However, there are dramatic variations between traditions over the proper means of achieving more favorable rebirths, over the speed at which progress can be made, and even over the desirability of leaving the world of samsara. In some sense, every Buddhist holds enlightenment as an ideal, but there are extensive differences in their relationship to it.

The two primary divisions of Buddhism are Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism (literally the Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects: morality (perfected in the life of the monk), concentration (developed through various forms of meditation to calm the mind), and wisdom (through practices that develop insight into the true nature of reality, which use doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity). Mahayana Buddhism (the Great Way or Great Vehicle) instead emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of all, even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others. Mahayana itself has devotional and meditational forms, though the divisions are not rigid and Buddhists will sometimes use elements from different forms together. The largest devotional tradition is Pure Land Buddhism. Their central belief is that a celestial Buddha named Amitabha has - through many lifetimes of reincarnation and good karma - created a 'Pure Land' where (unlike the given world) it is easy to escape the bonds of karma. Followers recite homages to Amitabha in the hope that through his intervention they will be reborn in the Pure Land. Zen/Chan Buddhism (the name derives from the Sanskrit word for meditation) is one of the two primary meditational forms, emphasizing meditation intended to break through conceptual structures. It is noted for its anti-conceptual, pro-experiential stance. Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle) is the other primary meditational form, and includes Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism. Vajrayana forms are distinguished because they add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations; 'skillful means' intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is another common devotional tradition, and Falun Gong is sometimes considered as another meditational form of Buddhism.

---

a couple of points I didn't address earlier:

where I sad 'humans are the only beings capable of dharmic action' I hadn't been thinking about gods. quite the contrary: I was thinking about beasts. I may be confusing hindu and buddhist philosophy here (correct me if I am, please) but animals and the like are beings reincarnated in that form because of their own karmic burden, and in that state they have lost the ability to make dharmic choices, and need to simply work out their karma slowly until they reincarnate in human form. again, I apologize if I've butchered a belief here; it's not my view of the world, so it's very possible I've gotten it wrong. at any rate, your point about gods is taken.
I wasn't trying to be Aristotlean; I was trying to be Wittgenstinean. in other words, I have not been trying to present a view of the subject that reflects some ontologically pre-existent truth, but rather generate a use-structure that we can all (more or less) agree is (more or less) functional. I have, however, tried to de-emphasize some of the distinctions made so that they seem less hierarchical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

addendum... can anyone with a better historical sense than I fill in the two bolded areas in the first paragraph? Peter, I think you need to do the first - I don't know what you mean by 'similar concerns'. plus we need a very brief synopsis of how buddhism spread.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm introducing all these complicated points into the discussion is not to suggest that they should be included in the lead, or to oppose simplification, which I explicitly called for above, but to try to make clear that your particular simplifications are wrong or misleading in the light of actual facts. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that it's possible to simplify at all, but we can carry on trying. I want you to be clearly aware of some of the complexities before you start trying to simplify, otherwise we may well not get anywhere.

"while word-literal readings of texts is important in all fields of knowledge, in religious/philosophical discussions it has to be tempered by some analysis of the author's intentions, otherwise you end up with a distinct POV that presents itself as objective because it's literal (think creationism...)": true, but we're not allowed to do this ourselves (no original research); we can only take such analysis from reliable sources (which is what I did for Fazang; possibly it would look different in the context of the source as a whole)

"the basic philosophy behind buddhism": there you go again; I can only repeat that there's no consensus of expert opinion that there's any such thing, let alone what it might be.

TBC Peter jackson (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think you've stated Fazang's position correctly, but I think you've missed his intention. why should a bodhisattva avoid enlightenment? it's because a bodhisattva wants to continue returning to aid all other beings." No, I said that:

"Nevertheless, the possibility is there of drawing the conclusion that a bodhisattva might achieve more in eternity than a Buddha in a very long life, & some Mahayana authorities did draw just this conclusion."

"soto and rinzai zen both use the same kinds of koans; rinzai, though, is much more aggressive in their use." Looking at it from the other end, Soto dosn't use koans much, was what I was trying to say.

"many protestants don't recognize catholics as 'proper' Christians, either (and vice-versa), but they still recognize them as Christians." I don't think that's always true. The Westminster Confession classifies "Papists" as idolators, which suggests it doesn't regard them as Christians.

I did read somewhere (can't remember where) that Theravadins often say "How can they be Buddhists? They don't know Pali." Certainly the governing council of Burmese Buddhism has declared (citation in Theravada) that there can be no valid ordination of nuns in modern times. This plainly implies they don't regard Mahayana nuns as validly ordained. I don't know of any reason for this that wouldn't apply also to Mahayana monks. My guess is that it's simply that Mahayana ordinations don't take place in Pali. At any rate the Vinaya commentary says a mispronounced ceremony is invalid.

"the fact that some scholars do not believe there is actually such a thing as buddhism is something we ought to touch on in the lead but mainly leave for the body. whether we like it or not, we do have a category called 'Buddhism', and we need to treat it as a cohesive category. if future scholars decide that there is no such thing as buddhism, we (or they) can come back and break this page up in a appropriate ways. at any rate, it's certainly not our job to worry about whether it's true; all we need to do is acknowledge and explain the position, and (at this point) that means explaining it as a critique of the establish position that there is such a thing as buddhism."

This is not NPOV. Given that there is a disagreement, WP cannot take sides. The article itself could discuss the different POVs at length, but the lead can only mention them. I'm assuming there is a disagreement, which seems likely, tho' I know of no evidence that it's not now the case that most specialists regard Buddhism as a plurality. We just don't know until someone finds a suitable citation.

"similar concerns" was intended as a placeholder; perhaps someone makes a stronger statement

"Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category." read "some scholars"

"The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama": misleading, as it implies that there are agreed "basic teachings", which is only true if "basic" means "elementary".

"According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed')." read "existence for living beings" or something similar: there's disagreement about whether "the world" is produced by karma.

"In its loosest sense" (karma). What's the reader supposed to make of this? This supposed loosest sense is not, as far as I know, recognized by Theravada. Is it recognized by any tradition, or is it a modern invention?

"conditions appropriate to one's karmic state": what's that supposed to mean?

"In some sense, every Buddhist holds enlightenment as an ideal, but there are extensive differences in their relationship to it." Yes, but the wording should make clear that "In some sense" applies to "enlightenment" as well as to "ideal". Read "relationship to, and conception of, it."

"even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others."

bodhisattva
Theravada also has a bodhisatta concept
the substance is confused; there are a variety of different concepts of bodhisattva:
1. Theravada & some Mahayana have the idea of a bodhisattva as someone who takes the long path to Buddhahood rather than ordinary arahantship; there are differences on the meanings of these terms between the 2, & within Mahayana; furthermore, there are differences in view about the relation between the 2
  1. Theravada & some (largely extinct) Mahayana say that these are distinct paths to distinct goals; thus a bodhisattva takes the long path to a different goal to help others (more)
  2. most later Mahayana says that ordinary arahants must then become bodhisattvas
2. some Mahayana has the idea of a bodhisattva renouncing Buddhahood itself, as discussed above

"animals and the like are beings reincarnated in that form because of their own karmic burden, and in that state they have lost the ability to make dharmic choices, and need to simply work out their karma slowly until they reincarnate in human form." Again, I don't know what you mean by 1/2 of this. What is "dharmic action"? What is "work out"? Let me mention that in the Pali Canon (specifically the Vimanavatthu) there are (at least) 2 stories of animals being reborn as gods as a result of good karma performed as animals. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LS recommends 3 or 4 paras for a long article like this. I can't find anything anywhere to say how long a para should be, but that page does provide a link to an example lead which it describes as "good length". My word counts of its 4 paras are as follows:

97
131
90
57

My counts for your version 5 are as follows:

147
158
309

You might like to think about whether you're trying to fit too much in.

Now, to return to the question of balance. I just came across today WP:VA, which lists 1000 vital articles that every good WP should have (ie in any language). Buddhism of course is there. Why? Because it's a major world religion. That is, it's the religion (or whatever) of 350,000,000 people. That's why it's a VA, that's what it's here for, that's what most readers expect it to deal with & that's what it should mainly cover. It should give a fair & balanced account of the religion(s) those people belong to.

This is not quite the same as the religious beliefs & practices of those people. Eg Catholicism is (roughly speaking) what the Pope says it is, not what people calling themselves Catholic actually believe, which isn't always the same. You can look at this diferent ways:

you can say that the official teaching is what Catholics believe in so far as they are genuinely Catholic
you can say that by associating themselves with the Church they authorize it to include them in its numbers

Most major religious groups don't have Popes. (Perhaps the Karmapa is a Buddhist example.) The appropriate definition of "offical" religion varies with the group concerned. Some, like Baptists & Bahais, are democratic, electing their clergy, so perhaps in those cases the popular & official versions might be the same, but in general that can't be assumed. It's generally very hard to find out what Buddhists as a whole actually believe & do.

Anyway, in the line of the above thinking, I still say coverage should be roughly in accordance with numbers of adherents, because that's the basis for the importance of the article.

The article as it stands is far from being a fair & balanced account of the religion of 350,000,000 people. In fact it's mostly about those bits of that religion that appeal to a few million Western Buddhists. To some extent I've been able to deal with this by adding citations that alert the attentive reader to that very imbalance. That's much harder for the lead, as there's far less space, which is why it's particularly important to get that properly balanced. Bear in mind a lot of people will read only the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter... I'd like it if you would stop limiting yourself to destructive criticism (or maybe deconstructive is a better term) and start making constructive criticism. don't get me wrong, I appreciate the value of de(con)structive criticism (i.e, pointing out flaws and limitations of a particular approach), but the problem with it is that I then have to guess about the best way to address it constructively (because there are few constructive clues in your comments pointing in any direction), and to date my attempts (obviously) have not satisfied you. I'm trying to work with you here, but you have this discussion tangled up in a knot and seem reluctant to let go of any of the ends so that we can untangle it.

couple of substantive points:

I'm beginning to think we should scrap the entire third paragraph, and not even get into sectarian divisions in the lead. just say something that indicates divisions exist, that maybe notes the mahayana/theravada distinction, and then lets it go. we can deal with the details in the body. that would solve a lot of our quibbling, as well as shortening the lead significantly.
you are over-extending the NPOV issue to the extent where it makes it impossible to talk about anything. I mean literally: I could go to any subject on Wikipedia - lets take the page on elephants for an example - and argue that "according to Wittgenstein's language theory 'elephant' is no more than a linguistic/conceptual structure that has been applied to objects that may or may not have any relation to each other, and according to non-dualistic religious philosophies and modern existentialism these objects may or may not even exist." it's a valid philosophical viewpoint with a decent number of sources I can cite - should we go start arguing that on the elephant page? well, it might or might not fly for elephants, but any less concrete subject (christianity, democracy, quantum mechanics, buddhism, etc.) is completely vulnerable to this approach. it's a complete non-starter of an argument.
1. and to add, it's inherently logically problematic. the phrase 'there really is no such thing as buddhism' implies that there is a false concept 'buddhism' which needs to be challenged. very zen, yes, but still it's our job to explain the concept, and in the process point out that some people think it's a false concept. or we'll have to rename the article 'the object formerly called buddhism' - lol
you yourself said that part of theravada doctrine is that that karma can produce 'an experience in life', which is not that dissimilar from what I wrote. remember that karma is a concept borrowed from hinduism and extended into buddhist doctrine. please read the karma page, with which I am wholly consistent.

finally, I'm not interested in word counts at this stage. let's agree to something, and then we can trim it if we think it's too long--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to destructive criticism. Why do you think I keep giving you these lengthy essays on Buddhist doctrine? It's so you'll have information from which to work.

This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. We mustn't give the impression that there's some core teaching that all Buddhists are agreed is the most important, because that doesn't seem to be true in any obvious way. The lead is supposed to give the most important points about the subject, which means everything regarded as of sufficient importance by any sufficiently important form of Buddhism, regardless of what other Buddhists think of it. It doesn't mean some sort of artificially created lowest common denominator.
The article is supposed to be about Buddhism, not about concepts of Buddhism. There's a paper titled "What, if anything, is Mahayana?" by Jonathan Silk. It appeared originally in the periodical Numen (I can get you the ref if you want) & was reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, vol III. He distinguishes 2 types of definition: stipulative, where you lay down the law on what the word means; and lexical, where you try to describe how the word is actually used in real life. He criticizes those scholars who stipulate a definition of religion & then say therefore Buddhism isn't a religion. He says what they should be doing is trying to describe how the word "religion" is actually used, including the fact that Buddhism is regularly included. He says that the concept of religion should be understood in terms of family resemblance. If you think about it, if there were a logical (Aristotelean) definition of religion that actually fitted usage, someone would probably have thought of it by now & it would have become generally accepted. So imagine trying to apply this to WP. The fact that there's no agreed definition of religion doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. But it also doesn't mean that the article should be written as if there were an agreed definition. The same applies to Buddhism: the article, & particularly the lead, mustn't be written from the POV of some particular idea of what Buddhism "is".
The traditional notion of karma is always, as far as I know, one of actions resulting in experiences, active states of mind causing passive ones. I don't know of any premodern use of the term to refer to actions causing other actions.

Perhaps, re definitions, I should point out that the ideas of karma, rebirth & liberation, which are common to all Buddhist traditions (as opposed to modern movements), are also shared by Hindus, Jains & Sikhs.

Finally for now, let me say that I prefer the present lead, which doesn't say anything, to one that gives a false, misleading or unbalanced impression. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ok. I hope you realize that I don't really disagree with anything you say, but I *do* think that you are straining things past their limits. for instance:

I'm not suggesting we "give the impression that there's some core teaching that all Buddhists agreed is the most important." further, I don't understand why you would think I was trying to do that, since I am doing my best to make as objective a presentation as possible. I am suggesting that there are certain core concepts (enlightenment, karma, dharma...) that all Buddhism(s) use in one way or another, though not necessarily in the same ways. are you suggesting that this is not the case?
you said "The article is supposed to be about Buddhism, not about concepts of Buddhism," but I'm not at all sure what that phrase might mean. regardless of whether you consider Buddhism a faith, a religion, a philosophical perspective, a cultural phenomenon (or whatever you might think it is) it is clearly a concept or conceptual structure, not a material object. if you refuse to talk about concepts then you miss the very thing that makes buddhism buddhism. it's like trying to talk about Christianity without mentioning monotheism. I'm not saying that we avoid views like Silk's, since they are an important part of discussing buddhism; but refusing to say anything about buddhism at all because it violates Silk's position is giving undo weight to that POV.
straight from the karma page: "The philosophical explanation of karma can differ slightly between traditions, but the general concept is basically the same. Through the law of karma, the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well." read that, and tell me what (precisely) in the second paragraph of the proposed lead you disagree with. and more importantly, tell me how you think we can fix it.

I respect the effort to give a balanced and unbiased opinion, Peter, but unlike you I do not prefer a lead that says nothing at all to one that tries (imperfect though it may be) to address the material. if you are really interested in making a good lead, then please take an active part in constructing it. however, if you are just trying to block any change at all, please let me know and I'll go away. I'm only trying to help out here, and I have no interest in a pointless wrestling match. ok? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you were trying to give such an impression, just warning against the danger of having that effect.
"if you refuse to talk about concepts then you miss the very thing that makes buddhism buddhism." But that's to assume that there is such a "very thing", which is begging the question.
"our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - are influenced by our past experiences": that's what your draft says, but the passage you quote clearly agrees with what I said above, that karma is about actions influencing experiences, not the reverse. Delete "are influenced by our past experiences" and the following "and".

I don't necessarily "prefer a lead that says nothing at all to one that tries (imperfect though it may be) to address the material". It depends how imperfect it is.

Now I have some time to "take an active part". I'm not going to produce a draft right now, but let me suggest, in the light of the family resemblance concept, that we approach it somewhat on the following lines. We can start with the conceptual, historical & demographic intro as we've been working on. Then we make roughly the following points:

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

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

Ok, this is useful. and don't worry, I don't mind fleshing out drafts, all I wanted was a little more positive insight into what you were looking for, because I felt we were going around in circles. I'll make a stab at a redraft given what you've said here (again, give me a couple of hours to do that. I will say, however, that we still have to work out this Wittgenstein problem. I am still worried that you are giving priority to an opinion that is both academic/intellectual and unrepresentative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

version 6

try this on for size. I didn't address all of the points that you made above (mostly in consideration of space; I prioritized).

--

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms," "Buddhist religions," or similar phrases. The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. After that his teachings spread throughout the bulk of asia (add date/means specifics), and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism in all its forms at between 230 to 500 million, with most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed'). In its loosest sense, karma connects causality and responsibility, such that our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - influence our future experiences. Most Buddhists believe in rebirth (or strictly speaking, re-conconception), and that the rebirths one experiences are usually determined by karma. However, most Buddhists also hold that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually are not bound by karma in this way; they can influence their own rebirth, or the rebirth of others. While Buddhists do believe that meditation is necessary at some stage, most do not believe they have reached that stage, and as a consequence practice devotion to one or more Buddhas or other beings (except in the western world, where Buddhism has largely been adopted in a philosophical/meditational form). Buddhism does, however, present a strong ethical code, including generosity - particularly in the support of monks - dedication to helping others spiritually, and the Five Precepts: refraining from killing living beings, stealing, sexual immorality, lying, and taking intoxicants.

Nearly all Buddhist recognize some version of a basic common text, called the Tipitaka (literally "Three Baskets", found in the Pali Cannon and the Agamas), which is generally attributed to Gautama Buddha. Other texts exist, however. In particular, a majority of Buddhists recognize a set of texts called the Mahayana Sutras (not generally attributed directly to Gautama). This difference marks off the most commonly noted division in Buddhism, between Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism and Theraveda (Teaching of the Elders) Buddhism. Within each of these sects, however, there is a broad range of doctrinal frameworks of differing degrees of complexity, and an assortment of different practices and rituals. --

and I'll remember to sign this time - lol --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally good.

"some scholars" should read "many scholars"
"basic teachings": see my objection above
"most Buddhists also hold that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually are not bound by karma in this way" should read "the majority"
"dedication to helping others spiritually": context seems to imply this is general Buddhist teaching, which is not true for full-blooded sense of "dediaction"
"basic common text": same objection as 2
"generally attributed to Gautama Buddha": attributed by whom?
"not generally attributed directly to Gautama": ditto: there is no answer to these 2 questions that is true for both of them
"sects" is not an appropriste word
"Within each of these sects, however, there is a broad range of doctrinal frameworks of differing degrees of complexity, and an assortment of different practices and rituals." not clear what this means; Theravada is far less varied than Mahayana; it's a single "denomination", with (before modern times) a reasonably consistent system of teachings; Mahayana has a variety of "denominations", some of which include a variety of doctrines & practices

If you say I'm prioritizing 1 POV, I could just as well say you're doing the reverse. Your use of the word "basic", twice, suggests a POV. As I said above, we don't actually know which view is commoner at present. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

line 1: for "scholars" read "some scholars"
"loosest sense" no longer needed
"not bound by karma in this way; they can influence their own rebirth, or the rebirth of others": 1st 1/2 is much stronger than 2nd 1/2: not bound by karma is a Mahayana doctrine about advanced bodhisattvas, but even Theravada believes anyone with a reasonable amount of merit can influence their rebirth
in theory, singling out Western Buddhism for special mention might be considered biased, but I suppose one might justify it on the basis that this is English WP
"as a consequence" implies that when you start meditating you drop the devotion, which is not traditional

Now let me elaborate the situation as regards scriptures.

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

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

lol - I take it from your last line that you tend towards a fundamentalist approach, yah? :-) ok, most of these changes I can make without troubling my conscience too much, so unless you have an objection I'm going to make them, and then put this in as the lead, where it can undergo a more normal type of collaborative editing. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how many people who've taken no part in the discussion crawl out of the woodwork & violently object.

Have a look at my simplified wording & citations on the nature of Buddhism as just put into the article. Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, if people make a fuss that's their right, and that's ok. I have no particular attachment to this, except that I'd like it to be well-written and as accurate as possible. besides, I get the feeling that Wikipedia is a lot like a Tibetan sand-painting (i.e., an exercise in impermanence...). and yes, I'll read over what you just added first. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro MUST clearly say that Buddhism's main objective is to show the causes of human suffering and offer a path that ends suffering. Chamath Mc (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would actually be true. In particular, Jodo Shinshu believes in salvation by faith alone, ie doen't have a path. Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not all about salvation of faith. Lord Buddha's mission was to show the path which ends suffering. That's the main objective.--Chamath Mc (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all, obviously. I never suggested it was. What I was saying is that we're supposed to be trying to give a fair, accurate & balanced picture of Buddhism, which is hard because of its variety, & I gave Jodo Shinshu as an illustration. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But what I'm saying is completely true. Siddhartha identified himself that the whole world is all about suffering. So he became a Lord Buddha to show the path which ends suffering.-Chamath Mc (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chamath - the worry I have in this (and the reason I've been trying to tread a very cautious path in writing) is that I'm suspicious of the way buddhism has been framed in the English-speaking world. for instance, 'suffering' is only one translation (and not even the best, mind you) of the 4NT word 'dukkha' - I tend to lean towards 'restlessness' or 'disquiet', myself... putting too heavy an emphasis on suffering might be biased. if you can make a good case that most of the varieties of buddhism focus on suffering in the same way, though...--Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt it say he was born in ANCIENT INDIA?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I dont understand this. When you go to the Buddha article (not this article but the actual Buddha article) it says he was born in Ancient India. And yet in this article it says he was born in Lumbini. And I think this is wrong. In those days there was no Nepal. Today we usually refer to those times as ANCIENT INDIA. I mean even here on Wikipedia there is an article called ANCIENT INDIA and Nepal is under that catagory. And yet in this article it says he was born in Nepal? Well that conflicts with the "BUDDHA" page & the "ANCIENT INDIA" page (in a way). Instead, I think it should say that Buddhism came from India, and that the Buddha was born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini, Nepal. Isnt that more fair? I mean to the average person who may not be familiar with Buddha, if the user types in Buddhism, and just skims the article they might not think that Buddha was an actual Indian and/or Indian prince. So why not just say he was born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini, Nepal? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

that's worth considering, and certainly something that we need to put on the list of things to do. however, it seems to me that using the term 'Ancient India' is incorrect, since (in fact) there was no 'India' prior to the colonial era, either. probably the best way to put it is to say something like "He was born in in a kingdom called ... which is part of modern-day Nepal", and then stress the fact that it was a predominantly Hindu culture.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: I'm not sure I follow you. The article does not say he was born in Nepal.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lumbini is not the modern name, it's the ancient name. The modern name is Rummindei. Peter jackson (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all there is a such thing as Ancient India. Theres even a page on it here on wikipeida. I mean its not something I just came up. There are people who recognize an "Ancient India"....Secondly, this page even says that Buddhism came from India. So if it came from India, why cant it say Buddha was born in India? Yes i know back then there was no India. BUt there was also no Nepal either. But we still have to call it something right? And the best answer would be India. I mean if this page admits that Buddhism came from India, and Buddha gained enlightenment in India, and he first taught in India, and he was born right on the border of what is today now known as Nepal & India, then its fair to say that the article should say something like "Buddha was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Nepal. I mean let me give u an exmaple. If Buddha was born in a part of Paksitan, you wouldnt say he was born in Paksitan. You would say he was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Pakistan. Now I agree there was no term as India back in those days. But we have to call it somethign and most people accept the name India or ancient India. I wouldnt mind calling it the LAND OF THE ARYANS, but i dont know how many people would accept that name. SO India, or ancient India is the best name probably..........Thirdly....if u go the article on wikeipdia under Buddha, it says on that article that Buddha was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Nepal. So i mean this page contradicts the other page about Buddha, so thats another reason to change it to Ancient India......And lastly.....Yes i know the article does not say he was born in Nepal. But to a user who does not know much about Buddhism, and clicks the link LUmbini, they might think ok Buddha wasnt Indian. HE was Nepali or something 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This page does not contradict other articles on Wikipedia, because it does not say that the Buddha was not born in India, nor does it say that he was born in Nepal.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

U KNOW I TYPED ALOT. I TYPED ALOT. THE LEAST U CAN DO IS ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT I TYPED INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING ONE SMALL RESPONSE......AND BY THE WAY....TYPE IN BUDDHISM ON WIKIPEDIA.....AND GO FIND THE PART WHERE IT SAYS HE WAS BORN IN ANCIENT INDIA 71.105.82.152 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Peace, my friends. why don't you look over the revised version that Peter and I are working on in the section above - see if that addresses your issue.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for revised intro (I only moved things around and added one or two words)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Buddhism is a way of life influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha.[2] It is sometimes described as a religion[1], or as a set of teachings that helps us directly experience reality[3][4]. Buddhism attempts to identify the causes of human suffering and offer a path to end, or accept, suffering. It is said by some to be a body of philosophies and many scholars say that there is not one Buddhism but many Buddhisms, as noted in the re-titled textbook Buddhist Religions.[5] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dharma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around the 5th century BCE in India with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly referred to as "the Buddha", which means "awakened one" in Sanskrit.

69.138.237.183 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Pam dougpamjones@comcast.net (can't find my login info--I believe I'm a registered user)

Hey Pam! for small changes like this, go ahead and work them into the main page. if someone object they'll revert or revise.

that being said, Peter and I have been trying to hash out a rewritten version, above New Lead. you want to read over our latest attempt (near the end) and make any suggestions?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Demography

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We could add any number of different figures from reliable sources, which would really clutter up the article. The point about the adherents citation is that it summarizes what everyone else says. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Noble Truths in the lead section

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Suffering and its cessation should be mentioned somewhere within the first 3 paragraphs. The way it is currently written (which is much better than the previous version) it is hard to find a place to put it. I think all Buddhists would agree that suffering and end of suffering is just as important as karma and rebirth in describing Buddhism. cihan (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly they would, but can you prove it from reliable sources? It's very dificult to decide what are the most important points to cover here. A number of scholars have said you can't properly cover Buddhism in a book, & here we are trying to do it in a amaximum of 4 paragraphs. We have to get past Western fantasies, on which most of the current article is based, & try to deal with real Buddhism. In particular, on the topic of the 4 NTs, you might like to have a look at the sourced statements I've already put in the 4 NT section in the article, which show they're a good deal less important than Westerners commonly imagine. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we could work the concept of suffering and its release into the second paragraph without too much trouble, if we all agree that it's a central enough concept. something like this:

According to Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed'). Karma connects causality and responsibility, such that our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - influence our future experiences. Karma is seen as the source of human suffering, which Buddhism seeks to end...

would that be effective?

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In my very limited understanding of Buddhism, it is clinging to desire or aversion which causes suffering. The 8-fold path (which itself is the 4th NT) is the "path" to end suffering. I am not sure if it is correct to say that Karma is the source of human suffering. cihan (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what they call "nuanced". From 1 point of view, suffering is caused by craving, from another by ignorance (dependent origination), from another by karma, from another by self-view ...

Provisionally, Ludwigs' wording looks OK to me. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many ways of putting it. You guys seem to know more than I do about this. I think that is fine. As long as there is some mention of the effort to end suffering, which in my understanding is central to Buddhism. cihan (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I will put it in provisionally, though I understand Peter's point. I mean, I really wanted to say that "ignorance of Karma is the source of human suffering," which strikes me as correct, but worries me because it plays into my own understanding of buddhism (and so is probably even more 'nuanced'). objectivity is such a bear. :-)

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro Reverts

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Ludwigs2: I had a look at the talk page and changed my intro accordingly. If you read it, you will notice it's both accurate and VERY neutral. I will not change it any further. If you or other contributors to Wikipedia find a benign intro like the one I wrote unacceptable then Wikipedia is useless it's readers. By the way, 350 million people in the world consider Buddhism to be a religion. Therefore, it's a religion. Pasta4470 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways to write the intro. I think the best way to go about it is to negotiate it here in the talk page first, to avoid reverts. If you

clarify what you need is lacking, or needs to be removed, that would be a good first step. cihan (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta's version is neither accurate nor neutral, & has other faults:

"five major religions": what does this mean? What are the other 4? What does "major" mean?
saying it's a religion & many people call it a philosophy is both unclear & non-neutral:
1. How many is many?
2. Who are these people anyway?
3. Do they think it's a religion & a philosophy, or a philosophy instead of a religion?
4. Are they disagreeing about the nature of Buddhism or just about the definition of religion?
5. To mention the view that it's a religion but not the view that it's more than 1 violates NPOV. It's no use saying 350,000,000 people believe it's a religion. That's not even true, because most of those people don't speak English.
"three major branches": this too has all sorts of problems:
1. What does Vajrayana mean?
  1. Most scholars use it to cover both Tibetan Buddhism & Shingon. If so,
    1. In what sense can it be called a branch?
    2. Do Tibetan Buddhists identify themselves with Shingon?
    3. Does Shingon identify itself with Tibetan Buddhism rather than with the rest of East Asian Buddhism?
  2. If it means Tibetan Buddhism, that should be made clear.
  3. How major is major? There are about 20-25 million Tibetan Buddhists & about 11 m Shingon. For comparison, there are at least 40 m Nichiren Buddhists if we include all the fringe groups, & 23 m Zen Buddhists in Japan & Korea alone.
6th century BC is probably wrong: the majority of scholars now say 5th.
To say the Buddha's followers called him by that title in Sanskrit is not appropriate: the title is older than Buddhist use of Sanskrit.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter: I disagree with all of your statements. My intro covers only well established facts that are now part of conventional wisdom. There is nothing controversial or unusual about it. You can't even bring yourself to believe the Buddha was called the Buddha. What then was he called, the Head Honcho? If we apply your philosophy to other concepts perhaps Jesus was not called Jesus Christ. Perhaps the word "major" has another mysterious meaning few people are aware of. Perhaps we should never use the word "corn" but rather "maize", instead, because that's closer to its original native American word. Or, perhaps you spend too much time on Wikipedia criticizing other people's contributions because you have nothing better to do. Pasta4470 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"well established facts" for which you cite no evidence
"conventional wisdom": meaning widespread prejudices of the ignorant?
You disagree with all of my statements? Does that mean you believe that the earliest Buddhists to use the term Buddha spoke Sanskrit?

Let me go into more detail about some of the points.

At [1] somewhere you'll find a list of 5 major religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam & Judaism. Is that what you mean? If so, you'll see from the discussion there that that list dates from the middle of the 19th century, & other religions have since beeen added. In particular, there are probably more Sikhs than Jews, but they weren't recognized as a religion until a century ago.
1. Wikipedia has a concept called "weasel words" applied to vague terms like "many": its general policy is that they should be avoided.
2. Many scholars? Many Buddhists? Many Western Buddhists? Many people who don't know anything about the subject?
3. Question stands unanswered.
4. Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia must not assert a particular opinion as if it were fact when it is contested by a serious body of opinion. This is fundamental WP policy. According to Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 2, many scholars say there is not 1 Buddhism but many Buddhisms, & a standard textbook has now been retitled Buddhist Religions, plural (Robinson et al, 5th ed, Wadsworth, Belmont, California). Note by the way that themain author of the latter is a Buddhist monk.
  1. As long ago as 1912, Leuba (Psychology of Religion, I think) listed 50 definitions of religion. They'd now fill volumes. If Westerners can't agree on what religion is or whether Buddhism is one, why should you expect that Easterners would have a corresponding concept?
  2. You cite no evidence that 350,000,000 people call it a religion.
  3. Most Buddhists know very little about Buddhism as a whole, or about the concept of religion, so their opinions, even if you could verify them, are of dubious value.
You haven't answered any of my questions here. And I hadn't even mentioned Pure Land Buddhism, which has far more followers than Vajrayana.
A conference of scholars took place about 1988 specifically to discuss the question of the date of the Buddha. The majority of participants who expressed a definite view gave dates for the Buddha's death in the period 420-380 BC. Only 1 gave an earlier date (486), & a few gave even later dates. This is still roughly the position among specialist scholars. (See Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2004 (Volume One), page 82.) The fact that lots of people with no specialist knowledge keep copying 563-483 out of older books should be ignored by Wikipedia.
Your response shows you haven't actually read what I said. (This is probably true for most of the other points I made as well.)

Peter jackson (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

This really is the last straw. For ages I've been pointing out the bias in this article, with very little response or cooperation. Now we've got a biased intro as well. So I've done what perhaps I should have done ages ago. I've added a neutrality dispute tag to the article. It can stay there until the whole article's sorted out, not just the intro. Peter jackson (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize yet again (see lots of earlier material, including archives, for more detail):

The article is written mainly from the POV of Western Buddhists. This means
1. There's very little about those forms of Buddhism that aren't popular in the West. Most notably there are only a few lines about Pure Land Buddhism, which is followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists.
2. Similarly, there's very little about topics that aren't popular in the West. Eg karma & rebirth, faith, devotion, ritual ...
3. Also, the explanations probably represent Western interpretations that many Buddhists would disagree with, but this requires detailed investigation.
The arrangement, with some teachings in a section headed "Some teachings" & others buried in other sections if they're in the article at all, is in itself biased.
The current (as of a few minutes ago) intro is biased against the views of many scholars who talk of many Buddhisms or Buddhist religions, plural. These views have been simply censored out completely.

What should be done:

Rearrange the article into some sort of coherent structure.
Then add material about underrepresented/omitted topics, & probably cut out some about others (else the article will be very long).
Then check all explanations against reliable sources for bias.

We did try to do stage 1 long ago, but people just kept reverting, & ignored all subsequent requests to suggest their own arrangements. I put in a request to the cleanup taskforce a while back, but they haven't got round to it yet. There've been some suggestions above in this column, but not yet acted on. Peter jackson (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter: This article is obviously important to you. Make all the changes you think are necessary to it instead of complaining about its problems. Then wait to see what happens. If the article strikes me as well thought out and well written then I promise not to change it. But, just so that you understand why I disagree with you, you seem incapable of accepting any type of conventional wisdom. As some point we must choose the most widely agreed upon information for the article instead of constantly considering less popular views.

I rewrote the intro because I saw a tag requesting a new intro. I then used the most widely accepted, least controversial and most neutral information I could find only to find my intro reverted twice. It seems to me a better approach would have been to alter the intro with changes here and there. Pasta4470 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta... I'm sorry, but I feel that the original intro I wrote was far more neutral than the one you are presenting, in part because I discussed the matter for a good week on the talk page before submitting my version, and in part because I have been careful to avoid topics which are contentious. now I'm going to revert my intro one more time, and I am going to ask you to explain the specific problems you have with it here before you revert it again. don't get me wrong, there are parts of your changes that I like - I'd just like the chance to discuss them before we commit to a whole-hog change like this.

I'll note that I am particularly concerned by the following two points in your presentation, so perhaps you can start by explaining your view on these:

Buddhism as a religion: there are two problems here.
1. not everyone in the world considers buddhism a 'religion' in the classic sense of the word
2. among those who do consider it a religion, not everyone agrees that buddhism represents a singular, consistent faith.
you have presented a potentially mythological (and certainly moralistic) story of buddha's upbringing as established historical fact. that's not NPOV

Please let's discuss this and find a workable compromise.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter: I am always leery of tags. I think that they put up a flag to our readers that the information contained in the article may be unreliable. Thus they are not only an eyesore, they present a barrier to readably. I find the article pretty good, actually. Not perfect, but informative and readable. Would you be willing to take the initiative in resolving the concerns you have raised and then removing the tags? Let's put a sunset clause on the tags as well. Would two weeks be enough time to resolve the issues? Sunray (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think that they put up a flag to our readers that the information contained in the article may be unreliable." Exactly. That's why I put it there. The article as it stands, tho' it may not contain any statements that are outright false, in the sense that everyone agrees they're false, certainly presents opinions as facts, gives misleading impressions, & is unbalanced.

I certainly don't think a time limit is appropriate. It takes as long as it takes. However, I think there is a different tag for unbalanced. I would agree to replacement provided the following conditions are 1st met:

The lead is not misleading, as it is at present.
the article is rearranged into a coherent structure so that people who want to redress the imbalance will know where to put things.
All questionable statements are qualified by phrases like "According to some Buddhists", "According to one interpretation" ...

How am I supposed to take the initiative in resolving the issues when all my attempts to do so just get reverted? That's why I tagged the article & took it to the talk page. Is there some other procedure? Peter jackson (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had another look thro' all the sections below that might be relevant, & I find rather little response to my criticisms & suggestions (as usual). Pasta/Luis (they're the same person, tho' neither seems to have thought to mention it in this column) seems intent on ignoring WP policy. He doesn't seem to bother reading my comments properly (compare his replies with what I actually said) or at all (more recently, no replies at all). He seems intent on imposing his own views, repeatedly dogmatically asserted without a shred of evidence. Perhaps he simply hasn't bothered to read either the WP policy pages or my or Ludwigs' attempts to explain them. At this rate it's going to take a very long time to sort this all out. Perhaps you'd be within your rights to say discussion isn't going to resolve the issue so move on to the next stage. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about setting a time limit. If by "the next stage" you mean another step in the dispute resolution process, I wonder why we couldn't just sort things out here. Ultimately it will come down to reaching consensus here. Reading through the above discussions, it seems to me that things were progressing. Several alternatives/versions were presented for the lead, changes were made accordingly. Unfortunately, due to the length of posts, it is difficult to see what the specific problems might be. We need to find a way to work on one issue at a time and be efficient in our process. How about we agree that the article needs some improvement and start to set out an action plan? Sunray (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter - I think the important thing to remember here is that everyone involved in this discussion is devoted to the topic. we have to have conversations about what's valid and appropriate to say, of course, but even if you're sure that what someone is saying is wrong, it's still something that's important to them. that needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

Pasta (personally, I admire the desire to re-conceptualize oneself, so I always take people exactly as they seem ;-) ) and Luis have stopped reverting and entered into the discussion, and I'm sure with a little more time we'll get to the root of whatever their concerns are and resolve the issue. as far as I can tell that will only make the article stronger. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ultimately it will come down to reaching consensus here." having looked at the policy on dispute resolution, I think that's right. But consensus of whom? The resolution process seems to consist of calling in more people by notices elsewhere.

One problem is that people keep rewriting, thereby introducing new issues.

Can I ask people to abide by WP procedures & refrain from deleting the tag. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are enough editors engaged on this page that we shouldn't have to originate an RfC. I see lots of goodwill and willingness to discuss matters. The tag shouldn't be removed until we have dealt with the concerns raised. To do that we will need some citations. Would you be willing to present some cites to illustrate the points you are making about neutrality? Sunray (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, Peter - honestly, I'm still a little vague on what will satisfy you as NPOV, and that makes it hard to write edits. cites would be good, and even without cites, just your (obviously well-educated) opinion would be helpful. what are (to your mind) the constraints a properly NPOV lead should meet? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the citations on the 4NTs:

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

Peter jackson (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More later when I have time. Peter jackson (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now reformatted the above to make the refs visible. Now here are the citations on "religion":

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

The lead, according to WP:LS, should be capable of being read independently (which is all a lot of people will do), as a concise version of the article, & should give a fair & balanced picture of the most important points in the subject. That's what we're ultimately trying to do, but it's a tall order, & for the moment I'm concentrating on the negative aspect, trying to ensure it isn't actually misleading. This means the 1st sentence as it stood last time I looked, saying Buddhism is a religion, can't be allowed to stand, because opinions mustn't be presented as fact. As I suggested below, I think, on present verifiable knowledge, that "Buddhism is usually considered a religion" in the lead, with the other POVs given in an introductory section, would be sufficient. However, if a citation later turns up saying the majority of Buddhologists say otherwise, that would have to change. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead also says

"Gautama Buddha was the first to teach the buddha-dharma, the doctrine of Buddhism"

Apart from not being the traditional teaching, which holds there were previous Buddhas, that wording also suggests there is some definite thing called the buddha-dharma that all Buddhists & all historians agree was what the Buddha taught & is the Buddhist doctrine, which is false on both counts. Therefore this wording is unacceptable.

In the light of the citations above, I think the current lead gives undue weight to the 4 NTs. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The present wording on texts is also unsatisfactory. It doesn't make clear that Mahayana, altho' theoretically recognizing the Agamas, doesn't give them any importance in practice. They were never translated into Tibetan, & play no role in the religious life of China & Japan.(Eliot, Japanese Buddhism, page 16) Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute cont'd

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Ludwigs2: In the interests of avoiding an edit war I've pasted my intro below. Make changes to it and we'll post THAT. Your intro, though accurate, reads like grey chatter. My mind begins wandering after the first few words.

Keep in mind, if you ignore me I will eventually repost my intro despite your objections. Pasta4470 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta - I have no intention of ignoring you, and I hope that we can reach an agreement quickly, that satisfies everyone (as much as humanly possible, anyway...). let's just work on the good faith principle. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Intro

Buddhism is one of the world's five major religions (although many consider it a philosophy) with more than 378.8 million followers ^[1], the vast majority of them living in Asia. It is also one of several Dharmic religions. Buddhism has three major branches: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana^[2]. Theravada Buddhism is the oldest of these ^[3]. However there are many other sects as well.

Buddhism was founded in the sixth century BCE by Siddhārtha Gautama^[4], a member of the ruling class of the Shakya people living at the foot of the Himalayas. Buddhist tradition has it that he rejected his royal lifestyle of luxury in favor of the life of an ascetic. He eventually rejected this lifestyle as well for a life of moderate renunciation. He called this approach the middle way^[5].

Siddhārtha Gautama's followers called him the Buddha^[6], a Sanskrit title meaning the awakened one, or more colloquialy, the enlightened one. All of Buddhism's modern day sects are derivations of the Buddha's teachings which eventually spread throughout most of Asia, and in more recent centuries have reached the rest of the world.

ok, let me give a short list of issues that I have with this first paragraph, and after that I'll offer a rewrite that tries to address them. I've marked what I think are minor issues with an 'm', just to be clear.

m. Best to keep the lead to no more than four paragraphs. this structure would leave it with five.
m. I think we need to drop the 'five' in the first line - it's not clear what 'major' means, so the number is argumentative.
I think we need to keep that idea that it is considered a religion (but that that is problematical)
m. Vajrayana is sometimes considered a separate branch, and sometimes considered a sub-group within Mahayana
I'm not sure it's fair to say that Theravada is the 'oldest'. the split between theravada and mahayana is actually quite early, and both sides will claim that their teachings go back to the Buddha himself. I think this is better handled in the third paragraph, where they are distinguished by different texts, rather than trying to make unverifiable claims about age
- I'll add that I personally think that theravada is commonly considered to be closer to the original teachings of the buddha, but Peter objected to that (rightly, I think) because there is no common consensus on the actual original teachings of the buddha.
m. Buddha did not found Buddhism (any more than Christ founded Christianity). Buddha offered a set of teachings, and buddhism sprang up after the fact. plus, the date references is more ambiguous than you place it.
m. I think my original place reference was more accurate than 'at the foot of the Himalayas'
you are presenting a possibly mythological/moralistic tale about Buddha's upbringing as a historical fact.
'All of Buddhism's modern day sects are derivations' - well, most of them 'claim' to be direct descendants of Buddhas teaching; none of them think of themselves as 'derivations.' This wording is difficult...
the name 'Siddhārtha' is (so I'm told) a later addition.
m. it's an encyclopedia entry - it's not supposed to be thrilling. a little grey isn't a bad thing here. :-)

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

compromise attempt (1)

Buddhism is conventionally considered one of the world's major religions, having roughly 350 million followers centered in Asia.^[7] Some scholars prefer to talk about to talk of "many Buddhisms," "Buddhist religions," or similar phrases that recognize the extensive diversity of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism. It is classed as one of several Dharmic faiths. The various forms of Buddhism all claim that their teachings derive (directly or indirectly) from Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: see Buddha for variant anglicizations), where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal.

comments? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

edit: based on comments below, I am personally willing to remove the 'conventionally considered' from the first line, if that helps. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: I had a look at your comments and your rewrite. I disagree with nearly all of it. I'll tell you why tomorrow. Pasta4470 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

lol - ok. I'm looking forward to it. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

references (test)

this section added so that we can see the result of footnotes during discussion. it is not intended to replace the references section in the original article.

^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9432620/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions-Mid-2005
^ http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com
^ http://www.amidabuddha.org/buddhism.html
^ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html
^ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#awakening
^ http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/buddhism.htm
^ The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million

No Room for Compromise

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

If Buddhism is a religion, then state: "Buddhism is a religion." If Buddhism is not a religion then state "Buddhism is [WHATEVER IT IS]." Compromise doesn't help to teach anyone about what Buddhism is or is not; it only serves to confuse, which is counterproductive.

The real problem here is that Buddhism does not closely match or resemble the traditional Western conception of a religion (i.e. it's not overly focused on metaphysics, creation-stories, deities, etc.) However, just because Buddhism does not resemble Western notions of religion, does not mean it is not a religion at all or that it is only partially so. If this Wikipedia entry is going to continue to muddle or sidestep the categorical definition of Buddhism as a religion, then someone might as well attach a tag to this article stating that it does not reflect a worldwide view of this subject.

Would it not be so much simpler if the article read "Buddhism is a religion..." and then there could be an extensive footnote explaining how Buddhism does not typically match Western definitions of religion and that there is controversy concerning this issue?

Re: Buddhism as a Plurality. One could literally characterize any religion as a plurality: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and especially Hinduism. Each of those "religions" are umbrella terms for a diverse variety of sects, beliefs, and traditions. So then why single out Buddhism?

Coolbo (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know what you mean. On the other hand, maybe those articles are written in a way that is seriously flawed, and this article needs to avoid the same mistakes.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coolbo. I think some necessary generalities can be made in the lead of the article, and the caveats can be explained as footnotes or

later in the article. Otherwise, we can all get into philosophical arguments about what a country is, a table is etc. The lead in the article

should give someone who knows nothing or very little about Buddhism a rough idea of what it is. If they want to learn more, they can read on and

get more details and nuance. If we are still using the word "Buddhism", it is a word that refers to one amorphous thing. A good-faith effort as to

what that thing is should be described. If scholars disagree that Buddhism is one thing, that can also be pointed out. I am not sure, however, that

Buddhism is less of a one-thing than any other religion with millions of followers. cihan (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the first sentence should state what it is in one sentence, and the rest of the lead should then expand on that briefly. However, this requires us to first determine what it is ourselves, which is no mean feat.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you... I've been through this particular issue in several places (and not just on Wikipedia, or about buddhism). as I see it, the problem breaks down like this

there is a general (and not unjustified) belief that Buddhism in all its forms contains -at core- a common, consistent philosophy/ideology
there is a wide variety of specific beliefs, practices, and intellectualizations that all call themselves 'Buddhist'
therefore, there is a general (and not unjustified) disagreement about what that common, consistent, core to buddhist philosophy is.

I mean seriously - when you have the five precepts on one side stating the importance of sexual morality and vajrayana buddhists on the other using tantric sexuality as a means to enlightenment, finding a happy medium is problematic.

It gets worse. if we start getting philosophical and esoteric then we are effectively privileging monastic practice over the (far more common) lay practice. if we turn around and focus on (primarily devotional) lay practice then we start moving away from what seems like buddha's original teachings about liberation. these are just fights we should not be getting involved in

I'm sorry if you find compromise difficult, but if you don't find room for it, you're going to find yourself advocating for something that someone is going to consider biased.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But if the article is biased towards accuracy and clarity, as opposed to confusion and mystification, then isn't that desirable? We could take into account all the various ways Buddhism is practiced, but that is not going to elucidate what Buddhism actually is.

For example, some Vajrayana Buddhists use tantric sexuality as a means to enlightenment, but then again some Muslims use terrorism as a means to heaven. But in regards to the latter, does that mean the use of violence is an accurate way to characterize Islamic teachings? So then, does that mean the use of sex is an accurate way to describe, the Dhamma, Buddha's original teachings?

I'd like to reiterate that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article we are writing -- not a university term paper. Compare these two sentences:

1. Paris Hilton is a model, singer, and actress.

2. Paris Hilton is conventionally considered a model, singer and actress; though some popular culture analysts have questioned whether this an appropriate description. Some people would not consider her a singer or actress in the strictest sense, but a mere celebutante.

One of those sentences sounds like it belongs in a proper encyclopedia article, while the other sounds like it belongs in a college student's term paper.

As it is currently written, the first 3 paragraphs of the Buddhism article is one sentence after another without a single citation. It is making certain bold statements about what "most" Buddhist believe without citing a single source to back up its claims. Regardless, you can describe what "most" Buddhists believe or do, but it's not going to help define what Buddhism is. (Example: "Most Christians believe you should read the Bible everyday" or "Most Christians worship one God, while some Christians may worship 3 or more.") These statements don't really tell me anything about what Christianity is.

I'm going off on a tangent here but karma and rebirth is a very fine and subtle point in Buddhist teachings that need expert attention. The article as it is currently written is perpetuating the misconception of Buddhist karma as a linear process, (i.e. past actions influence the present, present actions influence the future). I believe the consensus among Pali scholars is that Buddha taught karma as a non-linear process. I could be wrong...so we better check the appropriate sources.

Coolbo (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, Coolbo, but I do see risks here, and I do understand the problematic elements. for example, you came dangerously close to saying (above) that Buddhists who practice tantric sex are wrong because they don't follow the dhamma, when in fact Buddhists who practice tantric sex would say that they are practicing a higher form of the dhamma (plus, equating them with Muslim terrorists is a bit extreme - a better comparison would to say "Mormons are not really Christians because they rely on texts that most Christians do not recognize" - do you think that's fair?)

and I (personally) have no problem referring to Buddhism as a religion, but I understand the complaint - 'Buddhism' is very likely a kind of Colonial generalization (like India itself, which was a plurality of independent states until the British decided it was one big blob and called it India). can you demonstrate that Buddhism really is a cohesive thing in its own right, rather than a bunch of different things that westerners decided to lump together under a single term? I'd love it if you could, but till then it's a valid complaint that does need to be dealt with, somewhere...

and yes, I know the difficulties of dealing with Karma and Rebirth, and I am decently knowledgeable about them. I am, however, a little suspicious of reaching for expert attention, though, because most 'experts' in this topic are themselves entrenched within one or another faith, and will approach it with their own POV. I think the best we can do here is to find some statement that's not quite right or complete, but brings the issues up so they can be discussed later in the article. and yes, I recognize that what I did was not entirely satisfactory; sorry... :-\

and sorry if my writing style is stuffy. I can loosen it up a bit if you think that's necessary. :-)

Well, I realize that the tantric sex comment sounded harsh and I'm sorry about it. I'll try to be more mindful with my words. However, I still say that just because some Vajrayana Buddhists practice tantric sex as a valid way to nirvana does not mean that such a practice comports with Buddhist doctrine and scripture.

I'm not sure how I should "demonstrate" that Buddhism is a single cohesive religion. But I want to say upfront that referring to a single "Buddhism" is not the same thing as the British colonialists referring to the diverse ethnic groups of the Indian subcontinent as a single Indian identity group. The various Buddhists sects, even those as different as Theravada and Pure Land are still derived from that original "Dhamma-Vinaya" founded by Buddha.

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

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

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

Gentlemen, E-Prime anybody?

--Klimov (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolbo - actually, that's a very good argument for calling Buddhism a unified religion. if it's not OR, and it gets spelled out somewhere in the body of the article, then I'd be willing to drop any objection to calling Buddhism a religion in the lead. sorry, I never can resist good reasoning. :-)

I'm sure a Pali scholar could give us a decent definition of karma in buddhism, but I suspect that it would differ from the reading a Zen monk gave, or from that offered by a tibetan scholar. besides, what we want is something simple and basic and unobjectionable, at least for the lead. let me go read the texts you've cited and see if I can clean up what I wrote so it's more satisfactory.

and Klimov... lol. not every statement with 'is' in it is passive voice. :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta4470's Response to Ludwig2's Comments

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Ludwigs2: I responded to each of your objections to my intro. Then I commented on your intro. Read these below:

You: Best to keep the lead to no more than four paragraphs. this structure would leave it with five.

Me: I don't understand how you're counting. My intro is only three graphs long.

You: I think we need to drop the 'five' in the first line - it's not clear what 'major' means, so the number is argumentative.

Me: Since I was a small boy I had always learned the five major religions are Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism. Now, I just recently read that there are more Sikhs than Jews. That pushes Judaism out of the big five but that still makes five. You can simply rephrase this as the world's five largest religions.

You: I think we need to keep that idea that it is considered a religion (but that that is problematical)

Me: I strongly disagree. More than 372.8 million people believe Buddhism to be a religion (including myself because I converted). Therefore it is a religion. Case closed. Those who want to disagree can leave their comments on the talk page.

You: Vajrayana is sometimes considered a separate branch, and sometimes considered a sub-group within Mahayana

Me: Fine, this is a concession I'm willing to make.

You: I'm not sure it's fair to say that Theravada is the 'oldest'. the split between theravada and mahayana is actually quite early, and both sides will claim that their teachings go back to the Buddha himself. I think this is better handled in the third paragraph, where they are distinguished by different texts, rather than trying to make unverifiable claims about

Me: I disagree. Everything I ever heard or read about the Theravada branch indicates it's the oldest form of Buddhism. That includes monks and Buddhist scholars I've personally spoken with. Theravada is the oldest. Case closed.

You: I'll add that I personally think that theravada is commonly considered to be closer to the original teachings of the Buddha, but Peter objected to that (rightly, I think) because there is no common consensus on the actual original teachings of the Buddha.

Me: There is plenty of consensus on the original teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps you've heard of a little book called The Tipitaka?

You: Buddha did not found Buddhism (any more than Christ founded Christianity). Buddha offered a set of teachings, and buddhism sprang up after the fact. plus, the date references is more ambiguous than you place it.

Me: Holy crap! This is the most ridiculous of all your claims. You actually seem to be objecting to the meaning of the word "to found." This reminds me of Bill Clinton trying to redefine the word "is". The Buddha developed the very philosophy that Buddhism is based on. Without him Buddhism wouldn't exist. Also, keep in mind Jesus was trying to reform Judaism, not start a new religion. The Buddha however, completely rejected the dominant religion of his region --Hinduism. He then came up with a different way to see the physical and the spiritual world. Therefore, he founded Buddhism. Case closed. With respect to the date, we can use both the traditional dates and the newer dates and explain the difference.

You: I think my original place reference was more accurate than 'at the foot of the Himalayas'

Me: I'm willing to concede this point.

You: You are presenting a possibly mythological/moralistic tale about Buddha's upbringing as a historical fact.

Me: You didn't read my intro closely. I was careful to say "Tradition has it..." I'm aware that coming up with a historical Buddha is even more difficult than coming up with a historical Jesus.

You: All of Buddhism's modern day sects are derivations' - well, most of them 'claim' to be direct descendants of Buddhas teaching; none of them think of themselves as 'derivations.' This wording is difficult...

Me: I see nothing difficult about this wording at all. Once again, you're splitting semantic hairs.

You: The name 'Siddhārtha' is (so I'm told) a later addition.

Me: Holy crap again! If his first name wasn't Siddhārtha then what the hell was it, Carlos? Every scrap of information I've read about him uses this first name. Must every piece of unverified information you come across regarding Buddhism influence the way you write this intro? If I were to tell you that people evolved from tigers instead of apes would you believe that as well? Exactly where does this end?

YOUR REWRITE

Buddhism is conventionally considered one of the world's major religions, having roughly 350 million followers centered in Asia.^[1] Some scholars prefer to talk about "many Buddhisms," "Buddhist religions," or similar phrases that recognize the extensive diversity of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism. It is classed as one of several Dharmic faiths. The various forms of Buddhism all claim that their teachings derive (directly or indirectly) from Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: see Buddha for variant anglicizations), where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal.

MY COMMENTS ON YOUR REWRITE

-Stop using the passive voice.

-Use declarative sentences. They're easier to understand and absorb.

-Stop placing so much info in parentheses. It breaks up the flow of the writing.

-The paragraph is too long. Break it up into two or three graphs.

-The word "Buddha" is fine for me and most other people as well. Why would anybody care about "variant anglicizations"? I sure as hell don't.

The overall effect of these problems is a paragraph that sounds like it's ashamed of its own existence. To avoid this, I tend to write in declarative sentences.

Observe:

-Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism.

-The Buddha was a member of the Shakya clan.

-The Buddha rejected asceticism for a form of moderate renunciation he called "the middle way."

Notice the difference. Even if you disagree with the content, my message is unmistakable. Pasta4470 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta - allow me to point out at the start that for someone who has a determined interest in Buddhism, you tone and attitude are aggressive bordering on angry. I have no problem with that, but I am pointing it out. I would like to cultivate a working relationship with you, but I can't do that until you recognize that I'm trying. ok?

so, some minor stuff first...

the current lead as I wrote it consists of three paragraphs (starting with Budhism, According to, and Nearly all, respectively). to date, you have only paid attention to the first paragraph, replacing it with 3 different paragraphs.
I agree with the first three stylistic comments, but I'm indifferent to your paragraph length comment, and you missed the point on the 'variant anglicizations' thing. that referred to Gautama (which I've seen as Gotama, Godama, and etc.). you should certainly acknowledge that there are differences in spelling between Pali and Sanskrit which might confuse people.

major points:

"what you heard since you were a small boy" is not a productive argument. Since I was a small boy I've heard that George Washington couldn't tell a lie and that the Pilgrims shared turkey with the Indians on thanksgiving - that doesn't make it true. insisting that there are five major religions adds nothing and causes arguments. same thing for "Everything I ever heard or read about the Theravada branch indicates..." if that's true, you'd best provide citations, because I've heard and read otherwise.
- in short, we cannot write the lead from the perspective of your *personal* understanding of buddhism.
yes, I've heard of the Tipitaka (Sanskrit: Tripitaka). I've also heard of the Agamas, which contain only a fragment of the tipitaka, and I've heard of the Mahayana sutras, which aren't included in the tipitaka at all. A lot of Mahayanans are going to say that the Mahayana Sutras are Buddha's teachings, and all Theravedans are going to say they are not, and I don't know how the Mahayanans feel about the parts of the Tipitaka that are not included in the agamas. can you clarify this for me? because if not, then we're going to have to recognize that there is some disagreement here.
as far as I can tell, Buddha did not, in fact, reject Hinduism in the way you suggest - you'll notice that all the core ideas of Buddhism are also core ideas of Hinduism. Buddha simply offered a new dharma for the same goals that hindus were reaching for. can you show me anything from the tipitaka that suggests Buddha himself was explicitly trying to convince people to create a new religion?
for all I know, the Buddha's real name was Carlos. the name Siddhartha belongs to the myth of Buddha's upbringing, and I have doubts about the accuracy of that myth.

last point: please don't criticize me for trying to be careful about veracity. I understand that there are limits, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. Now, I will go and try another version with your comments in mind.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, I'd like to say that even though I disagree with you and agree with Pasta, I did not agree with Pasta's tone, and I'd like to continue this discussion with courtesy and respect. Ludwig, I understand your concern with veracity, that's why I feel we should get a Pali, Sanskrit or Buddhist scholar (meaning someone with a PhD) to come in here and help us with this article. Anyway:

(1) Re: Hinduism. "Hinduism" as we know it is a post-Buddhist religion, not a pre-Buddhist religion. During Buddha's time, Hinduism was still at an early stage that does not resemble "Hinduism" as we know it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period.

Also, the Buddha was founding a new religious order, in opposition to the Vedic religion. Buddhism was one of the sramana monastic orders, along with the Jains and others. By definition, the sramanas were anti-Vedists, they necessarily rejected the Vedic religion (i.e. early "Hinduism"). See: "The Wings to Awakening: An Anthology from the Pali canon" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight. 1996. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sramana.

People commonly characterize Buddhism as a Hindu-derived religion. But just because the Buddha used Indian religious terms, "nirvana," "karma," or "dharma" does not mean he was talking about the same exact things. He was using these terms to get across to his audience. These days in the West, Buddhists may refer to nirvana as "salvation." They're doing what the Buddha did 2550 years ago - borrowing a term from the predominant religious tradition, in order to get across to the audience.

(2) The Buddha was deliberately creating a new a religion. In his own words:

...the monk, nun, male lay follower, or female lay follower who keeps practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, who keeps practicing masterfully, who lives in accordance with the Dhamma: that is the person who worships, honors, respects, venerates, & pays homage to the Tathagata with the highest homage. So you should train yourselves: 'We will keep practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, we will keep practicing masterfully, we will live in accordance with the Dhamma.' That's how you should train yourselves. DN 16: Maha-parinibbana Sutta.

It is clear that the Buddha is teaching his followers to practice in accordance with the Dhamma, his teachings, and not their own preferences and interpretations. Throughout the Tripitaka, the Buddha refers to his new religion as a dhamma-vinaya: a doctrine and discipline. Dhamma-vinaya is the same word the Buddha used to refer to the religions founded by others such a Mahavira of the Jains (Nataputta of the Niganthas).

(3) Re: Buddha's given name. I think this is just ridiculous. Whatever Buddha's given name may have been, he was referred to by his clan name Gautama or Gotama throughout his religious career. As his lay followers used to say:

Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life.

Coolbo (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolbo - thanks for your comments about keeping things courteous. and I want you to know that I am certainly willing to bend here; I just want to make sure that I'm bending for the correct reasons. if you want to post a request for expert advice, I'd certainly support that, so long as the experts are upfront about their perspectives.

with respect to your points 1 and 2, though, I'm not entirely convinced. I recognize that modern (particularly advaitan) hinduism is not the same as the Vedic hinduism of the Buddha's time, but my sense is that Buddha was interested in creating a new cult (in the proper sense of the word: a group dedicated to the teaching of a particular teacher), and hinduism (early and late) is filled with cult groups - it's kind of the norm for that faith, where spiritual teaching is usually passed down in a master/journeymen kind of relationship. Buddhism as a cohesive entity (something that might reasonably be called a religion) did not exist until well after the buddha's passing. and frankly, I feel that if it hadn't spread as dramatically as it did, it would still be considered a derivative of hinduism to this day (much the way that some modern Hindus consider it, incidentally).

at any rate, I don't see the problem with saying that " The various forms of Buddhism all claim that their teachings derive (directly or indirectly) from Gautama Buddha"; this establishes them all as related to buddha, and sidesteps any historical or doctrinal disagreements.

I agree with your point 3 of course - I'm satisfied using Gautama (Gotama), and would prefer to leave the name Siddhartha out of it.

and as promised, a new attempt at a compromise rewrite of the first paragraph.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW REWRITE

Buddhism is one of the world's major religions, with roughly 350 million followers.^[2] The extensive diversity of practices and beliefs clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk about "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions" instead of a singular religion, but all forms of Buddhism believe that their teachings derive from Gautama Buddha (Gotama in Pali: see Buddha for variant anglicizations). 'Buddha' is an honorific title which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal, and Buddhism is still primarily an Asian religion. Buddhism is one of several Dharmic faiths.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and replace the first paragraph with this one, since I think it's better than the one that's there. I'm also going to add in some of Pasta's footnotes. this is just pro-tem, though, until our debate here is finished. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta4470's Rewrite and Comments

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Ludwigs2: I apologize if my tone offended you. That wasn't my intent. The problem was I disagreed with so much of your rewrite I became very passionate. Unfortunately I don't like this new one much more. Allow me to offer this alternative:

Buddhism is one of the world's five largest religions with more than 378.8 million followers ^[3], the vast majority of them living in Asia. It has three major sects: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana^[4]. There are many smaller sects as well.

Recent research shows that Buddhism was founded in the fifth century BCE.^[5]Its founder, Siddhārtha Gautama, was a member of the ruling class of the Shakya people living in ancient northeastern India (now present day Nepal) near the Himalayas ^[6]. The Tipitaka, the Buddhist holy book, says that he rejected his royal, luxurious lifestyle in favor of the austere life of an ascetic, a truth seeker who rejects all worldy pleasures including most foods. Buddhist scripture also indicates that after achieving enlightenment he later rejected ascetism as well for a life of moderate renunciation. He called this approach the middle way.^[7]

Adherents of his message eventually came to know him as the Buddha, a Sanskrit title meaning the awakened one, or more colloquialy, the enlightened one. All of Buddhism's modern day sects are either variations or derivations of the Buddha's teachings which eventually spread throughout most of Asia, and in more recent centuries have reached the rest of the world.

^ The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million
^ The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million
^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9432620/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions-Mid-2005
^ http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com
^ http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_chron-txt.htm
^ http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM
^ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html

My Decision

Ludwigs2: I've decided to stop responding to your comments here because despite your claims of wanting to cooperate I feel that you're intransigent and I find your arguments somewhat anti-Buddhist. Both Coolbo and me have presented many widely accepted Buddhist concepts with citations yet you have trouble accepting them. You have even placed a condition on working with a Buddhist expert. I suspect your true condition here is that the expert does everything you want him/her to do.

I can see this is going to be nothing but an exercise in frustration for me. Frankly, I find your intro unacceptable and I'm inclined to post mine despite your objections.

I have requested Wikipedia for help in this NPOV dispute and, before simply posting my rewrite, I will be working with whoever steps forward to provide that help. Pasta4470 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pasta, I don't know what to tell you. I want to have a discussion about this issue, and - while I understand that this process can be frustrating and difficult - I don't understand why you keep shying away from it. frankly, I feel like you're trying to press a particular viewpoint without any discussion (that whole 'case closed' thing); I would prefer that you discussed the matter and allowed me to come to an agreement with you.

I recognize that this is an important topic to you. I ask you to recognize that it is an important topic to me as well, so that we can work together.

now, if you feel we need an NPOV dispute, ok. I've only been looking for an NPOV article anyway. it's all good.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken Ludwig, but I assume you wrote this: "The extensive diversity of practices and beliefs clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk about "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions" instead of a singular religion," -- Isn't that just your point of view? The statement is not even sourced. This is one of the reasons why Pasta and I are so suspicioius of your proposed edits.

Let's just get rid of the intro paragraphs and start from scratch. For one thing, every declarative statement that is not common knowledge needs to be sourced -- it does not matter if the statement is "true" or not. As long as the statements have a reliable source, then it follows Wikipedia guidelines. We need to throw away any pretentions of attempting to define what Buddhism actually is or else we're never going to put this debate to rest.

The second paragraph about Buddhist beliefs and practices have to go. They are not sourced and they are obviously just one person's preconceived notions of Buddhism and Buddhists.

I'd like to propose reverting this page back to its April 6, 2004 version. All the changes to the article since then have taken it down hill. Aren't improvements supposed to make a page better, not worse? Coolbo (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The "many Buddhisms" part has been there for a long time, and it was originally sourced. I think that comment can be removed unless there is

clear evidence that Buddhism has "many" pieces more so than other major religions, and Buddhism is unique in that way. I doubt that is the case

though. Aside from this "many Buddhisms" sentence, the rest of the intro reads nicely to me. Also, I still think there could be more emphasis

on suffering and the end of suffering, since the Buddha himself said that this was his teaching in a nutshell.

It is in the nature of wikipedia that we have to work together and reach a compromise. I find Ludwigs2 have been more than willing to change

the writeup, even though I agree with some of what Pasta says. It is also a difference in style. Aside from differences in style (declarative

statements vs provisional more cautious statements), is there any difference in substance? I don't think all diplomatic avenues are exhausted

at this point. cihan (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind people what we're supposed to be doing here? We're not supposed to be deciding the truth for ourselves. We're supposed to be reporting what reliable sources say. Please study carefully the fundamental WP policies in WP:NPOV, WP:V & WP:NOR.

2ndly, there is a very important point to bear in mind about the lead paragraph. Many people will read only that, nothing else. Therefore it is vitally important that the intro should not give a misleading impression.

Now, as regards reliable sources, it's just a matter of common sense that specialist sources are more reliable than non-specialist ones. It's perfectly correct to say that any reliable source can be used as a citation for statements in Wikipedia, but when they contradict each other we have to look at it properly. Sometimes we can just say that some of the sources are out of date or non-specialist & can therefore be ignored. Sometimes we have to say there are different opinions, in which case WP policy forbids taking sides.

On the question of whether Buddhism comes under religion or some other category, there are different views. Probably most authorities would count it under religion, but I haven't got a citation for that, & we're not allowed to say so without one (WP:RS). However, as far as I know, the disagreement is solely about the definition of religion, not about the nature of Buddhism.

On the question of plurality, there are again reliable sources on each side, so WP must be fair. Here I have to say that the current wording,

"creating the impression that Buddhism is a collection of similar religions and philosophies, rather than one unified faith"

is definitely not neutral. It strongly suggests that the impression is a false one, & gives no indication that the plurality view is a serious scholarly one.

On the question of numbers of followers, the correct citation to give is [2], because it's the only one to give information about what other people think, not just its own opinion.

On the question of the original teaching of the Buddha, there are 2 important points to make:

As cited in the article (unless someone's censored it out), most scholars believe the Buddha must have taught something like the basic teachings of the early texts, but not all, so nothing can be cited as fact about what he taught.
We must remember what the article's supposed to be about & why it's important. At WP:VA there's a list of 1000 vital articles any good WP should have (ie in any language). Buddhism is 1 of them. Why? Because it's a major religion, with 350,000,000 followers. What the article should be mainly about, then, is what those 350,000,000 people follow, not what someone said millennia ago. That's not important in itself.

Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As regards Coolbo's suggestion of returning to the FA version, my objections to that are in #Structure of the article?. Basically, nearly everything stated in the lead there is POV.

Part of the problem we have here is that a lot of people seem to take notice only of the article, not of the talk page. If you propose something on the talk page, you get little or no response. If you put it in the article you suddenly get lots of people violently objecting to it. It's hard to work towards improving the article in those conditions. In particular, sandboxing doesn't seem to work. We tried it before. We put several notices on this talk page over several weeks. Only the 2 of us took part at all. So then I put it in the article. People immediately started reverting. When we then repeatedly asked for their own alternative suggestions, there was virtually no response. I'm not familiar with the totality of WP procedures: there's an enormous labyrinth of guideline pages, & I'd never actually get anything done if I tried to read them all 1st. Does anyone know of a way of dealing with this sort of situation?

Coolbo is too harsh on Ludwigs' version. Ludwigs was trying hard to take on board much of what I & others had said. I did suggest waiting till we had citations, changing the wording if necessary. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the statements, as I corrected them, are true. Whether they're the most important facts about Buddhism is another question, a very hard one to answer. This is part of the problem with the whole article, which is very unbalanced. One way forward suggested was to rewrite the lead 1st & then deal with the article proper. I can't claim to be satisfied with the result, tho' I think it was an improvement on what was there before. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On the question of "experts", a couple of points:

"Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That doesn't mean that anyone can put in what they think they know, as unfortunately a lot of people seem to think. It simply means that anyone can look up what reliable sources say & put it in WP.
It would certainly be useful to have more experts available, but not to tell us what they think the right answers are; rather, simply to find reliable sources we've missed.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Coolbo, arggghhh...

the version that existed before I revised the lead was crappy. you may not agree with what I put up there, but you have to admit it's better than what was there.
please don't accuse me of NPOV or OR or anything else. the problem here is that editors here are more interested in rewriting and reverting than in editing. we need to start someplace and let it grow into a good article lead; this constant attempt by all sides to simply impose a particular draft without discussion is pointless.

now let me make my position here perfectly clear: I am not interested in defining what buddhism is, or in imposing my own view on it - I am trying to build something that we can all agree to. I spent a good week discussing things with Peter (because I found his perspective a bit too post-modern) , and I have no problem continuing the discussion with you and pasta (because I find your positions a bit too simplistic). however, if you're going to start from the POV that you already know what buddhism is, and you're not going to accept anything else but what you already know, then you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia article. you should be off writing OR so that we can cite you here as an expert.

I suggest we all read Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Editing_styles and take it to heart, particularly the part about preserving information.

now, contrary to your beliefs, I think some discussion of Buddhist beliefs and practices is necessary in the lead; maybe my version is not the best version possible, but if buddhism is a unified thing at all, it's a unified *belief system*. without a discussion of beliefs and practices you reduce buddhism to nothing more than a cultural phenomenon. I mean (to re-use an analogy) who would write a lead for the Christianity article that didn't mention monotheism? that's just silliness.

it seems to me that your and pasta's real objectives here are as follows

you want buddhism to be called a religion
you want to make a strong statement that all Buddhism comes directly from the Buddha
you want to remove all qualifying phrases for reasons that aren't particularly clear to me.

is this correct, or am I misreading you?

please keep in mind that nothing here is written in stone. what I would like to do is create a lead that (while not perfect) is mostly unobjectionable - that way we can use the lead to create a structure for the page, and then adjust the lead as we need to while we reorganize the page as a whole

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version says

"The first individual to carry this title was Gautama Buddha".

This is probably not true. The title is not peculiar to Buddhism. In particular the Jain scriptures use it too, & very likely other ancient Indian religious movements used it. Also, while the Buddha was (probably) called that in his lifetime, I don't think any of his followers were. I think Nagarjuna, Padmasambhava, Nichiren &c were only so called some time aftre their deaths, tho' I may be wrong on this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the phrasing to say "The buddha-dharma - literally, 'the path of awakening' - was first taught by Gautama Buddha...". I wanted to work the buddha-dharma in anyway, and I thought this would kill two birds with one stone. no offense to the birds. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a correct translation. Buddha means awakened, not awakening, which is bodhi. Whether dhamma/dharma can mean path is doubtful, but in any case the construction of the compound is genitive, not dative: dhamma of the Buddha.

I suggest something along these lines.

"Buddhism is the second most diverse of the "Big Five" most often included in books about world religions.^[1] Many recent scholars in the field of Buddhist studies have spoken of "many Buddhisms",^[2] or "Buddhist religions".^[3] Others again define religion in ways that exclude it.^[4]"

The current version reads

"The Gautama Buddha was the first to teach the buddha-dharma, the doctrine of Buddhism."

It's not idiomatic English.
According to all Buddhist traditions there were earlier Buddhas.
A common translation of dharma in such contexts is Teaching. "The Buddha was the first to teach the Teaching of the Buddha."!
The sentence implies that there is some definite thing called the doctrine of the Buddha/Buddhism, which all Buddhists & all historians agree he taught. This is false on both counts, so such a statement is unacceptable.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration I think it would probably be OK to say just "Buddhism is usually considered a religion". That's obviously true, & it doesn't mislead anyone, because the word "usually" clearly indicates that there are other POVs. As long as we mention either both of the other views or neither of them (ie more than 1 religion/not religion at all) that's probably OK. If we mention 1 of those other views, the phrasing would almost certainly be liable to mislead. Rephrasing it to avoid that would probably take up more space than actually mentioning the views. We could then have the 1st section of the article proper called What is Buddhism? or The nature of Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This would work for me. does anyone object to my changing the first line to "Buddhism, a Dharmic faith, is usually considered one of the world's major religions..."? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that Dharmic faith is a redirect. The term seems to be pretty rare &/or neologistic.

Can I ask people to follow WP procedure & not delete the tag. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On further examination, I have to say your version isn't good enough. It doesn't make clear that the "usually" applies to religion & not to major. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of terms "devotion" and "worship"

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Article currently says of Buddhists: "Most practice devotion to one or more Buddhas and sometimes other beings...", with "devotion" linking to the article Worship.
That article mentions "Worship in Christianity", "Worship in Hinduism", "Worship in Islam", "Worship in Judaism", and "Worship in Sikhism", and additionally various more specific articles on Christian and Hindu practice, but as far as I can see makes no mention at all of Buddhism.
Especially given that Buddhist beliefs and practices don't correspond exactly to Abrahamic / Western / conventional-English-language terms, it may be that linking to this article here may mislead some readers. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

honestly, I think this is a failing of the Worship page. clearly a large plurality of Buddhists worship the Buddha in much the same way that western faiths worship their own deities/saints/etc. at any rate, unless you can think of a better place to point the link, I think it needs to stay where it is on the hope someone will update the far end.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

on due consideration, I've decided to add a stub heading on the Worship page. I don't feel competent to flesh it out, though - can someone putter with it? (Peter, you seem to have a lot of info on this...). --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This can be a rather confusing subject. Catholic & Orthodox Christians make a distinction between the worship of God & the veneration of the saints. Many Protestants, Jews & Muslims reject this distinction & accuse the C&O of idolatry. The Pali Canon uses the word puja, which Hindus regularly use to refer to ceremonies that most Christians & Muslims would assume to be worship. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism has an article on worship, which appears not to make any reference to the possibility that the term might be inappropriate to Buddhism. Certainly plenty of Western(ized) Buddhists would say there is no worship in Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead: Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Lead paragraph currently reads: "The most commonly recognized traditions of Buddhism are Mahayana and Theravada.", with a footnote reading "Vajrayana practice is also commonly recognized, sometimes as a sub-group within Mahayana and sometimes as a separate tradition in its own right."

IMHO, especially since the political situation in Tibet has made Vajrayana one of the better-known Buddhist traditions, this mention of Vajrayana should be part of the main lead text rather than a footnote: "The most commonly recognized traditions of Buddhism are Mahayana and Theravada. Vajrayana practice is also commonly recognized, sometimes as a sub-group within Mahayana and sometimes as a separate tradition in its own right."

Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The primary division of present-day Buddhism is into Theravada & Mahayana. This is the normal English-language use of the term Mahayana, as given in standard dictionaries. Theravada is followed by around 1/3 (estimates 100-140 million) of the world Buddhist population. Most scholars subdivide Mahayana into East Asian & Tibetan traditions, so making 3 divisions. The Tibetan tradition has about 20-25 m followers. The East Asian tradition can be divided up different ways. Organizationally, there are no separate pre-modern denominations in China, Korea & Vietnam. Pure Land & Zen exist side by side in a united monastic order. There are about 100 m Chinese, 40 m Vietnamese & 10 m Korean Buddhists. In Japan there are a large number of distinct denominations, which fall into 5 main groups:

Pure Land 18 m
Zen 13 m
Nichiren 13 m mainstream & at least 27 m fringe groups not always counted as Buddhist
Shingon 11 m: usually described as Vajrayana by Western scholars; i don't know whether the Tibetans would recognize it as such, or whether it would identify with them
Tendai 3 m: eclectic tradition, with bits of Zen, Pure Land & Vajrayana

If you group people by tradition of practice, then, Pure Land accounts for around 1/3 of world Buddhist population (most Chinese & Vietnamese + the above Japanese). Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you say, however those facts don't necessarily determine what we should do. (Or maybe they do - that's what I'm asking about.) IMHO the issue basically comes down to a judgement about a fairly fine distinction between "the primary division" and "a pretty-primary-but-not-quite-as-primary-but-nevertheless-helpful-to-many-readers division". Or in other words, what should be our criteria in deciding whether to list Theravada/Mahayana or Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to determine what we should do. I was merely supplying facts so people didn't keep arguing on the basis of ignorance. As regards the question as you phrase it, I have to say that TMV is not normally used by scholars in the field of Buddhist studies. It is sometimes used by scholars in the field of comparative religion. Perhaps they derived it from earlier generations of Buddhist scholars. There's often a substantial time lag for new ideas & discoveries to percolate out from specialists: decades or even generations. If you want to mention Vajrayana in the lead, you MUST say what you mean by it. Do you just mean Tibetan, as those comparative religionists do, or do you also include Shingon, as Buddhist scholars usually do? As regards importance of distinctions, most scholars seem to treat the difference between East Asian & Tibetan as being just as important as that between them & Theravada, tho' that appearance may be illusory. However, they also usually treat modern/Western Buddhism as distinct too, which has a lot to be said for it. Personally, at the moment I'm inclined to stick to the 2-fold division & avoid the cultural complexities. Presenting Buddhism as culture-bound looks like colonial thinking: it's a religion of "natives". You don't find the lead of Christianity saying it's found mainly in the West. Peter jackson (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My thinking (to date) is that the primary division is textual: i.e. Mahayana and Theravada have large differences between the texts that they use. Vajrayana and Mahayana have essentially the same texts; they just interpret 'skillful means' differently (pardon my painting in broad strokes). I agree that the distinction is important, but I thought it was a different order of distinction - hence the footnote.

I'm willing to reconsider, though, if there's a consensus otherwise. however, I'm not certain we should give Vajrayana a more prominent place because of Tibetan political issues. it is a religious government, yes, but we should take some pains to disentangle faith and politics, since the article is only about the faith.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'd like to ask that everyone try to use indenting skillfully so as to improve readability. Thanks.)
Replies to various points:

"There's often a substantial time lag for new ideas & discoveries to percolate out from specialists: decades or even generations." - Again, that goes to our (and Wikipedia's) problem of how to decide who gets to decide: scholars in Buddhist studies, scholars in the field of comparative religion, "specialists", popular usage, etc.
"If you want to mention Vajrayana in the lead, you MUST say what you mean by it." - You wouldn't think that simply linking it to Vajrayana would be sufficient?
It might possibly be useful to say something like, "The most commonly recognized traditions of Buddhism are Mahayana and Theravada. Other commonly-recognized major divisions include Vajrayana, Pure Land, Western Buddhism, etc as desired" (Just thinking out loud here.)
"I'm not certain we should give Vajrayana a more prominent place because of Tibetan political issues." - I wouldn't want it to be thought that I was arguing that exactly - I don't mean that it should be given a prominent place because of Tibetan political issues, but that the press coverage caused by Tibetan issues has resulted in Vajrayana being relatively familiar globally.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the indenting, and changed your bullet points to numbers for easier reference...

re: your point 3: this could make some potentially hairy category problems. I mean, Theravada is a more or less unified denomination (meaning that the variations within various forms of Theravada practice are relatively minor). most of the other forms of Buddhism fall in the Mahayana category (based on the texts they use) - zen, pure-land, all forms of vajrayana... that's a very divers group. Western Buddhism is eclectic, stitching together various elements of monastic practice with very little of the cultural or devotional elements that make up the fabric of life in asia. I'm worried that it would become almost impossible to find a balanced presentation. I'm open to the concept, though - any ideas how it could be done?

re: your point 4: I think most people are aware of Tibetan buddhism without even knowing the term Vajrayana, much less what it signifies. this feels like something we would have to explain in too much detail for the lead. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between East Asian & Tibetan Buddhism is just as textual as that between Theravada & Mahayana. The texts that Mahayana considers most important are not recognized at all by Theravada. Similarly, the texts considered most important by Tibetans, the higher tantras, are not recognized at all by East Asian Buddhism (including Shingon).

As a matter of common sense, specialists have priority over people who know nothing about the subject & are simply copying or misunderstanding what some specialists say, or said some time ago. The qualification to this is that the non-specialists may be reporting specialists other than those we've come across, so we must be very cautious about simply dismissing non-specialist sources. Here's an example where we can clearly dismiss them. A number of general reference books about philosophy say there are 4 schools of Buddhist philosophy: Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra & Madhyamika. This can be simply disproved from specialist sources just by naming other schools: Theravada, Huayan, Tiantai. This is a very different from Pasta's approach of censoring the views of specialists on the grounds that they disagree with the consensus of non-specialists, which is irrational & contrary to WP policy.
The need for explaining Vajrayana is because it has (at least) 2 meanings: including or excluding Shingon.
You need to distinguish subdivisions at different levels of the hierarchy, not just throw everything into 1 list. There are a variety of schemes:
1. Cultural scheme, as generally used by scholars:
  1. Indian Buddhism (virtually extinct)
  2. Theravada
  3. East Asian Buddhism
    1. Chinese
    2. Korean
    3. Vietnamese
    4. Japanese, subdivided into denominational families:
      1. Pure Land
      2. Nichiren
      3. Zen
      4. Shingon
      5. Tendai
  4. Tibetan Buddhism
  5. modern/Western Buddhism
2. schools schemes, eg:
  1. Theravada
  2. Mahayana
    1. Pure Land
    2. Zen
    3. Nichiren
    4. Vajrayana

Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Check

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Buddhist texts section says:

"....Bodhisattva vow, which strives for all future time to help free all other persons and creatures from pain), to the (in some sutras and Tantras) final attainment of the Buddha's "Great Self" (mahatman) in the sphere..."

Shouldn't that be mahaanatman? -- 88.105.119.68 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Some Buddhist texts do say that. See Nirvana Sutra for example. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I believe the Buddhism was started in Nepal. Gautam Buddha ( a prince named Siddhartha Gautam) was from Nepal. He later went to India to preach the religion. I challenge the truth in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.171.186 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article already states that Buddhism began in and around Nepal, so no worries. :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the scriptural accounts, altho' the Buddha was born at Lumbini, which is now in Nepal, he attained enlightenment at Gaya & started teaching at Sarnath, both of which are now in India. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

An Open Comment to All Editors

Latest comment: 15 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

User Ludwigs2 keeps minimizing the importance of the Vajrayana sect by removing references to it from the first paragraph and by making edits that de-emphasize it's influence. He/she seems to have some kind of anti-Vajrayana prejudice. Please help me in stopping his/her inappropriate edits. I don't want to find myself violating the 3RR rule. LuisGomez111 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the substance of the matter, rather than making this a matter of the other editor's character?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this in a section higher up. Some relevant points:

In normal English-language usage (see dictionaries) there are 2 divisions of Buddhism: Theravada & Mahayana. Vajrayana in this usage is regarded as a subdivision of Mahayana. It is not the largest one.
There are at least 2 different meanings of Vajrayana: including or excluding Shingon.
Some authorities in comparative religion divide Buddhism into TMV. They use the term exclusively of Shingon, ie as a synonym for Tibetan Buddhism.
Buddhist scholars normally include Shingon in Vajrayana, but don't usually use TMV as their primary classification. They usually divide Buddhism into Theravada, East Asian & Tibetan, or other terms meaning the same thing. Thus their division is the same as the comparative religionists, but with different names.
In all the discussions of this question on talk pages, I've never seen anyone asserting, let alone providing any evidence for such an assertion, either that Tibetans regard Shingon as Vajrayana, or that Shingon identifies itself with Tibetan Buddhism against the rest of East Asian Buddhism. Or for that matter the opposite. In other words, we don't know how the Buddhists actually group themselves.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, "sect" is not usully considered an appropriate term. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Luis - I'm just trying to reach a balanced perspective. if Vajrayana practice is considered as an entirely separate school of buddhism, it is clearly much smaller than Mahayana or Theravada; and there is certainly debate about whether it should be considered a distinct school. the phrasing I edited - "The three largest are Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana. However, Vajrayana is unique in that it is a subschool of Mahayana" - gave Vajrayana undue weight by mentioning it twice and calling it unique.

I'll also add that I object to the phrase "three largest" on the following grounds:

these are inclusive, overarching categories - using the term "largest" makes them sound exclusive, and thus makes any unmentioned denomination small and insignificant by extension
it implies that there is consensus that vajrayana should be treated as separate, which is debated
it introduces 'size' as the primary measure of denominations, which strikes me as erroneous.

I *seriously* prefer the phrasing "most commonly recognized" which is factually true without adding unnecessary impressions.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

two after thoughts:

in the phrase 'though the latter is also considered a subschool...', I prefer 'sometimes' to 'also'. this is mere categorical logic - vajrayana cannot be *both* a subschool of mahayana *and* a separate school in its own right (well, not without some fairly zen accommodations).
Gautama Buddha is a proper name, and so shouldn't be preceded by 'the' as in "The Gautama Buddha." the second line of the second paragraph should either start with "Gautama Buddha" or with "The Buddha" - or am I missing some common usage?

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I believe the reference to Vajrayana should remain in the first paragraph. LuisGomez111 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the wording we have now (well, except for my quibbles (above) about 'also' and 'The Gautama'. do you have any objections to my making those changes? If not, I'll go ahead and do it, otherwise we can debate it a bit. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the changes but leave Vajrayana in the first paragraph. LuisGomez111 (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you seem to be ignoring the facts I mentioned above.

"phrasing "most commonly recognized" which is factually true": no it isn't, because it doesn't have a clear meaning. Recognized by whom? Not by Buddhologists. Not by ordinary people, who've mostly never heard of any of them. Peter jackson (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest something like this?

"Buddhism is divided into two main branches, Mahayana and Theravada, with the former further subdivided into East Asian and Tibetan branches."

Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

- Peter jackson, I am liking your suggestion, though I'd suggest re-arranging to "Buddhism is divided into two main branches, Theravada and Mahayana, with the latter further subdivided into East Asian and Tibetan branches." -- IMHO this is both marginally easier to follow, as well as chronologically correct for those readers thinking in those terms.

- Is "East Asian" the best term here? I think that we'll need to explain this for lay readers. (Fine with me if it is the best term.)

- We also may want to toss in something along the lines of "Buddhism is divided by scholars into ..." or "Buddhologists divide Buddhism into ..." (Italics only for emphasis here - not suggesting we include in article text.) Dunno if this would really be helpful or not.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "East Asian" should be reasonably clear and I don't really know what else we would consider calling it. I think your wording is pretty good.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is "Buddhologist" really a word??? :-)

I'm not averse to your suggestion myself, Peter, though I can tell that Luis wants to include Vajrayana somehow. how can we address that?

I will point out two issues:

this privileges Tibetan buddhism somewhat. it would probably better to rephrase it as "with the latter/former subdivided into East Asian (Including Pure Land, Zen/Chan, etc.) and Tibetan branches
it mixes categories. Theravada is a denomination, Mahayana is a class of denominations, Tibetan and East Asian are regional descriptors... I'm worried that will create confusion. we really should try to keep some consistency here.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

- Is "Buddhologist" really a word? -- Not certain; got it from Peter jackson's post above. He seems trustworthy. :-) (Checking ... About 3,000 Google hits, of which some have the word in quotes. So, maybe a neologism or rare word? "Buddhology": 13,000+ Ghits, also Buddhology. "Buddhological": 4,000 Ghits. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion ... :-) )

- Re "Category mixing". IMHO these issues can be tough, and generally come down to how we want to divide the catgories. Depending on how we do this, issues of numbers of adherents or geography could be red herrings.

E.g., My idea of Vajrayana is that, having rather strongly syncretized (is that a word?) with shamanist and/or animist and/or Bön traditions, it stands out as distinct from other Buddhist traditions, regardless of regionalism or the number of its practitioners. However, I'm certainly willing to be educated about this. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, a quick look at various Wikipedia articles isn't showing any obvious support for "Theravada is a denomination, Mahayana is a class of denominations, Tibetan and East Asian are regional descriptors.". So I'm missing something, or we may want to change the articles, or that may not be how we want to phrase that. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

on the first point, I consider myself sufficiently Buddhologized.

forgive me for speaking a bit loosely on talk pages. I probably should have said something like "Theravada is much more like a single denomination than Mahayana, which is much more diverse in practice." these are discussions I've had with peter over the last couple of weeks. I was trying to point out the categorization problem, not impose a set of categories. I'm a little leery of the syncretization argument, though. I've heard people argue that Chan buddhism is strongly influenced by taoist philosophy, and I think Buddhism (even more than most religions) is prone to that kind of adaptation. I'm not disagreeing with your point; I'm just not sure what advantages that argument gives. hopefully we'll get educated together. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

- (According to some) "Chan buddhism is strongly influenced by taoist philosophy". -- IMHO an excellent point!

- "I'm just not sure what advantages that argument gives." -- Me neither. I think we're trying to work out here what system of categorization (or "criteria for categorization") is most advantageous for our purposes. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like where this discussion is going. Peter's suggestion ("Buddhism is divided into two main branches...") with tweaks by Writtenonsand and Ludwigs2 is an advance on what we currently have in the lead, IMO. "Syncretized" is an excellent word in this case. The various Buddhisms are syncretized to produce very different cultural overtones. I also like "Buddhologist," though it is not in my dictionary. I think that everyone who makes a positive contribution on this page should receive a "Buddhologist" barnstar! :-) Sunray (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In principle, "Theravada" and "Mahayana" are not at the same order of categorisation. Mahayana is a phylum, so to speak, and Theravada, perhaps, is an order. However, in practice, Theravada is the only extant member of its phylum, so, for the purposes of a contemporary classification, it may be treated as a phylum itself (it seems clear that this is supposed to be contemporary classification, because there are also other extinct branches of Mahayana which go unmentioned). I don't think it is particularly necessary to mention the word "Vajrayana" as long as there is a mention of Tibetan Buddhism. It is Tibetan Buddhism specifically rather than Vajrayana in general which is "rather strongly syncretized with shamanist and/or animist and/or Bön traditions", although I suppose there are some who will argue that Indian Vajrayana was originally a syncresis with Hinduism.

The word "Buddhologist" has a bit of an orientalist sound to it, but, at the same time, there is something I like abou this ring of it. "Buddhology" is a word with two meanings: one is a synonym for "Buddhist studies", i.e. the general academic/criticial study of Buddhism; the other is by way of analogy with the word Christology, a theory or description of the nature of a buddha. The Wikipedia article Buddhology is about the latter.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

well, ok. I just took a short trip through Google Scholar, and it seems there's a fair amount of discussion about syncretism in Buddhism. particularly with respect to Nepalese/Tibetan, Japanese, and Korean forms of Buddhism - for Chinese buddhism they tend to say 'buddhism adopted terms from taoism and confusionism as part of their dialog' which is close the same thing. so I think we can use that concept without engaging in OR. that would also make a nice section in the body, I'm thinking...

perhaps we can use something like this: "Buddhism is divided into two main branches, Mahayana and Theravada, with the former further subdivided into East Asian (Pure Land, Chan/Zen and others) and Tibetan branches. These branches are distinguished from each other by a combination of doctrinal differences and regional syncretisms." --Ludwigs2 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I think you two are on a roll with the syncretism angle. It has always seemed to me that one of the geniuses of Buddhism is its ability to absorb cultural elements of the particular region. I think that this is true of all "orders" of Buddhism, including Theravada in Ceylon, Burma and Thailand [3] [4]. I'm not sure we should jettison reference to Vajrayana, though. As someone pointed out above, it has become popular with the globalization of Tibetan Buddhism. We could say: "... further subdivided into East Asian (Pure Land, Chan/Zen and others) and Tibetan (Vajrayana) branches..." So how about "Barnstar of Buddology"? Sunray (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhologist is convenient shorthand for scholar in the field of Buddhist studies. Perhaps it should be confined to talk pages.

The 2-fold classification, Theravada/Hinayana & Mahayana, is apparently normal English usage, as given in dictionaries (citations in Mahayana. Scholars usually use the 3-fold one, but have a variety of different terms for the divisions. Vajrayana is one of those alternatives, but as far as I know used only by comparative religionists, not by Buddhologists. Furthermore, it's ambiguous: while comparative religionists use it as a synonym for Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhologists use it in a broader sense, including Shingon. If we uese the term at all, we have to explain this. Also, we really ought to have some objective criterion for which terms we include. If we try to be comprehensive, we get something like this:

"Buddhism is divided into two main branches, Theravada and Mahayana. Theravada is also known as Hinayana (a derogatory name), Southern Buddhism(, South Asian Buddhism) or South-East Asian Buddhism. Mahayana, also known as Northern Buddhism, is subdivided into East Asian and Tibetan branches. East Asian Buddhism is also known as Eastern Buddhism, Northern Buddhism or Mahayana. Tibetan Buddhism is also known as Northern Buddhism, tantric Buddhism, Lamaism (often considered derogatory) or Vajrayana (a term also used in a broader sense to include one variety of East Asian Buddhism."

Or even worse.

Can I ask people to follow WP procedures & refrain fro deleting the tag. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

please, no more distinctions!!! :-)

but, on the grounds that we have to start somewhere and keep walking, I'm going to go with the last version I suggested above. I'm also going to start reworking the the next passages (which have started to bloat a little, and are still contentious...) do we have a consensus on the 4NTs in the lead? I'll leave that passage there, but try to work something more general into my changes below it.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version, which seems to be Sunray's, won't work. It presents Vajrayana as a synonym of Tibetan Buddhism, but gives a link to an article that says it also includes Shingon. People are going to think we don't know what we're talking about.

It is emphatically not my version. It is relatively unreadable for general readers (see my comments below) and doesn't meet WP:LEAD guidelines. I haven't even begun to tackle its inadequacies as a statement about Buddhism. I don't have time to read the sources you have provided right now, but look forward to doing so. Sunray (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant your version of the bit about schools, as it seemed to agree with the wording you suggested above. Now it's changed again. Peter jackson (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus on 4 NTs in the lead. I don't object in principle to their inclusion, but if included they mustn't be given undue weight. That means we must also include not only karma & rebirth, which are there at the moment, but also Mahayana teachings, which mostly aren't. this requires a lot more consideration. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sunray (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the first two paragraphs are fine as they are. Let's stop screwing with them. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Paragragh

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Ludwigs2: Stop behaving like you own this article. I just noticed you deleted a very helpful paragraph simply because YOU didn't like it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Luis, I removed that paragraph for the following reasons

we have a standing discussion about the appropriateness of the 4NTs in the introductory paragraph which we have not yet resolved
the style of writing, (as I noted) was more like proselytizing than an encyclopedia entry
the translation of 'dukkha' as 'suffering' is questionable, and to my mind imposes a distinct POV

my urge now is to remove the passage again, for exactly the same reasons, but instead I'm going to give you the chance to discuss the matter first. please respond to these three points, so that I can feel comfortable about leaving your change as-is. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I'm not sure I understand your rationale for removing this paragraph.

Although we are discussing the lead, we haven't finalized that discussion.
If the style is not encyclopedic, that can be fixed.
"Suffering" is probably the most common one-word English translation of dukkha. The article on dukkha renders the definition as: "suffering, pain, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration" (a bit of a mouthful).
It would be nice to have the kind of consensus that everyone can support.

Just some thoughts. Sunray (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

well, for the first, the original problems (which were Peter's, so I may not do it justice or remember it correctly) were:

that the emphasis on the 4NTs is partly due to western influence. i.e., western scholars who were trying to figure out what buddhism was latched onto the 4NTs as central, for questionable reasons
that the 4NTs (while pretty much accepted by all forms of buddhism) have greater and lesser impact depending on which form you're talking about. Theravada uses the 4NTs fairly heavily, some forms of Mahayana practice use it but not as centrally (since they de-emphasize the release from suffering in favor of the boddhisattva path), and some forms of Mahayana practice (Pure Land, for instance) recognize it but don't give it a lot of heed (they will find that release when they are reborn in the pure land).

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the 4NTs are important, and suffering and its release are certainly needed in the lead, but I'm not sure that all buddhists would define buddhism in the 4NT terms.

for the second point, you're absolutely right. my bad. :-)

the third point is my own reservation. dukkha (IMO) really translates best as disquiet or restlessness. I usually think of it as 'dis-ease', ( which gives a nice play on words ;-) ). Suffering is certainly a kind of disquiet, but it's clear from the text that Buddha meant it to be applied more broadly. Add that buddha's focus is on the origins of suffering, which are (for the most part) pleasures and cravings and other things that most of us would not recognize as suffering - that's kind of the point, right?; recognize that disquiet comes from this entirely different source, then start to remove the source...? Suffering is a good strong word, yes, but it has semi-christian overtones in English which confuse things. and (pardon the personal BUMA) every time I talk to someone about buddhism, it comes around to how buddhism is such a dismal, negative faith because of all that focus on suffering, and I end up having to convince them that nothing could be farther from the truth. it's a drag. :-)

I welcome any comments... --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see a source for the idea that "the emphasis on the 4NTs is partly due to western influence." There are many references to the 4NTs in the Pali Canon and other fundamental texts. However, you do note their importance further on in your post.

Your comment about "suffering" not conveying the essence of dukka (despite its widespread use in translations into English), seems apt to me. Perhaps we should add "disquiet" as well. Sunray (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't give a specific source for the statement about Western influence on the question of the 4NTs. However, 3 general citations for the influence of Western scholars on Buddhism are given at User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism.

On the specific question of the 4NTs, see the citations I've already put in the article in the relevant section, which show that they are a good deal less central than Westerners commonly imagine. Therefore, the current Basic concepts setion is unacceptably biased.

On the question of the translation of dukkha. This is a general problem, applying to pretty well all translations of such terms. I don't see what we can do in general articles except say things like "usually/most often translated as". Specific articles can go into all alternatives found in reliable sources. It's certainly not for us to decide what the "correct" translation should be: that's original research.

Can I ask people to follow WP procedure & refrain from deleting the tag? Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

- I pretty much agree with Peter jackson's comments on definitions.

- I may have missed something. Re deletion of "the tag", what specifically are we talking about? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Okay, I see in edit history that {{POV}} tag was apparently removed/replaced.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a rewrite of the third paragraph that blends what we had with some of Luis' concerns about dukkha and its surcease. it still needs some trimming, I think, but what do you think about the direction it's going? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relative to the rest of what's there, the 4 NTs are overemphasized. Peter jackson (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm not sure that's true. it seems to me that one way or another, most buddhists see the dharma as a path towards some kind of release from (what I'm going to call, for lack of a better term) existential troubles. how that path works is a different, complex, and contentious issue, but I don't think you can say that there are buddhists out there who don't see in buddhism in that light. even the boddhisatva path recognizes that; it's just takes a universal focus rather than a personal one. I've tried to make the phrasing in the first couple of lines as blandly generic as possible - I suppose I could remove Dhukka (which is a really 4NTs word) and use something anglo-saxon. would that resolve the issue? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To invent our own formulation of what Buddhists agree on is original research.

If you look at User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths you'll see they're not all that important in Mahayana, & even in Theravada they're not the whole story. They're mainly Theravada, & if we include them we should also include the main teachings of Mahayana as well, & also those of Pure Land, as it has about as many followers as Theravada. It might run along these lines, in current format:

4NTs: in principle accepted by all, & regarded as the ultimate teaching by a large minority
bodhisattva path: accepted in principle & in some form by all, & at least aspired to by the majority
Pure Land: accepted in principle by the majority, & the sole or main practice of a large minority

Or, here & elsewhere, we might start saying who these majorities & minorities are. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(corrected indents, above)

I think the place to get into all of the gory details is in the body of the article. actually, we might be getting to the point where we can start organizing the body of the article, listing off the things that are there and that are missing, and putting it into some sort of structure...

with respect to your OR comment, I guess I'm not sure what you mean. sure, trying to impose a new perspective on the nature of buddhism would be OR, but I don't think you can extend that to any and every statement that tries to capture the basic sense of buddhism. we need something that captures the gist of buddhism in the lead, and we can hammer out the specifics and clarify differences in the body.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

edit: as an afterthought, I see what you mean about including the other teachings. let me try editing that in.

by the way, am I making changes too fast? I'm responding to points as I see them raised here, and I might be getting ahead of the curve. let me know if so. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:OR, any sort of analysis, synthesis, interpretation &c by us is banned.

My own attitude is this. I don't see any reason not to give Buddhism the benefit of the doubt & assume all its different forms have a common essence/spirit/... However, what I've read so far strongly suggests to me that this, assuming it exists, must be something that transcends words & concepts. If so, Wikipedia can say nothing about it (Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber musz man schweigen) except that many people claim it exists.

However, we're supposed to be following reliable sources, not my personal attitudes, so let's have a look at what they say. Now there are certainly plenty of (mostly non-specialist) RSs that say the 4 NTs are the essence of Buddhism, or something similar. However, the citations I've given show that's at best a POV, so that really can't be used as the basis for the intro, tho' it would be possible to have a section called Theories of the essence of Buddhism or some such. If you look at specialist works on Buddhism, such as those listed at User:Peter jackson#General scholarly works on Buddhism, you find that most of them refrain from attempting to say what Buddhism "is", so I think we should follow their example. To be fair, tho', I give here what appears in the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions (page 279; probably the same text, but different pagination, in the New edn, but at present I have access to that only in a bookshop, & so can't copy or check extensive passages):

"Adaptability has historically been a marked feature, arising no doubt from some of Buddhism's most distinctive and central notions. Yet there is also continuity.

All forms of Buddhism today derive from the same roots. So the approach adopted here is to begin with this common source in ancient Indian Buddhism and then go on to describe sseparately the three main twentieth-century geographical areas. This treatment ... should not blind us to the fact that most kinds of Buddhism are motivated by similar concerns. The aim is nearly always to create conditions favourable to personal meditation or spiritual ddevelopment. The general understanding is that insights of the right kind can transform the individual in ways usually expressed in terms of 'liberation', 'freedom' or 'spontaneity'. This is generally seen as requiring a long period of training. Underlying this practice is an elaborate classification of states of mind as they relate to the path leading to liberation and a rather exact methodology of spiritual training – a kind of 'spiritual technology'. No two schools of Buddhism describe these things in precisely the same way, but there is a constant similarity of concern and parallelism of method. An underlying common purpose has been adapted to different situations with great flexibility."

We may be able to make some use of this, but I want to approach this in a roundabout way.

Now, I want to suggest a way of thinking about the lead. Let's imagine someone who knows absolutely nothing about Buddhism. They read the lead. They then go on to learn all about Buddhism. More precisely, they learn all the verifiable facts as defined by WP criteria. The questions I want us to think about are these. Will they be surprised by what they learn? will they feel they've been misled? Will they feel they've been given a false impression?

One particularly good touchstone that will knock out a lot of versions at the 1st hurdle (to mix a few metaphors) is Pure Land. Will people feel surprised/misled when they learn that 1/3 of the world's Buddhist believe that few if any in these degenerate times can follow the path, & so practice devotion to Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land?

Those are the questions I'd like people to think about for the current lead, what Cousins says in the Penguin Handbook, & any proposed drafts we come up with.

Personally, I'm not bothered if you want to make changes as we go, but others might be, so I'm not doing much myself. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To Ludwigs2 and Peter Jackson

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I have added two excellent citations to the paragraph on the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. If these aren't enough for the two of you then I can see convincing you is impossible.

Judging by your edits and comments, I find both of you to be very problematic editors. You challenge the most basic and widely accepted information about Buddhism. You attempt to control the article's content through reverts and large deletions. You seem much more interested in nitpicking and writing lengthy, critical comments on the talk page than in contributing to the article in a meaningful way. I'm likely to report both of you to the Wikipedia hierarchy for your disruptive and unproductive editing styles should this continue.

By the way, my sincere thanks to User:Read-write-services (Richard) for his help in organizing this article. We need more editors like him. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

there are 4 or 5 editors now who have been discussing changes on the talk page and trying to come to some consensus. you have been invited - repeatedly - to join us and add your input, but instead you make broad, unconsidered revisions, and then call us names and make threats on the talk page. please, go ahead and call for an administrator. I myself have filed a request for assistance at the wikiquette page, here. I look forward to a resolution to this problem.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you should being this discussion to whomever you consider to be a spiritual mentor -or if you don't have one, then to some of the people in your local sangha whom you respect - and ask for their input on the best way to handle this situation. your behavior to this point does not strike me as appropriate to any practice of buddhism. I really do want to make sure that this article meets your standards (as well as the standards of others), but that becomes increasingly difficult when you're running around like a bull in a china shop. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to dignify this inane comment with a response. LuisGomez111 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to collaborate as authors (the goal of Wikipedia which is entirely consistent with Buddhist principles), we must be civil and assume good faith. I would hope that we can go the further steps and celebrate our differences, listen to one another and focus our posts on dialogue and collaboration. By shortening our commentary and building on what others are saying, we will develop the capacity to work together effectively. Sunray (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Luis - I don't need a response, or any acknowledgment of any sort. however, I think that on a page dedicated to buddhism we can all make some efforts to behave with proper buddhist detachment. that's all I'm suggesting. use the jewels you have to reach this end. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Luis, may I again ask you to read the relevant WP policy pages. In particular this means WP:NPOV, which you don't seem to have grasped at all, despite both my & Ludwigs' attempts to explain it to you & a previous request from me for you to study those pages.

It also means WP:V. The explanation of "reliable sources" given briefly there, & more fully at WP:RS, is basically quite clear. Citations must be given from 3rd-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. accesstoinsight is obviously not 3rd-party, it represents a particular movement within Theravada. It's a reliable source only for its own views, not for those of the rest of Theravada, not for Mahayana, not for historical facts. As an illustration of fact-checking, let me mention that Cambridge University Press has every book checked by 2 or 3 specialists in the field & 2 or 3 people with degrees in the general subject. As the WP pages above make clear, RS means mainly academic publishers in cases like ours (reputable newspapers are RS for current affairs, which aren't usually relevant here).

Yes, I "challenge the most basic and widely accepted information about Buddhism", because a lot of it's wrong or questionable, as shown by the reliable sources I cite. There are all sorts of "widely accepted information" that are wrong, in many subjects. Why should that surprise you?

If you look thro' the history, you'll see I've done very little reverting or deletion. WP procedures disapprove of edit warring. I'm happy to continue this discussion for now, provided the dispute tag remains in place.

As regards reporting people to the hierarchy, you might like to know that, according to the relevant policy page (I forget which one), they would investigate the complainant as well as the accused. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify what I said above: "I've done very little reverting or deletion". I should have added "in the current dispute". I learn more about WP procedures as I go along. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

read-write-services

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

you basically took the last two thirds of the intro and split it up into a bunch of unrelated short sections. that strikes me as really unproductive, so I am going to revert to the original version (trying to preserve the changes Lius made). can we please discuss these things on the talk page first? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like some of the wording in that new 'main traditions' section - I assume that was you read-write? I think I'm going to play with the lead a little, and hopefully satisfy what (I think) are you concerns and Luis' concerns. let me know how it works. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that section, especially with such prominence. Apart from some qualifications I added, the "common" teachings are taken from an organization calling itself the World Budhist Sangha Council. Inspection of its website shows a list of all the countries it has members in, including most Buddhist countries, tho' not China I think, but no information on how many there are, & no claim that any major Buddhist denomination is affiliated to it, let alone all. Furthermore, the long lists of officials, giving their nationality or location, seem to be very much out of proportion to numbers of Buddhists in those countries. In other words, all the evidence is that this is an ecumenical movement that is comparatively small in at least some countries/denominations, with no evidence at all that it's strong anywhere.

On the substance of what it says, it's not so much that anyone would disagree, it's rather a matter of what's important. It's a fallacy to assume that what's agreed is what's important. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the lead

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The lead is not written in a way that is accessible to the average reader, IMO. The third paragraph is very long and the intro doesn't seem to encourage the reader to read on. I tried to improve on that by creating a "Basic concepts" section for the very long paragraph. But evidently it didn't work for some. Sunray (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

my apologies - I took the 'basic concepts' section and worked it back into the 3rd paragraph (because I thought the emphasis on the 4NTs was too heavy). I didn't realize what you were after. I kind of agree with you, as well, but most of what's in the third paragraph seems necessary to cover the subject, and I'm a bit at a loss how to restructure it without creating a 'bias of omission'. what do you think the way to resolve this is? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I think the fourth paragraph is mostly redundant with the second, so I think removing it entirely might be appropriate. is there anything in there that you think is essential to say in the lead that is not already covered in P.2? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph is still pretty dense and relatively unreadable. Its Flesch-Kincade grade level is 12. Usually one would want to aim for a grade 9-10 level for the general reader in an encyclopedia. To make it more readable it could have shorter words, sentences, and paragraphs. It is far too long for the lead. I still think that a separate section for "Basic concepts" wouldn't be a bad idea. What do others think? Sunray (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I don't object to simplifying things, and I do recognize that I tend to speak in acadamese. I'll see what I can do, but no promises. I will say, though, that I don't like the trend towards 'shorter and simpler' - it leads to an unpleasant lowest-common-denominator thing which does a disservice to the encyclopedia and its readers...--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunray seems to know something very useful I've never even heard of. What I want to ask is, is it the concepts themselves that are too difficult, or just the wording? If the latter, then we can leave that till we've decided on the content. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

the Flesch-Kincaid score measures average syllables per word and average words per sentence - it has nothing to do with the content. good measure, I think, as far as it goes... --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It is just a tool in the hands of a good editor. Grade 9-10 is the level that a quality newspaper aims for. Producing an interesting and readable article involves much more than just readability checks, however. It is fitting to aim for a highly understandable explanation of Buddhism. After all, that was the Buddha's approach. Sunray (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the computer I'm using, the pictures added at the top of the article appear to be useless. I haven't deleted them in case it's the fault of this system. Peter jackson (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

User Jaysweet of the Wikiquette Alert page has determined that we are experiencing a content dispute and recommends that we resolove it by using the Request for Comment page.

Frankly, I'm no longer interested in editing this article. I have more important things to worry about in life. Peter, this leaves you free to lecture on what you believe are appropriate sources for citations and Ludwig you can now revert, delete and nitpick to your heart's content. LuisGomez111 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that probably still leaves quite a lot of disagreement among the rest of us. Unfortunately, the discussion has got very fragmented, with several sections running concurrently on sometimes overlapping topics. I'm a bit unsure who's still in the discussion & what they think, so I want to be careful about implementing changes. Do we now have consensus on my suggestion of saying "Buddhism is usually considered a religion" in the lead, & having an introductory section after the lead that gives the other POVs as well? Or does someone other than Luis object to that?

It might be easier to discuss one issue at a time. Peter jackson (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

to Peter - maybe we should archive a big part of this page and start fresh? or should we just add a few section for particular topic issues and try to keep the conversation from straying out of them?

to Luis - I'm not averse to having an RfC. frankly, I don't particularly want you to leave any more than I want to continue squabbling with you. can't we find a happy medium where we can work productively together?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that the buddha is laughing at all of you?JS747 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit there's a problem with the WP system for talk pages. I look at the history to find what's been added since my last posting. Unfortunately, the way the additions are displayed isn't always helpful. They're placed in their surroundings & given line numbers. However, the line numbers aren't displayed on the actual talk page, so these are useless if the page is of any length. If there's no heading in the immediate vicinity it can take quite a search to find the comments. Perhaps something like Ludwigs' suggestion might be useful. One reservation is that I do get tired of having to say the same things over & over again because we're in different sections. Putting some of the sections in archives would make it even more difficult to cross-reference or copy. I've put a fair amount of the relevant material on my user page, but that's mostly primary material for use in articles, not discussion on WP policies.

RfC is for when you can't settle disputes among yourselves. If Luis is interested in coming back on that condition, that's fine. Any one of us can activate it, I think, or indeed anyone who just happens to be passing. If we do feel the need, tho', I suggest we follow the suggestion given in the policy page & start off with the project pages, going to the general RfC only if that fails to resolve outstanding issues.

JS, according to Theravada, Buddhas don't laugh, & aren't in the world now anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter raises the issue of difficulty of following posts on the talk page. Here are some things we can do:

Create an action plan or to do list. There is a rudimentary to do list now. It could be expanded.
Make sure your posts have a clear reference in the title to the appropriate section. Using the edit buttons within the section automatically puts the section heading in the edit summary.
Use edit summaries that indicate the subject to be discussed.
Keep posts brief. This promotes dialogue.
Elect an individual or group to act as moderator(s)
Whether or not there is a monitor, periodically refactor the page to make it as clear as possible.
Archive outdated posts.

Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

well, JS, Peter... all I can say is that nothing would please me more than to entertain the Buddha. it's always been my personal belief that the universe is playing a huge, friendly joke on us, and waiting for us to get the punchline. ;-)

one suggestion to add to sunray's - maybe (considering the size of this page) we should set up talk subpages for each major issue. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. If we were really organized we could set up a master plan for the article with each section linked to a subpage. Sunray (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I remember to look thro' the edit summaries before taking a diff, there's a good chance I may remember which sections to look at, tho' I think 1 contribution recently was distributed over several sections.

A moderator sounds a useful idea. Should it be someone not taking part in the discussions? Is there a WP group/project offering such services?

One point about subpages. I discovered after creating a subpage to my own user page that it wasn't automatically included in my watchlist.

A master plan for the article is just what I've been after all along. We need to agree on a coherent structure in place of the current chaos. However, for the moment all discussion has been on the lead, so I won't advocate further diversifying the discussion yet. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I've been thinking about the lead... the two issues with the lead we have at this point are (a) reading level, and (b) the third paragraph. and all the hoopla about what buddhism does. I think at this point if we just eliminate the third P entirely, we'll have a nice short, factual NPOV lead, and we can set it aside and work on the body. we can come back later after we've argued all the details out in the body and rewrite the third P. what do you think?

I don't mind acting as moderator/administrative assistant (assuming you just mean someone who'll take the responsibility of keeping the place tidy). let me know if that works, and I'll archive and set up a structure of some sort tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] I support the idea of Ludwigs2 being moderator. I will assist as general factotum and volunteer to be mediator, if/when required. I would suggest that we start with the master plan for the article and put some of the material currently on this page on sub pages, linked appropriately from the master plan. Some possible topic headings:

Lead: Revise/refine lead in accordance with WP:LEAD to make it comprehensive, neutral and readable.
Basic concepts: Create a section that summarizes important concepts common to all streams of Buddhism.
Structure: Develop an effective and comprehensive structure for the article that provides readers with a sense of the sweep of Buddhist philosophy and practice, using summary style, with links to appropriate sub-articles and references for more in-depth information.
Sources: Determine reliable and verifiable sources, ensuring a balance between citations from authoritative practitioners and respected academics.
Review FA requirements: Develop a strategy for reaching FA status.
Editing: Editorial team to edit article.
Pictures and other resources: Further develop the article to be as interesting and informative as possible.
Copyediting
Submit for article assessment

Comments? Sunray (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. Actually, I was just looking at simple English wikipedia for Buddhism at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism and found that, though simplistic, it does read much better and gives a much better idea as to what Buddhism is to someone who knows little or nothing about it. It is one extreme that one could keep in mind in improving the readability of the current article. cihan (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Ludwigs, those aren't the only 2 issues. The 1st sentence remains non-neutral. I suggest "Buddhism is usually considered a religion, one of the three major universal religions." There are other things there that could be improved, but I don't mind your suggestion of returning for the time being to a lead that doesn't actually say what Buddhism teaches, if others are agreeable too.

If you want to do what you suggested administratively, that's fine with me. I thought a moderator was someone who tried to organize the agenda. Now to respond to the numbered list.

Ludwigs is suggesting leaving this to later. I have no strong view one way or the other.
This assumes "basic" & "common" are the same thing, which is not so. Such a section would be likely to have serious neutrality issues.
You seem to suggest this should actually be done 1st, which is fine with me.
Buddhist sources should be used only for their own views: "Some Buddhists believe...", "Another interpretation is..." &c.

Peter jackson (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A major omission from the above agenda is that substantial material needs to be added on neglected topics like karma & rebirth, Pure Land ... Naturally, I volunteer for this as I'm the one demanding it, tho' obviously others can join in. However, a coherent structure for the article is necessary before I can do this. Perhaps some existing topics should be shortened, but people tend to object strongly if their pet topics are cut, so stable consensus may require including everyone's pet ideas, & balance would be likely to require a very long article.

I'm a bit concerned about the mention of summary style. As I understand it, this means summarizing appropriate articles in appropriate sections here. The problem with this is that a lot of those articles are also in need of drastic rewriting. Do we have to do that 1st, before we can sort out this article? Or can we do what we've been trying to do with the lead: summarize what the article ought to say rather than what it does say?

The simple article referred to is of course clearer, but unfortunately even more unbalanced than this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've adjusted the plan, below, to pick up the comments made. Others are welcome to tinker with it, so that it becomes a consensus of what we wish to achieve. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Plan for article

Lead: Revise/refine lead in accordance with WP:LEAD to make it comprehensive, neutral and readable.
Basic concepts: Evaluate the possible use of a section that summarizes important concepts common to all streams of Buddhism.
Structure: Develop an effective and comprehensive structure for the article that provides readers with a sense of the sweep of Buddhist philosophy and practice. Note that to reduce overall article length, some sections could use summary style, with links to appropriate sub-articles
Additions to article: Write additional sections, such as karma & rebirth, Pure Land.
Sources: Determine reliable and verifiable sources from authoritative practitioners and respected academics.
Review FA requirements: Develop a strategy for reaching FA status.
Editing: Editorial team to edit article.
Pictures and other resources: Further develop the article to be as interesting and informative as possible.
Copyediting
Submit for article assessment

^ [5]
^ Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998
^ Robinson et al., Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 2004
^ Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403

[1] ttp://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9432620/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions-Mid-2005

[2] ttp://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com

[3] ttp://www.amidabuddha.org/buddhism.html

[4] ttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html

[5] ttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#awakening

[6] ttp://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/buddhism.htm

[7] The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million

[8] The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million

[9] The Britannica encyclopedia lists the number at 378.8 million, though other sources place the number from 230 to 500 million

[10] ttp://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9432620/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions-Mid-2005

[11] ttp://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com

[12] ttp://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_chron-txt.htm

[13] ttp://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

[14] ttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html

[15] [5]

[16] Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998

[17] Robinson et al., Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 2004

[18] Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]