User:Farang Rak Tham/Buddhist teachers as sources

Can Buddhist teachers be used as sources in Wikipedia? edit

“

Some scholars, on ideological or pedagogical grounds, have questioned whether the critical/historical method of analysis is a valid approach to understanding Buddhism at all. From the ideological standpoint, the question is whether this method makes assumptions that would be rejected by Buddhists themselves. From the pedagogical standpoint, the question is whether the historical method is equal to the task of making the bewildering variety within the Buddhist tradition intelligible. On both counts, however, a valid case can be made that the critical/historical method, even though it may not offer the final word on Buddhism, is still a useful introit to the tradition.

Robinson, Richard H.; Johnson, Willard L. (1997). The Buddhist religion: a historical introduction (PDF) (4th ed.). Belmont, California: Cengage. ISBN 0-534-20718-9.

”

This is a topic that has been going on for quite a while:

The debate seems to have reached a conclusion here:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism/Archive 3#RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?

My interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that Dharma books from Buddhist teachers are often not analytical, secondary sources on Buddhism. They often do not show much reflection from an outsider's perspective. Furthermore, Dharma books do usually not provide enough context: they may state that Ven. A or B taught this or that, but they do not explain why he taught that, in response to what that teaching was developed and how this teaching is applied in Buddhist communities in daily life. This is the difference between a primary and secondary source approach of Buddhism.

I do think that these sources should be recognized as reliable and secondary:

scholars who are Buddhists, but whose work is published in a publication which is peer-reviewed by scholars, such as the Sri Lankan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, and, at least partly, the research of Bhikkhu Analayo. You might also raise the example of the proponents of Critical Buddhism, a highly critical approach of two Japanese scholars, that came from a Buddhist University.
opinions given on translation by translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, which have been recognized by reliable publishers (B Bodhi's works were also distributed by the Pali Text Society).
It should be noted that many Buddhist Studies or Asian Studies scholars—whether Western or Eastern—are also practicing Buddhists, so the contradiction "Western scholars–Asian teachers" often raised in Buddhism Wikipedia articles is really moot.

I do not think that Buddhist practitioners should take Wikipedia policies as offensive, since an encyclopedia is per definition a summary of scholarly writing, not a stage for Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist teachers are often quoted by scholars as primary sources anyway. Besides, Buddhist teachers have their own edifying role to play in society, as a teacher in an educative or religious setting, which has a different aim and purpose than an encyclopedia, and at that, often a more noble aim.