| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. |  | This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | Buddhism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | For more information and how you can help click Show: | If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. - Quick help:
-
- See changes to:
-
| | | | |  | This subject is featured in the Outline of Buddhism, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. | 
Archives (Index) | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12
Topical | [edit] Life of the B I hope I'll be forgiven for somewhat simplifying and clarifying the life of the B. With very extensive entries elsewhere, with much scholarship etc, it seems to me that what's needed here is the bare bones of the standard biog in the fewest number of words. Now I think it brings out the point of the story, which is good for an encyclopedia, where people (maybe including young people) are coming on these things for the first time. Some things are gone - eg his marriage etc - but IMO they are really meaningless in the context of setting up an article on Buddhism.Bluehotel (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) - Actually, I think the marriage is important. Remember the Buddha's life story is the path to enlightenment. The 1st sermon talks of the middle way between sense enjoyment & asceticism. This is in the context of the story of the Buddha's prior experience of both in succession. the ideas are connected & parallel. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well, I'll probably move on from this, as I think I shouldn't give it the time. However, his marriage is as good a topic as any for me to give my two cents. I think there's potentially great merit, from all kinds of viewpoints, in producing a really top-class answer to the question: "What is Buddhism?" It's a possibly overlooked feature of this page that it may be the most-easily accessed text on this question in human history. But I don't feel that a 14-year-old in Pune doing a school project, or a semi-suicidal jobseeker in Detroit, will get it. Any of it.
-
- IMO, apply the surgeon's motto: "If in doubt, cut it out". Simplify. Answer questions people are asking: "What does a Buddhist believe, or do?" Raise the issues that explain the big questions: "One Buddha, or many?" "Humble teacher, or cosmic superhero?" Use the technology - the hyperlinks - to kill most of the detail and a lot of the lists. Kill the Eightfold Path, for instance, but instead say what it is, and give them the link to click on for expanded coverage. Nobody gives a shit about the lists. I shouldn't think they ever raised one new Buddhist in the last 2,000 kalpas.
-
- Move on. Always. Give only the broad sweep here, and in the fewest words. Aim to get that kid and that jobseeker ALL THE WAY to the end. As a page of text, it ought to be a very simple story. If it's not, it's nothing much to anyone. Bluehotel (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't disagree with the general idea of what you say. The problem is that Buddhism, in the encyclopaedic sense, just isn't simple. What I mean by that is this. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is supposed to cover, in your terms, "What does a Buddhist believe, or do?" Unfortunately, the basic answer is "depends which Buddhist". The beliefs & practices of the 350,000,000 people calling themselves Buddhists are extremely varied. Wikipedia's policy is not to take sides, not to say some Buddhists have got it wrong. So in policy terms, the article is supposed to give fair coverage to at least the 5 or 6 major types of Buddhism.
-
-
- But that's just policy. In practice, as there's no procedure for enforcing that policy, the article is liable to end up giving fair coverage to the personal opinions of the editors working on it, and so to the various modern/Western(ized) Buddhist groups they mainly belong to. So, in the unlikely event you felt like reading through all the archives of this page, you'd find every so often someone turns up & vehemently insists Buddhism is NOT a religion (their capitals very often). And every so often someone turns up & vehemently insists Buddhism IS a religion. It might be quite amusing if they turned up simultaneously. What you end up with is an article giving verybody's views, which is quite unwieldy.
-
-
- There seems to be no way thsi can be dealt with without a radical change in Wikipedia's system or culture:
-
-
-
- either somebody authorized to impose sense on participants
- or else whenever anyone asks for it a large posse of neutral people turn up & knock heads together
-
-
- Do you see any likelihood of either of these in the foreseeable future? Peter jackson (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the be honest, if anybody had the time, the most sensible thing, IMO,would be to generate a tree of all the main Buddhism pages, list and map the links between them, and build the "Buddhism" page as if it were the index page of a website. Then that page could be a narrative that essentially summarised the materal. I also don't think it's possible to tell the story without essentially putting it into a crude chronological order. The Theravada and it's Buddha goes first, with the four truths, the Brahma vihara (which I didn't see on the page), etc; how this was all pre-literate; Pali Canon (es[ppecially the Dhamappada) and so forth; including something on the history of the period, the social circumstances. And then the Mahayana story. Many Buddhas, gods, celestial boddhisattvas etc. If it's set out as a history, then I think it works better than as a static listing of dogmas. At the end of the day, the Theravada Buddha and his simplicity, in my understanding, doesn't disappear from anybody's pantheon. All the rest are add-ons, whether of a "greater vehicle" or not. Maybe it's like telling the story of a city.Bluehotel (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) - That is in fact the way most scholars present the subject.
- Theoretically you're right in saying the early stuff never disappears. Nevertheless, it sometimes is so overshadowed it might as well not be there. Peter jackson (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction and purpose of this page I have reverted edits to the intro secton for the following reasons. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to be respectful to people who wish to find out about Buddhism. It's not really a place to grandstand what we know, or try to force into every narrative our personal viewpoints. It needs to be readable. This is the foundation of consideration to visitors who have come here to find answers to their questions. To start listing obscure modern scets in the second paragraph of a single article on Buddhism not only holds the reader back from getting the broad sweep of the subject, but it also fails to use hyperlinks for their purpose of allowing people to click to something they want to know more about, and invites retainers for every last one of probably tens of thousands of Buddhist organisations from the last 2,500 years to want that in the second paragraph. Please, be kind to readers. Let them get on with the story. If you really want to namecheck Eskimo Buddhism, or the NKT, please put it further down, as they don't quite rate alongside the Theravada and the Mahayana.Bluehotel (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC) - It seems to be a mixture. Some of those are really obscure. Others are comparatively major. Soka Gakkai, which Wikipedia rightly or wrongly calls NDB, has around 15 million followers. The Vipassana movement probably has even more, but claims to be simply Theravada. Peter jackson (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- So-called "Eskimo Buddhism" now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskimo Buddhism Bluehotel (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Archive of discussions the discussion page uses 218 KB, it should be archived. — Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC) - Done. /Archive 18 created. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this edit. Although it seems not totally unreasonable to insert some qualification of who Siddharta Gautama was, i'm not sure if this really belongs here. Also qualifying him as "Indian" bears some problems (discussed that a couple of times before). Also i looked at the contributions of this IP: the editor seems to be primarily focused on inserting the word "india" into various articles and some of his other edits create the impression that he's generally editing from an indian nationalistic WP:POV. Can somebody else maybe take a look at his contributions as well? Andi 3ö (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Path of salvation Where did "path of salvation" come from, right up there in the lede? Salvation seems to me a fairly solidly Christian concept. Buddhism is all about suffering, the understanding of, letting go of, avoidance of, compassion for, conquest of, maybe 'deliverance from'. Surely "path of salvation" is at best some well-meaning, 19th-century missionary's mistranslation of the Pali or something? --Nigelj (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - It's just Latin for being saved. Why shouldn't you be saved from suffering? But it's true that a lot of stuff in the lead is unsourced. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of stuff in the lead is not unsourced, and somebody added the bit about salvation without good reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that 'salvation', whilst etymologically decent in meaning, is too much accociated with a skewed Christian view. 'Deliverance' or liberation may be better and more descriptive. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - Wikipedia policy is to follow reliable sources, not the personal opinions of editors. I can certainly find you RSs that use this term (if I remember right, Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism is one). How common this is would be harder to determine.
- Another point that might be considered here is the talk of a path. Buddhist paths seem so varied such language might be inappropriate. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Once the article gets going, towards the end of the second sentence, with talk about 'teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama,' etc it's really very good. It's just that very first bit. For a long time no-one was happy whether it was either a 'religion' or a 'philosophy'. Now it is a path of something, and both a religion and a spiritual philosophy. I think we established that in the big list of world religions, it has to be there, so it is a religion. But I'm not happy with it being spiritual - the etymology of that word is simple enough, and I don't think there is much of a pantheon of spirits in most Buddhist teachings. Again that is a Christian concept, what with the Holy Spirit, and all the other angels, saints and whatever that surround a good Christian. I think Buddhism, after you get beyond it being a world religion, is a practice and a set of teachings. These basic phrases can easily be well sourced, and I think all the other (home-made/semi-Christian) cruft in the first sentence and a half should just be cut. --Nigelj (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, in a sense you're right. Traditional Buddhism recognizes loads of gods, but most of them are regarded as having bodies of subtle matter, so technically they aren't sprits. However, that's not what spiritual(ity) is generally supposed to be about. Then again, I don't think any scholar would say Buddhism is a philosophy anyway. I don't agree that it's very good. It's inaccurate, biased & confused. And much of it is "home-made", to borrow your felicitous phrase. That is, it's just the personal opinions of various editors, which is not what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be about. Peter jackson (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Peter, Buddhism is first and foremost a philosophy, and it is rooted in the Indian philosophy from whence it came. The symbol of the dhammacakka represents the primary starting point for this philosophy. I'm not sure where you are getting these ideas about Buddhism, but they aren't true. The number of scholars describing Buddhism as a philosophy, is very high. And they mostly describe it as a philosophy of a path of becoming. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with PJ, I think that the opening section as it is is reasonably good now. It could be better sourced no doubt, but far from reflecting the personal opinions of editors, it reflects scholarly, academic and traditional opinion acurately. Everything in the opener can be referenced and should be in due course as they are all claims made quite often amongst scholars. I wonder if PJ could point out any part of the lead that he feels is not representative of scholarly or traditional views? As far as I can see, the lead is now an accurate description of how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted by the tradition itself as well as in popular understanding of it as a religion. As for the term 'spiritual', again it is one that has been problematic for a while now, yet a better single descriptive term seems beyond the capacity of the English language. Perhaps 'practical philosophy' may be a better term, yet that too has its issues. As such, 'spiritual philosophy' however inadaquate a term may still be a reasonable option. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - It may be that you can find all those statements in "reliable sources". The problem with WP's verifiability policy is that RSs often aren't all that reliable. In particular, they often contradict each other. This fact is barely mentioned in the policy page. Perhaps WP simply doesn't want to draw attention to this flaw. So finding these statements in RSs isn't the end of the matter. I can go into detail if you really want, though the rate of change of the text often makes comments out of date. You might want to have a look over my user page to start with.
- In particular, to keep to the points we've been discussing above:
-
- As I already said, I don't think any scholar would call Buddhism a philosophy. The only citation anyone's posted here, as far as I can recall, is a general encyclopaedia, i.e. a non-specialist source. (Of course I'm ignoring Buddhist sources, as they're not reliable sources for Buddhism as a whole, only for the views of the authors & their associates.)
- Against the description of Buddhism as a path, I can cite Carl D. Olson, The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005
- "how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted by the tradition itself as well as in popular understanding of it as a religion": I may be misunderstanding your point here, but it looks as if you may have been misled by teachers of Buddhist modernism into supposing that their teachings are the traditional ones & everything else is "ignorant peasant superstition" or something of the sort. See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for a whole pile of detailed citations on this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the actual wording of the Conze citation (page 15): "In its origin and intention a doctrine of salvation, Buddhism ..." It might of course be questioned whether a book published in 1951 is appropriate. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The Conze reference is actually not appropriate or correct - I do think that using the term 'path of salvation' is framing things from a Christian point of view that is not fitting. I have replaced it with a reference from Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, where he specifically mentions that the Buddha's teachings, like the Upanishads, teach of attaining to the true natire of reality via 'liberation through insight'. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC). - What the new source actually says is, "The number of passages in the Pali canon dealing with Upanishadic doctrines, is very small. It is true that early Buddhism shares many doctrines with the Upanishads (Karma, rebirth, liberation through insight), but these tenets were so widely held in philosophical circles of those times that we can no longer regard the Upanishads are the direct source from which the Buddha has drawn" (my emphases). That seems fairly negative and restrictive to me in a few ways. I wouldn't regard that as a cite that supports the definition of the whole of Buddhism by the current phrase. Nothing about a path, nothing actually about 'insight into the ultimate nature of reality.' I don't think the current phraseology is terribly wrong, just evidently home-made, made-up by us, and I'm surprised we can't do better. Same with the uncited thing about 'spiritual philosophy'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The new source clearly states that the Buddha's path is one of liberation through insight, also a view that the Upanishads taught. The use of the term 'path' is perfectly correct. The phrase says, 'Buddhism as traditionally conceived is a path', and it is indeed traditionally presented as 'the eightfold path'. Therfore both elements of the sentence are accurate, and not 'made up'. In actual fact they are the traditional definitions. The last part about attaining to the ultimate nature of reality can also be referenced. There are no doubt other sources that support the phrase, but the current source also states: "Only the indefinable "Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality." Also "Nirvana is a reality which differs entirely from all dharmas as manifested in Samsara" Insight into 'the ultimate nature of reality', is an appropriate way of describing this. It is also a term that I have come across many times before as used by scholars, the entire lead could do with more sources but at least the beginning section is accurate and has been sourced. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - I think the point (or a point) Nigel is making is that the source is referring only to early Buddhism, or the original teachings of the Buddha. This is quite a different concept from the subject of this article. "Buddhism" means what Buddhists think the Buddha taught, not what historians think.
- It's wrong, or at least misleading, to say that Buddhism is traditionally presented as the 8-fold path. It's not even accurate to say that the Buddhist path is traditionally presented this way. Even in Theravada the 8-fold path is traditionally the path from stream attainment to arahantship. The Visuddhimagga presents the path in terms of sila, samadhi & panna. The 8-fold path is even less mentioned in Mahayana literature.
- The general point is this. Wikipedia isn't supposed to work by editors selecting sources, reliable or otherwise, that support their personal opinions. The idea is to find out what reliable sources as a whole say & report that. What most of them say is that Buddhism is a religion. Peter jackson (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually if that is your perspectivbe it is a mistaken one. Wikipedia is about finding reliable sources that support reliable views. It is not about simply generalizing. There are many sources that speak of Buddhism as religion, and also many that do not. Hence our purpose should be to reflect the different sides of the main views fairly. To only speak of Buddhism as religion would not be fair to the alternate ways it has been viewed, or the many scholars and practitioners who do not regard it as such. I also must say that I fail to see your sense of logic regarding Buddhism traditionally being presented as a path. In Theravada it is very much presented as a path. This is becasue reference to the Pali literaure comprises a huge aspect of Theravada, and the eightfold path is very much a well known core aspect of that teaching. I can't think of any Theravidin who wouldn't be familiar with the conception of Buddhism as path. Again, it may be less emphasisied in Mahayana but it is still there. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't contradict the claim that Buddhism is traditionally considered a path, even if this was mainly in the Theravada tradition. Again, do you have any useful suggestions that you feel are prefereable? KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC) -
- The sources are very clear. Buddhism is a philosophy of a path of becoming that is practiced as a religion. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Within Theravada particularly, Buddhism is always conceived of as a path. The eightfold path is central to the Pali Canon. The highly influential Visudimagga treatise that has been used as a main reference for 1500 years in Theravada, is also translated as "the path of purification". The earlier Vimmutimagga is translated as 'the path of freedom". It is quite clear that path, in one form or another is central to Theravda conceptions of Buddhism. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. As for Mahayana, remember that the traditional Canons (i.e. the sutta's) are all present in Mahayana as well, The Chinese Agama's and the Tibetan translations of Sanskrit Canons are all present within Mahayana, and although they took a back seat to the later doctrines, they are still very much a part of the tradition. The path description would be known to Mahayana practitioners as well. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - "Wikipedia is about finding reliable sources that support reliable views." I don't know what you mean by this. Who decides what's a reliable view? I don't see the term in the policy pages anywhere.
- "To only speak of Buddhism as religion would not be fair to the alternate ways it has been viewed, or the many scholars and practitioners who do not regard it as such." The only scholarly source I know of that doesn't regard Buddhism as a religion is Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004, page xxi, which regards it as a family of 3 religions. Who are these "many" scholars who don't regard it as a religion?
- As to practitioners, there are 3 important points to be made here:
-
- they aren't experts on Buddhism as a whole, only on their own version of it
- they aren't experts on concepts such as religion & philosophy
- they're biased; sociologists say all religions include people who deny they're a religion in order to differentiate themselves from the rest, to claim superiority
- To mention their views without these points would be biased & misleading.
- "it wouldn't contradict the claim that Buddhism is traditionally considered a path, even if this was mainly in the Theravada tradition." I disagree. I think many readers would understand "traditionally considered a path" to mean so considered by most of the tradition.
- However, the main point about path is that I've already cited a scholarly authority who clearly regards Buddhism as containing a variety of paths. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of 'path', there is ample evidence that has been refered to regarding the conception of path. I can only advise that you re-read the section above, and think about it more. The path conception is present in all schools of Buddhism. As to your other points, an example of one more scholar is the one I have referenced already, Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp, who says at the beginning of the article that "Vedanta and Buddhism are the highlights of Indian philosophical thought." There are many others, especially those who do nto regard it as religion according to how that term is understood commonly in the west. As to your comments about 'practitioners', that is very much a generalization and simplification. "Practitioners aren't experts on concepts such as religion & philosophy" - how do you know? Have you met and worked with all the practitioners, including thopse who practice meditation as a psychological exercise, and questioned them about their credentials? So because someone calls themself a 'scholar', that is enough to get your unchalleneged confidence in them, and make sweeping unsubstantiated comments about practitioners. This type of generalized categorical thinking is most naiive. And do you really think scholars are not frequently biased? They are coming from a westernized framing of religion for the most part, and carry their preconceptions with them. Sociologists also speak of those who like to categorize groups of people in broad terms, such as calling them 'religious', 'fundamentalist' etc , as this gives them a feeling of separateness and superiority. Maybe food for thought? KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - Oops. I just removed the sentence in question here without reviewing this discussion. However, I don't see anything above that justifies this as the first sentence (or any part) of the lead paragraph – It constitutes a strictly POV characterization of Buddhism. See my further explanation in the "Practical Philosophy" section below. /ninly (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Remarks below addressed to KV, "you" to be understood so.
-
- A book by Glasenapp originally published in German in 1954 was published in English in 1970 under the title Buddhism: a Non-theistic Religion.
-
-
- Either he approved this title & so regards Buddhism as a religion
- or he's long dead & the value of his opinions is questionable.
-
- I never questioned that "The path conception is present in all schools of Buddhism." It's also present in Christianity &c. So what? That's a long way from saying Buddhism is a path. And I remind you yet again that I've already cited a scholar who talks of "the different paths of Buddhism".
-
- "those who do nto regard it as religion according to how that term is understood commonly in the west". Well, that's a point that has been made in scholarly sources. I might be able to find one. Perhaps you could say "usually regarded as a religion, though not in the usual Western sense". But don't overdo this point. If you visit Buddhist countries, you can see people
-
-
- visiting special, fancy buildings, where they
- bow to statues,
- present them with flowers,
- burn incense,
- listen to talks by people with funny clothes & hairstyles
- engage in, or listen to, chanting, often in dead (or even non-existent) languages
- &c
-
- "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."
-
- How do I know they're not experts? Does it matter? Do you think Wikipedia policy is that every crackpot is assumed to be a reliable source until proven otherwise? On the contrary, the burden of proof must be the other way.
-
- Yes, of course scholars can be biased. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy is to assume otherwise until evidence is provided to the contrary from other scholars. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Glasenapp obviously regards it as a philosophy, as evidenced by his quote saying that "Buddhism is the highlight of Indian philosophical thought", and also as a non-theistic religion, which would fit the defintion of 'religion, though not as this is usually considered in the West'. This is my view, that it must be referred to as both religion and philosophy, as this is undoubdetdly how it has been characterized. To only refer to it as 'religion' would be profoundly misleading, especilly since this is not 'relgion' in the usual western sense. Similarly to only mention the practical phiolosophy, would not include the religous aspects that have developed such as going to temples and ritual etc. To mention both is therefore the only acceptable conclusion.
However, only comparing it with 'religion' in a broad sense is again misleading. The vast majority of people regard chsristianity and Islam as faith based religions. If you asked the average person, or the average scholar I would say 99.99% woould respond that these are religions. Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith, and it is well known to both academics and laypeople that it is 'not religion in the usual sense', or it is usually characterized as a 'way of life', or a 'philosophy'. Labelling it is clearly no easy task. The broad scope and overlap of Indic religions and philosophies makes simplistic categorization that may apply to faith based Western religions redundant. Rememeber that it is on the content of what the individual is saying, not on their 'status', that we judge the validity of thir argument, based on what we know from studying a wide variety of different sources. To restrict yourself to the views of a small group of scholars from a small area of the globe viewing things from a limited western scholarly perspective is not representative of the full picture, and will not result in a balanced view. For example, a large number of these western scholars are practicing Christians. So by your argument, their views should be disregarded, as they are biased, and viewing things from within a framework which renders their opinions partial and invalid on the topic of religion and philosophy. Who then is left for you to be citing as giving non biased opinion? Another scholar who characterized Buddhism as philosophy and religion is Ninian Smart, who included Buddhism in the beginning section of his book 'World Philosophies', under 'South Asian philosophies', he calls Buddhism "one of the two main streams of tradtional Indian philosophy".Of course, he also includes it in his book on 'world religions. He states that "Buddhism is one of the great religions (and philosophies) of India". Clearly this is territory that shcolars have gone over extensively, and reached the conclusion that the best way of describing it is as both philosophy and religion. Christianity by contrast is never characterized as being one of the wests 'great philosophies'. It is always regarded as religion. It is safe to say that your view that Buddhism is generally seen as purely a 'religion' is entirely POV and unsubstantiated, and clearly goes against the traditional, scholarly and practicing views all of which regard it as both 'religion' and philosophy, or containing elements of both. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Policy (WP:SOURCES): "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available"
- It's no good endlessly asserting that your view is the generally accepted one without providing proof. The fact is that there are vast numbers of sources saying Buddhism is a religion, & you haven't yet cited any that say it isn't, though I've mentioned one that says it's 3 religions. On the other hand, you've so far supplied 3 scholars saying it's a philosophy as well as a religion. At least 1 is dead, & 1 is a non-specialist. To treat the 2 views as equal violates WP:DUE, as I said below. Peter jackson (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- More policy (WP:REDFLAG): "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." Peter jackson (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Still more policy (WP:DUE): "
-
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
- There's no definition of prominent, but are the dead to be considered as such? All 3 of the scholars you cite are dead (see Wikipedia articles in English for 2, in German for Glasenapp (which also makes clear from the Germn titles of his publications that he regarded Buddhism as a religion)).
- Suppose you can find some prominent adherrents. Then you might end up with something like "Buddhism is usually considered a religion, though not in the usual Western sense. Some scholars consider that it is also a philosophy, but also not in the usual Western sense. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"Buddhism on the other hand is not based on faith": KV above. "... traditional Buddhism, where faith is preliminary to practice.": Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 259. "Most traditions of Buddhism consider saddhā, 'trustful confidence' or faith, as a quality which must be balanced by wisdom, and as a preparation for, or accompaniment of, meditation.": Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 170. Peter jackson (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC) "... Buddhists ... usually consider themselves to be followers of a religion ..." (Chryssides & Greaves, Study of Religion, Continuum Press, 2007, page 13)
"Essentially all religions have adherents who claim that their religion is not a religion. ... [examples, including Buddhism] ... For the sociologist and for the statistician (as for most people [this also stated for Buddhism in Silk, paper in Numen, volume 49, 2002, reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403]), these are all religions. Claims about not being a religion are pithy slogans contrived by people inventing a new definition of "religion" for the express purpose of emphasizing the benefits of their particular religious preference."([1]).
Elsewhere on the same website it gives lists of religions "described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes", "the religions most likely to be covered in world religion books" ([2]) & "most described used [sic] in contemporary comparative religion literature" ([3]). Buddhism is in these lists It must obviously be true that most people consider Buddhism as a religion, because that's what most dictionaries, encyclopaedias & books about religions say. How could they think otherwise? Peter jackson (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC) More on faith: "The Pure Land school of Mahayana is the most widely practised today." (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 86) "What proved to be the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia, Pure-Land ..." (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2009, page 208) "Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206) If you'd looked over my user page as I suggested, I wouldn't have to keep cluttering up this page with these citiations. The basic problem is this. Buddhism is extremely varied (the 2nd most diverse of the "classical" religions: [4]). But virtually all Western Buddhists, & a lot in the East, belong to a modernist form of Buddhism, & many of them are under the impression that Buddhist modernism is Buddhism. See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for a whole pile of citations on this point. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC) (They think their part of the elephant is the elephant.) Peter jackson (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The elpehant simile is a good way to sum up exactly what you are describing. You are really going to have to provide more than one source for the socialogical argument. The very fact that the said author is attempting to compare cross cultural traditions in such a generalized way is a dubious approach.
- My argument from the beginning, is to treat Buddhism as both religion and philosophy - I have cited two sources thus far, Ninian smart being a specialist on comparative religion and thus best placed to make an evaluation, Glasenapp being an Indologist and therfore also well placed to evaluate, both of whom regard it as both philosophy and religion. Your seeming argumetn against their views is that they are dead. That is hardly a credible argument against what they are saying.
- Despite copiously referencing Wikipedia policy, much of which contrasts with what you yourself are saying, you have not answered the fact that large numbers of western scholars are themselves practicing christians. How does that sit with your earlier assertion that all religious practitioners are biased, and their views therfore invalid?
- Your argument seems to revolve around taking that one small quote by a sociologist, and makeing a serious of ever more sweeping genralizations to come to the conclusion that it applies to all these traditions equally, as they are all 'religion'. It is not even vaguely surprising that mainstream religions contain some people who do not consider it a 'religion'. When it is something that involves daily life and involvement , it will no doubt be seen as something more, such as 'a relationship with Jesus' etc. That arguments has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the underlying teachings of Buddhism have for millenia, up to the present day been seen as the peak of human philosophy, as well as being 'religion' by shcolars, academics, and those who practice. The same cannot be said of Christianity or Islam. If you can find a scholarly source that says otherwise, by all means show it. However, I don't see you finding any scholarly opinion that says so because the argument would be ridiculous.
KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC) -
- Wikipedia is supposed to be based mainly on the views of scholars. That must surely mean present-day scholars. Not dead ones. Not even probably totally retired ones. Those who've retired from their academic posts but continue to publish scholarly work do count. This is just common sense. Scholarship moves on. We have no interest in the views of physicists of past generations. Why should it be different for Buddhology?
-
- In addition to the (living, last I heard) scholar I cited as rejecting the idea that Buddhism is a philosophy, there's also the argumentum e silentio: I can cite you quite a few scholars who describe Buddhism as a religion, without saying it's also a philosophy. It seems reasonable to assume that's because they don't think it is.
-
- "underlying teachings of Buddhism": what does this mean? It might be considere weasel words if you tried to put it in an article.
-
- On the religion of scholars, it's been estimated that about 1/4 of Buddhologists are openly Buddhist & another 1/4 keep quiet about it to avoid being accused of bias. I suspect this actually means Western Buddhologists, as the majority in the field are actually Japanese, so usually at least nominally Buddhist.
-
- As I said before, the primary criterion given in WP:V & WP:RS for a reliable source is the publisher. If something is published by an academic publisher it's assumed to be a scholarly & reliable publication. A book published by, say, the Buddhist Publication Society is in general regarded as a point of view within Buddhism, not an accurate account of what Buddhists as a whole believe.
-
- The sociological point is only relevant if you want to include some Buddhist views that it isn't a religion. It's necessary to contextualize them. The fact that you can find followers of other religions making the same claim is easily enough verified independently of that source. That in itself is enough to raise suspicions when Buddhists say exactly the same thing. In particular, your use of the phrase "way of life" is a good example. You can find examples of followers of all major religions saying "it's not a religion, it's a way of life". What ever is the point of that? It all cancels out. A religion is a way of life. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Peter, I'm not sure that your point about living and un-retired scholars is entirely valid. We still rely on the writings of Newton, Einstein and Darwin in contemporary science, while putting rovers on Mars: the point is not whether they have died or retired, but whether more recent scholarship has turned away from, overturned or rejected what they wrote, surely.
- Closer to the point, the important purpose of the WP:LEDE is "as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". It should not begin with a series of some of the most controversial and hard-to-prove points in the whole article, which are not covered in any detail, with full sources and debate of the opposing viewpoints, later on. These points seem to be of everyday interest to non-Buddhists and modern western converts and dabblers, such as whether Buddhism is one path or many, whether it involves belief or faith, whether it is a religion or a philosophy, whether it leads to salvation, liberation, bliss or contentment, whether it is practical or spiritual, etc etc. Maybe there is a good case that they should be discussed later in the article, perhaps at the expense of moving some history and enumeration of the sects and schools to sub-articles. In any case, if they were important topics of discussion in the article, then the lede could legitimately summarise that they are points of debate and of contention among scholars, contemporary teachers and practicioners.
- As it is, it looks to me as if people wanting to put such (literally) debatable material right up front as an eye-catching preamble to the otherwise sound introduction that follows have an agenda, or a point of view to promote, and want to harness Wikipedia to their cause. That is why I have repeatedly suggested below that this preamble should just go, and let's get started with the facts.
- Somewhere, and I can't find it now, there is (or was) a WP policy that said that we don't need to start the 'Hitler' article with "Hitler was a bad man", and then debate whether that should be, 'bad', 'evil', 'wicked', 'misunderstood' etc. Just get into the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Again PJ, there is a clear flaw in your argument, which is that there are and have been many scholars who categorize Buddhism as both religion and philosophy. You need to come up with a better argument than 'some of them are dead'. So what? Wikipedia policy is to take scholarly opinion as credible sources - this means recent and relevant shcolarly opinion. Surely if there were a leading scholar tragically killed in a car accident today, it would not render all his recent work irrelevent? I do not know quote where you have picked up that bizaare idea but I suggest you abandon it as it is a very strange and untendable concept. When academics do die, their work is not suddenly abandoned and considered irrelevant! It is published and presented in academic circles and still considered just as relevant. This occurs in all fields. Ninian Smart died a couple of years ago. Him dying is no good reason to hold against his excellent scholarly contribution. I have and continue to argue that within the scope of Indian thought, concepts of 'religion' and philosophy are very much intertwined, and to mention one without the other simply does not make sense. The comparisons with homogenous, entirely (as opposed to partially, in some branches) faith based religions such as Christinity is again untenable. Simply put, unless you can find scholarly sources that speak of Christianity as 'one of the great philosophies of the West' and compare it with known Western philosophical schools, your attempt to class 'Buddhism' as simply 'religion' in the same sense as Christianity, with " a few within the religion who consider it not a religion", is entirely false, unsubstantiated and baseless. It relys on seemingly one quote by a single sociologist attempting to overgeneralize, and in so doing going against a large body of academic and scholarly opinion, not just recent but over the centuries. In contrast, 'Buddhism' is frequently mentioned as being "one of the great philosophies of the East", is frequently considered alongside Eastern and Western philosophical schools, and is often classed as both philosophy and religon in scholarly work. Yet another scholar who classes Buddhism as philosophy as well as religion - M. Siderits, who states in his book 'Buddhism as Philosophy' (2007), that it is a study of "Buddhism as philosophy, and as a form of philosophy". He also makes the clear point that many scholars before have made and that I am asserting, that this is not to say that it is not also a 'religion' of some form. He says "To say that would be to assume that it must be one or the other". That pretty much sums up what this argument comes down to. Within the Indian tradition, western concepts such as 'religion' and 'philosophy' are often interlinked and inseparable, Buddhism being the prime example. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - Again, I say: if this is so important, why not write a short section about it in the body of the article, with full citations? Then, once the content of that section settles down by consensus, we can summarise it in the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I suggested that earlier on (possibly in the other section).
-
- "We still rely on the writings of Newton, Einstein and Darwin in contemporary science". Well, no we don't actually. You won't find many scientists who've actually read Newton, at least. More to the point, though, do you find them cited on Wikipedia as sources for scientific statements? Course not. WP cites modern sources who, on certain points, say the same thing. That's the issue here too.
-
- KV, we're gradually making some progress. You surprised me by finding 3 not too long dead scholars who said Buddhism is a philosophy. Now you've gone further & found a presumably living one. Is Siderits a prominent one? No idea. Is the reference in the policy to adherents in the plural to be taken literally, or is just 1 enough to establish a significant minority? Ditto. But you seem to be quite close to justifying the sort of wording I suggested earlier. Peter jackson (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Nigel, I commented on your suggestion in the other section. Peter jackson (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Buddhism's Daily Lives Buddist live lifes of sacrfice. Always looking for ways to give in the God. They have lots of religious holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.92.107 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Dubious? A statement has been tagged as dubious. Here's the exact wording of the source cited. "With very few exceptions, Chinese Buddhists accept that the chances of attaining enlightenment so complete that it guarantees one an exit from saṃsāra through the unaided strength of one's own practice are very slim, and that one must have Pure Land practice as a kind of insurance policy, regardless of what other practices or scholarship one does. Thus, Pure Land thought and practice pervades [sic] all of Chinese Buddhism as the guarantor of the path one treads toward Buddhahood." (Damien Keown & Charles S. Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 611) The same or very similar wording appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, presumably written by the same contributor. In support of this, here's some material from a field anthropologist who studied Chinese Buddhism 1st hand. "Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ... (Holmes Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism, Harvard University Press, 1967, pages 89f) "Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Holmes Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard University Press, 1972, page 288) [edit] Practical Philosophy The term 'practical philosophy' seems far more appropriate than 'spiritual', and the term no doubt has some merit to being used. I think that even this does not do justice by fully describing the Buddha's teachings, but it is at least more fitting that using the term spiritual. Practical philosophy encompasses the elements of putting ethics into action, living with wisdom and reflecting on daily life, all elements anyone familiar with Buddhism will recognise. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - This again is just personal opinion, which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. That's what blogs are for. Peter jackson (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the use of the term 'spiritual philosophy' is preffereable? And you are again wrong as this is not personal opinion, it can be referenced. I must also say that you seem fond of criticizing but seemingly quite lacking in ability to provide suitable alternatives or suggestions. So I repeat, what are you suggesting as a more appropriate alternative, and why? KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - I suggested earlier that the the first sentence and a half should just be cut:
- Buddhism is a world religion practiced by between 230 million and 500 million people.[4][5][6][7]. It is based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha...
- That allows us also to lose a short para lower down in the lede that gives the numbers. 'Less is more' seems to me the way to go. --Nigelj (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Nigelj, I'd love to see a much less convoluted lead sentence, as you suggest (the "as traditionally conceived" clause really throws it overboard, in my opinion), but I fear that cutting so much won't go over well in the long run—that's for a lot of reasons that are borne out in the archives of this talk page. Still, I think your suggestion is a major improvement to the intro. As to the original issue (spiritual vs practical philosophy), I think there's some miscommunication here.
-
- I don't think "personal opinion" fairly describes K&V's suggestion; practical is a characterization of Buddhism that I've seen among some practicing Buddhists and in Buddhist writing, and one which is quite valid in a certain sense. However, I don't think that usage of the word practical really jives with the connotations understood by a broader readership. Conversely, I think the word spiritual, while it could be validly criticized (from a Buddhist perspective) in its application to Buddhist cosmology, is probably better understood, in this context, by a general audience. In short, people talking about spirituality aren't always referring to a spirit, or any spirits. It's a word that refers broadly to religious and/or cosmological belief, and as such certainly, if not perfectly, comprises the wide variety of Buddhist thought. /ninly (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry, I didn't make clear that both versions are mere personal opinions. Here are a couple of scholarly sources on Buddhism as philosophy.
"it would be inadequate to define Buddhism simply as a philosophy, a way of life, or a code of ethics. It includes all of these things" (Keown, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1996, p 14) "... we should not continue to keep Buddhism in that category of being just a philosophy and somehow above these more rough-and-tumble forms of religious life." (Lewis & Lewis, Sacred Schisms, Cambridge University Press, 2009, page 82) I don't know of any present-day scholar who'd call Buddhism a philosophy. The late Professor Conze did so in the book cited above, but even he qualified this by saying (page 15) that it's not in the usual Western sense, i.e. presumably the sense in which most readers of this article would understand it. What am I suggesting? Some time ago those of us around at the time had some such wording as "Buddhism is usually considered a religion". What's wrong with that, or something similar? It's obviously true, & even cited, & it clearly implies there are other views. The details could be discussed in a section called What is Buddhism? or The nature of Buddhism, which nobody got round to writing. Peter jackson (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - Currently, it says, "It is a religion or spiritual philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to..." What's wrong with this? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's not too bad. However, I think it should be the first sentence ("Buddhism is a religion or spiritual philosophy encompassing..."). In fact, the more I look at the current first sentence, the more strongly I feel it should be removed, primarily on NPOV grounds. Calling Buddhism a "path of liberation" first and foremost, and then going on to make unqualified denotational references to "insight" and "the ultimate nature of reality" only make sense from certain specifically Buddhist perspectives. And all this occurs before either of the words religion or philosophy. Furthermore, the reference cited (Glasenapp, Helmuth von. "Vedanta and Buddhism: A comparative study") contains neither of the quoted phrases.
- Boldly, I'm going to remove it now. Thoughts? /ninly (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think removing the sentence entirely is justified. It is of value to mention what the tradition presents itself as, not merely what scholars think it is. We are not saying that "Buddhism is a path of liberation through insight", we are saying that from the point of view of the tradition itself, this is what it is regarded as being. And I do think that putting this definition first is warranted. It defines what Buddhism means to 'Buddhists' / practitioners, which is ultimately what comprises this thing called Buddhism. Secondly, the phrase is not pov or unqualified. It is in the cited source on 'Vedanta and Buddhism'. I mentioned it already but I can mention it again, the specific characterization of it as 'liberation through insight' is mentioned, in the section of the artice labelled (1). Furthermore, I mentioned in the above section that 'ultimate nature of reality' is a way of decribing what the insight practice is aimed at. The same source by Glasenapp mentiones why this, saying that "Only the indefinable Voidness" (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has true reality." KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Viriditas, what's wrong with it is that it gives equal prominence to the mainstream view & a fringe view, contrary to WP:DUE.
- KV, how can you know what the tradition presents itself to be, unless scholars tell you? If there were an organization to which all major Buddhist denominations were affiliated, then its official pronouncements could be treated seriously. But there isn't. (Similarly, the World Council of Churches represents only a minority of Christianity.) Suppose you yourself have read a vast amount of Buddhist literature in Pali, Chinese, Tibetan &c & can confirm this. That would still be banned from Wikipedia as original research. So any such statements must be sourced from scholars who've been published in reliable sources, that is, those whose publisher has a reputation for fact checking. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- First of all, path is a metaphor; liberation (implying bondage) is another, and bound up with Buddhist assumptions about the world; insight is highly value-laden in this context, implying that Buddhists have insight that others lack. Referenced or not, this is simply not encyclopedic writing.
-
- "It defines what Buddhism means to 'Buddhists' / practitioners, which is ultimately what comprises this thing called Buddhism." — this is actually a misconception, from Wikipedia's perspective. What Buddhism means to Buddhists is only one POV on what Buddhism is, and it's a necessarily biased one. That's why we defer to reliable peer-reviewed sources in documenting encyclopedic content. Of course, it's difficult to decide, at times, which sources are the most reliable, and all notable views should be represented, but (almost paradoxically) Buddhist writing cannot be the primary resource for a definition of buddhism, and its characterizations can't come first (except where they agree with other points of view).
-
- I really think that for encyclopedic purposes, the presentation given in WP's article on religion fairly sums up what we're talking about in this article. That is, I really don't think readers are misled by the word. Granted, the religion article doesn't use the word philosophy, but contrary to what you say above, every major religion has produced its share of philosophical thinkers, many of which have gone on to deeply influence the theology/cosmology of the religion. While this philosophical tradition may have played out differently in Buddhist history, to say that it stands alone in the importance of its philosophy strikes me as more of the sociological phenomenon to which Peter refers. While the religion article admits that it's an extremely difficult thing to define anthropologically/sociologically -- but the article on Buddhism is not the place to work out that definition. /ninly (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The more I read here, the more I am convinced that creating a one or two-sentence summary of what Buddhism is, is a hopeless task. In the absence of any Pope of Buddhism to define it for us, whatever we write will contain undue WP:WEIGHT or be WP:OR. If we base it on Western scholars, that's only their Western, scholarly view; if we try to represent 500 million practicing Buddhists' views, it's hopeless. I suggested 'Buddhism is a world religion' as I hoped by that term to imply the sociologists' meaning of the term - just something to label the axis of a bar-graph - rather than stir up the debate about the meaning of 'religion'. As for talk about paths, liberation, insight etc. I would leave it out of the preamble - we are not here to teach or to convert. Get straight to the incontrovertible facts as I suggested above:
- Buddhism is a world religion practiced by between 230 million and 500 million people.[4][5][6][7]. It is based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha... (then continue into existing text)
- I see we have moved closer to this in the article already, but I still think what we have is too ringed in by the remnants of these arguments and is not so clear, while saying nothing more than my simpler version. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I strongly support this as the article preamble. /ninly (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Let us be clear about the sociological argument that PJ is trying to make based on his one quote froma sociologist that "all religions contain people who deny their a religion". Whilst the Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition have produced philosophical thinkers as one would expect, this is in stark contrast to the situation with Buddhism, where 'Buddhism' itself has been decribed by scholars as a philosophy, as well as producing further philosophical thinkers.
Religions such as Christinaity may well contain the odd individual who prefers to think of his religion as being something other than religion, such as 'a relationship with God'. This again contrasts with Buddhism, where scholars outside of Buddhism call it a philosophy. So we are talking about two different phenomena. Ninian Smart, who was one of the worlds leading experts on comparative religion and philosophy is quite clear when he states (p12, World Philosophies , N. Smart) that Buddhism is "one of the two main streams of traditional Indian philosophy". The attempted sociological argument therfore does not hold up at all, unless you want to make the claim that "scholars also like to deny that religions are religions". The Glasenapp quote is also unequivocal, calling Buddhism one of "the highlights of Indian philosophical thought". Clearly both of these leading scholars thought of 'Buddhism' as encompassing both religion and philosophy, and that it would be absurd to mention one without mentioning the other. The phrase about 'liberation through insight' still has a place, perhaps as description of "Buddhism as originally conceived". The rest of the wording as it stands is alright, although the use of the word 'spiritual' is still problematic. KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - In case some people are reading this discussion without having read our earlier one, I'll just summarize again what I said above. All 3 scholars KV cites saying Buddhism is a philosophy as well as a religion are dead. No evidence has been presented that there's a significant body of scholarly opinion at the present day to that effect. On the contrary, most scholars simply say it's a religion. (I can clutter this column up with more citations if you insist.) Now it may be that there is such a body of opinion, in which case policy would require it to be mentioned. It doesn't follow that it should be in the lead. That could simply mention the mainstream view while making it clear there are others.
- Nigel & Ninly say the article should simply assert as fact that it's a religion. This would be in accordance with policy only if there is no significant body of scholarly opinion that actually disagrees with the statement. Is that so? I honestly don't know. Let's have a look at some alternative views:
-
- I don't know of any present-day scholars who say religion is the wrong category to put Buddhism into.
- There are certainly scholars who say that the whole category of religion is an artificial one not corresponding to reality (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, pages viii, 136). I don't know whether they're a significant body. I suspect those scholars might well also hold that Buddhism, Christianity &c are also artificial categories.
- The latest edition of a standard textbook (cited above) says Buddhism is a family of 3 religions. This is prima facie evidence of a significant body of opinion, though that might perhaps be rebuttable.
- Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Me neither.
- This is true and compelling to me, but I think this is not the place to seek consensus about the definition or propriety of the term religion itself. The religion article seems (and I haven't investigated this in depth) to have struck a fair balance between mainstream views and acknowledgment of significant dissent. I may look into this further.
- Not sure what happened, but I guess I wasn't too active on here when it was taken down. This article did once say "family of religions" in the lead, and (after a period of skepticism) I was pretty comfortable with that. /ninly (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Beliefs People who follow Buddhism believe in many things. They believe in reincarnation, karma, dharma, and ahimsa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockon9057 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC) - Belief is not necessary; In the end, your beliefs can hold you back. What is necessary is pure experience, unfettered by the blinders of belief. The Buddha allegedly said: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't know who's alleging that. The scriptural passage it resembles doesn't say "believe". It says "don't go by &c. When you know for yourselves that something is good/bad, act accordingly." This of course sidesteps the question they'd actually asked: "Different teachers say different things. How do we tell who's right?" When you know for yourself is all very well, but until then? They end up taking refuge: having faith? Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- For one example, see Prayudh Payutto's Buddhadhamma, translated by Grant A. Olson.[5][6]. I don't think it sidesteps the question at all, but leaves the answer up to them, which is where it always resides. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm not sure what this discussion is about, as there hasn't been any coherent suggestion or comment about the content of the article, but the concept of faith (Sk: sraddha) is a significant part of the Buddhist tradition. It is, of course, conceived quite differently than in the Abrahamic religions. As I understand it, the basic idea is that faith is important, if not indispensable, in a person's taking refuge and diligent practice. That is, why should someone practice a technique if he or she does not believe it's worth their time? /ninly (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't think there's much difference between different religions' ideas of faith, but I agree that this section is not as it stands particularly relevant to improving the article. Peter jackson (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, and find it very relevant to improving and expanding this article. See this, Peter, and tell me what you think. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Read what I said: "as it stands". That is, what had appeared so far in the section was merely WP editors' personal opinions (including mine), which aren't relevant to improving the article. The source you cite is the opinion of a particular Buddhist teacher, perhaps sufficiently prominent for his views to be mentioned in any discussion of the topic in the article, but not a reliable source for the views of Buddhists generally. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I suggest it is the very heart and essence of Buddhism itself: "It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing. The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as ehi-passika, inviting you to 'come and see', but not to come and believe."[7] (10) Stephen Ruppenthal explains: "A person who understands the reason behind a law is more likely to obey it intelligently than someone who is simply ordered to obey. Similarly, the person who sees life interdependently linked in dharma's cosmic web will know exactly why controlling selfish urges is essential in conduct; there will be no need to take someone else's word for it. It is through direct, intimate, personal knowledge of dharma, rather than a high moral code or social pressure, that selfless, righteous actions arise."[8] Peter, I'm curious where you are coming from. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You can suggest what you like.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Where I'm coming from is the Wikipedia policy of relying mainly on scholarly sources. Buddhist writings are reliable sources only for the views of their authors, not other Buddhists. Buddhism is extremely varied over history & geography, but this variety is not reflected in those Buddhist writers popular among Westerners & Westernized orientals, who are much more uniform. Peter jackson (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Buddhism is a religion of ehi passika, come and see, come and experiment for yourself."[9] Peter, please provide a source that disputes this view. Otherwise, accept that it is the mainstream perspective on Buddhism. William M. Johnston in the Encyclopedia of Monasticism writes:
-
Despite the belief of Buddhists that Buddha's comprehension of dhamma (doctrinal truth) is perfect, they do not rely on him in the way that Christians often rely on their religious leaders. There is a rejection of anything except the authority of experience and experimentalism (not to be confused with empiricism). Buddha urged his disciples to come and see (ehi passika) for themselves in a way that makes personal realization (not to be confused with empirical verification) paramount. Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins, like blind men touching various parts of an elephant and taking reality to be limited to partial perception."[10] (188) - Peter, is this source acceptable to you? Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It no doubt counts as a reliable source, but a rather non-specialist one. Specialist ones are preferred. I think the more general point is that, if you're going to have section on this topic, it's supposed to give a balanced coverage of it. So presumably it should cover things like the following too.
- "... traditional Buddhism, where faith is preliminary to practice." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 259)
- "Most traditions of Buddhism consider saddhā, 'trustful confidence' or faith, as a quality which must be balanced by wisdom, and as a preparation for, or accompaniment of, meditation." (Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press, 1990, page 170)
- "The Pure Land school of Mahayana is the most widely practised today." (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 86)
- "What proved to be the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia, Pure-Land ..." (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2009, page 208)
- "Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206)
Peter jackson (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC) - Peter, you still have not addressed my question about faith in Buddhism. Faith in Buddhism is different than other religions, and is not blind. You are essentially arguing that a 12th-century interpretation of Buddhism by Shinran is more important than those of the Buddha himself, which is a strange thing to say. Does a practice become more "true" depending on how many adhere to it? Why are you thinking only in terms of Pure Land Buddhism? Do you think this article should be focused on the 12th century interpretation of Pure Land, simply because it is popular with some people in some countries? Perhaps you should read the Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna (1967): "We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha."(1967) And the more recent formulation: "We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha." (1981) Your references are also problematic, Peter. You use Clarke & Beyer (2009) to claim that "Pure Land is the most widely practiced" but this is a distortion, as it ignores that as a whole, 59% of temples and 62% of adherents in East Asia are not Pure Land.[11] Clarke & Beyer's work has also been criticized by Christopher McConnell for the American Library Association as being less of a reference work, and more of a collection of essays, criticized for its "unevenness". So, Peter, instead of playing games with numbers and percentages, please address the essential teachings of the Buddha, not specific differences in external forms unique to certain regions and cultures. And tell me Peter, how is faith addressed in these essential teachings, and what role does ehi-passika play? Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- While my choice of words earlier (conceived rather differently) was perhaps poor -- "presented differently" might have been more accurate -- upon reflection, I agree with Peter that the idea of faith in various religions is less different than you're arguing. Particularly your contention that faith in other religions is blind betrays a biased perspective and perhaps misunderstanding of faith in non-Buddhist religions.
-
- On the other hand, I do agree that the global prominence of Pure Land believers should not be allowed overly to color the presentation of Buddhist cosmology and tradition as a whole. While it is a significant part of Buddhism, that doesn't mean it is Buddhism. /ninly (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- As William M. Johnston[12] writes above, "Rather than accepting doctrine on blind faith in the way Buddhists saw the Hindi brahmins doing, everyone is to be a lamp or island (Pali dipa can mean either one) for oneself. The Buddha encourages rational faith (akaravati saddha), not the baseless faith (amulika saddha) of the brahmins..." What part of this do you disagree with here? Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- "Blind faith" is anti-Christian propaganda. Do you want me to cite Thomas Aquinas as saying that faith is based, not only on the evidence of miracles, but also on "the inward instinct of the divine invitation": you hear the call & respond?
-
-
- The link you gave doesn't give any information about anything; it's just a book list.
-
-
- On the "Basic Points" text. The organization that produced this isn't mentioned in
-
-
-
-
-
- as far as I can tell. It's obviously a small & unimportant organization. (How many dictionaries & encyclopaedias of Christianity fail to mention the World Council of Churches? Yet that's only a minority of Christianity.) All one can tell from its website is that it includes
-
-
-
- the Dalai Lama
- some Theravadins
- some members of at least one East Asian school
-
-
- essential teachings of the Buddha: according to whom? The whole point is that both Buddhists & historians disagree on what these are. Peter jackson (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- It might be worth while at this point having a quick look at the logistics of the subject:
-
-
- "The dramatic growth in scholarship on Buddhism over the past half century, both in the quantity and the quality of that scholarship, has made it virtually impossible for a single scholar to claim knowledge of the entire tradition across its vast geographical and chronological sweep." (Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism, Harper/Penguin, 2001, page ix)
-
-
- That means that statements about Buddhism as a whole are tertiary sources. According to the policy, Wikipedia is supposed to be based mainly on secondary sources. According to the guideline, this should apply to each individual article. If this article is to comply with the guideline, it will have to be totally rewritten so that most of it is about particular branches of the tradition, not Buddhism in general. Whether or not this is done, tertiary sources should be treated with caution, & common sense suggests they should be checked against secondary (& maybe primary?) ones where possible. Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Now here's some material from a field anthropologist who studied Chinese Buddhism 1st hand:
"Some readers ... may have heard that ... Ch'an ... died out long ago in China, choked by superstition and decay. After an inspection tour of Chinese Buddhism in 1934, Dr. Suzuki wrote: "Japanese Zen travellers ... [ellipsis in Welch] deplore the fact that there is no more Zen in China." [source cited] The facts are otherwise. At a small number of monasteries right up to the year 1949, hundreds of monks continued the strict practice of collective meditation under common masters. Ch'an Buddhism in China was destroyed, while still alive, by the land reforms of 1950. Meditation takes time, and time takes unearned income." (Holmes Welch, The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950, Harvard University Press, 1967, page 47) "Since we are living in the age of the decay of the dharma, it is difficult ... to reach nirvana here through our own efforts. Therefore most Buddhists in China prefer to get the help of Amitābha by reciting his name ..." (Welch, 1967, pages 89f) "... as time passed, all schools came to be regarded as mutually complementary. ... in the past century the attitude of the sangha has been that the doctrines of every school are equally valid." (Welch, 1967, page 395) "Because a monk could have several different kinds of masters, he could belong in different ways to different sects. Usually when he entered the sangha, the master who shaved his head was of the Lin-chi lineage, since it was by far the most common. ... The disciple may not have known who Lin-chi was, much less what he taught, but if someone asked him what sect he belonged to, he would reply "Lin-chi." Or if, for example, some years after his head was shaved, he had received the dharma from a mater of the Ts'ao-tung lineage, then he might alternatively say that his sect was Ts'ao-tung ... if someone asked [a monk] "in respect to religious practice, what sect are you?"—the chances are that he would answer "Pure Land" or perhaps "Pure Land and Ch'an combined."" (Welch, 1967, page 396) "Before 1949 the goals of most Chinese Buddhists could only be called otherworldly. A few sought release from this world through nirvana, but the great majority, since nirvana was too difficult to achieve in our degenerate age, sought it through devotion to the Buddha Amitābha. That is, they hoped that after death they would not have to be reborn in this world of suffering but would be accepted into the Pure Land ..." (Welch, Buddhism under Mao, Harvard, 1972, page 288) This backs up the 2 tertiary sources saying PL is the most popular, bearing in mind that most estimates of the numbers of Chinese Buddhists are around 100,000,000, i.e. near 1/3 of the world Buddhist population. I can also cite sources for plenty in Vietnam & Japan. There's a phenomenon I call the afterthought mentality. You get it in a lot of books on Christianity in English. They say things along the lines of "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." Catholics are treated as an afterthought, even though they're the majority on most estimates. How far can you take this? "Buddhists believe in following the path of the bodhisattva. Oh but actually Theravadins don't." I think most people would say that's biased. Yet Theravadins number around 1/3 of world Buddhist population, similar to Pure Land. So it would also be biased to treat PL as an afterthought. Going further, though, it seems reasonable to say most Budddhists are led by monks, with Japan the only major exception. Peter jackson (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "Does a practice become more "true" depending on how many adhere to it?" WP isn't about truth. This article is supposed to be about "Buddhism", i.e. a major religion followed by 350,000,000 people. In other words, what large numbers of people believe & practise is precisely what it is supposed to be about. Ninly, "On the other hand, I do agree that the global prominence of Pure Land believers should not be allowed overly to color the presentation of Buddhist cosmology and tradition as a whole. While it is a significant part of Buddhism, that doesn't mean it is Buddhism." If you look back, you'l see that what I was talking about was balance. Peter jackson (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- PJ, before we go any further let us clarify something. You say "Wikipedia isn't about truth". Yes it is. Knowing the truth in all forms is the purpose of what we are doing. Whether it is the truth of what a teaching is, the truth of what people practice as tradition, the truth of scholarly opinion, it always about finding truth and separating it from misconception, in one form or another.
- If anything, the arguments about Pureland support the view that as a Japanese tradition it is really something quite different from 'Buddhism' as presented in Theravada, practicing Mahayana or Vajrayana. Within Mahayana, it was really only a part of the wider teachings. And this is one of the problems about trying to divide up 'religion', 'philosophy' and 'psychology', categorizations that are interlinked in Indian tradition. This is even mor problematic when trying to not only categorize, but group such a disparate collection of traditions under the heading 'Buddhism'. Hence the inevitable result is you will always get yourself into a tangled mess that you have found yourself in, trying to cite various contrasting opinion which frequently encounters the same problem. Clearly trying to generalize however by giving greater prominance to the Pure Land tradition is not balanced. I see no evidence that chanting to Amitabh was the main practice of Chinese Mahayanists.
- So if we look at the teachings of core Buddhism, whether Theravada or Mahayana, as well as the core teachings of Christianity, we can see evidence that 'faith' or confidence indeed has a different meaning. Within the the core teachings that comprise Christinity, blind faith is actively encouraged. There is numerous evidence for this, not just from modern Christianity but from within the biblical teachings.
- John 20:29: Jesus says: "Because you have seen, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Clearly it would be hard to find a more direct and stark instruction on having blind faith.
- Similarly the Old Testament is full (I have no intention of digging out all the numerous quotes) where blind faith in 'God' is advocated.
- So your statement that "Blind faith" is anti-Christian propaganda". Is clearly contradicted by the fact of the original and widely known primary sources themselves. You also cite Thomas Aquinas saying that faith is based on the 'evidence' of miracles, as well as "the inward instinct of the divine invitation". Again, you seem to veer between presenting skewed scholarly view when it suits you, to suddenly sounding more like like a devout Christian true believer at other times.
- What exactly does "the inward instinct of the divine invitation" mean? This kind of wordplay nonsense is not any way to detemine whether someone holds to 'faith' or not. So someone says they 'feel' a call to faith. I wonder what psychologists and anthropologists have said about this topic. Similarly, the 'evidence' of miracles. Most of the worlds 1.5 billion or so Christians have faith in the supposed miracles of Jesus, this is not evidence.
- In contrast with core Buddhist teachings in all the main traditions of Theravada and Mahayana, confidence in the teachings is advocated by examination of them. "There is birth, ageing, sickness and death" says the Buddha to begin with in the first discourse, as well as throughout Mahayana and Theravada doctinal sources. "Ageing is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering". This is an entirely different way to build 'confidence' or 'faith'. Which is what we would expect, since one (Christianity) is at core a religion based on blind faith, whereas the other (Buddhism) is a philosophy/religion/psychology coming at these issues from an entirely different perpective. Again, there is nor real argument against this, other than citing a few more quotes from Welch about Pure Lan, which as we have already mentioned, cannot be taken as representative of anything other than the specific Pure Land tradition itself.
KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -
- "Wikipedia isn't about truth" was a bit of a throwaway line. The policy does say that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but that isn't actually what we're disussing here. The point is that this article is supposed to be about what Buddhists actually believe & practise, not what a few Western or Westernized editors of Wikipedia think they ought to believe & practise.
-
- "If anything, the arguments about Pureland support the view that as a Japanese tradition it is really something quite different from 'Buddhism' as presented in Theravada, practicing Mahayana or Vajrayana." Well, for a start, Pure Land isn't Japanese. If you'd read the citations above you'd know that. It's based on 3 scriptures, 2 of which survive in Sanskrit & were presumably written in India. I think both of these, certainly 1 of them, are found in the Tibetan Kanjur (as recognized scriptures). The 3rd survives only in Chinese & may well have originated in that country. All 3 are included in all standard collected editions of scriptures from China, Korea & Japan (& Vietnam if there is such an edition). There doesn't seem to have been a significant PL movement in India, but it really took off in Central Asia. It tends to be counted as a recognized "school" in China from about 400 AD, with teachers like Tanluan, Shandao &c. Their writings likewise are included in the standard collected editions. This isn't some sort of aberration. It's part of mainstream East Asian Buddhism.
-
- "I see no evidence that chanting to Amitabh was the main practice of Chinese Mahayanists." Again, you don't seem to have read the above citations. A field anthropologist who observed Chinese Buddhism 1st hand says just that. Note by the way that this is the culmination of centuries of history. At one time most Chinese monks practised Chan, leaving PL to the laity, but Chan declined over the centuries, & gradually combined with PL where it survived, leading to the modern position Welch describes.
-
- "This is even mor problematic when trying to not only categorize, but group such a disparate collection of traditions under the heading 'Buddhism'." Exactly. But it's people like you & Viriditas who're trying to generalize. I'm the one who's pointing out the imbalance in such generalizations.
-
- "core Buddhism": & what might that be? It's no good simply endlessly asserting your own beliefs about what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on "reliable sources", & I probably have to repeat yet again that Buddhist sources are relaible only for the beliefs of their authors. If the authors are prominent Buddhists, it seems reasonable to assume that they represent a significant body of opinion within Buddhism, but that's all. It's totally fallacious to assume they represent Buddhism as a whole. You wouldn't trust the Pope or Billy Graham for an unbiased account of Christianity. And the writers popular among Westerners & Westernized orientals represent Buddhist modernism, not Buddhism as a whole.
-
- So what do scholars say about "core Buddhism"? Well, the curious thing is that the answer is, usually, nothing. Most of them simply ignore the question. They simply embark on a survey of the main forms of Buddhism, most often historically. A few try to give an answer, but I find them mostly unintelligible. And some simply reject the idea of a common core. (Citations at User:Peter jackson#Common core.) So no assertions can be made in the article about such a core backed by citations from RSs.
-
- If you want to discuss Christian concepts of faith further, I suggest you visit some appropriate articles. Peter jackson (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Now, let me start again from a different perspective. The most reliable source on Buddhism is the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004; printed & ebook editions). The reason is very simple: it has over 200 contributors. That makes it closer to specialist knowledge than textbooks (1-3 authors) or even the Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism (23 contributors). It's not infallible; in fact different articles sometimes contradict each other. But it's a very good place to start to find out mainstream scholarly views. The article on Faith (pages 277-9, in Volume One) is by Luis O. Gómez of Michigan University. Here's the introductory section complete.
"Few notions elicit more debate and vague associations than the family of concepts associated with the word faith and its various approximate synonyms (e.g., belief). Needless to say the English faith has no exact equivalent in the languages of Asia. The word means many things in English and in other Western languages as well, and the proximate Asian equivalents also have many meanings in their Asian contexts. This is not to say that faith cannot be used as a descriptive or analytical tool to understand Buddhist ideas and practices yet one must be aware of the cultural and polemic environments that shaped Buddhist notions of faith." Peter jackson (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC) At the end comes a section headed Summary Interpretation, which I again give in full: "Ideals of nondiscursive apprehension straddle the dividing line between faith and knowledge, humble surrender and recognition of a state of liberation that cannot be acquired by the individual's will. In some ways the tradition seems to assume that one has faith in that which one respects and trusts, but also in that which one wishes to attain, and that which one imagines oneself to be or able to become." I can post more later if it helps. Peter jackson (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I've had another look at the link given by Viriditas, & it appears to be mainly about a book by Paul Williams that I haven't come across. We don't seem to have it here, so I can't check what it says (yet), but here are a few comments. - The book title talks about "China, East Asia and Japan", which suggests "East Asia" might mean Vietnam & Korea.
- From all I've read previously by & about him, he specializes in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. I've come across no indication that he knows Chinese or Japanese.
- Let's suppose he's right that only 38% of East Asian Buddhists are PL. Since East Asian Buddhism, on most estimates, is more than 1/2 the world total, that still gives 1/5, or 1/4, PL. Still a major slice, not a minor fringe group.
"You are essentially arguing that a 12th-century interpretation of Buddhism by Shinran is more important than those of the Buddha himself, which is a strange thing to say." What an absurd thing to say. It's completely wrong in several ways: - I never mentioned Shinran. His is simply the most radical version of Pure Land. Its own peculiarities (salvation by pure faith, granted by grace) are followed by enough people to be mentioned, but not given great prominence. But the Pure Land movement is far larger.
- It's unimportant to this article what the Buddha himself actually said. It seems reasonable to mention that most, but not all, scholars think he taught something like Theravada. But this article is supposed to be about what Buddhists think he taught, not what historians, or Wikipedia editors, or just Western(ized) Buddhists & their teachers, think he taught.
- I clearly stated I was talking about balance. That's not a matter of treating one thing as more important than another, as such.
Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -
- To Peter Jackson and Knowledge and Vision: Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion page. It is wonderful to have you both here. However, per WP:TALK, "If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." Thank you very much for you attention in this matter. Let's work to keep the talk page open to everybody. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I've just had a look at the 3 current discussions to see who 1st went over 100 words:
-
-
-
-
-
- My general policy is to start with brief statements. If people then start arguing or asking for details I then often have to get longer. If someone posts a long screed some people just ignore it or hurl abuse at the poster. I try to respond to it properly, which usually involves going on at length myself. Have you any alternative suggestions as to procedure? Should I do what you seem to be implicitly doing here, ask them to abridge what they've said? The fact is, some things really are complicated.
-
-
- Some more thoughts on your Williams citation (which you still haven't supplied properly):
-
-
-
- 4. 38% PL is not inconsistent with its being the most popular. Does the source give figures for other schools?
- 5. You cited it as talking about adherents. Is that the word it used? It tends to be used to refer to nominal adherents. Note that the citation from Clarke & Beyer says most widely practised. Note also that the Welch material cited above makes clear that Chinese Buddhism is mostly Zen nominally but PL in practice. (Lin-chi, or Linji in the new spelling, is better known by the Japanese name Rinzai, the smaller of the 2 main branches of Japanese Zen.)
-
-
- Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- WP:TALK, like almost all WP policy, is a set of guidelines to be considered rather than rules to observe. Concision is obviously preferable when possible, but we deal often with complex and difficult ideas in this article, a great deal of disparate material, and sometimes convoluted discussion. This isn't always conducive to short responses. As always, however, I'll review my writing before posting. /ninly (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Life of the Buddha We're currently at 142,296 bytes, and the article is not only unmanageable, but unreadable. Should the article start with "Life of the Buddha" or some other topic? The prose can be tightened up a bit; I see a lot of needless words. Is the current date of birth correct? I read in another source that it had been adjusted by several centuries, so it should probably read as a range rather than as an exact date. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - No, don't start by trimming material out. The way to deal with oversize is to take sections or groups of related sections and move them into a new sub-article. Write a new lede for the sub-article that introduces and summarises its content and, for the time being, copy and paste that summary back into the main, with a link like {{main|new article name}} where the material went from. Works a treat. Now, what are the best new sub-article names? I suggest the current sections 4, 5 and 6 are candidates: History of Buddhism, Schools and traditions of Buddhism and Buddhist texts maybe? --Nigelj (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see two of these are not red links at the moment, so the issue will involve merging the material from here with what is already there. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The date is probably wrong. Most scholars now put his death around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could we get some recent sources on this please? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There is now a more or less established (Gethin, Sayings of the Buddha, Oxford World Classics, 2008, page xv), though not final (Keown & Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 107), consensus for a death date around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Archives The last date in archive 17 is 7 June 2008. The first date in archive 18 is 15 May 2009. There seems to be a massive gap. Peter jackson (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - Ok, I see what you mean. I'm looking into where the rest went now. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, found it and a bunch of other stuff. Looks like whoever was archiving the page before now, was using an unconventional way to do it. It's going to take a while to fix everything, but I'm on it. You can view a list of all subpages, here. Since we now have the indexing system we no longer need the old pages so I'm going to go ahead and merge them. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here was the problem. Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi wanted to use the permalink method instead of archiving. I'm fixing it now. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lead image I would like to discuss changing the lead image to reflect its adherents, such as a monk, Sangha, or something people-oriented. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
