WikiProject Religion / Interfaith		ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WPReligionReligion articles
Religion portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Interfaith work group.

WikiProject China	(Rated Start-Class, Top-importance)	ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Buddhism	(Rated Start-Class)	BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Buddhism portal v • d • e 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 Buddhist philosophy, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Indic: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Japanese: Manual of Style Korean: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Tibetan: Proposed naming conventions  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Philosophy	(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)	PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Further information and related task forces:   Philosophy of religion

Contents 1 Article Organisation and name 2 2002 3 Recent edits 4 Round Two 5 Explanation of revert 6 Link 7 vegetarian 8 Quote 9 Text duplicated 10 Merger 11 New Proposal-Renaming the title to Buddhism and Philosophy 12 Sprotect time? 13 Not agree to "Merger" 14 Brahman 15 "Later developments" 16 Historical context section

[edit] Article Organisation and name

Why is this article organised into sections such as Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc - which are branches of Western philosophy? Shouldn't the sections be based on the key Buddhist concepts such as Anatta, Pratitya Samutpada, etc?

There is nothing wrong with using English words to describe Buddhist ideas. Mitsube (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be "Buddhism and philosophy".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at some academic texts you will find the phrase "Buddhist philosophy" quite often. Mitsube (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2002

I just wanted to thank the anonymous person who wrote this excellent start of an article on Buddhist philosophy. --Larry Sanger

I think that something about philosophy of Zen and other non-traditional Buddhist sects should be written. Taw

Many philosophers of Zen would maintain that Zen is anti-philosophy.  :-)

I would like to see something about commonly practiced forms of Buddhism, such as Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai and Nembutsu. [bddougie]

(Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai Buddhism, Nembutsu Buddhism).

To my knowledge, the Buddha clearly states in the Pali Suttas that there is no self or soul (anatta). - Clive

[edit] Recent edits

I just made some pretty sweeping changes; the existing description was questionable on several points and vague on most, and I did my best to make clear some of the basic issues. However, this is still massively underdeveloped.कुक्कुरोवाच

The fact is that philosophy is different from religion and therefore should not be merged.

[edit] Round Two

Deleted a sentence saying the Buddha began from the Upanishadic position on the unity of the atman and Brahman, and the desirability of escape from samsara, because (1) Early Buddhism does not reject the ultimate desirability of samsara, and (2) as I learned it, the Buddha's teachers were likelier Samkhyans then advaitins, (3) I'm not at all sure that the Upanishads are what the Buddha was rejecting, since they were largely being formulated around the same time, as I recall, and wouldn't be totally canonical yet. This is not to say that the Buddha doesn't reject them, of course, but that's covered under saying he rejects metaphysical being.

I'm moving the pratitya-samutpada section into metaphysics and phenomenology where it belongs; causation is not a problem of logic in Indian philosophy, it is a problem of metaphysics, and, in Buddhism, a problem of psychology or phenomenology.कुक्कुरोवाच 21:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of revert

I thought the deleted paragraph had some value in its original form. I didn't find it to be particularly trite. Also, I think "non-theistic" is better than "atheistic". "Atheism", as people often use it and as W'pedia defines it, seems to rule out a "middle way" balancing act. In conclusion, please allow me to say that I think the paragraph's last sentence preeemptively expresses Kukku's concerns about a tendentious definition of religion. That's all, thank you. - Nat Krause 04:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am happier with non-theistic than with atheistic; however, I do object to having a pragraph that's so problematic that it has to conclude with a disclaimer that it may be moot before we ever get to what the article is actually about. I suggest that that paragraph be moved somewhere less obtrusive in the body of the article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reworded the paragrpaph and put back in the fact that many; including some prominent Buddhists describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, this is a matter of fact not POV. Here are some sources:

The prominent British Buddhist Christmas Humphreys (also a prominent judge) in "Buddhism"(1954). C.H. was President of the Buddhist Society, London, from it's foundation in 1924 for 30 years. On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

"The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".

--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link

• A view on Buddhism

Someone added this link to the page, and while it doesn't seem like a horrible site on a first glance, it does seem like a personal one, and perhaps not exactly NPOV, etc. Can folks take a look at it and convey reflections? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] vegetarian

A bot changed [[vegetarian]]s to [[vegetarianism|vegetarians]], since the former is a double-redirect. It was reverted back to the double-rd -- I'm not sure why. I changed it back. If you think it should be [[vegetarian]]s again, let's discuss. Quadell (talk) 13:31, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience...

My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship.

My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.

Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.

– The Buddha

I removed this quote from the beginning of this article because (a) it's unattributed (we need chapter and verse, not just "The Buddha", (b) it's not appropriate to use it as an epigram, (c) I'm not 100% sure it's pertinent to the article, and (d) if it is to be included, it should get textual context to make clear what it's doing in the article, and this should take place in a section discussing, I don't know, arguments against taking Buddhism as a philosophy. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text duplicated

It is pretty clear that the text got duplicated between edit times 20:08, 19 Oct 2004 and 23:59, 20 Oct 2004. I got the diffs down to a few words. Editors may wish to verify that their favorite changes are back in the text. I was clued in to the problem by duplicated categories at the bottom. Looks fixed now. Ancheta Wis 00:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I oppose merging this article into Buddhist Religious Philosophy. There are many people including myself who try to adhere to Buddhist ideals and principles without being religious about it in any way. The two articles cover distinct areas of knowledge. The merge notice should be removed. Hu 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if Buddhist philosophy had strong religious association (for instance, if the philosophy were organised around questions seeking to justify faith and doctrine) it would still be legitimate in being kept separate from Buddhist religious philosophy or Buddhism in general ... there don't seem to be any proposals to rename the Christian philosophy page. A further argument is that Buddhist philosophy, in general, doesn't tend to be oriented toward the same things that scripture/doctrine based inquiries are oriented. There are many streams of inquiry in Buddhist philosophy that have nothing to do with attempts to confirm or refute doctrine or proposed religious entities. Buddhist philosophy tends to be more method than subject matter. (Leo T) 66.91.249.23 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because the new section is created in Buddhism article. Philosophy subsection in Buddhism has direct link to this article. Vapour

[edit] New Proposal-Renaming the title to Buddhism and Philosophy

The title is confusing. Metaphysics, Epistemology and Phenomenology are concept developed and belong to (Western) philosophy. Buddhism's idea should be explained in its own term probably by expanding the article about dependent origination. This article is essentially an comparative study and the title of the article should reflect on it, IMO. Vapour

I vote NO. The curent title is just fine. Making it Buddhism and philosophy implies something seperate, different from philosophy, which is incorrect to say. Buddhism is based on philosophy. Monkey Brain 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote, YES. So when will it move? Monkey Brain_(untalk) 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems we should then introduce some changes into the article to reflect the new title, shouldn't we?--Klimov 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops right, lol my bad for not realizing the obvious. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote YES. It seems to me highly controversial to consider the Buddhadharma being based on philosophy. Please see Buddhism#Intellectualism_and_Buddhist_worldview. --Klimov 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We could e.g. keep Buddhist philosophy as a redirect to Buddhism and Philosophy.--Klimov 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotect time?

Second revert on the same funny stuff in 2 days. Sprotect?--Klimov 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not agree to "Merger"

i am not to agree with 'Merger' title written here, as it states :"There are many people including myself who try to adhere to Buddhist ideals and principles without being religious about it in any way". Actually, there is a need for him to understand something: Buddhism is special. All of the Buddhist around the world wouldn't ignore this fact: Buddhism is 'the way of life', neither religion nor philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.190.124.133 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brahman

"The Yogacara school, somewhat later, would later elevate the mind to act as a substitute for brahman, much as the pudgala replaces the ātman." Can someone explain this? I think this is an oversimplification which results in not being true. Mitsube (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This article contradicts this. This was a misconception of early scholarship. The whole section is confused. Mitsube (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Other debates in metaphysics and phenomenology include the issue of the pudgala, or "person", which was postulated by the Pudgalavada school as that which transmigrates and which carries the burden of karma from one life to another. Other schools made unsurprising objection to this. There were further sub-debates regarding whether the pudgala was real or illusory or something in between.

This uncited sentence seems completely misleading and in fact false. No scholar would say that Yogachara is a monistic philosophy and this whole section is thus tainted. All schools have a fundamental level of mind which carries karma, how is the "pudgala" specifically controversial? Only if it were self-existent would there be controversy. Mitsube (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Later developments"

According to the article, "The main Buddhist philosophical schools are the Abhidharma schools, particularly Theravada and Sarvastivada (the latter includes the Madhyamika, Yogacara, Huayan, and Tiantai schools)."

Period.

Seriously, that half-sentence is all the article has to say about the various Mahayana schools which, if this were a scholarly publication, might be expected to take up (say) half the content.

Why is this? Has someone been reverting Mahayana material, or has no one ever edited here who was interested in those forms of Buddhism? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is not very well-organized. There is a great deal of Mahayana material before the "later developments" section, though there could be more in this article. Mitsube (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also absurd to describe the Mahayana schools as being included in Sarvastivada. 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context section

This quotation from Randall is too long to constitute fair use, and in any case long quotations do not constitute an encyclopedic style. It should be paraphrased. Also note that the style guidelines for quotations recommend avoiding wikilinks within quotations (i.e., the text should appear exactly as it does in the source). Where hypertextual elucidation of terms is desireable, paraphrase of the source material, integrating it into the article's own voice, is probably also merited. I'll see what I can do after digesting the content for a while, but someone more familiar with the philosophical discourse (Mitsube?) could probably do a better job than me. Thanks! /Ninly (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Mitsube (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work! /Ninly (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)