Talk:Buddhism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Specific issues

• The introduction states "Eventually, however (from the Mahayana viewpoint), the conditioned realm of karma needs to be transcended altogether". It doesn't seem accurate to specify Mahayana here; doesn't this apply to all Buddhists?

• Origins explains twice that Suddhodana was probably not a king: once in the second paragraph, and once near the end of the section.

• Other principles and practices has the following statements:
  • "it is better to call Buddhism agnostic" - this doesn't seem appropriate when deities are definitely acknowledged.
  • "Karma had taken the place of God in Theravada" - I'm not sure about this. Karma is certainly regarded highly, but should divinity be ascribed to it?
  • "the Buddha himself is venerated like God in Mahayana" - this comparison is tricky, given the wide range of views on the status of Gautama Buddha. If we mention God, it's too easy for the reader to misunderstand the nature of veneration for the Buddha. I think either this should be addressed in much more precise detail, or the statement should be removed entirely.

• The Noble Eightfold Path no longer explains that right understanding is typically considered vital to development of the other seven virtues.

• What is a Buddha? says Gautama Buddha is dharma made manifest. This seems unnecessarily cryptic. The section has also lost the statement "He claimed to be ... a teacher to guide those who choose to listen." in detailing the Mahayana view.

• Pratyekabuddhas are no longer mentioned, let alone the three types of buddhas.

I wrote the Buddha-God things, in the language I deemed fit. Thus, I did not explicitly state that Karma is God, or Buddha is God, but tried to answer the question--can a religion exist without God? You may address the issue more precisely, but do not remove it. Reference is a book on Indian Philosophy by Prof. H Sinha.Cygnus_hansa

Schools of Buddhism

How much detail should we go into on the different schools of Buddhism here? Some material about FWBO and Vajrayana was added today; is there a need to distinguish Vajrayana from Mahayana? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Buddhists, however, view a third type of Buddhism, found in Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal and Mongolia called Vajrayana. In the non Buddhist world this is often classed under Mahayana, although many of their practices and beliefs vary from those found in China and Japan. This is sometimes known as Tantric Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism. The supreme Buddha, or Bodhisattva, is Avalokiteśvara in Vajrayana.

There is a further, far smaller Buddhist movement called Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, which works in the western world, and India.

708 Million Followers

In the second paragraph, it says that Buddhism has approximately 708 million followers. Shouldnt this be rounded to a more general number? All I'm saying is 708 seems a bit... random. It'd best be rounded to either 700 or 800, so I'll change it to that. --Xer0X 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

700 million, yes, 800 million, no. 100 million people is quite a difference. There are on-line resources that state that the number of Buddhists world-wide are around 100-300 million [1], around 350 million [2] [3] [4] or 450 million [5]. With those numbers, saying 700 million almost seems a bit too excessive without making use of vigorous hand-waving and wishful extrapolation... The current text then goes on to say "There are estimates which are double that", which indeed needs proper citation! Andkaha^(talk) 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at article Buddhism by country, the main difference with the previous 300-350 million figure seems to come from the hefty addition of 390 million "Chinese Buddhists" (estimated in the article at 30% of the population). Usually, Japan instead is considered, at 90 million, the largest Buddhist country in the world. Whether China indeed has so many practicing Buddhist, I do not known, and I would tend to doubt. PHG 12:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

looking at the http://vipassanafoundation.com/Buddhists.html, they claim the number of Buddist is 1.6 billion not just 450 Million! 88.109.94.66 23:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

TBH, I'm not sure there is any real meaning to these "religions by country" statistics: If I look at the count of Christians in the UK, placed at 71.6% - what does this mean? About five years ago the number of regular church-goers (CoE - the largest denomination) in the UK dropped to less than 1 million; which reveals sometihng like 5% of the population are practicing Christians. Likewise, if we look at the Chinese population, a vast number of them 'believe in Buddha', and significantly fewer do much about it. Such demographic statistics are always going to be plagued by political agenda - there is no way to clearly describe what is, and what is not, a practitioner of religion. (20040302)

This article contradicts itself, saying 708 million at the top and then below "estimates of the number of buddhists range from 250 to 500 million, with 350 million being the accepted figure.

This is probably bad.

External links (and below)

This section should not be in this article whatsoever. We can have a separate link, or alternatively, use the Buddhism by country as a way of devolving links to different centres, activities and organisations. We can use the portal, but this article is far too large to carry what in many cases is an advertisement. (20040302 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Buddhism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Buddhism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In Buddhism, there is nothing really to forgive because one shouldn't be attached to it in the first place. Here is an example of something which is related to it.

"He insulted me, he hurt me, he defeated me, he robbed me." Those who think such thoughts is not free from hate.

"He insulted me, he hurt me, he defeated me, he robbed me." Those who think no such thoughts is free from hate.

For hate is not conqured by hate: hate is conqured by equanimity (this can be translated as love or compassion). This is law eternal.

Buddhism is more heavy on Ethic of reciprocity. Not that heavy on the idea of sin. So forgiveness is not quite relevant. Forgiveness is more Christian theology thingy. FWBOarticle

The above was quoted from the first section of the Dhammapada, see e.g. [6] and other places. --- Andkaha^(talk) 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andkaha- I really appreciate the information and it provides a good starting point. I would like to push the people on this page a little harder. I believe the writing should come from those familiar with the nuisances of the various traditions. Perhaps we could concentrate on the purpose or content of the concept of being free from resentment and not get too hung up on the form of the words. I am guessing that there may be more common ground between religions and philosophies than we believe at first blush. We will see. I know that the Dalai Lama coauthored a book entitled The Wisdom of Forgiveness. [7] So I hope we can dig a little deeper. I thought it would be a worthwhile project to compare and contrast the various thoughts on the subject by soliciting input for a NPOV article from those knowledgeable in the various traditions. Thanks again for the speedy reply and any further information you are willing to provide! --speet 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear speet, Check out the message archives of my forgivenessBuddhism Yahoo Group. Here is a sample: Sayadaw U Silananda taught: Summary To minimize hindrances to progress in meditation practice, one should begin each session with "Forgiveness". Free or minimize your guilt by asking for forgiveness. Free or minimize your anger by forgiving others. And, if needed, forgive yourself. -- dhammapal 17:03 Sydney time 7 April 2006

Zen and Theravada?

This page makes the rather confusing claim that Zen in Japan is based on Theravada Buddhism. I'm going to change it, but I am really curious as to why this was written in the first place. Ig0774 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The complete translation of Southern Canon (i.e. Pali Canon) occured about 60 years ago and I belive Japan was the first to do so within Oriental Mahayana tradition. Since then, there has been a movement within Japanese Mahayana to put Pali Cannon as the most authoritative cannon, though this doen't amount to rejection of Mahayana cannons or theology. This is most pronounced in some of Japanese Zen school due to the fact that they don't make much use of scriptures in the first place. FWBOarticle

I forgot to mention "Mahayana Non-Buddhist Prevalent Theory" (大乗非仏説) which started in early 18th century during Togugawa Shogunate by Nakamoto Tominaga. It basically proclaimed that Hinayana preceded Mahayana, and Mahayana is a sophisticated reconstruction of Hinayana scriptures and theology. This has been a major controversy in Japanese buddhism ever since. I belive Japan is the only major Oriental Mahayana where this type of theory has been dominant. After the translation of Pali Cannon and the intoroduction of western philology, main contention of MNBPT is accepted at least among scholars. What MNBPT as formulated in 18th ceutry differed from Theravada view is that it consider only part of Sanskrit Hinayana sutras (mostly verse attributed to Ananda) as likely actual words of Buddah. The theory also speculated that small part of Abhidharma Pitaka to contain actual anaylsys and commentaries on sutra by Buddah. It's a big topic in itself if you add Theravada view on this. Might do it if this page has been sorted out. FWBOarticle

Proposal, March 14 2006

Looking over all the work which has gone before, I'd like to make a proposal.

The introduction is rediculously bloated. Chop it down to cover the some very basic points. I'd start with

1. Buddhism is a religion and philosophy.
2. Buddhism was founded by Sidhartha Gautama, who also came to be referred to as the Buddha Shakyamuni or Gautama Buddha.
3. Adherents of Buddhism, called Buddhists, are concerned with finding an end for the suffering they perceive as being inherent to existance.

Next, a section for History, from the founding to the present time, with the briefest mention, of course, of the Buddha being someone who found a way to the end of suffering.

Next, a section for Sects can outline Theravada and Mahayana, Vajrayana, and sects.

Okay, that's my start. There no doubt needs to be more, but it'd be nice to hammer out an outline, then put information into it. Other sections that exist, many aren't really appropriate. A section, at the top, about the Buddha, contains information more appropriate to an article about the Buddha. Here, what is important is hammering out enough about the Buddha to say who he is in the history section. Controversies surrounding the Buddha Lands, Buddha Bodies, Buddha Nature, (and the denial of such concepts) will start to roll out quite intelligibly in the section for Sects. Other sections may also be needed, but not one on the Buddha, given that there's an article or two for that already. Also, it'd be good to totally get rid of the sections which already have articles of their own. The contained concepts can be mentioned, and will come up as they are discussed in other sections (it'll start in the two subsections I've already suggested, I'm certain of it!) anyway. Given that they HAVE their own articles, they do not need sections to themselves within this article. Perhaps a section on Related Concepts can list them with links to the articles, if that seems a good idea.

Before I stop, I want to stress that my foremost point is that I think that an outline, hammered out here, would be very, very useful. And I mean just an outline of sections which it seems good to include. What I've included is my suggestion for the start of this outline, plus reasons why I think the sections I've suggested are a good starting place, and why other sections seem to be NOT a good idea to me. Discussion on this level just seems a decent first step at wading through this to me. It's nice to meet you; I hope for ensuing discussion to be useful.--Beginnermind 05:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi BM, seems like a reasonable start. Do you anticipate any objections? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ram Bomjan

I created the Ram Bomjan, the Buddha boy article. Could someone take a look and possibly expand? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That article has existed for a long time at Ram Bahadur Bomjon. I think it's been redundantly created at alternate spellings at least once before, too. Sorry for the inconvenience! Incidentally, you can help by thinking of other spellings and making sure redirects exist. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC) PS - Please stop calling him "the Buddha boy"—Buddhists can be expected to find that slightly offensive, and I get the impression he doesn't want to be called that, either.

Overall edit

Looking at the Buddhism article, it seems to me that it is still in fairly urgent need of a good, solid copyedit. I was a bit disappointed that a bit more didn't get done in that direction a couple months ago when FWBOarticle, Random Task, and others were pushing for reforms, although I don't mean to endorse (or critique) any particular proposals that were made then. I just think it's unfortunate that the rounds of discussion ended producing inaction rather than a good solution. I'd like to suggest that we should follow the philosophy that I call the Cycle of Boldness (see here): begin by boldly editing the article in the direction that you want it to go; then, boldly revert, remove, or alter changes that you don't like; make sure not to get upset or discouraged by this; also don't plod along in an edit conflict (not a major problem on this page so far, but it is on a lot of other pages)—instead, hash out the disagreement on the talk page until some sort agreement is reached. Then, the cycle begins again as more changes are boldly made. It's important to remember that, especially for a fairly mature article like this one, good editing means subtraction as well as addition, if that's what will improve the article.

Speaking of addition, one of the things that I plan to do when I'm editing this article is to re-integrate the sections of the article that were chopped out by Rama's Arrow to make Buddhists and Buddhist religious philosophy. I do think that what we have now is too long and I agree that the way to deal with that problem is to break out sub-articles. However, this is not so pressing of a problem that it needs to be done haphazardly. Buddhist religious philosophy is a good example of the problems that can arise: this essentially chopped out the article's discussion of the difference between Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana, placing it in an out-of-the-way location. This, however, is an important subject that needs to be covered somehow in this article; so new editors naturally tended to add information on that subject, so that the section gradually regenerated itself from scratch. The result is redundancy. In the future, let's discuss the creation of sub-articles on the talk page before implementing it.

I like Beginnermind's "Proposal, March 14 2006" quite well, particularly as regards the intro. I'm not sure about the idea of having an outline for the entire article on the talk page ... I say "not sure" just because that's not the way it's been done on other Wikipedia articles.

One more thing: a long, long time ago, I implied, hinted, or threatened that I would reorganise the images that appear in this article. I still plan to do that. However, I'm going to have to wait until we get the article down to an appropriate size, since, until then, I won't know how much room we have for images.

I'm going to get started in a couple weeks, but, of course, everyone else is free, welcome, and encouraged to get as get as much done as they'd like right away. Cheers, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. Good luck to both you and Beginnermind. The sooner it starts the better. I also like the structure suggested, but will don't necessarily want it to be set in stone. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very good! I think outlining, as I proposed, is a decent course of action where there have been previous revert wars. I'm new to wikipedia, but I found it useful on the (yes, smaller and specialized) Sensei's Library. Maybe a balance between both, a little outlining, a little bold changing. Mostly, I'm interested in organizing information out of the introduction and various subsections into more comprehensive subsections, but this can be accomplished on the fly as well. I also think slow and steady does it. A mass gutting here is not, looking over the talk page, taken very well. So, I think if I get some time very soon, (or someone else can do it!) I'll start throwing up those nifty edit boxes onto some subcategories, boxes that can say where the info should probably be merged to on and off this article, and then those can stay up while relevant information gets popped into new subcategories of THIS article to stop redundancies from popping up mid-edit, and then the remainder can get swept onto another article page. If that sounds nice. --Beginnermind 01:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of merging information about, moving stuff from this article to the Buddha article for instance, before deleting most of the info in the Buddha section. That's a nightmare. The Buddha article is also a battleground. So, I think maybe a big restructuring is the only way to go. Maybe I'm not experienced enough, though ... maybe there's room for everything to be fixed up and copyedited. But I can't make much sense at all from the current article. It's all been claused and sub-claused and sub-sub-claused into a mess of contradiction. I hope that a more strict structure, starting with current real-life divisions, and then outlining the history of those divisions, might give both a better survey of Buddhism and at the same time supply a structure which would more naturally hold the information we'd all like to present.

Anyway, here's my outline of sections, I don't know that I can be of much other use than this. I hope people find it useful.

1. Introduction. Very basic outline of the founding of Buddhism (details and controversy left for the Buddha article), which does a good job of explaining what it's about.
2. Major Schools. Division of Therevada and Mahayana as it's found today. Talk about the Pali cannon and the Sanskrit cannon. Talk about the idea of appropriate means found within the Mahayana but not the Therevada (or, I guess, the different view of what constitutes appropriate means, and the large stress that Mahayana gives to it? Hey, this is why I'm not writing this sucker) and the consequences of this. Talk about the Arhan, and talk about the expansion of what constitutes a Bodhisattva in Mahayana sects, Mahayana views on the hearers and the self-enlightened contrasted to the Therevada views. Talk about the stress, in general, on the Four Truths given in Thereva and the Paramitas in the Mahayana and all that fun stuff.
3. History. History of Buddhism, from the Paranirvana of the Buddha to today. Lots of neat stuff about the ideas of how Mahayana developed, and how Therevada developed. Schisms and traditional expansions, textual studies and such.
4. Sects. Listing of sects and distinguishing ideas. Here's where the difference between a Zen Buddhist and a Pure Land Buddhist can go. Fun, fun.

The actual practices and beliefs can be tracked from this page to their own articles. Anything that doesn't get shoe-horned into those sections, delete mercilessly.

I don't know if that's of any use, but that's just the only way I could see through. I have a hard time making any sense of the information as presented on the current page: different ideas are brought to bear on ideas from diverse viewpoints and then rage out of control as people fail to see the other possible point of view. So that's why the radical restructure seems a good idea to me. Present things which are divided as being divided in the first place. Division is okay, after all. If we get attached to non-duality, we get hit by a bus, right?;) This way, points of view can be presented AS points of view. I think. Maybe. That any good? --Beginnermind 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

I just re-added the stuff Rama's Arrow had taken out. There wasn't as much as I thought (some of it had already been re-added by PHG and possibly others). I plan to do an overall copyedit of the article sometime when FWBOa takes a breather just for spelling, grammar, and any blatant weirdness that might have snuck in. For more substantial issues, I plan to wait until Fooby finishes his overhaul before getting started. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding history part bit difficult. But overall revamp of Doctrine part is finished. Several use of terminologies are probably off as you pointed out. Can't do much about my Engrish either. :) FWBOarticle

Formatting problem

What's up with the formating in the Origins section? It doesn't wrap, so you have to scroll horizontally. I've tried to debug it but I'm not that au fait with the Wikipedia formatting codes. Sciamachy 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Rycanada 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a buddhist, but...

The Mahayana vs Theravada stuff mixed in really makes this article confusing and I'd rather get an understanding of Buddhism in a more general sense before getting confused about what tradition appeals or doesn't appeal to me philosophically. I think it should be a sub-section and lead to other articles. Rycanada 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and several editors have been saying it for some time now. It is perhaps best to not mix in the Mahayana versus Theravada stuff at all. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think that defining the schism to start with would keep the article whole. The problem is that different sects don't know that other sects look at things THEY consider "core Buddhism" to be an offshoot. And even "offshoot" is often the wrong word. "What's a Buddha, what's that mean" and "what's a Buddhist?" are questions answered differently in different sects, and very markedly differently depending on Therevada and Mahayana. So, what's Buddhism depends on who you ask. The point of agreement is simply that a man looking for a way to end the suffering he saw in the world found something worth the effort to find for ourselves. At least, that's what I think, beyond different ways of saying the same thing. So, start with that and, beyond that, complete the answer to "What's Buddhism?" with "It's Theravada and Mahayana, and here's what those are each about. Arhan on the one side, and Bodhisattva on the other." Then each side can also define their own "ideal" instead of arguing with the other. Then further define other sects only later, briefly, because those are usually in agreement with the Mahayana ... mood.

Basically, instead of mixing it all in, it'd be nice to have a clear-cut seperation, and it'd be just asking for total meltdown again to make the article a unified whole, given that Buddhism ISN'T. I think, but that's one opinion.--Beginnermind 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If the entire article read: "Buddhism is a general term for two different religions: [Mayahana] and [Theravada]. They have nothing in common." and the [Mahayana] and [Theravada] articles were well-written accounts of those religions, it'd be more helpful than the current mess. Rycanada 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think it would be enlightening what people would suddenly choose to agree upon if that were the starting point, instead of the current mess. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've altered the first paragraph slightly to make it flow better and include this division... let's see where it goes from here. Rycanada 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Greetings. I've started a new wikiproject just for Tibetan Buddhism. Please check it out if interested - it is intended to complement the existing, more general project. WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism

Another attempt at revamp

I will give a shot at sorting out this mess. But this time, I will do it one at the time.

• Introduction of the article should be a summary of the article itself. At this point, however, it is near impossible to summarise this article in concise manner. So, as a temporary measure, the separate introduction section should stay as a damping section.

• I will tackle "Origin" section. I will rename the section as "Siddhartha Gautama" so the entire sectionc can be summary of a separate sister page. In that way, many content of this section can be forked out as needed. FWBOarticle

Siddhartha Gautama

I titled it Siddhartha Gautama instead of Guatama Buddha because this section include much of life of Siddhartha Gautama before he become Gautama Buddha. Plus, Siddhartha Gautama is more historical reference. FWBOarticle

I deleted mythological detail like baby Buddha pointing toward heaven at his birth and so on. Trivial detail with lot of different version of the event. Important info, imo, is that he was born a prince, a seer predicted that he will become a great holy man or a king, shielded him from suffering, four sight of suffering, he was married with kid but still left his kingdom. Historical reinterpretation of the legend can be found in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I also intend to fork out some historical revision about life of Buddha to Gautama Buddha article. Whether his hometown was republic or kingdom is a historical interest but add little substance to the knowledge of buddhism per se. One can read these detailed info in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I deleted Āyācana Sutta because (1) Siddhartha Gautama becoming Gautama Buddha is a good point to end the section (2) Gautama Buddha wondering whether he should teach dharma or not, imo, doesn't add much insight into what buddhism is. (3) The entire portion is duplicated in Gautama Buddha article. FWBOarticle

I hope the section has been trimmed enough to be concise while still providing all important information relevant to buddhism. If anyone feel that any edit is theravada or mahayana biased, please make it neutral rather than theravada/mahayana dual edit. I will leave it for a while to see if people are happy with this. See ya. FWBOarticle

"Who is Buddha" and "Major Sects" section

Historical/academic narrrative wise, the period between time of Buddha and about 100 years after his death, is described as Early Buddhism. The period after the great split between theravaada/sthaviravaada and mahaasaaGghika is usually described as 部派仏教(lit-tran faction buddhism, or Nikaya Buddhism) in Oriental East Mahayana and and Theravada so I assume Tibetan variation use the same desigination. (see Schools of Buddhism) One of faction of theravaada, is known as sarvaastivaadin, and they grown to become one of the biggest faction. Later Mahayana criticism of "Theravada" buddhism (see Nagarjuna) is mainly directed at this sarvaastivaadin teaching, especially the one which consider dharmas to exist in all of "the three times" (past, present, and future). However, despite the fact that Mahayana contain teaching of Nikaya Buddhism, the entire Nikaya Buddhism has been designated as Hinayana, hence dual usage of Nikaya as a desigination of Hinayana/Theravada school(s) as well as a designation to describe the entire period of buddhism between the great split and the emergence of Mahayana. Before we get into Theravada/Mahayana disambiguation or "Who/What is Buddsah" question which is just a part of this Theravada/Mahayana thingy, we need to explain Nikaya Buddhism first. Otherwise, we can't explain the context and controversy of Theravada and Mahayana. FWBOarticle

The doctrines and teachings of Buddhism

Three marks, 4 truth and 8 path are doctrine while triple gem, 5 precepts (and the rest of vinaya), reincarnation, vegetarianism are teaching derived from these doctrine. It is like difference between key policies (NPOV, What Wikipedia is Not, Copyleft) and the rest of policies. To treat all of these as somewhat equal make presentation difficult and confusing especially for people who are not buddhist. FWBOarticle

FWBy, what's your source on the Pali and Sanskrit terms you added for the 8fold path? What's up with the capitalised letters in the middle of words? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Three or Four marks of existence?

Japanese wikipedia's buddhism portal has both three and four marks of existence. anicca (impermanence), Anatta (no self) nirvana (cecession of suffering), dukkha (suffering). 3marks of existence include the first three. Moreover, 3 marks "classification" is not the direct teaching of Buddha. Naagarjuna, in his writing, recommended to people who cannot yet end the craving to focus on three "type/kind" of marks of Buddhadharma, because there are three type/kind/class of marks in Buddhadharma. The actual ussage of the term "Three Dharma Seals" appear in the commenary written by Harivarman in 4AD. 4 marks of existence appear in yogaacaarabhuumi-zaastra, योगाचारभूमिशास्, which was written by Asanga.

I don't believe the classification which first appear in commentaries (though written by extremly eminent scholars) should be represented as what Buddha taught. It mere attempt at systemisation of Buddha's teaching by later sholars. I believe that three marks of exsistence should be replaced by Pratitya-samutpada (Dependent Origination), which is common to all Schools of Buddhism. It is somewhat similar to NPOV which has spawn Verifiability and No Original Research, which form the trinity of NPOV policy. FWBOarticle

In Theravada, "three marks of dharma" are anicca anatta and dukkha. In Mahayana, "Three Dharma Seals" are anicca, anatta and nirvana and "Four Dharma Seals" are anicca, anatta, nirvana and dukka. Vapour

Doctrines

I intend to concentrate on "Dependent Origination", "Four Noble Truths" and "The (Noble) Eight Hold Paths". FWBOarticle

I intend to eliminate this section from this article because all three marks are already explained and contextualised in Dependent origination section. However, I do not wish to cause loss of content, so I will transfer materials into sister pages. FWBOarticle

After looking at 8holdpath, I realised that part of "other teaching" can be revived into doctrine. That is Triple Gems, Precepts/Vinaya and Meditation. FWBOarticle

"Buddha-nature", "Buddhism and reality", "Who is Buddha"

I believe that these argument are part of "Dependend Origination", because it is all about impernance and the state of nirvana. Obviously, if I shaft these section, it would cause outcry because many would consider it as POV forking. However, duplication of issues, argument and controversies are not desirable in any article especially when the article is the main/platform article. I believe that introducing "Early Buddhism" "Nikaya Buddhism" (not referening to modern theravada school but refering to entire schools of buddhism before the emergence of manayana) and "Rise of Mahayana Buddhism" section would enable these issued to be place in proper context of development of Buddhist theology. The issue of the nature of nirvana, hence Buddha nature, i think, was raised by Nagarjuna in his rebuttal to one of Nikaya school. So obviously, the relevance is there. Just that current presentation does not provide proper context within this article or within Buddhism. FWBOarticle

The begining of the debate over the nature of nirvana can be attributed to Nikaya schools and Nagarjuna's criticism of one of nikaya schools' interpretation, which eventually led to Madhyamaka school. Opposing the perspective of Madhyamaka school is Yogacara school which makes the mention of the idea of "Buddah nature". FWBOarticle

"Other teachings of Buddhism" section forking

I'm quite sure this can cause lot of POV forking dispute. So I will explain every fork I make. But let me assure you from the beginning that I do not intent to fork out "nature of nirvana" (Buddha nature) topic from this article because it has a significant relevance in term of rise of mahayana theology. FWBOarticle

Reality in Buddhist Sutra

This is sooo part of Dependent origination. The content of this section exactly duplicate each other. My suggestion is as follow. Change title of the article from "Reality in Buddhist Sutra" to "Reality in Buddhism". Moreover, the dependent origination section has following intro.

The enlightenment (Bodhi) of the Buddha Gautama was simultaneously his liberation from suffering and his insight into the nature of the phenomenon.

I will switch phenomenon to reality and wikilink the term reality to "reality in Buddhism" article. Moreover, I insert the same edit in "Pratitya-samutpada" article. Furtremore, to ensure that the article won't disappear from buddhism portal structure by someone who delete the term "reality", I will add "Reality in Buddhism" article to newly introduced "See also" section which list other important articles relevant to "Dependent Origination" article. FWBOarticle

Ah, the whole reasong that this article got into a trouble was due to the fact that every different schools of buddhism trying to advance their version of interpretation of buddhist doctrine. This article shouldn't be a soapbox for every different school of buddhism, IMO. I don't think an particlar interpretation of particular topic of buddhism by a school of Tibetan Buddhism of Vajrayāna Buddhism (which include tibettan chinese and japanese school) deserve to be in this article. I think this is going toward "what wikipedia is not" which state that "wikipedia is not indiscrimate collection of information/knowledge" and "wikipedia is not a soapbox". FWBOarticle

Karma, Rebirth and Samsara

This section is the same. It is part of Dependent Origination. I will create wikilink in "Dependent Origination" section, then delete this portion. FWBOarticle

God

Gods, though mentioned in buddhist scriptures doens't really have relevance in term of buddhist teaching. And if one want to compare Buddhism to "the God" based religion, that should be done in "relationship with other faiths" section. I will transfere the content to "relationshiip with other faiths". FWBOarticle

Vegetarianism

As far as I understand it, even among mahayana schools which practice vegetarianims, the issue is not regarded as the central doctrine of buddhism. Unlike misconception held by some, in Mahayana, the justification of vegetarianism in theological term is not the first precept but the compassion of boddisatva. Still, as I understand it, some do hold view that it is related to the first precept. So I will add wikilink in first precept and boddisatva article so the relevance of the topic is placed in more appropriate context. FWBOarticle

I placed "Vegetarianism in Buddhism" into Five precepts and Bodhisattva article. Given the lack of commentaries which specifically state that meat eating violate the first precept, this may be an inappropriate placement. Still, I'm quite sure that people who are looking for information about vegetarianism in buddhism would go there first. I will add vegetarianism in buddhism to the vegetarianism article. FWBOarticle

Buddha Nature

This section is obviously a part of "Who is Buddha" issue. Therefore, I will merge this two portion into one. As I said, I intend to keep thise Nature of Nirvana/Buddha, because it is actually the ongoing controversy in all buddhist schools. FWBOarticle

Buddhist texts

I need to do this section before the history because history section contains too much infor so I need to fork it out as much as possible. I found "Buddhist texts" article. There must be a lot of orphaned buddhist articles which are lost. FWBOarticle

History of Buddhism

I will introduce three sections, Early Buddhism, Nikaya Buddhism and Rise of Mahayana. I believe this make the later sectarian disambiguation easier. FWBOarticle

This section might initially bloat due to the attempt to contextualise many controversies which has been raised here. I start from Early Buddhism-Nikaya Buddhism. FWBOarticle

Wisdom/Pana subsection in the doctrine section

The sister article is not that great so I didn't add this part in the Doctrine section. But isn't there a way to systemise practice of pana in term of doctrine like meditation (samadhi) and 5precept (sila)? I mean "Listening Dharma Talk", "Studying of texts and commentaries", "Debate among scholars" and so on have to be part of Pana. Isn't there any Saskrit/Pali term which denote Learning/Studying in Buddhism which is commonly recognised by all school of buddhism? FWBOarticle

Abortion

There's a section in the Religion and abortion article about the Buddhist view Religion_and_abortion#Buddhism. Please take a moment (it's a short section) to review and verify it's presenting an accurate view and not giving undue weight to any particular sect. Feel free to add and change. The sources at this point seem very limited.--Pro-Lick 02:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mizuko is Shinto origin. Anyone who is not officially committed to shrine as members were refered as Mizuko. Because Shinto was merged into Buddhism in mideval period, shinto rite of spirit calming and Buddhist concept of bodhisatvva was merged. Explaing the relationship between shintoism and buddhism takes too much time. Mizuko Kuyo should not be described as a "Buddhist" practice. It is very unique to Japanese Buddhism. FWBOarticle

Bloating of History section

As I stated previously, the section is bloated. And it's only up to first 500 years of Buddhism! What I intend to do is to add the history of Chinese Buddhism at the end of Mahayana section, add the history of Tibettan Buddhism at the end of Vajrayana section, add the history of Theravada Buddhism at the end of "Theravada Renaissance" section. Once "Buddhism Today" section is done, I will try to trim it. FWBOarticle

You know that History of Buddhism exists, right? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but, IMO, it was lacking in Nikaya/Hinayana history which is essential in explaining Mahayana/Theravada controversies. I believe I did o.k. in streamlining doctrine section. Previous version had three separate sections dealing with teaching of Buddhism. Reality in Buddhism is out of place imo but I don't feel like having an edit war right now. I'm just happy that, so far, most people seems to be o.k. with the overall direction of my edit.

My main idea is to establish correct section structures of article in term of overall Buddhism portal. Then it become easy to fork out contents to sister articles. Now, I know where Buddah-nature debate belong, I thik I can eventually submerge buddah nature section into Mahayana and Vijrayana narratives. FWBOarticle

FWBOarticle is Vapour

Someone suggested that my username is not helpful to conducting edit in Buddhism related article. For me, it was just the name of an article I edited first. I will be known as Vapour from now on. Vapour

Third Buddhist Council

In one of Japanese website, it was stated that there is no record of the third council by Ashoka in Mahayana buddhism or edicts of Ashoka. To be honest, I never come across a mention of the third council attributed to some Mahayana buddhist texts. If this is ture, the claim by Theravada about the authority of Pali Cannon is merely self referential. If someone can provide mention of the third council in Mahayana text, (such as 異部宗輪論) I'm eager to see it. Vapour

Is there any record of any of the Buddhist councils in Mahayana texts (other than the later Mahayana councils, which are, of course, not mentioned in Theravada texts)? My impression was that the "standard" historical account of early Buddhism being defined by the two councils derives from Theravada traditional history. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I went around few Japanese Buddhist sites. They either attributed the Third council to Theravada narrative or didn't specify the source. Given that most Japanese buddhist org are versed in Chinese Mahayana cannons, it is likely that there are no mention of the third council in Mahayana transmission. Anyway, the burden of proof is on positive proof so someone have to to cite a reference of the third council from mahayana text. As far as I can see, mahayana seem to accept Pali cannon as "a" Nikaya/Hinayana cannon. Another nikaya cannon is transmitted and kept by Mahayana so this seems to be the reason why mahayana do not see pali cannon as the authoritative Nikaya/Hinayana cannon. Vapour

I found out why the third buddhist council is often accepted as a historical fact. There are no record of ancient india except buddhist sources. This appear to be due to india's reliance on oral transmission, muslim invasion and other various factors. So until recently, the history of ancient india could be learned only from buddhist sources. So if a theravada source say that the third council happened, then it is often reported as such. But the standard of academic history usually require corresonding independent sources for something to qualify as a historical fact. So in academic term, it was stated as heresay. Recently, the edicts of Asoka has been decoded. It appear that Asoka was a buddhist but he accepted all different belief. So when the edit mention "dharma" it is not talking about "buddhadharma" but "dharma" for all belief. That may be one reason there is no mention of 4truth/8path mentioned in asoka's edict. Vapour

Reality in Buddhism

It seems, somebody, who removes a section, should be starting the discussion here and put arguments for such removal. --Klimov 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, it's not much a section. It says that Buddhists see perceived reality as being unreal. This is an extremely complicated and nuanced subject (basically requiring an englightened being to address). It cites one Mahayana sutra, possibly specific to Vajrayana (I've never heard of the Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra off the top of my head, and you've written the title in such a way that I can't google search it), while stating that this is the position of Buddhism in general. What is the argument for including this section? The page is too long as it stands. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

* As it stands, it's not much a section. Yes. There was a longer section before. It seems Vapour formerly known as FBO... deleted it together with the link to a new page Reality in Buddhism that he/she created and moved the content into.
* This is an extremely complicated and nuanced subject (basically requiring an englightened being to address). This issue appears to me in a different way. I remember that majority of books on Indian philosophy (chapters on Buddhism) that I've read some twenty years ago stated that very simple: unreal.
* It cites one Mahayana sutra, possibly specific to Vajrayana (I've never heard of the "Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra" off the top of my head, and you've written the title in such a way that I can't google search it)... I do not feel sure that the sutra belongs to the Mahayana tradition. I've found the reference in a book by Elías Capriles (this you can get from the web: The Four Schools of Buddhist Philosophy). And Dr. Capriles have found the reference in the famous The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism by Dudjom Rinpoche (vol. I, p. 219, Dudjom Rinpoche, J. Y. D. English 1991; trans.: Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein, The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications.)
* The page is too long as it stands. That seems a matter of opinion. It seems that all central issues of Buddhadharma should be addressed in the article, even if as a summary and with links for further reading.--Klimov 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the title, "reality in Buddhism" is in reference to Western Philosophy of metaphysics. Because English is derived from western cultural tradition, the title looks somewhat natural. But if I have to translate this article into Japanese, for example, the title of the section is just bizzare. It's almost equivelant to having "Dharma in Christianity" next to "trinity" section in the main article of Christianity. Moreover, it appear that you are advancing your edit from your knowledge in Dzogchen. But, if you look further, you see that Dream analogy is the continuation of debate between Madhyamaka and Yogacara. I do not belive it is a good editing to duplicate "Dependent origination" section just so that someone can insert Mahayana theology in guise of western metaphysics as the main doctrine of all buddhism. Vapour

* the title, "Reality in Buddhism" is in reference to Western Philosophy Probably. It seems that the majority of people who read this in English wikipedia come from some Western cultural background.
* ...it appear that you are advancing your edit from your knowledge in Dzogchen. It seems to me different. The content that you moved into Reality in Buddhism contains 2 drastically different POVs.
* I do not belive it is a good editing to duplicate "Dependent origination" section just so that someone can insert Mahayana theology in guise of western metaphysics as the main doctrine of all buddhism. It seems, if one does not agree with Mahayana theology [?], one could write about this disagreement and leave a short section in place (possibly marked as controversial) with the link to the Reality in Buddhism article that you created.--Klimov 09:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV specifically state that your argument is not a wikipedia argument. Having "Darma in Christianity" subsection in "Doctrine" section of Chritianity is not o.k. in any language version of wikipedia. Vapour

* It does not feel very much correct what is written in NPOV:Anglo-American_focus.
* If you translate Reality as Dharma, this seems from incorrect understanding of the word Reality in the English language.--Klimov 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You already stated that majority of audience is westerners and therefore, the term reality is suitable for them, which is not what wikipedia is about. Moreover, I did not say reality and dharma is equivelant. In fact, i said it is not. Because dharma is the fundamental concept of indian philosophy, it is wrong to insert it in the doctrine section of chritianity. Because "reality" is the fundamental concept of Western philosophy of metaphysics, it is wrong to insert it in the doctrine section of buddhism. Vapour

Now it seems that I understand what you are saying. This suspicion came to me yesterday while reading Manjushrimitra. Now you confirmed this insight. I seriously thank you. I intend to create a new "Buddhist worldview" section and express this your idea in a way that would be understandable for people with western cultural background. --Klimov 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on this issue, for whatever its worth. That "reality" is considered "unreal" certainly can be attributed to certain Mahayana texts (this is basically the theme of the better-known Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra) — of course, this does not mean it can be attributed to all Mahayana schools. However, it is not clear that this opinion can be attributed to Theravada (pratitya samutpada ≠ "illusionary existence"). It is true that delusion is part of this chain, and that this delusion is about the nature of things, but this is not the same as saying those things don't exist (this part is Mahayana "theology"). It seems in Theravada there is a tension between delusive "reality" and Nibbana (with the exact nature of Nibbana remaining the provence of enlightened beings only). Incidentally, "dharma" is a valid translation of "reality" (hence the interpretation of "Abhidharma" as something like "metaphysics" — a comparison that works on several levels), but it is not the only Buddhist term that can translate what is covered by the English word "reality". Another prominent candidate is "samsara" and even "pratitya samutpada".

Interesting.--Klimov 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it wouldn't be essentially wrong to talk about "dharma" in Christianity (provided it was somewhat qualified), in fact, such attempts exist (and by Western Christians, too), but one must be cautious of how one approaches such a subject. Similarly, it is not entirely invalid to talk about "reality" in Buddhism, but, again, one's approach must be properly qualified and careful (remembering that the English word "reality" does not always align properly to Buddhist concepts). Ig0774 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ig0774: ...remembering that the English word "reality" does not always align properly to Buddhist concepts.
Yes! --Klimov 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A Mahayana source?

Klimov: "I do not feel sure that the sutra belongs to the Mahayana tradition." I'm not sure what you mean by that. There are two possible interpretations, depending on whether you consider Vajrayana to be part of Mahayana or not. The sutra in question is certainly either a Mahayana text or a Vajrayana text, because Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. If it is specific to Vajrayana, that makes it even less authoritative as a reference for Buddhism in general.

Beyond on that, I don't think I will have any further comment on this issue. The question of how Buddhism understands reality is too complicated and nuanced for me to be able to readily explain it in an NPOV fashion. I'm not going to interfere one way or the other with attempts to do so. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. Thanks, Nat. I was not aware of that.--Klimov 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My Two Yen

If you want my 2 yen, the whole problem is this historgaphy that buddhism developed in order of Hinayana(Theravada) -> Mahayana -> Vijryana. So the "earlier" school try to claim that their teaching remain unaltered hence their teaching are better than the rest while the later school try to claim that their teaching existed from the beginning of time but remain secret because it was more "advanced", so their teaching are better than the rest. It's like saying "my dad is better than your dad". If you look at the textual evidence, certain mahayana theology or sutra pop up only after certain time period of history. And more importantly, modern Theravada are results of changes and even schism. They just don't like to talk about it that much. :D Vapour

External Links

"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". "Wikipedia articles are not [m]ere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such."

I will delet links which merely promote particular organisation. There must be 1000s buddhist organisations. Please revive it in the article which deal with each organisation.

There are just toooooo many.(1) I will delete links which is associated with one branch or one organisation of buddhism. No promo (2) Delete link which deal with particular topics or aspect of buddhism which ouguth to be posted in sister articles. (3) have commercial aspect (I make exception to sponsor which may be needed to run the site as long as it is not too overt.). Vapour

Comparative Study

This section need to be forked out. As a whole, it is a valid and interesting subject. I love to see, for example, "Science and Buddhism" section expanded. Buddhadharma in Dharma tradition as well as (western) philosophical interpretation of buddhism is interesting as well. Some might want to investigate the relation of buddhism with state. Unfortunately, the section is free for all topic so it should be trimmed to manageable size. Vapour

I forked content out. Now the article size is 48kb. Yippii!!. Vapour

All acceptt the idea of a supreme being whether it in theistic form or ?

O.k. my philosophy is bit rusty. There are two form of supreme being, one is trancendent (theistic) and the other is one is universe (close to hinduism). I can't remember the term describing this later concept. Can anyone help? Vapour

Found it. Pantheism Vapour

Quick question

Doesn't it make more sense to talk about the history of Buddhism after introducing the three main sects? Ig0774 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Three main division of buddhism makes no sense unless you talk about history. Buddhism in Pali, Tibettan, Chinese develop separately after Buddhism in India disappear. Vapour

Theravada part of history is still a stub. There are schism which prompt one school to commit Pali cannon in writing. Then Sri Lankan Buddhism split into three. The most influencial one around 5th century incoporated Mahayana. Then at about 9th to 10th century, the current theravada school become the state religion uniting different schools and subsequently eliminating the original schism, which, in turn, lead to 11th century Theravada Renaissance. As far as I can see there are one single history of Buddhism upto 11-12th century centred around India. IMO, clear distinction of three yana happen when buddhism was adopted to different culture outside of india. Vapour 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist world view

ah, Kilmov, you must know that edit in wikipedia should not be an original research, satisfy verifiability and written from NPOV.

"The practically relevant issue of worldview in the teachings of Buddha appears to be controversial and sometimes calls up strong emotional reactions. Others feel uncomfortable with the issue and try to evade it or ignore by pushing it out to the periphery of conscious considerations.

"And that seems understandable, because many Buddhists, contrary to the appearingly obvious, consider the perceived everyday reality to be unreal."

"Some go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality" as irrelevant to the Buddhist worldview."

The above edit fail all three wikipedia criteria. Your quote of Buddah pass no original research and probably verifiability criteria as well however, the source is cited as

"Sarvabuddhavishayavatarajñanalokalamkarasutra as cited by Elías Capriles in The Four Schools of Buddhist Philosophy: Clear Discrimination of Views Pointing at the Definitive Meaning. The Four Philosophical Schools of the Sutrayana Traditionally Taught in Tibet with Reference to the Dzogchen Teachings. Published on the Web."

NPOV edit mean proper attribution of context. At this point, your edit probably belong to Tibetan Buddhism article or metaphysics section of Buddhist philosophy article. I think I have heard a Theravada monk use dream reference as well, so you might be able to revive it in Bodhi artcile. I also should mention that when Senior Lamas including Dalai Lama held seminar course in Buddhist theology in Scotland few years back, the course started off from dependent origination. So you might want to find out where your knowledge of tibettan buddhism fit into overall structure of tibettan buddhism. Vapour

you can now get involved with Bodhi article as well. Awakening from dream is a common description of buddhist enlightenment. So you now have choise of bodhi, buddhist philosophy, and tibettan buddhism. Vapour

Vapour: The above edit fail all three wikipedia criteria. It seems to me in a very different way. It seems that all three (original research, verifiability and NPOV) are satisfied.--Klimov 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(1)"The practically relevant issue of worldview in the teachings of Buddha appears to be controversial." - No citation nor reference to Buddhist term, i.e. original research.

(2)"That seems understandable because many Buddhists, contrary to the appearingly obvious, consider the perceived everyday reality to be unreal" - Understandable to whom? "Many buddhists" is a weasle word. Bddhist from non western countries do not use western term of metaphysicsto to define dharma. Even many buddhists in the west (Nat Krause just as an example) avoid equating pali/sanskrit term with the one from western philosophy.

(3) No above statement appear in Vimalakirti Sutra, therefore it is an incorrect citation.

(4) "Some go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality" - "Some", "many", "most", "few" are example of weasle words. In wikipedia, it signify the absence of attribution of POV, hence automatically not NPOV. The correct edit may be "Manjushrimitra go even further and reject the very concept designated by the word "reality"" in which case, this edit belong to Dzogchen article.

(5)"Anyways, according to the Buddha" - According to which sutra? No citation of Buddah's quote to sutra from mahayana or theravada source. Hence, at this point unverifiable original research. Vapour

Your edit appear to be based entirely on this section. Dogzen is one of six monastries within Nyingma tradition which is one of 4 or 5 branche of Tibettan buddhis which is one of two wing (the other being japanese) of vijryana buddhism which is one of three yana of Buddhism. This article is not a place for every different sects or organisations of buddhism to propagate their POV. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Vapour

Vapour: Wikipedia is not a soap box. Hmm... Should somebody think on this? --Klimov 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Klimov, I'm not sure what you mean by this ... Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He is implying that i'm biased hence using this article as my soapbox. He fail to see that wikipedia does not advocate absense of POV. Wikipedia clearly state that NPOV is a POV. In my opinion that Klimov's edit does not suit wikipedia POV. Vapour

I'm planning to create Bodhi subsection

I felt that Buddha-nature or "Who is Buddah" is too Mahayana biased so I relagated it to Mahayana section. However, relagating reference of Boddhisatva might be too Theravada biased as well. I have inserted edit in "Main Sect" section that "All (school of buddhism) accept three types of Buddha and consider Bodhisattva ideal as the highest." I believe I can restore reference to Boddhisatva without causing Mahayana/Theravada disambiguation. I will insert Bodhi. Luckily, the sister article Bodhi already has three type of buddha/enlightenment. Vapour

Middle Way

The reason for my sepration are

(1) Doctrine section was getting too big.

(2) Practical aspect of Buddhism shouldn't be described as doctrine

(3) Meditation, obserbation of precept, Buddhist discourse (sermon, debate, study of sutras and commentaries), all start off from Samadhi, Sila and Prajna but eventually move past from its focus (Samdhi to Vipasanna, Sila to Paramita) and lead to enlightenment.

I apologise for the current stub state of Prajna section. Vapour

Western Philosophy-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Schopenhauer could be considered to be a Buddha, because he found enlightenment and taught the same ideas that are contained in the Eastern religion.". I believe this is an original research/opinion. I shift this section to Buddhist philosophy article. Vapour

Good move, though I might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether. Ig0774 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we have information about a noteworthy coincidence between an Eastern religion and a Western philosophy, and User Ig0774 "might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether." Lestrade 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I would respectfully suggest you (re-)read the section. It is speculative and quite poorly written. That is why I would have deleted it (you might notice I haven't). The overlap, insofar as there is overlap, is quite interesting, but the presentation of it needs to be a lot better. This little observation probably belongs on Arthur Schopenhauer or Buddhism in Germany or the like, but not a general page on Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy (since Schopenhauer cannot be described as, and never described himself, either a Buddhist or a Buddhist philosopher and Schopenhauer's thought did not have any impact on Buddhist philosophy). Ig0774 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The part of that statement that's tricky to be sure about is "noteworthy". - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been noteworthy for Schopenhauer certainly, which in turn seems to have influenced some of Nietzsche's swipes at Buddhism, and there is a fair amount of scholarship on the question of the parallels between Schopenhauerian pessimism and the Four Noble Truths. On the other hand, the parallel is pretty inconsequential to most Buddhists, as far as I know. Ig0774 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am still not a buddhist, but...

I never thought buddhism would be such a divisive article - and I'm especially surprised that so many appear determined to violate NPOV. The second paragraph of the intro blurb seems very Theravada-focused - what is wrong with keeping it to the first paragraph alone? Rycanada 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that there have been a lot of points of Theravada bias in this article, and maybe there still are (a lot of the new material I haven't read yet). However, I'm not sure what's Theravada-biased about the second paragraph as it stands. Granted, it leaves out some information that would be important in explaining Mahayana Buddhism. Therefore, I suppose it constitutes a more complete description of Buddhism if viewed from a Theravada perspective. However, I think it nevertheless holds true for any branch of Buddhism. I'm not sure whether there's anything wrong with this state of affairs. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as particularly biased, either: as Nat says, it is a more complete description of the Therevada, but nothing in there would be rejected by a Mahayanaist. I am hard-pressed to think of a way to add Mahayana focus without sounding like I'm detracting from the Therevada. What about this for the last sentence of the second paragraph?

To achieve this state, adherents seek to purify and train the mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path, and eventually to gain true knowledge of reality and thus attain liberation (Nirvana) for themselves, as well as (in some traditions) for all beings.

bikeable (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the Eightfold Path emphasized relatively constantly across the traditions? I was under the impression that it wasn't as important (I mean, of course it's important, but is it consistently opening-paragraph about Buddhism important across the traditions?) I'd prefer if the last two sentences were collapsed into:

In general, adherents seek to purify the mind, perceive the true nature of reality, and achieve liberation from suffering (Nirvana). The emphasis on individual or universal suffering varies from tradition to tradition.

Rycanada 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I think the EFP (as well as the 4NT) are emphasized just as heavily in Mahayana (I'm less sure about Vajrayana, but I don't believe anyone would deemphasize it there either). I like your sentence, but I think it's worth mentioning the EFT and 4NT even in the introduction. I also liked the previous sentence about the aim of Buddhist practice is to end all kinds of suffering in life, which I think it a good nutshell. How about:

''In general, the aim of Buddhist practice is to end all kinds of suffering. Through realizing the Four Noble Truths, and by following the Noble Eightfold Path, adherents of Buddhism seek to purify the mind, to perceive the true nature of reality, and to achieve liberation from suffering (Nirvana). The emphasis on individual or universal liberation varies from tradition to tradition.

bikeable (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More than One Buddha

In the Wikipedia Buddha article, it is explained that Gautama Siddhartha was not the only buddha. On the contrary, the name is given to anyone who has become enlightened or "awakened" to the principles of the religion. Users Vapour and lg0774 should note that this might even apply to Western philosophers.Lestrade 12:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

No doubt. There is even a (mildly) famous story about a Zen master who declared Jesus to have been an enlightened being. The point isn't that Schopenhauer couldn't be considered a Buddha (though he never seems to have called himself such), just that the incident isn't really noteworthy to Buddhism as a whole (the information also appears in the article Buddhism in the West, another appropriate place for it). Ig0774 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One should also note that, in the Buddhism view, to be a Buddha is not simply to hold a correct philosophy, but also to perfect one's own virtues and ethics. I'm not sure if followers of Schopenhauer or Schopenhauer himself would claim that he meets that criterion. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, then, a Buddha must not only have correct knowledge of life in the world, he/she must also act in accordance with that knowledge. Schopenhauer was criticized for not possessing the saintly qualities that he decribed in his writings. For example, he based all morality on compassion, but he had no compassion for detrimental philosophers. Under User Nat Krause's conditions, if they are correct, Schopenhauer was no Buddha. Schopenhauer wrote:

[I]t is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses.

— The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1. §68

Lestrade 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Has anyone other than Gautama Siddhartha ever been conventionally accepted as being a buddha?Lestrade 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

In terms of historical personages accepted by a wide swath of Buddhist practitioners and clergy, generally no. In the orthodox Theravada view, a Buddha has to be the first arhat in an age who discovers the Middle Path for himself; according to that view, there won't be anyone with the moniker 'Buddha' until the coming of Maitreya, which won't be until after the Buddha and his teachings are forgotten, the Sangha vanishes, and the relics of the Buddha are gathered together and cremated. There are, of course, previous Buddhas that are claimed to have existed in ages past, but there is no historical evidence for their existence- references to them don't exist prior to the coming of Shakyamuni. In the Mahayana tradition, there are many Buddhas conceived of, but most of them are residing in other realms of existence, like Amitabha in the Pure Land, and these folks don't generally pop up in the ordinary historical world. Putai, a quasi-historical Chinese monk, was considered after his death to be an incarnation of Maitreya.

There have been various historical figures in the Mahayana (and in the Theravada) that have claimed Buddha status, like the so-called 'Sun Buddha' in Sri Lanka. I can't think of any of these that have ever attained status above that of leader of a local cult. Many of them are 'splinter groups' that attempt to combine claims of Buddhahood with claims from other religious traditions- like the Theosophist Maitreya claimants. There are many famous monks in Thailand that are considered to be arhats after their death, but woulnd't be called Buddhas. --Clay Collier 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to the collection: Shinran, the founder of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, at least according to a letter by his wife Eshin-ni, believed his teacher, Honen, to be Vairochana. Of course, this, as with the others, is far from "conventional". One might note that the Mahayana doctrine of Buddha-nature complexifies this entire question. Ig0774 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, we should distinguish between the three types of Buddha, which can be confusing because people usually use "Buddha" to mean Samyaksam-Buddha. Certainly, if one includes sravaka-buddhas (which are normally referred to as arhats), then many of the Buddha's disciples were also Buddhas. However, if we mean Samyaksam-Buddha (which is how I will use the term "Buddha" henceforth), then I certainly agree with Clay that there is no historical figure other than Siddhartha who is widely accepted by Buddhists as a Buddha. It seems to me that one might find cases here and there where some person is implied to be a Buddha. For instance (in addition to Ig0774's example), Tibetan Buddhists refer to Padmasambhava as the "Second Buddha", but it's not clear if this is meant to be taken literally. Furthermore, Tibetans believe that the Panchen Lama and the Shamarpa are manifestations of Amitabha, who is a Buddha. Moreover, they believe that the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa are manifestations of Avalokitesvara and (if I understand correctly) they believe Avalakitesvara to be a Buddha. One might perhaps interpret a case of this sort as a flourish of poetic pique or as an indication that our concept of "being/not being a Buddha" is too simplistic. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the qualification for being considered a buddha is to independently, in the absence of a teacher, think of the first three "Noble Truths." The fourth Truth is merely a reference to a practical program. This constitutes awakening or enlightenment.Lestrade 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Buddhist Ecumenical Statements

I have visited the page for this article on a few occasions since November last year. My intention was to improve the Buddhism article in the Spanish Wikipedia. However, I immediately decided against translating any sections of this article since I found it, quite frankly, completely unreadable then, and I opted instead for writing for the Spanish site based on my own research outside the English Wikipedia. I am very pleased that the English article seems to be definitively improving hanow. I was amazed a few months ago by the blindness of some wikipedians in this talk page who could just not see or did not want to accept how user un-friendly this article had became, how confusing, how long and how ridden by sectarianism and the minute examination of matters as inappropriate for a generalist article such as vegetarianism... or reincarnations of Hindu gods... etc. It was not an appropiate article for the average reader of wikipedia with little prior knowledge of Buddhism. If you forget your reader... then you might just as well forget everything else!

I am wondering now if the documents and statements mentioned in this new article I have just created here:

• Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana

could help so that we never ever again get to the chaotic writing and the appalling not-see-the-forest-for-the-trees style of the article during the recent past. I believe that this type of ecumenical statements that concentrate in the commonalities of all "buddhisms" could help an awful lot as a framework of reference in the future, to maintain the quality of the article, and help decide on the relative importance of different topics.

Regards,

--Sandrog 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. What do you think of the article now? I think most editors agreed that it needed to be changed. As for "Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana", I think it can be useful. However, we should remember that Walpola cites these as common points of Theravada and Mahayana, but not necessarily as the most important points. So, they don't provide an obvious way of knowing what is the forest and what the trees. Also, it's not clear whether or not Walpola intends to include Vajrayana under his Basic Points. If not, they are deficient for describing Buddhism as a whole. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response:

• What do I think of the article now? I thought it was clear that I find it readable now. The article does seem a lot more focused now. It also seems more appropriate for the general readership that Wikipedia and generalist articles are aimed at.
• What's important? Importance is of course subjective and relative, not absolute. But to decide what is important we must first establish various criteria beforehand to be able to make such judgement in the first place. What I propose is nothing more than one criterion. To me, if there are any characteristics that all Buddhist schools have in common, and yet at the very same time they are not shared by any other religions, then those characteristics would be something which would certainly define Buddhism since it would distinguish and differentiate all forms of Buddhism from other religions, making it unique. That to me sounds at least like one very “important” criterion to use. What do you think?
• Vajrayana included? Well...
  • The WBSC, which approved the document, has members from Nepal and Mongolia, which are mainly Vajrayana countries.
  • Vajrayana is sometimes included by some authors as just part of Mahayana, and the article for Vajrayana in Wikipedia defines it as: an extension of Mahayana Buddhism consisting not of philosophical differences, but rather the adoption of additional techniques. And since the list of Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana is mainly concerned with philosophical issues, we could then assume that it would include the Vajrayana as well.

--Sandrog 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana, I am pretty sure that there are very few Buddhists who would disagree with the initial nine point formula, however, the expanded formula is quite possibly contentious. Eg: One of the central theses of the 9 point formula, is point 8, which clearly indicates a clear and mutually acceptable recognition of the distinction between the goals of the Mahayana and the Nikaya/Sravakayana. However, This distinction is blurred in the expanded formula, when the paragragh continues: But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths ... etc., which is not necessarily something that is agreed upon, without considerable interpretation. The interpretation from the Sandhinirmocana-sutra begs the question: If they are the same Path, then why differentiate them at all? There is a distinct difference of doctrine regarding the capability of a Samyaksam-Buddha to continue to actively teach after Parinirvana - the Mahayana doctrines state that a Buddha continues to actively teach until the end of Samsara (of all beings), whereas IIRC, Theravada/Nikaya/Sravakayana doctrines state that a Buddha actively teaches only during his lifetime, and not after Parinirvana. It is in light of this distinction that the Nikaya traditions state that Nirvana is the final goal, and the nirvana of the three types of Buddha is the same. (20040302 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Pacifism

How do people who adhere to pacifist religions such as Buddhism and Christianity react when threatened by people who believe in aggressive and/or cruel ways of life? Do they conveniently suspend belief in their religions until the danger has been eliminated?Lestrade 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, if the question you're asking is about the respective founders of those religions, who are arguably the only people who can really be taken as exemplars, the answer is no. Jesus, you will recall, let the Romans take him and execute him; the Buddha let a neighboring tribe invade and annihilate his native people.

If you're asking about the successive followers of those religions, there were obviously many who didn't behave as pacifists. One could argue that those types of people would be more likely to be able to seize political power and thus become famous historical figures.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that Buddhism and Christianity really are intended to be pacifistic. It's true that Jesus said "turn the other cheek", which is perhaps the English language's most famous pacifistic statement. But, he also said "I do not bring peace, but a sword", and "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword"[8]. The Buddhist agamas record lots of instances of the Buddha telling people not to be violent, but it's a complicated question whether that implies complete pacifism. For instance, Japanese sohei warrior monks had their own philosophy about the relationship between ahimsa and self-defense. Moreover, there is at least one Mahayana text, the Nirvana Sutra, in which Buddha explicitly tells his followers not to be so pacifistic as to reject self-defense. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It almost seems as if the non-violent originators of the religion were similar to perfect and unattainable Platonic Ideals in that they could be only partly, unsuccessfully imitated in actual life. However, in so doing, the person who tries to be as non-violent as possible is making the world a better place. This may or may not be the case.Lestrade 22:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Corrections

People have started writing their own versions how Buddhism, how "it should be...."

• First of all its Sanskrit equivalent is not Buddha dharma but Bauddha Dharma. Noun Buddha → Adjective Bauddha.
• I have readded the schools of buddhist philosophy with reference.
• Buddhism is not necessarily an atheistic religion. We need a separate section on "God". Theravada is atheistic, in Mahayana, Buddha is worshipped like God. It also bears mention that de facto, the concept of Karma has taken the place of God in Theravada. Also, Buddhism believes in celestial spirits (call it "gods").
• Who the hell deleted my Wheel of Causation?

Cygnus_hansa 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Neither the Sanskrit nor the Pali should be in the intro. These are fairly obscure terms, and none of them has a special claim to Buddhism. Also, in English, we always say "Buddhadharma"; if the actual Sanskrit is something different, then that's all the more reason we shouldn't include it.

2) Thanks for referencing the schools of philosophy section.

3) The question of God in Mahayana is a a complicated one. To say, "Buddha is worshipped like God" is a big oversimplification. Likewise, to say, "he concept of Karma has taken the place of God in Theravada" is an interesting idea that I've never heard of before, but it also seems like an oversimplification.

4) I have no idea what "Wheel of Causation" you are referring to. However, everything anyone adds to the page is, as usual, edited mercilessly. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism & Atheism

User Amcbride reverted my use of the adjective "atheistic" as applied to Buddhism. Amcbride wrote that "to call Buddhism atheistic is a simplification." Isn't it important to know that there is a moral religion that does not refer to a god of any kind? I would think that this fact would be of primary importance. As a matter of fact, it may even be the most important fact in many persons' lives. Buddhism is a way of life that was proposed by a man who realized that suffering could be lessened. Is a simplification objectionable even if it is true? On Wikipedia, we are not theology professors whose job depends on interpreting and explicating mysteries. No one can quote a passage in Buddhism that refers to God. It is clearly and simply an atheistic religion, whether some of us like it or not. This kind of information belongs in a Wikipedia article. Lestrade 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

'By watching, Indra became king of the Gods' - Dhammapada, Chapter 2. Theravada Buddhism is rife with references to the gods of the Vedic pantheon- Brahma makes regular appearances, as do Indra and a host of others. The Buddha speaks of himself having been previously incarnated as a god in several Jataka, for instance. In the Mahayana, the line between gods and the various powerful Bodhisattva's is very strongly blurred- for instance, the identification of the goddess Kuan Yin with the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. In Tibetan Buddhism, the various tutelary and protective deities, while not being 'Buddhist' themselves, were tamed by Buddhist sages and their worship and visualization through various practices is essential to many forms of tantric practice. On top of these connections, we also have the fact that Buddhism as it is practiced across most of Asia exists in very close quarters with a variety of deities- the Kataragama cult in Sri Lanka, the Nagas in Burma, the various phi and a certain amount of Vedic Brahmanism in Thailand, etc.

It's certainly worth noting that certain traditions in Buddhism hold that it is possible to attain Buddhism's highest goal (Nirvana) without the involvement of a deity; it's quite something else to attach such a loaded phrase as 'atheism' to Buddhism, which may be incorrectly interpreted. Buddhism, for instance, never disavowed or denied the existence of gods. The Vedic pantheon is accepted without question throughout much of early Indian Buddhism, as are the cosmological details of a world oriented around advancing levels of divinity (the various heavenly realms of Mount Meru). Buddhism also does not hold belief in one or more gods to be incompatible with Buddhist practice. While certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity, this interpretation is far from universal and most certainly represents a different way of viewing Buddhism than has been the majority case throughout Buddhist history. In particular, there is little or no evidence, as is sometimes claimed, that such an interpretation is a 'retrieval' of some sort of primal, 'unadulterated' Buddhism.

So, it's complicated. --Clay Collier 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we will let Wikipedia continue the misconception that the Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) was a God. He rejoins his peers Christ, Mohammed, Jim Jones, and Zeus. We will not present Buddhism as it is: a way of life that merely reduces suffering.Lestrade 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

How condescending. Did you read what Clay wrote? bikeable (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article as it stands that gives the impression that the Buddha is regarded as a god, and I don't see how adding the moniker of 'atheistic religion' is going to clarify matters at all. Given the evidence of scripture and popular practice, I would say that it is quite misleading to state that Buddhism is atheistic; on the other hand it is quite appropriate to say that Buddhism can be atheistic. There is nothing in the Buddhist tradition that demands or requires disbelief in the existence of gods, but the philosophy and practices of Buddhism can certainly be adapted to such a cosmology. There is a long-standing tendency among Western depictions of Buddhism to see the philosophy and ethical ideals as somehow entirely independent of the metaphysical and cosmological notions present in Buddhism, and to discard the non-rational, non-ethical aspects as 'cultural trappings' or as 'later developments'. To present Buddhism in such a way is to present a very recent Western ideal of what Buddhism can be, rather than Buddhism as it is. --Clay Collier 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus among the authors I have read that Buddhism is a NON-theistic religion, which is not the same as A-theistic. To me NON-theistic suggests that is a religion that doesn't overly concern itself with the idea of God. This would be represented in the parable of the man struck by the arrow (if some of you didn't know it I'd be happy to write a summary of it) A-theistic would suggest that it denies the existence of God, which it is something that the Buddha never did directly or indirectly, since he was extremely reluctant to speculate over any subject at all not related to the path to personal liberation.

According to Oo Maung the vast majority of buddhist schools reject the idea of a Supreme God, and according to a statement approved by the World Buddhist Sangha Council in 1967 both Theravadins and Mahayanists do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will. In contrast, Abrahamic Religions revolve around the idea of a creator God. Buddhism revolves instead around the idea of the cessation of Dukkha. However, this is not quite exactly the same as the out-right refutation of any gods, which is what the word A-theistic would imply.

It is all a question of writing the article both as simply and at the same time as precisely as it is possible.

--Sandrog 11:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that the above is word play. The prefix "a" is Greek and means "without." The prefix "non" is equivalent to "a". This type of subtlety occurs when a person desperately tries to salvage an idea by any means possible, preferably by making the issue verbally complex, confusing, and lengthy. In that way, the opponent can be accused of being obtuse or lazy if any complaint is made.Lestrade 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It's more, I think, an attempt to confront the fact that in English we don't have a standard way of saying that the beliefs or doctrines of a religion embrace a certain amount of disinterest regarding the question of divinity. Buddhism does not assert that gods do not exist, or can not exit (as an atheist might), does not work from the assumption that they are necesary for soteriological purposes (as almost all Western, theistic religions do), and do not assert that the existence of god is unknowable (as an agnostic would). The Buddha identifies certain metaphysical questions that are seen as being central to any religious philosophy in most of the world as being, essentially, possibly knowable but basically unimportant (such as the origin of the universe, the existence of a creator, etc.). The use of non-theistic to indicate this unusual status for Buddhism is a modern convention. Yes, the derivation is wrong, but rather than being a linguistic shell game, I think it's an honest attempt at creating a neo-logism that explains Buddhism's position on divinity in more clear terms than the familiar atheist/theist/agnostic divisions. How useful it really is is certainly debatable- I'm not sure at present that 'non-theistic' really denotes anything other than 'the Buddhist attitude towards gods'. --Clay Collier 12:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Lestrade! I was sincerely trying to be helpful, objective and constructive and in a way I thought I could see your good reasons to refer to buddhism as atheistic, and I really thought I had made that clear in my comment. You are certainly very wrong as to my motivation for my comment. I am an atheist by conviction since I was roughly six actually, and hence it would be rather strange for me to be "desperately trying to salvage" the opposite view to yours in this topic. I was actually trying to find a consensus view. The expression NON-theistic is not word-play. It is in fact the description of Buddhism given, among many others, by the very reputable Buddhist Society in England. Could you provide a citation in support of A-theistic? Including user Amcbride and myself, five different people in total have already shown in one way or another that they are not completely and totally comfortable with the use of the word A-theistic. To put it very simply I will ask a very direct question (since before I gave the wrong impression of trying to be complex):

• Do you accept or do you not accept that, if not most, many Buddhist cosmological systems include gods? Yes or No?

If Yes: Would it not be more reasonable then to accept the issue of whether Buddhism is atheistic as just a little bit more complicated, not so radically cut-and-dried? You seem to have a difficulty accepting any shade of grey at all and appears as though you can only see black and white in this matter.

And if No: What kind or sort of quotations, references or citations could persuade you to the contrary, since those ones that have indeed already been provided by user Clay Collier in his first comment in this thred on the 24th of April don't seem persuasive to you, (and you have not really explained why not either)?

And by the way: I hope no-one here has to think in terms of opponents.

Sandrog 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a gem here in a comment by Clay Collier:

"While certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity, this interpretation is far from universal and most certainly represents a different way of viewing Buddhism than has been the majority case throughout Buddhist history."

Since the Comparative Study section (which links to the God in Buddhism article) organizes this area pretty well, i've added that quote to the God in Buddhism article. - Rgrant 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am now convinced that User Sandrog's distinction between Atheism and Nontheism was not intended to be evasive. The Wiki article on Nontheism clearly shows the important difference. Buddhism cannot, therefore, be described with the adjetive "atheistic" in the Wiki article. Atheism has connotations and associations with the concept of evil for many persons. I will attach the adjective "nontheistic" to Buddhism in the article and see if it is reverted for any reason.Lestrade 17:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It might be informative to include the following passage in the main article. After all, I would think that it would help researchers understand true Buddhism.

But if we examine that religion which has the greatest number of followers on earth and thus the majority of mankind in its favor, namely Buddhism, we can now no longer disguise the fact that it is just as decidedly and expressly atheistic (atheistisch) as it is strictly idealistic and ascetic. In fact, it is atheistic to the extent that, when the doctrine of pure theism is brought to the notice of its priests, they expressly reject it out of hand.

— Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, §34

Schopenhauer then quoted several passages from scholarly articles to prove "the fact" that Buddhism is "decidedly and expressly atheistic." Lestrade 14:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Although I deleted the word "nontheistic" from the introduction and similarly oppose the word "atheistic" being used to describe what Buddhism is, a discussion about Buddhism in relation to these terms may be warranted, either in the section on comparitive study or the article Buddhism in the West. Ig0774 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is already an article God in Buddhism. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I forgot about that. Ig0774 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In the writings of the Buddhists we cannot find any positive hint or suggestion of a supreme being as the principle of creation, and it seems that, whenever this subject crops up in the course of argument,it is intentionally avoided.

— Isaac J. Scmidt, On the Relation of Gnostic Doctrine to Buddhism

It is difficult, but not impossible, for a person who has been brought up as a Christian, Jew, or Mohammedan, to not see Buddhism through the spectacles of monotheism. But, it seems inevitable that the Wikipedia article will perpetuate that "optical distortion".Lestrade 13:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

With respect to Lestrade's comment, 24th April: Brahma is the being that persuaded the Buddha to turn the wheel for the first time, saying that "there are some with only a little dust in their eyes".

I personally am entirely comfortable with the term 'non-theistic', despite its incorrect etymology; and I don't think it's correct to describe Buddhism as atheistic. Atheism refers to the belief that there is no God/are no Gods, and even that there cannot be any such entities. Perhaps my tolerance of the neologism is due to the fact that I have had connections with the London Buddhist Society; Sandrog (above) attributes the usage to that institution, so maybe that's where I got it from.

I'm completely unfamiliar with the view that 'atheistic' has connotations of evil. I presume this is associated with groups that consider anything they disagree with to be evil, and I'm therefore inclined to discount it.

Since this is causing difficulty, can I suggest that the safest path is to say what we mean? E.g. something to this effect: 'The question of the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods is answered differently in different Buddhist traditions. Buddhists do not attribute the creation of the world to a creator-God, nor do Gods play any critical role in the Buddhist view of the Universe.'

MrDemeanour 14:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That would seem a most reasonable suggestion. I might venture to say that I do not oppose the word "nontheistic" as such, I only find that the way the term is defined on nontheism to which it had been linked to be inappropriate, since the "nontheism" of Buddhism relates not to the existence of gods as such, but to the (soteriological) importance of those gods. ^iggy_talk 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)

Trying to a get a concensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic). Your input is appreciated. It's for naming and transliteration formating of vedic related articles. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism and manys things that overlap or are similar or have the same origin. This would probably help for coordination. --Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable source

"It is also believed that Buddha used Magadhi or the Ardha-Magadhi dialect, which is very smiilar to the literary language of the Jains dialect. However, Buddha "admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn Ardha-Magadhi in order to understand his doctrine" [9]. "

The Theosophical Society is not a reliable source on Buddhism. To the best of my knowledge, it is not part of either tradition or scholarship that the Buddha ever used Ardhamagadhi -- which is a Prakrit that postdates the Buddha by centuries.RandomCritic 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Buddha did say that his followers were not forced to learn the same language as himself. I think that the paragarph may be shortened into "The Buddha admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn the language that the Buddha himself spoke in order to understand his doctrine". I've been looking for a Pali Canon reference to this, but I can't find it. I'm sure it's in a Sutta wich also mentions Devadatta, but I just can't find it... --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both Northern and Southern lineage source state that Buddah used Magadhi. Theravada long held belif that Pali is almost near equivelant to Magadhi though this idea is now disputed by secular scholarship. Both are variation of Sanskrit language. However, Pali appear to be based on western dialect while Magadhi is based on eastern dialect. I think Magadhi reference should stay though Ardha-Magadhi is another matter. Vapour

Intellectual Worldview

This section is horribly put together and appears to be based on a book that tries to approximate Buddhism to a form of Hindu philosophy. I deleted some outstanding errors (Sautrantikas as Theravadins?! Shunyata as a substance?!!) but I imagine there are even more errors there and the whole thing needs to be rewritten - or deleted. RandomCritic 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm copying the whole thing out from the article and placing it here until there is some consensus on what to do with it. It doesn't fit where it was (under "Major sects"); it doesn't match the main article it's associated with; it is poorly written; it contains dubious and, in some places redundant information. Suggestions on where it should go and how it can be edited? RandomCritic 17:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Intellectualism and Buddhist worldview

Main article: History of Buddhist schools

In his lifetime, Gautama Buddha had not answered several philosophical questions. On issues like whether the world is eternal or non-eternal, finite or infinite, unity or separation of the body and the soul, complete inexistence of a person after nirvana and then death, nature of the Supreme Truth, etc, the Buddha had remained silent. Commentators explain that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightenment.

Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher Tilopa discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice.

Buddhist missionaries often faced philosophical questions from other religions whose answers they themselves did not know. For those, who have attachment to intellectualism, Buddhist scholars developed an enormous amount of intellectual theories, philosophies and worldview concepts. See e.g. Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophy and Reality in Buddhism.

Based on various interpretations of Buddha's teachings four major schools of philosophy were formed.

• Śūnyavāda of the Mādhyamikas: this is a Mahayana school, popularized by Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosha.
• Vijñānavāda of the Yogācāras: this is another Mahayana school, propounded by Asanga and Vasubandhu. According to them, only the consciousness (Vijñāna) is true, and all objects of this world external to the mind are false. They believe in an absolute, permanent consciousness (similar to a soul) called Ālaya Vijñāna. This branch became famous in China, Tibet, Japan and Mongolia.
• Bāhyānumeyavāda of the Sautrāntrikas: this is a school which believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects—but believes that the external objects can only be perceived indirectly through inference by our mind (Indirect Realism).
• Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda of the Vaibhāṣikas: this is another school—based on an ancient Buddhist conference in Kashmir, which also believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects (as composed of atoms). They believe that external objects are known through direct perception (Direct Realism).

First problem: I have never heard of "Bāhyānumeyavāda" and "Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda", and can find no reference to them outside of Wikipedia and its translations and mirrors. I can't say definitively that these terms are never found in Buddhist scholarship, but normally when you want to refer to the Sautrantikas or Vaibhashikas, you say "Sautrāntrikas" and "Vaibhāṣikas". I have seen Śūnyavāda; I'm less sure about Vijñānavāda; but there seems little point in introducing these names when they are not often used and more common terms are at hand. RandomCritic 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not readable

the article is really interesting to read. But I think there are to much non english words. for example you can't easily go a a part of the article and understand : you will fall on a non english word without the translation and you will have to search back for the english word. This is an article in an encyclopedia. not a religious teaching. of course it is important to know the words used by buddists but not as important as understanding easily their meaning. I think each time a non english word is used you should put the translation beside it.

Finished

I finally got through the typographical update of the article. I doubt I missed more than a few words, other than a couple of modern Indian geographical names (Girnar, Sarnath) whose spelling I'm not sure of. Of course, there's the matter of the content, which is a whole different matter... too much of the article is centered around divisions between "Theravada", "Mahayana", and "Vajrayana". These in part reflect some realities in both the present state of Buddhism as well as its history, but to a great extent they are imposed on a less tractable Buddhist reality by western scholarship. I have seen maybe a half-dozen or more Buddhist schemas for classifying Buddhism, and they are, of course, all different, but not less useful or applicable for all that. The classification used here is, of course, the one that doesn't have a parallel in Buddhist tradition. :)

The most awkward thing about this classification is that it implies that Vajrayana Buddhism differs from Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that Mahayana differs from Theravada: i.e., that Vajrayana is either "non-Mahayana" (which is false) or "super-Mahayana" (which is POV). Unless we use Mahayana in an entirely notional way, Vajrayana is better treated as a subgroup (or rather, a constellation of practices) within Mahayana. Historically it might just be considered "very late Mahayana". Culturally, we can speak of the contrasts between Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism and CJKV Buddhism, but this only coincides with the supposed Mahayana-Vajrayana split insofar as Vajrayana practices are more emphasized in Tibetan Buddhism. But they are not uncommon in CJKV Buddhism either.RandomCritic 11:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Śrī Laṅkā

Is it fully necessary to have all the diacritical marks? I want to assume this is "Sri Lanka" because this is after all an English language Wikipedia, but this actually confuses matters. Plus I should also say it gives tha article an air of pretentiosness. I mean, please.. "Pākistān?" Why that and not Pakistan? What function do the diacriticals serve in "Kuṣāṇa Empire?" I think they alienate the reader, in effect telling them "go back and learn a set of pronunciation rules and then come back and learn about Buddhism." I should note too that this hampers searching. I say dump all of the diacriticals, through out the entire article. . 69.51.153.203 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with regard to Sri Lanka and Pakistan. I am, furthermore, the sort of person who is inclined to agree about Kuṣāṇa as well, but I will defer to the judgment of other editors on that and related questions. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Per RandomCritic's edits today, I'm afraid I really don't see how the article benefits from restoring this kind of typography. I'm not even totally sure what language the typography is reflecting. Which language is "Kuṣāna" (as opposed to "Kushan") or "Sāsānids" (as opposed to "Sassanids")? I propose to change Pañjāb back to "Punjab", because it's always "Punjab" in English. Islām and Afghānistān should not have diacritics because these are common English names. Likewise, Kaśmīr back to Kashmir and Viṣṇu back to Vishnu. "Nirvāṇa" should be written "nirvana", because this term will be quite familiar to any interested party who knows enough to care how it is written. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of having an encyclopedia article is to convey correct information. In the case of words written originally in non-Roman alphabets, correct information means correct transcriptions of the kind that you will find in any good paper encyclopedia. If you care about how a word is pronounced, you will appreciate the diacritics. If you do not care, then you can ignore the diacritics and pronounce it any old way. There is no reason to dumb down the article by using incorrect transliterations. For what it's worth, the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) encourages the use of formal transliterations. RandomCritic 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to start in on broader policy questions here, because I think this matter can be resolved without recourse to that sort of thing. But, for the record, no, I don't think that conveying correct information always necessitates providing a precise transcription of a given word as it used in the language from which it originated. There are extents to which no one would carry this principle. For example, should references to China be changed to Qín? (or would it be Zhōngguó?) Is the encyclopaedia dumber for not doing that?

In any event, these particular cases mentioned above are not very compelling candidates for diacritic use. These are mostly accepted English names (particularly "Islam") or articles of jargon, so they do not require treatment as foreign words. I still want to know what language and what transcription system "Kuṣāna" and "Sāsānids" are. What about Afghānistān?

By the way, one cannot simply ignore the diacritics used in spellings like Viṣṇu or Pañjāb because they don't just add diacritics but also remove letters that are usually used to spell those names.

Also by the way, I don't see where Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) encourages the use of formal transliterations in particular. It appears that it encourages the use of either a formal transliteration or a simplified one (such as "Krishna"), unless there is an irregular spelling which is much more common (such as "Punjab"). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Dharmic) says "Transliterated terms from Sanskrit and Pāli should take advantage of Unicode diacritics; for example, "Nirvāṇa". "Kuṣāna" is Sanskrit/Prakrit, the original from which we get "Kushan". "Sāsānids" is hybrid Perso-English (Sāsān + -id used with dynasties). Afghānistān is Persian. I have seen all of these transcriptions in English-language reference works, used in-line and not merely in the transliteration of original texts either. Most good scholarly articles on Islam will write "Islām", if the publisher can handle the typography. You won't see that in newspapers because newspaper publishers have to print quickly and it would slow them down to deal with diacritics. But that's not a problem on Wikipedia. 68.100.18.183 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is not necessarily the same as what would appear in scholarly articles. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia style is a mélange of styles from scholarly works, newspapers, and, most importantly, other encyclopaedias. The reason for this is that we have a different audience. To write "Islām" in something other than a very academic context is just plain bad style. The purpose of style is to give readers a text they read comfortably, and familiar spellings like Islam accomplish this better than unfamiliar ones like Islām.

Regarding some specific issues, I'm willing to go along with Kuṣāna. However, the article implies that "Kushan" comes from the Chinese Guishuang, so we should fix that if it's not true. As for Sāsānids, I don't see the point of including diacritics for English-Persian words. "Afghānistān", I think, falls into the same category as "Islām"; what's more, I note that the Afghanistan article shows two official names (presumably the Pashto and the Dari Persian), neither of which includes macrons in the romanisation.

The example the proposed Dharmic naming guidelines gives for nirvāṇa seems to conflict with the statement on the same page, "If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article name should be be written in either a formal transliteration or a simplified transliteration." I would go so far as to say that "nirvana" is a primary transliteration, but, in any case, I don't agree with the portion of the proposed policy in question. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I take that to be addressing the form of the article name, not the usage within the article.

As far as "Pakistan", "Afghanistan", "Sri Lanka", with reference to the modern countries, I have changed my mind, because having consulted the official websites of those countries' government, I see that none of them uses diacritics. If the diacritic-less version is what they want, then that's what they should get. With reference to pre-modern states for which the only names are transcriptions from another alphabet, I think it's better to represent those in as close a transcription as possible. I still think that in the text of the articles on Buddhism, we should endeavor to represent the closest possible romanization of the original forms, enough so that a person who knows the alphabets in question can recreate the original spellings. "Nirvana" in a popular context may be good enough, but in a technical article Nirvāṇa is desirable. Wikipedia may not be quite scholarly -- yet -- but it's not a ridiculous goal. Attention to details like typography, small as those details are, is one of the things that can help Wikipedia articles be taken somewhat more seriously. RandomCritic 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhul-Kifl

Could someone have a look at [10] and see if it is accurate? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the only one the Buddha is prophesising about is the future Buddha, Maitreya. The statement is without any reference to any canonical source and I would certainly like to delete it. --- Andkaha^(talk) 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Islam is mentioned quite extensively in the Kalachakra (20040302)

It's almost certainly true that Buddhist sutras per se don't say anything about Muhammad. The Kalachakra Tantra, which I'm sure lots of people would argue was written after the 7th century, does mention Islam, as 20040302. However, if I understand correctly, Kalachakra takes a very negative view of Islam. So, the idea that Muhammad is heralded in Buddhist literature is 99% false and 1% misleading. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. yes.. well.. I was just stating that there are some texts that are purported to be the word of Buddha, which indicate Islam (and therefore Mohammed by implication). As to the negativity (or otherwise), I am not skilful enough to be able to offer much on that. (20040302)

Probably should be removed, but there is an argument that, IIRC, Mohammed is Maitreya based on the similarity of certain qualities attributed to Maitreya that (Muslims claim) Mohammed had — in ways it is quite parallel to arguments about the foreshadowing of Mohammed in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. I'm not sure that the portrayal of Islam in the Kalachakra Tantra makes a great deal of mention of Mohammed, nor do I think (given its character) that this particular text has been argued to "herald" the coming of Mohammed. ^iggy_talk 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Identifying Maitreya with Mohammed is very tenuous. Mohammed arrived several of thousands of years too early to be Maitreya. IIRC, all Buddhists teachings and even the memory of the existence of Shakyamuni Buddha need to have disappeared before Maitreya will arise. (20040302 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm not saying that it is fact or even that I agree with the argument, only that the argument has been advanced... ^iggy_talk 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddha's Life at Wikimedia Commons ;)

Hello, I am in the process of uploading quite a large number of pictures which I made when I was in Laos recently. All of them are pictures of wallpaintings in monasteries. Now I am uploading various scenes of the life of the Buddha, so that they may be used here on the Wikipedia. Please have a look at "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_Life_of_Gautama_Buddha" - and see if maybe you know a nice place for some of these pictures on Wikipedia. I still have quite a number of pictures which I didn't upload yet, so in a week or a few days the selection will be bigger.

Other pictures which I have but am not yet uploading are some paintings about lives of disciples like Ananda and Mogallana. Also I have _a lot_ of pictures of Buddhist Hell-paintings, anybody interested? I'll upload them in due time...

Greetings, --Sacca 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong atheism

Is it be possible for a Buddhist to both 1) be a strong atheist and, 2) believe in "supernatural processes"? If so, I think this can be used to illustrate the clause "strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general" in the Strong atheism article. Shawnc 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In order this question, we must have sufficient definitions. Wikipedia defines strong atheism as "the philosophical position that no deity exists." However, we must still know what definition of deity and what definition of supernatural you would like us to use. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of such things often seem problematic. Buddhism came up on the atheism newsgroup's discussion on strong atheism. The suggested idea was that Buddhists tend not to believe in omnipotent gods but believe in things which may be considered supernatural by others.[11] In any case, several posters have disagreed with the aforementioned clause in the strong atheism article. Shawnc 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem odd to me for a Buddhist to express a particularly strong aetheism, even if Buddhism and individual Buddhists are generally atheist; I would say that they would be unlikely to take a particularly hard line on an issue like this. Futhermore, most of the "supernatural processes" in Buddhist scriptures occur alongside numerous gods, so it would seem unlikely to me that one would endorse the first and deny the second. I would personally not consider Buddhists to be a very likely example of the assertion you quote. bikeable (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at anatta

I'd like to attract the editors of this page to take a look at the controveries afoot on anatta and talk:anatta. Granted, it's a bit of a slog once you get there, but, on the other hand, there are some interesting ideas discussed. Conversation, for the moment, has ground to halt and the article itself is set to a version with a rather unusual POV. One thing that needs to be done, and which I don't have time to attend to right away, is for someone to go through the controversial edits and separate out a) reasonable comments and assertions that can stay; b) claims which need a {{Fact}} tag; and c) claims and conclusions which shouldn't be in the article at all. Please have a look. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I would say normal wikipedian wouldn't have a clue what the intro is about. Vapour

It appear that User:TonyMPNS, User:Stephen Hodge and User:Attasarana are sort of a cabal. Dr Tony Page, aka TonyMPNS run a website in corraboration with Stephen Hodge. In his website, Dr Tony state that he founded what he call "Nirvana Sutra Buddhism" and he intend to propagate this version of Buddhism. [12] He is not so found of anicca, anatta or dukkha either, calling it "the unbalanced and distorting emphasis placed in some quarters upon the negative aspects of the Doctrine". He also make a glowing recommendation to Attasarana's site in the same page. What Attasarana is doing in anatta article is basically a POV vandalism. He appear to have no regard to NPOV, no original research, verification and soapbox ban. TonyMPNS and Stephen Hodge are soapboxing related Buddhist articles too. Quite few articles have some blatant and some subtle promotion of their position, such as saying "The Tathagatagarbha Sutra is an influential and doctrinally striking Mahayana Buddhist scripture"[13]. According to them, interpretation (or "connecting dot") of sutras with sutra quote, often from their own work of translation doesn't amount to violation of Wikipedia policies. Vapour

Actually, there is no Wiki rule debarring one from using one's own translations. My translations have been peer-reviewed anyway.--Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a hard-and-fast rule, but I think that, in general, it's a good idea not to use one's own translations if the case is controversial. On the other hand, if one's own translation has been published in a peer-reviewed or otherwise quite reputable source, then that certainly may be used. That would, as far as I know, apply only to you, Mr. Hodge, out of all the people involved in this conversation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat, no there does not seem to be any rule about this. It does not fall under the listed criteria of original research either. Actually, the question of the use of some of the material I have translated does not seem to arisen until user "Vapour" made the above aside. The situation is a little anomalous and a trifle undesirable, but the problem is that in the case of the MPNS especially, there is no reliable English translation from the more accurate Tibetan version. In which case, Dr Page, the main author of the MPNS would have nothing to cite and then the article would collapse. Actually, I suspect this may be the intention -- to supress a description of a very important Mahayana sutra. I think the solution might be to give the original Tibetan, Chinese or even Monglolian text in romanized form as the case requires from one of the major published primary sources with the folio/line numbers -- though I shan't be held responsible for "artikl bloting" as some would have it. Then any reader who cares can look at the originals and judge for themselves. How about that ? But I should mention that I do not anyway have a particular agenda when I am translating -- flatteringly, most professional colleagues seem to think I do a rather good job of what are intrisically very difficult texts. I read something today that sums up my standpoint, "The greatest enemies of truth are those who think they have a monopoly of truth" -- regrettably a trait that a number of users here exhibit in abundance.

I see what you mean about the situation with that translation. I don't know of a specific rule against using one's own translations; it just seems like the sort of thing that is generally discouraged on principle (of course, this principle is in place because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not particularly good translators). Considering that there is no equally good translation available elsewhere, I certainly have no objection to yours. I just don't know what the completely "by the book" answer is.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat: I searched through the various Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines and eventually found this:

SOURCES IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). [snip] Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

The solution therefore, which is easily provided, is for us to supply references to one or other of the major printed canonical editions that are available in most countries. Hence, in the case of the quote that Dr Page has used from my translation of the MPNS, I can supply the folio/line references to the Qianlong Kanjur, which was printed in Western book form by the Suzuki Foundation and is the most widely available edition of the Kanjur around the world. There are, I believe, a few people contributing who have some knowledge of Tibetan so they can check the accuracy if they wish.--Stephen Hodge 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside user Attasarana's style and technique of contributing, he has raised an issue which in itself should not be so lightly dismissed. One glaring defect I have noticed in many Wiki Buddhism articles was also highlighted on the Nikaya Buddhism discussion page under the rubric "Ahistorical" by user Karen Williams in April 2005, when she wrote "I am seriously concerned to see so much mythology being posted on such a reputable site as Wikipedia. [snip] I can tell you that the material on this page that relates to early Buddhism, Asoka and the Buddhist Councils is just perpetuating the assumptions and bad scholarship of an earlier period. There are some modern scholars still writing this sort of stuff, but it is now being seriously criticised, and a lot of it is simply not true. [snip]". Thus in the case of the knee-jerk reactions from some users here, it is clear they too often rely on these kinds of outdated assumptions and bad scholarship. Just because there are some lazy scholars who repeat parrot-like this inherited baggage, does not make them right or reliable. Yet curiously, the official Wikipedia states "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth !" I would have thought that reasonable belief of truth combined with reliability would also be a significant criteria for an enterprise like Wikipedia. So to paraphrase Hassan as-Sabbah, "Everything is permissible in Wikipedia (providing it is cited), nothing is true".--Stephen Hodge 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that that passage ("Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth") is put poorly and can be quite misleading. I might try to have it changed. The intention with which it was written, I'm sure, is that Wikipedia attracted a motley crue of cranks and theorists of, say, phlogiston and the New Chronology, who are quite convinced that their theories are unquestionably true, and so we sidestep the issue by telling them not to worry about truth but about verifiability (which is not to say that verifiability applies only to cranks). In fact, I'd say Wikipedia's goal is the truth, and verifiability is the method toward that goal. The purpose of verifiability is, I'd venture for an example, is for people who are absolutely sure that the First Buddhist Council ended with a Sthaviravadin majority to be required to substantiate that claim.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that Tony Page, Stephen Hodge, and Attasarana constitute a cabal or a group of any sort. It seems that Mr. Page and Mr. Hodge know each other outside of Wikipedia, but I doubt Attasarana is the third party to a troika, despite the recommendation you mention of attan.com. Certainly, Page and Hodge are more reasonable editors and more pleasant to deal with than Attasarana is. They don't have the same POV, either (despite some overlap): Page and Hodge are ultra-Mahayanists, while Attasarana apparently sees himself as some kind of historicist pre-Theravadin-cum-Hindu.

Do you dispute that the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is influential and doctrinally striking? I would think we would want to make that clear to our readers, especially if it gives them some context for why it might differ from the impression they get of Buddhism from other sources.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, Mr Page and Mr Hodge are more pleasant to deal with. But that is exactly the reason it buffled me Tony Page and Stephen Hodge are giving support to Attasarana's edit activities which is so off from wikipedia convention. I used "sort of a cabal" instead of "cabal" to refer to their collective defence of Attrasana's editing, which is likely to be attrituted to their rather unusual overlaping doctrinal affiliation, not to mention the fact that their work aren't avialable in wikipedia verified source. Pople who have access to wikipedia verified outlet aren't interested in using wikipedia as their soapbox.

As of "influential and doctrinally striking", it doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone else consider to be so. Problem is a lack of POV attribution. It's an another example of peacock terms. If one want to make the "alleged" significance clear to our readers, one should make reference to secondary source which describe the sutras as such. Plus TonyMPS appear to be inserting link to his works in related articles. This is an direct violation of no-soapbox policy. "My work is useful" won't work as a defence in this case. Vapour

• This is becoming utterly ridiculous now - and personal too, which I have always avoided in my edits and comments. Stephen Hodge does not run the "Nirvana Sutra" website with me - I do. Stephen Hodge is a recognised translator and scholar of Buddhism upon whose expertise I have drawn for my own research. I am not in a cabal with him, and certainly not with Attasarana. There are simply certain understandings of atman / anatman which, in varying degrees, we share.

I think it is outrageous to imply that I cannot put forward an objective presentation of Nirvana Sutra or Tathagatagarbha Buddhist ideas. The sad truth is that there are not that many Westerners intensively researching this area of Buddhism. I happen to be one of the few. Stephen Hodge is the only English translator (in the UK) actively working in this field too.

In stark contrast to Vapour's ridiculous comments and insinuations, Nat has shown himself to be reasonable and balanced. Nat is quite right: I do not even know who "Attasarana" is! I have never met him. I have never spoken to him. I don't know where he lives. I don't even know his name (obviously "Attasarana" is not his real name!). Also, as Nat points out, I have an entirely different style from Attasarana. But I happen to believe that Attasarana has lots of valid material on atta/ anatta which can, given certain judicious pruning, be very useful and informative on Wikipedia. I don't like people's work being completely erased from Wikipedia without constructive attempts at salvaging what is of value there. That has happened to Attasarana. It has also happened to me. In both instances, the cause of the problem is a person of dubious competence and qualification called "Vapour", also known as "FWBO", "MonkeyMind", "Yoji Hajime" (or similar). That alone should give people pause for thought: why does someone keep changing their nomenclature in this manner?

My identity and views are perfectly open and frank. I am not trying to turn Wikipedia into my "soapbox": I am a scholar who is putting out, in a balanced manner, information which I am one of the few in this country to possess. Simple.

So I ask Vapour to cease these foolish attacks upon my work (or Stephen Hodge's) and my contributions to Wikipedia. If any sense were being employed here, it would easily be seen that I have often included comments in Wikipedia which completely contradict what I personally believe. Any normal person with a modicum of understanding could see that when I describe the Tathagatagarbha doctrines as "controversial", that is hardly an endorsement of my own particular views - if anything, it's a warning flag that these views may be aberrant and deviant within the overall corpus of Buddhist teaching.

If this nonsense continues, I shall simply not waste any more time in discussion with utterly unreasonable, barely comprehensible and arrogant people. I have better things to do with my time. Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Nat (me "ultra-Mahayanist" ? LOL) and Tony for your observations on the above piece by user "Vapour".

The more I read contributions by the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" duo, I am convinced there is some kind of colluding cabal at work, given the similarities of their personal attacks of myself and Dr Page -- both members of the duo often exhibit a striking immaturity in their criticisms and innuendoes. I suggest they both have a good , long hard look at themselves before they start levelling their unfounded slurs at others.

I have already addressed a response to "RandomCritic" half of the duo on the Anatta talk page under "Response to RandomCritic", which should be read in conjunction with this, but let me set the record straight here once and for all. I am a professional academic Buddhist translator, researcher and writer -- yes, some of us can just about make a living thus -- and have only ever worked for bona fide mainstream publishers and organizations. To spell things out more clearly, the key word in the previous sentence is "academic", though the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique seem to have an aversion to academics. Of course, I know Dr Page personally, value his friendship and have produced translations for him on a professional, contractual basis, that he has reproduced on his website -- a website in which I have no direct involvement whatsoever. I also happen to share some of the views which I believe he holds, but as he will be the first to admit, I often disagree with him and challenge a number of his views. I am not a fool and I have a mind of my own. As for this Attasarana fellow, I have no idea who he is, I have never met him, nor have I even responded to him in this forum. Additionally, I do not endorse the overall tone and content of the website linked to this Attasarana, and I have no interest whatsoever in promoting his particular agenda, except in the one respect I mention below. I do not have the slightest interest in Vedanta or any other aspect of Hinduism -- Buddhist research takes up all of my time.

However, I do think that there are issues raised by Attasarana about the traditional understanding of the anatta doctrine which need to be reported in a balanced, neutral POV Wiki article. The "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" duo evidently have a very limited range of expertise on Buddhist matters and seem very ill-informed on the number of modern scholars who have raised exactly the same issues in the same terms -- was "anatta/anatman" intended to be a blanket denial of all forms of "atta" and did the Buddha teach some form of "atta/atman" implicitly or explicitly. I mentioned on the Anatta Discussion page some of those scholars. The findings of these scholars of quite significant and merit, in my view, an entirely new article on the reconstruction of pre-canonical Buddhism, which will also deal with the "anatta" problem. If you have not been keeping up with research on this, you might come in for some surprises.

My responses to the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique hitherto have been concerned with their knee-jerk hostile reactions to the Attasarana contribution -- which contrast unfavourably with that adopted by Nat Krause, even though he has been a butt of Attasarana's vituperations. For all his egregious infelicities, user Attasarana is obviously not unfamiliar with some of this research and deserves some respect for this, even though he yokes it to his own agenda in his own inimitable style. If the "Vapour"-"RandomCritic" clique think they know better, let them write the Anatta article in a balanced manner that takes account of the core issues user Attasarana mentions -- but this is unlikely to be forth-coming, I imagine: more than a little bit of back-ground research will be necessary first. Still, let that stand as a challenge.

Finally, the "Vapour" half of the clique says "TonyMPNS and Stephen Hodge are soapboxing related Buddhist articles too. Quite few articles have some blatant and some subtle promotion of their position". This is typical of the ad hominem vaporous dross which emanates from the user "Vapour" (how can we take seriously somebody who repeatedly doesn't even spell Buddha properly ?). Whether Dr Page is soapboxing is for him to answer and for others to decide. I personally don't believe he is. But "Vapour" has obviously not taken the time to look at the histories of the various articles he alludes to -- where does my name appear as a substantial editor ? I contributed one passage on the history of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and that's all. My other contributions have only been short articles on various Yogacara masters and their works -- which is, alas, my main interest. All dry as dust and quite neutral POV.

All in all, this latest piece of innuendo and slur from the user "Vapour" suggests to me an act of desperation on the part of one who is struggling with a poverty of real expertise on Buddhist matters. I take the same view as Dr Page -- if this lack of respect and unpleasantness continues, I shall cease any involvement with the Wiki Buddhism articles and put my time to better use.--Stephen Hodge 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hodge: I am not a clique or half of a clique and I have no connection with Vapour other than that we both recognize the damage that Attasarana has done to the Anatta page. I regret to see you enabling this. Your language ("knee-jerk hostile", "ad hominem vaporous dross") is not conducive to a resolution of the issues. It would be kind of you to retract your characterizations. As for rewriting the anatta article, this is obviously difficult when one user treats a page as his wholly-owned property and reverts any edits made to his writing. We can't even begin to have a discussion of the relative prominence to give to different theories until that problem is dealt with. At present, however, Anatta is entirely one-sided, poorly written, shoddily sourced article. Just because it happens to agree with your prejudices in this matter is no reason for you to defend either the behavior or the form of the article. I would ask you to separate your personal views from the needs of Wikipedia. RandomCritic 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OED: "Clique": a small exclusive group of people. I have absolutely no intention of retracting my comments, especially in light of your ad hominen comments directed at me previously and yet again here. In view of your last sentence above, you are encouraging me to think that you are perhaps not a very bright person. What part of my reply to you on the Anatta Discussion page are you having difficulty with ? I know user "Vapour" would like the content of Wikipedia to cater for 15 years-olds preferably with an IQ of 90, but I really thought you had a far better grasp of English. Where do I fail to make myself clear to you when I write, "As far as Attasarana's conduct is concerned, I have a little sympathy with him, but I am also inclined to agree that the article itself could be improved considerably with less polemics, less verbosity and more citations. It is nothing like the article which I would write, even though I think that it contains material that has wrongly been marginalized or ignored in "mainstream" accounts of Buddhism. Just because the main thrust of that article is currently a minority view, this does not make it ipso facto wrong or eccentric or worthy to be dismissed in a few lines as has been suggested here. I have observed the same phenomenon in studies dealing with Yogacara over the past three decades -- see the work of scholars such as Dan Lusthaus, Alex Wayman, Janet Willis and Lambert Schmidthausen. They have virtually overturned the formerly prevailing paradigm of understanding which was based on traditional commentaries and sectarian distortions."  ? Yet you persist in these unwarranted comments of yours -- what on earth do you mean by "your prejudices in this matter" ? You kindly write, "I would ask you to separate your personal views from the needs of Wikipedia": if I am guilty of this, which I dispute, does nothing written by you in this debate reflect your personal views and prejudices ? And one last thing, please stop being so shy and do tell us what your Pali credentials are !--Stephen Hodge 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's always tough to figure out how to respond to someone who is so obviously angry that any good points he might make get drowned in a tide of invective. One is tempted to respond point by point, but this generally tends to enable the anger and keep it going. So it's probably better just to ignore the invective and other irrelevant material and let the angry person cool off. With respect to the one point that is discernible amid the dross, in Wikipedia we deal with fields of knowledge as they currently are, not as one person might guess or wish that they might become. Since Wikipedia is a constantly changing medium, there is always time in the future to bring an article up to date as the field changes. But we cannot anticipate such changes without introducing POV. RandomCritic 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On your first comment, I'll address this in my reply to you on the Anatta talk page later, except I'll say here that deliberate provocation is hardly conducive to a calm and constructive discussion. But now it would seem that an end is in sight for this current "debate". As for anticipating future developments, I was not suggesting that we should write articles in the way you suggest. I was trying to point out is that there are often re-evaluations of conventional knowledge that are current amongst specialists, but take an unncessarily long time to percolate down to popular presentations. In this case, there is a increasingly substantial amount of bona fide scholarly work available which suggests that the popular or orthodox understanding of "what the Buddha" taught is distorted and out of date as far as scholars are concerned. One such finding is that the Nikayas are heavily stratified and contain many elements that ae unlikely to have originated with the historical Buddha -- even the 5 skandhas, the 12-fold chain of interdependent arising, and, of course, the blanket application of the anatta doctrine. I am hoping eventually to do a new article that presents the findings of these scholars on pre-NIkayan Buddhism.--Stephen Hodge 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, did I open a can of worms? (^o^) I can't make point by point rebuttal at this point. I'll do that when I come back later. So here is a short reply. One, I didn't say just cabal. I said "sort of cabal.", which I clarified subsequently to refer to "collective defence of Attrasana's editing" (more like vandalism to be honest) and doctrinal overlaping (which is fairly unusual one). As of disagreement of editorial policy, why is it that Mr. Tony and Mr. Hodge doesn't seem to quote from wikipedia policies and guideline documents. When I make a claim, I try to refers to relevant policies or guideline documents (including "adult with highschool education" being our target audience. "Monkey brain" and "IQ90" are obviously meant to be jokes. :-) ). "It hasn't been a problem" is also a pathetic argument. Wikipedia allow people to edit freely even to the point of disregarding the letters of policies and guideline as long as each follow wikipedia's ideal. But it specifically state that one must foget this liberalism when someone invoke policies and guideline.

Main problem with Mr.Tony, Mr.Hodge or Attrasana is that they think their supposed expertise and long involvement in Buddhism mean something in wikipedia article. On contrary, wikipedia document specifically state that even edit from a Nobel prize winner will be rejected if it fail to satisfy wikipedia policies. It's pointless to claim one's POV are NPOV based on their self proclaimed CV. If they do indeed have expert knowledge, they would have been able publish in accredited peer reviewed journal then make reference from such sources. They would have zero need to assert their alleged expertise in here.

Oh, as of my multiple id, I experimented with real name thingy for a very short period until I found it to be a bad idea. I switch to Vapour from FWBOarticle because someone adviced me to do so on NPOV ground. Feel free to report me if you think I abuse the system. I'm happy to defend my action which is done on good faith. You can read the switch advice given to me in FWBOarticle's talk page. I also declared my old id in the debate which i was engaging at the time of the switch. Anyway, instead of short response, it ended up as a middle length response. I will be back to respond to criticisms which I didn't answer. See ya. V(^^) Vapour

• Yoji ("Vapour"): I feel uneasy about having to "trumpet" things about myself here (I find it

distasteful) - but just for the record: my Buddhist work is internationally acknowledged, and I have been - and continue to be - invited as a specialist on the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra" to attend international academic conferences on Buddhism and also to lecture on the MPNS at university to students and scholars alike; furthermore, at least one of my books is official "recommended reading" at university level ...

But this is not really the point. The main issue you and I have is whether the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is rightly called "controversial" (without the need for citation); I contend that it is justified so to label it; furthermore, I support the right of alternate views on "non-Self" to be fully aired on this website (as long as supporting evidence is provided, which it has been until now). Really, there is not much more to be said now. It is for other editors overall to see who they think is being sensible and reasonable in this discussion. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User "Vapour": You say "I can't make point by point rebuttal at this point". Don't trouble yourself, because you are a) getting extremely repetitious and b) using straw-man arguments. You allude to a supposed "collective defence of Attrasana's editing". I think I have made it sufficiently clear that I do not endorse user Attasarana's editing, his tactics, the style of his article and his use of polemics, and I have already stated several times that his contribution on the "anatta" issue to be unsatisfactory in a number of ways, though I strongly believe that the basic issue needs a substantial article. That is why I offered (and intend) to write another version. We can then discuss any problems you raise at that stage. In the meantime, I intend to stop responding to your attempts at trolling. I have watched your activities for a long time and see somebody who apparently loves to act frequently in a dismissive and high-handed manner that seems designed to provoke antagonism. This is a form of trolling.

You say "Main problem with Mr. Tony, Mr. Hodge or Attrasana (sic) is that they think their supposed expertise and long involvement in Buddhism mean (sic) something in wikipedia article". First, it is disrespectful to say "supposed". Both of us have a public record on our expertise and long involvement which anybody can verify -- the fact that you are unaware of this is your problem. If expertise is meaningless in Wikipedia articles, then the whole project is a complete waste of time. You say, "a Nobel prize winner will be rejected". Have you ever wondered why most genuine scholars don't bother with Wikipedia -- at least, here with Buddhism ? Precisely due to this kind of disrespect for their work. It is a deplorable state of affairs that somebody writes an article that utilizes years of knowledge, and then some twerp (who, naturally, hides behind a pseudonym) comes along and thinks they know better. The twerp is usually too stupid even to realize how egregious his behaviour is.

You say, "If they do indeed have expert knowledge, they would have been able publish in accredited peer reviewed journal then make reference from such sources". I think, even that is discouraged by official Wikipedia policies and not everybody who has expert knowledge feels the desire to publish in peer-reviewed journals. My impression is that you hid behind rules in an attempt to supress views with which you disagree, despite your protestations to the contrary. When I see you obsessively attacking and demolishing other articles, I might be persuaded otherwise.

You finally write: "I will be back to respond to criticisms which I didn't answer". Once again, please do not trouble yourself. I have no interest in anything you might wish to say at present.--Stephen Hodge 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous postings. Having looked at various Wikipedia rules and guidelines at the suggestion of user "Vapour", I suggest that it is actually or borderlines on vandalism. In the Wikipedia discussion of Types of Vandalism there is the entry: "Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit". This cannot be excused as "bold editing", because the following guidelines and protocol have not been followed: Bold Edits: "If someone writes an inferior article, a merely humorous article, an article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it" and "always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text". In the current dispute User "Vapour" has not corrected, added to or replaced user Attarsarana's contributions, and though some passages were eventually moved and objections listed, this was some time after the initial blanking of user Attasarana's input, thereby once again unnecessarily causing antagonism. Since user "Vapour" is such a stickler for the Wikipedia rules, could I ask him to stop vandalizing articles and adhere to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The approach suggested by user Nat Krause, who opened this sub-section, seems to have been both constructive and also in adherence to the above guidelines.--Stephen Hodge 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Influential and doctrinally striking

Vapour writes: "As of 'influential and doctrinally striking', it doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone else consider to be so. Problem is a lack of POV attribution." I think that, in practice, it does matter very much. I know that, in theory, every little piece of information in Wikipedia should be thoroughly cited. However, we know that, at current, very few of them are. Consequently, it makes a big difference in what order we go about demanding citations for them. A good practice is to begin by going after "facts" which are questionable (as well as those which are false, if you deign not to remove them in the first place). Also, I think you are taking the rule against peacock terms too strictly; it's not a very well-written policy, but I think it should be understood to proscribe unnecessary dressing-up of the subject in question, in ways that provide no useful information. For instance, one outght not to write of Otto von Bismarck: "Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian politician who held positions XYZ, ABC, DEF, and achieved XYZ, 什么什么什么, etc. ad infinitem. Otto von Bismarck was an important man," because the fact that he was important is quite clear from the foregoing. To say that the Nirvana Sutra's message on atman is controversial is not at all the same, because it is telling us something important about the relationship between that sutra and modern Buddhist thinking. Now, one might dispute that the relevant sections of the Nirvana Sutra are controversial by arguing that they are, in fact, close to the mainstream of Mahayana; however, this would seem to imply that we should give them a more prominent place in the article, which I don't think is what you seem to be aiming for—

Its necessary to point out this profane Strawman fallacy as listed below from Vapour:

He (Attasarana) is not so found of anicca, anatta or dukkha either. What Attasarana is doing in anatta article is basically a POV vandalism. He appear to have no regard to NPOV. User: Vapour

On the contrary, I support all 662 occurrences of anatta in Sutta; all of which are contextually adjective referring to a list of 22 nouns as being either anatta/dukkha/anicca. The usage of anatta by Gotama supports the Atman, the Soul in referring to all empirical and consubstantial phenomena as being other than the soul.

At no time has Gotama made the proclamation to the effect that “Bhikkhu, natthattati’!” (followers, there is no Soul!). As for the “NPOV” claim leveled, this is a baseless claim without substantiation. Countless passages from sutta, regardless of translator, illuminate the fact that 22 nouns ARE ANATTA, nothing more can be said from doctrine. Its necessary to point out that from countless sources such as “Buddhist Sects in India” by Dutta, and others, that Theravada did not exist until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries A.D. (C.E.). As such, while “old” by our standards, is in fact very very late and secular non-original and heretical perspective upon Buddhist doctrine.

Can there be any doubt what anatta refers to?

[SN 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, form, Radha is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul.”

Might I make note that ALL Pali Theravada scholars admit to countless points of doctrine in the Nikayas which do not accord with the view of Theravada orthodoxy, the Abhidhamma, and Buddhaghosa. Such doctrines as “antarabhava” (in-between-existence; i.e. after death, but before reincarnation) is admitted by the Theravada to be prevalent in the Nikayas but utterly denied by the Theravada view, as Bhikkhu Bodhi himself admits, wherein Bhikkhu Bodhi admits “This [SN 4.400] goes against Theravada view”

[SN 4.400] At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness.

As for pathetic "Hindu" insults, might I remind such profane commentators remember that no such term as Hinduism existed at the time of Gotama.

"Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]

"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path I follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which I have discovered" SN 2.106

[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”

"I HAVE NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana

"I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka

– User Attasarana, Pali translator, Author, webmaster attan.com

No one here has made any insults regarding Hinduism. You seem to have imagined this.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist Course of Study

I'm sorry, but a Buddha does not have to spend years cultivating his/her spirit, investigating the various religious practices of his/her time, and meditating. A Buddha merely has to understand that there is suffering, suffering is caused by craving, and that craving can be eliminated. These are the Noble Truths of Buddhism. They can be realized in a sudden moment of knowledge. The passage in the article about years of cultivation, investigation, and meditation are incorrect and I intend to delete it if no one objects.Lestrade 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

huh? I suppose it's true that in the Zen and Vajrayana traditions you can realize the 4NT "suddenly", that would only be after many years of preparation to do so. Certainly the Therevada and most of the Mahayana would see this insight as the product of long study (as I recall, one scripture says that becoming a Buddha takes three great kalpas). Saying "realized in a sudden moment of knowledge" implies a simplicity of understanding ("I was in the cafe drinking a latte yesterday, and I realized that suffering is caused by attachment!") inconsistent with a real spiritual understanding. I would object to that removal. bikeable (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Understanding is mental, not spiritual. To realize the deep veracity of the Noble Truths is to understand them by associating them with personal experience. This does not have to take several years.Lestrade 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, what's your source for this?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I definitely share Bikeable's (and Nat's?) view on this one. If one follows the Pali accounts of the Buddha's life and take the Buddha Gotama as exemplary (as he is usually regarded as being), it would seem that he (and by implication, other Buddhas) did, at the very least, engage in six years of spiritual quest for the solution to the problem of suffering and its ending (it is not just "mental" development - but very much moral training that is involved too). This is, by the way, not usually presented as "study" as we normally would think of study today. It was more practically orientated - training or disciplining of body and mind, culminating in supreme meditation. Then if we take the Mahayana view, the Buddha (and this is in fact backed up by the Pali jatakas) spent lifetime after lifetime perfecting himself through practice of the "paramitas" (perfections). So I think that for both Theravada and Mahayana, it would be accurate to say that the Buddha Gotama - usually presented in the Mahayana, anyway, as a paradigm of all perfect Buddhas -became a Buddha after years (if not aeons) of inner and outer cultivation and self-discipline. When we come to the Zen and some Vajrayana teachings, however, there is a different take on what is possible as regards the attainment of Awakening - it can be a sudden event. But I don't think even the Zen Buddhists claim that Gotama himself did not engage in many years of self-cultivation. So I think the introductory part of the article - saying that a Buddha is generally viewed as becoming a Buddha after many years of inner cultivation, spiritual discipline/ practice, meditation and reflection - should not be removed. It is not really factually wrong, according to the foundational suttas/ sutras - so why delete what is pretty defensible? However, I do agree that some Zen masters and other Buddhists teach that Buddhahood can be attained in a moment of insight. So perhaps a bracketed note could be added to the effect that other Buddhist traditions (e.g. Zen) hold that Awakening can be realised in an instant, given the right practices and attitude of mind. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Tony. I'd also like to add that—based on my very limited understanding—I don't have the impression that the Zen emphasis on subitism is incompatible with the necessity for cultivation. That is, the fact that an event is sudden does not mean that it is not the result of lengthy preparations. Given that cultivation seems to be the default in Buddhist thought, I would, therefore, assume that Zen also asserts the need for cultivation; at least, by the scale of a human lifetime—I seem to recall hearing implications a few times that Zen sees itself as circumventing or attenuating the need for eons of cultivation, although I'm not sure how mainstream this idea is in Asian Zen thought. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Nat. Many thanks for the above posting. I appreciate your points. I think you are actually right: even the Zen Buddhists practise (often for years) in order to attain that "flash" of satori or kensho. Also, we should note that there is, in Pali Buddhism, a distinction between a Buddha and an arhat: an arhat may get illuminated swiftly by the words of the Buddha; but the Buddha himself is a spiritual pioneer (in a sense) - he is the re-discoverer of the ancient Path. And such attainment takes (as you say) at least a lifetime or (as portrayed in most Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism) many lifetimes of endeavour and self-perfection. So again, I would take your own position, and that of Bikeable, and say: "keep the contested passage in"! Cheers, from Tony. TonyMPNS 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This was quite an interesting discussion -- thank you both (and thanks to Lestrade for starting it!). bikeable (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bikeable, for your kind comment! All the best - Tony. TonyMPNS 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we're finished already. But what about Buddha Sakyamuni's sudden understanding of life after he observed a sick person, an old person, and a dead person? This resulted in his subsequent judgments about suffering, craving, and the cessation of craving.Lestrade 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The four sights that you're referring to marked the beginning of the Buddha's spiritual quest (specifically, the beginning of the final intensive phase of that quest). You could say that witnessing the sights and the Buddha's reaction to them were part of his years of cultivation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be used as an internet forum. Please do not take attitude that your little abuse doesn't matter. If everyone start to post their personal pet topic in this page, the situation will soon become impossible. I would like some of you to simply move this section to Archive 9. Whatever the quality of your discussion, it is same as litering in public park. Vapour

In accordance with User Vapour's admonishment, I will assume that the matter is not appropriate for discussion. Therefore, I will remove the article references to a Buddha's extended time of preparation.Lestrade 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

That's certainly not the right way to handle the situation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. First, Vapor, that's just ridiculous -- we are discussing a point in the article to come to consensus as to what the article should say. This is precisely what talk pages are for. And Lestrade, I must say, that's a very strange reaction, and you certainly would appear to be flaunting the opinions of other editors, which is, at the very minimum, not polite. bikeable (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded bit abrasive. Vapour

Open Task

I would like to delete Open Task for Buddhism, but leave the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism. Wikipedia is not particularly fast website. For people with slower connection, it is worse. And this talk page has tendency to reach significant size. I would like to remove content which can be served well in other page. Vapour

I'm neutral on this suggestion. The Buddhism Open Task template is much larger than it used to be. Maybe we should just reduce it to a more reasonable size.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Open Task for Buddhism are presented as "To Do" list in Wikiproject Buddhism. So we can save lot of space and serve the same purpose by leaving link to WikiProject Buddhism. How about making Wikiproject Buddhism as a tag? Vapour

I don't know how to make a tag. Can someone help? Vapour

I'm not sure what you mean by a tag.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

editing, not vandalism

not vandalism, but editing - The edit envolved the fact that Buddha was interpreting the Hindu understanding of the Cosmos User:Tribal-fusion

Okay, I'll accept that your edit was not actually vandalism. However, your interpretation of Buddhism is not really the sort of thing that should be in the intro, I think.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with these "facts" about buddha interpreting Hindu understanding of Cosmo. As I understand it, Buddhism was a break from Hindu dominant culture. Saying that buddha was simply interpreting Hindu understanding is not really the case. Buddha may have been influenced by Hindu, but he was also influenced by other spiritual teachers aswell. So there it is not really the case that Buddha was interpeting Hinduism. Just that he found what was "lost". It would be correct to say that he was simply interpeting what was "lost". And I agree with Nat Krause, that it does not belong in the intro because it might confuse those who are not knowledgeable about Buddhism. - Monkey Brain

Ok, maybe not in the intro, but maybe so. but I believe it should be noted somewhere, because Buddha was raised in Hindu society and hinduism's religeous beliefs were the underpinning of has teachings. He was describing what he believed to be deeper revalation of the Hindu Cosmology. I recall always seeing the links between Hinduism and the origin of Buddhism in many educational resources throughout my life and it was taught that way in high school and college. I went to high school and college in the late 80s andearly to mid 90s. Tribal-fusion 19:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Buddha was raised in a Hindu society. According to the Hinduism article, Hinduism did not form "until these Vedic traditions interacted with the shramanical movements of Buddhism and Jainism". There was a lot of cross-pollenation between the various dhammas of the time, and the Vedic traditions was one of the many strands of doctrine that became what we now call Hiduism and Buddhism. --- Andkaha^(talk) 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it is anachronistic to speak of "Hinduism" in the context of the Buddha's lifetime. The correct term is "Brahmanism".--Stephen Hodge 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tribal-Fusion, I’m afraid to state the obvious that user Nat Krause is a typical secularist blind to countless 1000s of scriptural passages as pertains original Buddhism. Not a truth-seeker himself, his mission is to guard his incorrect, secular, and illogical views of Buddhism. Like the Catholic Church, which is nothing Jesus taught (Catholicism), that is often accused of protecting in secret and destroying Gnostic-like manuscripts and gospels, Buddhism too has this breed amongst its rank and file.

I'm sorry, but is this a reference to The Da Vinci Code? --- Andkaha^(talk) 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause, in debate, has been proven that he is unaware and adverse to the fact all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (In Doctrine) and unceasingly refuses to refer to same to support his unsubstantiated claims as pertains Buddhist doctrine.

Unfortunately Nat Krauses' position is identical to that of Theravada and most of Mahayana to wit the denial of all things other than 6: the 5-khandhas and agnosis (avijja); as such this is merely nothing more than Materialist-Humanism, wherein, thru the denial of ones Subjective Nature (Svabhava-Atman), all that is left is a compassion-based Humanistic Nihilism.

Surely the "light-within (dipam)"-Dn 2.100, and "Immortality (amata)"-Sn 5.9, has no place in what is concurrently passed off to the general public as "the teachings of the Buddha". One might as well deny Christ in Christianity as to remove the "only refuge", the Soul from the doctrine of Buddhism; whether illogical or non-doctrinal, the center doesn’t hold for a Liberation (vimutta) ontology such as Buddhism to espouse such nonsense.

“It cannot be otherwise that the Soul is the refuge, the light within, the refuge of the Tathagatas of the three periods”-[Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

Udana 1.81. There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not ,disciples, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.

"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" -SN 2.106

"I have NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana

"Gotama is a TEVIJJAN (Comprehensor/Expert in the Vedas)"- common passage

“The Buddha is a teacher of Monism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]

"Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Itivuttaka

[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”- Gotama

"I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka - - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Please note that the above rambling comment was left by "Attasarana", who edits primarily under an alternating series of IP addresses. Although I think he has added some useful information to the anatta article, I find his contributions to Buddhism, which concern so-called "presecular Buddhism" and which dismiss most of actual modern-day Buddhism as idolatry, to be worthy of removal. I'd ask other editors to help me keep an eye on his activities here.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

to: Krause and Attasarana, I am not a secular or presecular Buddhist. I am no Buddhist at all. I am a student of religion and its doctrines, origins and how they relate to each other and societies past and present. I hope I can enjoy working in the same space, with mutual respect. I wish not to be used in your personal war against each other. I wish onlt to include the truth and the whole matter of ant subject. User:Tribal-fusion 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You will not get anything worthy of calling "truth" by asking too many people... "Consensus" is your best bet, "one person's veiw" is the more likely result. --- Andkaha^(talk) 17:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Attasarana is supportings views similar to those referred to in this text. Google'ing for the verbatim references that he gives also produces interesting results. --- Andkaha^(talk) 21:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, personal attack has no place on wikipedia. I have just read the text at watflorida which seems - in a manner - reasonable, whereas the diatribe of Attasarana above is disjointed and appears to me to be unreasoned. I completely agree that "Brahminical Vedism" is a better term than "Hinduism" to describe the influences of Sakyamuni's court life - but more than that - he was particularly inspired by the anti-Brahminical shramanic movements that later developed into Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika.

I vigorously oppose the statement that "all religious debates are Sola Scriptura" - especially if we identify the term "Dharma" to mean "truth". If Buddhism depended solely on this rather protestant idea, then there could be no Pratyekabuddhas.

As for Attasarana's interpretations of Sutra - they are selective and indicate the particular convictions that Attasarana feels most comfortable with. If we examine the entire collection of Buddhist sutras, we can find many verses which appear to be contradictory. The Indo-Tibetan interpretation (via the famous Bengali, Dipamkara Atisha) is that Buddha teaches according to the individual needs and requirements of his audience at the time. What Dipamkara's interpretation implies about Buddhist truth is therefore very distinct from any absolutist views - the explication of truth itself depends upon the context within which it is placed. Accordingly, Attasarana himself can only know if his views of Buddhism are truths for him - and the criterion for measuring their truth-value is whether or not his views free him from the delusions and chains of samsara. (20040302 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

May I suggest improvement. Why not explain "tirthika". In Oriental Buddhism they are called Six Masters of Tirthika, i.e. 6 major non Buddhist sects during the time of Buddha. Plus, it is not POV to assume that the current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism was also held during the time of Buddha. To claim that Buddah was interepretating Hinduism is not quite NPOV if you presume that Hinduism hasn't change since the time eternal. Recently, a book making reference to ancient practice of animal sacrifice caused a big controversy and protest. I would say counter interpretation of Buddhism from present Hinduism position won't be NPOV. Of course, what is present or ancient hinduism is another point of contention. This is more apporpriate to be discussed in a sister page rather than in main Buddhism article. .Vapour

Hmm well - I could possibly accept the statement that "orthodox Hindus believe that Hinduism hasn't changed since the beginning of time" - as long as there are sources to back that up. However, I contest the claim that "it is not POV to assume that the current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism was also held during the time of Buddha". I am not sure that (1) There is a univerally agreed meaning "current orthdox/conventional understanding of Hinduism": What does this refer to? Vaishnavism? Saivism? Shaktism? Advaita? Vedic Brahminism? Brahminical Vedism? An as yet identified syncretisation of these? Something else entirely? (2) That it is relevant to anything.

Regarding Tirthika - I agree it would be good to have an article about this - but it is a distinct concept - and represents a distinct set of ideas that is generally thought to have arisen after Buddha's time. Take this from a Sanskrit dictionary for instance: "Tirthika literally means 'one belonging to a tirtha or holy place,' hence 'a worthy and holy man,' a Brahmana. Later when Brahmanism, Jainism, and Buddhism became antagonistic to one another, this word was applied to a follower or leader of a religion or philosophy other than one's own. For instance, the Buddhists called the Jainas, 'Tirthikas,' or ironically 'Brahmanical ascetics,' or 'unbelievers.' The Jainas, in their turn, called the Buddhists 'Tirthikas,' also implying 'infidels,' 'unbelievers.' " - So, my point is that it doesn't necessarily clarify an issue by using a term that is already rich in it's own meaning and prone to a variety of interpretations. What we generally find in modern historic sourcebooks are phrases such as "anti-Brahminical shramanic movements" - which would include the early Buddhist, Jaina and Ajivika traditions as well as the various shramanic traditions that inspired Sakyamuni to leave his royal court. In terms of identifiable religious influences - there are the court influences (Vedic Brahminism) and then the Shramanical influences (which tended to be vehemently anti-Brahminical). Any *cough* orthodox Hindu would need to decide which of these heterogenous influential religious groups represented the hinduism that hasn't changed since time eternal. (20040302 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

In one of British comedy skech, a second generation Indian British boy ask his father, "Dad, what is Hinduism?" in which the dad respond, "Son, listen to me very very carefully. Never eat cow!" It's funnier with caricured accent. I would say it is very informative to describe "Vedic Brahminism" as well as Shramanical traditions which would help puting the Gautama Buddha's teaching in proper context. In Japan, Brahminism is more common reference to distinguish it from modern Hinduism because "alleged" over emphasis on rituals (including animal sacrifice). There are plenty of refernce within Buddhist writing which make reference to this subject. Obviously, there will be disagreement as to what is "Vedic Brahiminism" but we can solve that with verifiability criteria. It probably better to explore this subject in "Gautama Buddha" or "History of Buddhism" sister articles with only passing reference in this main article. Vapour

The size of the article (Bloating Problem)

Let discuss the main issue of this article. This article has tendency to bloat, which is usually related to Mahayana/Theravada/Vijryana disambiguation. This is like a cancer. You cut it off but it will come back one way or another. Any suggestion for better treatment? Vapour

Religion

No offence to the other editors but Buddhism is not a religion, it is an atheistic philosophy. Buddha was profoundly athiestic after experimenting with local Hindu faiths and then formed Buddhim: which is athiestic.

So could we please change the description to athiestic philosophy? User:Green01 4:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree (and we've discussed this before). Just because it doesn't have a "God" (whether or not it has "gods") doesn't mean it's not a religion. The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) gives several definitions for "religion", including "3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader". In fact, I would guess that that definition was written with Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism in mind. bikeable (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We should have a Buddhism talk history wiki. (20040302 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

• Hallo Green01 and Bikeable. I have to admit that I am with Bikeable on this one. First of all, "Buddhism" is a staggeringly vast array of various beliefs, practices and teachings. It encompasses just about every form of spiritual belief and teaching one can think of - from the Buddha's "noble silence" on big metaphysical questions in the Pali suttas, through the doctrine of the "Tathagatagarbha" (Buddhic Essence), which is said to inhere in every single phenomenon, to the (to all intents and purposes) Absolute Buddha (Adibuddha) of the Tantras, where such as Vairocana or Samantabhadra Buddha are seen as the emanational source of the universe. Buddhism can definitely be seen as a religion (it contains so many "supernatural" elements - including "gods" - which characterise religions). Is it "atheism"? Well, perhaps one could say that Theravada Buddhism comes close to atheism. I would not, myself, say outright that it is full-blown atheism. The "Times English Dictionary" defines "atheism" as "rejection of belief in God or gods" - and clearly Theravada Buddhism does not reject "gods" (devas). Certainly it is inappropriate to say that some of Mahayana or Tantric Buddhism constitutes "atheism". Generally, though, I would prefer to say Buddhism tends to be "non-theistic". Anyway, have a look, if you feel like it, at the God in Buddhism piece on Wikipedia. It has more info. Best wishes to you, and to Bikeable (and 2004) too of course! From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism (Northern Tradition)

This sub-section currently opens: "The Mahāyāna as a distinct movement began around the 1st century BCE in the area around the Kuṣāṇa Empire (now an area within Pakistan)". Though this is a popular conventional view, and it is likely that some elements of Mahayana did indeed originate there, there is also evidence from the Mahayana sutras themselves that major components of Mahayana originated with the Shatavahana Empire south of the Vindhya range, straddling the Deccan from present-day Gujerat across to the area around Amaravati. For example, a well-known passage in the Prajna-paramita sutras talks of Mahayana orginating in the South and then moving northwards. The Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra has the Buddha say that the Mahayana sutras and bodhisattvas will be most numerous and abundant in the South and "that is why I always praise the South". I propose to amend that opening sentence to reflect this situation.--Stephen Hodge 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However I seem to recall that User:PHG tends to believe that the entire Mahayana movement stems from Hellenic influence, and Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards this due to the amount of work he has spent promoting these ideas. Eg: This inscription represents one of the first known mention of the Buddha as a deity, using the Indian bhakti word Bhagavat ("Lord", "All-embracing personal deity"), suggesting the emergence of Mahayana doctrines in Buddhism. and The Mahayana movement probably began around the 1st century BCE in northwestern India, at the time and place of these interactions. According to most scholars, the main sutras of Mahayana were written after 100 BCE, when sectarian conflicts arose among Nikaya Buddhist sects regarding the humanity or super-humanity of the Buddha and questions of metaphysical essentialism, on which Greek thought may have had some influence: "It may have been a Greek-influenced and Greek-carried form of Buddhism that passed north and east along the Silk Road" (McEvilly, "The shape of ancient thought"). (taken from PHG in Greco-Buddhism ) as well as similar contributions in Mahayana. PHG appears to be strongly influenced by the syncretist McEvilley. (20040302 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I have changed the first sentence of this section along the lines suggested by me above. Looking at the remainder of this paragraph, there are further infelicities which I would like to change. I'll do this incrementally to allow time for discussion if so desired.--Stephen Hodge 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bird & worm

201.19.108.253 inserted a paragraph into the "Gautama the Buddha" section:

He somehow managed to stay away from the group where his father was, and started to meditate over what was around himself. One fact called his attention: a bird eating a worm. He thought that if there hadn't been anyone ploughing, the worm wouldn't have been exposed and then eaten by the bird. He reflected upon that and realized how deeply actions could influence upon alien lives. Also, this poignant memory helped to set on Siddartha's mind bewilderment over the conundrum of "suffering". Why was it that one being should go through pain during its existence?

Is there some source for this? Since it was inserted without an edit comment by an anonymous user, and since it is without citation, I have reverted that edit. --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

200.149.48.24 reinserted the paragraph, and I reverted it again (no sources cited, no comment given). Can we discuss this please? --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Andkaha and 2001! On this matter, I tend to agree with Andkaha that it would be helpful if 2001 could give us a citation for the passage about the bird eating the worm, etc. I myself am not familiar with this incident - but this may simply be my lack of knowledge. I have checked the two main Mahayana depictions of Siddhartha's early life - The "Lalita-Vistara Sutra" and Asvaghosha's biography of the Buddha - but they do not mention the bird and the worm episode. What is mentioned there is the compassion Siddhartha felt for the farm workers in their hard labour and also (in Asvaghosha's text) his sympathy for the injured insects. But maybe the Pali vinaya or other Pali texts mention the bird and the worm and the interconnectedness of all things. Or maybe a general book on Buddhism came up with this speculation. If the story comes from the Buddhist scriptures, we can include it. If not - I agree with Andkaha that we should drop that bit from the narrative, which is otherwise very good. Best wishes to you both. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu

Okay, well, I hope this turns out to have a happier results than the last time I tried something similar. I'm hoping that some editors of this page might turn their attentions to the newly-created Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu article. I haven't gone over the whole thing yet, but it looks as if it might have some POV-fork-ish elements to it. Could definitely stand to have some more sets of eyes on it (this article is not written by or associated with Attasarana, but it does seem to have lifted some text from his version of the Brahman article). I'll work on it a bit later. One might also want to take a bit of a look at Brahmin influence on other religions, by the same author.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddha came from India. It should be noted early and clearly

I noticed on Wikipedia, I always have to fight to make a Buddhist article say that Buddha came from India...Why do many people have a hard time with this? He lived in INdia. He gained enlightenment in India. He spread his teachings in India. And he died in India....The only slight difference is, that his birth place was tehcnically on the boarder of what is now the India/Nepal boarder...But in those days their was no such thing as Nepal....And even if somebody wants to argue their was a Nepal...Buddha spoke Sanskrit, he was a Kasatriya, and he was born in a HIndu family...U cant get more Indian then that....Please for god sakes establish a clear sentence early in the article saying Buddha lived in India....Dont avoid it by saying it "spread from the Indian subcontinent" pleeeeease ARYAN818 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

India points to the modern country of Republic of India. Indian subcontinent is the correct term applicable here. --Ragib 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Aryan818. I have some sympathy with what you are saying. I do not myself understand why there is apparently opposition to saying that the Buddha was born in what today is the border of India and Nepal and lived his life in what is today called India. I have no axe to grind in this matter at all: as a Mahayana Buddhist, I believe that Siddhartha was in any case a kind of docetic projection of the Eternal Buddha - so I personally would not care whether he was born and lived in India, Africa, Jamaica, the South Sea Islands, or the United States! But it does strike me as odd that an encyclopaedia entry on Buddhism does not want to mention pretty much near the beginning that the historical founder of Buddhism dwelt his whole life long essentially in the geographical part of the world we now identify as India. I agree with you that it is perfectly reasonable to give this information. Perhaps we should, as other editors have suggested, call it "the Indian subcontinent" or "Ancient India" - but I do think it is of interest to the reader to know where this remarkable man, the "Buddha", actually lived and acted. This is pretty basic, I would have thought. So I do support your wish to have this information represented very early on in the article. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that our friend ARYAN818 (the man with the shouted username) is a protagonist of long-standing involvement on this topic, the yang to the yin of those editors who insist on emphasising that the Buddha was totally Nepalese. I can't help but feel mildly irritated at his MO of painting himself as constantly aggrieved and unanswered with regard to his complaints. In fact, this topic has been discussed in some detail on Talk:Gautama Buddha. I am, myself, generally sympathetic to the idea that one may affirm the statement, "the Buddha was from India"—it can be a useful abbreviation for the more complex truth. There is a general consensus, however, on Wikipedia, that the correct way for us to phrase it is to say that the Buddha lived on the Indian subcontinent. As for why this was not mentioned in the intro to this article ... it appears to me that Buddhism is currently in the degeneration phase of its life-cycle, and will be rejuvenated only when someone takes the time to revise it. So, it doesn't surprise me to find a minor error or omission. It is not the case that ARYAN818 has to fight to get a mention of the Indian subcontinent added—he need only edit the article—and I doubt that anyone has a problem with it. Now, if ARYAN818 doesn't like "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to "India", he should refer to the various discussions on Talk:Gautama Buddha, which he has, in fact, already been a party to.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Nepalese historically speak sanskrit, a great deal of them are Hindus, and they were even Shatriyas, Rajputs, Brahmins, you can't get more Indian, oops Nepalese than that. Nepal doesn't have much of a claim to fame, why steal it? Saying India is wrong, saying ancient India with a link to an article elucidating the difference is more correct. Generally the problem has been of people trying make historic India so large as to swallow the entire history of neighbouring regions. In this case there is good reason, but across the board its been a problem which is why the concensus has been arrived at and you have the term Indian sub-continent to help people orient themselves to the fact that just as yesterday, even today the region that was known as "India" is a geographical/ racial descriptor of a region which contains more than one nation. While it helps orient people it is not technically correct, which is what an encylopedia should attempt to be, so when mentioning his birthplace, say city_xxxx in Nepal if the city is there or India if there why weasel around with border region etc. Would he even qualify for an Indian passport if born today? Just as you would say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Palestine (It has not officially been annexxed by Israel but if they were giving away passports back then he would have had a Roman one, anyway I think you get the point). If he preached elsewhere than that is a seperate fact that deserves a seperate mention, each on its own merit, there is no need to impose todays nationalities or borders on yesterday or vice versa. The Romans are not playing the Gauls for the football world cup!--Tigeroo 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing....Buddha lived most his life in India....He reached Nirvana in India...He first spread his teachings in India...He died in India....And the only small difference is that he was technically born in what is now TODAY known as the boarder of Nepal & India....So because of one small technicallity you people want to avoid saying that Buddha was from India?...Did I Get that right?....See this is why sometimes I say that WIkipedia is not fair....I have given fact after fact after fact proving that Buddha was from India....But all of that goes out of the window because of one TECHNICALLITY?.....What a joke ARYAN818 08:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good old ARYAN818. Never gets tired of this schtick: "What? Someone has an argument contrary to mine? Are u nuts? This is why Wikipedia is so unfair!" And what is this about "you people"? Tigeroo is, I assume, one guy. Did you get the impression he is some kind of official Wikipedia representative? He doesn't even have a user page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey NAT KRAUSE your contradicting yourself....U just typed sarcastically about how I have said in the past that Wikipedia is unfair right?....well...your a prime example of why I say things like that....I Mean before u left that statement, I had left a whole paragprah with fact after fact after fact (scroll up and see for yourself) on how Buddha was from India.....and whats your response?....Saying sarcastic things about me and making jokes....and then you wonder why I say Wikipeida is unfair????....If u want me to think wikipedia is fair....how bout just answering my points instead of making sarcastic remarks....your majesty..... ARYAN818 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact after fact after fact? Let's take a look at your list of facts:

• The Buddha "lived in India"; true
• "He gained enlightenment in India"; true
• "He spread his teachings in India"; and also among his own people
• "only slight difference is, that his birth place was tehcnically on the boarder of what is now the India/Nepal boarder"; by this you presumably mean to say that the Buddha was actually not born in India
• "Buddha spoke Sanskrit"; what do you mean by this? Where does one get the idea that the Buddha spoke Sanskrit? I think all accounts are that the earliest Buddhist literature is in some type of prakrit. Since Sanskrit was almost certainly not his native tongue, it seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
• "he was a Kasatriya"; the Buddha was treated as a Kshatriya by people in Magadhan and the surrounding countries. Andrew Skilton argues in Concise History of Buddhism that this does not imply that his home country actually had this sort of caste system.
• "he was born in a HIndu family"; so what? There are lots of Hindus in Nepal.
• "pleeeeease"
• "This is amazing"
• "Did I Get that right?"
• "What a joke"

I'm not so impressed. Anyway, the point that you keep leaving out in your list of fact after fact after fact is that, according to traditional accounts, the Buddha lived his entire life until the age of 29 in Kapilavastu, which is definitely in what we now call Nepal, and which was populated by Śākyas who spoke an unknown language. You seem to think that this sort of thing is merely a TECHNICALITY and so it is not important for an encyclopaedia to get it right. Other editors—some moreso than myself—believe we should say "Indian subcontinent" instead, because this is unambiguously true. Now, what's wrong with "Indian subcontinent"?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude ARYAN818 to say he was born in India would be a lie when he is not. Why do you have a problem with saying where he was born? No one is telling you not to go ahead give all the other information and locate all the other events and their locations. Where he was born and where he preached are different locations what the problem with that? Where they are today should be totally irrelevant to us beyond orienting a person who wants to find the location on a map. Atleast you are not like the BJP goons who refuse to accept Sonia Gandhi as an indian even though she has spent a good part of life there because technically she grew up and was born in Italy. You are simply exercising selective amnesia, he was a Non-Resident-Kapilavatsan, neither Nepalese nor Indian since neither existed back then. And he was a hindu, all his disciples and all buddhists were also hindu too because again back in the day a hindu was simply a person who lived in the land beyond the indus. Focus Ancient India is not historically synonymous with Modern day India, distinguish between the two just as today we distinguish between Buddhists and Hindus, distinguish between where he born and where he preached in order to be more informative, thats what an encyclopedia is supposed to deal in. Your arguments when weighed with the counter arguments just do not logically add up. Unlike Nat or me you have not given a reason why distinguishing between the two regions is wrong. --Tigeroo 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try this again because this is funny to me...Buddha lived most his life in India...Buddha gained enlightenment in India...Buddha first spread his teachings in India...and Buddha died in India....But u guys are telling me that we should erase all this and say that he was Nepali because he was TECHNICALLY born in an area that is NOW known as Nepal?....Is that ur logic? ARYAN818 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The area in which Buddh was born in what is now Nepal but at the time Bharat desh, or the Indian subcontinent. Indian subcontinent is the best term to use because at that time it was the Indian subcontinent and now it is still the Indian subcontinent. Who knows if it was Indian Aryan, there generally hasn't been one nation in India, instead many kingdoms. Even in the Ramayan, there were seven different kingdoms of India. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 you still don't get it. No is trying to make him a Nepali or erase anything. Rather you are trying to make him Indian but ignoring his connection to what is now in Nepal and erasing any recognition of the physical location of his birthplace. He was neither Nepali or Indian. We are saying mention his birth as where he was born which just happens to be in Nepal today, and mention the place where he was enlightened which just happens to be India today. His connection is with both which should be reflected and neither connection denied. Mention of India and Nepal should only be required for cartographic orientation. We are saying there is no little to distinguish between the Nepali and Indian area where he was except those created by modern day political borders. You are the one who insists on calling him Nepali because he was born and grew up in what happens to be Nepal today or an Indian because his career was in what happens to be India today.--Tigeroo 09:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo virtually stole the words from the tip of my toungue. --Andkaha^(talk) 10:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 has gained reputation as an Internet troll. Best to ignore him. (20040302)

I love how all of u have opinions about weather their was an India or not, and I wonder if any of u have every picked up an ancient book....THe entire area has always been known as Bharat or LAND OF THE ARYANS....IN the Vedas its written in Sanskrit...Its written in the Puranas, upanishads, and varoius other books...so please dont any of u tell me that it was never ONE land....Even the Muslims called it Hindustan....Yes their were kingdowms no doubt about it...BUt their was still a recognition of the entire land....China had kingodms but many people recognized it as their own land....Native Americans were set apart, but many people recognized it as Native American land....And yet INdia has written proof in their documents that it was recognized as one land, and all of u people are telling me it was never one land?...amazing....ARYAN818 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article size

I think any easy part to cut down the size problem is the culture section, Buddhist Food, etc. I don't think this needs to be in the main article.--St0ne 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialogue

Hello,

I was wondering if we could add some more information about the ongoing dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity. There are many priests in Christian churches who practice Buddhism...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876043481/sr=8-2/qid=1152655209/ref=sr_1_2/102-9807077-5106551?ie=UTF8 http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism4.htm http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_buddhism.htm http://www.yutopian.com/religion/compare/

JF

dharma wheel

As it stands now, there's a little dharma wheel at the very top of the article. It appears to be introduced by the {{Buddhism}} tag, since there's no explicit image link, but I am not sophisticated enough to track down how that works. it seems quite odd to have it floating there, and it appears a number of times in the portal sidebar, so I think it's unnecessary. anyone know how to remove it? bikeable (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence of Article:"Methodology"

The latest version of the opening sentence of the "Buddhism" article seems a bit odd and perhaps even a bit non-NPOV to me - defining Buddhism just as a "methodology". The Buddha called his teachings "Dharma" -which is not just "methodology". It is closer to a correct and pure way of living, thinking, knowing and being. If Buddhism is to be defined as a "methodology", then almost anything else could be called that - from how to fix burst tyres to how to write books on cake-baking! Isn't "methodology" just too vague, too general - almost to the point of being meaningless? If Buddhism is a "methodology" (as its key definition), then couldn't one equally say, for example, that "Islam/ Christianity is a methodology (through prayer and devotion to God) for overcoming the suffering of Hell and attaining eternal life in Paradise/ Heaven"? But that would not communicate the spirit of those religions. Most encylopaedias, I suspect, would define Buddhism as a "religion/ philosophy". So I think the previous version was better: "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably a psychology". One could then add: "As a central part of its methodology for release from suffering, it utilises the Four Noble Truths ...." What do other people think?? Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have reverted that change, and I had already done so once yesterday. User:Sangha is introducing new wording that plays down the religious aspect; I strongly disagree and would encourage Sangha to discuss it here before making such a big change. Tony and others, you should feel free to revert that sort of change yourself if you see it and disagree... be bold! bikeable (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Bikeable. I appreciate your words. I of course completely agree with you. I think some people like to make of Buddhism a totally "rationalistic" enterprise - which it is not. There is a fear in some quarters of calling Buddhism a "religion", it seems. Strange! Best wishes to you, Bikeable. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a "methodology" which has psychololgica, lifestyle and philosophical aspects. Dharma in sanskrit simply means "truth" and NOT religion. Buddhism is a methodology (4 Noble Truths) about lifestyl and mind cultivation. Those who call it a religion are wrong :

Bhikunni Sisupacala answers in the Sisupacala Sutta (SNV.8), NO.

I don't approve of anyone's creed, friend."

[Mara:]

"Under whom have you shaved your head? You do appear to be a recluse, Yet you don't approve of any creed, So why wander as if bewildered?"

[Sisupacala:]

"Outside here the followers of creeds Place their confidence in views. I don't approve of their teachings; They are not skilled in the Dhamma. [134]

But there is a scion of the Sakyan clan, The Enlightened One, without an equal, Conqueror of all, Mara's subduer, Who everywhere is undefeated.

Everywhere freed and unattached, The One with Vision who sees all, Who attained the end of all kamma, Released in the extinction of acquisitions: That Blessed One is my Teacher; His is the teaching I approve."

So unless I see a valid argument, I will revert to referring to it as a methodology, which is a set of rules and practices that has a particular aim or goal. - Sangha(P.S use ~~~~ for signature)

The previous sentence, "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably a psychology...", pointed out that buddhism is religion(most layman practice it, and some even worshipping it), philosophy, and psychology. Using methodology to cover all aspects seems to over-simplify Buddhism, and skips the religion part. Although buddhism may have been only a methodology(psychology and philosophy way of life), over the years lay people have made it into a religion and that change has to be noted. (i.e, the previous sentence) PS TonyMPNS's suggestion should be considered as well. Monkey Brain 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sangha and Monkey Brain. No prizes for guessing whom I agree with (yes, Monkey Brain!)! Firstly, the word "Dharma" does not precisely mean "truth". The Sanskrit word for "truth" is "satya" (or, at a pinch, "tattva" - reality). "Dharma" derives from a verbal root meaning "to uphold, support". The Cologne Sanskrit Lexicon gives as one of its definitions of Dharma "religion , religious merit". So Dharma does contain the sense of "religion". It is that Law which supports/ upholds all sentient beings and reality. Second, it is significant that you quote from the Pali suttas, Sangha, rather than from the Mahayana. Actually, I don't think your extract proves that Buddhism is not a "religion" at all. But more to the point, I think that overlooking the Mahayana is perhaps where part of the difference between us lies: if one sees "Buddhism" as just Theravada Buddhism, then a stronger case (although not one which I could ultimately subscribe to, myself) could indeed be made for saying that Buddhism is not a religion; but Buddhism includes the Mahayana and Tantra: and it would be a brave person indeed who insisted that these are not "religious" in nature. Thirdly, if you do a Google search for "Buddhism: definition", you will find that the overwhelming majority of references to Buddhism speak of it as a "religion" or as "a religion/ philosophy". So I think the onus is on yourself to prove that what has generally been - and still is - predominantly accepted by scholars and practitioners as a "religion"-cum-"religion/philosophy" should not be described as such on Wikipedia. I do share Monkey Brain's view that Buddhism, today, is fairly reckoned to be a religion. Whatever the earlier, Pali forms of Buddha-Dhamma (and I would myself still include them under the general rubric of "religion", as they have as their goal the ineffable and world-transcending state of Nirvana), subsequent formulations of Buddhism and subsequent practitioners of Buddhism (lay and monastic) have brought it very clearly into the sphere of "religion". Of course you are right that religion contains various methodologies for achieving its goals (be those methodologies of prayer, worship, fasting, meditation, self-abnegation, or whatever); but "methodology" is just too loose a term to give a sense of the overall spirit of "Buddhism" as a whole (and remember that the majority of Buddhists in the world follow the Mahayana - not the Theravada). So I support Bikeable's and Monkey Brain's preferance for keeping the earlier opening sentence, that "Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, and arguably psychology". I think it would then be fine to add: "It utilises various methodologies to achieve its goal of the ending of suffering and the attainment of lasting peace, such as the Four Noble Truths, the Four Immeasurables, Faith, Insight Meditation" ... etc. It would be useful now to also hear the views of other editors, don't you think? Thanks again Monkey Brain, Bikeable and Sangha for your contributions to this discussion. All the best to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

                   " Verily, that which is Dharma is truth.
                   Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, 'He speaks the Dharma,'

                   or of a man who speaks the Dharma, 'He speaks the Truth.'
                   Verily, both these things are the same."
                   (Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2) 

Truth and Dharma are EQUIVALENT. It is basically natural laws -- so to call it a spiritual "way of life" is best. Dharma is NOT a religion as religion is not an equivalent word to truth. Sangha

Yes, but "truth" is not the only meaning of the word Dharma. See e.g. the PTS Pali-English Dictionary entry on Dhamma. --Andkaha^(talk) 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A well-known list gives ten meanings of Dharma accepted by Buddhist exegetes, such as Vasubandhu (Vyākhyā-yukti) are: phenomena, the path, nirvāna, mental objects, the meritorious, life, the teachings, the process of becoming, the religious life and custom. "Truth" is not mentioned here. Also why should a quote from the Upanisads be an authority from Buddhist usage ?--Stephen Hodge 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I cannot see why user Sangha considers that the Sisupacala Sutta corroborates "dhamma = methodology". The loose English here of Bhikkhu Bodhi should be compared with the original Pali.--Stephen Hodge 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1) it has been corroborated that DHARMA OR DHAMMA DOES NOT EQUAL RELIGION, I will accept that it is also not just a methodology but neither is it a religion. Religion is an english word, and so is Dharma. So let the word "religion be replaced with "Dharma"...

Dictionary.com:# Buddhism.

  1. The body of teachings expounded by the Buddha.
  2. Knowledge of or duty to undertake conduct set forth by the Buddha as a way to enlightenment.
  3. One of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made.

Sangha

• Yes, dharma is not religion (So no need to change religion to dharma). However, dharma can be equated to teachings of Buddha. Which is already in the first sentence. Keep in mind, not everyone who visits article on Buddhism knows pali or sanskrit words. It is best to use words those that convey similar meaning and is understandable to majority of non-buddhist/non-pali/non-sanskrit literate.

So it is quite clear to everyone that Dharma is NOT a religion and therefore should not be used -- in the TAOISM article, the word "Religion" is not used except as "religious aspects". So Buddhism is not a religion, it is a Dharma but has some aspects which resemble religion.

Dharma is an english word now, so perhaps people should look it up.

• Hallo everyone. I support Monkey Kiss's reversion of the opening sentence to a more sensible version, mentioning from the start that Buddhism is "a religion, philosophy and arguably practical psychology". To refuse to call Buddhism a "religion" or "a religion/ philosophy" from the outset is to go against the trend of most of the main dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions of Buddhism. Why does Wikipedia have to stand out as so different in this regard? Is this not "original research" and very obviously biased POV??? It has already been pointed out that the word "Dharma" can bear the connotation of "religion" (in a broad sense); but more importantly, "Buddhism" is not just the word "Dharma": "Buddhism" contains numerous features which make of it (certainly Mahayana Buddhism) a religion -and that is why major dictionaries and encylcopaedias define it as such. I note that there are not lots of editors jumping in, saying "Yes, it is wrong to call Buddhism a "religion/philosophy". If a Wiki article is to go so stubbornly against what most other dictionaries and encyclopaedias state, that strikes me as a very eccentric Point of View (POV) and therefore needs a mightily persuasive argument to justify itself. Perhaps that is why most editors at the moment have not said, "Yes, junk the word 'religion'". Rather, the tendency, so far, is mainly the other way. But maybe that will change! Best wishes. From Tony TonyMPNS 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)