Talk:Buddhism

Please add new topics at the bottom, in order to avoid confusion!

Archive 16 created

There were no posts between April 9th and 22nd, so I archived everything up through April 9th into Archive 16. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article?

Per the template at the top of the article, is there a group of people ready to work on cleaning it up? This article was once a feature article (see this) and seems to have seriously degraded into a confusing and wordy morass.

As a start, what do people think of the first paragraph here as a replacement for the current paragraph? Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied here for convenience:

"Buddhism is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama, who lived between approximately 563 and 483 BCE. This religion originated in India and gradually spread throughout Asia, to Central Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, as well as the East Asian countries of China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings. For the Buddha, the key to liberation was mental purity and correct understanding, and for this reason he rejected the notion that we can gain salvation by petitioning a distant deity."

We've already had lots of discussion on "religion" and "philosophy". There are various points of view here, of which that stated in this draft is only one. It therefore fails to satisfy NPOV.

Dates are probably wrong. See current article for what seems to be the majority position.

The bit about worship is highly misleading. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism has an article on worship that appears to give no indication that anyone might consider the word inappropriate to Buddhism.

All statements about the Buddha's own teaching are only theories. There is no consensus on what his teachings actually were.

The basic idea of Pure Land Buddhism, followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists, is pretty much just gaining salvation by petitioning Amitabha Buddha.

"distant" deity is an insult to other religions. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like that paragraph isn't suitable (kind of scary actually in that it was the lead when the article was a "featured article" if it had all these mistakes!). Regarding your options above about reorganization, I suggest that "Thematic" be the first order followed by "Historical." (That is, organize by themes and then within themes order historically, e.g., "Practices" followed by "first this," "then this," etc.) How does that sound? Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of bad FA is History of Buddhism, which, when I queried its status on its talk page, appeared to have not a single citation for any of its statements, which seemed to include many theories, legends & mistakes presented as facts.

Looking on the bright side, I thought the present version was bad, but that old one is far worse. That's encouraging. The article has actually improved a lot over the last few years, which gives hope that it might get into a reasonable state in another few. After all, it seems from the above that nearly everything in the old intro is wrong. there's not much in the present article that's outright wrong, tho' there's a lot of questionable interpretation. More to the point is that the present version (largely) ignores most of the subject.

Now to your suggestion. I hadn't thought of combining 2 arrangements like that. If it's done that way we'll need an introductory outline of history to give context. It's an interesting idea. Perhaps it should be sandboxed. Trouble is, last time we tried working out a large-scale rewrite outside the actual article virtually nobody contributed, & then they kept reverting when I tried importing it to the actual article in the hope of getting some constructive response. We never did manage to get much of that, apart from some material from Tony on East Asian Buddhism, which now turns out not to be properly sourced (like much of the article). Peter jackson (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with a sandbox but am concerned about the reversions. I can't believe the amount of silly vandalism this page gets, which is a separate issue from the reversions.

Who tended to revert the edits? Can they be part of the sandbox? One suggestion is to do the outline in the sandbox so we know where we're going and then enter section by section into mainspace as it's done, which may mean that for a few days there is redundancy as new sections are added. Obviously, it'd be better to input the whole agreed-upon page at once as long as we have consensus and then carefully monitor the page after it's input (of course making sure that there is consensus). This might seem like ownership to new persons so we'd have to figure out a way to accomodate newbies so we avoid WP:BITE. What does everyone think? Windy Wanderer (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Structure

You'd have to look back to find who was reverting. There's a fair amount of discussion in the archives of this talk page, which would help you find the dates to search.

I'm not clear on the details of what you're suggesting. There's an enormous amount to be done on this article, & I don't whether it can all be sandboxed in one go. As I said before, experience suggests people don't participate, & then violently object to the result. So probably step by step is the approach. The 1st step is reorganization.

The historical arrangement is fairly consistently as follows:

1. India
   1. Early ("Hinayana"; derogatory name)
   2. Middle (Mahayana)
   3. Late (Vajrayana/tantra/esoteric)
2. Theravada: close to early Indian Buddhism
3. East Asian Buddhism: derived from middle-period Indian Buddhism, but adapted very substantially to Chinese civilization
4. Tibetan: close to late Indian Buddhism
5. Modern/Western

We don't need a sandbox just for tables of contents. Perhaps you can suggest an outline for a thematic arrangement. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's been over a month for serious reversions? I've read the talk page and it seems that people have come and gone so I'm unsure of the current interest. If it's been over a month I suggest we just move forward. What would you think about archiving the talk page up to this point so we can start with the new structure? (Feedback from others welcome too.)

The historical arrangement looks great. Regarding themes within, how about:

1. Origins (where/who
2. Beliefs/Practices
3. Contribution to Buddhism today/Current groups
4. Relation to other Buddhist traditions

Having written this, I'm sure there are some commonalities across both, but (for instance), if the 4 Noble Truths occurred within the first historical time period above, then they would be covered there and then referred to in the other sections' Beliefs/Practices sections. Does this make any sense? Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you switching from historical within thematic to thematic within historical? That's what your wording suggests, but I find it hard to reconcile your numbered list with either arrangement. Perhaps you could do a fuller list of contents for clarity. Unfortunately, the religion project (to which this article was not affiliated last time I checked) doesn't have a standard recommended pattern for such articles. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting historical as the main structure, and then within that go by themes. I don't know the body of literature well so don't know much more to suggest. Here are some layperson ideas but I'm not an expert:

1. Origins (where/who/when)
2. Beliefs/Practices (what/how)
3. Contribution to Buddhism today/Current groups (where groups are? who practices? current activities?)
4. Relation to other Buddhist traditions (more conservative? literal? austere?)

What would you suggest?

Also, any other editors out there who want to give feedback on this? Windy Wanderer (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this. You want historical structure outside, then thematic inside, but 1 of your themes is Origins, ie history inside themes inside history.

Perhaps I should clarify the history a bit more. Indian Buddhism is virtually extinct. Recent revivals there are derived from elsewhere. The 3 main living branches are as listed above, & haphazardly detailed in the article.

Therefore, your headings above might have to be distributed differently for living & dead.

Historical arrangement has the advantage of being how most scholarly accounts cover the subject, so it makes it easier to find citations. The disadvantage is it's not what the reader expects of this article. It's what they expect of History of Buddhism. Thematic arrangement has the opposite (dis)advantages.

Another possibility is denominational. We could start with some shared ideas, tho' making clear they aren't necessarily the most important. Then deal with the different branches.

Let me try to rough out how your scheme might work in practice:

1. Indian Buddhism
   1. Early
      1. Origins: the Buddha &c
      2. karma & rebirth, 4 noble truths, 5 precepts, monastic order, stupas, abhidharma ...
      3. Theravada Buddhism close to this; many ideas & practices still used in mahayana as well
      4. ?
   2. middle
      1. origins of Mahayana
      2. teachings &practices: bodhisattvas, emptiness, mind-only ...
      3. East Asian Buddhism derived from this
      4. radical reform of earlier tradition
   3. late
      1. origins of tantra
      2. practices
      3. Tibetan Buddhism close to this
      4. less radical relative to Mahayana
2. Theravada
   1. arrival in Ceylon
   2. ...
   3. main religion of Veylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos
   4. conservative
3. East Asian Buddhism
   1. introduction to China
   2. Pure Land, Zen &c
   3. main Buddhism of China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan
   4. nonliteral
4. Tibetan
   1. introduction to Tibet
   2. ...
   3. Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Kalmykia
5. ...

?

Peter jackson (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds great. Go for it! Does anyone else have comments? feedback? Now's the time to raise your horns if yes. Windy Wanderer (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was only a tentative attempt to see what your suggestion might mean in practice. You still have a lot of detailed working out to do, & I suggest again that you do things a bit at a time. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, As I mentioned before, I am no expert in Buddha so am relying on you and others to make sure the substance is accurate. I do know Wikipedia policies very well and am just here to help on that front. If you don't like what I did and/or think it's inaccurate, then please change it. I'm not sure what or who you're referring to above when you say "I suggest again that you do things a bit at a time." I thought you wanted to get an overall structure because you disliked the current organization and I just offered ideas. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify. As I said before, we did try to give this article a coherent structure before, but people just kept reverting it. Therefore I'm reluctant to try again myself, but I want to encourage others if they're interested, & offer advice. That's all. As regards doing things a bit at a time, it simply seems less likely to get reverted that way. Give people time to consider & comment on each stage before proceeding. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, doing a bit at a time sounds good. Looking forward to reviewing future edits. Windy Wanderer (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The material I've just deleted presents the 4 Noble Truths & 8-fold path as the main teachings of Buddhism. As the citations I've put in the sections on them show, that is not true. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The difs make it difficult to make out exactly what you did, but it looks like you just deleted one line in the lead? This is fine. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New Lead

I agree that the opening paragraph is poorly-written. Not only does it over-emphasize the suggestion that Buddhism is not a religion, but it fails to summarize key distinctive features of Buddhism. I attempted to rewrite it, but was summarily reverted by someone who (I surmise) likes his own writing far too much. Hopefully this something that can be discussed rather than simply imposed by whoever has the most time to waste. Here is the new opening as I wrote it:

---

Buddhism is one of the world's major religions (though some argue that its doctrines are not essentially religious). Its founder, the historical Buddha--sometimes referred to as Siddhartha Gautama, or as Sakyamuni Buddha, in order to distinguish him from other enlightened beings--was an ascetic teacher who lived in north India around the 5th century BC.

His teachings--collectively referred to as the Dharma--describe a path through which practitioners may escape the suffering of samsara (i.e. the cycle of birth, death, and reincarnation) and ultimately attain nirvana. A paradigmatic example of these teachings would be the Four Noble Truths. Meditation and ethics are emphasized.

Buddhists generally revere the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. "Sangha" refers to the Buddhist community, especially monks and nuns.

Major varieties of Buddhism include

1. Theravada Buddhism, which is the major religion of Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand; and

2. Mahayana Buddhism, inclusive of

2a. Tibetan Buddhism, which spread from Tibet to Mongolia and various Himalayan regions such as Bhutan; and

2b. East Asian Buddhism, one of several important religions of Japan, China, and Korea. Examples include Zen and Pure Land Buddhism.

The world's population of Buddhists probably amounts to several hundred million. Depending on how one counts adherents who also identify with other religions, or who participate irregularly, the total might fall anywhere from ________ to _______.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.176 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Constructive. A few comments.

• Neutral point of view is especially important in lead paras. Therefore, if we mention the view that Buddhism is a religion, we must also mention, not only the view that it's not a religion at all, as you do, but also the view that it's more than one religion, as is done at present. Alternatively, avoid the question altogether, as I tried to do in my draft.
• To call the Buddha an ascetic is questionable. Asceticism is a matter of degree. Buddhism often talks of the middle way between asceticism & indulgence, but most ordinary people would regard Buddhist monks as pretty ascetic. Some scholars consider the middle way a later invention, with the original teaching more ascetic.
• Don't slur the difference between the Buddha's teachings, which are an historical matter on which historians disagree, & the teachings of Buddhism, which claim to be the teachings of the Buddha, in some sense.
• The teachings of Buddhism describe a variety of paths, which some people might regard as essentially the same. Jodo Shinshu does not teach a path at all: salvation is a free gift of Amida.
• Describing the 4 NTs a a paradigmatic example is not neutral. they are far more important in Theravada than in Mahayana.
• Ethics comes before meditation. Also, depending how you define meditation, the degree of truth of this statement varies a lot. Most Buddhists practise little or no meditation in the sense in which most readers would be likely to understand the word. To make the statement broadly true it's necessary to make clear that it includes devotion, ritual, study, listening to sermons ...
• Sangha traditionally means either the communion of saints, to borrow a Christian term, or the monastic order. Use to refer to the Buddhist community as a whole is, as far as I know, modern.
• East Asian Buddhism should come before Tibetan Buddhism because
  • it is older
  • it has far more followers
• Similarly, Pure Land should come before Zen because it has far more followers.
• "Several" sounds a bit big. "Hundreds of millions"?

Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, can you offer a specific rewrite below of what 218.167.164.176 wrote above? That's easier for me to see what you mean? (and maybe 218.167.164.176 will agree with it too) Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with WW's suggestion.

The meaning and scope of the word "religion" is not at all clear, and perhaps "religions" is correct--but this is a subject better left to the articles on "religion" or "religious studies." As a practical matter, the whole world and most Buddhists think that Buddhism is a religion, and so it is.

Perhaps we could refer to the historical Buddha as a "renunciate." I was going to say "religious teacher," but that would be too repetitive, and "spiritual teacher" too woo-woo.

No argument with the order of presentation. One difficulty is that in fact, Tibetan Buddhism also incorporates Pure Land practices--but oh well, good enough for jazz.

As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, my impression is that the Four Noble Truths (and their sixteen elaborations) are often referred to--but in connection with the "First Turning." Where Theravadins accept them as expressing the highest truth, Tibetans see it as relatively introductory comparared to emptiness and bodhicitta. But the fact that they see it as a suitable introduction also recommends it for use as an example here, as I see the matter. For the sake of comparison, practically all Christians seem to approve of the Sermon on the Mount, though it is less often put into practice.

In view of the diversity within Buddhism, perhaps a handful of Buddhist practices might be described--"meditation" (whatever that means), sadhanas, prayers to Amida, charms for snakebite and easy childbirth, etc. This would pose a real writing challenge, though, if they are to be incorporated in a summary.

Think--what is most important for an uninformed person to know about Buddhism? I look forward to your rewrites. --Dawud

It's not my job to rewrite other people's proposals. My own was entered above, now archived by WW.

In my draft I did try to leave out the question of religion. the point I was making above was that if we do it at all we must be neutral & give different views.

I'm not sure what you mean by Pure Land practices in Ribetan Buddhism, as I don't know all that much about it. In East Asian Buddhism it means mainly recitation of homage.

4NTs. Christianity is not an appropriate analogy here. Christians follow largely the same scriptures (& Muslims follow entirely the same scriptures), while Buddhists follow quite different scriptures. So we have to look very carefully at balance. To oversimplify, we might divide teachings into levels:

1. karma & rebirth
2. 4NTs
3. Mahayana

We might then say that Theravada recognizes 1 & 2, Mahayana 1-3. A lead is supposed to cover all the most important points in the subject. This would include all 3, with the disagreements pointed out. This is the theoretical side. On the practical side we have devotion, morality, meditation &c, as you suggest.

Another point in the guidelines on leads is that they are supposed to be self-explanatory. So

• Should we be mentioning the 4NTs in the lead without explanation?
• Should we, as in the last proposed draft, mention types of Buddhism without description?

On the 1st point, we might alternatively try to talk in terms of liberation/enlightenment, mentioning that there are different ideas.

"real writing challenge", as you say. hence I think we need the full suggested 4 paras. Peter jackson (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Do you have the dif or an approximate date of the lead you wrote? Let's just re-paste it here. Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is a religion, if the word is to have any meaning at all. Sure, a few revisonists deny this, but there's no reason to credit their claim with any special importance--let alone to insist on "balance" with the more sensible view. For the sake of comparison, some Christians deny that Christianity is a religion (because "religions" try to reconcile man with God, but Christianity recognizes that this cannot be done, or some such). Think about it: practically every introduction to world religions ever penned has included Buddhism (and Christianity), though some doubt is typically expressed with respect to Confucianism. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.36 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look around [1] you'll find that essentially all religions have some followers who say they're not a religion. In principle the question is whether significant numbers of scholars in the field of religious studies say it's not a religion, which might be hard to find out. There's also the plurality view, which is held by many scholars. Some scholars might say that "religion" has no meaning,it'sjust an arbitrary category. More likely, some say it should be understood in terms of Wittgenstein's doctrine of family resemblance: members of a family resemble each other in many ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines membership of the family, & indeed it can be fuzzy at the edges. Peter jackson (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Lead Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Alternative Lead Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Pure-land buddhism is the primary devotional form of Buddhism throughout East Asia. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)