Talk:Buddhism: Difference between revisions
LuisGomez111 (talk | contribs) |
→Conflict with other Buddhist articles: new section |
||
Line 688: | Line 688: | ||
==Regarding the sandbox version== |
==Regarding the sandbox version== |
||
I spent some time trying to improve it. Frankly it needs a lot of work. I also notice there's at least one anonymous editor who is mutilating it. I think you guys should delete it. I don't see how it's ever going to be useful. [[User:LuisGomez111|LuisGomez111]] ([[User talk:LuisGomez111|talk]]) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
I spent some time trying to improve it. Frankly it needs a lot of work. I also notice there's at least one anonymous editor who is mutilating it. I think you guys should delete it. I don't see how it's ever going to be useful. [[User:LuisGomez111|LuisGomez111]] ([[User talk:LuisGomez111|talk]]) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Conflict with other Buddhist articles == |
|||
If you go to the article titled "HISTORY OF BUDDHISM" it says that BUddha was born in Ancient India, in the city of Lumbini, in what is now known as Nepal. If you go to the article titled "BUDDHA", It says that Buddha was born in Ancient India, in the city of Lumbini, in what is now known as Nepal. (These might not be the exact words but it says something close to it and/or similar)......And yet in this article it just says that he was born in Lumbini......Why are you people against saying he was from Ancient India? I mean wouldnt it be more fair to say ANCIEN INDIA, NEPAL, AND LUMBINI all together, that way everyone is happy? But nooooo you guys dont want to be fair do you? You want to leave out ancient India, and just he was born in Nepal and thats it right? [[Special:Contributions/71.105.82.152|71.105.82.152]] ([[User talk:71.105.82.152|talk]]) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:27, 22 June 2008
Please keep comments short.
Misplaced material will be moved as needed to preserve page structure.
Long discussions may be moved to (or better, started as) talk sub-pages, with appropriate links.
Revisions are Sandboxed at talk:Buddhism/Revised. Please use the talk page while editing.
Template:Cleanup taskforce notice
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
Template:WP1.0
Template:Archive box collapsible
To-do: Updated 2009-07-16
|
Lead
Revise/refine lead in accordance with WP:LEAD to make it comprehensive, neutral and readable.
- at this point we have decided to leave the lead section as is. we need to return later to incorporate a section about buddhist beliefs, but have agreed that the task will be easier after we have developed the page body more.
Central concepts
Evaluate the possible use of a section that summarizes important concepts common to all streams of Buddhism.
highlights of old discussions
let me suggest, in the light of the family resemblance concept, that we approach it somewhat on the following lines. We can start with the conceptual, historical & demographic intro as we've been working on. Then we make roughly the following points:
- Nearly all Buddhists practise devotion to 1 or more Buddhas, & often other beings as well. The most popular are the historical Buddha, & the celestial Buddha Amitabha.
- Most/nearly all believe in rebirth (strictly, reconception) ...
- This is regarded as usually being in accordance with karma (which also influences experiences during life) ... However, many/the majority believe that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually can determine their own & others' rebirths. In particular, many believe Amitabha will ensure his devotees are reborn in his Pure Land.
- Buddhists believe in the importance of generosity, particularly to support monks.
- Most Buddhists accept, at least as an ideal, a morality based on the Five Precepts: refraining from killing living beings, stealing, sexual immorality, lying & intoxicants.
- Most Buddhists are led by an order of monks, & often nuns (tho' the latter, where they exist, are subordinate.
- Buddhists believe in the necessity of meditation at some stage of the path, tho' most do not regard themselves as having reached that stage yet.
- Nearly all recognize scriptures, tho' they disagree on which texts are authentic & important. Reading, study, memorization, recitation & devotion are widespread practices.
- Some Buddhists study various doctrinal systems to provide a framework for the development of insight in meditation. Others regard conceptual thought as an obstacle to insight into reality.
- Buddhists recognize 1 or more concepts of liberation, ususally liberation from rebirth. Some/many talk of renouncing liberation to help others spiritually.
- All recognize the ideal of dedication to helping others spiritually, & the majority believe everyone should follow this.
- Nearly all participate in rituals, & some regard this as very important.
- Some believe in the practice of sexual yoga, but most disapprove.
The order here is roughly progressive. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Now let me elaborate the situation as regards scriptures.
- historians 1st
- a very few believe most of the contents of the agamas, corresponding to about 1/4 of the Pali Canon, go back to the Buddha
- some believe the Buddha's original teachings entirely lost
- some have produced a wide variety of intermediate theories
- increasing numbers are agnostic
- nobody believes the Mahayana sutras go back to the Buddha
- Theravada fundamentalists believe most of the Pali Canon goes back to the Buddha
- Mahayana fundamentalists believe:
- most of the Vinaya, Agamas & Mahayana sutras go back to the Buddha
- the agamas give an elementary teaching suitable, in theory, for some people who aren't ready for Mahayana
- it is better to follow Mahayana from the start
- In practice the agamas play no role in Chinese & Japanese Buddhism, & were never even translated into Tibetan
- Vinaya is another matter. In theory, all Buddhist monks follow similar vinaya, tho' it must be remembered that the Japanese clergy aren't monks in this sense, so it doesn't apply to them.
- non-fundamentalist Buddhists believe whatever someone has told them historians believe
Peter jackson (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, it's obvious that when "Buddhism" existed in Ashokan times it was just Buddhism. (This was before there was "Theravada" or "Mahayana" or "Vajrayana," although I am aware there were already various Buddhist "schools" or Nikayas, during Ashoka's times. But from what I know they were all the old schools from which Theravada is a descendent.) I'm not a historian, but doesn't one of the Ashokan pillars record Ashoka as paying homage to the Triple Gem: Buddha-Dharma-Sangha? Today, if you were to ask any number of practicing "Buddhists" as diverse as a Theravadin in Sri Lanka to a Pure Land follower in South Korea, what it means to pay homage to Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha, I'm sure they'll have a good idea what you're talking about. Indeed, if you read any of the Pali suttas where the Buddha or one of his disciples is teaching a lay person, most of the suttas end with said lay person paying homage to the Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha. So my point is that although the various "Buddhist" sects are quite different from one another, they're not at all historically or doctrinally independent of one another, in the same way that two completely different Indian linguistic groups are independent in the sense that they're mutually unintelligible. Therefore, the various Buddhist sects are still "speaking the same language" in that they all purport to be the authentic route to the nirvana of which the Buddha spoke. I'm not really sure about how else to demonstrate Buddhism as a single religion without merely restating the obvious.
In regards to karma & rebirth, I don't think that these teachings are ink-blot tests where one person may interpret it one way and another may do so another way. I agree that some generalizaton is desirable, but they should not be misleading. In the Pali Canon, the Buddha's teachings on karma & rebirth are quite specific, especially when the Buddha contrasted his teachings on karma with the Jains. See: Devadaha Sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya (Pali Text Society citation: PTS: M ii 214). I believe a Pali scholar could help us to define Buddhist teachings on this topic...of course, I imagine that most Pali scholars would be Buddhist, since they've chosen to devote so much of their time to these texts.
Coolbo (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
new discussions
Presumably, if we're leaving the lead to later, that would apply to this too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Structure
Develop an effective and comprehensive structure for the article that provides readers with a sense of the sweep of Buddhist philosophy and practice. Note that to reduce overall article length, some sections could use summary style, with links to appropriate sub-articles
Talk:Buddhism/Structure#highlights of old discussions
new discussions
Talk:Buddhism/Structure#refractored text
current (developing) consensus
- Beliefs and Practices
- General (maybe)
- Worldview
- Karma
- Dharma
- Rebirth
- Buddha
- Sangha
- Vinaya
- Monastic vs. lay practice
- Denominational Variations
- Theravada
- Scriptures and texts
- (variations?)
- Mahayana
- Scriptures and texts
- Zen/Chan
- Pure Land (Amida)
- Nichiren
- Vajrayana
- Tibetan
- Shingon
- Defunct schools
- Theravada
- General (maybe)
- History (adapted from above)
- Early Buddhism
- Origins: the Buddha &c
- karma & rebirth, 4 noble truths, 5 precepts, monastic order, stupas, abhidharma ...
- Diaspora
- Theravada
- arrival in Ceylon
- spread through southeast asia
- conservative
- East Asian (Mahayana) Buddhism
- origins of Mahayana
- introduction to China
- teachings &practices: bodhisattvas, emptiness, mind-only ... Pure Land, Zen &c
- radical reform of earlier tradition
- spread through China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan
- Vajrayana
- origins of tantra
- introduction to Tibet
- Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Kalmykia
- practices
- spread to Tibetan Buddhism close to this
- less radical relative to Mahayana
- Early Buddhism
- Buddhist Ethics
- five precepts
- compassion and generosity
- Demographics
- Major historical Figures
- Sacred Places
- Current Buddhism
- Modern Mission
- Women in Buddhism
ok, pardon me for continuing to build structure. I've refractored Peter's lists into the sub-page, and incorporated some of the ideas here.
my suggestion is that we begin by taking the historical material on the main page and rebuilding it into the history structure as given above. once the history section is laid out, then it should be easier to work on the Beliefs and practices section. the sections at the end are more like isolated topics that can be cleaned up later. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to appear negative, but I see a lot of problems with the above.
- I'm not sure what you can say about dharma in a general way
- Pure Land should come before Zen, being more popular & of similar age
- Do you know what diaspora means? It refers to Buddhists outside the "homelands", whether emigrants, their descendants, or converts. So it belongs later, not here.
- Including later Indian Buddhism in East Asian & Tibetan is not usual practice, tho' the Penguin Handbook does it to some extent. It seems inappropriate in a section on history. Furthermore, to do it with the later schools but not the earlier is discriminatory.
- There seems to be a lot of duplication between the history & the beliefs/practices section. Perhaps inevitable, but doesn't look good & is probably disapproved of by WP guidelines &/or FA/GA assessment criteria.
- The term Vajrayana is used in 2 different senses in different parts of this contents list. That would look really bad.
- Why is ethics separated out from practices?
- "###spread to Tibetan Buddhism close to this" presumably an error
On the question of a general beliefs/practices section, here are a couple of citations to think about:
- "About all Buddhists few valid generalizations are possible." Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, page 2
- "... diversity prevents, or strongly hinders, generalizations about Buddhism as a whole." Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, page 1
Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's way too long. Why are the three gems interpolated with 'rebirth' ? Do we really want to glob old schools together, regardless of their background? eg Jonang (ok, it was only THOUGHT to be defunct) and Sarvastivada?
- Also, surely most of this stuff should link to main articles.. eg. History --> Vajrayana, and then just a summary with a link to the main article. This is important, because otherwise there are synchronisation errors between the main articles and the boundary article.
- I also reject the idea that there is one Buddhist worldview. Any syncretized amalgamation of views ceases to maintain the flavour and impact the component views, and syncretism itself becomes yet another view. However, there ARE facts. All Buddhists accept the
trikayatriratna, the buddha, the four noble truths, etc. Of course, the interpretations of even these core beliefs is varied.
- I also reject the idea that there is one Buddhist worldview. Any syncretized amalgamation of views ceases to maintain the flavour and impact the component views, and syncretism itself becomes yet another view. However, there ARE facts. All Buddhists accept the
- I am further very wary of all this division of Buddhism - as if that is the main concern of Buddha and of Buddhists.
- But hey.. I've been off wp. for 2 years. What do my views matter? (20040302 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
- I like your point about using summary style with links to main articles. Peter's concern (below) about the quality of the other articles needs to be addressed as well. As to whether your views matter. They do as far as I'm concerned. Sunray (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- But hey.. I've been off wp. for 2 years. What do my views matter? (20040302 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
- Your mention of Jonang raises complicated issues of what is a school? Its teachings are followed by many Nyingma & Kagyu teachers.
- The problem with links to main articles, as I said before, but has now been refactored somewhere, is that a lot of them need drastic rewriting just like this article. So do we have to rewrite all the others before we can rewrite this one?
- I agree with you about worldview. That's just the point I've been trying to make. It's not true that all Buddhists accept the trikaya. That's a Mahayana doctrine. Or did you mean triratna? All Buddhists accept the 4 NTs, but Mahayana regards them as more or less unimportant. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths. It's vital not to confuse shared with important, or arrange the article in such a way as to confuse the 2 for the reader. Therefore I oppose any sort of shared teachings section. Calling these sorts of things "core" is misleading. The idea that there is a core becomes another view!
- I forgot to add earlier that, if the lead is to say Buddhism is usually considered a religion, which it doesn't at present, then there should be an opening section mentioning the alternative POVs. Perhaps it should do other things too. Peter jackson (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course I was saying triratna (amended). Indeed - what is a school? Division by vinaya makes some sense - and vinaya provides very clear distinctions. Division by school is very complex - look at the subdivisions in eg the Kargyu. Also, what about small schools, closed schools, or short-lived schools. Divisions by philosophy, (Jonang for example) I contend, is impossible. Overlaps, re-interpretations, and so on just won't work. Also - even though I applaud that (at last) we see Vajrayana as a grouping under Mahayana - there is actually an Eastern Nepalese tradition of 'Sravaka Vajrayana'. So even these major divisions could be too complex. Another problem with pigeon-holing is that it can lead to an artificial alienation - and we are still in the throes of the reconciliation of traditions due to the information age and fast transportation: I believe that every tradition has been learning that ancient enemies are modern friends.
- Re. Links to main articles - I understand your fears of the informational diaspora - but it is a central intention of WP to organise information that way, and it allows for respective experts to manage the minutae of each section. There is NO need to rewrite all the others before this - things are far more organic than that. I would suggest that this is actually inevitable. May as well get started.
- As for 'religion' - there is no doubt that secular buddhism is a major modern movement that crosses most of the traditional schools, but there is also no doubt that Buddhism's roots in ideas that are beyond empirical experience ( rebirth, karma, nirvana ) entail that it is reasonable to call it a religion. Of course, traditionally there are also lots of gods - just no creator, no judge, and no intercession. I feel this issue could be best addressed with a link to secular buddhism, which appears not to exist at the moment. (20040302 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC))
- Re: Links to main articles: Your point about the central intention of WP in organizing information (via wikilinks) is bang on, IMO.
- With respect to religion, I think we should state that Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy. And I agree we should get started. Sunray (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is disagreement about whether Buddhism is a religion. Therefore that is a POV, not a fact, & stating it as fact violates WP:NPOV. That's probably true of philosophy too. I see below that you seem to accept my suggestion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter - I don't want to disagree with any of your points, but the fact of the matter is we need to start. you're comments are all good, but by piling them on the way you've so far tended to do, you completely inhibit any progress on the page. we're not going to work out all the kinks in advance, and trying is just going to make us all crazy. so here's what I say (again): let's mock up the history section, which seems fairly well-sourced and unambiguous. one we have the history fleshed out, then we can start worrying about about the beliefs section, and start discussions about overlap, content, and ordering.
I don't know who keeps removing the 'usually considered' phrase - I keep putting it back, but I'll look into it.
Jonang - I don't know. lol. it'll get worked out. where do you think they should go?
20040302 - I hear you.
I'm thinking we should remove the NPOV tag and add an 'under revision' type tag. it will carry the same meaning to readers, and maynbe get editors to participate on the talk page rather than continuing to edit the main page. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
To start with starting. I have no objection to starting with the history section. However, the way it's arranged above is not the way it's usually done. The usual arrangement has again been refactored away:
- Indian
- Theravada
- East Asian
- Tibetan
- Modern/Western
An alternative I've seen is
- "Sectarian": ie early, pre-Asokan period, when Buddhism was probably a quite small sect
- "Civilizational": spread thro' India & beyond, with plenty of interaction between diferent areas
- "Cultural": period of separate development:
- Theravada
- East Asian
- Tibetan
- Modern period, with strong interactions between different Buddhist traditions, & also between Buddhism on the one hand & other religions & secular traditions of thought on the other
I don't think the arrangement above, with middle-period Indian Buddhism grouped with East Asian & late Indian with Tibetan, is a good idea, particularly with the former: East Asian Buddhism is quite different from Indian Mahayana. (Indeed, one might argue that the main divisions of Buddhism are Indic & Sinic.)
What is a school? We might say it's a Western invention imposed on Buddhism, perhaps. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, in the article on Schools, Buddhist, distinguishes 3 different forms of classification:
- movements (yanas)
- nikayas
- schools of thought
Organizationally, Buddhism consists of
- Theravada
- Chinese, Korean & Vietnamese Buddhism, led by monks & nuns following (at least in theory) the Dharmaguptaka vinaya
- Tibetan Buddhism, led mainly by monks following (at least in theory) the Mulasarvastivada vinaya
- numerous Japanese subsects, led by clergy with bodhisattva ordination instead of monastic, & mostly married
- odds & ends
Traditions of thought & practice often cut across these "denominational" groupings (& each other).
Links: the point I'm concerned about is this: do we have to summarize what the linked subarticle says, or are we allowed to correct it & summarize what it ought to say?
- I think that we should correct it and summarize what it ought to say. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Religion. Remember we're supposed to be following reliable sources, not our own opinions. Most RSs call Buddhism a religion, but
- some specialist scholars say it's more than 1
- some theorists of religion define it in ways that exclude Buddhism
I suggested a compromise: the lead should start "Buddhism is usually considered a religion, one of the three major universal religions." The body of the article should start with a section repeating this & mentioning the other views. Some people agreed with at least the general idea. Nobody in this column has disagreed since Luis left, but the article doen't follow.
- I like the formula "usually considered a religion." However, if we say it is "one of the three major universal religions," I fear we may start a multi-party religious war! ;-) Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's straightforward. The next largest universal religion, Bahaism, is way behind, with adherents only in 7 figures, as against 9 for Buddhists & 10 for Christians & Muslims. So 3 major universal religions make up a clear objective category. The fact that Buddhism is universal, not ethnic, seems to me a pretty important fact to mention. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- In terms of number of adherents, it is: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, some may argue that. For example, make the case that Chinese Folk Religion has more adherents. I don't think that we should saying it is the third or fourth largest. "One of the largest" would be fine by me.Sunray (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's straightforward. The next largest universal religion, Bahaism, is way behind, with adherents only in 7 figures, as against 9 for Buddhists & 10 for Christians & Muslims. So 3 major universal religions make up a clear objective category. The fact that Buddhism is universal, not ethnic, seems to me a pretty important fact to mention. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hinduism & Chinese religion are not universal religions; they're ethnic religions. the fact that a few small Hindu groups accept converts doesn't affect the overall picture, as they're a minute proportion of the total. Similarly, altho' one could presumably become Chinese by marriage or adoption, & some Koreans call themselves Confucians & some Westerners Taoists, the same stituation applies there. There are only the 3 major religions that address themselves to the whole of humanity in a realistic sense. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are saying that Hinduism and Chinese religion are not universal. There is no doubt in my mind that you are right. However, I do think we should avoid saying "third" largest. We will wind up with endless changes and reverts. However, I have now said my piece. If you don't agree, I will cede to you on this. Sunray (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hinduism & Chinese religion are not universal religions; they're ethnic religions. the fact that a few small Hindu groups accept converts doesn't affect the overall picture, as they're a minute proportion of the total. Similarly, altho' one could presumably become Chinese by marriage or adoption, & some Koreans call themselves Confucians & some Westerners Taoists, the same stituation applies there. There are only the 3 major religions that address themselves to the whole of humanity in a realistic sense. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say 3rd largest; I said 1 of the 3 major. I can even dig up a citation to support that if necessary, tho' it seems to me a WKF. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have to add that I'm leery of putting a number on this as well. it adds nothing to the discussion, and opens up the probability of huge, steaming you-know-what fight. I myself would enjoy arguing with you about hinduism (since modern advaita hinduism is clearly universalistic... :-D ). is there a reason we need to go there that I'm not seeing? --Ludwigs2 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it'd look odd to say "... a religion, a universal one". "... a religion, one of the three major universal ones" looks better reading to me. Perhaps you can suggest wording. Peter jackson (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- try how I've done it now. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the tendency of some Buddhists, as against scholars, to say it's not a religion is a different matter. Sociologists have noted that this happens in all religions. (See link from User:Peter jackson#Buddhism.) Perhaps people want to assert their group's distinctiveness.
What do you think of saying that it is "a religion and a philosophy"?Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be consistent on this point. You said this above, then agreed with my suggestion, now you revert to this. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- No I do agree with your suggestion to say "usually considered a religion." I actually typed the other statement first and then responded to your suggestion, though I know it didn't look that way. I sometimes get confused with these long threads. :-( I've since struck the religion & phil comment entirely. Sunray (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let me again try to state the position. It's a notorious fact that Buddhism is usually considered a religion. However, some specialists disagree, so WP cannot treat this as a fact. I suggested the compromise wording so we don't have all other views in the lead; we put them in an intro after the lead. However, this will only work if no other view is mentioned. If any others are mentioned, it's no longer clear to the reader that there are views other than those mentioned in the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be consistent on this point. You said this above, then agreed with my suggestion, now you revert to this. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"no intercession"? Well, perhaps in the literal sense, which I think refers to saints interceding with God. However, let me mention yet again that 1/3 of the world's Buddhists believe that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the path themselves, & so practice devotion to Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Does that fit your idea of intercession?
- There is no doubt that devotional practices in China, Tibet and Southeast Asia qualify as religion. When I observe some of these practices, I wonder where they find this in the teachings of the Buddha. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- They may not find it in what you regard as the teachings of the Buddha, but they find it in what they regard as such. Anyone can invent an "original" Buddhism (or Christianity) to suit their own prejudices & dismiss any evidence to the contrary as later interpolation. Like any other conspiracy theory, such ideas can never be disproved. there's plenty of devotionalism in the Pali Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I realize that. However, I think there is enough scholarship on the basic teachings to know a great deal about what the Buddha did say. And it is thus possible to infer what he would not have said. Sunray (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- They may not find it in what you regard as the teachings of the Buddha, but they find it in what they regard as such. Anyone can invent an "original" Buddhism (or Christianity) to suit their own prejudices & dismiss any evidence to the contrary as later interpolation. Like any other conspiracy theory, such ideas can never be disproved. there's plenty of devotionalism in the Pali Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- See the article for the only statement I've managed to find about scholarly opinion as a whole. Most scholars most of the time give their own opinions without making clear whether others agree with them, which makes our job a lot harder. Do you think that minimal material is enough to draw these sorts of conclusions? I suppose this is irrelevant, as we're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article rather than decide the truth ourselves. I often join in such discussions myself, & was surprised to discover from (I think) Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts that it's considered perfectly proper for anyone who wishes simply to delete extraneous discussions. I'd been under the impression that talk pages weren't supposed to be censored. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Tag: if you can supply a link to one, I'll see whether I'd consider it adequate.
As requested, I'll leave discussion of sections other than history till later, unless others wish to raise them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the way the history section is organized at present. I again had to restore some sense to the hierarchy of headings, but the broad structure already follows what seems to be the standard arrangement used by historians. Why change it to something you've artificially concocted yourself?
- I am in strong agreement with you here. The current history section is a good structure to work with, IMO. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Details are another matter. For example, there's probably too much proportionately on India. More to the immediate point, the outline above takes in a lot of ideas from an earlier discussion in a different context. The proposal there was for the entire article to be arranged historically, so the teachings/practices had to be included. That remains an option, which would at least save us a lot of arguing about how the section(s) should be done. If not, do we want to duplicate here? Peter jackson (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A concern I have about changing the tag is that, while we're carefully discussing here how to make the article better, other people are coming along & making it worse. The article has such a high editing/reverting/vandalism rate that it's quite a task trying to keep track, & then am I supposed to restart the process every time? Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- well, honstly, I've gotten so caught up in the talk page discussions that I've almost forgotten what's on the page itself - lol. If you think the current history section is pretty much ok, then let me go and see if I can clean it up to the with respect to what you've said above.
- to your other point, I say we add a 'work in progress' tag, but then sandbox the page, and let people know that we're working on it there. I'll create a work version right now - I'll put it at 'Talk:Buddhism/Revised' (I'll make a link at the top of the page) that ought to take care of casual vandalism and spurious edits... --Ludwigs2 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about being caught up in the talk page discussions. I am in awe of the work you are doing on this page. Please keep it up!
- I think your idea of a "work in progress" tag is excellent. It will give us far more control over the vandalism, IMO, as we will be within our rights to revert any edit that is not in keeping with what we are discussing on the talk pages. I vote we make this change. Sunray (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Voting is not appropriate here (& according to policy it should not usually be taken too seriously anyway. The tag says it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. I'm still waiting to see the exact wording of the replacement you propose. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- lol - Peter, I think that was more of a show of support than an actual request for a vote. :-)
- I've been going over the page on the 'revised' version, and I think that the 'rise of mahayana' and 'east asian buddhism' sections need to be combined. I'll take a look at it this afternoon and see what I can do, but I'd appreciate you guys making any necessary revisions, because I'm sure to get something wrong. :-)
- also, I think we need to find some place to talk about the the story of the buddha, because if it's not there, someone will keep adding it. I've put it in its own section for know, but where do we want to place it? in the history section before the 'early buddhism' bit? in a section of its own? --Ludwigs2 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Voting is not appropriate here (& according to policy it should not usually be taken too seriously anyway. The tag says it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. I'm still waiting to see the exact wording of the replacement you propose. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be getting confused, so let me repeat how the history section should be organized:
- Indian
- Theravada
- East Asian
- Tibetan
- Modern/Western
- The general material on Mahayana currently in East Asian should presumably move to Indian#Rise of Mahayana &/or the teachings/practices section(s), unless we want even more duplication. Combining the 2 violates the above structure, which you seemed to have just agreed to.
- The story of the Buddha should perhaps go in teachings/practices. I think we need to distinguish clearly between the few generally accepted historical facts, which belong under History, & the legend, which is effectively part of Buddhism. For the latter, we must be careful not to censor out the miracles. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work. I agree with Peter's suggested structure above. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2: I will admit that confusion is a natural (and I think healthy) state with me. sorry if it gets too visible, though. :-)
- with that in mind, let me ask for clarification. the major headings in the current history section read like this:
- Early Buddhism
- Rise of Mahayana Buddhism
- Emergence of the Vajrayāna
- Southern (Theravāda) Buddhism
- Eastern (East Asian) Buddhism
- Northern (Tibetan) Buddhism
- Buddhism today
- this conforms to your structure, except for 2 and 3. should they be subheadings of 1, like this:
- Early Buddhism
- Rise of Mahayana Buddhism
- Emergence of the Vajrayāna
- Southern (Theravāda) Buddhism
- Eastern (East Asian) Buddhism
- Northern (Tibetan) Buddhism
- Buddhism today
- Early Buddhism
- or if not, how should they fit into the structure? --Ludwigs2 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indian
- Early
- Mahayana
- Vajrayana
- Theravada
- East Asian
- Tibetan
- Modern/Western
- Indian
- got it. --Ludwigs2 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
structure of 'some teachings' section
I've begun working on the 'some teachings' section - I renamed it 'important concepts'. my thought here is to go through the list of important concepts in buddhism, clarifying differences between denominations as I go. slow going though. does that work for everyone? --Ludwigs2 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- To save reinventing the wheel again, I give here Lopez' list of topics. Each chapter starts with an introductory section without separate title.
- Universe
- Reality
- The end
- Buddha
- 4 NTs
- Last days
- Bodies
- 2 yanas
- Bodhisattva
- Other Buddhas & worlds
- Images
- Buddha nature
- Dharma
- Word of Buddha
- Interpretation
- How many vehicles?
- Power of the word
- Monastic life
- Rules
- Ordination
- Bodhisattva vows
- Monastic life
- Nuns
- Lay Practice
- Sangha & state
- Role of the book
- Karma
- Pilgrimage
- Enlightenment
- Tantra
- Pure Land
- Zen
- Meditation on emptiness
- Universe
- That should give ideas on what to include. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Somewhat idiosyncratic, but seems to be the only author who covers the subject topically. Most simply embed teachings/practices in history, tho' Olson arranges by schools.
- Remember, there are teachings already embedded in the history section. If we have a separate teachings section they should be copied or moved. Peter jackson (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- yeah, I know that, but that's a fairly non-problematical cleanup issue. I'm more concerned about getting the topics into a coherent form at this point. this is a useful list to work with. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Additions to article
Note additional sections that need to be incorporated into the article; add specific references and comments below
Examine listings of contents in previous section to see whether any topics there should be added. Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Now refactored into subpage. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Pure Land
Karma
Rebirth
Demographics
Sources
Offer reliable and verifiable sources from authoritative practitioners and respected academics, that apply to buddhism generally. please note source context (i.e. how, where and why it might be used in the article
- I should repeat here, as it's diappeared in the reorganization, that Buddhist sources are reliable sources only for their own views, not those of other Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
practitioner sources
academic sources
- "The early teaching (Harvey, Introduction, p. 47) and the traditional understanding in the Theravada (Hinnels, John R. (1998). The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0140514805.,pages 393f) is that these are an advanced teaching for those who are ready for them. The Mahayana position is that they are a preliminary teaching for people not yet ready for the higher and more expansive Mahayana teachings. (Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, p. 92) They are little known in the Far East. (Eliot, Japanese Budhism, Edward Arnold, London, 1935, page 60)" Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- "many Buddhisms (Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 2) or "Buddhist religions". (Robinson et al., Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 2004) Others again define religion in ways that exclude it. (Numen, vol 49, page 389; reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403)" Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Editing and Copyediting
Editorial team to edit article.
Note: According to the guidelines, Wikipedia, tho' legally registered in Florida, is neutral between British & American English. Unless a particular form is appropriate to the subject, the style should be that of the 1st major contributor. Is there an easy way to get to the far end of an extremely long page history? Peter jackson (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- As to Brit or Yank speak, as a Canadian I'm comfortable with either. However, I think we can make the editorial decision on this page. We might see whether the majority of sources used are from one or the other. If I correctly understand the question you are asking in your last sentence, at the top of the page there is a link for "Latest" and another for "Earliest." Clicking on "Earliest" for this article reveals that the first version was in [drum roll] American English. Sunray (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That seems to settle that question. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Pictures and other resources
Further develop the article to be as interesting and informative as possible.
Article assessment
Develop a strategy for article assessment, including reaching FA status.
- What about GA? I'm afraid I don't know anything about either. Should they be dealt with simultaneously or not? Peter jackson (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've given a link to the guide for article assessment, above. WP:GA and WP:FA each have their own set of criteria and nomination processes. We may want to go for GA before FA, although this was once a featured article. Sunray (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just had a look at the link. GA seems to come before FA. Peter jackson (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and it might give us good feedback if we were to ask for a GA assessment at some point. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
General comments, complaints, and/or observations not covered in the above
if you don't know where to put it, put it here; expect this section to be refactored frequently.
Semi-Protected
I think this page has to be Semi-Protected because its level of vandalism is increasing. {User: Hellboy2hell 08:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)}
- You can place a request at WP:RFP. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- <sigh...> that might be my fault - I've been doing a lot of vandalism patrols lately, and I think I'm getting some payback. my apologies... --Ludwigs2 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Former Featured Article
Here's what the article looked like when it was featured on April 6, 2004. Let's just use this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism&diff=3076889&oldid=3076834 The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- How can we "just use this"? The article is going to have to keep changing over time, right?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- well, yes. but that is a useful link. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look at that version earlier when someone suggested it. The lead is almost entirely POV. this current version, bad as it is, is a great improvement. I did explain this, but it's been refactored. Peter jackson (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the "Suggested reading" section appropriate?
Maybe this question has been answered in the past or in policy, but I don't see it here. We have a "Suggested reading" section in the article. Whose suggestions are these? Is this maybe somewhat original/POV/presumptuous for Wikipedia editors to be offering suggestions for readers? (Now if these are the suggestions of experts that can be reliably sourced, then I guess all is well. That's not how I see the list, though.) --Ds13 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. However, that's the least of our worries. Peter jackson (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No mention of ancient India?
You know when you go the Buddha article (not this one) it says that Buddha was born in ancient India. And that makes sense. Here it says he was born in Lumbini and he grew up in NE India....which is very misleading. I am amazed that there are still people who dont want to admit that Buddhism came from India. I mean Buddha first taugh in India. He gained englightenment in India. He died in India. And he was born on the border of India and Nepal. ANd yet this article wants to say he was born in Nepal? And that he lived in Nepal and India? No it should say he was born in ANCIENT INDIA, in what is now known as Lumbini Nepal. Thats the honest way to put it. And this is not just my opinion. If you go to the Buddha article thats what it says. And yet on this article it doesnt say that.....I mean folks Buddhism came from ancient India. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you keep bringing up the same topic on this talk page over and over? This has been responded to many times.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- And we get other people complaining from the Nepal point of view. Peter jackson (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, as I pointed out before, it's not now known as Lumbini. Lumbini is the ancient name. The modern Nepalese name is Rummindei. Peter jackson (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I wouldnt bring up the same topic over and over if it wouldnt keep changing all the time.....I mean nobody is answering my side.....When u go to the Buddha article it clearly says how the religion originated from Ancient India. Yet on this article it says different. Isnt that a contradiction?.......And i dont care what the Nepalis are saying because there was no such place as NEPAL in those days....In those days it was all one land. Now i understand that the place wasnt called India back then, but it did go by Bharat, or Hindustan. And since Bharat & Hindustan are not common names known to people who are not from that area, the correct name is Ancient India......Buddha first taught in India. Lived alot of his life in India. Gained englightenment in India, and Died in India. And yet we used Nepal as the answer because today its known as Nepal? That makes no sense.......How bout we come to a compromise and say both? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe people keep ignoring you because you say the same thing over and over.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- WOW what a catch 22....People ignore me becuase I say the same thing over and over. And yet I wouldnt say the same thing over & over if people wouldnt ignore me....Ya u really make alot of sense there Nat......By the way.....my edit got deleted which is amazing because my edit was very fair. I mentioned India, Ancient India, Nepal and Lumbini (which covers all bases) and yet it got deleted. This is a prime example of how wikipeida users are annoying. I mean a guy like me puts in an edit that covers all bases to make everyone happy and yet it still gets edited out.....But u know what the funniest part of all is.....if u go to the Buddha article (not this article) it clearly says he came from Ancient India....and yet in this article it doesnt say ancient India....what a joke 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Buddhism a religion? Don't most religions address themselves to the world?
Peter: Why do you feel these first two sentences are necessary in the first paragraph of the sandbox version?
"Buddhism is usually considered a religion. It addresses itself to all humanity, and has had a large measure of success in doing so."
The first sentence implies Buddism might not be a religion despite the 350 million people who believe in it. There are those who believe Christianity is not a religion but that doesn't alter its status as a religion. The second sentence is worded awkwardly and states the obvious. Most religions address themselves to all humanity and Buddhism's 350 million faithful demonstrate its success. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is that some scholars regard Buddhism as more than one religion, while others define religion in ways that exclude it. (For references see User:Peter jackson#Buddhism.) Therefore, under Wikipedia policy as given at WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot take sides & assert one view as fact.
- It's misleading to say that most religions address themselves to all humanity. Possibly true, if new religions outnumber tribal ones, but misleading. Hinduism is essentially an ethnic religion, a few small movements notwithstanding. Most religious Chinese are usually classified by comparative religionists under something variously called Chinese (folk/traditional) religion, which is also obviously an ethnic religion. Hinduism has more followers than Buddhism, as probably does Chinese religion. User:Peter jackson 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked & see you're responsible for the wording "one of the world's five largest religions". Again true, but why five? Just because we're not sure whether it's 4th or 5th? I did suggest saying it's one of the 3 major universal religions, but someone objected on the grounds it would start a fight. Perhaps yours would too. User:Peter jackson 14:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Peter: It seems to me you're bogging yourself down in issues that the average reader would not take much interest in. I suppose I could search around the Internet to better support my claims but I suspect you'd only use some of yours to refute them. That kind of tit for tat is frustratingly time consuming, especially when I'm not receiving money for it.
- I noticed you're the one who placed the neutrality tag on the article. There's no way to create a completely neutral article given the nature of the material. Somebody’s bound to complain. Why don't we simply leave the first three paragraphs of the main article as they are? If they only attract a few complaints rather than a deluge then I think we will have done OK. To be honest, most of the main article looks pretty good to me. It needs just a bit of fine tuning rather than a major rewrite. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just me. You're the one who put that wording in, as I said, & other people have put other statements of the sort. Either we say something about the place of Buddhism among the world's religions or we don't. At present we don't seem to have established a stable consensus.
- By 1st 3 paras do you mean the lead (2 paras) & the next section? That section is
- propaganda from a particular Buddhist organization
- original research
- Of course neutrality is an ideal never quite reached, but we can do a lot better. The attitude you outline above is the theory of how Wikipedia should work. The problem here is an example of WP's systemic bias: that is, the bias implicit in the sorts of people who are mainly involved. In this particular case, most of the contributors involved are Western(ized) Buddhists, so the article relects their ideas about Buddhism. I've therefore appointed myself as representative of all traditional Buddhists to try to ensure their ideas of Buddhism are fairly represented. Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to refer to the first two paragraphs of the main article. The third paragraph obviously needs citations.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Cousins, "Dating"
There's a reference for citation 19 in the sandbox version called Cousins, "Dating". What's this for? Is this a mistake? The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Someone introduced a system of using abridged titles for citations given in the ref list. You can find the full details there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Asian Buddhism articles
Peter said he's appointed himself the representative of traditional Buddhists. Here are the links to some of the Asian articles on Buddhism. Perhaps these will help him. I don't read these languages but perhaps one of you does.
The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- WP policy is that it should not cite itself as a source. Therefore, even if I knew the languages, those articles couldn't be cited. Instead, I use sources such as those given at User:Peter jackson#General scholarly works on Buddhism, together with more specialized ones. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I was hoping these articles could give you and other editors an idea of what Asian Buddhists find important in Buddhism. I didn't expect you to cite them. Also, there's nothing wrong in using their sources. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there's nothing to stop those who can read those languages & write English doing as you say. Nevertheless, I'd point out that those articles are likely to reflect mainly the attitudes of Westernized Asian Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Moreover, they are likely to contain material which was translated directly from the English Wikipedia or a structure which was based on a reading of the English Wikipedia article, since many Wikipedians read English in addition to whatever other language they are working in.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of both of your claims, we would have no choice but to accept any Asian editor who is willing to contribute in a constructive way. Frankly, I think the input of an Asian editor would be very helpful. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a non sequitur? Obviously, Asian editors are eligible to work on this article. Having editors with a range of backgrounds can't hurt.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
At 1841, 19 June, Luis Gomez added the following comment to the above.
- Nat:Peter refered to Westernized Asians. I was pointing out any Asians who want to contribute, Westernized or not, are eligible.LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Note the use of the word "I", which seems to imply Luis & Thin Man are the same person, tho' there's no mention I can see on either's user pages. A few minutes later, thin Man deleted the comment. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Checking the history in further detail, I see that Thin Man 1st changed the signature from Luis' to his own, & then deleted the comment altogether. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?
I came here and searched for "neutral" and "dispute" before I finally found a few items scattered hither and yon by searching for "NPOV". I gather that part of the neutrality dispute is about whether we can assert that Buddhism is a religion or not a religion, but I'm completely unclear as to whether this is the gist of the dispute or whether there are other more pressing neutrality concerns.
Given the absence of any real discussion on the current talk page, I'd go ahead and remove the tag, if I hadn't found a specific request from one editor that the tag not be removed. But to keep the tag in place, you really need to keep the dispute clearly visible to new editors coming to the article for the first time, and that's not happening here right now. Please don't archive NPOV disputes from the main talk page unless it's also time to remove the tag. Thanks.
P. S. Could someone explain the neutrality dispute to me, or give me a pointer into the talk-page archive? --arkuat (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- The neutrality dispute is whether Buddhism is a religion. However, I don't see how we're going to settle it. That debate has been raging for centuries. User:Peter jackson placed the tag on the article and feels stongly that it should remain there. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I would ask User:Peter jackson to clearly state the case that this article as it currently stands lacks a neutral point of view, and suggest means by which this lack may be corrected, on this talk page, or else remove the tag. Thanks, Thin Man. --arkuat (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- As to where to find the details, I'm afraid they're scattered thro' lots of archives, as I've been raising this issue for a long time, starting long before I got fed up & tagged the article. I'm not the one responsible for removing all the relevant material from the face of this page, & I'd prefer not to have either to write it out yet again (much of it has already appeared a number of times) or search for it. So I hope you'll accept for now some major points repeated for the umpteenth time, & perhaps take the issue up with Ludwigs, who i think is responsible for the archiving.
- Whether Buddhism is a religion is not the main point. The main point is that the article is unbalanced, being written mainly from the POV of Western(ized) Buddhists.
- Let me just mention again the grossest point: 1/3 of the world's Buddhists believe that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the path, so they call on the Buddha Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Someone whose only previous knowledge of Buddhism derives from the way it's usually presented in the West would I think be very surprised to learn this & feel they'd been misled. The article needs to give much more prominence to this sort of thing.
- What to do, again has been archived. Basically:
- Reorganize into coherent structure: this is currently being attempted in the sandbox linked above
- Add material on neglected topics; possibly also cut down other topics
- Check reliable sources to see whether the interpretations given represent their views
- There has been a vague suggestion that the tag be replaced with a work in progress tag. No definite proposal has yet appeared. If one does, I'll consider it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter jackson, you may not maintain an NPOV dispute tag on an article without sustaining an actual NPOV dispute on the article's talk page. User:Ludwigs, whoever you are, please do not automatically archive talk-page material relating to an outstanding NPOV tag on the article under discussion, unless you are also willing to remove the NPOV tag.
Buddhism is an important and encyclopedic topic. The frivolously-maintained NPOV tag at the head of the article on this topic informs readers coming to wikipedia that this article is not a reliable source of information about Buddhism. Please do not maintain this tag unless you have serious reasons to warn readers away from this article as a source of information about Buddhism. If you do have serious reasons, please state them succinctly and clearly, or else how can you expect us poor editors to correct the problems for you? --arkuat (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Peter: I was very surprised to read your reason for the NPOV tag. I've been editing this article on and off for the past week now and I was NEVER aware of it, which is Arkuat's point. I assumed the dispute was over whether Buddhism is a religion which is impossible to settle because it's probably as old as Buddhism itself. Your reason sounds more like an objection to the content and overall structure of the article. While all of your complaints may very well be valid, they are, in fact, YOUR complaints and nobody else's. Given how you feel, why haven't you added the Pure Land information to the main article? That would have been the obvious solution to your complaint.
- In light of Arkuat's statement and your complaints about the article I've decided to remove the NPOV tag. I know you're going to disagree with this so please add your infomation about Pure Land Buddhism to the main article. By the way, thanks Arkuat, for your input.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Arkuat, I don't really anything that justifies your description of this NPOV tag as frivolous. Peter has been dedicatedly raising and discussing these issues on this talk page for a long time. It was entirely reasonable for you to request that a succint description of the dispute on the talk page rather than in the archive; Peter just gave a succint description, to wit, "the article is unbalanced, being written mainly from the POV of Western(ized) Buddhists."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Arkuat - my apologies: the talk page was an incredible sprawling mess when I archived it to try to focus our efforts on revising the page, and it never occurred to me that I might be archiving something needed. my bad.
that being said, I think there are two issues behind the original instantiation of the NPOV tag. first Peter was concerned that this article was overly western (about which I think he is entirely correct). the NPOV tag did not go up, however, before we had a particular editor who began making insistent edits from within a particular perspective (heavy emphasis on the 4NTs as the central concept of buddhism, insistence on the story of Buddha's life as factual truth, resistance to any lead that didn't declare buddhism as a religion...). this is one of the difficulties in editing this article - the intellectual/academic understanding of Buddhism is often at odds with the personal/religious understanding, and while I think we need to privilege the academic views as being more neutral, this causes a lot of ruffled feathers. People care about this article a lot. now I will say that I've had part of this argument with Peter myself - clearly there are academics who see buddhism as a collection of things rather than a unified religion per se, but that strikes me as a bit too post modern of an approach for the average reader. I'd been happy with the 'buddhism is usually considered one of the world's major religions' formulation as being a comprehensible compromise, but...
I will go and put an under construction template on the main page (I may even make a new one to deal with the odd situation we have here. I think that will still get across the neutrality issue without making the page look actually disputed. will that be acceptable? --Ludwigs2 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored the dispute tag for now. It can go if there's no dispute, ie if TM & Arkuat agree that the article needs serious rebalancing. Pure Land was only the grossest example. The article needs a coherent structure so i know where to put missing material. More later. Peter jackson (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now I've got some more time. The article has a section called "Some teachings". It's only called that because I changed it at least 3 times from "Teachings", "Main teachings", "Principal teachings" or whatever. It's an arbitrary selection, & other teachings are buried in various places in the history section (quite apart from those omitted altogether). This discrimination itself violates NPOV. As the quotes in User:Peter jackson#General & User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal show, any claim that anything is "the basic teachings of Buddhism" or words to that effect is at best POV, & cannot therefore be used as the basis for structuring the article. (For the 4 NTs in particular see User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths.) All major teachings of major forms of Buddhism must be treated in parallel. I've seen 3 ways of doing this in scholarly works on Buddhism:
- embed them in the history; this seems to be the most popular approach
- arrange them by schools
- arrange them by topic; this is what Ludwigs is trying to do
- It's not a matter of scholars v practitioners. Rather, those practitioners who get cited, who write in English & are read by most of the contributors to this page, are not representative of practitioners as a whole. Buddhism is far more varied than that. They just represent one subfamily, Western(ized) Buddhism. Scholars try to get a broader view, some by studying literature, some by fieldwork (& Gombrich by both), some by collating the work of other scholars. This is far from infallible, & I've no objection to the inclusion of POVs from Buddhist writers that haven't been found in scholarly sources. What I do object to is when people try to censor the views of scholars because they happen to contradict those of those Buddhist writers they happen to have read. This is totally contrary to WP policy.
- 'buddhism is usually considered one of the world's major religions': that wording doesn't make clear that "usually" doesn't qualify "major". Neutrality requires a wording that makes clear that it's a matter of some dispute whether Buddhism is a religion. The most recent wording I tried in the sandbox fills as litle space as possible: the numbers imply major, & "worldwide" implies universal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Pure Land Info
I just checked the main article and I saw an entire segment dedicated to Pure Land Buddhism. Here's what I found:
- There are estimated to be around 100 million Chinese Buddhists.[1] Pure Land Buddhism is the most popular form in China, particularly among the laity.[2] In the first half of the twentieth century, most Chinese monks practised Pure Land, some combining it with Chan (Zen); Chan survived into the 20th century in a small number of monasteries, but died out in mainland China after the communist takeover.[3] In Taiwan Chan meditation is popular,[4] but most Buddhists follow Pure Land.[5] Nearly all Chinese Buddhists accept that the chances of attaining sufficient enlightenment by one's own efforts are very slim, so that Pure Land practice is essential as an "insurance policy" even if one practises something else.[6]
- There are estimated to be about 40 million Buddhists in Vietnam.[7] The Buddhism of monks and educated lay people is mainly Thien (Zen), with elements of Pure Land and tantra, but that of most ordinary Buddhists has little or no Thien element, being mainly Pure Land.[8] In Korea, nearly all Buddhists belong to the Chogye school, which is officially Son (Zen), but with substantial elements from other traditions.[9] In Japan, the numbers of adherents are estimated as follows:[10]
- *Pure Land 17.7m
- *mainstream Nichiren 13m (excluding radical groups like Soka Gakkai/Nichiren Shoshu, which are not always counted as Buddhist)
- *Zen 13m
- *Shingon 11.9m
- *Tendai 2.9m
Given the above info I really don't understand your complaint, Peter. May I suggest that you move the Pure Land info higher up in the article and expand it to give it greater emphasis? The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think the complaint is that philosophical aspects of pure land are conspicuously absent. but that shouldn't be too hard to fix given this start. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It might interest people to know that every word quoted above was added to the article by me. In addition, a short para on Pure Land that TM missed was added by Tony (I think) only after I raised the issue. In other words, before I came along, there wasn't a single word about the religion of 1/3 of the world's Buddhists. This is just an illustration of the inherent bias of the article & the need for a radical reconstruction. Just tinkering isn't good enough. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then make whatever changes you think are necessary to solve the problem and stop insisting the article is biased even though always been free to change it. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
The following appeared at the top of the sandbox. I've deleted it it from there as it doesn't belong there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I, a devout and independant buddhist, an enlightened man, see this construction as db vandalism. It adds no clarity missing in the original composition and adds a gross amount of confusion inconsequential personal opinion -not of Dharma. This composition is obviously made by persons with no first-hand knowledge of Buddhism. It is patently dilitante and the quality can be construed the last minute gleanings of a highschool book synapses. The one tantamount to vandalism is this is no way to introduce others to Buddhism nor is it conducive to buddhist study. Really awful -I can't stand it -It was a beautiful sight -Now it's just some idiots tromping around pretending to be Journalists. And IF they are journalists it does not qualify them to edit this body of work id est the previuos longstanding edition of Sikipedia/Buddhism 72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)db-g3
Would you at least put this monstrosity under Buddha not Buddhism -Non of what you have added has anything to do with Buddhism -Buddha Dharma nor Sangha. You must understand under Buddhism readers are looking for an INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM -A huge load of extraneous and really as you yourselves say ,Questionable Material, is not a Welcome Introduction. THis is a Sacred Duty to Edit this Compostion, not a Playground. Just to get an idea something can be improved doesn't qualify one to essay an improvement -let alone a lengthy discourse. Have respect for an edifice!72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Sean Alan Romanek72.209.228.5 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say this is entirely too vague to reply to, except to point out that this is just a sandbox, work in progress, not a final product. Perhaps you can be more specific about your concerns. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe i´ll try to translate a bit, how i understand the remarks: here are people who obviously have sympathy for or even practice some kind of Buddhism. They are concerned, that the core of there beliefs/way of life is not represented in the article.
- They feel, that by dissecting the history of all the different schools with all their smaller or bigger differeneces, citing this scholar, then that one... - they fear, that in this process the essence of what Buddhism is for them and for all the people who actually find those teachings/way of life/religion helpfull for their actual lives - that this essence is lost in the process. They think, and i strongly agree with that POV, that some essential characteristics of the belief system have to be portayed at a very prominent place. I know, that this will not be easy (because of all the differences) but the solution can never be to then simply leave them out or place them somewhere way down in the article.
- I am strongly convinced that most of the future reader of the article want to know one thing: What is it all about. History is just one little aspect, which is - frankly - mostly uninteresting for someone who wants to learn about Buddhism as a way of life/mindset/religion.
- Talking about Buddhism in the way a western scholar with a mainly historical POV does is like talking about humanity by concentrating on the reconstruction of different genetic lineages. For the practitioner, Buddhism is a central part of their lives, a LIVING phiolsophy/religion/mindset - u name it. Not a dead historians subject.
- Therefore I strongly urge you all to keep both perspectives in mind, that of the outsider/western scholar, and that of the insider/practitioner.
- P.S: maybe you should include a section about "NPOV from a buddhist perspective" - guess buddhist scholars would have a lot of fun deconstructing this outright silly concept ;-))
- P.P.S.: May all beings be well and happy :-))
- Andi 213.196.199.47 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear!
- --Klimov (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Andi: Please take the time to read both the sandbox version and the main article. You'll find at least some information on customs and practices. There are also links and web site references that will lead to more information.Also, you're always welcome to add any information you feel is missing.The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Andi, explaining "what it's all about" is a fine thing. I applaud that goal. But, is Wikipedia the right forum for it? This is not a repository for every kind of writing. It is always going to tend to reflect the views of modern scholars. Criticising NPOV on Wikipedia doesn't make sense, because Wikipedia is based on NPOV. If the criticism is valid, then one is bound to quit Wikipedia!—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
Peter: I have removed the NPOV tag for the second time. Recent talk-page entries here on this matter make it very clear there is no longer a point-of-view dispute. However, I can see there is no argument I can provide that will convince you of that. As Arkuat pointed it out, maintaining that tag without an actual dispute is confusing to the other users of Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'll have to involve an administrator if you restore it again. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To Thin Man
I had a look ar your edits and changes and I'm afraid your knowledge of Buddhism is quite poor. Please understand I'm not trying to insult you. Perphaps you should do some reading or spend some time chatting with Buddhist monks before coming back to this article. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the sandbox version
I spent some time trying to improve it. Frankly it needs a lot of work. I also notice there's at least one anonymous editor who is mutilating it. I think you guys should delete it. I don't see how it's ever going to be useful. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Conflict with other Buddhist articles
If you go to the article titled "HISTORY OF BUDDHISM" it says that BUddha was born in Ancient India, in the city of Lumbini, in what is now known as Nepal. If you go to the article titled "BUDDHA", It says that Buddha was born in Ancient India, in the city of Lumbini, in what is now known as Nepal. (These might not be the exact words but it says something close to it and/or similar)......And yet in this article it just says that he was born in Lumbini......Why are you people against saying he was from Ancient India? I mean wouldnt it be more fair to say ANCIEN INDIA, NEPAL, AND LUMBINI all together, that way everyone is happy? But nooooo you guys dont want to be fair do you? You want to leave out ancient India, and just he was born in Nepal and thats it right? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- ^ World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2001, volume 1, page 191, & volume 2, page 10
- ^ Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, page 152
- ^ Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950, Harvard, 1967, pages 47, 396
- ^ Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, page 283
- ^ World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed, volume 1, page 723
- ^ Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2007, page 611
- ^ World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2001, volume 1, page 803
- ^ Harvey, Introduction, page 159; Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume Two), page 882
- ^ Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), pages 430, 435
- ^ World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2001, Volume 1, page 412