Talk:Buddhism

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Buddhism is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Please place comments in the appropriate section and 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.
This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Former featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004.
To-do list for Buddhism:  · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


Budhha was born in Nepal not in INDIA. Because of the expressive dominance of India they like to say that Buddha was born in India, which is a big fake. There are many evidence to this, the most one is: in Lumbini there still exist his own house. There are hundreds' of document which can prove that Buddha was born in MODERN Nepal not in india.

But what is truth is he moved to India (GAYA) where he got enlightment also known as BODHISATTO..So, there should not be any confusion about the country where Buddha Born.

Contents

Archive of discussions using...

what discussions (by thread) can be archived?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You've just been adding to some a long way back. Peter jackson (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
because I'm new to contributing in en.wikipedia (well, more than a few minor corrections). And that matters how? We can still archive at least some discussions.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Subpage and topical methods

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Topical

Permalink method

Permalink archived discussions :

Archive 18.1

  1. Lead
  2. Neutrality tag
  3. Editing and Copyediting
  4. Semi-Protected
  5. cosmically-dimensioned faith?
  6. Sanbox Version
  7. General comments, complaints, and/or observations not covered in the above
  8. recent edits
  9. Conflict with other Buddhist articles

Note: I will archive this list of threads if no one disagrees. I prefer the "permalink" method of archiving (no creation of extra pages), so if no one disagrees about it, I will use this simpler method.

Since this discussion is still very long (310 kilobytes), I will archive more threads in this month. The next archives will be (if no one disagrees, I will archive them when the list has 9 or 10 items):

Archive 18.2

  1. Arrangement
  2. Former Featured Article
  3. merge "Suggested reading" with references
  4. No mention of ancient India?
  5. Is Buddhism a religion? Don't most religions address themselves to the world?
  6. Cousins, "Dating"
  7. can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?
  8. Structure
  9. Asian Buddhism articles

This discussion page has currently 244 KB, but some threads are not yet resolved. If no one objects or disagrees, then I will keep using this "per-thread, propose which to archive first" permalink method:

Archive 18.3

  1. Import sandbox?
  2. Sources // just add them as references
  3. Pictures and other resources // diagram added
  4. Pure Land Info
  5. Comments
  6. Regarding the sandbox version
  7. Sects
  8. Non-theistic
  9. Ashoka not mentioned

Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 18.4

  1. Central concepts
  2. Additions to article
  3. Aims
  4. References
  5. Define Buddhist
  6. some comments on the current sandbox version
  7. Wording
  8. Iwanjka: Very important, spelling: Buddhist or Budhist?
  9. thanks all

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Threads to archive

Archive 18.5

  1. Lead
  2. Dharmic or brahmanic religion?
  3. Comments by Alithos
  4. Don't westernize what is not westernizable

The talk page is 281 KB

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

Demographics

is there even a secondary article about "Buddhist Demographics"? In es.wikipedia there's a "Numbers of Buddhism by Region", but the secondary article is "Buddhism by Region".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:30, 3 September 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)

current state of the lead

just some feedback: been away for a couple of days and i just wanted to say, that i was very positively surprised by the current state of the lead. I think the overall structure, arrangement, range and weight of topics is nearly perfect imho. The same applies to the wording and the resolution of controversial subjects such as mentioning of ancient india, summary of beliefs and practices, differences between schools/branches in their recognition of scriptures and the "common core" issue. In fact, i would pretty much favour this version to go into the 0.7 release without any significant changes. A big thanks to all contributors! :) Andi 3ö (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It keeps changing, so I'm not sure I'm commenting on the same version as you. At a quick glance, I think the main changes I want are
  1. It should say most consider it a religion, not just some
  2. I think the list of different practices should be in rough order of popularity
Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree on number 1
I do not like your arrangement of the practices.
  1. I am not entirely sure if arranging by popularity is the right way to go. I think there should be some sort of grouping them by their nature, like: what you can do in everyday life/permeating all your actions, then devotional practices you do in a temple or at your shrine at home and then what is required in monastic life. Arranging in that way it would also roughly resemble an order going from (kind of) basic to more sophisticated practices.
  2. Even IF we would agree on popularity of practices, i would tend to put ethical conduct in the first place, followed by ritual/devotional practices, then study and meditation.
  3. You added "ritual" to the list. Please explain why you did that. I think it is pretty much the same as devotional practices, or can even be considered a generic term that would include devotional practices/invocation of holy beings and even meditation. One of those three (ritual, devotional practices, invocation) has to go IMO, to avoid redundancy and also for balancing reasons.
Andi 3ö (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Such terms are rather vague. I think it's advisable to spell things out for clarity. Eg some would say (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, 2008/9, I think) that devotion, ritual, sexual yoga, study &c are all forms of meditation, so all forms of Buddhism & all practising Buddhists practise meditation. However, many readers would understand "meditation" to refer exclusively to purely internal mental exercises, so we must avoid potentially misleading phrasing. More when I have time. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
I suggest ask for this after the rewrite... or any point in time (depending on the development of the article) that we all agree.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe after the 20th October deadline?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dharmic or brahmanic religion?

The term "Dharmic religion" or "Dharmic faith" is very uncommon, see e.g. this search on Google Scholar, and this one on Google Books. Because it is not verifiable (WP:PROVEIT), I removed the adjective "Dharmic". Crowsnest (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The first reference in the article, to http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/HealthWelfare/MentalHealth/Religion/Buddhism/, is not a reliable source (in the sense of WP:V). This is a link to the Service and Administrative Offices (Health and Welfare) of a university. Not a reference that one would expect as a source in the lead section of this article. Crowsnest (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Crowsnest: I'm afraid I disagree with you over the usage of the word "dharmic". Please carefully read the new citation I provided for it. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not a reliable source, in fact it is not even acceptable, see WP:SPS: "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." So I removed the not verifiable term "dharmic religion" as well as the reference. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The en.allexperts link, unfortunately, is a mirror of Wikipedia content. I say "unfortunately" because it is all too easy to stumble on those mirrors on the internet and be caught off guard, not realising what it is. Obviously, since it is a mirror, we cannot cite it, since it is tantamount to citing Wikipedia itself.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've not managed to find this term in a single English dictionary. Peter jackson (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Then at least we should categorise Buddhism. What about Brahmanic religion of the Nastik subfamily/subdivision? ...because Buddhism DOES have a generaly accepted family along with Hinduism, Jainism, and so on (ancient indian religions).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tathagatagarbha

Para 3.4 reads: "The teaching of the tathagatagarbha is said by the Buddha in the tathagatagarbha sutras to constitute the "absolutely final culmination" of his Dharma—the highest presentation of Truth (other sūtras make similar statements about other teachings). This has traditionally been regarded as the highest teaching in East Asian Buddhism." That last line appears as POV to me, for example, in mainstream Tibetan Buddhism (Prasangika Madhyamika), the Tathagatagarbha idea is interpretable as the potential to become a Buddha, not 'some thing' that we already have, which may come too close to the Hindu concept of Atman. rudy (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

East Asian means Sino-Japanese, not Tibetan. Peter jackson (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, slip of the mind...rudy (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, tathagatagarbha was the name that Gautama Buddha prefered to be called because of its meaning... and it's an poetic explanation of a Buddha and of Nirvana.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You are thinking of Tathagata. Tathagatagarbha is a late Mahayana concept. Whether or not it is implied by or even consistent with the ideas in the Pali canon is not clear. It depends on the interpretation you have of both. It is possible to interpret things that way. Mitsube (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, yes I was thinking of Tathagata.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pure Land

I think that the interpretation that Amithaba overrides karma rather than it is the practitioner who creates the karma to be born in a pure land in which he has he abilities to progress in realization as far as it is necessary to “attain” enlightenment is absolutely wrong. It is the practitioner who prohibits existing karma of ripening by getting enlightened after his birth in a pure land for which he had created the karma by doing pure land practice.
To get sure about that issue it would be very helpful if Peter jackson could denominate those schools in which it is taught that Amithaba would overrride karma.
All the very best --Liebeskind (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to decide what interpretation is correct. We have to follow reliable sources. I've already given a citation. Perhaps someone can find one that contradicts it, in which case NPOV comes into play. Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are undisputed core elements of Buddhism?

My view on this (and that says it all) would be (regardless of whether or not there are beings capable of using the teachings) the assertion that

  • Buddha lived and taught a way to Nirvana, and he taught this way based upon personal experience (rather than revelation).
  • Buddha taught that any (human) being can reach Nirvana.
  • Buddhas teachings were often given as discourses, and are known as Sutras
  • Buddha developed monasticism, based on a set of regulations (Vinaya)
  • These 3 things - the Teacher, his Teachings, and the Community - are called the three jewels, and are known as the refuges.
  • The first discourse given by Buddha disclosed the Four Noble truths
  • Based on the Four Noble Truths,
  • Truth of Suffering - Buddha disclosed the basic nature of three marks of existence, and the three types of suffering.
  • Truth of Suffering's Origin - Buddha disclosed the Twelve Nidānas, which indicate the assertions of Buddhist karma and Buddhist rebirth.
  • Truth of Suffering's Cessation - Buddha disclosed that Suffering can cease permanently - the assertion of Nirvana.
  • Truth of the Path - Buddha disclosed the three higher trainings, which are often presented as the eightfold path.

I don't know of any Buddhists that dispute that Buddha taught these Dharmas, or that he was qualified to do so. (20040302 (talk)) sth

It's not so much that anyone would disagree with these, except perhaps the statement that anyone can reach nirvana. Rather, these are not traditionally regarded as the core, except in a sense for Theravada. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths for details. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're interested in this, don't forget the wiki article 'Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna' - perhaps a good basis, although I'm sure there are some obscure traditions out there that make exceptions to that list as well. Seems to the karma of Buddhists of this time :-) rudy (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Peter, as ever, thank-you for your enlightening response. However, I vehemently disagree with your statement re. the 4NT on your talk page. My personal background has been 100% Mahayana - mostly from the Indo-Himalayan ( 'Tibetan' ) Nalanda tradition and also a significant amount of Rinzai Zen, with the odd bits from other Buddhist cultures. In both the Nalanda tradition, and also the Zen tradition, the 4NT are laid as the bedrock for the rest of the teachings given - all the way up into the HYT of Vajrayana. Likewise the 3 higher trainings are never veered from either. I would agree that the 8-fold Path is very much more found in the Theravada tradition - but even that is really a lay presentation of the 3 higher trainings anyway. Rudyh, I hear you. So, as for those mentioned above, maybe the eightfold path is the only point that may not be 'core'. Of course, I'm aware that especially in the Pure Land Traditions, there is very little emphasis on anything other than the key texts - but still there are the refuges, the acknowledgement of monasticism, and even acknowledgement of the 4NT and the three higher trainings - just that they are 'too hard' for the modern age or something. (20040302 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC))
The document you refer to is from an organization calling itself the World Buddhist Sangha Council. I've been unable to find any mention in a reliable source. It seems to be a quite unimportant organization, possibly not even notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Certainly it could hardly be authoritative enough to be used for the structuiring of this article. More later. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(The document being referred about is the 'Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna') I have no opinion on that. (20040302 (talk))
I see I got confused about who "you" were, & in fact it was Rudy who cited that document.
I expect after 4 years you know the basic rules. The statements I give are all cited from reliable sources, so count as verifiable "facts" for WP purposes. Of course, if we find other scholars who disagree, then they're magically transmuted from "facts" into POVs. Also, if there's a significant body of opinion in present-day Buddhism disagreeing, then that fact also can be mentioned.
As a personal view (original research), I think the phenomena you mention may well be examples of the common tendency of modern Buddhism in the East to be influenced by (earlier) Western scholars' ideas about Buddhism itself, a strange sort of colonialism. For citations for the general trend, see User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism.
Now to return to something Rudy mentioned: "obscure traditions". I'm not sure what this refers to. WP:NPOV does say tiny minorities should be ignored. But Pure Land in particular isn't a tiny minority. In fact it may well be the largest school of Buddhism, tho' estimates have such a wide margin of error that one can't tell whether PL or Theravada is bigger. Each numbers in the region of 1/3 of the world's Buddhists, with the remaining 1/3 as a ragbag for Zen, Vajrayana, Nichiren &c.
"Of course, I'm aware that especially in the Pure Land Traditions, there is very little emphasis on anything other than the key texts - but still there are the refuges, the acknowledgement of monasticism, and even acknowledgement of the 4NT and the three higher trainings - just that they are 'too hard' for the modern age or something." Exactly so: those teachings are acknowledged, but they're not "core". Monasticism, by the way, has been abandoned by all the major schools in Japan. Most of their clergy are married.
The bottom line is this. WP:NPOV says you can violate neutrality even with a completely true collection of statements. It's necessary to give a true overall picture. So just imagine someone who knows nothing of Buddhism, & then reads whatever summary of Buddhism you might be considering. Suppose they then go on to learn all about it, including PL & the fact that about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists follow it. Do you think they would feel they'd been given a fair & balanced picture? Peter jackson (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Peter, First of all, please be more aware of your terms when grouping tens of millions of people across a range of cultures with a history of thousands of years as 'ragbag'. I understand what you are saying, but I can also understand that many would take deep offence at such a throw-away remark. Next, I don't dispute the demographics, which are ropey - but what you mean by 'core' and what I mean by 'core' is different in this case. I'm not talking about what are core features of the different schools - we would be writing the article forever in that case - but we can certainly talk with meaningfulness about the core features of Buddhism, regardless of whether or not they are still considered efficacious. The challenge will be to find much primary literature from PL schools - or is it a very literate movement? Certainly the Indo-Himalayan traditions have one of the richest literary traditions in history, which makes them very WP-friendly and worked hard to preserve hundreds of volumes of Sanskrit Sutras and commentaries (mainly thanks to Buton Rinchen and like-minded individuals); likewise the Theravada have preserved their Canon. Buddhism is very rich with primary literature, both within the Sravakayana and the Mahayana (and Vajrayana) traditions. If you read all the texts, you will end up with some core elements being repeated again, and again, and again. This is a fact. Even within the PL, the points above are included, if not emphasisizzled. Within Buddhism as a whole - there is really very little doubt. (20040302 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
Okay, well first of all, I would reject out of hand (as being POV) any interpretation made by Non-Buddhists, or Western academics who are not citing from primary sources anything that is at least 150-200 years old. We need to examine any translations very carefully also - especially those which are disputed by other academics, or considered to be inaccurate by later translators. We must discard hearsay, personal opinion or other judgement also. We can find all the core concepts from primary sources in the Pali Canon, the Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur (both Nyingma and Sarpa), as well as later commentaries from commentators such as Tsongkhapa.
  • (regarding refuge) Candrakirti states in the Trisarana-gamana-sptati "The Buddha, teaching and community Are the refuge for those who desire liberation" (Peking K, 281.1.3, Trans. LRCM Translation committee).
  • (regarding the three higher trainings) Sutra requested by Brahma: "Ethical Discipline has six branches, Concentration is the four blissful abodes, The four aspects of the four noble truths are always pure sublime wisdoms (Yogacaryabhumi Peking K, 309.3.2/3)
  • (the 12 nidana) Asanga's "Compendium of Knowledge" states: What are the projecting factors? Ignorance compositional activity and consciousness. What are the projected factors? Name-and-form, the six sources, contact and feeling. What are the actualising factors? Craving, grasping and existence. What are the actualised factors? Birth, aging and death"
So that covers us for all but the Sino-Japanese schools. They generally support Asanga as well, but I am unable to offer primary cites, outside of the rather cryptic Rinzai texts.
It is NOT hard to find cites from Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana that demonstrate the centrality of the core elements as I have listed them. (20040302 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC))
From WP:PSTS:

"For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[1]

  • Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.[2]
  • Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5]
  • Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent that they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
"It is NOT hard to find cites from Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana that demonstrate the centrality of the core elements as I have listed them." True. However, it's also not hard to find cites that (apparently) contradict them. The fact is that the enormous quantity of Buddhist literature is full of (apparent) contradictions. There's a saying that you can prove anything from the Bible, & we're talking about a much larger quantity here. This is why we need secondary sources to simplify things. recording everything in the primary literature would be horrendous. Just to take one example in the present context, the Karandavyuha (I think) says Avalokita created the world, the gods & the Buddhas.
Secondary sources here means mainly scholars, tho' teachings of contemporary Buddhists can be included as alternatives if they're sufficiently notable. Also, the rare cases where official statements by major Buddhist denominations are available.
"I would reject out of hand (as being POV) any interpretation made by Non-Buddhists" Why should Buddhists be immune? It's arbitrary to dismiss all non-Buddhists as POV. Try reading WP:NPOV. There's no such distinction between POV & non-POV. There are facts, & there are questions of POV. You can't have both together. Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - maybe I was being too ovver-assertive here. However, we have all the literature we want in primary sources already. Buddhism is very reflective in it's writings. There are thousands of texts that talk about what Buddhism is. Also, the primary/secondary marking is severely blurred with regards to Tibetan scholarship, which has an unbroken tradition of academic literature that goes back to at least the 10th Century. Is Tsongkhapa an academic, or a scripturual source? He writes like an academic. I'm not going to split hairs here, but we have a huge corpus of academic materials written from within the source cultures. Why cling onto poor interpretations by westerners who have maybe been in the field for a couple of decades, and who are primarily, and almost without exception, linguists? Even worse, some of them are art historians. (20040302 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
What we have to bear in mind is that Wikipedia is supposed to be about "facts". A "fact" is defined as something that's essentially undisputed. Anything else is POV. As regards scholars' interpretations, they themselves say that's what they are (User:Peter jackson#Interpretation) & I have no objection to the article's saying so. But the same applies to "theologians".
The point I'm trying to make is that Buddhist sources are reliable sources only for the opinions of those sources themselves, not for those of any other Buddhists. You will never prove a statement about Buddhism as a whole by listing sources that say it. In theory, if there were an organization to which all major denominations were affiliated, its declarations could be treated as authoritative, but none such exists. The only sources we have for any such general statements are scholars who have studied Buddhism as a whole. Not directly of course; only a Buddha could do that. But the work of those who've studied Buddhist literature, & field anthroplogists, is continually being collated. This process is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got. We can correct scholars by other, more specialized or up-to-date scholars, or present their views side by side. We can present views from primary sources, ie Buddhist writings of any date, again alongside. What we're not allowed to do is
  1. collate & interpret for ourselves (WP:NOR)
  2. censor out reputable views (WP:NPOV)
Now, "core". My understanding of this is it means something all major forms of Buddhism regard as the really important things. It is not the same thing as overlap. Shared is not the same as important. WP policy is that the article & the lead should give a balanced view of the most important facts. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the sources we rely on, i think we have to discuss a little further what we actually mean by "core" and "important". Peter says, the "core" is "something all major forms of Buddhism regard as the really important things". Ok. Then in order to answer the question what belongs to this "core" (or if there even is one - and if not, how we still manage to present some major concepts), we will first have to find out, what is "important" for a particular tradition. But before we can do that, we have to be clear about what we exactly mean by that. To whom exactly are these "things"(concepts and practices i suppose) "important" in that particular tradition and in what context are they regarded as "important".

First of all i think we always have to keep in mind the distinction between what is thought and what is tought, for the Buddha as well as for today´s living traditions.

So what is "important" then? Is it what the scholars of the particular tradition think is what the Buddha himself meant to be the "core" of his teachings when he gave them? And if so, is this "core" the general philosophical theory/worldview underlying his teachings or is it the part of the teachings that has the most practical implications?

Then again, maybe it isn´t so much about what the Buddha thought or tought but what (ordained) "professionals" nowadays deem the most important theoretical foundations of their practices. Or is it rather what they see as the theoretical base for lay people`s practice? Or is it even only that part of the teachings the "professsionals" deem the most suitable for the masses and therefore teach them the most?

Or is it, finally, what lay people then actually know about/hold important of the teachings of the Buddha, again theoretically and practically?

To sum it up, the dimensions i suggest thinking about when discerning the different aspects of "important for a particular tradition" are:

  • important" to whom? Buddha (as interpreted by that tradition),"dharma professionals"(scholars, monks),lay people?
  • what kind of thoughts/teaching do we mean? general theory/worldview, most important theoretical foundations of practices, actual practices

One last thought on the difference between what is thought and what is tought: Apart from the (particularly mahayana) concept of the Buddha´s teaching different things to different audiences it is just a matter of common sense, that there will be different levels of understanding such complex topics as are the subject of the Buddha´s insights and teachings. So like the Buddha and the scholars/teachers and practitioners that followed we will have to decide: what level do we present here? Like in an article about physics or any other complex matter, it should be our first priority to make central concepts understandable to the reader even if it is at the cost of sacrificing some academic accuracy. And by the way, we all know that if we really wanted to present "the real thing", the "core core" of the Buddha´s insights, we, like everyone else and even the Buddha himself, could only fail ;)

May all beings be well and happy :) Andi 81.173.163.186 (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic answer to all that is simply that we have to give a balanced picture of all those things. Anything else would give a distorted picture of Buddhism. A balanced picture, of course, includes explaining the sorts of distinctions you mention. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Whoever sees dependent arising sees the dhamma." -The Buddha. Mitsube (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. There's no certainty what the Buddha actually said
  2. What counts is what Budhists think he said
  3. That differs between Buddhists
  4. There are numerous doctrines said in various scriptures to be the essence of the Teaching
Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
But we know the truth on this talk page. Mitsube (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How could we possibly do that? Let's get back to basics here. WP policy is to follow reliable sources. Where they disagree, WP is neutral. There are certainly RSs that reject the idea of core teachings, so we cannot present such as fact. If there are RSs that say there are core teachings, then those POVs can be presented alongside the opposite POV. We could have a section called Theories of the essence of Buddhism or similar. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Mitsube was making a joke? But anyway, Peter, i tend to think think we´d be taking this scientific approach a bit too far if we seriously meant to include this kind of meta-discussion in the article, like "There are those who think there is a core and then there are those who think that only tradition A and B have a common core, while C stands alone a bit, but then again there is this one doctrine, that some scholars say is in a shared core while others say, it is not relevant enough for B to actually constitute a core teaching....".
This is not an article for scholars, so I suggest leaving that to scientific publications and for this article to leave it at - if any - a short mentioning with/in footnote(s) and/or maybe a link to an extra article. First priority here has to be readability and giving the reader what he wants to know when he reads this introductory article. And btw, i thought we already kinda settled that "core" discussion by naming the section "important concepts" or similar, stating clearly that not all presented concepts/beliefs are shared by all traditions and including a short statement about each concept´s relevance to each respective tradition where necessary. Andi 77.25.238.104 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, if it is, in fact, true that "there are those who think there is a core and then there are those who think that only tradition A and B have a common core, while C stands alone a bit, but ...", then it becomes difficult to see what the alternative to saying it is. If what you're describing is simply a different way of presenting the same information, then that's great. It would also be okay to not mention the controversy at all if we also omit anything that implies the opposite—applying the omission method across the board, however, is not compatible with "readability and giving the reader what he wants". Using it selectively might be productive.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm..."the omission method" indeed :) I really do think we should omit everything overly or purely academic. The "core" question seems to fall into that category. We should simply stick to describing the concepts/practices and state in which tradition they are important, respectively. There is no need to call any subset of them a "core". Leave that to the academics! My suspicion is, that the "controversy" is more about the definition of "core" than about which concept actually is important in which tradition. The latter is what counts to the reader, and that part should be fairly easy to agree upon. Please also see my above remarks regarding the definition of "core" and "important". For the structure of the section i favor Peter´s last suggestion following Harvey
  1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
    1. Karma & rebirth
    2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
    3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
    4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)
    5. ? not sure where to put decline of the dharma: part of all traditions, but very important in East Asia
  2. Practice
    1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
    2. Morality
    3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
    4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra
Andi 77.25.238.104 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't favouring the idea of a section dealing with that issue. Rather, I was saying that
  1. if some people insisted on including a section on core
  2. & if they could supply reliable sources claiming there is one
then that's how it would have to be done. I prefer my earlier suggestion that you quote above. That's only a starting point of course. We'd have to investigate how to do it in detail, if we can reach consensus on the general idea. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in Tibetan Buddhism, the "Four seals" are often mentioned as the real 'basics' of Buddhism. An extract of a page from Shambhala Sun's website (http://shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1814) website: "Therefore, these four characteristics are called “the Four Seals of Dharma.” They are:

  • All compounded things are impermanent.
  • All emotions are painful. This is something that only Buddhists would talk about. Many religions worship things like love with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, “This is all suffering.”
  • All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence. This is actually the ultimate view of Buddhism; the other three are grounded on this third seal.
  • The fourth seal is that nirvana is beyond extremes.

Without these four seals, the Buddhist path would become theistic, religious dogma, and its whole purpose would be lost. On the other hand, you could have a surfer giving you teachings on how to sit on a beach watching a sunset: if what he says contains all these four seals, it would be Buddhism. The Tibetans, the Chinese, or the Japanese might not like it, but teaching doesn’t have to be in a “traditional” form. The four seals are quite interrelated, as you will see." Might this be a starting point?rudy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Tibetans, Chinese or Japanese might not like it, then we can't do it. WP:NPOV requires we mustn't take sides if there's a dispute about what is & isn't Buddhism. Let me formulate the objection to alleged core teachings in terms of WP policy. Where do we get them from?
  1. If we put them together ourselves, that violates WP:OR
  2. If we take them from Buddhist sources, that violates WP:V, because Buddhist sources aren't reliable sources for the views of other Buddhists
  3. If we take them from scholars, that violates WP:NPOV, because other scholars disagree
Conclusion: any presentation of certain teachings as core would violate WP policy. The most we could do would be to have a section on Theories of the essence of Buddhism, tho' I don't think that's a good idea. Peter jackson (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like throwing away the child with the bathing water... Can't we just formulate the header differently and explain the problem we are discussing here? So the header could be something like 'Important aspects of Buddhism', and first explain in a couple of lines that there are many different traditions etc., so that not every tradition may agree to all of these as 'core' elements. In that way, we can still explain about Buddhist basics, but also clarify the problem of the different approaches/traditions. rudy (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Rudy, what you describe is exactly the kind of approach we appear to be heading for. If u look at the sandbox version, the header is already called "important concepts" not "core" and there already is a short introductory sentence like you proposed. Please also read the earlier discussions here and in the "structure" section, especially 3.2.1 structure of 'some teachings' section. We have already discussed your point in quite a bit of detail. We seem to be reaching a consensus here. I think, you/we should try to fit the 4 seals into the structure Peter suggested following Harvey (see my last post, just a few lines above). Andi 77.24.222.61 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're right there. We must let Rudy speak for himself, but he is still talking about "basics". He still seems to want to discriminate between different teachings, but I hope he can be persuaded to join what I hope is the emerging consensus. Peter jackson (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure! Didn´t want to impose any specific view on Rudy :) That´s simply how i understood his remarks and you may know from our earlier discussions that i deeply share his concerns about the baby and the bath. Anyway, i think, "explaining the Buddhist basics" is exactly what we should do in the section about "important concepts" - there will be no room for more, to begin with - and i think the structure you suggested is perfectly suited for that task. I think it constitutes a very good "compromise" between your, "Peter´s", school of thinking and "Rudy´s". As long as we always include a short(!) assessment of the importance of each concept in the different traditions it lets us provide a balanced overview of the most important concepts of all schools and at the same time give a good (readable, comprehendible, giving-the-reader-what-they-want-to-know kind of) introduction to "basic" buddhist concepts without giving the impression of them resembling a "core" of all traditions.
The proposed structure starts with really basic (more cultural than specifically buddhist) "basics" of karma and rebirth, then explains the 4NT (with noble 8fold path), maybe middle way. Dependent arising with anica and anatta then provides a perfect possibility for a smooth transition to the ideas of emptiness from a more Mahayana perspective and other basically Mahayana concepts like Buddha-Nature etc. The following section about Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, while also explaining Theravada and Indo-Tibetan Mahayana views then opens the door to Buddha Amithaba and the Pure Land teachings, which apparently constitute the most important teachings for approx. 1/3 of contemporary Buddhists.
I think this structure will please Theravadins, Mahayanists (incl. Indo-Tibetan and Pure Land) and - provided the respective concept-importance-assessments - (western) scholars as well. Speaking from a western Buddhist perspective, i can agree to the structure, especially because the first three sections loosely resemble the way of teaching (skillfull means) and studying i am most familiar with ((Tibetan) Mahayana (Gelug)): starting with (basically Hinayana) phenomenology and cosmology(Abidharma) and by implementing their system of logic (Pramana) and philosophy of the Middle-Way (Madhayamaka) they slowly work their way through the different schools´ views on the ultimate nature of reality, i.e. emptiness (Prajnaparamita). So, i´m all in for this (hopefully) emerging conensus! Andi 77.25.27.149 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut to the chase. Gautama said that life is suffering. That is the core tenet of Buddhism. But Westerners don't want to hear that. He also tried to show how suffering can be partially relieved by limiting our desires. Schopenhauer described it perfectly. But, as I said, we don't want to hear it.Lestrade (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That's not true. The life of an enlightened being is free from suffering. What he said is that all contingent phenomena are not ultimately satisfactory. Suffering can be eradicated by moving from a desire/aversion controlled life to one free of clinging. For this there are the Buddhist suggestions on how to improve. Mitsube (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I did mix up the sandbox version with the main article, I fully agree how the basic setup is now in the sandbox. rudy (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you agreeing to my proposal above, supported by Andi? You don't seem to be opposing it.
As far as I know, Schopenhauer never read any Buddhist literature or met a Buddhist. His views are unlikely to be of much value.
What the Buddha actually said is not central to this article. It can go in the article on him. What this article is about is what Buddhists (especially organized Buddhist groups, approved writings &c) believe he said, & what they think he meant by it, & how they think that ought to be applied in practice. That's what the word "Buddhism" means in common usage, just as "Christianity" means the teachings & practices of Christian churches, regardless of what anyone else thinks Jesus taught (or whether he even existed). Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, completely agree. :-) rudy (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer read an enormous amount of Buddhist literature. He listed the titles in his book On the Will in Nature. Your comment reveals that you have not read that philospher's works. I find it incredible that the Buddha's own words are not to be considered the basic elements of Buddhism. That other readers immediately agree is beyond my comprehension. I can't respond to such thinking. My comments are finished.Lestrade (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Certainly I haven't read Schopenhauer. I was simply going by the fact that virtually no Buddhist literature had been translated into any Western language in his day. What little I've read about him doesn't, as far as I recall, make any mention of his learning any oriental languages.
Rudy appears to agree with our proposal. If Lestrade is withdrawing from participation, that leaves only Mitsube currently in this discussion. If M agrees, I suggest we post the proposal in a separate section in case anyone hasn't seen it here. Peter jackson (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. We all know, however, that as the Buddha said "He who sees dependent arising sees the dhamma," dependent arising is the core of Buddhism. What exactly that means would take a book or two to explain, however. I have some new material on "non-theistic" by the way; check that section of the talk page tomorrow. Mitsube (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Lestrade, please don´t be upset. Nobody is saying, that the Buddhas words don´t count. After all they are the basis of all Buddhist traditions! Peter said "What the Buddha actually said is not central to this article.". I think, what he is trying to say, is, firstly, that we, in this article cannot (and don´t have to) decide about what the Buddha actually said; we can only report what the different traditions think he said (there are quite a few differences as you may know). And secondly, even if we exactly knew what he said (because, e.g. being a Bodhisattva or a long-lived Deva we have been there and witnessed the teachings ourselves), we should best report our insights in the article about the Buddha, not here (actually not even there because of the no original research policy of WP ;-)), because, as Peter rightly put it, this page is about Buddhism as a belief system/religion/philosophy and therefore the section about "important concepts" has to be about "what Buddhists (especially organized Buddhist groups, approved writings &c) believe [the Buddha] said, & what they think he meant by it, & how they think that ought to be applied in practice." This seems quite a logical approach, don´t you think? Andi 77.24.90.187 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I might add that I did put in what I've found of what scholars think the Buddha said, in the history section. Peter jackson (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes & References?

Why is there a "Notes", a "References" and a "Further Reading" section? The "References" section seems redundant. If these sources are directly referenced in the article, they should be cited as such and would appear in the "Notes" (which would usually be called "References"). If they are not directly cited, they should be listed with the other "Further Reading". It is not clear what distinction (if any) is at work between these sections. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, someone decided that those sources "often" referred to in the notes would be written out in full in a references section, & then given only in abbreviated form in the notes, to save lots of repetitions in the latter. As things keep on being edited by a variety of people, it's unlikely this idea is applied consistently at present. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
just put them all on a "notes and references" Actually they're fine as they're now--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

4 of us now seem to have agreed on the following rough starting point for covering Buddhist teachings in this article:

  1. Theory/teachings/doctrine
    1. Karma & rebirth
    2. 4 NTs (including dependent origination & other basically Theravada ideas)
    3. Mahayana philosophy: emptiness, mind only, Buddha nature/tathagatagarbha, interpenetration
    4. Buddhas & bodhisattvas (including subsection on Amitabha & his Pure Land)
    5. ? not sure where to put decline of the dharma: part of all traditions, but very important in East Asia
  2. Practice
    1. Devotion (including subsections on Pure land & Nichiren)
    2. Morality
    3. Monastic life (including study; at least Harvey puts it here, tho' that's not strictly logical as lay people do it too; perhaps separate heading)
    4. Meditation: samatha, vipassana, Zen, tantra

This is of course subject to modification in the light of discussion & experimentation. Does anyone want to disagree or question this before we start to implement it in the sandbox? Peter jackson (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably missing something, but I would certainly think a history section is necessary: it explains the arising of the various schools, the geographic spread and that section could also describe the decline in certain areas, rather then in the basic teachings?rudy (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is specifically about Buddhist teachings. Of course they should be most of the article, because they're the main thing most readers are interested in, but not all of it. there should be a history section, tho' probably a good deal shorter than now, & certainly more balanced: it's still mostly indian (not long ago it was entirely Indian). Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, with no objections after a week, I'm going to start reorganizing the sandbox in accordance with this scheme. If anyone subsequently comes upwith an alternative structure, it's always possible to start another sandbox. Peter jackson (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it should roughly has the same sections as Template:Buddhism, at least there should be a "foundations" major section. No reference for the Noble Eightfold Path under practice? That about summarizes practice.--[[Esteban.barahona|Esteban Barahona]] (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's the other way round: the template should conform to the arrangement here, or some other appropriate system. The template,like the article, has a massive Westernm bias, which must be corrected. There shouldn't be a section called foundations, or c