Talk:Buddhism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Buddhism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Define Buddhist

The term Buddha and Buddhist must have one meaning. Just noticed Buddhist redirects to Buddhism and Buddha ends up being DMB. Perhaps this link Buddhist should be directed to Buddha as the term Buddhist defines the qualities of a Buddha. Its common sense, and then i noticed Buddhists redirects to List of Buddhas all this mess needs to be put up to Wiki standards. Just noticed one fat message on the top of the page and restricts any editing perhaps some editors could realise that Buddha has its own term and meaning and Buddhist should be redirected to Buddha as Buddha describes and defines a Buddha. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is the path to becoming a Buddha. The path is different from the goal. Mitsube (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

and the path is also different from those that walk it but have not yet reached it (buddhists) ;) ...seriously, this mess shouldn't be that difficult to clarify...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Iwanjka: Very important, spelling: Buddhist or Budhist?

I find both 'spellings' on the internet: "Buddhist" and "Budhist". This causes confusion for me and a lot of other people. Thankfuly on the wikipedioa only one spelling. It think it is an good idea to add (at definition, or at another section): - Why the spelling with two 'd's is used

- If there is no ratio, than the reason is simple: use only one unique label for a certain concept.

- Add 'Budhism' (one d) as well in the Wiki, and reference forward to Buddhism. In the section of Budhism -next to the link- only list the reason why Budhism with one b is not chosen as a spelling, and that spelling with one b should be avoided (creates 'Bableing', reference to section under this topic on the .org wiki, under 'Language purification')

I hope you find this a good idea. Please give me a sign whith the outcome (iwanjkawiki@it-inspiratie.nl)

Thank you, Iwanjka Iwanjka (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed the incorrect spelling. Budhism comes from बुध (Budha) and बोधि (Bodhi); It's phonetical (ध = dh-a). In spokensanskrit.de dictionary, there's not even an entry for "boddhi". However, there's an entry for बुद्ध (Buddha). Since बुध comes from बोधि, it's etymologicaly more correct to use Budha, Budhism (BudhaDharma) and Budhists (Sangha).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Esteban, thanx for your reaction. For me it does not matter which spelling it is, as long as one spelling is choosen (and the other is abandoned). Otherewise bableism will continue... Good luck with the further revision of the Bud(d)ha article, it is quite an attempt!

Esteban is wrong. The etymology of Buddha is budh + ta. It's perfectly correct & standard in both Pali & Sanskrit as well as English. Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide citations? Shouldn't that be spelled Budhta? or Budhata?! If Budha is spelled Buddha then it's because it comes from: B/u/dhdh/a (double dh). I searched for sanskrit words using a dictionary, and if indeed Budha comes from Bodhi and Budh it's correct spelling is with just 1 d. If it's an inflection used in derived words, then provide citations. I won't take your word for it.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I will sometime. Why is the plural of lapiz lapices? many languages have such transformations. Personally, I don't much care what you believe, as long as you don't try to impose your eccentricities on WP. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try asking at Sanskrit, or look up past participles in a Sanskrit grammar. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we seriously having a discussion now about whether the spelling "Budhism" or "Buddhism" is correct? As a matter of fact, I do have a citation: Michael Coulson, Teach Yourself Sanskrit, pg. 54, "The t of a past participle may assimilate the voicing and aspiration of a root final sound: so budh 'awake', buddha (for *budh-ta) 'awakened'." Despite what Esteban thinks, no such thing as "dht" in Sanskrit ... that sequence of letters never occurs.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It takes enough of my time finding citations on Buddhism without having to diversify into linguistics. Peter jackson (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I'm very interested in learning sanskrit and pali (and am starting with reading and writting in devanagari). I'm very happy to have found that there are enough courses of sanskrit to study it for 3.5 years on a local University. It just sounded strange the "dh"+"t"; unless because of grammar it changes to "ddh". I stand corrected, thanks for the citation--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed?

Towonderer: It is a bit unclear for me what has been decided... Decision: We take 'Buddhism' as our spelling? (My oppinion: better stop this discussion and just CHOOSE a spelling. And maybe the best ratio is to look at the number of already existing occurences: how more occurences, the more likely spelling is accepted globally (and the less rework has to be done on replacing all 'incorrect' spelling), remember it is about millions of occurences...

It is by the way better not to speak about 'correct' or 'incorrect'. I prefer the term 'wiki_defined' (can be abbreviated to 'wifenid'? (suggestion)). So for the wiki world (and all sources which use it, the 'wifined' spelling of the concept [Buddha, Budha, Butha, or whatever spelling is used] = 'Buddha' (and as a consequence 'Budddhism, etc.'.

Process on decision making: If there is no one who disagrees before 10 September, 'Buddha' is the wifined spelling from now on. And in addition: I think that Buddha would laugh about is. 'Wasting' time on spelling, isntead of being spiritual...

Hopefully, we can focus back on the semantics!

Regards, TowondererTowonderer (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Ai, Nat said something interesting: the 'concept' [Budha, Buddha, etc.] means both '(to?) awake' (one b) and 'awakend' (two bb's)? To Nat: is this true, or I'm a making things up (it is my interpretation)? So it depends more or less on the state you arr in? So when adressing Buddha as the enlighted, we should use 'Buddha', for non awakened people we should use 'Budha'? (As I understand Bhuddism correctly, there is a Buddha in everyone? So everyone is Budhist (one d) (when not awakened)? Buddha laughs again;-). What to do?

Note: It might be interesting to take a look at the Language Purification article, the related wikipeople did a little research on the Google hit rate on various spellings of Buddha.

if it's about which one is more common; it's Buddha and Buddhism without a doubt (but Buda and Budismo in spanish... in this case it was "españolisado").--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:12, 5 September 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:

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
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 core teachings, or anything like that, because there's no consensus that there is a common core to the various forms of Buddhism (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th edn, Wadsworth, 2004, page xx; Philosophy East and West, volume 54, pages 269f). We could of course have a section on theories of a common core if anyone can find any scholars who've studied Buddhism as a whole & claim that such exists.

The 8-fold path goes under doctrine because it's too abstract for practice. Peter jackson (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism not a religion??

Buddhism isn't a religion?? Are you guys serious? I want proof. WinterSpw (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is religion. I've reverted the edits. Thanks for your comments, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should've checked the history heh. WinterSpw (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on this question. Most people recognize Buddhism as a religion, but some consider it a family of religions, while others define religion in ways that exclude it. See User:Peter jackson#Buddhism for citations. The article should follow WP:NPOV here. I suggested earlier that the simplest way todothis would be to start with "Buddhism is usually considered a religion", & then discuss the question in a bit more detail immediately after the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, in almost all countries, Buddhism is officially considered/designated as a religion. --Ragib (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. However, Wikipedia is not bound by government decrees. Quite the contrary,in fact: it has to maintain neutrality. Peter jackson (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely not bound by government decrees. However, per WP:V, it can be shown from verifiable official sources that the subject is considered to be a religion by (most) countries. --Ragib (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all popular opinion would have it that Buddhism is not only a religion but one of the great world religions. (Truthbody (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Popular opinion, though popular, is not inevitably accurate. Might I suggest that use of the term religious tradition, as advocated by Wilfred Cantwell Smith, one-time divinity professsor at Harvard, would resolve the matter. Wingspeed (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This is not to say that the Buddhist tradition is not one of the world's great religious traditions. imho, though it's invidious to choose: the greatest. Wingspeed (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I think that Wingspeed's wording is good. Do you have a source for Cantwell using the term? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He goes on about this at length in his The Meaning and End of Religion. Must find my copy. That's what the book's all about. That's why I, for what it's worth, and the best-selling writer on comparative religion Karen Armstrong think the book is so important. Since 9/11 it's acquired a relevance it previously lacked. See the article on Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Wingspeed (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One problem I can see with using non-standard terminology like "religious tradition" is that it may be difficult to tell what opinion is. This relates to the general concept of fringe theories, perhaps. If someone suggests some outlandish theory, it may be quite hard to find any authority that explicitly rejects it, because nobody's ever heard of it. On a smaller scale this might happen here. Finding one source that calls Buddhism a religious tradition, or whatever other term someone may come up with, can't be taken as implying general agreement.

We must distinguish between the lead section & the body of the article. The latter could have a detailed discussion of the different views on the question. The former shouldn't fill a lot of space with it, but should try to find some brief statement that gives a fair picture. Peter jackson (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The term religious tradition, or its use in any given instance, is not at all the consequence of any fringe theory. To the contrary, it's a perfectly ordinary phrase and what it refers to, I should have thought, is obvious to all; nor does it carry the more constricting connotations of religion or philosophy which some may find, for their respective reasons, problematic. Because it's unburdened by the epistemological baggage of the more specific is precisely the reason I started using it. As one who long ago concluded the Buddha's key teachings to be the best available for the practical transcendence of (my then) stress & misery, the term religious tradition enabled me to set aside the needlessly theoretical entanglements of whether those teachings constitute a religion on the one hand, or a philosophy on the other. Attachment to the increasingly vociferous realm of 'isms is much of what we need to escape.

As I'm sure you know, neither the term Dhamma nor Buddhadhamma, let alone Buddhasasana, enjoy a one-to-one translational correspondence with the term religion. (You're less likely to know, I venture, that Islam - some may find this astonishing - similarly lacks a word for religion in the contemporary European sense. The Arabic word din, translated as religion, does not quite mean that. This, I suggest, is no mere coincidence.) Religious tradition permits in each case the required elasticity. You say that the body of the article "could have a detailed discussion of the different views on the question." The term religious tradition, I suggest, enables us to avoid entrapment in this particular sticky net of views. It facilitates consensus. That's the very reason I suggest it. Wingspeed (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess all is empty, so let's concentrate on the present moment. Just as Sakyamuni Buddha have said, "What's past is past, The future is unknown, Concentrate your mind on the present moment." Sayonara guys, and great luck to everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.124.253 (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wingspeed, I don't think that "religion" has a very specific meaning in English, so it seems insufficient to say that some word in a foreign language doesn't mean the same thing. One could just as well say that "religion" doesn't mean the same thing as itself, and that would be true. That said, I wouldn't normally translate "dhamma" as "religion" (and I don't know enough about the nuances "buddhasasana" to attempt a translation). My point is, I don't think that the word "religion" is so specific that we need some related-but-different term to make it broader.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember the policy: no original research. It's not for us to decide these things for ourselves. We're supposed to report expert opinion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Habito, Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005, page xi, calls Buddhism a family of religious traditions. Peter jackson (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Import sandbox?

OK, I've finished (I think) reorganizing the sandbox in accordance with the scheme above. All I've done is put things in a different order & change some headings. I haven't changed anything that's said, tho' there's a lot that needs changing. I want to try to concentrate on 1 thing at a time.

At least 2 people have expressed concerns about the length of time the sandboxing is taking. It's been pointed out that people are continuing to edit the main article, resulting in progressive forking, which might lead to edit war.

I therefore propose we now import the reorganized version & await reaction before proceeding to the next stage. If it's accepted, I suggest we then proceed by taking 1 section at a time to sandbox for rewriting in accordance with verifiability & neutrality. This might help avoid discussions wandering about all over the place as they often tend to do. Peter jackson (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, from my point of view. --Liebeskind (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I imported the sandbox version. I also added a copy editing tag because I believe this article needs it. Let the editing begin. --Caped Crusader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.74.83 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Anyway.. as the sandbox now has been imported i quickly edited the lead to roughly reflect our previous discussions. Please feel free to improve it quickly as i think the lead is important for the acceptance of the restructuring. My wording may not be perfect and the selection of concepts and practices neither, but i hope the general approach of the lead finds your approval. Andi 77.25.74.237 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the reconstruction tag as there's still a massive amount of work to be done. Perhaps someone knows of a more appropriate one. I repeat my suggestion that we work on 1 section at a time, starting with karma & rebirth. That particular section needs a lot more material to make it comparable with the others. What we need to do with all the sections is check them for verifiability & neutrality against reliable sources.

When we've got the article as a whole giving an accurate & balanced account of Buddhism as a whole, we can then think about how to summarize it all in the lead. The present version is unacceptable, like a lot else, but I think it's easier to leave it to last. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On the current lead, let me just mention that the talk of emphasis on different aspects of the Buddha's teachings implies that Buddhists agree what those were, which is totally false.

Also, as I've also said repeatedly before, even the statement that Buddhism is a religion is contentious, let alone that that it's a philosophy.

However, as I said, I'd prefer to leave this to later. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple more points:

Statements about the Buddha are invalid, as there's no consensus among historians as to what he actually taught.
The wording seems to imply there's some difference between the Dharma & the traditions of teachers. Is this trying to sneak in some concept of core teachings by the back door?

Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. right. fixed that

2. no. fixed that too.

Added reference to different canons of authentic teachings as well

I agree that the "final" version of the lead can best be written after the article proper. But we do need some fairly agreeable lead in the mean time.

I´m a bit confused right now whether to edit the sandbox or the main page. Took the sandbox this time. Everybody please feel free to at least improve my wording (i am not a native speaker) I will move the sandbox version to the main page after 24 hours in order to allow for wording improvements and/or urgent objections. Andi 77.24.8.96 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

regarding the "presumed typo" you removed, actually i thought 230 was the typo as it only appeared in the sandbox and 230-500 mio. seemed too far a spread to me. (the main article said 430) Andi 77.24.8.96 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, 230 is the correct figure as given in the source, which also says most estimates are around 350: a more useful statement for the lead, I think. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. The whole thing needs to be looked at properly later. Much of it as it stands is original research. However, that can wait to later. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, I'd say the presentation of Buddhism as different paths to the same goal is unacceptable, as most Buddhists, & probably most scholars, would disagree. Peter jackson (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is good. I think that my favorite topics such as nirvana and dependent origination aren't covered enough currently. I will try to expand them. The karma discussion also needs to be more sophisticated in my view. Overall its a good article on a difficult subject to write an article about. I think the "is Buddhism one religion or many" problem should just be ignored. Mitsube (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the article is good. It's still very unbalanced, & everything needs to be checked against reliable sources. There are few RS citations at present, & I put most of those in myself. Nirvana goes in the ultimate reality section, & needs careful thought. The present separate article seems to be mostly POV of some Buddhists. In principle dependent origination belongs here, but it would be very difficult & complicated to give a properly neutral account. We need a lot more in the karma & rebirth section to make it comparable in size to the others.

On your other point, it depends what you mean by ignore. We can't ignore NPOV, so we can't say Buddhism is a religion, because there's significant specialist opinion against that. & I don't know of any specialist who calls it a philosophy. However, it may be possible to evade the question altogether. I tried a wording along the lines of "Buddhism is the name given to the various beliefs and practices ascribed by their respective followers to the Buddha." It would still be necessary, tho', to make sure the wording of the rest of the lead doesn't give an impression of unity not justified by the authorities. I'm currently trying to summarize expert opinion at User:Peter jackson#Introductory texts. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The treatment of karma should not imply that the Buddhist idea of karma is in line with the fatalistic ideas regarding the consequences of actions espoused by other religious groups. Mitsube (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording

ThinMan changed "traditions" into "sects" in the lead. Do you all agree that this is a better wording?(in german "sect" has quit a negative connotation) Should we try to agree on one wording or shall we use them in alternation? Andi 77.24.174.253 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me 1st copy some remarks I made on another talk page:

As regards schools, the situation is far more complicated than is allowed for in such simplistic terminology. There are a variety of overlapping classifications of Budhism:

The most popular among scholars seems to be geographical/cultural:
1. Theravada
2. East Asian: China, Korea, Japan & Vietnam
3. Tibetan
The main organized denominational groupings are as follows:
1. 3 main monastic nikayas:
  1. Theravada
  2. Dharmaguptak: China, Korea & Vietnam
  3. Mulasarvastivada: Tibetan
2. 5 main denominational families of Japanese lay Buddhism:
  1. Jodo (Pure Land)
  2. Nichiren
  3. Zen
  4. Shingon
  5. Tendai
Dominant doctrinal traditions:
1. Theravada abhidhamma
2. Madhyamika: Tibetan
3. Tiantai: China & Japan (& Vietnam?)
4. Hwaom: Korea
Practice traditions:
1. According to Erik Zürcher (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 2, page 440):
  1. Theravada
  2. Mahayana
  3. Vajrayana
2. According to Ruben Habito (Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005):
  1. Theravada
  2. Zen
  3. Tantra
  4. Pure Land
  5. Lotus/Nichiren (probably including Tendai)
3. According to Carl Olson (The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005):
  1. Theravada
  2. Mahayana
    1. Bodhisattva
    2. Emptiness
    3. Pure Land (including Nichiren)
    4. Tibetan
    5. Zen
    6. Recent movements
4. Probably others
Possibly others

Nearly all Chinese Buddhism now is Pure Land, which is also followed by ordinary Vietnamese. Monastics & educated lay people in Vietnam follow Zen, as do, at least officially, Korean Buddhists. Shingon is usually classified under Vajrayana, which is usually considered synonymous with tantra.

As you can see, the situation is far from straightforward. & the above is itself an oversimplification.

As regards "sect", it isn't usually used in this context, & often has a somewhat derogatory tone. Sociologists use it in a quite specific sense, in which it would apply only to some modern movements. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation is unique and interesting in Taiwan. Mitsube (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In Spanish "sect" also has a negative meaning. We should use "schools" or "traditions", and "emerging schools" instead of "sects", otherwise it's not neutral (and academic, and encyclopedic)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Alithos

The following insert was correctly deleted by Sunray from the sandbox, with a suggestion that comments be made here. There seems to me no reason to wait for this, so I copy the remarks here.

"(I'm new and so I apologize b/c im sure this is bad form but i am having a conniption with the first sentence, buddhism is not a religion and should not be misconstrued as such b/c the lay person who is coming here to be informed will be misinformed buddhism is not a system of faith or worship, buddha is not a god, never claimed to be 'The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification.' http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm Wed. 13 2008 this was the most concise source I could find in short notice please review and edit accordingly. Alithos (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC))"

Now, let me respond to this. Wikipedia's purpose is simply to report expert opinion (see WP:V & WP:NPOV), not to decide whether it's right(WP:OR). It's certainly the case that most experts on Buddhism or comparative religion call Buddhism a religion. Some disagree. Some have definitions of religion that exclude it. Others say it's more than 1 religion. these views should also be mentioned in the article. The source you quote is by the look of it a Buddhist source. That means all it proves is that some Buddhists say Buddhism is not a religion. Others say it is, & others say it's more than 1. In fact all religions have some followers who say they're not religions. The favourite is "It's not a religion, it's a way of life." The obvious response to that is that a religion is a way of life. Others vary with the religion. Some Christians say "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a personal relationship with God/Jesus." Again, one might say that any theistic religion is ideally a personal relationship with G/god(s).

There are lots of different definitions of religion, & it might well be that the 1st sentence is unhelpful thro' not having a clear meaning. Perhaps we can come up with something else. I did try earlier something on the lines of "Buddhism is the name given to the various beliefs and practices ascribed by their respective adherents to the Buddha."

As to your various statements, I'm afraid it all depends what you mean by faith/worship/god, & also on which particular form of Buddhism you're talking about. About 1/3 of the world's Buddhists follow the Pure Land tradition, which holds that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the Buddhist path, so they pay homage to the celestial Buddha Amitabha in the hope/belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Some people might say that's not "proper" Buddhism, but Wikipedia has an absolute policy of neutral point of view. It mustn't take sides in such disputes. It can only report them. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't westernize what is not westernizable

One of the most common errors in westernizing Buddhism is calling Gautama Buddha just "the Buddha", as if they are no countless Buddhas. This is also accompained with the other error of confusing a Buddha with a God... and also related to talking of Gods and angels instead of (mortal) brahmas and devas... and the list goes on. Nirvana and other terms should be prefered (used more commonly) to westernizations like "enlightened", in the original Pali and Sanskrit it's more about "aware", "awake" and even "cessation" (of suffering) than "one who sees the light" (or whatever way westernization changes the Buddhist meaning of Nirvana). In the article there's also the "doctrinal division of schools" based on the language of the text they use. That can arguably be the case of "tibetan buddhism", but it's not a common categorization. I changed those lines.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"What's past is past, The future is unknown, Live your life in the present moment." - Sakyamuni Buddha.--Rudolph WeeSeng (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.9.149 (talk)

The errors of the past can be corrected. What's your point?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The errors of the past cannot be undone. Mitsube (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it's not for us to decide what should be Westernized & how. We simply report expert opinion. I think most authorities talk about "the Buddha", tho' of course the article should mention that he's not the only 1 (last I looked it did). When we finally get round to going thro' the article against reliable sources that'll be 1 of the things we look at.

No source is cited for the above alleged remark by the Buddha. Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a reference to this. Mitsube (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

fine, then lose whatever was lost in translations... better study Sanskrit and Pali and traslate it myself (AFAIK there's no Spanish translations of the Pali Canon)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sanskrit, pāli, devanagari and romanizations

Hi all, I suggest we standarize in sanskrit with not a single word in devanagari for the main article, and sanskrit including devanagari for the secondary articles (that are read for a more in-depth study of Buddhism). pāli can be included too, but also romanized on the main article. Commentaries? Suggestions?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Core Buddhism

The article contains only a little about concepts and have moved them to other main articles. I see editors have been more concentrated on history and other facts. Why not move history to other articles and add more deep/core Buddhism? Think what people will think after reading. We should give a great idea about Buddhism.

We need to concentrate on the fact that Lord Buddha's primary intention was to teach how to end suffering. Buddha taught the "Universal Cycle of Suffering", depicting twelve facts which describes how living beings' suffering cycles throughout Samsara.

Also, we can rationalize terrorism and natural disasters (Tsunami etc.) and world end using The Universal Cause Effect Theory, The Universal Cycle of Suffering and Karmic Action and Reaction without going against Neutral point of view; we can use Buddha's own words. And how about adding teachings that have been scientifically proven? Editors should have wisdom, however!

Who support? Any suggestions?--Chamath Mc (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What I think can be done is summarize the "history" section and add more to the "concepts" section that are described with 1 to 3 paragraphs. I've done many changes to the es.wikipedia Buddhism article, and IMO that structure is more balanced than the one on en.wikipedia--Esteban Barahona (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, here is a short summary what I've planned.

The Universal Cause Effect Theory - Buddha said nothing happens without a cause.

The Universal Cycle of Suffering - Buddha taught 12 facts which cycles suffering throughout Samsara.

Karma - Action and Reaction - Characteristics of Karma.

Rationalization of real world crimes, terrorism, natural disasters and world end according to the above three concepts - Why terrorism exist? When people die because of a suicide bomb, isn't it because of Karmic reaction? There is a cause for everything that happens in the universe, so do bombs and natural disasters.

The cause for the differences among human beings (rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, intelligent and unintelligent, why some people die at a lower age why some enjoy the life longer, why some people suffer by deadly diseases and others do not. etc.), using Buddha's own words.

The suffering of Samsara (Cycle of rebirth). - Buddha said the amount of blood poured throughout an individual's Samsara is greater than all the oceans.

The hell and the heaven, especially how dangerous in hell.

"The hell is like this", Buddha clearly explained,

"From head to toe, and again from toe to head, you are spiked rapidly. You cry loudly with death pain but you are not dying and the death pain does not end. Then, a giant vehicle with burning wheels on it, goes over your body, giving you unlimited death pain."

The six laws that controls the world. (Karmic law, biological law etc.)

Nirvana and psychic powers.

The teachings that have been scientifically proven. - The similar concept of the Big Bang (The truth of the universe).

Perhaps more to come!

All of the above should not go to other articles but they all should be in the Buddhism main article despite the length. Because anyone who come and read the article should get a clear understanding about Buddhism.

Ok, it seems like a major reconstruction, when are we getting started? Why not right now? --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea that we should have more about the actual teachings of Buddhism & less history. In detail, tho', the above is just 1 POV. We must maintain NPOV & try to summarize the general opinion of scholars. It's hard to find any recent specialist scholar who's prepared to summarize Buddhism briefly. We therefore have to cover quite a range of topics, as we've been trying to do in the new structure. The process is slow, as we're trying to do it the recommended WP way by trying to arrive at consensus by discussion. So far all we've achieved is a coherent arrangement for the article. I suggested we then go thro' the sections 1 by 1 for rewriting, but others wanted to try the lead 1st. Also of course August is slow. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to find any recent specialist scholar? How about me? That's why I'm here.

We need to concentrate on the fact that Lord Buddha's primary intention was to end suffering. So the structure of the article must clearly focus on that. Peter jackson, why do you take the policy Neutral point of view so serious and superfluous? Are you going to stick to that policy or are you going to do a service to the entire world in the name of humanity? If we know the truth, then actually, there is no need to take sides. What I'm trying to say that it's editor's responsibility to filter the truth. Tell me, what does the world gain by adding myths?

We need to emphasize that there is no similarity between Buddhism and other religions. Buddhism is MORE than a religion, which does not have religious laws or commandments. Creationism is false. Buddha said that believing in a creator means you are disrespecting your own parents who created you to this world.

By the way, we need to start the major reconstruction right now. I think I should first move history to the end of the article and add basic information about more concepts. Then we can rationalize deep circumstances such as terrorism and world end. Buddha clearly stated about real world crimes and why they occur in his teaching, Universal Cycle of Suffering.

Ok. The time has come to start. Better late than never, let's start this right now! --Chamath Mc (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Buddhist conception of karma. Karma is mental conditioning in Buddhism. The Buddha said "what I call karma is intention." Mitsube (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But what do you mean by "this"? Where did I go wrong?

Do you mean the sentence "Karma - Action and Reaction"?

Now, let me complete your sentence which Buddha's words about Karma.

Buddha said, "I call Karma as intention. By actions of physical body, words and mind, living beings collect karma."

So a living being collects karma for any action done intentionally. I mean "Action" as any action done using physical body, mouth(words) and mind.

I meant Karmic action and Karmic Reaction to give a good meaning in English. It is also according to the cause-effect theory (because everything happens according to this theory). Karmic actions are actions done intentionally and Karmic reactions are the "fruits"/results which the living being gets in return because of their particular karmic actions that are done intentionally. Is this OK now? Any other doubts? --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter of fundamental Wikipedia policy, which you can find at WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:OR. Briefly, what Wikipedia is for is not to decide the truth for ourselves & put it out. It's simply to report expert opinion. Where experts are agreed, that counts as a "fact". If they disagree, then Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but simply gives a fair & balanced account of the different POVs. If you want to do something different, I think WP:NOT has some suggestions about where you might go to do it. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I know. But I thought what Wikipedia authors expect from us to do is a service to the world. Anyway, we stop arguing about policies, and start working on the article.

Hey you said you can't find a scholar? I need a response, why not me?

Did you read my plans and theories? I'm going to edit the entire article within next 24 hours. --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Chamath, how can you write about the core of the Buddha's teachings without mentioning the career of the bodhisattva, the ultimate truth of tathāgatagarbha, and the Great Vow of Amitābha? What about the inner tantras and the practice of Great Perfection? What about the daigonhonzon?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying to first write about those things before writing Buddha's teachings?

What I understood for many years, is that people forget core teachings. Tell me, what was Buddha's primary objective? Isn't it teaching how to end suffering? Then why did Buddha taught all of the core teachings to end suffering? Then what should we give the priority for? How do your facts become more important than the Cause-Effect theory?

I'm actually not saying that core teachings must be given the priority. But, updating the article with your facts might not be my job. Why can't you add them?

What I'm just trying to do is to share my knowledge especially about suffering. If Buddha's first teaching was to end suffering, why not we tell about suffering first? Don't you remember Buddha said that we take the rebirth in the hell more than having pleasure like in the heaven? If I'm right, then in every Buddha's teaching, ends with a common fact. That is to end suffering. So I think the core Buddhism I'm talking will fully contain about suffering how to break through it.

I don't think I'm supposed to tell both core Buddhism and all of your facts. If core Buddhism is a one section, then your one is a different section, I don't think they are related to me and I might not take the responsibility of both two sections.

The majority of readers who read might not be Buddhists, means they lack the knowledge of reality in the world. What did Buddha teach people who were lacking the knowledge of reality? Isn't it core Buddhism? Didn't Buddha teach that human body is impermanent according to the cause effect theory?

And didn't Buddha teach Universal Cycle of Suffering which is also according to the cause-effect theory for people who had knowledge about the reality of the world? (Cycle of suffering may be for people who have wisdom because it might be complicated, anyone, however, may be able to understand by thinking logically).

I've currently not planned to delete anything from the article. Only to move history to the end and I just want to add core teachings and you are always free to share your knowledge. --Chamath Mc (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't really understand your response. I'm not interested in arguing with you about philosophy. What I'm saying is that, if you go out and ask Buddhists what the core teachings of the Buddha were, among the things they will tell you about are the career of the bodhisattva, the ultimate truth of tathāgatagarbha, the Great Vow of Amitābha, the inner tantras, Great Perfection, the name of the Lotus Sutra and/or the daigonhonzon, and various other things. There is no justification for writing about something called the "core teachings" of the Buddha while including some things and excluding others.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. You're planning to make a major rewrite in structure. You may copy and paste the information of wikipedia, following the license of use, into some other website like knol or wordpress and further whatever theories you have. Or you may start writting a book. Your plans for rewritting are not in accordance to what has worked for years on wikipedia.org and which almost all wikipedias agree on. Remember: harmonious discourse/talking (part of correct/right speech).

Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nat Krause, I didn't say I won't. That's where you can support. And Esteban.barahona, are you also saying me to stop adding important concepts to "Buddhist Concepts" section? I won't do that alone and all of you can support this. Are you really sure to stop this? Even adding Buddhist concepts? --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said "scholar" I meant a reputable scholar published by a reputable publisher. If you are such or know of such, then those views can be added alongside those scholars who disagree. There is no consensus among scholars that there even is a common core to the various schools of Buddhism, let alone what it might be, so for the article to say, or be liable to be interpreted as saying, that there is would violate WP policy.

As regards what is in the sections on doctrines/practices, it's obviously impossible to include everything. A number of scholars have said you can't even cover Buddhism properly in a book. We have to confine ourselves to what's important. That of course is something we can discuss, but it's not for us to decide what we consider important & select that. What's important is what Buddhism itself considers important, but that includes all major forms of Buddhism. Here's a table by size range:

100 + million followers:
- Theravada
- Pure Land
10-40 m:
- Nichiren
- Zen
- Vajrayana; it makes no difference if we split it in 2:
  - Tibetan
  - Shingon
- Also Falun Gong, if we count that as Buddhist, which most authorities seem not to
2-3 m:
- Tendai
- Hoa Hao
< 1 m:
- All others, I think

So, in accordance with NPOV, & in particular the section on undue weight, we should give a lot of weight to grade 1, a fair amount to grade 2, & little or none to grades 3 & 4.

Determining what's important in a particular school can be more difficult. In particular, opinions vary widely even within schools. Most major religious groups are nothing like as monolithic as the Roman Catholic Church. This means that citations of particular Buddhist writers prove little. There's no way of telling how many Buddhists agree with anything. This is why WP policy is to rely on academic scholars who've studied vast amounts of Buddhist literature, & also field anthropologists who've observed what happens in real life.

Therefore, what is important within a school is determined by examining the writings of scholars who've studied it & seeing how much space they devote to things. Peter jackson (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter jackson, you and Esteban.barahona both agreed that we should summarize history and add more concepts. At least, when are we going to do that? Isn't moving history to the end of the article a good idea? If all of you are bored, can I do that alone then? --Chamath Mc (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind this is a very complicated subject on which many people have strongly held & widely differing beliefs. For example, every so often someone turns up here & insists vehemently that Buddhism is a religion. & every so often someone turns up & insists vehemently that Buddhism is not a religion. It might be quite amusing if they happened to turn up simultaneously. The point is, in such a sensitive subject, we have to proceed carefully. This is a very slow process, & I get impatient about it just as you do, but I think it's better to proceed in a slow & orderly manner. Moving the history to the end isn't a serious matter. You can do that as far as I'm concerned, but someone presumably moved it back to the start so you might get into a fight. Wikipedia policy is to avoid revert wars. What you're supposed to do 1st is talk to the opponent. If they ignore attempts at discussion, & just keep reverting, or if the discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, then there are procedures, which boil down to inviting other people to join in. The theory is that if you place the widest notice then large numbers of mostly unbiased people will turn up, discuss things rationally & arrive at a consensus, which can if necessary be enforced against a small minority of dissenters. Whether it really works like that in practice I've no idea.

So, given the above general approach, I want to get consensus 1st on the agenda. My suggestion is

Restore the agreed arrangement.
See whether anyone has an alternative arrangement to suggest. If so, discuss that/those & try to reach consensus 1 way or another.
Once the article is arranged in a way that (nearly) everyone's prepared to accept, we should then go thro' it 1 section @ a time, rewriting in accordance with reliable sources.
All sorts of final tidying up.

As I note below, it's difficult to keep discussions going on more than 1 thing, because a lot of people look just at the bottom of the page instead of the history, & it can be hard to find things from the history anyway. That's 1 reason why I think it's better to try to stick to 1 thing @ a time. Peter jackson (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

agree on your proposed agenda, Peter. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chamath, please restore the previously agreed arragement, move the history section down again and make the section about the historical Buddha (now under history) the first section after the lead again. The arrangement was changed at 23:51, 25 August 2008 by Esteban Barahona without prior discussion. I would have reverted that myself but i can't edit the page since it is semi-protected and i have only yesterday, after editing anonymously for years, created an account which is still not auto-confirmed. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree also on the agenda. I come from es.wikipedia, and the biography of Gautama Buddha is part of the history section. We can discuss where to place it, but please don't revert because I made other changes. Instead, please change the biography of Gautama Buddha to the new level (something like: ===title=== instead of ====title====)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The history section should include the opinions of historians about how much of the traditional life story of the Buddha is historical. The story itself belongs somewhere else. Ay present the relevant section is the latter, not the former, so shouldn't be in the history section. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

recent edits

Why has the structure been changed without prior discussion on this page?!? We had reached a consensus on the approximate structure of the concepts/teachings and practices section (see above: "Proposed reorganization"!). Also we seemed to agree that history comes after the beliefs and practices section like in all other articles on major world religions!
Why is the introductory sentence / cautionary note at the beginning of the concepts section missing. This note is central to the consensus we reached here after quite some discussions!
Why is the page protected? I have always edited anonymously. Now, even after creating an account and logging in, i still can't edit it.
What's with this "cleanup task force"? Andi 3ö (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone wants to make serious changes in the agreed arrangement, they should present their proposals here.
Agreed again.
It's been protected because of recurring vandalism, I think. You can use your account on a semi-protected page after a certain time limit &/or number of edits, I think.
I placed a request some time ago with the taskforce to reorganize the article. If we succeed in doing it ourselves then the request can be cancelled. Peter jackson (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

modularize the rewrite

I started contributing in a nice time... the main article is developed but still needs some changes :) I suggest we modularize the rewrite. By this I mean that we discuss either changes to the structure itself (merge add or substract subsections, {{main|article}}s, and hierarchy of subsections) or the content itself (the content of each module/subsection)

Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that some time ago. Once the structure has been settled, we should go thro' 1 section @ a time. Experience shows it's quite difficult to maintain discussions on more than 1 thing @ a time, because a lot of people simply look at the bottom of the page rather than the history. Even if you do look at the history it can be hard to find the relevant sections if the page is long as the system is not designed for easy location. Peter jackson (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean to discuss everything here? Or are we going to create a new section called "discussion" at the bottom? --Chamath Mc (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Esteban, your contributions are much appreciated :) But please do not make any major changes, especially to the structure / overall arrangement of the article without prior discussion on this page! Also it would be helpful if you eventually found the time to read through some of the disussions on this page in order to inform yourself about the current consensus on the overall approach. Andi 3ö (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry... I'm used to major rewrites in editing Buddhist articles because there's few active wikipedians working on them (at this time maybe 3).

this is the english TOC of Buddhism:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Gautama Buddha
         o 1.2 Indian Buddhism
               + 1.2.1 Early Buddhism
                     # 1.2.1.1 Pre-sectarian Buddhism
                     # 1.2.1.2 Councils
                     # 1.2.1.3 Further developments
         o 1.3 Buddhism today
   * 2 Buddhist Concepts
         o 2.1 Karma: Cause and Effect
         o 2.2 Rebirth
         o 2.3 The Four Noble Truths
         o 2.4 Reality in Buddhism
         o 2.5 Nirvana
         o 2.6 Buddhas
               + 2.6.1 Theravada
               + 2.6.2 Mahayana
   * 3 Practice
         o 3.1 The Noble Eightfold Path
         o 3.2 Middle Way
         o 3.3 Refuge in the Three Jewels
         o 3.4 Buddhist Ethics
   * 4 Schools and Traditions
         o 4.1 Theravāda
         o 4.2 Mahayana
               + 4.2.1 Pure Land Buddhism
         o 4.3 Vajrayāna or Tibetan Buddhism
         o 4.4 Buddhist texts
         o 4.5 Pāli Tipitaka
   * 5 See also
         o 5.1 Comparative studies
         o 5.2 Buddhist symbols
   * 6 Notes
   * 7 References
         o 7.1 Suggested reading
   * 8 External links

This is the Spanish TOC of Buddhism (translations at the right unless it's a sanskrit or pali word, comments further right):

   * 1 Perspectiva general (General Perspective) // in en.wikipedia this is covered in the lead section
   * 2 Definiciones del Budismo en Occidente (Definitions of Buddhism in the West)
   * 3 Historia del Budismo (History of Buddhism) // this section is much smaller than in en.wikipedia and centered on Gautama Buddha's life)
         o 3.1 Siddhārtha Gautama
         o 3.2 Nirvana de Siddhārtha (Siddhārtha's Nirvana)
         o 3.3 Tradiciones y escuelas (Traditions and schools) // this section is much smaller than in en.wikipedia
         o 3.4 Cifras de Budismo por región (Numbers/statistics of Buddhism by region)
   * 4 Fundamentos budistas (Buddhism foundations)
         o 4.1 Tri-Laksana: Tres Características de la Existencia
         o 4.2 Karman: Causa y Efecto
         o 4.3 Surgimiento condicionado (pratītya-samutpāda)
         o 4.4 Renacimiento (Rebirth)
         o 4.5 Nirvāņa: El Despertar, La Iluminación
         o 4.6 Las Cuatro Nobles Verdades (Four Noble Truths)
   * 5 La Práctica Budista (Buddhist Practice)
         o 5.1 Noble Camino Óctuple (Noble Eightfold Path)
         o 5.2 Ética budista (Buddhist ethics)
         o 5.3 Meditación budista (Buddhist meditation)
         o 5.4 Las tres joyas (Triratna)
   * 6 Bibliografía (References)
   * 7 Véase también (See also)
         o 7.1 Figuras budistas históricas // historical buddhists
         o 7.2 Filósofos budistas // buddhist philosophers
         o 7.3 Políticos y activistas budistas // political and activist buddhists
   * 8 Enlaces externos (external links)
         o 8.1 Directorios de centros y grupos budistas
         o 8.2 Enlaces didácticos

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article as discussed. Now I think we must start rewriting one by one instead of wasting time by arranging because we can rearrange at any time. As you all agreed, we need to rewrite Concepts section. Please confirm this. --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The arrangement I see in the article right now isn't what was agreed, & is pretty nonsensical. It should be something like this:

Story of the Buddha
Principal divisions
Doctrine/Teaching
1. Rebirth & karma
2. 4NT
3. Ideas on ultimate reality
4. Buddhas, bodhisattvas & arahants
Practice
1. Devotion
2. Morality
3. Monastic life
4. Meditation &c
History
1. Indian
2. Theravada
3. East Asian
4. Tibetan
5. Buddhism today
Scriptures
&c

The concepts section is still a very large field. What I suggested was doing it 1 section @ a time, starting with Rebirth & karma.

What I suggest as a procedure for each section is something like this:

Pile in sourced statements anyoldhow into the sandbox
Then discuss how to arrange them, whether some are surplus to requirements, & any issues arising
Once everything is sorted out to a generally acceptable standard, import it to the main article

We would start a new section on this page each time we move on. I would suggest blanking the rest of the sandbox, just leaving the section currently under discussion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only Rebirth, karma and 4NT? It's almost nothing. What about the Cause-Effect theory? I think it should come first. It says for everything, there is a cause. Even Karma, rebirth, the entire universe and everything depends on this theory. Peter, did you read the theories I've told in Core Buddhism? We've agreed to add more concepts.

In fact, if Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia on Earth, then I think we must add deep information about concepts, not just basic information for small babies to read. There are hundreds and hundreds of lines in the History section to describe history, but only just 5 lines to describe rebirth. What a shame. --Chamath Mc (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only those 3. Also ultimate reality & Buddhas &c. This arrangement we agreed is based on Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism. There, dependent origination is included under the 2nd NT. Harvey's arrangement is based on putting the elementary teachings 1st, followed by the advanced 1s. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Your theories are banned from WP unless they've been published by a reputable publisher.

I've already said a no. of times that we need more on karma & rebirth. Even the little there is now I put there myself. There was nothing at all before.

The amount of length & detail in the article is a very hard question. I said once before that I suspect we'll end up having to write a very long article in order to include everyone's pet ideas & still maintain balance. If we don't include everyone's pet ideas they'll keep altering the article, & it may be better to include them rather than keep having to activate WP procedures for dealing with such problems. However, that's only a thought, & I don't know what other people think on the subject. There's also the question of readers' attention span. I think there's a guideline about length somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. Peter jackson (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can have a look @ WP:SIZE. Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputed publisher? If I say about a book published by Education Department of Sri Lankan Government, are you going to take that as a reputed publish or not? I don't think it's easy to find sources on the internet. Anyway, I can give sources as books and television programmes, which you won't be able to check them, unless you are in my country! :)

Peter, why can't you take Tripitaka as a source? --Chamath Mc (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Peter, I also need more on Karma and rebirth. Who want me to expand that? --Chamath Mc (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS should give a link to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such questions can be raised.

TV programmes as such aren't verifiable. Only a published recording of them would be. The fact that a publication is not very accessible is not itself a bar to citation, tho' more accessible ones should be preferred where available.

The scriptures are a primary source. Primary sources are to be avoided as citations as far as possible, & used with great care. They are subject to interpretation, can be quoted selectively, taken out of context &c.

There's also the question of what you're trying to do with citations. Remember, our job here is to report expert opinion. That means we have to give a balanced overall picture of their agreements & disagreements. So think carefully about eccen tric views, minor points &c. Peter jackson (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

structure

Peter jackson, don't say it's non-sensical arrangement instead make arguments. But I see your point, Gautama Buddha story can contain mythology or disputed episodes (althouth it's quite straightforward and real; someone wanted to know how to be free from suffering, meditated and practiced, and later found an answer which is Buddhism). I agree, it should be on a separate section. About using just 1 source for the arrangement of an encyclopedia article: it's too simplistic, we wikipedians can chose our own arrangement based on many sources. However, we agree on most of this structure. Oh, and I will be thankful if you provided the index (structure) for your source.

Chamath Mc, sure you can say which book it's by telling us the ISBN number. But still, just propose an arrangement based on the current one as a list, you don't say much. You talk about "cause and effect" theory, it will be better if you said the sanscrit word. Are you refering to karma, pratitya-samutpada, other?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I might know in Pali language, but I'm afraid I'm not really sure of the word. I don't think that Buddha taught Cause-Effect theory as a separate teaching.

At Buddha's time, a person asked "Assaji" monk, "What kind of a teaching does your teacher teach?".

His response is said to be the CORE MEANING OF BUDDHISM. I doubt if you could understand his response, so I will try to tell as simple as possible.

He said, "If an effect happens because of a cause, then Lord Buddha teaches the elimination of its cause and the effect."

Now, I think it should be added to Lead section since it has a meaning of Buddhism. --Chamath Mc (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"I doubt if you could understand his response" this is enough, you're talking to an anāgāmin, who also collaborates in 3 different wikipedias and is learning Sanskrit and Pāli. After reading many sutras I've come to the conclusion that Gautama Buddha taught in a clear, inteligible and legible way. Your replies are unclear; you may be confused. If you cann't cite the Buddhist concept in Sanscrit or Pāli this is the end of our discussion.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You may well be an anagami, but there is no way for Chamath to know whether or not that is actually true. It would be best if we stick to the arguments, not the arguers. Mitsube (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

indeed, but I won't discuss with someone who doesn't collaborate. What is this "cause and effect"? Using the sanskrit or pali definitions (the standard words, not translations). He/she also doesn't propose an alternate indexing for the article. He/she blanks his pages and just now added an insult (yelling, using all caps) on my discussion page. Some where indeed grammar mistakes, so I will leave them. I will change now his/her last edition building from it, not just reverting. I will appreciate more amability from Chamath, it's not easy talking with someone who uses insults the second time he/she adds a comment on my page.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? I never want to insult anyone in my life! What are you talking about? Why do you say I'm not collaborating? I didn't mean to do any wrong thing. What do you mean I blank my pages? I don't understand. When talking about rebirth, are you going to tell its Pali word?

Look, I actually wanted to support for building the article. I didn't know that you are rude that much. I didn't know Anagamins responds in such a way. You said, "Remember: harmonious discourse/talking (part of correct/right speech)". I've no idea why do you care grammar errors. Are you that serious? And what kind of English are you reffering to? US or Brithish or Australian or what English?

Sorry, I confused you with another editor.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will give the response in Pali Language. If you had told that the Pali meaning is actually necessary, I would have given it at least by checking a book.

Here, I got.

"Ye Dhamma Hethuppabhava, Thesan Hethun Thathahgatho Aha, Thesan cha yo Nirodho, Evan Vadhi Maha Samano". --Chamath Mc (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not confused. I've been learning and practising Buddhism for many years and telling the truth which I've learned. And I don't know why you're an Anagamin and can't understand cause-effect theory in English. I told that for everything happening in the universe, there is a cause. That is connected with every other teachings. Karma is cause and effect, rebirth is cause and effect.

You said that you've read many sutras. Then, do you know "Patichcha Samuppadaya"? I won't give English translation because you seem to hate English translations. If you know, then why don't you allow me to add that to the article?

lol, I don't hate English. In fact I like to learn new languages (currently focusing on Italian and starting to learn Sanskrit). Neat, you're talking of pratitya-samutpada. That concept needs a section (as it's in spanish wikipedia in section 4.3).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And, if you are an Anagamin (I hope you are serious, because if that's a lie you are doing a big mistake in life), then congratulations, you only have few births to find Nirvana (perhaps, at this birth). So, good luck. I also want to achieve Nirvana soon.

I'm not lying, I don't lie. Thanks, good luck to you too ^_^--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I need a response for the question I've asked before. May I improve the Karma and rebirth section? --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above discussion is OR so irrelevant. I return to the points raised @ the start of this section.

"nonsensical" referred to having a history section that jumped straight from India to Buddhism today. That's a separate point from the consensus, which concerned only the teachings/practices sections.

Certainly we can choose our own arrangement, but for the moment we've chosen that 1.

Quoting from memory, so this is not word-for-word titles, Harvey's book is arranged in the following chapters:

Buddha
Karma & rebirth
4NT
Later developments
Mahayana philosophy
Mahayana holy beings
Spread
Devotion
Morality
Monastic life
Meditation
Modern Asia
Elsewhere

There's also an appendix on scriptures.

The book's subtitle is Teachings, History and Practices. Chapters 2, 3, 5 & 6 are teachings; 1, 4, 7, 12 & 13 are history; 8-11 are practices. I've modified the titles of 5 & 6 to include Theravada views on the same topics in parallel. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

that is but one book. Why you ignored my quote of the spanish wikipedia's structure in the Buddhism article? That's the consensus in what sections should be on a Buddhism article. I collaborated lately on that article, but I preserved almost all the original structure (it's a "good article" and much more concise than here).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter, when can I add more details to Karma and Rebirth section? Now? Are we still arranging the article? --Chamath Mc (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just find a source for your additions. Mitsube (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

pratītya-samutpāda is enough as source. It's a different concept than karma and rebirth (all related, but also different), but is still a foundation of Buddhism.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your previous remark, my understanding is that even the policies of English WP are not binding in Spanish WP & vice versa, so a fortiori any consensus there is not applicable here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the Spanish table of contents, the main point of contention is section 4, on foundations. The important point to be aware of here is that there's no consensus among scholars in favour of the claim that there is a common core to all major forms of Buddhism (Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004; Philosophy East and West, volume 54, pages 269f; Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 2nd ed, Routledge, 2008, page 266). In fact I haven't managed to find any recent scholar who unequivocally makes such a claim, tho' there may be some. So any arrangement that implies such a claim violates NPOV.

Instead, what we've been trying to do with this arrangement is deal with major topics, treating the views/practices of various schools on each topic. That isn't the only way of doing things, of course. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Karma and rebirth

Should be on separate sections because they're separate (related but different) concepts. So much that one may "believe in just one but not in the other".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to take a definite position on this now, but I suspect when we get down to detail we'll find them so interlinked a single section would be more sense. Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See now #Harvey's structure. Peter jackson (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

pratītya-samutpāda

Should have its section too. Even if short (it's a concept which can be explained first by using a list). It's different, describing reality.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At last, pratītya-samutpāda. I think it's my favorite lesson taught by Lord Buddha. That has 12 items, right? (And another 12 which is the opposite of the cycle which describes Escape from Samsara?)

That's what I have meant as "Universal Cycle of Suffering" in the Core Buddhism section. Is it a good translation?

I know the Pali words and already translated into formal English. When are we going to add that?

I saw in Spanish wiki that the pratītya-samutpāda is sorted as a list. Isn't it supposed to be a cycle? On the hand, I think it would be better if we can describe it in a detailed cyclic way. So people can understand. For example, Avijja = The living being does not know the reality of the world. Sanskara = Because of not knowing the reality of the world, the living being collects Karma (The living being reacts to the world), And so on.. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be written as a list explaining that it's a cycle. And yes, it's actually 2 lists (one being how to be free from the first). If you already have one translation, then you can add it as a new section; it's an important Buddhist concept--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just added pratītya-samutpāda. I hope I did perfectly. Anyway, please correct it if anything has gone wrong. Thanks. --Chamath Mc (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The structure can be improved. I changed up to the first 12 points, you can change the later ones. Or if not, I can change them later.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to a heading, but I think it should be a subhead within 4NT, to make clear the general remarks on their place in various Buddhist traditions apply to it too. Peter jackson (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the second section. It seems perfect, and now to do a major improvement to the other concepts. --Chamath Mc (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've almost totally rewritten this section:

Wikipedia should never state as fact that the Buddha taught such-&-such, as there's no consensus among historians as to what he taught.
What was written in this section before was almost entirely someone or other's interpretation, & didn't even say whose. I've replaced it with mainly a literal rendering for now, with a few notes. If we want to include interpretations it could get very complicated.

Peter jackson (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Buddha has said" is more meaningful and positive. Your sentence is inappropriate and can obviously make a doubt in the reader's mind if Buddha has actually said or not. So I've removed the entire sentence, which seems to be better than before. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's meaningful & positive is irrelevant. It's not a "fact" as defined by WP policy, so shouldn't be here. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Noble Eightfold Path

Should be on Practice. Why is it on concepts? If not, rename "concepts" with "foundations".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's under teachings/doctrines/theory/concepts, the last being the current title, because it's quite abstract. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2ndly, the 8-fold path is part of the 4NT so covered by the material on their place in various Buddhist traditions. Separating them loses this.

3rdly, Harvey's arrangement, which we're following @ present, arranges both teachings & practice progressively. Separating out the 8-fold path into the practice section would mess this up. Peter jackson (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

how separating 8-fold path from 4 NT "loses this"?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it won't be obvious to the reader that the remarks apply there too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? All it takes is say: 4th part of the Four Noble Truths is the Noble Eightfold Path (see below)... we shouldn't assume that readers are SO clueless.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See #Harvey's structure. Peter jackson (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thri-Lakshana - The reality of the world

This is an important concept which depicts the reality of the world - Anithya, Dukkha and Anathma. This has to be added as we are expanding the concepts section. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

it can go under "reality in Buddhism" maybe? It's indeed an important concept, but keep it short for now (until we summarize more the article).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

This article is huge; basically warranting that only Buddhists are willing to read it all. How to make it shorter? We can summarize, or even delete some sections.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If length is really a matter, then I think the only way is Summarizing or deleting some sections in history and Schools and Traditions. We aren't going to summarize concepts, right? --Chamath Mc (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

actually concepts are already summarized... I read through history but couldn't think on what to take out. There may be redundancy throughout the article, which I haven't read all yet. Also, in the lead section I took out some phrases but they are reverted to the longest version. At the very least, we can take some extensive phrases without changing the meaning.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do concepts actually need to be summarized? However, all of us were going to expand the concepts section. Therefore, it will use more space in near future, making the article lengthier. Perhaps it may not be possible to make the article smaller, unless we decide what are superfluous to the article. First, we need to decide which sections should be given the priority. I think all of you will undoubtedly agree that the teachings of Buddha are more important than history.

Here are the current statistics of the article as of the last edit at 04:58, 3 September 2008

(Following may not be 100% accurate, however)

Buddhist Concepts Section - 3288 words

Practice Section - 677 words

History Section - 1682 words

Schools and Traditions Section - 2825 words

Buddhist Concepts Section + Practice Section = 3965 words

History Section + Schools and Traditions Section = 4507 words

Therefore, to describe Buddha's teachings, 3965 words are used, and to describe other things not taught by Buddha take 4507 words. That's 542 more words than teachings.

If we aren't comfortable with summarizing or deleting things that aren't the teaching of The Buddha, then, yes; the only way I think is summarizing long phrases without changing the meaning (except the Concepts and Practice Section). --Chamath Mc (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The present arrangement will require expansion. (Blame me for suggesting it in the 1st place.) The reason is that it's based on the principle of giving each school's attitude to each topic. Everyone's attitude to everything naturally takes up space.

If we decide we really want a shorter article, here's 1 way:

start with the various POVs on common core. Don't bother with evidence/arguments for/against.
then go thro' the schools summarizing their main points. Don't bother with what they think of each other.

This would save space. Whether it would be satisfactory is another question. Peter jackson (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if we take something off the main article it should be moved to the secondary articles...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Those word counts are useful in indicating where we might think about going. As I note below, there's not enough about most aspects of practice. I certainly agree that the article should be mainly about the teachings & practices, simply because that's what most readers will be expecting from the article. History should be comparatively brief. Explanation of schools, in this structure, is needed to make clear what the taechings/practices sections are talking about when they mention differences among schools. Also, information is needed about sizes of schools, if not locations. @ present the 2 can't be separated as nobody seems to have added up the figures so we need to give details by country to provide sources. Peter jackson (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the 'decomposition' concept?

To my opinion sumarizing is not the way (not before the 'semantics' (content) are correct. I was triggered on this by reading an article which pointed out the relevance of 'semantics', see Language Purification. When we would start summarizing at this stage, an endless process will start. In the opposite, I think the basic principle is that we should 'use the words we need' (even if it is many). The 'normal' rules of thumb when writing a book should be applied: a section should never be longer than eg 1/3 page, a chapter should not contain more than eg 7 sections, use maximum 15 chapters, etc. This implies however (taking in account that the 'article concept' is the 'lowest node', that at max 15*7*1/3 = +/-25 pages are available ar max in an article. This is far to few for Buddhistic material! So OR the wikipeople should introduce one or more new 'nodes' concepts, such as 'part' (containg multiple articles) and 'book' (containing multiple parts). On this way the amount of available space is increased in a huge way, in a controlled manner. The other solution is that somebody has the role of 'structure editor' and must take care that all the written material is stored in a proper way in the 'article' format. But is it alright that a wiki transformes into books about certain topics? I think it is. Why not? For me an important reason is that all the material must be maintained as well. And readability? When decomposed properly, readers start at the highest level and can zoom further each time they are interested to do so. In information engineering, this is a common way of structuring information. But than, when every country /language has its own wiki... (and detailed books about Buddha, etc.), ai... Won't be easy to keep them syncronized! The Language Purification article (see the figure at the section 'Bableism over multiple languages') also proposes a solution for this topic. Until (and if!) this is implemented, we should help ourself. Does anyone know iformation engineers in their neighbourhood? They could may be help (together with an experienced project manager)? By the way, are we the only wikipeople encountering this problem? Aren't there already (for us useful) guidelines available (otherwise they should be defined quickly!). Note: I also heard of a concept called 'refactoring' (within software), anybody knows if can use this concept (cyclic process: write, restructure and summarize (=refactoring), write, etc.? Marielejeu (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

if you're going to write a book about Buddhism you're more than welcome, but not on wikipedia. This is supposed to be a first reading about Buddhism, it should be shorter. If you still want to use a wiki for the book try in: en.wikibooks.org

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Is the lead (paragraphs before the TOC) section fine now? I thought it was so I moved the {{copy editing}} to further down the page. However someone moved it back, so I guess he/she does not consider it fine. Any proposed changes to the lead?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's still lots wrong with the lead, but we can't do everything @ once, so I suggest leaving it to last. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few words on consensus

I just scanned through this talk page and I noticed three or four editors insisting that others comply with their consensus before editing this article. I checked Wikipedia's policy on this issue and I found this little gem:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale."

Unfortunately, it doesn't provide a way to determine what the wider community consensus is, but it's clear that a small group of editors can't use a consensus they've devised to control an article's content.

Therefore, to those few who insist on this consensus, don't be surprised when others ignore it, including me. LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

it will be VERY useful that you say specifically in what aspect of ALL the article you think there is no consensus. Your rethoric isn't conducive to further discussion.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you (or your 2 other accounts on the same wikipeda) want a war of editions? My reply: you won't have it. I will just wait to see what is the consensus among other wikipedians.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said I wanted an edit war. However, I will ignore any consensus created by a small clique of editors. This is WP policy. Just read the the quote and link I provided above if you don't believe me.LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the policy. Easy enough to do, given the way it's scattered among so many pages.

You're perfectly correct in saying that local consensus cannot override global consensus, but there are proper procedures to follow. In this particular case, a consensus was reached on this talk page on 1 particular point: the structure of the teachings/practices sections. If you want to make major changes in that, the correct procedure to follow is this:

Do not make the changes.
Instead, present your proposals & arguments on this talk page.
Discuss the matter here.
If, after a reasonable amount of discussion, you fail to persuade the local community, then is the time to appeal to the global community.
Their consensus is final for the time being, except in rare cases where the authorities intervene, generally for legal reasons.

You can find more details of this on varius policy pages, such as dispute resolution. When you 1st set up an A/C someone will have posted @ the top of your talk page some sort of introductory guide to WP, including links to policy. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now restored the basic structure of those sections, tho' I haven't bothered with some relatively minor changes. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring:If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions." Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here following the note at Wikipedia talk:Consensus, and I have no previous involvement with this article.

My understanding has always been the following:

(A) "Consensus" means that everyone's concerns have been addressed. It does not mean a particular version that receives some numerical threshold of support.

(B) If someone is editing the article in a way that is different from simple vandalism, it means they have a concern that has not been fully addressed, which means that there is no consensus.

(C) Bold edits are allowed, no matter how much previous consensus there has been. Those same bold edits may be reverted, if someone feels that those edits make the article worse.

(D) There is no excuse for edit warring, no matter what anybody thinks about consensus, previous or current. As soon as different versions are being put forward, the correct course of action is for all involved editors to stop reverting (no matter which version is currently live), put down the edit buttons, and have a frank and respectful discussion, seeking outside input if an agreement cannot be reached by those already involved.

That's my understanding of how consensus works here; I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for citations of policy or guidelines.

(A) This seems to equate consensus with unanimity, which wasn't my understanding. It would seem to make it impossible to get consensus ever on many issues

(C) & (D) seem to contradict each other. (C) says it's OK to revert, but (D) says it isn't.

Let me put down here the general problem. How are we going to proceed here? The article needs a pretty total rewrite:

Most of the statements are unsourced.
Most of the sources cited are simply the opinions of particular Buddhists, with no reliable information on whether other Buddhist would agree. Would you trust the Pope or billy graham for an accurqate or unbiased account of Christianity?
Most of the statements, & the overall picture, are in fact drawn from those Buddhist writers who happen to be popular in the West. Lopez has called "Modern Buddhism" a "sect" ([1]). Other scholars, tho' not using his terminology, have classified modern &/or Western Buddhism as something separate from the 3 major branches of the Buddhist tradition. It is an egregious violation of NPOV for the article to be mainly drawn from the ideas of 1 sect or form of Buddhism.

How do we organize this?

It's very difficult to keep up discussions on many topics @ once. Many people only look @ the foot of the page. Even if you look @ the history it can be hard to find things from there.
People keep changing the article without discussion here, in spite of the notice @ the top asking them here.
I've suggested concentrating on 1 thing @ a time, but that's unenforceable.

Any thoughts? Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC) A radical solution would be to ask admin to freeze the article for say 6 months, importing changes as we manage to agree them. I don't know whether they'd agree to that even if we asked. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... I think I must have not communicated very clearly. My point (A) above does not equate consensus with unanimity, although I would agree that we cannot easily achieve consensus on a great many issues. Consensus is a goal towards which to strive, and not a destination that we often reach. The best goals in life are of that nature - more-or-less unattainable, but worth striving for.

The difference between consensus and unanimity is that someone's concerns can be addressed without that person necessarily agreeing. Some people disagree with our core policies; those concerns are addressed at the project level, by the fact that Wikipedia is defined by its core policies. In the case of, say, a non-notable band article, a fan may want to keep the article, but may be unable to say why WP:BAND is at variance with the project. Whether or not they're happy, their concerns have been addressed in the development and acceptance by the community of WP:BAND as a notability guideline.

My points (C) and (D) do not contradict each other. I'm simply talking about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. A bold edit is great. A reversion is great. Any further edits made prior to thorough discussion constitute edit-warring. One does not continue to revert; one reverts once, and then discusses, bringing other, uninvolved eyes to the table as necessary.

I don't tend to communicate in terms of policy citations because I try to keep in my mind that Wikipedia is not a rules-based game. Cogent arguments always carry more weight than appeals to precedent, which is all that policy citations really are.

Finally, to address the question of how to fix the article... that's where the hard work is. The best principles I know for fixing a broken article are: WP:BRD, WP:3O, content RFC, perseverance, and patience (there's some citations for you :) ). I'm willing to help. I would begin by asking whether people agree with the overall structure of the article. If so, then we can work on it section-by-section. If not, then we should probably get a structure worked out first.

Does this seem like a reasonable direction to go? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your final suggestion is just what I suggested some time ago, & a no. of people have agreed to. The problem I was asking about now was of all the people who keep turning up on the article itself instead of the talk page & messing things up. If we have to restart the discussion of every topic all the time then it gets very hard to get very far. But you're probably right in implying, if I read you right, that there's no easy answer. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No easy answer: yes, that seems right. Perhaps what is required is a group of people who are willing to commit to consensus building on the talk page. As I said, I'd be happy enough to help with that, and I think I know of some others who might jump in as well; I'd have to do some asking... This article appeals to me as one to work on, because it's a topic about which I know very little, but am curious to learn more. Shall we start a new talk-page section to address specific issues? If so, I would be inclined to begin with the lead and the overall structure, and then to move on to individual sections, one by one. Whaddya think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There are already a no. of us doing roughly that, but of course we welcome more. As regards the lead, we've had a lot of difficulty with that. One question is whether it's expected to follow the structure of the article. I don't think WP:LS actually says so, but it does seem a reasonable idea. If so, it might be quite hard to make it fit our current structure. A no. of us thought it should be left to last. Others disagreed. The latter group discussed it for a while, but those discussions seem to have ceased. I don't know whether that's because they went on holiday, got fed up, were satisfied by the end product (tho'it keeps changing) or what. Certainly its present state is unacceptable.

As to the overall structure, a no. of us did reach a consensus, tho' that of course is subject to change. At present Esteban seems to be questioning it at least, if not actually disagreeing. I'm not sure whether Luis was wanting to disagree or just asserting his right to do so in the abstract. Peter jackson (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a short concise description of the subject

I see someone is rewriting this, GOOD. There should be a short brief introduction to what this is. I am not a scholar, i have a passing interest in this, I am not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap. The article as it is starts out by saying its a religion, fine they quickly define what they believe in, DON'T start telling me about what country who lived in and what it is called now, or branches etc. If someone cares about this topic they would serve themselves well to keep it short at the beginning, don't think that because you think it all is totally gripping everybody else will. And don't say "the burden is on you" - no, if i wanted to an expert then perhaps, as it is i want a very brief introduction - as it stands now its more a case of thinking, "damn that's a lot of werid stuff. Ok, Buddhism is a lot of weird mumbo jumob then" and move on. If that's your goal, by all means keep it as it is. --IceHunter (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP guidelines say there should be a lead section summarizing the subject in no more than 4 paras. We certainly need to deal with that, but my own inclination is to say that we 1st need to get the article right before we try summarizing it, tho' others may disagree. There's an enormous amount to do here, & I think we have to concentrate on 1 thing @ a time to avoid total chaos. The statement that it's a religion shouldn't be in the article because that's a matter of dispute. Unfortunately, it's also not possible to define what, if anything, Buddhists as a whole believe in, as that too is a matter of dispute. So I'm afraid the lead section will have to deal with divisions. Some of the other points you make are valid enough. Unfortunately, @ present loads of people are making all sorts of changes to the article in all sorts of different directions, so any comments we make are likely to be irrelevant in a few days time. Peter jackson (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should be shorter, but what are you implying by "not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap"? If you don't want to read some concepts that were original from sanskrit and later imported in other languages, I cann't help much (study other subject). If you think that the main article is too technical, then cite specific examples so that we have an idea of what you consider "too technical crap". If not, I cann't help you.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks all

I think we already have developed a way of improving this article, each editor in a specific aspect. The "cleanup taskforce" (w-e that is), is no longer necessary.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

Just saw the list of external links. Its too long and unwinded. See WP:EL + WP:SEH to cut it down. Indirect links are frowned up. Certainly a link to official literature by a sanctioned authority should be on top of the list, but there should be some moderation in placing links. Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that about references? what about divide them by type: paper and website?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "official literature by a sanctioned authority". As with other major religions, there is no sanctioned authority for Buddhism as a whole. There are authorities for particular groups, but I don't know whether any such links exist on our page. Is it in any case appropriate to have such here? Perhaps they should be in the relevant articles. Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Pali Tipitaka, which is common among all Buddhist schools. And each school adds some other texts, AFAIK.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pali canon may be in some theoretical sense accepted by Mahayana, but that has little relevance in practice. Further, the links are to the pali text, which few coming to this articl;e will be interested in, or to unofficial & possibly inaccurate/biased translations of unofficial & possibly biased selections. Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Why are the details of the traditional narrative stated as fact? They are almost certainly apocryphal. Mitsube (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

which details exactly?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a statement that little of the story could be regarded as established historical fact, but someone seems to have deleted it. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At least it's believable; it doesn't fall at all in mythology (like the "Jesus the son of a virgin"). If it cann't be regarded as historical fact, who says that? Siddharta Gautama was the founder of Buddhism by his practice on meditation and knowledge of the "ascetic philosophies" of the era; that's a given. Or are you arguing that there was not someone named Siddharta Gautama who founded Buddhism? What are the events that are disputed of ever happenning?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be somewhat disappointing to learn that the Buddha of the biography is not enlightened by our standards. For one thing, he left his wife and child behind. Also he tells another monk who left his wife and kid, when they come to him for help supporting the family and he ignores them, that the monk did a good job. So you need to rationalize that. It is obvious that this was fabricated by some officious monks later. In fact there is another stratum there implying that the Buddha was an ascetic from his early teens. So the whole getting married and having son and then leaving wife and son thing is likely a myth to lionize celibacy. Also it's unlikely that he was a prince and all that. Further he is portrayed as a misogynist and foretells that allowing nuns will cause a huge downfall in the sangha in the future and is not a good idea, and he is reluctant to allow nuns at first. This smells very much of later monks explaining some problem by blaming women and then attributing it to the Buddha. Also there is no archaeological evidence proving that he was born in current Nepal. Also he is portrayed telling people to chant certain texts as protection from snakebites. What nonsense. There is a lot of stuff in there less believable than born of a virgin. It is quite full of nonsense. If the Buddha were exactly as he is portrayed in the Canon then all of Buddhism would be a sham because he would not be someone to emulate and the whole enterprise rests on the possibility of perfection that he is supposed to exemplify. So you should be running away from the biography as fast as you can. Even his first name, Siddhartha, means "he who achieves his aim." It is not attested in the earliest sources. His other name is much more certain. The name "Siddhartha," being the most appropriate possible name, is almost certainly a later invention, or an epithet that became a name at some point. In the modern age no religion can rest upon infallibility of texts. This makes it more difficult to be religious but it is also liberating. Relying on infallibility of texts is very un-Buddhist and smacks of deluded self-concept. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

who said something of infalibility of texts? Throughout Buddhist texts there's the "you must practice this, you must not believe in this just because but understand it" idea... it's even like a mantra of "non dogma". And you said a lot without references or context. I'm learning sanskrit and pali to translate the pali tipitaka to spanish (later to english). THEN I can make generalizations like "the pali tipitaka says so and so", no before. A Buddha is more about awakening than perfection.

"Also he is portrayed telling people to chant certain texts as protection from snakebites." on one of the sutras that I've read, such nonsense (adivination, luck amulets and the like) is explained as something to avoid.

"Further he is portrayed as a misogynist..." AFAIK, Buddhism was actually one of the most freeing religious movements for women at the time. Again, you talk much without references.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to prove anything. It's for you to prove things are accepted by reputable historians if you want them presented as historical fact. Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube's insertion has confused things. The above was a response to the preceding remark. Peter jackson (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

cleanup taskforce

can this template be deleted? {{cleanup taskforce notice|Buddhism}}

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. We're still trying to sort it out. If they ever turn up, they might like to join in> Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey's structure

As this is the basis of what we're trying @ present, I think it would help to explain its rationale a bit more.

Teachings, ie more theoretical, abstract
1. Theravada
  1. Worldly teaching: rebirth & karma
  2. World-transcending teaching: 4NT (including 8-fold path & dependent origination)
2. Mahayana: claims of course to be more advanced
  - Philosophy
  - Holy beings
Practice, ie more concrete, down-to-earth, practical; arranged in progressive order:
1. Devotion
2. Morality
  1. Lay
  2. Monastic
3. Meditation (& wisdom)

If we want to use this structure, we should stick to the principles on which it's based. There are many possible structures we could use, but taking 1 & messing it up isn't a sensible way of producing 1. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

no, that's the basis of what YOU are trying to present. It is different from the current structure of the article, why not just continue from this current structure instead of chosing the index of 1 book (or is it your own?) over everyone? The index of this article is basicaly Template:Buddhism--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many sensible ways of arranging the article. Harvey's is 1, & that was what we adopted some time ago. What I'm saying is that if you make random changes to a coherent structure you're very unlikely to end up with another coherent structure. Instead you get an incoherent 1. There's a danger of that here if we're not careful.

As regards the template, as I said before, that's biased, having a section called foundations. Peter jackson (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddha eras?

No source is cited for this concept. Is there any evidence that it's important? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

in Buddhism it does exist, see maitreya... the section just needs some references... if we plan to keep it.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Practice

There's hardly anything left in this section except the 3 refuges. Has someone deliberately deleted most of it, or is it just a lot of people deleting different bits? I don't think it's a good idea. Harvey, our source for this structure, gives roughly equal space to teachings & practices, which seems sensible to me. Giving just abstract theories without practical details gives a very unbalanced picture of Buddhism, or, I suspect, to many readers, no particularly clear picture at all. Peter jackson (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the The Noble Eightfold Path section can be moved to practice, but it was YOU who "argued against" this move.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that there's

virtually nothing about any form of devotion except the 3 refuges
absolutely nothing about morality, lay or monastic
very little about meditation, & that only 1 type

Moving 8-fold path wouldn't help. What we need is more down-to-earth detail, not more abstraction. Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, what are you talking about other devotions except 3 refuges? These three are the most important and I've no idea what kind of devotions you mean.

We can add details about the five and eight precepts, types of meditations etc. This also seems to need a major rewriting. --Chamath Mc (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look @ Buddhist devotion. Peter jackson (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No common core?

Can we please have the quotes for this: "Scholars have failed to agree on a "common core" or "ideal Buddhism" behind the different forms." This is a matters of degrees. Of course they could all agree to some core elements. I think that this very short sentence is being used in a misleading way to advance a certain point of view. Mitsube (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

in this I concur.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

family of religions

what is meant by "family of religions" besides the usual schools and branches in the same religion? This is misleading. Does Buddhists (which I'm part of) claim that Buddhism is a "family of religions" instead of one religion with various schools? Are this new lines about painting a "balkanized picture" of Buddhism?!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

4NT

The 2 interpretations have got muddled up with each other. I'll deal with this when I have time, if nobody else does. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it out for now. I had to search thro' the history to find the correct text. People kept changing the text while leaving the citations in place, thus producing text unsupported by the sources cited. No doubt they'll carry on, so we'll need to keep a look out. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

pāli, sanskrit ( संस्कृत ) and devanagari

Is ajivana correct Sanskrit? Pali is ajiva.
Do we need Sanskrit anyway? Let alone nagari.

Peter jackson (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

what's the problem with devanagari?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It clutters the article and is not very useful.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

it's beautiful and is not westernized, besides it's easy and more accurate to search for the sanskrit word using devanagari.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless because the Latin alphabet with the diacritics conveys the exact same information, and this is the english wikipedia. We do not assume that people can read devanagari, so it clutters the article while conveying no new information. Also Sanskrit is being overused as noted by many here. Mitsube (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not native. If you use the latin alphabet, since it's so poor on phonemes you have to add diacritics or odd-placed capital letters. A sanskrit or pakrit (in this case pAli) word is written in 1 way and 1 way only using devanagari. If you use the (phonetically poorer) latin alphabet, then you have to chose among one of at least 3 romanizations of sanskrit or pakrit.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You realize that devanagari is an arbitrary way of representing Indian language sounds symbolically. Our modified latin alphabet is no different and is far more intelligible for users of this website. In Buddhism there's nothing holy about India or Indianness aside from the pilgrimage spots. Mitsube (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Devanagari is not a "native" way of writing Pali either. The Roman script with diacritics is just as unambiguous as the devanagari- it's also fairly standardized in Western scholarship to use the Roman script. Devanagari is completely unreadable to most readers of this article, whereas the Romanization can give a pretty clear indication of the pronunciation of the word. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Very few Buddhists use Sanskrit. We use it in general Buddhist contexts as that's the convention of Western scholars. It's not their convention to use nagari. Peter jackson (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Mitsube's last point is wrong. In both China & Tibet there was a long-standing prejudice that scriptures must be Indian. When the Chinese wrote new scriptures they pretended they were translations from Sanskrit. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be for a seal of authenticity, not sanctity per se. Mitsube (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

will you use romanizations for Tibetan words? Why not use both IAST and devanagari? (note, I'm not arguing in using Sanskrit instead of Paali). Paali and Sanskrit are Indian, whether you like it or not. Or will you make the same mistakes of Roman Christianity as to europize even Jesus' ethnicity. Gautama was of the ethnicity that developed into the indian subcontinent's culture. They didn't use roman letters. That's a fact. Again, what's wrong with that?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan can also be romanized with perfect accuracy. No one is saying that there is something wrong with the fact that the ancient Indians didn't use roman letters. If you think that Sanskrit is a divine language and India a holy land, you have certain options. Mitsube (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)\

Authenticity etc. are not at all at issue here. What is at issue is what is most useful to readers of the article. Most people reading this article can not read devanagari; so what does adding a transcription in devanagari add to the article? It can, however, make it more difficult to read, particularly for someone whose computer doesn't support Indian fonts. Also, why pick devanagari? The Tibetan canon is recorded in Tibetan script, the Pali Canon in Burmese, Thai, Sinhala, Roman, Khmer, etc., the East Asian canons are written using Chinese characters... essentially, the only modern group using nagari to write down Buddhist technical terms is the Dalit Buddhist community in India. Do we add transliterations in 5 different scripts for common terms, and then include translits in the appropriate canonical language for tradition-specific terms? That would be grossly unwieldy and detract from readability. So as far as I can see there is no criteria that would indicate that we should be adding the nagari rather than some other script; and given that this is an English-language article, it seems sensible that if we are going to limit the number of scripts that we use, it makes the most sense to limit ourselves to the script that anyone accessing the English Wikipedia is going to understand. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, everyone take a look at WP's style guidelines for foreign terms and WP:ENGLISH, and then WP:Naming conventions (Indic). I would argue that nothing should appear in a non-Latin transcription or transliteration unless it is the main topic (i.e., title) of the article. If a reader wants to know how a word was written in another language or script, he or she can follow the wikilink and read the lead of its own article. In most cases, if a term doesn't merit/have its own article, that's all the more reason non-Latin transliterations will be seen as clutter. I realize there are other issues at hand (Pali vs. Sanskrit, for instance) that will also bear on these issues, but when it comes to transcription in body text, romanization is the rule. /Ninly (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, don't put words in my mouth. I don't think devanagari is a holy language or anything nationalistic of India... I just see it as a the most beautiful writting system to express Buddhist terms; be it Paali or Sanskrit.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly an appropriate basis for editing WP articles. Peter jackson (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. What about "what's wrong with adding it + it is a more native writting"?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"what's wrong with adding it": clutter
"it is a more native writting": it isn't: as just stated above, very few Buddhists use Sanskrit/nagari

Peter jackson (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

so, one more word is clutter? That's new.
it is. Sanskrit uses devanagari instead of romanizations, and Paali (a Prakrit) should use it too.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm just very interested in learning sanskrit and pāli. But for this article we should use pāli romanized with IAST everywhere with the exceptions of the words that do actually come (are used on English) from Sanskrit: Nirvāna -> Nirvana (not Nibbana) and Karman -> Karma (not Kamma).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, devanagari script is also irrelevent for Buddhism for another reason. The earliest script form that resembles devanagari did not develop in India until the C12th CE, by which time Buddhism was no longer very functional in India. The best script, in the interests of historical use for Buddhism scriptures in the Indian mainland, would be either a late Kushana Brahmi or Gupta script form or Sharada as appropriate -- unfortunately, there do not seen to be any usable fonts in these forms available at present. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Devanagari is more related to the scripts you mentioned than any of the romanizations.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Esteban, your opinion about what Pali "should" use is irrelevant to Wikipedia. & we're not talking about 1 more word, we're talking about lots of such words. Peter jackson (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, so we standarize on Paali romanized with IAST, except for those words that are taken from sanskrit (for now I can think of just "nirvaana" and "karma"). I am studying (memorizing, calligraphy, sounds/phonemes) devanagari on my own anyway (and shouldn't "bring this preference to wikipedia, if it's not necessary").--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Skandha is another one where the Sanskrit version is standard. Any specifically Mahayana concept would of course be Sanskrit, and for things like jhana and the noble eightfold path we should use Pali. Mitsube (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's much more common to standardise with Sanskrit rather than Pali, except when discussing Theravada specifically. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "words that are taken from Sanskrit". All the basic Buddhist vocabulary exists in both Pali and Sanskrit forms, so it can be taken from either.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Paali for the jhaanas and noble eigtfold path, in large part because the primary source use Paali (or prakrit, w-e) instead of Sanskrit.

Oh, not at all. Nirvana is pronounced on spanish and english as being based on sanskrit not paali. It's not Nibana (from Paali: Nibbana), it's Nirvana (from Sanskrit: Nirvaana). As with Karma (from Sanskrit: Karman), on english and spanish it's not Kama (from Paali: Kamma). It's Nirvana and Karma as used widely on english and spanish (for an example: the band Nirvana was not called Nibana... even if the leader commited suicide born from ignorance; therefore not representing Bodhi... but that's not the point), not Nibana and Kama.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana & karma are common English words & so should be used in those forms, not in their correct Sanskrit forms, simply because they're common English words. In most cases there's no common English word, & WP policy for article titles is to use whatever form (in this case Pali or Sanskrit) is commoner in English. In most cases this is likely to be Sanskrit. Peter jackson (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm comfortable having some terms in Sanskrit and some in Pali, but that doesn't constitute a standard, which some other editors seemed to be suggesting.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the Pali should be primary, because the etymology and shades of meaning of the Pali version and the Sanskrit version are sometimes different and the Pali is closer to or identical with what the Buddha would have said, regardless of the Theravada or Mahayana's subsequent use of the term. Mitsube (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think this claim of Pali being "closer" to the Buddha's speech really stands up to scrutiny, given that we have no idea what specific language the Buddha taught in, that the language that he taught in undoubtedly shared much of its philosophical and technical terms with Sanskrit, and that I can't think of any case of a Buddhist technical term where the Pali meaning is perceived to be significantly different from the Sanskrit meaning in terms of etymology- all of the specialized vocabulary of Buddhism, Pali or Sanskrit, essentially shares the same origin. Furthermore, whatever language the Buddha spoke, the modern understanding of the Buddha's teachings is mediated by the textual tradition, which relied heavily on Sanskrit for the preservation and transmission of meaning outside of the Theravada tradition. Finally, employing primarily Pali is not in synch with current practice in Western scholarship, which uses Sanskrit primarily and Pali mainly for Theravada-specific topics. If you look at the list of articles in the MacMillan encyclopedia, for instance, you get (with correct diacritics): karma, dharma, sutra, and nirvana, but dhammapada instead of dharmapada. They also mention in the preface that they use Sanskrit as a lingua franca for pan-Buddhist terms that appear in multiple Buddhist traditions. This is the practice followed by a very large, current, academic encyclopedia- I think we would need a very compelling reason to chose something else. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is almost certain that Pali is much closer to the language(s) of the Buddha than Sanskrit. "Pali is itself a middle-Indic dialect, and so resembles the protocanonical Prakrit in phonology and morphology much more closely than Sanskrit." Ref: Franklin Edgerton, The Prakrit Underlying Buddhistic Hybrid Sanskrit. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 8, No. 2/3, page 502. One word with a different etymology may be nirvana/nibbana. The Pali commentaries trace the word nibbana to its verbal root, which means "unbinding" ([2]) while the Sanskrit nirvana means "extinguishing" ([3]). Regarding your last point, we are the ones writing this article and can do whatever we want. Mitsube (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote you mention claims that Pali is closer to the Prakrit that was used to record the canon before Sanskrit became standardized as the language of transmission- again the problem of since we don't know what the Buddha spoke, we are hard pressed to make strong conclusions about how "close" one language or another is to his original words. Yes, the Buddha probably spoke some form of north Indian prakrit. But not knowing what specifically he spoke and how it differed both from later Prakrits, Classical Sanskrit, and Vedic Sanskrit a real conclusion can't be supported. The commentaries, for that matter, include a lot of etymologies that don't stand up to modern scrutiny (not saying this is the case with the example you give, but in general I would be skeptical of these sorts of things- they are in many cases folk etymologies). When there are differences of meaning or derivation between the Sanskrit term and the Pali term, I find it unlikely that these fine distinctions will be in any way visible to the reader based on the use of isolated technical terms out of context. I think this discussion of "closeness" is secondary and most likely a distraction; what the Buddha taught in and what language is closest to it is something to be settled in a series of journal articles, not a wikipedia talk page. The key fact is that the Sanskrit forms are more familiar to the general public (most Western readers have some idea what karma is but have never heard kamma), more widely used in scholarship (the MacMillan example above), and not specific to a single Buddhist tradition (which Pali is). You are correct that we could chose to set whatever standard that we want, but I would say that in order to be of the most value to readers, it is a good idea to reflect the current relative usage of Pali and Sanskrit and not a preference based on a personal belief. Tibetan monks study Sanskrit if they seek higher-level education; most university Buddhist studies programs prefer that you learn Sanskrit; Sanskrit forms have been incorporated into Western language and are listed in the OED; East Asian scholars writing about Buddhism in English use the Sanskrit forms. All of this suggests that the greatest value to readers, and the way to make the articles more readable, is to prefer the Sanskrit form. There seems to be a good parallel here with the Wikipedia article naming policy; better to use a common name, as it will require the least additional work on the part of the reader. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Spasemunki, I will like to add: Sanskrit is indeed much more accesible to western scholars than Paali is. For example, on my country you simply cann't study Paali on any educational level. However, in the University I study there is 3.5 years worth of Sanskrit studies, and this same studies have 40 years of "academic tradition" (...or existance).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"The commentaries, for that matter, include a lot of etymologies that don't stand up to modern scrutiny." I am interested to see some examples. Do you have any at hand? Mitsube (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The one mentioned above for nibbana is one. Scholars accept the Sanskrit etymology for Pali too, rejecting the commentaries. On another point raised above, there are cases where the etymology is different, eg apadana/avadana & patisambhida/pratisamvid. I agree that Pali is closer than Sanskrit to whtever the Buddha spoke, but I think we have to follow standard convention in accordance with normal WP practice. Peter jackson (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pāli, Sanskrit or both?

ok, to resume (I think there is):

consensus:

we prefer IAST romanizations over devanagari, at least on the main wikipedia article of Buddhism.

no consensus:

but we don't know if using Sanskrit or Pāli as "main" or "default" language for Buddhist specific/technical terms. Apparently, there's some consensus on using Both but with one as "main".

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or neither? We should consider each case on its merits, asking whether it's actually necessary. Peter jackson (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

are you serious? "tradutorre, traditore"... at least with the citation of the original word; one can search further and actually know what concepts are being used on the article.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, look @ each case on its merits. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Flexibility, combined with simplicity: in the main article, I think one word per concept is sufficient and could be decided on a case by case basis, as Peter jackson says. Cases could be decided according to a combination of logic and most common usage. Translations of words and concepts could take place in subarticles. At the moment, I think the main article is convoluted enough to drive away many an intelligent layman. Kipholbeck (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Schools section

Here too I've had to correct dislocation between text & citations.
The common concepts bit has to go for the time being, I'm afraid:
1. a self-appointed group of clergy is NOT a reliable source for a purportedly factual statement about Buddhism as a whole;
2. attempts to do it ourselves would violate No Original Research.

Let me add some comments on the latter point, particularly for Esteban:

I'm not opposed to having a section on Common core.
Such a section would of course have to satisfy NPOV, covering different POVs, including the 1 that there is no common core.
I don't think such a section would fit with the present structure of the article: having a string of teachings in the Core section, & then another string (or the same 1 again) in the other section(s) doesn't strike me as a good idea.
Instead, I think the obvious complement to a section on common core of Buddhist schools would be a section describing the teachinmgs of the main schools.
This would involve rewriting the entire article from scratch.
I'm not opposed to this.
It would take a long time.
I don't think there's any chance of getting it done by 20 Oct.
Therefore, for now, we should concentrate on getting roughly the present article into a tolerable state.
After that, we can consider possible alternatives.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"a self-appointed group of clergy is NOT a reliable source for a purportedly factual statement about Buddhism as a whole." Buddhism is a living tradition so such statements could be worth conveying; they convey positions of prominent modern leaders. The Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, and others are now emphasizing the early texts. Mitsube (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets just finish the rewrite of the article "as it is already structured". Later, we can talk about common core or not. Just add your references for those that think that there's no common core as ANOTHER POV inside any section but the lead.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid dealing with this in the lead. Many readers will naturally assume that the teachings we explain in the lead are a common core or similar, unless we warn them that it's disputed. Perhaps someone can think of a different way of doing that. Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Add whatever points of discussion on the relevant sentences and sections, like it's already done. About the texts, it has being edited in a way as to say that there are some overlaps with texts but there are also texts exclusive to one of 3 main schools.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already said this. It's NOT my job to repeat scholars' research for them. If some of them deny that Buddhism has a common core without going into detail on exactly what they disagree with about any particular core theory (& there are many) or why, then their views must be represented in the form in which we find them, & not omitted on the grounds that they don't satisfy some arbitrary criteria you've imposed. Peter jackson (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to Mitsube's remark. There are 2 cases here:

If, after doing what we can for 0.7, we later decide to have a section on perspectives of Buddhism as a whole, common core or whatever, then we can consider whether this should be included.
However, @ present we have no such section, so there's no basis for giving special mention to this particular perspective, let alone treating it as unquestioned fact.

Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PJ, you're misquoting if you don't gave a very basic context for the quote. That's intentionally misleading, more so if it's basically a metaphor (which meaning is implied, making it a poor quotation)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What in particular are you accusing me of misrepresenting, & in what way? Peter jackson (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

not explaining the context of the citation. And it is not an "accusation", that terms are childish.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What context of what citation? Peter jackson (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "intentionally misleading" an accusation? Sounds like it to me. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a comment for academic/encyclopedic correction, just give context with a not widely known metaphor defining Buddhism.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still not explaining what you're talking about. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of your quotes are minority opinions, represented as widely accepted, yet they are not explained as to what it's actually meant. Why cann't you comprehend such basic logic?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my previous remark. Peter jackson (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tantra

"One component of the Vajrayāna is harnessing psycho-physical energy as a means of developing profoundly powerful states of concentration and awareness. These profound states are in turn to be used as an efficient path to Buddhahood." This applies equally well to the meditation techniques of the agamas. Mitsube (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

and that sentence doesn't have references...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need something on tantra, more than that in fact. I'll see what I can find. Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana is not synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddhologists indeed use Vajrayana to cover both Tibetan & Shingon, but comparative religionists seem to use it as synonymous with Tibetan. Peter jackson (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And Mitsube deleted any mention of Vajrayana on the lead, silencing that POV.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

what about Pure Land, which has 3 times the followers of Vajrayana? Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the lead paragraph. Mitsube (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then, by number of followers, Pure Land Buddhism should have more prominence/space on the article.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"According to some Tibetan authorities, the physical practice of sexual yoga is necessary at the highest level for the attainment of Buddhahood." Peter Jackson, isn't this an extreme minority view among even the already small group of Tibetan Buddhists? Mitsube (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. According to the source I've cited, this is the Gelugpa view. They are I think actually the majority of the Tibetan tradition. Of course the source may be mistaken, but that would have to be proved by citation from more specialized sources. I don't think any scholar disagrees with the proposition that this practice is recognized by all Tibetan schools. It's just a question of its exact place in the system. Peter jackson (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the Gelug emphasis of Vinaya this is unbelievable. Can you give the full quote? Mitsube (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

hmm, "the physical practice of sexual yoga ~~is necessary at the highest level~~ can be used as an aid for the attainment of Buddhahood, but is not necessary" fixed

another misleading phrase that gives undue weight to minority views (first read on wikipedia), done by PJ.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a more specialized source; it's about the same level, & must be treated equally. You've no right to suppress scholarly views you thin are wrong.

I'll enter the full quote when I have a bit more time. Peter jackson (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the whole para (REB 781; article by Dr John Powers of Australian National University; no academic post mentioned in his bio note so presumably he doesn't have 1):

"Atiśa [sic] regarded the sexual yogas of highest yoga tantra as uniquely effective, but taught that they are only appropriate for the most elite practitioners, who had directly realized emptiness and who had unusually strong compassion. The majority of Buddhists should recognize their limitations and not attempt to employ techniques that would be too difficult and powerful for them. Tsong Khapa and the Gelukpa Order – who viewed themselves as Atīśa's [sic] successors – continued this order [? can't read my own handwriting here] and emphasized the centrality of deity yoga (using visualization rather than an actual consort) while also asserting that at the highest levels of the path one must physically engage in sexual yogas in order to attain full Buddhahood. The other orders of Tibetan Buddhism have differing interpretations, and the Nyingmapas, for example, hold that visualization can be sufficient for Buddhahood."

Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Powers himself, in his book Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (Snow Lion, 1995; they're a Buddhist publisher I think, not an academic 1, so this can't be cited as a reliable source in itself, but it might be used to clarify Powers' statements) says something slightly different (pages 252f):

"According to Tsong Khapa, it is possible to access very subtle levels of mind by working with seals [sexual partners] that are merely visualized, but he contends that in order to attain buddhahood in one lifetime it is necessary [page 253] to use an "action seal" (an actual consort), because the great power of practice with an actual consort allows one to generate an illusory body that arises as a deity." He then cites Kelsang as saying this results in perfect Buddhahood, & continues,

"The only other way to accomplish this is to transform the clear light of death into a deity, but this can only be done when actual death occurs. According to Gelukpa tradition, this was the choice that Tsong Khapa made. He was concerned that some of his followers might go astray if he were to practice with an actual consort, and so he postponed the generation of an illusory body until his death. When the clear light of death manifested, he effected the transformation of a subtle body and arose as a fully enlightened buddha."

So it seems Powers' actual position is that the Gelugpas hold that this practice is necessary for Buddhahood in this life. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Now maybe someone can enter exactly what Harvey says & we can take it from there. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a link in the footnote to an electronic source for Harvey. On following it through, I see it does indeed say exactly what the article says it says, which flatly contradicts what Powers says, even in his corrected version. Harvey (who knows Pali & Sanskrit, but not Tibetan, I think) cites 2 references in his footnote to this statement. Unfortunately, the electronic version doesn't seem to include the bibliography. Perhaps someone with access to the printed book can post here the identities of those refs. Then maybe I or someone else will be able to look them up & see exactly what they say. Peter jackson (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now corrected the wording to reflect the current state of things. If someone can find Harvey's sources we may make some further progress. Peter jackson (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"he contends that in order to attain buddhahood in one lifetime it is necessary ..." and even then there is this bizarre alternative that can be performed at/during death. The in one lifetime is critical. So only if someone is pursuing enlightenment "for the first time" is this sexual practice "necessary." Mitsube (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a strange view, but we cann't ignore that tantra has sexual aplications or methods (in which sex is used as a practice to aid the path to Nirvana). There's some texts about it on religioustolerance.org (but it is better on the "tantra" article; the "buddhism" one is already huge).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Harvey in a bookshop & was able to remember enough from that to find the refs. The source he actually cites is A. W. Barber, "Prātimokşa, [sic] Bodhi-citta, and Samaya", in Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society: an International Symposium, ed Charles Wei-hsun Fu & Sandra A. Wawrytko, Greenwood Press, New York/Westport, Connecticut/London, 1991. The reference is to page 90, on which the only relevant material is the following footnote (this is the complete text):

"1. The higher Tantras used actual human consorts in initiations. Thus, Atisa [sic] would not allow monks to attend. See Byang chub lam gyi sgon ma (Mdo xxxi 9; xxxiii 1. K 103/5343/20). This practice has been changed, and symbolic consorts are now used during initiations."

That's it. Note that it's talking solely about initiations, not about completion stage practices. Thus it doesn't contradict Powers. Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey has simply overgeneralized his source. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the statement about the Dalai Lama is correct. I'll see if I can find a citation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it correct to call him the leader of the Gelugpas? According to Daniel Cozort, Highest Yoga Tantra, the Ganden Rinpoche is the leader. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama, 'World of Tibetan Buddhism, Wisdom Pubs, 1995, page 96: "... experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex ... advanced practice of sexual union ..."

page 97: "... practitioners must also, in their imaginations, visualize themselves in the divine aspect of a deity in union with consort."

page 141: "... having progressed ... to the initial levels of the Completion Stage, a lay practitioner seeks further impetus on the path by engaging in sexual union with a consort. However, for the ordained practitioner with monastic vows—monks and nuns—this is not yet the time for engaging in such union."

Not entirely clear. Peter jackson (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DL is de facto head of Gelugpas. Added to this article with citation. The nominal head, as correctly stated in the Geluk article, is the Ganden Rinpoche (Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 375). Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! I appreciate the big effort you all are putting into this article very much and also your efforts on properly researching and sourcing statements about the role of sexual tantric practices for the section on Tantra. Anyway, right now the section gives way too much weight to that specific discussion and therefor to this fringe practice that - as your own research has shown - historically never played a big role in tantric practices and today even less. Therefore i suggest either to MASSIVELY expand the section on Tantra by including descriptions of purification practices, guru yoga, initiations, visualizations etc. or MASSIVELY cut the part on sexual tantric practices to - taking into account the length of statements regarding non-sexual practices - HALF a sentence - AT MOST! Andi 3ö (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. PJ likely added the first sentence in part because many in the West associate tantra with sex. Mitsube (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah, and a sex ("more time while having sex") that is not tantric sex ("sex used to aid in the path to nirvana")... there's some info about this on religioustolerance.org (but, most of this should be on the secondary article).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle that there should be less space devoted to this topic but I didn't want to delete material people thought necessary to a balanced account. I do think it's important to mention this because

the Gelugpas, who are the largest Tibetan school, in fact I think the actual majority, regard this as the most advanced practice
the Nyingmas, the 2nd largest, regard it as 1 of the most advanced practices

I'm quite happy to discuss suggestions to shorten it while meeting everyone's concerns for balance. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that the only practice you chose to add in the section on tantra is "the most advanced practice," while everywhere else you are trumpeting the "for most people Buddhism is ..." statements. As regards the lives of Buddhists things like Andi listed are far more important and the practices are far more prevalent. Guru worship is I believe the most important practice. That also sounds embarrassing, why don't you add that instead. Mitsube (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should give a balanced coverage of all aspects. It's important to give a true picture of the variety of Buddhism. If you look @ the devotion section, you'll see it already says that's a major part of life for most Buddhists. The balance of the article is far from perfect, but there's a limit to what we can achieve in 3 more weeks. I'm not trying to get a perfect balance right now. I simply want to indicate some important aspects currently neglected. Note also that I just yesterday rearranged the list of practices in the lead in rough order of popularity. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has unilaterally deleted this entire topic from the article. I don't regard that as acceptable. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Essential Dalai Lama, ed Rajiv Mehrotra, Hodder Mobius, 2005, page 193: "When a person has achieved a high level of practice in motivation and wisdom then even the joining of the sex organs or so-called intercourse does not detract from the maintenance of that person's pure behaviour. Yogis who have achieved a high level of the path and are fully qualified can engage in sexual activity and a monastic with this ability can maintain all the precepts.

One Tibetan yogi-adept ... said that his sexual practice with a consort was undertaken for the sake of developing real knowledge. And that indeed is the purpose."

Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Page 194: "Through specific techniques of concentration during sex, competent practitioners can prolong very deep, subtle, and peaceful states and put them to use to realize emptiness."

Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a question of due weight in this article. Mitsube (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that readers of en.wikipedia.org probably live in English-speaking countries or have some interest in the culture of such. From my experience, many people in that culture consider the issue of sex to be very important. Actually, I'd say, it could be called relevant for all non-Oriental cultures, such as e.g. Russian. Because of that it seems useful to include at least a short mention of of the issue. Tibetan kind of Buddhism could be described as very visible in said kind of cultural environment. --Klimov (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to just give people what they want to read. As noted about guru-worship is by far more important, and many tantric practices are far more prevalent than sexual yoga. The coverage should correspond. 67.169.150.75 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

>It is not a good idea to just give people what they want to read. (Anonymous at 67.169.150.75)

Why not? Just make sure that they will be not enjoying themselves?

This could be precisely the idea that sets apart some major schools of thoughts known to people who are able to express themselves in English and what we are striving to describe in this encyclopedic article.--Klimov (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder. The Gelugoas, the largest Tibetan school, regard this as the most advanced teaching. If we omit advanced teachings on the grounds that they're not popular, then we give an unbalanced & misleading picture, just as we would if we omit the popular teachings on the grounds that they're not the "essence" or some such. Remember in particular that medtitation was rare until recently. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Peter, that's a misrepresentation. It's a teaching for people who are advanced in tantra. It's not an advanced teaching. Can you eat shit? Is a similar kind of revulsion you feel when eating shit present while you are having sex??? At least, this is the Dalai Lama's opinion. It's not worth the mention in this Buddhism article. Other places are more suitable. Greetings, Sacca 12:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the material further up this section, written before you joined this discussion. You'll see that the Gelugpa view is that this is the only way you can attain Buddhahood in this life. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1.691 billion?

Without at least one more solid reference, I think this 1.691 billion figure for the world Buddhist population is going to have to go. A number of reasons:

The only cited reference where I can find an even comparable number has problems:

The reference primarily cites a book (Gary Gach's Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism—hardly a scholarly or peer-reviewed resource) but links to a mostly unrelated webpage[4] that seems primarily to be promotion of another book, Buddha's Lists (vanity-published?). Although the bulk of this website's ~1.6 billion "liberal estimate" is referenced to that Complete Idiot's Guide, the two sections that state the estimate don't themselves really add up analytically, and only barely make sense at all:

"Surveys (Gach-Alpha Books, U.S. State Dept. report on China, Global Center for the Study of Contemporary China, BBC News, China Daily, and a report by Christian missionaries in China) have found that about 8% to 91% identify with Buddhism as one of their religions. If we use a percent near the upper end of this estimate, of about 80% it works out to about 1.1 billion Chinese Buddhists." —about 8% to 91%?

"China, liberal estimate (80.00%): 1,070,019,251"

"China, conservative estimate (50.00%): 668,762,032"

It seems strange to me that their "conservative estimate" is just the lowest percentage offered by the most "liberal" sources they offer. Given the first quote above, shouldn't their conservative estimate be 8%?

The fact that all their sources (aside from the Complete Idiot's Guide) are surveys makes their argument especially murky for many reasons. For example, their estimate for the population of Japanese Buddhists (96% of the Japanese population, or 122,196,882 people) is given without any estimated range—true of all countries listed other than China. Problems with such high estimates in survey reports from Japan are clearly delineated in a link from our reference no. 6, viz. The Largest Buddhist Communities.

Our reference no. 8 reads only "US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004,"—the trailing comma suggests to me that it may have been incomplete or broken as a reference, but in any case I can't find any information in said report (or the 2007 and 2008 reports) about a world Buddhist population. I might have missed it.

I don't have the National Geographic ref (no. 9, "Buddha Rising") to check myself—please fill me in if you do and there's something compelling.

The link to the CIA World Fact Book (ref no. 10) says nothing about Buddhism, and I haven't found anything in their pages that discusses the world Buddhist population as a whole (aside: their listing on Buddhism in China offers no percentage, so I doubt anything in the billions range would come from them anyway).

/Ninly (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Then use the source with the largest Buddhism that is not this 1600+ reference. I too find it not a good source (even if I think that it's a closer estimate, that reference is still not very valid).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The source is a Buddhist propaganda organization, obviously suspect. As I noted before, but repeat in this separate section for convenience, the UK figure is nearly 5 time sthe no. who put down Buddhist in the census. This obviously gives rise to suspicions that figures for other countries may be inflated similarly.

There is a genuine issue here. Many people in the Far East "belong" to 2 or 3 religions @ once. The standard practice of religious demographers seems to be to count as Buddhists thsoe who regard Buddhism as their "main" religion, while lumping those who give Confucianism or Taoism together in something called Chinese (folk/traditional) religion. This seems somewhat arbitrary, but we have to follow expert opinion while noting the point. I added a mention of this in the body of the article. The question is whether to give it in the lead.

[5]] is a website specializing in collecting religious statistics from reliable sources. When it says estimates vary between 230 m & 500 m, with most around 350 m, I think we should treat that as "fact". Peter jackson (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, this can certainly be discussed at more length in the article if we can figure out a clean way to present it and find some references that discuss the multiple-religion issues in a fair and interesting way. For now, though, I'm going to change the lead a bit and take out the promotional ref. /Ninly (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Branches

Mitsube says the 3-branch clasification is non-standard among scholars. What is the evidence for this? We currently have 2 citations for the 2-branch theory & 6 for the 3-branch 1. The latter seem to be better authorities too. Peter jackson (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still Mahayana. They call themselves Mahayanists. I am looking at Harvey right now and he uses the Southern/Northern/Eastern classification. The differences between Vajrayana and Mahayana are small compared to the differences both have with Theravada. I don't see how we can discuss the differences between Vajrayana and normal Mahayana in the lead. In fact they are both Mahayana and Vajrayana. So in the section on scriptures if we do the three-fold classification we would have to say something about the tantras and say that both Vajrayana and Mahayana give different emphasis to teachings of the actual Buddha, etc. If someone can figure out how to do it in the lead I will stand corrected. Mitsube (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are various differences with Vajrayana and Mahayana. Mahayana has various practices that are not focused at all on texts, like shinkantaza. Vajrayana has a rich textual tradition, that uses other language (I'm talking more about Tibetan Buddhism). Specifically in Tibetan Buddhism, it seems (to me, but I think I read it somewhere) that the Bön religion was united with Buddhism to make a particular form of Buddhism.

Historically, Mahayana and Theravada are branches of an Early (or pre-sectarian) Buddhism. But both consider themselves as "(original) buddhists". Vajrayana branced from Mahayana, even if they consider themselves "mahayanists".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think Mahayana is a branch of Early Buddhism then you need to do a lot of reading before you edit this article any further. Mitsube (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That goes for you too, "nirvana through sex" and "buddhists don't believe in rebirth" PJ.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural differences are not about Vajrayana, they're between East Asian (including Shingon) & Tibetan. The Tibetan tradition distinguishes between higher/inner & lower/outer tantras. Most of the former were never translated into Chinese. Most if not all that were were expurgated. Shingon follows what the Tibetans call lower.

As regards the lead, it might be better simply to state that Buddhists classify themselves as Theravada or Mahayana, for which we have a citation, while we have none to say what most scholars think. Peter jackson (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, glad I didn't say that. I said that Mahayana and Theravada branched (somewhen), and that Vajrayana branched from Mahayana (somewhen). Again you're putting words on my mouth that I did not ~~said~~ meant... hmm, what I meant was not that. I'm not using the "early buddhism" as the school, but as "original buddhism".

And why are you saying I shouldn't collaborate on this article because I did not memorized the history of Buddhism? What does studying so much history about anything has to do about understanding and realization of Bodhi-nature? I can still help on this article on various ways, what you said was too rude and unpolite, and ultimately unnecessary. It is also divisive, agressive and unharmonious.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about realizing bodhi, it's about representing what reliable sources have to say about the history and tenets of Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And about what modern science has to say about its reason of existance: Bodhi. You cann't talk about Buddhism and not talk about Bodhi. Either way, you cann't invite an active collaborator to leave and stop contributing. What will you do to realize this intentionality? Ask for someone to ban my account? That's too unpolite, whatever the rationalizations you use to justify your disharmonious behaviour.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have to learn more about certain subjects before I contribute information about them. Mitsube (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't ask Esteban to leave. I would ask him to study some reliable sources & use them for the article. That is what we're supposed to be doing, but so far I've done the vast majority of it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do need to study more about Buddhism. However, this article has a template of copyediting, in which I can help. Also, I have contributed to Buddhism-related articles on es.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. In whatever way you see it, asking a contributor to leave is a disservice for the community overall. It's similar to RTFM-attitudes in open source communities that make for less and less contributors.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are reading far too much into what I wrote. I said if you don't know much about the subject then you should learn more before changing this article. Mitsube (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know about the subject, but have not memorized the history of Buddhism. Either way, that's an unwelcomed proposition. Do any wikipedian need a phd to just contribute? considering that even anonymous IPs can contribute... jeesh.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The point, I think, is that you should be careful about rewriting the article in accordance with what you think you know. We all do it, of course, but think about what others might think. It's no use trying to impose your opinions when it should be clear that others might disagree. Discuss instead. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

that goes for you too, "nirvana through sex" and "buddhists don't believe in rebirth" PJ.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this gibberish? Peter jackson (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that is putting gibberish on this article! See, "nirvana through sex" is possible... but that's a dangerous advice if (at least one of) the practitioners don't control trsna completely (be free from the "sensuality" fetter). Ok, that quote can stay, only and only if this is added: but taught that they are only appropriate for the most elite practitioners, who had directly realized emptiness and who had unusually strong compassion. If not, it's a dangerous advice to saṃsāraputras that will lead to much dukkha.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've put that bit in. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

rebirth

so, now rebirth is not part of the Buddhist concepts? that's new and not explained in even the basic detail (again, courtesy of PJ); so a reader can asume: "lol, so Buddhists don't believe in rebirth at all?"--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More gibberish. Peter jackson (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A possible explanation of your unintelligible remark has just occurred to me, & I've clarified the article accordingly. Feel free to reword to make clearer if you think necessary. Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Further clarified now. I'm glad you raised the point, but it would help if you explained yourself intelligibly instead of leaving me to divine what you're getting at. Peter jackson (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one writting giberish. You added a line saying something that implies that "rebirth is just one life", before the line that says the real meaning of rebirth: one birth after the other. See Samsara, rebirth is understood as rebirth; w-e misleading and illogical contradictions you may add.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether Mitsube may have been right after all, tho' for different reasons. Maybe you should stick with Spanish WP. I wouldn't dream of trying that myself (or even French). Your English is far better than my Spanish, but you still seem to have severe difficulties understanding what people are saying & explaining yourself so that others may understand you.

My wording wasn't intended to deny the rebirth doctrine. When I realized, some time after reading your remarks, that it might look that way, I changed it to make it clearer. Did you bother reading my rewrite? I mentioned it here for you.

The point I was trying to make is a very simple 1. It's not properly speaking reBIRTH, it's reCONCEPTION. EACH life begins @ conception. REconception. Is that clear enough for you? Please either restore my text or find your own words to make the same point. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

reconception is not standard buddhism. rebirth is standard buddhism. reincarnation is standard hinduism. Rinascimiento, rebirth, renacimiento. I know 3 languages fluently.

I am (on) nirvaana; you are the one that is writting giberish. I have the rest of my life to teach the path to nirvaana... don't ever again ask me to leave en.wikipedia.org

sayonara--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it that you are on, exactly? Mitsube (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Rebirth Section

I deleted this section because it was so poorly written I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It read like a college freshman had hastily composed it as part of an overnight term paper. Anybody who attempts it next should use simple, declarative sentences instead of the garbled mess that existed before. By the way, Esteban, "this" and "these" are two different words. Please learn how to use them correctly. LuisGomez111 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh cry me a river. English writting is retarded, it's not phonetical at all like Spanish, Italian and Sanskrit.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"retarded" is oddly enough pretty much the right word. Roughly speaking, we spell words the way we pronounced them 600 years ago. You've taken on the responsibility of using English here & should fulfil it. Spelling mistakes don't matter too much, as someone else will correct them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used another word. However, spelling mistakes are very minor. If I make a spelling mistake, someone will correct it. And if I read the history I will learn from that mistake. LG complains about it as if it's a grave mistake, even insulting me (using childish language) on my talk page.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your writing errors go far beyond spelling mistakes. They include incorrect word usage, incorrect verb conjugation and, at times, illogical sentence construction. This at times results in unintelligble text. By the way, Esteban, I never used childish language on your talk page. However, I did become angry recently after you altered my talk page without my permission. Below I've pasted the text of that discussion to remind you of just how I handled it.

Hi Esteban: I noticed you've been contributing quite a lot to the Buddhism article. However, your English writing skills are somewhat weak. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just trying to provide some constructive criticism because I just got through correcting several of your grammatical, spelling and structural errors. Allow me to suggest that you write your text out first on an English word processing program with spelling and grammar correction capabilities before contributing to English Wikipedia articles. Have a nice day. :-) LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

that's your opinion, from the edit summary: you changed meaning not spelling and grammar... no one can consider the Mahayana Sutras part of the Pali Tipitaka (THREE baskets, not more)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Esteban then, inexplicably, restored many lines old information on my talk page without the approval of an administrator or my permission.

Esteban: My last message to you was friendly. This one is not.

First: KEEP YOUR FILTHY MITS OFF OF MY TALK PAGE unless you intend to make a constructive comment about one of my edits. You're not an admimistor and therefore you have no write to screw with it. I can blank it whenever I like. WP policy allows this.

Second: If you look at my changes carefully, you'll notice that I never said that Mahayana scripture was part of the Tipitaka but rather an addition to it.

Third: Grammatical and spelling errors are not a matter of opinion. Here are some of the mistakes you made.

You spelled these as "this".

You spelled volumes as "volumens".

You used the incorrect conjugation of the verb to do.

There were many others as well.

I also noticed you reverted my changes which were completely legitimate. If you continue doing this I will report you for violating the 3RR policy. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see my reaction was, at first, very polite then justifiably angry but certainly not childish. LuisGomez111 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dukhha. DukhhaDukhhaDukhha. DukhhaDukhha. I am sorely tempted to archive this section as (a) having almost nothing to do with the article, and (b) being remarkably un-buddhist. this article will never attain any decent form as long as we are all tangled up in our own egos. please guys, let's keep it on track, ok? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Luis Gomez 111, you are traped in anger. Anger is never justifiable. But, since I am the one on Nirvana and you are a samsaaraputra (child of suffering); I will not continue "this fight with you"--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

State of the article

A small minority of editors shows interest in following wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and reliable sourcing on this article.

"However, the Buddha considered knowledge important only insofar as it remains practical." What exactly does this mean? This is an oversimplification of the Buddha's thought, which is better explained by the sourced sentence I recently added.

"Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices, considered by some religion, but not by all." Can we at least use standard English? Why do we have to have "but not by all" there as a sort of rebuttal?

"Also, Vajrayana Buddhists find great value in the Tantras." Find great value? What does that mean? The same way they find great value in food? This language seems intended to distract from the fact that people accept these texts on blind faith.

Mitsube (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed your list to numbers for ease of reference.

No statements that the Buddha said/thought ... should be in this or any other article, because there's no consensus among historians as to what he actually taught as a matter of historical fact. This particular statement is also an interpretation. I might comment on your sentence if I can find it, but people keep changing the article & you give no indication of where it is.
This wording is biased. Most people call it a religion, not just some (citation somewhere in the article history). Some scholars define religion in ways that exclude it, while @ least 1 says it's a family of > 1 religion (ditto). Statements by some Buddhists that Buddhism is not a religion but ... should be ignored because
1. All religions include people who makle such claims
2. Such claims are usually made not about Buddhism as a whole but about the claimant's version of it
It is a bit vague. Furthermore, if you examine the tantra division of printed editions of the Kanjur you'll find there the Heart Sutra & a version of the Atanatiya Sutta in the Pali Canon. The concept of tantra is problematic in itself. I don't find talk of blind faith helpful. It smacks of modernist, anti-Christian Buddhism. All traditional Buddhism starts with faith. & even Chrustian faith is not supposed to be blind. Thomas Aquinas says faith is based on miracles & the inward instinct of the divine invitation. I suspect that if you cut away all the propaganda you'll find that traditional Christian & Buddhist attitudes to faith are identical.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thomas Aquinas may have said that miracles are proof but since no one alive at his time had witnessed them who is he kidding? "Inward instinct" is also desire for faith. Most Buddhists accept many things on faith. That is what I was saying. Tantras or sutras, most adherents accept their contents on blind faith. But the goals of Buddhism and Christianity are different. The goals of Buddhism can be accomplished (as Nietzsche said) and there are living examples of those who have. Also those who try the path will verify the truth of what the Buddha said for themselves. If you were objective about it you would admit that the elements of (Canonical) Buddhism that require faith in things one cannot verify for himself are secondary. Mitsube (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of people today claim to have witnessed miracles. The Church has even bureaucratized them. At Lourdes they have 2 standing committees, of doctors & priests, to vet them.

As regards verification, there's not so much difference. Altho' in theory Buddhism regards its teachings as verifiable, few people can actually attain the necessary levels in this life, so verification is postponed for most people to a future life, just as in Christianity. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Plenty of people today claim to have witnessed miracles." Statistically, no. And if you don't believe in the miracles that other people claim to have seen as regards Jesus, you are punished. What a joke.

Buddhism is an approach to freedom from suffering. The more you apply it the more it works. People only need to practice to a small extent if they want to see a small amount of personal growth. So to this extent, the teachings are verifiable for everyone, and the more effort you put in the more you verify. There is of course nothing like this in Christianity or any non-Buddhist religion. Mitsube (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from a Buddhist caricature of Christianity. Try reading some of the writings of C. S. Lewis. Christians often talk about religious experience confirming their faith. Catholics & moderate Protestants no longer believe in punishment for non-Christians, except that most Catholic theologians say that those with no faith at all cannot be saved, tho' they won't be subject to punishment beyond separation from God if they've lived good lives. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Christians often talk about religious experience confirming their faith." It is impossible to verify the central tenets of Christianity until death.

"Catholics & moderate Protestants no longer believe in punishment for non-Christians." Good! Catholic theologians say that people with no faith will suffer eternal separation from God. So if you don't believe myths heard second-hand you are eternally denied the most fulfilling existence by an omnipotent being? "God" doesn't come across as a very nice person.

The fact is that Buddhism is at its core a method for transforming the mind through first-person work and experiences. Religions that don't have meditative technologies like Buddhism do not compare as regards mental transformation. It is simply impossible. Even though few complete the Buddhist path, simply making progress on the path makes you a happier and more pleasant person. Why do you think so many prominent psychologists are practicing Buddhists?

I don't deny that Buddhism is for most Buddhists an acceptance of myths just like Christianity is. The difference between the two is that at its core Christianity only has any practical benefit if its mythological claims are true, while for Buddhism this is not the case. Mitsube (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As we've already noted, the concept of a core of Buddhism is disputed, so your last remark is POV.

You seem to be applying different standards. For Christianity you say the central tenets are unverifiable in this life, while for Buddhism you say talk about progress, verification to a small extent &c. You seem to be arbitrarily distinguishing between partial verification in the 2 cases. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind people of the absurd state of the history section, which jumps straight from Indian Buddhism to Buddhism today? Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I see on inspection it's even worse. It jumps from early Indian Buddhism to Buddhism today. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

POV in reality section

The section gives certain explanations of the Buddha's reported silence on certain questions, describibng them as POVS. It then goes on to present 1 as fact, not POV. This violates NPOV. I changed it but have been reverted. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. The first sentence says, "The Buddha's silence does not indicate misology or disdain for philosophy." This is not an explanation of his silence. You misread it. Now the second: "Rather, it indicates that he viewed these questions as not leading to true knowledge." Now this also does not explain his silence. He could have viewed these questions as not leading to true knowledge and still given some response. The sentence is about the Buddha's philosopy. Mitsube (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

While his wording might not be as clear as it could, Peter's concern (I think, correct me if I'm mistaken) is that these quotations are interpretations (explanation has different connotations) of scriptural narrative, instantiated in a specific school(s) of Buddhist practice, and should not be presented as hard fact. /Ninly (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)