Talk:Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Buddhism portal v • d • e This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Indic: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Japanese: Manual of Style Korean: Manual of Style – Naming conventions Tibetan: Proposed naming conventions  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it. WikiProject Atheism (Rated B-Class) AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles Atheism portal v • d • e Buddhism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help click Show: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil See changes to: Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes. WikiProject Religion (Rated B-Class) ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WPReligionReligion articles Religion portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it. Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class) This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Top This article has been rated as top-Importance on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

	Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted April 11, 2006 Featured article review Demoted July 24, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former featured article

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Buddhism:

Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Buddhism is not a religion, If the author would read into the actual teachings of Buddhism , he would find that this is not a religion ,,it is the belief that one will have rebirth upon dying ..Buddhism is your own karma , what ever happens to you from day to day is your Karma ,,and by the way ,,,have a good life yang guang Verify: source tagged statements Cleanup: standarize the references; including using templates Expand: Buddhism#Comparative Study Update: Buddhism is not a religion, If the author would read into the actual teachings of Buddhism , he would find that this is not a religion ,,it is the belief that one will have rebirth upon dying ..Buddhism is your own karma , what ever happens to you from day to day is your Karma ,,and by the way ,,,have a good life yang guang NPOV: re-work lead to be more comprehensive

Contents 1 Archive of discussions 1.1 Using: Subpage and topical methods 1.2 Using: Permalink method 2 Etnocentric expression 3 Please help! 4 Can part of all of Buddhist Ceremonies exist on this page? 5 Do Buddhists have weddings? 6 Addition to "Practice" section 7 "A Buddhist is one who..." 8 Timeline 8.1 Timeline height 8.2 timeline diagram: on-going sandbox 8.3 History and Geography 8.4 Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism start dates 8.5 Representing Shingon and other developments 8.6 Mahayana vs. Ch'an, Tendai, etc. 8.7 Simplify color scheme as graphical complexity increases? 8.8 Representing associated populations? 8.9 Template creation? 9 Asia and West Buddhism differences 10 Should there be two "Buddhism" articles? 11 Religion or philosophy or both 12 So "Buddhism is a philosophy" is slowly gone 13 Samadhi &c 14 family of beliefs? 15 Mahayana Sutras 15.1 Transmission of the sutras 16 Book series of Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism 17 {editsemiprotected} someone wrote "lies lies lies" at the head of this article - please delete it 18 Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra 19 Ganachakras and modern times 20 Input needed 21 View (Busshism) 22 This article is arranged like crap and very incoherent 23 Life of the Buddha 24 Buddhism as religion (yet again) 25 'Conversion' & The practice 26 WP:PSTS & the structure of this article 27 4 NT: suffering 28 Empty Notes section 29 Pure Land 30 Year of Buddha's birth.

[edit] Archive of discussions

[edit] Using: Subpage and topical methods

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Topical Abolitionism Buddhism and Intellectualism Changes to Lead Paragraph Lead workshop Religion status Summary of changes between 2004 and 2006 Vegetarianism

[edit] Using: Permalink method

Archive 19

The talk page was 400+ KB

update: the talk page has 167 KB total.--Bodinagamin 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Etnocentric expression

The statement "Both branches have spread into Europe and the Americas."is peculiar, not because it isn't correct, but because it clearly shows a occidental sort of etnocentrism. What's the reason to emphasize this? Both branches are present in all continents.

I tried to broaden this a bit to remove the focus on Europe and America. It would be good if we had some sort of source on the extent of the spread of Buddhism in certain areas; for instance, given the paucity of info in the Buddhism in Africa article, I'm a little wary of making claims about the forms of Buddhism that are present in the entire world. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help!

I am new and so cannot change this but: someone wrote "lies lies lies" at the head of this article - please delete it. Mkghost (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this segment in the opening of the article argumentative: "Buddhist schools disagree on what the historical teachings of Gautama Buddha were, so much so that some scholars claim Buddhism does not have a clearly definable common core.[4] Significant disagreement also exists over the importance and canonicity of various scriptures."

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to make it less so. My attempts at editing it have not created contentment. I can accept it (even though I find the intimidation of being threathened with "excommunication" because of it, a bit harsh). My reason to claim that this segment of the article is not satisfying the neutrality standard of Wikipedia comes clear if one compare to the article on Christianity. I would simply make my point by asking if anyone would believe the following would be accepted in the article about christianity:

Christianity is divided into a vast variety of churches, congregations, schools and communities resulting from theological disputes and schisms of that some scholars claim christianity is rather signified by these schisms (i.e. dialectic development) than its ecumene. The disagreements between different christian traditions are so immense that some scholars hold that they do not preach the same Christ.

Well... I don't intend to propose such a text in the Christianity section, but simply try to make it readable how problematic I find the similar text quoted above in the opening of the article on Buddhism.

In the end I feel like stating that I'm not a buddhist, but rather a christian who prefer the Christ as thought by the Dharma fellowship, thus belonging to an old tradition of christianity who have had some troubles with the churches and theological schools in power...

I think why that is there in the form that it is is because quite a few significant scholars do believe that the differences between different branches of Buddhism are more significant than the differences between different branches of Christianity; with Christianity, you basically have a single scripture with some minor variants, rather than entirely different canons, among other issues. I can see how it comes across as sounding a bit argumentative. It might be worth pointing out in there that these differences have historically not lead to a lot of conflict within Buddhism- Xuanzang's observations of Mahayana and non-Mahayana followers living in the same monasteries and practicing the same Vinaya, for instance. At the same time, I can see the necessity of making the depth of the differences between branches clear- I think among Western readers, I suspect there's a tendency encouraged by Western writing about Buddhism to see these differences as insignificant. --Clay Collier (talk)

---

"Buddhist schools disagree on what the historical teachings of Gautama Buddha were, so much so that some scholars claim Buddhism does not have a clearly definable common core.[4] Significant disagreement also exists over the importance and canonicity of various scriptures."

This is quite controversial.

1. What is the relevance of reference [4]? Is it only to establish that there are differences between the different schools of Buddhism? But that is obvious - otherwise why would they be distinct schools at all? We don't need a reference and statement for something that is obvious.

2. If this statement were to establish the differences between the different schools, that is not clear from the statement, instead the second clause of the statement goes on to give the impression that there are no common grounds between the different schools of Buddhism. If that were indeed the case, they would not be schools of the same religion, but would be entirely different religions. Further, it is also wrong to assume that there is nothing common between the different schools of Buddhism.

3. At this point the relevance of this statement entirely depends on the relevance of those 'teachings' of Buddhism that the different schools disagree on. Further, on what basis do we accept the work by authors of reference [4] to be more authoritative than the tradition of extant Buddhists schools itself. If the schools themselves agree on many aspects of Buddhism, isn't that more important to mention as that might give us an idea of what has been retained about the Buddha's teachings?

4. Further the statement seems to give the impression that nothing at all is known about what the Buddha taught. What is the purpose of this? In an encyclopaedic context, the purpose of any statement should be to inform, not to mystify. Hence, what could be the purpose of a statement that instead of saying what the Buddha taught and what the different Buddhist schools agree upon, dwells on mystifying the teachings of Buddhism?

The Pali Canon or the Tipitaka is the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings. All schools accept that the Tipitaka contain verses recorded within 50 years after the Buddha's death. This canonical text therefore is the main point of agreement for all schools of Buddhism. In fact reference [4] is an unproven work of research. Historically, it is quite well established as to what the Buddha intended to teach. If the authors of [4] wish to prove otherwise, they will have to explain the apparent agreement of different schools on several aspects (although not all).

Would it be appropriate to reword the above statement in the following way:

"Buddhist schools agree on many core aspects of Buddhism, but have certain irreconcilable differences too. [4] While the Pali Canon or Tipitaka has been accepted as the earliest extant historical record of the Buddha's teachings, the schools usually also accept a few more scriptural texts whose canonicity is disputed."

--AutoInquiry (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can part of all of Buddhist Ceremonies exist on this page?

[edit] Do Buddhists have weddings?

[edit] Addition to "Practice" section

Hi,

I would like to propose addition of the following to the "Practice" section? Thanks!

Focusing on the present moment

The purpose of the practice of focusing on the present moment is to eliminate unnecessary suffering by paying attention to present actions instead of dwelling on thoughts of craving. When given the chance to wander, the mind tends to focus on thoughts such as "I do not have this and I want it" or "I have this and I do not want it". These thoughts are helpful if they motivate a person to change things within ethical boundaries to improve a situation to reduce mental or physical suffering. However, when dwelling on these thoughts are not helping to improve a situation, then it is better to not dwell on thoughts that cause craving and suffering. Meditation helps to achieve that by training the mind to focus on breathing and to notice that the mind tends to wander and jump to different thoughts. The practice of focusing the mind is helpful because one can then focus on thoughts that do not involve craving and thus do not lead to suffering. The practice of focusing on the present moment is to extend the practice of focusing the mind to everyday living. For example, when walking, pay attention to walking. When looking, pay attention to what one sees. When one is fully in the present moment, the mind is not dwelling on thoughts of craving that lead to suffering, so this practice helps one to enjoy and appreciate the present moment and to avoid thoughts of craving that lead to suffering.

Thanks! Raymond Rayccwong (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "A Buddhist is one who..."

Can we do something else with this sentence? I'm not sure what, but between the passive voice and its seeming totally out of place both conceptually and stylistically, I think an improvement must be within reach. I, for one, don't think listing (or even mentioning) the three jewels is called for in the lead—and as the second sentence of the article, it just sort of comes out of nowhere even before Buddhism proper has been discussed in any detail at all. Maybe this notion could introduce the Practice section? /Ninly (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little work on the intro. I also am not convinced that the three jewels formula belongs in the intro, but at the very least I've cut out the parenthetical remarks. Wikilinks exist for exactly that sort of purpose. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

put the "translations" in parentheses back in. This is the introductory article on Buddhism, so every newly introduced term should be explained at first use. Wikilinks are no substitute for that as the article must be readable without jumping back and forth to other pages.Andi 3ö (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Back in June 2008,^[1] I offered the following diagram for inclusion in this article:

Original diagram:

	500 BCE	250 BCE	100 CE	500 CE	700 CE	1200 CE
Indian Buddhism	Early Buddhism			Mahayana	Vajrayana
Southern Buddhism		Theravada Buddhism
Eastern Buddhism			Mahayana Buddhism
Northern Buddhism					Tibetan Buddhism

At the time, PeterJ had raised a couple of questions to which I did not respond, thus leaving the matter unresolved:

(a) Should the start date of "Early Buddhism" be 450 BCE (vs. 500 BCE) [cf. User:Peter_jackson#The_historical_Buddha] ?

(b) Should the Buddhism associated with "Eastern Buddhism" be labeled simply "East Asian" (vs. "Mahayana Buddhism")?

I've been away from this article and talk page for a while, so apologize for not keeping abreast of (and for not now seeing) any discussion that might have occurred regarding the transition from the above-mentioned thread with PeterJ and this article's current timeline (under Buddhism#Schools_and_Traditions) which is:

Current diagram:

	500 BCE	250 BCE	100 CE	500 CE	700 CE	1200 CE
		Mahayana Buddhism
Early Buddhism			Mahayana	Vajrayana
	Theravada Buddhism
				Tibetan Buddhism

Now, looking at the current diagram, especially when contrasted with the original diagram above, I personally feel there is a loss of information, accuracy and diagramatic sophistication. For instance:

1. Missing geographic information: The latter (current article's) diagram has no Y-axis, that is, has no indication that the separate timelines are supposed to represent geographically separate developments. Can someone help me understand the significant benefit to this loss of information?
2. Incorrect start/end dates: This timeline shows Indian Buddhism starting before 500 BCE and ending around 700 CE. Am I correct in assuming that this is an editing error? (Perhaps due to the removal of the geographic identifiers in the leftmost column?)
3. Loss of color-based parallelism: In the original diagram, similar but different shades of colors are meant to suggest how different traditions started within India and then evolved differently once they became geographically distant from India. In particular: shades of yellow visually unite but distinguish Indian "Early Buddhism" with Southern "Theravada Buddhism"; shades of brown unite and distinguish Indian "Mahayana" with Eastern "Mahayana Buddhism"; shades of purple unite and distinguish Indian "Vajrayana" with Northern "Tibetan Buddhism." In the current diagram, the first and third parallel are maintained but the second parallel (between the Indian and Eastern Mahayana traditions) is obliterated by the Eastern "Mahayana Buddhism" line being given the same shade of brown as the Indian "Mahayana" line. Is there a benefit to removing the purposeful distinction and disrupting the parallelism?
4. Visual disjointedness: In the current (latter) diagram, "Mahayana Buddhism" is moved above the (unidentified) Indian Buddhism timeline, thus changing the time flow from top-to-bottom to instead one of middle line then top line then third line, etc. In addition, while Indian "Mahayana" and "Mahayana Buddhism" are made to be adjacent in this latter diagram, neither "Theravada" is adjacent with "Early Buddhism" nor "Tibetan Buddhism" with "Vajrayana." Again, is there a benefit to this non-parallelism and diagrammatic confusion?

Implicit in these concerns, I personally believe (though am open to being persuaded otherwise) that the original diagram was more informative, more accurate and more visually cohesive. Would anyone have significant objections to my replacing the current diagram in the article with the original one identified above, perhaps for argument's sake incorporating PeterJ's two views that the Indian Buddhism started in 450 BCE and that "Mahayana Buddhism" should be changed to "East Asian Buddhism" (or perhaps a listing of "China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan" or "Ch'an, Tendai, Shingon, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren," etc.). Frankly, while I did not feel strongly that this diagram should be included in this article to begin with, given that it is currently included in the article, then my inclination is for it to be as accurate and helpful as possible. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline height

no objections whatsoever. it was me who ended up inserting the diagram having in mind the disuccion i witnessed between you and others quite some time ago and therefor assuming the diagram had been vetted quite a bit, but UNAWARE of the changes that had been made. So imho please go ahead and insert the version you feel is most accurate while possibly taking into account the (archived) past discussions. Just one suggestion: i like the thinner bars of the newer version better, as the timeline then takes less space. Andi 3ö (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, the thinner lines are better. Perhaps this can be resolved by lopping the second word, "Buddhism," off each of the schools in the first column of the original, though I wonder if this then makes the terms "Southern," "Eastern" and "Northern" too obscure? Later today I'll make time to create a third diagram below including PeterJ's recommended changes and hopefully thinner timelines for us to play with some, as well as any other changes we all agree upon over time. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andi - I want to apologize and explain: I had reduced the timelines' heights to something comparable in the current article by removing the "Buddhism" term from the first column identifiers; but then the height of the "East Asia" line increased with the addtion of "Shingon" and then, for visual harmony, I felt compelled to make the South Asia & North Asia timelines of approximately equal height (10 pt). Sorry for the back-and-forth and false hope. If in the discussion of "Shingon et al." below we decide to lop off "Shingon," I'll re-shrink the timelines' heights to one-line-high. Alternately, if someone more adept with HTML/wiki-markup than myself could shrink the East Asia line (with keeping the "Shingon" box to at most half the height of the line), then perhaps we can shrink all the lines. (Well, at least the inter-timeline space has shrunk ;-) ). If you feel, all things in consideration, something else could be done to shrink the timelines' heights or just want to express your dissatisfaction with this current status, please, of course, post further. Thanks again for your kind participation in this continued tweaking. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] timeline diagram: on-going sandbox

Below I've updated the diagram trying to take incorporate some of the additional ideas mentioned above. Below the diagram, I've also included a "To Do" list to track changes and concerns. Sorry for only getting this far but hope to do more in the next day or so.

Timeline: Development and propagation of Buddhist traditions (ca. 450 BCE – ca. 1300 CE)
	450 BCE[1]		250 BCE	100 CE	500 CE		700 CE	800 CE	1200 CE[2]
India	early sangha
		Early Buddhist schools			Mahayana		Vajrayana
Sri Lanka & Southeast Asia			Theravada Buddhism
Central Asia			Greco-Buddhism				Tibetan Buddhism
			Silk Road Buddhism
East Asia				Ch'an, Tendai, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren				Shingon
	450 BCE		250 BCE	100 CE	500 CE		700 CE	800 CE	1200 CE
Legend:   = Theravada tradition   = Mahayana traditions   = Vajrayana traditions

Diagram's notes:

Diagram's references:

• Buswell, Jr., Robert E. (ed.) (2003). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (MacMillan). ISBN 0-028-65718-7.
• Cousins, L.S. (1996). "The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article" in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 6.1 (1996): 57-63. Retrieved 29 Nov 2008 from "Indology" at http://indology.info/papers/cousins/.
• Gombrich, Richard F. (1988; 6th reprint, 2002). Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (London: Routledge). ISBN 0-415-07585-8.
• Harvey, Peter (1990; 15th printing, 2007). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ISBN 0-521-31333-3.
• Keown, Damien and Charles S Prebish (eds.) (2004). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (London: Routledge). ISBN 978-0-415-31414-5.
• Robinson, Richard H. and Willard L. Johnson (1970; 3rd ed., 1982). The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing). ISBN 0-534-01027-X.
• Williams, Paul with Anthony Tribe (2000). Buddhist Thought (London: Routledge). ISBN 0-415-20701-0. Retrieved 29 Nov 2008 from "Google Books" at http://books.google.com/books?id=v0Rpvycf1t0C.

Diagram's to-do list:

#	Concern	Response
1.	Cousins' article places likely start of the Buddha's teaching to be around 450 BCE (cf. User:Peter_jackson#The_historical_Buddha).	Changed start date from 500 BCE to 450 BCE; added endnote.
2.	Did Buddhism die out in India 1200 CE? (Another prior PeterJ concern.)	Added endnote.
3.	Replace "Mahayana Buddhism," possibly with "East Asia"	replaced "Mahayana Buddhism" with specific schools.
4.	timelines are unnecessarily large	Shortened first column names (e.g., instead of "Indian Buddhism" to "India") thus decreasing minimum height from two lines to one line; shrunk inter-timeline space. Note: Addition of "Shingon" increased height of East Asia line & thus other lines all increased to a minimum of 10pt. :-( Note 2: As a result of "South Asia" being changed to "Sri Lanka & Southeast Asia," each of the timelines were proportionally increased (to 13pt). :-( :-(
5.	Justify or change start dates for "Vajrayana" and "Tibetan Buddhism."	Extended portion of "Vajrayana" into "Mahayana" (and extended tail end of Mahayana into Vajrayana). Does this work?
6.	Represent Shingon.	Added "Shingon" starting ca. 800 CE. How's this?
7.	Represent Nepalese and Bengali Buddhism.	[No follow up.]
8.	Is "Central Asia" sufficient, most desirable? If not, what?	Added "Greco-Buddhism" and "Silk Road Buddhism" to more fully represent regional developments.
9.	Should it be: "South Asia"? "Southeast Asia"? "Sri Lanka and SE Asia"?	Changed "South Asia" (10pt) to "Sri Lanka &<br /> Southeast Asia" (8pt).
10.	Should "Early Buddhism" and "Theravada" have the same or similar or unrelated colors? Should there be a related box in the "legend"?	Split "Early Buddhism" into "early sangha" and "Early Buddhist schools." Assigned "early sangha" a soft-yellow color, "Early Buddhist schools" yellow, and "Theravada" gold. Added "Theravada"-colored (gold) line contiguous with latter portion of "Early Buddhist schools" to represent Theravada presence in southern India. Added "Theravada" to legend to textually unite Indian and Lankan/SE Asian items.

I also changed the shading of "Mahayana" and the Mahayana schools as well as of the timeline borders to attempt to increase readability. I apologize but am running late for something non-WP ... will reconnect later tonight or tomorrow. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The WP editor is asking that I add tildes to the changes I just made to the diagram and to-do list (which I'll elaborate upon below) so I'm adding this nominal note. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History and Geography

Hi everybody. Just dropped in, great work.

A few details:

1) Tibet, Mongolia are in Central Asia, not North Asia.

2) I think it is a lot better to keep the left-most column purely geographical. "Eastern Buddhism" doesn't really mean anything, I think.

3) The split between Mahayana and the early schools was a real schism. Vajrayana sees itself as an evolution of Mahayana (or something like that) but still part of Mahayana, and Mahayana sees it pretty much the same way. No schism. Big difference.

4) I find the logical relationship between the top bar not very well indicated. There's nothing to indicate that the brown parts in the lower bars indicate that these are Mahayana schools, etc. The top bar is trying to do too many things.

Hope that is helpful! OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi OldMonkeyPuzzle -

Thanks for dropping in & for the thoughtful feedback! If I may, for me, you raise at least two significant practical matters:

1. What to do with the "North Asia" term?
2. Is there a way to better identify the "East Asia" traditions as part of "Mahayana"?

For the first, I have to let that percolate. "North Asia" was really a substitute for "Northern Buddhism" which, like "Eastern Buddhism," is a relatively well-known term (e.g., see Talk:Buddhism/Archive_12#.22Eastern_Buddhism.22:_Not_Best_Subheading.3F). For the latter, I've added a "Legend," hoping this might make the intention somewhat more explicit -- although perhaps I'm just complicating things and making it all more obscure? Might be time to go back to square one?

Your continued feedback is very much appreciated (thumbs up or down!). Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perking over. I've changed "North Asia" to "Central Asia."

Unfortunately, I know this will still likely need more work. "Northern Buddhism" includes Tibet and Nepal while "Central Asia" includes Tibet but not Nepal; so, I'm not sure we're representing all we want to here. But, for now, I agree with you and appreciate your point: "Central Asia" is far more accurate. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. "Northern Asia" is a geographical term almost no one uses. It basically means Siberia. Northern Buddhism just means "Mahayana Buddhism" as opposed to "Southern Buddhism" which means Theravada Buddhism. It was terminology someone came up with to avoid saying "Hinayana" (or any other term that anyone might find ofensive.) Almost no one uses Northern/Southern Buddhism anymore. Just throw it out the window is my advice.

But dividing up Buddhism geographically is very useful, I think. For one thing it just fits the facts so neatly. South East Asia follows the older scriptures, East Asia is essentially all Mahayana, and Central Asia all Vajrayana, and calling the religion of Central Asia "Tibetan Buddhism" is not too far from the facts, and I don't think any Mongols would object (at least the only Mongolian Buddhist I know anything about considered Tibet the holiest of places.) I suspect the same is also true of Bhutanese and Nepalese Buddhists, but I'm just assuming.

The general concept of the table is very viable. The geography is a kind of timeline, which is very neat and useful. First India then South East Asia, then China, then Tibet then wiped out in India.

But you maybe need a kind of third dimension, because it wasn't a linear process. They really all moved out from India separately

     Early Scriptures (Nikyas)

India -> South Asia [Sri Lanka] -------> [Burma, Thailand. Cambodia, Laos]

     (Nikayas?) (Mahayana ?)

(Afghanistan and the stans in general were Buddhist until the Moghuls came, or maybe it was Tamerlane. I forget. But this was an important trade route by which Buddhism was carried.

India ----------------------------------------------> [Central Asia] Afganistan, etc. -----> East Asia [China]

          Mahayana

(Later there was more of a direct connection India ----------------------------------------------------------------------------> East Asia[China]

India ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Central [Tibet, Mongolia]

India: Buddhism eradicated

I'm absolutely sure that I've got some signifigant details wrong, but that's the general picture.

(Sorry about the messy table I'm allergic to c ode)

cya! OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're good with "Central Asia."

And I hear you about the possibility of creating a tree-like diagram. I created something like that (representing primarily India, Sri Lanka and Tibet) for a presentation I gave to a local group in August (see home-grown doc, p. 3) but, given the complexity of events and geography and space limitations in WP articles, I thought such a diagram would not be viable here. For me, in terms of my own efforts, this current timeline is meant to be a visually compact summation of such a tree diagram.

Something you touch upon and which I meant to flag earlier: I have "South Asia" for "Theravada Buddhism" -- again, a substitute for "Southern Buddhism." Based on the WP articles, "South Asia" does include Sri Lanka but does not include Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia; "Southeast Asia" is the opposite. Ideally, the geography of "Theravada Buddhism" should perhaps read "Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia," but I don't see fitting that all in here. (Similarly, perhaps "Tibetan Buddhism"'s line should be "Central Asia and Nepal.") Perhaps then this is something further for us to chew on?

Regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

if "Sri Lanka and SE Asia" and "Central Asia and Nepal" fit in - AND don't mess up the visual appearance - it seems they would be preferable, at least in terms of accuracy. On the other hand: explicitly naming SL and Nepal somehow gives them (undue?) extra weight (from my understanding in the case of Nepal more undue than with SL). Also: i wouldn't even know what the geographical terms like SE or S Asia exactly mean if you hadn't looked them up for us. Most readers will not immediately know them either. So maybe they should at least be wikified. Or we should insert footnotes, or an additional legend, that explicitly names the countries in small script beneeth the diagram. I fear there will not be a perfect solution. We will somehow have to find a good balance between accuracy and visual attractiveness... which in the end, we even may have already found...Andi 3ö (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andi, good ideas! (Your constructiveness is unique & much appreciated! Thanks so much!) I've implemented each of them as follows:

• changed "South Asia" to "Sri Lanka & Southeast Asia" (only caveat is newly increased timeline heights again -- does this mar the current visual appearance too much?)
• at this time, decided to forgo change of "Central Asia" to "Central Asia and Nepal" as Nepal's contribution to this tradition is, at least at first blush, not as seminal as Sri Lanka's was/is to Theravada
• wikipiped each of the geographical areas, e.g., "East Asia" to Buddhism in East Asia (only caveat: Buddhism in Central Asia does not seem to map well to our use of "Central Asia" -- should we perhaps change the term or wikipipe or both?)

Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry.

"Buddhism in Central Asia" doesn't seem to map well to present day "Central Asia" for the same reason that Buddhism is an Indian religion that doesn't exist in India. The same descendants of Ghengis Khan who had converted to Islam conquered the western half of Central Asia before they conquered India, and in both places Buddhism disappeared after they got there. Afghanistan and the other stans were some of the earliest Buddhist areas. Remember those big statues the taliban blew up in the nineties?

Anyway, I don't think "Central Asian Buddhism" implies that all of Central Asia is Buddhist.

I am not the person to give anyone any advice about graphic design. Usually any input I give for such things leads to impossible complications. Forget about the whole "transmission through Afghanistan business interms of the chart, I would now say. Mahayana = India ---> East Asia is enough information.

Nepal, Bhutan and Ceylon are all in South Asia, but there is a big difference. The Buddhism of Bhutan and Nepal (Buddhists are a minority in Nepal) came south from Tibet. So they are not early Buddhism in any sense, and the fact that they are technically in South Asia is just an interesting detail. An asterisk, but not a big one.

The transmission of Buddhism to Sri Lanka on the other hand, is one of the most important events in the history of Buddhism: it was the first time Buddhism was exported from India. (I think it was actually during the reign of King Ashoka.) This fact is very central to Sri Lanka's identity, and the South East Asian countries have always recognized Sri Lanka as the source of their Buddhism.

The India/Sri Lanka + Southeast Asia works. My nerdy side wants it to be "Mainland South Asia ('India')" on the first line, but you can safely ignore that because I made it up myself. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi OldMonkeyPuzzle - if I may explain, and I apologize for not doing so before, when I was thinking our use of "Central Asia" above does not map well to the WP Buddhism in Central Asia article, it was because – after a quick glance – that article does not seem to clearly identify Tibet (or the "Tibet Autonomous Region") as part of "Central Asia." Perhaps its the whole Tibet vs. TAR thing? More likely it's due to my incomplete read. Regardless, it sounds like – at least for the moment – we have unanimity here. If so, hurray!; if not, please let me know what I missed. Either way, thanks again for your valuable input! Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. The chart looks great. The wiki article on central asia says Tibet "may" be included in central asia; while the tibet article says it is part of central asia. I have never heard anybody not include tibet in central asia. I think its just a wikipedia thing. Tibet "may" be" a part of central asia the way Buddhism "may be" a religion. It's a geographical thing not a political thing. The relationship between China and Tibet over the centuries has been very complex. (The chnese case for ownership of tibet is totally bogus, as far as I know.)

Tibet is a geological region as well as a political/cultural region. It is called "the Tibetan plateau." Culture and geography pretty much go together, but not political borders. You'll be safe saying it's in Central Asia. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Monkey! Thanks for the very helpful assessment and information. (I've updated the to-do list to indicate that this matter has been resolved in favor of "Central Asia.") Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism start dates

It seems very probable that Vajrayana started much earlier than its branch Tibetan Buddhism.

--Klimov (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up the basis for my representing the start dates of "Vajrayana" and "Tibetan Buddhism" the way it is (my information might have been unreliable) and will put it out here later today for us to discuss further. If you have specific dates in mind I'd truly appreciate hearing them too, of course. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, just quickly glancing at a tree-like time-line (home-grown doc, p.3) I made at the same time that I created this diagram, I noted a few events:

• 6^th c. CE: Tantric practices arise
• 7^th c. CE: Tibet expansion (military); contact with Buddhism
• 775-797 CE: King Trhisong Detsen. Buddhism official; missions; Padmasambhava est. Sangha

In the aforementioned tree-timeline, I don't cite the sources for these events, but at the time I was glancing through:

• Gethin, Rupert (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism.
• Harvey, Peter (1990, 2007). An Introduction to Buddhism.
• Newman, Bruce (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Tibetan Buddhism.
• Robinson, Richard H. & Willard L. Johnson (1970; 3rd ed. 1982). The Buddhist Religion.
• Warder, A.K. (1970, 2004). Indian Buddhism.
• Williams, Paul (1989). Mahayana Buddhism.

I'm not sure which of these might have led me to jot down the above events – perhaps my source was unreliable, perhaps my understanding was incomplete or distorted. I guess I'm wondering, Klimov, might you or anyone else here have an earlier date for the rise of Vajrayana in India, or might one use a different criteria, etc.

Regardless, it certainly would be appropriate to expect me to move the start of Vajrayana up to around 500 BCE (or, if you have an earlier citation, then earlier!), yes?

Please let me know your thoughts, e.g., would you find moving a thin portion of Vajrayana (concurrent with the "Mahayana" period in India) back to 500 BCE satisfactory? Of course, if you'd like me to precisely identify the source for the above events (which might be a useful endnote anyway), please just let me know and give me some more time. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've now extended a beginning edge of Indian "Vajrayana" into the Indian "Mahayana" segment. Does this work? Graphically, are things getting a wee too cluttered, etc.? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

absolutely not too cluttered. just makes it look more sophisticated and the meaning of vajrayana slowly phasing in is immediately intuitively clear. Andi 3ö (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up good work, Larry.

Tashi delegs,

Victor Klimov (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Victor! Tashi delegs! - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Representing Shingon and other developments

I am not well informed on this, but my understanding (and WP's presentation) of Japanese Shingon is as a separate (i.e. non-Tibetan) school of Vajrayana, so I wonder if perhaps a (smaller?) purple bar should be added to the Eastern portion of the timeline, stretching from the Heian era (first half of the 9th century, per the Shingon article's History section) to the present, accounting for it. /Ninly (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there will probably always be some minor elements which fail to be mentioned. We might also consider adding smaller bars to represent Nepalese and Bengali Buddhism.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'll try to add Shingon soon, as Ninly's suggested.

Nat, could you please elaborate for me how you'd envision our best adding Nepalese and Bengali Buddhism? In the current diagram, might Theravada Buddhism include Buddhism in Bangladesh on the "South Asia" line? As for Buddhism in Nepal, might that fall within Tibetan Buddhism on the North Asia line. (BTW, is "North Asia" a viable phrase here??) Am I being gullible about a rhetorical comment yet again? Sorry for my denseness, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried adding "Shingon" with a Vajrayana-related lilac coloring in the "East Asia" timeline. Does this work? Things too crowded? Line to thick? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

doesn't look too crowded to me. maybe shingon is a bit too thick in comparison to the mahayana traditions on the same line, but then again, the thickness of the lines can't realistically attempt to represent actual followership percentages...that would definitely be too much to ask for. Andi 3ö (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andi - your graciousness and generosity are greatly appreciated.

FWIW, I again agree with you: the Shingon line is a wee too high in proportion to the rest of the "East Asia" line; I've been trying to shrink in various ways (e.g., using different HTML "height" parameters) without success. At this point, unless I figure something out technically or some HTML/wiki-markup guru can shine some light on this, I see three options: (1) leave it as it is; (2) shrink the font-size of "Shingon" (and the height of the associated thistle-colored box will shrink); (3) increase the height of the "Ch'an, Tendai, etc." box (and thus reciprocally increase the height of the India, Theravada and Tibetan timelines). Being one for inertia, I'll likely go with (1), unless you or someone else strongly argues for something else.

Thanks again for your inspiration, encouragement and guidance, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

fine with me Andi 3ö (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andi, thanks again. FWIW, perhaps just trying it on for size a wee, in the latest batch of changes I changed "Shingon" from 7pt to 6pt and slightly increased the size of the other East Asian traditions. I think I can live with this change but I'm wondering if others (especially with different displays and/or browsers) might now find "Shingon" to be unreadable. Thanks for the continued feedback! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

i think it's fine. on one laptop (1024*768) it's a bit tiny, but you can always mouse-over it to get a bigger rendering. Wonder, if Peter has any further suggestions...he seems quite an expert on history and traditions... Andi 3ö (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andi, thanks for the prompt and as always constructive feedback. (I like your observation about the mouse over.) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of representing "other developments," FWIW, I've moved the leading edge of Indian "Vajrayana" from the top of the Indian bar to the middle of the bar so that the "Vajrayana" element is contiguous with both "Mahayana" and "Early Buddhist Schools" since, to the best of my regularly questionable recall, Vajrayana was influenced in various ways by each of these traditions. (Perhaps I am confusing the Indian Vajrayana with Tibetan Buddhism [which definitely includes non-Mahayana roots]?) (For visual simplicity (and in a way that does not contradict the dates identified above), I also moved the "start" of the Vajrayana item from 550 CE to 500 CE, otherwise there would be a little brown isthmus just before the Vajrayana box). Admittedly, I think it makes the bar look a wee funkier but I think it is important not to accidentally perpetuate a notion that Vajrayana developed solely out of Mahayana, without influence from those schools that had pre-Mahayana roots. (If I am mistaken, then lets consciously change this back :-) )

As an aside, in the to-do list, in preparation for moving this diagram to WP template space and/or insert it back into this article, I changed the "TBD" associated with the prior mention in this thread of Nepalese and Bengali Buddhism to "[No follow up.]" Obviously, if someone follows up, I'll revert this. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Shingon and Tendai may be minor in the West. However, Tendai, particularly is a major Buddhist sect in Japan. Moreover, majority of new Buddhist sects which emerged during Kamakura era were founded by graduates of Tendai sect. Given the population size of Japan, I'm not sure it is correct to treat Oriental Vij as a minor? Vapour (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vapour - please help me understand: what makes you interpret the diagram's treatment of Tendai and/or Shingon as minor? I'm wondering, for instance, if the smaller font (6 pt) used to represent "Shingon" has led to this inference. If I may state, briefly, the reason for Shingon's smaller font is so as to represent intuitively that it is not bigger than the other East Asian schools (Ch'an, Tendai, Pureland, Zen and Nichiren) combined during these schools' period of coexistence (800 CE to 1300 CE in this diagram). Isn't this reasonable? How would you rather see this represented? Are you thinking that perhaps the lines' heights should be proportionate to the traditions' population – and, if so, please check out the #Representing_associated_populations.3F thread below for some issues associated with this. (If your concern is primarily one of representing populations graphically, please consider extending the existing thread under that subheading). I'd welcome hearing about any alternate represention you (or others) have in mind. (Perhaps a second, or factoring in Mitsube's recent request, a third diagram could be created?) Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

：：：Minor treatment I was referring to was a treatment of "the school and the tradition section" of the article. It previously equated V yana with Tibetan Buddhism, which I ammended. There are two problems with this. Firstly, this ignore Oriental Vij. Total Tibetan population is about 5.4mil compared to Japanese population of 120 million. Tendai and Shingon are both influential sect in Japan so I'm not sure you could call these group a minor. Secondly, it overlook the fact that Tibetan do not see their Buddhism as V yana Buddhism. Tibetan see their Buddhism as synthesis of three yana. So calling Tibetan as Vij Buddhism sound a bit ignorant. In fact, only Buddhist sect which identify themselves as a Diamond yana Buddhism is Shingon. Their theology is quite explicit in divorcing Vij from Mahayana. Vapour (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I got the actual stats. [2] Tendai has 3'480'000 registered followers while Shingon has 12'700'000 registered followers. I should caution that this is not necessarily the indication of faith, Japan being the most secularised country in the world. Anyway, by the absolute number, Oriental V yana outnumber Tibetan one.

Hi Vapour - sounds like you have a legitimate concern that you've backed up with some valuable information. I'm wondering thought if it would be best if you copied/moved/restarted the statement of these concerns under a new level-2 (==) header below since this current thread ("#Representing_Shingon_and_other_developments") is under a level-3 (===) header beneath the level-2 "#Timeline." In other words, it sounds to me that you would like some changes to this article's text, not the timeline diagram being proposed in this set of threads. Do I have that right now? Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahayana vs. Ch'an, Tendai, etc.

PeterJ had expressed concern about having separate Indian "Mahayana" and Eastern Buddhist "Mahayana Buddhism" lines might be confusing. I can understand this. I tried to address this above by replacing "Mahayana Buddhism" with specific traditions (Ch'an, Tendai, etc.) but I'm not sure this is the correct solution. Especially when I now read the intro to the WP Mahayana Buddhism article, I'm inclined to re-insert "Mahayana Buddhism" (instead of Ch'an, etc.) on the "East Asia" line. Any thoughts? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps by making "Mahayana" and "Ch'an, Tendai, etc." both the same color (see next thread) this isn't such an issue any more. In a sense, in addition to the X-axis of time and the Y-axis of geography, the colors have added a third dimension representing common traditions? Just two more cents, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

love it, love it, love it! i am simply amazed at what you accomplished in these two days. thank u so much!! That third imension (color) you introduced works beautifully. and you (+some others) put so much thought and constructive discussions into it. just look at where you started from two days ago: amazing. looks very professional now. put it in asap :), if YOU are satisfied that is; maybe you still have some tweaks up your sleeve... ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Andi. And, of course, kudos to you for getting this all rolling by including the graphic in this article.

I do have some lingering questions, indicated above, about the geographic labels ("Central Asia"? "South Asia"??) and, as you indicated, perhaps about the "Shingon" box. Also, personally, given my long-term and deep esteem for Nat (and others), I'm inclined to give others more time to provide feedback and sage advice ... at least a few more days. Of course, if you're inclined to substitute any or all of this diagram into the article sooner, please feel free to do so (just, if I may suggest, indicate that it's evolving in terms of this talk page thread). Also, FWIW, I'm thinking of perhaps sticking this diagram out in Template:Buddhist schools timeline or something, so it could perhaps be included in other articles such as Schools of Buddhism, Timeline of Buddhism and Early Buddhism.

Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

the honour of inserting the new diagram should of course be yours! I think it would be perfectly ok to insert the current, if preliminary version as it already is so much better than the old one. thanx again for your efforts! Andi 3ö (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplify color scheme as graphical complexity increases?

Originally, I used shades of similar colors (e.g., gold and yellow for "Early Buddhism" and "Theravada Buddhism," respectively) to represent related but geographically separate traditions. As this diagram becomes increasing graphically complex (e.g., with the leading edge of "Vajrayana" extended into the bulk of "Mahayana," and "Shingon" added to the East Asia line) I'm thinking it would be helpful to simplify the color scheme so that similar traditions have the *same* color. For instance:

• orangey ("gold"): Early Buddhism & Theravada Buddhism
• brownish ("peru"): all Mahayana traditions (in India and East Asia)
• purplish ("thistle"): all Vajrayana traditions (in India, East Asia and Tibetan Buddhism)

The downside of this is that someone might infer that we are trying to indicate that these related-but-different traditions are in fact synonymous; the upside is that the color scheme will appear less chaotic. Would anyone object to such a simplification of the current color scheme? (Relatedly, is there a better color to represent Vajrayana traditions? I'm trying to use the colors of monastic's robes; thus, Vajrayana/Tibetan would be something like maroon, but this makes the associated text too hard to read; so I've chosen thistle et al. Any better alternatives?) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a try. Hmmm. Any feedback? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I couldn't in good conscience keep "Early Buddhism" and "Theravada Buddhism" the same (and I write this as one with a Theravada practice) because I felt one might infer that Theravada Buddhism was thus somehow closer to "original Buddhism" (whatever that might be) which seems to me to be highly POV; so, "Early Buddhism" is gold and "Theravada Buddhism" is yellow. Ohhh, the color scheme chaos! :-( Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the scholarly consensus that Theravada is closer to early Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! All my Zen friends just lopped off my head! I'm open to persuasion, preferably consensus :-) Thanks Mitsube. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mitsube -

Please forgive my glibness in the last message. More seriously, I think using WP:RS and Western materialist sensibilities, we could state here on WP that the Theravada canon (that is, the Pali canon or, more specifically, over all, arguably, the first four nikayas and some of the Khuddaka Nikaya) is "closer" to "early Buddhism" than the (non-agama?) Mahayana sutras (although I don't think that the Theravada post-canonical texts could support such a claim). However, there is more to each tradition than their scriptures. So, I could accept one stating that, while Theravada scriptures might be closer to early Buddhism, I think that partisans of other traditions could reasonably argue that their traditon's practices might be "closer" to early Buddhism. At least, I want to be open to this.

Moreover, of course, given my Theravada practice, if I were to claim that the Theravada tradition was closer to early Buddhism then for me this might give the appearance of being POV. So, for the above rationale and this latter sentiment, I personally am reluctant to reflect such in this diagram. If a majority of regular contributing WP editors of this page feel though that both "early Buddhism" and "Theravada" should be the same color, I would defer to group consensus.

I apologize if this causes you any consternation. I appreciate your exchange. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

i think it's perfect like it is now. not the same, but quite close... Andi 3ö (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Zen is not of Indian origin. I can quote David Loy, a professor and Zen practitioner, if need be. Mitsube (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andi, again, thanks for your kind and thoughtful appraisal!

Mitsube, mitta, practically speaking, is the current color scheme "good enough"? If not, I'd like to offer another color-scheme alternative: make "Early Buddhism" yellow and then make "Theravada Buddhism" either orange or gold (a blend of Early Buddhism's yellow and Mahayana's brown). The rationale would be that Theravada started out as "early Buddhism" but, over the centuries, incorporated a number of Mahayana notions (e.g., see parts of the Sutta Nipata [e.g., Sn 1.1's refrain], Apadāna, Buddhavaṃsa, portions of the commentaries, the notion of "sharing merit," etc.). Would this alternative color scheme better allay your concerns and give form to your vision? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that Theravada was influenced to some extent by Mahayana, most or all the examples you mention are simply parts of early Buddhism (late early Buddhism if you like) from which Mahayana evolved. Gethin, by the way, says Theravada is generally closest to the Buddhism of early centuries (his italics; page 1 or 2). Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did Theravada ever have an Indian presence? If so until when? Mitsube (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, in terms of this diagram, is there a concrete suggestion you have in mind? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've quite enjoyed watching the development of this discussion and the timeline itself. Looks pretty good to me now. The only thing I see lacking is some representation of the yellow/gold in the Legend. But how to term it? "Early Buddhism and its descendents"? "Early and Theravada Buddhism" seems better; although clearly redundant (because those are exactly the terms labeling the yellow/gold bars), with no yellow box next to the others there's a semantic void that seems to outweigh the (redundant) alternative. On the other hand, a yellow and gold legend box seems to go too far. Good work, all around. /Ninly (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ninly,

I too very much appreciate and applaud the current group's overall mutual supportiveness and responsiveness, constructive focus and inventive helpfulness.

Since I created the legend, I thought I'd just articulate why I saw a need for a "Mahayana" legend item and the benefit of adding a "Vajrayana" one but chose not to include a "Theravada" (etc.) item – though I very much understand the aesthetic and logical impulse to add such. Originally, the "East Asian" bar was simply labelled "Mahayana Buddhism." PeterJ had expressed concern that this phrase was problemmatic (e.g., according to the Routledge encyclopedia, Mahayana did not become a self-identified movement until the 4th c. CE). So, in the diagram above, I broke it down into resultant constituent schools (Ch'an, Tendai, etc.). OldMonkeyPuzzle then expressed concern about the relationship of the India bar to the rest of the diagram; so I created the legend to explicitly try to textually tie the color-keyed elements of the India bar to the other bars. The one element that I did not explicitly tie textually was "Theravada" because that was not represented in the India bar. Since my intention behind this diagram (which I certainly recognize is nothing more than one WP editor's vote at this point) was to show the development of the three Buddhist traditions (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), to me it seemed only logical that if we were to include "Theravada" in the legend, then it would stand-alone as "Theravada"; but such would just be redundant since there is no other "Theravada" element in the diagram.

I think Mitsube's recent question is interesting because some (e.g, I think Harvey, Intro, around p. 81?) indicate that, though born in Sri Lanka, a Theravada fraternity existed in southern India until it was wiped out in the 17th c. or so. Thus, it might be worth adding a one or two pixel high yellow line to the India bar to indicate the co-existence of the Theravada tradition with other Early Buddhist schools. (And, at that point, adding a yellow-boxed Theravada element to the legend would certainly be worthwhile.) I'm certainly open to this and other solutions.

Since a couple of folks have indicated that they think this diagram is ready for prime time, I'm inclined to our perhaps converting it to a template (or simply inserting it in this article) by this weekend; however, I do not want to preempt additional discussion that Peter, Mitsube or anyone else might be interested in pursuing.

Just some more thoughts. GTG (playgroup starting in 3 minutes at my home) & thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, just to show what the last idea might look like, I've implemented a one-point-high line on the bottom of "Early Buddhism" in India to represent "Theravada" (as amplified in the newly added legend item). Also, as I suggested in response to Mitsube's initial concerns above, I've swapped the colors of "Early Buddhism" (now yellow) and "Theravada" (now gold) that can be taken as reflecting the common extension of ideas beyond (pre-Theravada? pre-sectarian? etc.) "Early Buddhism" found in both Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism (letting go of the issue what such a correlation might mean in terms of causation and whether such reflects "late early Buddhism" or, as I believe Brough writes, "proto-Mahayana"). (Though the precipitating reason for the color swap was visibility: a gold line on a yellow bar is more visible than a yellow line on a gold bar, or so it appeared to me.) Concrete feedback as to whether such is beneficial or detrimental to the diagram? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Extending the metaphor of our using tradition-specific colors based on monastic robes, I changed the Vajrayana traditions' color from thistle to tomato. If anyone strongly objects, feel free to revert (of course!) and please discuss.

Also, I'm wondering if the Indian "early Buddhism" section is confounding two concepts: reputed and seemingly controversial "presectarian Buddhism" and "early Buddhist schools." Might it be worthwhile differentiating these (e.g., into "early sangha" [ca. 450 - ca. 250?? BCE] and "early Buddhist schools" [ca. 250?? - ca. 1200 BCE in India]) in terms of boxes and hues? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I implemented the latter suggestion above, splitting "Early Buddhism" into "early sangha" and "Early Buddhist schools" -- if nothing else, just to see what it looks like. Thoughts? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry :) "1st schism" looks very good to me. But i can't comment on how relevant that really is, as i don't know anything about the early history. Regarding the tomato i have to say i don't like it very much. It somehow changes the appearance of the whole thing and doesn't really fit in with the other colors...too "screamy" as we would say in german, the other colors are more muted, so the thistle fits in much better. Even apart from that, the thistle to me somehow feels closer to the actual color of Tibetan robes (at least in relation to the other tradition's). They do often have this crimson, more purpleish touch and some even have dark blue borders. The tomato is more orange and reminds me of Thai or Sri Lankan robes. Anyway, thanx again for your continuous and much appreciated effort and your seemingly endless repository of ideas! Andi 3ö (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Andi -

You have a great eye! and I totally agree about the "screaming" part! So I'll change it back to thistle shortly. FWIW, I was trying to capture the color of the Dalai Lama's inner robe (on his right shoulder) as suggested in the picture to the right. (I thought the outer robe looked too dark and would obscure the text.) (If I may offer an idea, in case you or anyone else would like to suggest a color different than "thistle" and don't have the time to experiment or dicker with the related markup code, the Web colors page might be a good place to find some colors to then pass on here :-) ).

Regarding the "1st schism" (keeping in mind Schopen's caveats, etc.), if I may admit, I know there are some problems with it, primarily, what date do we use to represent (e.g., some say it occurred soon after the second council, one or two say after Ashoka, etc.) -- though there are certainly problems with all the dates in this grid (e.g., as indicated in the first end note on the table). I also worry that it clutters the image. But I think it adds clarity to the whole "Early Buddhism"/"Theravada" issue. (Although, another aside is that it's not clear to me that when "Early Buddhism" travelled to Sri Lanka how long it took before it was deemed "Theravada" -- assuming such is that actual sequence -- so perhaps there should be a yellow sliver in front of "Theravada" on the Sri Lanka et al. line?) Well, I can argue with myself all day about the choices here ... and would like to defer to the majority's views.

My son's Thomas Train has derailed and needs a quick fix so pard my abbreviated and poorly organized thoughts. Thanks again for your excellent ideas and good-hearted engagement, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the Web colors and experimented with some of them. Liked indianred the most. I'll put it in for you all too evaluate. Hope you like it. If not, of course, feel free to revert. With metta, (Larry, hope you don't mind my borrowing your expression :)) Andi 3ö (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Beautiful!! You are very artistic Andi! A great addition! Kudos! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Re: metta, you can't borrow what I don't own ;-) Also, FWIW, regarding your edit-summary query, I believe in theory one could write "don't mind me my borrowing" -- like "don't mind Shelly her borrowing," the first ("me," "Shelly" [though a pronounal "her" would be appropriate too]) is the accusative pronoun and the latter the possessive adjective ("my," "her" [possessive case]), kinda?? -- though it sounds a wee strange :-) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the explanation, Larry. Exactly what i wanted to know. Had confused me for quite a while...as english is - indeed :) - my second leanguage (after german), all the more. Don't quite get though why ur mentioning that was "unintentionally thoughtless"...i rather think u think too much sometimes :D Thanx again for ur great work on the diagram and ur kind and thoughtfull comments!! With Metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, on the India line, I've now started "Early Buddhist schools" ca. 300 BCE and kept the "Theravada" sliver starting at ca. 250 BCE. I'd readily welcome any WP:RS information that would identify better dates (and end notes) for either or both of these dates! Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true there was a Theravada presence in India, though I think probably derived from Ceylon. Harvey's date is a disputed interpretation of archaeological evidence. How old Theravada is depends on your definition. It claims to have been founded by the Buddha. there was a series of schisms. At which of them is it deemed to have started? My own inclination is to agree to think of it as starting with the introduction of buddhism to Ceylon. Peter jackson (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! Very helpful! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry, is there a reason why you didn't capitalize "early sangha"? For consistency and visual appearence i think i'd prefer capitalizing everything in the diagram, also "schools" in "Early Buddhist Schools". Andi 3ö (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andi!

It's great that you're looking for such inconsistencies (and, of course, I appreciate your inquirying before just assuming that I didn't know what I was doing and changing it -- again, your kindness is unique and much appreciated!). If I may provide my baby-step rationale (right or wrong -- and some of these are likely to be post-action rationalizations! -- feel free to correct and educate me of course!) for capitalizing what I have is:

• the religious traditions (Theravada, Mayahana, Vajrayana, Tendai, Shingon, etc.) ... well, I guess, obviously :-)
• I believe "Early Buddhism" is a recognized term, though perhaps it's usually spelled "early Buddhism"? Assuming that "Early Buddhism" is a recognized technical term, I then extended it to "Early Buddhist schools," using "Early Buddhist" as the modifier of the general term "schools." (FWIW, this is also the type of capitalization used in the first sentence of the WP article, Early Buddhist schools, which might be what I was intutitively copying.)

Regarding "early sangha," if I may, I'd like to first explain my rationale for the term (which I'm not convinced is necessarily the best term): I don't think there is a universally recognized formal term for this period -- though, again, I might just be broadcasting my vast ignorance here. In terms of WP articles, I think "pre-sectarian Buddhism" (PSB) is used; but, this term has been disputed and seemingly divisive (e.g., see multiple threads on the talk page); moreover, "pre-sectarian Buddhism" would not fit visibly in the box allocated for such on this timeline. (Nonetheless, since I believe that the content of the PSB article correlates to this period of the timeline, I did wikipipe "early sangha" to the PSB article.) In reading various texts, I believe I've seen this period referred to by some common adjective ("early"? "initial"? "original"?) and then "sangha" (or perhaps "community" or "monastic community"?). I felt that the term "early" was ambiguous enough to prevent POV concerns (e.g., during this 100+ year timeframe, can we still refer to the community as the "original" or "initial" one); and, because "early" in this context is not part of a generally recognized technical term, I don't think it should be capitalized. In addition, I chose "sangha" over "community" because: (a) "community" would not easily fit (I think), and (b) "sangha" has Buddhism specific meaning. Now I've seen "sangha" sometimes capitalized ("Sangha") when referring to the Buddhist monastic community, e.g., to distinguish it from other types of congregations, I guess. But I made a non-thought-out choice not to capitalize "Sangha" because I thought "early Sangha" would look a wee funky (though, of course, I'm open to it) and I guess because I'm used to seeing it in the Pali not capitalized. So, in short, I didn't capitalize "early sangha" because, to the best of my very limited knowledge, it's not a formally or widely recognized technical term (e.g., vs., I think, "Early Buddhism"). (FWIW, I also did not bold it partly for this matter though also due to the font-width issue.) Am I edging towards coherency?

There are some other inconsistencies I'd like to raise, one purposeful, one not:

• "tradition" vs. "traditions": In the legend, I used "tradition" for Theravada, and "traditions" for Mahayana and Vajrayana. The reason for this was that I understand the Theravada tradition to be relatively monolithic (though I recognize there are country-specific differences and that even within Sri Lanka there are four[?] different nikayas); whereas, for Mahayana and Vajrayana, even within this diagram, there's a seemingly significant diversity of traditions. Please let me know though if this logical is in error or for any reason inferior.
• school vs. traditions:' The diagram title refers to "Buddhist schools" but the legend refers to three "traditions." Should I change the title to "BUddhist traditions"? (Actually, I think I'll do so presently :-) ) Other ideas?

I hope this seems reasonable (or at least semi-comprehensible). As always, I welcome your all's thoughts! (A wail from the playroom beckons!) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Representing associated populations?

I just thought I'd run an idea past y'all though FWIW I'm not inclined to implement this unless someone else thinks that it's worthwhile: we could represent the population associated with each of these traditions by varying the sizes of the timelines. Thus, I think I read in Gethin (Foundations, "Intro" ch.?) that the Theravada population is about 100 million, the Mahayana is about 500 to 1,000 million (or a billion as we yankees say) and that Vajrayana was about 10 to 20 million; thus, the height of the Theravada line could be one-fifth that of the Mahayana line and five times the size of the Vajrayana line. Some problems with implementing this that I foresee include:

1. visually, would this simply appear lame?
2. Gethin's (or whoever) was reporting recent populations – not sure where we'd figure out 13th c. populations.
3. How would we go about estimating a number for the Indian Buddhist population in the 12th c.?

The upside is:

1. I could rationally increase the height of the East Asian Mahayana box, thus making its contents appear perhaps more readable (though I'm not sure "Shingon" would be any more readable) (?).
2. It would provide readers with yet another facet of information.

As I say, I'm not inclined to implement this wild hair but thought if it piqued another's interest I might give it ago. Feel free to ignore this, of course :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That estimate is unusually high. See [3] for information about estimates. According to that, most estimates of numbers of buddhists are around 350,000,000. Peter jackson (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to www.adherents.com. At first blush, it appears that Gethin only differs from this site's stats regarding the Mahayana tradition -- perhaps the old "how many people in China are actually Buddhist"? - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry, Theravada and Vajrayana currently have significant presence in India, should that be included? Mitsube (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, in what way do you think it might be included? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The timeline could extend to the present day, is that feasible? Also I'm sorry to be picky but much of Central Asia was Buddhist long before Buddhism spread to Tibet. Greco-Buddhism and Silk Road Buddhism are significant. We could leave out the Central Asia part altogether. Mitsube (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful clarification and, as always, intriguing ideas.

In terms of extending the timeline to the present day, perhaps implicit in your use of the word "feasible," I think a diagram could be created to extend timelines such as these to the current day, but in my estimation doing such to this diagram would make a number of its items (e.g., "early sangha," "Shingon," perhaps even "Mahayana") extremely difficult to read and thus diminish some facets of this diagram that I think many might find useful. Extending this timeline to the 20th c. would require expanding it by about 700 years, which is about 40% longer. What I'm writing here though is not in any way to undermine the notion that such a diagram could be very interesting and valuable; e.g., if you have Robinson & Johnson (1970/1982), I believe they have such a diagram on p. 108, where the single-colored individual bars of the timeline reflect countries without attempting to elucidate traditions within a single country.

So, in my mind, to create such a timeline out of this one we would either have to lose some meaningful details in this diagram or, possibly, we could turn this timeline vertically which raises a number of other issues (e.g., might it be too wide for such a prospect, does WP markup support vertical fonts [I forget], etc.). My personal inclination would be to wrap this diagram up as it is and then, if you still feel very strongly, we can create an alternate less-detailed timeline that extends to the present day for you and others to decide when each diagram (or both) would be pertinent (and perhaps which diagram to delete). What are your thoughts on this approach?

Regarding your second point, I think it is well-founded: the "Central Asia" tag could be potentially misleading somewhat. Have you followed the thread above at #History_and_Geography? The decision of using "Central Asia" was a result of that thread – and, frankly, "Central Asia" is a far superior solution to what I originally had which was "North Asia"! Instead of getting rid of the Central Asia bar, I'd be inclined for us to keep the bar and, if possible, find a more suitable and agreed upon geographic designator (e.g., "Tibetan & environs"???). (I'd like to recommend that such a topic be continued at the #History_and_Geography thread.)

If I may, I wonder if underlying both concerns you raise is the issue of: What is the major thrust of this timeline? Frankly, back in June, when I first developed this diagram for a non-WP project, I was attempting to visually represent W. Rahula's contention that the early Mahayana term "hinayana" primarily referred to Early Buddhist schools and that Theravada had evolved beyond (and largely separately from) that which "hinayana" designated. Here on WP, I think a more meaningful justification for this diagram is that it show the evolution of today's three major schools (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) from so-called "original Buddhism" so readers could better apprehend the roots and chronological co-dependence of these traditions. Assuming such a primary WP-related rationale is of value, I personally would infer that the details provided by the diagram are of significant value and the representaton of Tibetan Buddhism is essential.

Perhaps this rationale is not valuable or can be significantly improved? Perhaps the current diagram fails in representing this rationale sufficiently? Or, perhaps, as suggested above, we could develop a 450 BCE to present diagram to meet the needs of an alternate rationale?

So, more concretely, I'd like to suggest:

1. If you'd like for us to create a separate timeline representing 450 BCE to present, let me know and I'll be happy to help with such.
2. Given the pros & cons associated with the "Central Asia" geographic designator, is there a clearly more accurate/meaningful alternative (perhaps appended to #History_and_Geography)? (FWIW, I'll re-open this to-do item, #8 above.)

Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Mitsube -

I see I overlooked one of your valuable suggestions: representing Greco-Buddhism and, perhaps, the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism. On the one hand, I think one might argue that these detract from the overall aforementioned thrust of portraying the rise and development of the three current Buddhist traditions (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana). On the other hand, there appears to be room to present at least part of such detail and it could be of value to some readers. To attempt to address these two hypothesized views on this matter, I'd like to do the following:

1. add a bar on the current "Central Asia" line from, e.g., 300 BCE to 500 AD and label it "Greco-Buddhism" (addressing the second hypothesized view).
2. keep the text unbolded, thus keeping the focus on the three extant traditions (and addressing the first hypothesized viewpoint).

As for "Silk Road Buddhism," I'm not sure how best to represent, if we choose to do so. Any suggestions?

I have to go shortly but, unless someone strenuously objects, I'll implement the above "Greco-Buddhism" box before this day's over. Hope this is consonant with your expectations. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

After skimming the related WP articles and reading (distractly) Robinson & Johnson (1970/1983, "Central Asian Buddhism," pp. 102-105), I've added elements for "Greco-Buddhism" and "Silk Road Buddhism" in the "Central Asia" row. I've a number of questions regarding this that I have yet to resolve so I'd appreciate others' input:

• What should be the start and end dates of each (and, just to underline, they do not need to start and end at the same time)? I think Robinson & Johnson (?) suggest around 2nd c. BCE (p. 103?, based on Han dynasty records ca. 139 BCE) as a start date. Also, the WP article Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism indicates that this phenomenon started significant decline around the 7th c. CE. I'm open to better dates, of course!
• What colors should be used? Robinson & Johnson (p. 103) indicate that both Sarvastivada (especially in the north) and Mahayana (especially in the south) were present in the Silk Road areas. I was tempted to use the two colors we've established for this (yellow for Early Buddhism which includes Sarvastivadan) and "peru" brown for Mahayana but, given how small the boxes are already, I didn't think this was feasible; so I blended these two colors together to get something sort of in-between (more Mahayana-ish for the Silk Road presence?). Any suggestions. And is this now really way to cluttered in terms of colors!?
• Gee the font is tiny (6 pts). Any suggestions?
• Given that the Central Asian line now starts before the East Asian line, I moved the Central Asian line about the East Asian (and, for reasons of visual effect & possible influences) move Shingon to the topside of the East Asian line. Okay?

Running late, GTG. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template creation?

There appear to be a few remaining issues — one or two theoretically having a significant impact on this diagram's overall design (in particular: whether or not we represent traditions in terms of adherents' population sizes, and extending the diagram to the 20th c.) — nonetheless, as Andi has pointed out, this diagram appears on face value to be an improvement over this article's current diagram. Sooooo, if no one objects in the next day or two, I'd like to follow Andi's suggestion of replacing the current diagram with this one.

Relatedly, as indicated somewhere above, I think that the best way to approach including this diagram in this article (Buddhism) is via a template (e.g., "Template:Buddhist_traditions_timeline"). This way, this diagram could be readily incorporated into a number of pertinent WP articles (e.g., Schools of Buddhism? Timeline of Buddhism? Early Buddhism??). (Relatedly, I'm inclined to simply point the related talk page (e.g., Template_talk:Buddhist_traditions_timeline) to this extended thread ("Talk:Buddhism#Timeline") – instead of copying this whole set of threads to that talk page – and I'd include a talk-page intro stating that this diagram is a result of a collaboration among the various users who have participated in this discussion, with people being listed in terms of their first contribution to this set of threads).

Any objections, reservations or recommended alternate approaches? Kudos to you all again! Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Buddhist traditions timeline has been created and inserted into this article. Please consider continuing any concerns about the timeline itself (as opposed to its insertion in this article or the associated text in this article) at Template_talk:Buddhist traditions timeline. Kudos to all involved! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asia and West Buddhism differences

Buddhism is misunderstood in the West as a philosophy, with associated practices. It is not. It is a religion, where people go to war for images of Buddha. In the West, killing people for an image of Buddha may seem counter to their beliefs, in Asia it makes perfect sense. So does asking Buddha to make them rich. In Asia, Buddha is a God who can make them rich or lucky, thats why they love him, not because of his enlightenment. Case in point, Cambodia and Thailand's 2008 spat, Thailand and Laos war over the Emerald Buddha in 1779. They see temples and religious objects as good luck, and will KILL to get them. These are real Buddhists, sorry for saying this but its true. People in the West don't know much about Buddhism.

I'm not sure that what little information you have accurately conveyed belongs in this article. Mitsube (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism by definition of religion, IS NOT a religion. The only way to go to heaven in religion is to attached ourselves to god(s) and love him/her unconditionally. Buddhism is exact opposite. Also, Buddhism is against collective thinking and collative ideology, which highly respected in the religious world. What is collective ideology? All "X" religious community should follow the X-rules. so on... I can be a Buddhist without following everyone who claim a Buddhist. In addition, if Buddhism is a religion, Buddhism is the world's first religion to allow criticism. No other religious leader ever gave permission to criticise his/her opinions on their dogmas. Buddhism has no dogma and has no superpower and Buddha himself encouraged criticism. Buddhists do not have rules and this is why YOU as a person have the complete right to classify Buddhism either as a religion OR a philosophy. Mitsube: Please name a one religion that encourage criticism? Please. This should make you happy... opinion sentence: "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion." It is a fact that religious bigots in the West want the whole world to classify Buddhism as a religion. This is because of propaganda by Western groups that have special interest in destroying Buddhism. It is easy to eradicate a religion than a philosophy. If you fail to convince the world to take Buddhism as a religion, you fail to eradicate Buddhism the same way you are eradicating Islam. Right?

[edit] Should there be two "Buddhism" articles?

As evident by the debate on "Religion Status", it appears that generally, people are thinking of two different things when they refer to "Buddhism." On the one hand, "Buddhism" can refer to the order of monastics and lay people founded by Siddhartha Gautama, and his religious (or at the very least, "faith-based") teachings (i.e. the "Dhamma" or "Dharma") as recorded in Pali and Sanskrit texts and passed down by the monastic order. On the other hand, "Buddhism" can refer to various (mis)conceptions of Buddhism, based one how one interprets its teachings as recorded in first-hand sources, or as filtered in second-hand sources. "Buddhism" could also refer to Buddhist philosophy or a kind of meditation practice. Most importantly however, the context in which the term "Buddhism" is being used is what matters. In a Buddhist temple, the word "Buddhism" refers to a religion. In everyday speech, it could refer to a religion, philosophy, or a meditation practice, or something else. Our context is an encyclopedic article - so that should be our guide.

This article needs to be more affirmative and clear. "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices..." What exactly does that mean? Is Buddhism a religion or not? Is it a philosophy or not? It does not matter that many people consider it to be one thing or another. Many people have their own conceptions about Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. but those popular (mis)conceptions should not rule the day. The purpose of any encyclopedia article is to inform, not to mystify.Coolbo (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

very brief: the questions you raise are of course valid and have been part of the discussions about this article for a long time. The consensus that evolved on the talk page was that the article, especially the concepts/beliefs and practices sections should be, broadly spoken, about what "Budhhists" think (the Buddha said and what he meant by that) and what they practise. There can be no right or wrong views about what buddhism is. It is what its followers believe it is. That's why most sections contain references to differences among the various schools.

As regarding "western" (mis-)conceptions, or rather western (part-time, selective) "Budhhist's" views, i have been thinking for a long time that maybe we should include a (very brief!) section on that, which links (more prominently than the tiny link in the section "Buddhism Today") to the existing article "Buddhism in the West".

regarding your criticism about the introductory sentence. This has been subject to countless discussions already. The fact that it has been so quiet around this issue for such a long time now (several months) for me is evidence enough that it is at least very near to a consensus and should rather not be fiddled with. (one interesting observation is though, that there seems to be a so far inexplicable, clandestine, rather irregular oscillation of the 11th word of the article between the two poles "many" and "most", so far, luckily, without triggering a full fledged debate at every transition ;))

Andi 3ö (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The source cited says most. Peter jackson (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He's back! Mitsube (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Peter :)) yeah...didn't see u around for a while...

regarding the most, many...(we even had "some" temporarily ;)). Why don't u switch it back? If the source says it, that would be the logical thing to do. I could do it, i think it's true, too....but that's more your kind of thing, isn't it ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly back, because I haven't exactly left. What I said is that I'm not directly participating. That means I'm not editing articles, or advocating or opposing edits. I'm still around from time to time to supply information, in my userspace & in talkspace.

In particular, therefore, I'm not going to engage in an edit war on the point raised. I simply supply the information. That source says most "people", whatever that might mean. [4] says somewhere that most comparative religionists say so. Chryssides & Greaves, Study of Religion, page 13, says most Buddhist consider it a religion. This lst is dubious in my view, as most Buddhists don't speak English & I see no reason to suppose they have words exactly corresponding. Peter jackson (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way does Wadsworth mean that Buddhism is a "family of religions" rather than a single religion? Under Wadsworth's standard, would other "religions" like Christianity be defined the same way? This question is directed at Peter jackson, but I'd appreciate the answer of anyone who has read the sourced material. Also, how does Numen define "religion"? Unfortunately, I do not have access to the cited sources because I no longer attend university, or else I'd look it up myself.

Also, is it true what Andi 3ö said, that the authors of this article have defined Buddhism according to how most Buddhists interpret it or what they believe it to be? I think that would be an unreliable standard to define Buddhism, because anyone can call themselves Buddhist and have all sorts of willy-nilly ideas of what it is. This only leads to the further question of "Who is a Buddhist?"

Who are the "many" that consider Buddhism a religion? Many people? Many scholars? Coolbo (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see a fuller statement of the position in User:Spasemunki/Robinsonetal. Peter jackson (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I may have not been clear enough: if u read my statement carefully, i was referring to the article as a whole, especially the concepts/beliefs and the practice section. I was not specifically referring to the "definition" of Buddhism. This of course is the kind of subject that should rather be left to scholars, at least for encyclopedic purposes. I personally do not care about these questions much... philosophy/religion/way of life/belief system/family of religions...just words...it all depends on how you define these again... for me a rather uninteresting question. But please, go ahead, try your luck... but be warned: you will have loooooong discussions here if you delve into that topic, and in the end, as there doesn't seem to be a strong scholarly consensus, it's not even very likely that your opinion will change anything...because everybody will just cite the scholars they like most and in the end it's all just a biiig waste of time. but anyway...have fun :)

Btw: what about the two buddhism articles question? what's your opinion on that after all? Is it important to you that the "western" conceptions are given more room somehow or do you think they are misconceptions and should therefor be ignored? Or was this just rhetorical, because you didn't like the first sentence of the article? Andi 3ö (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry..forgot one aspect: just to be very precise: in the beliefs and practices section, of course, scholars' opinions are also important: as Wikipedia articles should always be based on reliable sources, these sections really should reflect WHAT SCHOLARS THINK, Buddhists think, Budhha thought,taught,meant AND WHAT SCHOLARS THINK, Buddhists do, respectively :) ..but that's basically the same for every WP article...so no real big news here, i guess... Andi 3ö (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, not to be misunderstood, the overall purpose of the article is of course, to give a good, readable, not overly scholarly (i.e. unreadable ;)) introduction to the topic, that has in mind an average reader, trying to provide him with the basic information he would most likely want and pointing him to the various specialized articles. Andi 3ö (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Andi, I never even used the word "western" in my earlier comment - anyone can have misconceptions about Buddhism - Westerners and Asians alike. The most popular misconceptions of Buddhism are probably held by both groups of people. And yes, the question about whether there should be two Buddhism articles is rhetorical.

Anyway, yes, you're right. Anyone can just cite scholars they like the most - but when it comes to issues of defining what Buddhism is or what Christianity is or what Hinduism is, I bet you could find scholars who will support any sort of point of view you have. That's why I think it's best to just define Buddhism as it is commonly defined - as a religion. Anyone who cares enough can research further on their own and come to a conclusion about what Buddhism actually is. It's like trying to define "Democracy." What is "democracy"? You could say that it is a system of government - not necessarily, absolutely true, but it's a good enough definition. Anyone who cares enough can research further. Yes, you're right - I shouldn't bother delving into this non-sense.

Finally, in response to your question, I think that any "Western" misconceptions of Buddhism should be ignored - because obviously misconceptions are misleading. Alternatively, accurate Western conceptions of Buddhism should be included. The whole "Religion Status" debate is a result of Western misconceptions. By way of illustration:

1. The French Wiki Buddhism article states that "Buddhism is, depending on the view point, a philosophy, a spirituality, or a religion..."

2. The Spanish and German Wiki Buddhism articles define it as both a religion and a philosophy.

3. The English Wiki Buddhism article as you know, defines it as a family of "beliefs and practices" and implies that it is not a religion at all.

4. The Thai Wiki Buddhism article states "Buddhism is a religion which aims at deliverance from suffering or which teaches one to understand suffering and the means to be free from ignorance..." The words "philosophy" (ปรัชญา) or "Buddhist philosophy" (พุทธปรัชญา) do not appear anywhere in the article. Furthermore, the Thai Wiki Buddhism article is titled, "พระพุทธศาสนา" which literally translates to "Venerable Buddhist Religion." Interestingly, the Thai language has the word "religion" (ศาสนา) built into its term for Buddhism - this means that in the Thai language, at least, it is linguistically impossible for "Buddhism" to refer to anything other than a religion. Coolbo (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And it refers to Theravada. This article is about all sects labeled "Buddhist." Mitsube (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't have time to read much of the thread, and I gotta go but I juast wanted to say: The Dalai Lama Calls it a religion. The UN calls it a relitiong. The encyclopedia brittanic calls it a "religion and a philosophy," OED calls it "a religion or a philososphy."

For me the bottom line is that it is different from all other religions in many important respects, but to say it isn't a relgion is absurd. Karma, rebirth and a hundred other things are religious concepts.

Also, 99.5% of buddhists are asians (that's a real statistic,) and it is, most definietly, their religion.

Minority ideas or opinions may or may not be worth including or acknowledging, but they shouldn't be used to define the subject.

Hope that was not too controversial or abrasive. I'll come back when I can. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is one religion or multiple. Mitsube (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mitsube. For me the issue is whether or not the article is giving the reader accurate facts, rather than the result of battles and compromises over theories. If the controversies are worthwhile there should be a section that describes the controversy.

For me it's important to clearly describe Buddhism's status in the real world. This is the sort of thing I have in mind:

Buddhism is counted as one of the World Religions, with approximately 350,000,000 followers. It is an Asian tradition: 99.5% of all Buddhists live in Asia; all of Buddhism's approximately 2,500 year history occured there; and no part of Asia east of Iran has escaped the influence of Buddhism. In most countries that influence has been deep and broad; some countries, like Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, can be described as Buddhist countries.

It's not that it's particularly good or that I got everything right, but its a description without theory (but an obvious prejudice in what facts are chosen.) OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is it asserted that Buddhism is not a religion. The sources that you site show a diversity of views- some say religion, some say religion and philosophy, others say religion or philosophy. Wikipedia is not allowed to pick 'winners' in such a case. Instead, we have to reflect the fact that there is disagreement among people who write about Buddhism over what Buddhism is. English-language scholarship has tended to overplay the issue of this definition; that inevitably gets drawn into the article. There is absolutely no way to please everyone in the initial definition. We've leaned more towards calling it a religion in the past, and been beset by people who insist that it is a philosophy or way of life. The current wording is an ugly compromise, but a necessary one. There might be a better compromise, but it can't neglect to reflect the underlying dispute in English-language sources over what Buddhism is or isn't.

To the issue of two articles- I suppose what's being floated here is a sort of POV fork of the article into- what exactly? Western and non-Western concepts of Buddhism? Buddhism the teachings of the Buddha recorded in the scripture vs. Buddhism the stuff that people do in temples? I don't really think that it would be possible to have a significant discussion of these things independently. Something like 'Western Perceptions of Buddhism' or 'Perceptions of Buddhism in Western Scholarship' would be useful for charting the history of Western interpretive attitudes, but wouldn't really be a replacement for integrating modern views of Buddhism into the main article. I would say that the article should present the full range of the things that people do and believe that they think are Buddhism while they are doing and believing them- scripture and philosophy, meditation, ritual, merit making and talismanic practices, etc.- and note where appropriated and sited that depending on the ethnicity, education, geography, and specific tradition of a practitioner, certain of these aspects may be given greater or lesser primacy. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clay. I couldn't agree more with your second paragraph.

But "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by many to be a religion" comes very close to asserting that Buddhism is not a religion. But that's a secondary absurdity. For me the problem has nothing to do with what the Ultimate Capital-Tee Truth about Buddhism is, or even what anyone's opinion about it is. The problem is that saying that “some people call Buddhism a religion” is like saying “Some people call the tomato a vegetable.” Everybody calls it a vegetable. It's in the vegetable aisle. You put it on salad and not in fruit salad.

And of course it's also a fruit. No problem.

Only a tiny tiny minority say that Buddhism isn’t a religion (or is more than one religion.) Some people call it a religion and a philosophy, or a religion and a whatever, or a system of practices and beliefs that cannot be completely captured by the concept "religion." The problem is that the introduction has to be to accurately give a general, compelling overview of Buddhism. Accuracy is not the same as Truth, but its the only meaningful goal. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Buddhism as it actually exists in the real world you see clergy, temples, images, rituals, incense, pilgrimages, scriptures ... (Most of this is found in the scriptures.) If it looks like a duck ... Psychologically & sociologically, Buddhism is a religion for most Buddhists. The Numen article cited argues that those scholars who invent definitions of religion & then conclude that Buddhism isn't one are simply wrong, that definitions should attempt to fit the way words are actually used. It argues that the concept of religion should be understood in terms of Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblance: members of a family resemble each other in various ways, but there's no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines membership of the family. Peter jackson (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although personally indifferent (see above) i switched back "many" to "most", as "many" doesn't seem to have many fans here ;-) ...or sources and arguments going for it either. Let's see how long it stays...this time... good luck :-) Andi 3ö (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better to me, Andi. For one thing, it's true. For another "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices" is a good broad generalization that that can be read to include such categories as "philosophy,""spirtual path" and so on. Even better, it could be seen as a serviceable translation of "dharma."

Also the change makes me feel a little less like I was just butting into an old dispute to and stirring up trouble to no purpose. I think it's a real improvement and I will be very happy if it stands. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion or philosophy or both

I would like to propose a technical solution that is used in the Catholic Church article. In that article, they use explanatory "Notes" which are different from "Footnotes" which are references. I have been bold and inserted a note that tries to explain the issue about Buddhism as religion vs. Buddhism as philosophy. I am not knowledgeable to take it to the next level and provide a more detailed explanation. If you guys like this idea, please expand the note. Otherwise, just revert it out. --Richard (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So "Buddhism is a philosophy" is slowly gone

Hi, please note that as a result of your many talks, you degraded the definition that Buddhism is a religion and philosophy, given by Britannica and Columbia enc. [5] [6] [7] --windyhead (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone with a good knowledge of both philosophy & Buddhism say it is one? Of course it's true that Buddhism contains philosophies, but that's quite a different matter. Peter jackson (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You want to argue Britannica and Columbia enc. credibility? --windyhead (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-specialist works are often unreliable. The more specialist you get, the more reliable. All I think one can say is that some forms of Buddhism are philosophies. Peter jackson (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever definition is used is going to be some kind of compromise, this being Wikipedia and all. I think the current one is particularly good. Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion. That could definitely be read to include "philosophy." OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty good Buddhist philosophy article, and I don't think any specialist would argue that Buddhist philosophy isn't philosophy (whether or not they agree with its tenets or conclusions). Perhaps a "see also" somewhere (under Nature of Reality?) would help. And while Buddhist institutions have often used, encouraged, and given rise philosophical thought, calling Buddhism itself a philosophy doesn't seem quite correct to me (whatever the encyclopedias say). /Ninly (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

right..the problem here for me as well is the "is" part. "Buddhism is..." Budhhism of course contains so many elements, and "philosophy", as we would call it, sure is a huuuge part of it. And btw, huge parts of the teachings, and scholarly discourse providing theoretical grounding for many practices, we would nowadys even more appropriately name "psychology"! I agree, we should somehow reflect that in the article, and possibly even in the lead.

The problem is that the whole of eastern thinking was and is so strongly influenced/grounded by/in Buddhism (and related religious traditions), that it simply is not easily separable from "Buddhism itself" or "Buddhism, the religion".

Same thing exists in the west as well btw. Many of the thinkers we refer to as "philosophers" were similarly immersed into christianity, just look at Descartes for example and his deconstruction and following reconstruction of the world leading to a proof of god. Difference is, we have a couple a hundred years of secularization goin on here and most of the thinkers we simply moved over into the "philosophy" basket. We could easily forget about their religious, christian background simply because christianity was ubiquitous here, it was, and is, the "normal" thing to be, the "normal" way of thinking, the "normal" family of beliefs and practices that guided, and still guides to a considerable extent, our lives in "the west". (btw, maybe it would be reasonable to put all abrahamic religious traditions into that basket, but that's a totally different story of course... :)) Andi 3ö (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just an opinion by SOME Buddhist communities in Canada, Do you know why people debate on if Buddhism is a religion or not? It is a fact that religious bigots in the West want the whole world to classify Buddhism as a religion. This is because of propaganda by Western groups that have special interest in destroying Buddhism. Indian intelligence agency, RAW is forced by US and British government to classify Buddhism as a religion. It is easy to eradicate a religion than a philosophy. If you fail to convince the world to take Buddhism as a religion, you fail to eradicate Buddhism the same way you are eradicating Islam. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There are two main types of Buddhism: religious Buddhism and academic Buddhism. Religious Buddhism wraps around academic Buddhism. Buddhism started as an education system. Today, many are worshipping the Buddhas, so it is considered as religion. Davtra (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should reflect both considerations under WP:NPOV as both views have been cited. Sorry forgot to sign Kungfukats2 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. When some Buddhists say Buddhism is a philosophy, what they actually mean is that their version of Buddhism is a philosophy, which may be true for some versions. Usually such people have little knowledge of the great variety of Buddhism, so can't really have an opinion about it. I don't know of anyone who's actually studied all the main forms of Buddhism (Theravada, Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren, Tibetan, Shingon) who claims it's a philosophy. Do you? Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Batchelor claims it is and he's a famous buddhist monk who practiced Zen and Tibetan and his wife practiced Zen as a nun, he wrote buddhism without belief which, as you know is a very famous book. Kungfukats2 (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So here's an example of the sort of question I'm asking. Has SB actually studied all the main forms of Buddhism I mentioned above & concluded that, collectively, they constitute a philosophy? Or is he simply saying that "Buddhism without beliefs" is a philosophy? I haven't read the book, but my vague recollection of a review is that he ignores most of Buddhism & simply gives his interpretation of some bits of the Pali Canon. So it seems unlikely he's talking here about Buddhism as a whole. Peter jackson (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So you agree buddhism can be a philosophy or a religion? Because buddhism is used by some people as a philosophy, i.e. Stephen Batchelor and buddhism is used by people as a religion. Why do they have to study all forms or buddhism? An alanlogy would be Canada is a french and english speaking country some people speak french, some speak english, some speak both. You are also over simplifying what he does, he takes out those things that are considered non-falsifiable, but thats really irrelevant, I suggest we place in a line in with regards to the fact that buddhism is used as a religion, or as a philosophy. As stated above in the EB and CE and shown by the teachings of SB, Sri Satya Narayan Goenka and a work by Gustavo Estrada, the pragmatic buddhism contains more info about it. Just because you do not think buddhism is a philosophy does not mean that it should not be refered to in the article WP:NPOV, though assuming good faith I'll assume you were unaware of this and aren't trying to be biased. :)Kungfukats2 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to study all forms of Buddhism if you want to say what Buddhism "is". That's why. Otherwise, you are giving a limited perspective of what part of Buddhism is. I think it's clear that there is such a think as Buddhist philosophy; and, therefore, philosophy is part of Buddhism. I'm not sure what changes you are suggesting be made to the article, though.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

<No you don't, I cannot agree with that, if it exists as a philosophy, a lifestyle and a religion then it is all those things, and there are sources that support this. The change should be "Buddhism can be used as a philosophy or a religion", rather than the weasel words "considered by most", which as I'm unable to look at them I'm assuming the references consist of a survey to back this statement up, rather than actually saying it is a religion. However we know that it is considered a religion and philosophy, and have sources to back this up. The line at the moment should read some scholars for example X(whoever is been quoted)believe buddhism to be a religion however some scholars, for example SB consider buddhism a philosophy. The other issue with the current phrase is that it fails to show the other parts of what people consider buddhism to be. It needs reworking to be definite. See the following from Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

   * Who says that?    * When did they say it? Now?    * How many people think that?    * How many is some?    * How many is most?    * What kind of people think that? Where are they?    * What kind of bias might they have?    * Why is this of any significance?

Kungfukats2 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be careful about meanings of words. A word can have more than 1 meaning. When 1 source says x is y & another source says x is z, they're not necessarily disagreeing with each other. They may be talking about different senses of x. That's what seems to be happening here.

A bit more detail. When a Buddhist talks about "Buddhism", they often/usually mean whatever that particular Buddhist thinks is "true" Buddhism. When scholars talk about "Buddhism", they mean the totality of what all different Buddhists think is "true" Buddhism. WP neutrality policy forbids it to take sides in disputes between Buddhists about what "true" Buddhism is. Instead, the policy is to cover all significant bodies of opinion among Buddhists about what "true" Buddhism is. To avoid confusion, the article would have to stick to 1 particular meaning of the word "Buddhism".

If the article were to use "Buddhism" in the sense of "true" Buddhism, then a lot of things would have to be rephrased. You couldn't say, for example, there are 2 or 3 main forms of Buddhism. You'd have to say instead there are 2 or 3 main different views about what Buddhism is. And so on.

It seems more sensible to use the term "Buddhism" in the scholarly sense, which is also probably the way most ordinary people use the term: as referring to the totality of all the different ideas different Buddhists have about what "true" Buddhism is.

So it seems to me that the appropriate way of stating the facts you refer to would be to say that some forms of Buddhism are philosophies, or claim to be. I'm not sure whether all such claims would be recognized by philosophers.

What you say about weasel words has some validity. The actual words of the sources here are given in a section near the bottom of this page. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Samadhi &c

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. In Theravada, there are 2 types of meditation: samatha, which emphasizes samadhi, & vipassana, which emphasizes panna. Bhavana is not a subject of meditiation. It in fact is the nearest thing to a word for meditation. Peter jackson (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If only there were some way for you to change the text - to edit, so to speak. Mitsube (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved. Partly this is to ensure I don't get dragged into wasting lots of time here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] family of beliefs?

What are sources which say Buddhism is "family of beliefs"? --windyhead (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources are in the footnote. You can see the excerpt from Robinson et. al.'s 'Buddhist Religions' where they employ those exact words here. It's from a recent university-level intro text on Buddhism, written collaboratively by an academic and a monk. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see "belief" mentioned on the link you gave. What are sources from footnote you are talking about? Are there confirming quotes available from them? --windyhead (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it says family of religions. I was reading too quickly. These were the sources listed in the footnotes: Numen, vol 49, p 388; reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, vol III, p 403; Excluding it as a "religion" by definition: Numen, vol 49, p 389; reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, vol III, p 403. At least one authority regards Buddhism as a family of religions rather than a single religion: Robinson et al., Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004, page xxi. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well "family of religions" is quite different from "family of beliefs" --windyhead (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all: the lead doesn't claim that it is a "family of beliefs" it says, it "is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion." Which is quite different i think.

Secondly, if u look at the definition of religion on WP:

A religion is a of way of life based on tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. It is generally expressed through conducts such as prayers, rituals, or other practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

I think this can be pretty well summarzied/paraphrased with "beliefs and practices". While using "beliefs and practices" instead of plain "religion" has the benefit of being more open to other interpretations.

And now, most importantly: this lead sentence is a compromise that evolved out of extremely long discussions and tries to find a compromise between those who want to say, it's a religion, and those who want to say, it's more than/different from that, e.g. way of life or philosophy and don't feel it's a religion because e.g. there is no belief in an all-powerfull god. All of the former participants to these quite lenghthy and not always easy discussions seem quite happy with this compromise now.

I suggest, if u really deeply feel we should change it, please go ahead, present ur alternative here and discuss, but please also read the preceding discussions on the subject here AND in the Archives. It would save us a lot of redundant discussions. If i may quote myself from above: "regarding your criticism about the introductory sentence. This has been subject to countless discussions already. The fact that it has been so quiet around this issue for such a long time now (several months) for me is evidence enough that it is at least very near to a consensus and should rather not be fiddled with. (one interesting observation is though, that there seems to be a so far inexplicable, clandestine, rather irregular oscillation of the 11th word of the article between the two poles "many" and "most", so far, luckily, without triggering a full fledged debate at every transition ;))" Andi Andi 3ö (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Windyhead, sorry, didn,t realize you were involved in previous discussions, at least u were the one who started the last thread on the subject. So now i know your intentions: you want "philosophy" back in, right? Well, as u can see form my statement in that thread, i am quite sympathetic to "somehow reflect[ing] that in the article, and possibly even in the lead." I just think it will be extremely difficult and time-consuming to find a new copmpromise. There are sooo many other things to improve in the article that i feel spending my time on would be much more fruitful... with Metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahayana Sutras

Hi Mitsube! as you reverted my edits, i will try to make my case here. The reasons for my edits were

• shortening by removing redundancy: e.g. in the first two sentences it is mentioned twice that Mahayanists hold that Mahayana Sutras are authentic.
• changing or removing unnecessarily devisive, polemical wording:
  • Instead of "For the Theravadins, however, the Mahayana sutras are works of poetic fiction, not the words of the Buddha." i used the wording of the lead of the main article: "... later compositions, not taught by the Buddha." and condensed it into one sentence with a first mentioning of scholarly opinion: "Theravadins and many scholars^[1] see them as later compositions, not taught by the Buddha." I preserved the reference to A.K. Warder by putting it here, rather than deleting it together with the sentence it originally stood in:
  • "For Theravadins and many scholars, including A.K. Warder,[158] however, the self-proclaimed "greatness" of the Mahayana Sutras does not make them a true account of the life and teachings of Gautama Buddha." This sentence definitely had to go. Purely polemical.
  • i also removed this sentence: "The Theravadins and adherents of other Early Buddhist schools are confident that the Pali Canon represents the full and final statement by Gautama Buddha of his Dhamma—and nothing more is truly needed beyond that. Anything outside of the Pali Canon and its commentaries that claims to be the word of the Buddha is treated with extreme caution if not outright rejection." First of all, again, redundancy. It had already been said, that Theravadins regard Mahayana Sutras as "works of poetical fiction". I admit though, that there is some additional information here, namely, that the pali canon for Theravadins is the one and only authoritative source of buddhas teachings. But then, why does this statement stand here? This section is supposed to be about Mahayana Sutras and not about what Theravadins think about Mahayana Sutras, much less what they think about the Pali Canon. Why not put it under "Pali Canon" if u think it's important, or in the general section? And now a little polemic from my side: Do you see any lengthy discussion about what Mahayanists think about the Pali Canon in that section? I don't, and i don't think it would belong there. Maybe one sentence, ok, but not more! Btw., It doesn't say wat the pope thinks about the Pali Canon either ;)

Concluding, i think much more than this lengthy discussion, the section deserves a little information about Mahayana Sutras themselves: classification, content, maybe naming a few important ones...

I suggest that the topic that seems so important to you (stating, how little regard Theravadins have for Mahayana Sutras), and which i btw didn't take out altogether, but just rephrased in a more neutral way, goes in the general part of the section: "Buddhist Texts". That's the place to give an overview and provide the reader with some basic orientation on what's important for what school.(which it already does a little, ..but sure could be improved)

regarding "couldn't understand" vs. "weren't ready": i don't care much. just thought the latter conveyed additional meaning, namely that later (some) people were ready/could understand. And btw., just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's the best wording. U always have to summarize and reword in order to make the text more readable. This IMO still is a big problem with some parts of the whole "Buddhism" article. It sometimes reads as if someone just put together different statements from different books or listed some facts and didn't really care if a proper introduction was given, if all the important (to the reader) points were mentioned, if there is a logical flow within the sections, if sentences are connected properly, wording is consistent etc.. ..there' still a lot to improve imho. I tried to start today after a longer pause and promptly got reverted :(

...but, that's the way it is :) I'm sure we'll find a soultion to our little dispute :) Andi 3ö (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andi, thanks for your positive attitude. The issue for me is that certain Mahayana sutras directly insult people like Shariputra, Ananda etc. See for example the Lotus Sutra. Even the Heart Sutra starts with a subtle denigration of Shariputra. These sutras also insult the actual Buddha by denigrating his teachings as being for people with inferior intellect, etc. Mahayana monks labeled non-Mahayana teachings as "inferior" (Hina). Mahayana sutras declare themselves to be the greatest teachings, and are in many cases in opposition to the teachings in the Pali Canon. How do you think these facts should be treated in the article? Mitsube (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that some of āgamas/Pāli suttas also take a negative attitude toward Ananda, for instance, by implying that he might be responsible for the death of the Buddha because he neglected to request that he live longer.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view the point of that passage is to somehow shift blame regarding the Buddha's failure to help people forever by living forever onto someone, and Ananda was the logical choice. It isn't as harsh as the Mahayana attacks in my view. Mitsube (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Andi; the current 'Mahayana' section is far too defensive of the non-Mahayana position. I made a couple of edits to try and tone it down while clarifying the current status. My bit on the status of the Theravada needs a source, but I think it should pass the smell test- seems like something I read in Williams, maybe. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transmission of the sutras

Regarding the statement, "According to Mahayana tradition, the Mahayana sutras were transmitted in secret, came from other Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, or were preserved in non-human worlds because human beings at the time couldn't understand them". I've often wondered if this view is universal in Mahayana, or how widespread it is. There's no particular reason that Mahayana in general would necessarily have needed some kind of special explanation of the transmission of sutras, although there were clearly times and places where the need for such a myth was felt.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think that the claim of secret/extra-planar transmission primarily applies to the Prajnaparamita literature, which was supposed to have been given to Nagarjuna by the Nagas, as well as various later Tibetan texts. It might also be worth noting that the Theravada have also fallen back on the same mechanism to explain some of their texts- not sure where it is, but I believe there is a description of the Buddha teaching the complete Abhidharma to the deva realm, and the Abhidharma as we know it being the product of transcription by someone (Sariputra?) who was listening in by supernatural means. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the commentarial account, the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the gods, & then repeated it to Sariputta. Note that the Canon itself says the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma (Book of the Discipline, vol VI, p 123).

Theravada regards the whole of the Pali Canon as "The Word of the Buddha", including teachings by disciples, & accounts of events after the Buddha's death. Plainly the term was never understood literally. Thus there's no problem with modern Theravadins accepting scholarly criticism of fundamentalism. What counts is what is a proper expression of the teaching, & that's what is in dispute between Theravada & Mahayana.

No scholar accepts any of the Mahayana sutras as the actual teachings of the Buddha. Furthermore, most scholars consider most of the Pali suttas as also post-Buddha. Peter jackson (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction. I should have said most scholars don't regard most of the Pali suttas as going back to the Buddha. That is, they

1. either regard them as post-Buddha
2. or are agnostic on the question.

Peter jackson (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many who say that the idea that the suttas and vinaya goes back to the Buddha in large part is a good working hypothesis. Mitsube (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Now we get into complex questions like how large is large, how many is many. Gombrich says that most of the suttas go back in content (not form) to the Buddha, but that very few scholars agree with this. Even he holds that most of the Vinaya, ie the narrative portions as distinct from the actual rules, is later. Anyone interested & with time to spare can go through User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism (& of course add material). Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Skilton in A Concise History of Buddhism (pg. 101) writes, "Several factors may be adduced in explanation of the appearance of these 'new' sūtras. Firstly, there is the possibility that the Mahāyāna sūtras may well record genuine teachings of the historical Buddha which were not collected into the Tripiṭaka, and which only began to become prominent several centuries after the death of the Buddha." I don't know how well-respected Skilton is, but I don't think of him as a Mahāyāna propagandist. He continues by mentioning a few more possibilities which do not have anything to do with the historical Buddha.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Mahayana Sutras is he referencing as possibly containing genuine teachings of the Buddha? Mitsube (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He does not elaborate on this point. I assume he doesn't think that all Mahāyāna sūtras are possible genuine teachings, but he doesn't list any specific ones.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that his is an extreme minority view. Mitsube (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of searching on books.google turns up this passage from Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism (pp. 29-30): "Most Mahāyānists consider that the Mahāyāna sūtras were preached by Śākyamuni Buddha, the 'historical' Buddha, and the sūtras themselves almost invariably start with Ānanda's phrase 'Thus have I heard at one time', plus the geographical location of the discourse. However, source-critical and historical awareness has made it impossible for the modern scholar to accept this traditional account. Nevertheless, it is not always absurd to suggest that a Mahāyāna sūtra or teaching may contain elements of a tradition which goes back to the Buddha himself, which was played down or just possibly excluded from the canonical formulations of the early schools. We have seen that even at the First Council there is evidence of disagreement as regards the details of the Buddha's teaching. Luis Gomez (1976) has detected in one of the earliest sections of the Pāli canon, the Sutta Nipata, teachings close enough to those found in the Mahāyāna Madhyamaka philosophy to justify the name 'Proto-Madhyamaka'. Madhyamaka represents the philosophical systematization and development of the Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom) sūtras, and it is not absurd to see in the Prajñāpāramitā a protest against the innovations of the Abhidharma scholars, and perhaps a return to an earlier understanding of the Dharma and the world".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To get back to Clay's original post: I have to disagree with him. I don't see how any Mahayana tradition can get around the need for a supernatural explanation. The sutras had to have been hidden somewhere for all those centuries, or they have to have been dictated all those centuries later by beings who had been there. In terms of "mahayana traditioin," what's the alternative? OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pali Canon mentions that at the first council, some monks preferred to remember the Dharma as they saw fit rather than going through the process of reconciling their teachings with those of the other monks. Leaves the door open for alternative recension or additional teachings that wouldn't have been included in the Pali Canon or other versions of the pre-Mahayana scriptures. As a speculative explanation for how those teachings would be preserved and then emerge later, it's possible that some of those texts were recorded orally by variant or regionally-bound traditions. They could then be written down when it was felt that the oral preservation was threatened (as was the case with the Pali tipitaka), or when these variant traditions came back in contact with the main stream, possibly when monks from such a tradition were sent to study at one of the large monastic institutions that emerged after the Buddha's death. There isn't evidence for such a transmission, but then again, there's no evidence that the Buddha was really a prince or that the first council was a historic event. So believing that some of the Mahayana scriptures might have been transmitted outside of some supernatural agency requires believing some unproven and likely unprovable things, but isn't outside the realm of rationality. Not sure what it says within the tradition; I know that some Tibetan teachings (terma, I believe) are believed to have been written much earlier and then hidden in various spots, where they are discovered later; this type of transmission is still believed to be ongoing in the Tibetan tradition. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be unskillful to say that you were right and I was wrong. Rather think of my post as a Koan: Why did Bodhidharma come to the East?

From the article on "Bodhidharma in, um, Wikipedia:

According to the Song of Enlightenment (證道歌 Zhèngdào gē) by Yǒngjiā Xuánjué (665-713)^[2]—one of the chief disciples of Huìnéng, sixth Patriarch of Chán—Bodhidharma was the 28th Patriarch of Buddhism in a line of descent from Śākyamuni Buddha via his disciple Mahākāśyapa, and the first Patriarch of Chán:

Mahakashyapa was the first, leading the line of transmission;
Twenty-eight Fathers followed him in the West;
The Lamp was then brought over the sea to this country;
And Bodhidharma became the First Father here
His mantle, as we all know, passed over six Fathers,
And by them many minds came to see the Light.^[3]

The idea of a line of descent from Śākyamuni Buddha is the basis for the distinctive lineage tradition of the Chán school.

I had always thought of the Ch'an story of its own lineage as being about one teacher passing on the experience of instant enlightenment to his disciple, But Ch;an also accepts all the Mahayana sutras, so if its lineage is the lineage of the "Patriarchs of Buddhism," then it may very well be (according this story) that the sutras were also what Bodhidharma carried to the east. I’m not sure how to check that out.

Well, this has been a very cool exchange. As for the Tibetan tradition, the Termas actually involve a "special explanation:" they aren't found by accident. The Rinpoches who find them know where they are, usually, I think, because they are the authors reborn. I think it would be self-contradictory for a genuine terma to be found by accident by an ordinary person. (Most explanations are "special explanations" in Tantrayana!) OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I found something that expressly says that the Sutras were already in China when Bodhidharma came to town:

Hui-neng is counted as the Sixth Patriarch from the First Patriarch, Bodhidharma, who was the Twenty-eighth Indian Patriarch. "Bodhi" means Enlightenment and "Dharma" means law. When Bodhidharma set sail from India, fulfilling the prediction of Shakyamuni Buddha that Mahayana teaching would be transmitted to China during the time of the Twenty-eighth Patriarch, the Buddhadharma already existed in China, yet it was if it was not there at all. Although there were men who studied, there were few who lectured or recited the sutras and repentance ceremonies were seldom practiced. Cultivation was superficial. Scholars debated and argued, but none of them truly understood.

Source

This is from a guy named lthe Wanderlingwho seems to be a bit of a character, and I can't vouch for it. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Zen lineages are largely fictitious. Recent research implies Bodhidharma lived about a century earlier than traditionally, so there aren't enough names to link him to Huineng. The Indian lineage is even more fictitious. I think it first appears in the 11th century.

It's generally accepted that some elements of Mahayana are early (Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, 2008, pages 1f). This is quite different from saying sutras go back to the Buddha. Peter jackson (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are largely fictitious! It's all largely ficitious! I thought we were talking about traditions here, not history. Well, the history of traditions. There is no more reasom to believe in a traditional explanation that involves a lineage of patriarchs than there is to believe in one that involve a few centuries underwater with the Nagas. Did any researcher ever start with the hypothesis that the first patriarch of the Ch'an lineage was the venerable Mahākāśyap, one of the Buddhas disciples? That's no more credible than white elephants and radiant devas appearing in the far watch of the night. It is all a matter of tradition and faith.

The question of whether or not the sutras connect back to something earlier is just an interesting academic debate, as far as I am concerned. I'm fine with nagas and tushita heaven and so on. I think Clay's question is whether or not there is any tradition that relies on a non-supernatural explanation, the way the lineage of the Ch'an patriarchs does. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the reference I gave above. Page number should be xv. (Also, the book has been on sale in the shops for months, but it gives its date of publication as 2009, so that's what's likely to appear in most bibliographies.)

Does Zen tradition claim the Mahayana sutras were handed down through the patriarchs? Seems no particular reason why it shouldn't. Peter jackson (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My dubious reference above specifically mentions that the sutras were already in China when Bodhidharma arrived. But the point is that Zen/Ch'an is the school of instant enlightenment and the idea is that enlightenment can be achieved without the sutras. So what is being passed down is that achievement. Here is a reference that more or less refers to that, anyway. Transmitting the sutras is not their business. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that's their priority, but, contrary to neo-Zen mythology, they've rarely been anti-scriptural. If you examine the fictitious Zen lineage you'll find Nagarjuna there. Tibetan tradition says he received the Mahayana sutras from the nagas, so it's not unimaginable that Zen tradition says he had them handed down by the preceding patriarch.

As regards what was said above about the 1st Council. The scriptural account tells of a monk called Purana who wasn't at the Council. When he was informed, he said that the dhamma & vinaya had been well recited by the elders, but he would remember the teachings as he'd heard them from the Buddha face to face. It's interesting to compare this with the modern Sinhalese & Thai attitude of paying lip service to the 6th Council but in fact using their own editions of the Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book series of Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism

Could anyone please add the book info to the article

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1232678718/ref=sr_st?keywords=Routledge+Critical+Studies+in+Buddhism&rs=1000&page=1&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ARoutledge+Critical+Studies+in+Buddhism&sort=daterank

--202.173.190.40 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so whats this thing with Buddhism?_Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.92.90 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {editsemiprotected} someone wrote "lies lies lies" at the head of this article - please delete it

someone wrote "lies lies lies" at the head of this article - please delete it

mkghost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkghost (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra

I was the one who put in the statement that this tantra is recognized only by the Nyingmas. I assumed this was correct on the basis of a comment on its talk page added by User:Sylvain1972. If this is in question, the matter is a simple one in principle: is it included in the Kanjur? Peter jackson (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The review cited in the KGT article seems to imply it's a Nyingma tantra. I'll have a look in the Kanjur catalogues when I have a chance. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've checked this. Victor is correct. Here are the catalogue numbers for KGT:

• Peking edition 451
• Derge ed 828
• Cone 456
• Lhasa 792

It's also in the Narthang ed, which doesn't have numbers.

So it's in the Kanjur, & therefore accepted by Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. As I'm responsible for the mistake I'll make an exception to my rule & correct it myself. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ganachakras and modern times

At 17:58, on 21 February 2009 User:Mitsube removed mention of Ganachakra (reverted) and wrote in the change comment the following:

Rv to self, ganachakras don't happen anymore according to the article

Here you can find an explanation on the issue http://www.drikung.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174&Itemid=90 (in German). Here is the Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drikung.de%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D174%26Itemid%3D90&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

--Klimov (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Input needed

Murder#Murder in religion needs input on non-Abrahamic belief systems. One or two paras would be a big help. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] View (Busshism)

Can those familiar with this type of subject take a look at this new article: View (Buddhism). Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This article is arranged like crap and very incoherent

The two major (and very different) branches of Buddhism, Mahayana and Theravada, are just given cursory explanation under the subsection 'Buddha.' That's like giving Catholicism and Protestantism cursory coverage under the subsection 'Jesus Christ' in the Christianity article. Ridiculous. Secondly, there is way too much emphasis on the Indian origin of Buddhism (a lot of it speculative), and not enough emphasis of Buddhism as it is practiced today (mostly not in India). Thirdly, the use of Pali/Sanskrit is arbitrary, unnecessary and everywhere; can we cut these terminologies down where English variants exist? It clearly appears there is a revisionist agenda by some of the writers here to blur the vast distinctions of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism with its Indian origins wherever they can, as if to say that every East Asian aspect of Buddhism is completely and fully Indian. It's essentially like reading an article that argues Christianity is Jewish, and I'm going to use a lot of Hebrew/Armenian words to prove it. Sure, to some extent it is, but to a greater extent it isn't. --Naus (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your points. The Sanskrit in particular is somewhat silly. However if you want to change the situation you are going to have to do it yourself. Mitsube (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has organization and focus issues. The use of Sanskrit is intentional not in the pursuit of someone's agenda, but because Sanskrit is standard to use for pan-Buddhist terms in Western scholarship. Since the article is intended to provide an introduction to readers, they should be given the Sanskrit equivalents for significant terms that cross regional boundaries so that they can be recognized in different contexts. There's also the issue that when more than one version of a term is used, everyone wants to add the term from a specific local tradition. The history section has been too long for a while; there was an earlier attempt at reducing it, but that should be done again if someone has a chance. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Naus, you should have seen the article before I started working on it a couple of years ago. It was essentially entirely about what was effectively a sort of abstract Western Buddhism. Nothing about what Buddhism is really like in the East. Not a single word about Pure Land, followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists. It's come a long way since then, but as you say it still falls far short of ideal. The decision was taken to try to cover all forms of Buddhism in parallel, comparing their views on each topic. This is really difficult, in terms of finding sources, because of differences in emphasis. If a form of Buddhism treats a topic as unimportant, it may be very hard to find its views. Most scholarly accounts of Buddhism are arranged more or less historically instead. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick points:

1)You must have overlooked that Theravada and Mahayana are covered explicitely in the section on Schools and traditions as well as the History section and that differences are pointed out throughout the whole article.

2)The two subheadings of "Buddhas" you refer to should imho be removed anyway. They are somewhat inconsistent with the structure of the rest of the "concepts" section. Those sections deserve a serious reorganisation imho as significant parts are redundant with regard to the Nirvana section. Also the statements about Pure Land there feel slightly misplaced/stick out under Buddhas/Mahayana, maybe deserve an own heading or somehow be better integrated with the rest...will look into it hopefully in the next couple a days...

Andi 3ö (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to look at the treatment of Pure Land, you might like to consider WP:UNDUE in reverse. The article currently says it's "widespread", which is a bit vague. Nearly all the details of this that I put in the article have been deleted (you can find them on my user page). Peter jackson (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter! First of all, i'm not sure if i understand your statement regarding WP:UNDUE. I assume, you mean Pure Land is not getting the coverage it deserves? If so, i tend to agree. And I will look at your material, thanks :) What do u think of the following:

1) include a general section about Pure Land under the Mahayana section in Schools and traditions

2) Amitabha stays under Buddhas along with mentioning some other Buddhas like Maitreya and possibly the other four Dhyani Buddhas, while of course emphasizing his special role in Pure Land

3) Pure Land view of impossibility of self-achieving and better relying on Amitabha for enlightenment goes under Nirvana

4) Pure LandS (Sukhavati, Tushita...) get at least a sentence or maybe a short section somewhere under Liberation

Andi 3ö (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestions, but I think removing PL from the main teachings/practices sections would discriminate against it even more. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... the main reasoning behind my suggestions is to treat Pure Land similarly to the other traditions. As neither Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Shingon or any other tradition has a subsection under "concepts" i would find it a bit strange giving Pure Land its own section there and would rather give a general description (geography, number of followers, maybe prominent figures etc...) under "schools and traditions". Also of course the concepts important to Pure Land should be given appropriate coverage in the "concepts" section and the practices in the "pratices" section. That's why i suggetsed to cover Amitabha there, also Pure Land's approach to enlightenment and maybe Pure LandS themselves. If u have any other suggestions, e.g. maybe strengthening/expanding the references to tathagathagarbha, please go ahead! Andi 3ö (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Life of the Buddha

Esteban has asked for a citation on one point. People might like to

1. read Majjhima sutta 123 & consider whether the statement that this event is recorded in the Tipitaka is correct
2. consider whether all the other statements in this section are similarly correct
3. wonder why citations from the Pali Canon use Sanskrit spellings
4. consider whether basing this section on Theravada texts is NPOV

Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism as religion (yet again)

I see someone has once again altered the text to disagree with the source cited. Here are some "reliable sources" on the question.

"Most people consider Buddhism to be a religion ...": Numen, vol 49, page 388; reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, Volume III, page 403

"... Buddhists ... usually consider themselves to be followers of a religion ...": Chryssides & Greaves, Study of Religion, Continuum Press, 2007, page 13

Sociologists count it as a religion[8] Elsewhere on the same website it gives lists of religions "described most often in surveys of the subject, and studied in World Religion classes", "the religions most likely to be covered in world religion books"[9] & "most described used [sic] in contemporary comparative religion literature"[10]. Buddhism is in these lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter jackson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 April 2009

I agree that we need to keep an eye on this, but "widely considered" strikes me as both a fair-handed paraphrase of the sources and better English usage (takes care of the passive voice), so I'm not inclined to revert it. Using most might work better (to my ear) if it answered the question "Most what?" but that would probably entail adding a sentence to the lede, and I shudder to think where that would lead! /Ninly (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "widely" means a substantial proportion, but not necessarily a majority. "most" definitely means a majority, & strongly suggests a substantial one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the change. The view that Buddhism ought to be called something other than a religion keeps rising to a prominence in this article that is really not reflected in its use by average people or specialists. 'Widely' to me sounds like 'a lot of people think so, but not universal'- like 'widely popular' can describe something with a broad, if not deep, appeal. Most academics consider Buddhism alongside other religions. Laymen who understand nothing else of Buddhism lump it in the same category as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.- religions. Here we have intro pieces from a variety of dictionaries and encyclopedias. One is an encyclopedia of religion. Only two of the others that I saw didn't say in the first sentence Buddhism was a religion; one said 'religion and philosophy', and Damien Keown's entry, being in a more specialized encyclopedia, is about the term 'Buddhism' itself. Everything I've seen implies that in the English language, to the majority of people what Buddhism is is a religion. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clay Spacemunki. Greetings, Sacca 14:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Conversion' & The practice

This issue is one that must be made clear. The Buddhas teachings cannot be judged alongisde faith based religions such as Judeo-christianity. As such the notion of 'conversion' is profoundly misleading. Hence I have added a note to explain the view hald by many who practice. If you practice the Buddhas teachings you practice, if you don't you don't. That is all. Hence there can really be no notion of 'conversion' is the sense as is understood when analysing western religion. However, many would consider aquiring confidence in the triple gem as a kind of 'conversion' but again if one were to not practice, this would be irrleveant. Hence I have added a note to explain the difficulty in applying a term like conversion to what is principally a system of ethical and mental training.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really rather simplistic. There's no one fixed "Western" concept of conversion. Nor is there one fixed Buddhist concept of such things. The Buddhism you describe would seem very strange to un-Westernized Buddhists. Faith has traditionally been regarded as the starting point for practice. In Pure Land Buddhism, followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists, faith is even more important. In the Jodo Shinshu subschool, with about 10,000,000 followers, faith is everything. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the original comments in this section represent a misunderstanding of Buddhism. Many Buddhist scholars throughout the existence of Buddhism have stated that the truth of the Buddha's advent into this world lies in his behavior as a human being. Buddha spent most his life in an effort to relieve the suffering of others by clarifying the truth of life from the Buddhist perspective. As he did so he "converted" thousands of people to this belief system. To be a Buddhist is not to merely revere the Buddha and his teachings but to follow his lead in helping to relieve the sufferings of others by sharing the message of Buddhism. To merely seek after one’s own enlightenment without concern or regard for others is in fact impossible from the Buddhism perspective which teaches the interdependence of all phenomena. There is no such thing as a selfish Buddha or bodhisattva. In terms of Buddhism, being a Buddhist or a Bodhisattva in the truest sense does not mean merely a method of classification of one's system of beliefs but rather a commitment to behave as the Buddha did. Many sutras clearly state that without such commitment and effort, one is not practicing the way. --96.251.15.130 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Mitsube (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a Mahayana view to me, as the 1st sounds like a Western(ized) one. Peter jackson (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To talk of 'un-westrnized buddhists' or 'western buddhists' is to mistake labels for the practice. The word 'Buddhist' is not one the Buddha used. It is a western invention. In Judeo Christinaity, faith is the end in itself. Faith is never an end in itself in the Buddhas teaching. It is closer to 'confidence', and should eventually be surpassed by 'direct knowledge'. I have put a link to show what the Buddha analysed as the eightfold path - how he framed the entirety of the teaching. It is ethical action- leading to right extertion- the devlopment of skillful mental qualities and the abdoning of unskillfull ones, leading to developing liberating insight.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the Buddha didn't talk about "Buddhism", because he didn't speak English. So what?

You mustn't confuse the following:

1. what the Buddha actually taught
2. what various groups of Buddhist think he taught
3. what various historians think he taught
4. what various WP editors think he taught

1. this, in so far as it might differ from any of the others, is by definition unknown (ignoring psychic powers)
2. this is what this article is supposed to be about
3. this might properly be treated at Buddha
4. this should be ignored here as far as possible

Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question from the intro, and relocated another. The reference that was provided for it (Magga-vibhanga Sutta) is a summary of the Eightfold path, and doesn't address conversion issues at all. If you can find an acceptable WP:RS that says that conversion is not an operative concept in Buddhism to most people, then you're welcome to add it, but trying to reason from first principles about why conversion isn't important to Buddhists is original research. Finally, the intro to the article is really not the ideal place to discuss the criteria for measuring adherents; there's already a large section on that topic in the 'Buddhism Today' section, and the lead section needs to remain as un-cluttered a summary as it can. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The sutta I referenced [11] refers to the last part about what the Buddha saw as the heart of the teaching. It demonstrates the fact that he framed it as:

1. ethical action
2. cultivating skillful mental qualities and abondoning unskillful ones
3. developing concentrated mind (jhana) in order to realize insight.

As to the topic of conversion, I posted a prior link here [12] that explains the point I am making. It is from a well respected Thai scholar however I agree the link is not great and it would be nice to have a link to published material.

What your saying about 'what the buddha taught' as compared to 'what buddhists think' is actually supporting my point. The word 'buddhist' has many difeerent connotations to different people. The word 'Buddhist' is not one the buddha used and is not an english word either. It is a western invention that has no real equvalent in the Buddhas teachings or his language, and really has no definative meaning in the West either, which is what we are discussing. Pure Land is for example extremely far from Theravada teachings. similarly to try to call 'conversion' a part of the Buddhas teaching would not reflect his intentions in most traditions.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

... and Peter's actual point was that since we can't know what the Buddha actually taught, we have to limit ourselves to what Buddhists think. We have no way of knowing what 'his intentions' were. Furthermore, the article does not say that conversion is part of the theoretical original teaching of the Buddha; it says that conversion is part of the modern Buddhist tradition, which is easily supportable with sources. Divining what the Buddha's original teaching regarding conversion was without lapsing into original research is not really possible. Certainly it would be inappropriate, for instance, to call the Theravada tradition or its canon synonymous with the original teachings of the Buddha. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Conversion is not part of either what we can discern was the original teachings, nor part of most modern traditions. Taking the precepts is not 'conversion'. That is my point. It is merely a statement of your confidence in the triple gem. The practice is still the emphasis. If there was 'convesrion', don't you think there would be a historical word to refer to the supposedly 'converted'? There is however no such word. That is because the empahsis has always been on the practice.

There seems to be confusion in the article itself between 'Buddhism' as various traditions, 'Buddhism' as a western concept refering to these various traditions , and 'Buddhism' as a refernce to what the Buddha taught. Unless the current article is split into several different articles that deal with each one separately, each aspect must be discussed in relation to the word 'Buddhism' since that is what the article is presenting. Hence the word 'Buddhism' cannot be associated with 'conversion' for many who practice, particularly in Theravada, tho perhaps it could apply for some in for example the 'Pure Land' school. Both should be mentioned however in an article which attempts to cover all these aspects.

KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of 'convert' or 'conversion' in this article outside of the caption that says that King Milinda 'converted' to Buddhism- a standard part of the descriptions of the Milinda-panha that I've seen. The 'Buddhism Today' section says that there are different formal recognitions of membership in different traditions, and generally defines being Buddhist as having to do with the three refugees- again, a pretty standard description of who is considered a Buddhist. Where do you see an undue emphasis on the concept of conversion? --Clay Collier (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think most English-speakers understand "conversion" in terms of some particular version of Christian theology. It's simply a descriptive term for people changing from one group to another, something perfectly ordinary that happens all the time, in all possible directions (the 2001 census for Scotland shows Jews becoming Sikhs & vice versa). There's no need to make a big deal about it. Same for membership. Churches have various membership criteria, but figures for adherents of various religions are just that: those who identify themselves as adherents in censuses & opinion polls, regardless of their actual beliefs, practices & organizational links. No doubt there are people who don't like being categorized like that, but there isn't usually a box for that (just other & none).

As regards confusion, that's just what I was saying. We need to think about these distinctions. I'd welcome further discussion here.

KV's remarks seem to imply that the grouping together of various different traditions under the heading of Buddhism is a Western invention. That has been claimed, but I don't think it's the consensus view. Contrariwise, even if the idea originated in the West, it's certainly been adopted by many Buddhists in the East, of all traditions. Peter jackson (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I've got a bit more time to look at KV's comments, in which 3 different concepts are distinguished (last paragraph of 1306 posting).

The first of these, "'Buddhism' as various traditions", is what most readers will understand by the word. That is, they will be interested in the religion followed by 350,000,000 people. If you look at the top of this page, you'll see that this article is affiliated to the vital articles project. That's based on a list of 1000 articles any good Wikipedia (ie in any language) should have. the reason for that is again that it's the religion of 350,000,000 people. So that's what this article is supposed to be mainly about, which doesn't exclude brief treatment of the other 2.

The last is "'Buddhism' as a refernce to what the Buddha taught". This is currently dealt with in the article on him, which seems reasonable. The treatment is unsatisfactory. The only citation I've found for what most scholars think he taught has been deleted (as also from this article) & replaced by statements about what some scholars think. The original citation is currently on the other talk page. This section could be improved, & if it grows too much WP policy is to set up a separate article.

Now to the middle concept "'Buddhism' as a western concept refering to these various traditions". This might be called something like perspectives on Buddhism as a whole. This is a tricky topic. People might like to have a look at some such perspectives:

• a number can be found in Archive 19, section Source material
• another in Archive 17, section Third Paragraph
• another at User:Peter jackson#History
• another is in Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1998; he calls early Buddhism the "foundations", saying they're in the background rather as the ideas of Darwin & Freud are in the background of modern culture, even if people couldn't say much explictly about them

Note that all these perspectives are different & some are quite obscure. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration, it occurs to me that Buddhist Studies would be an appropriate place for this topic. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PSTS & the structure of this article

The above policy page (which see for explanations of the terms) says "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

The guideline WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources."

Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism, Harper/Penguin, 2001, page ix, says "The dramatic growth in scholarship on Buddhism over the past half century, both in the quantity and the quality of that scholarship, has made it virtually impossible for a single scholar to claim knowledge of the entire tradition across its vast geographical and chronological sweep."

So any statement about Buddhism as a whole is virtually certain to be tertiary. It would be in accordance with the above policy & guideline that the article should contain few such statements. Scholars tend to specialize in particular countries as it cuts down on the number of languages they need to know. So most statements would be about particular countries. This would be a lot easier if the article were arranged by country. This is also the usual scholarly practice to a greater or lesser extent. The common arrangement is something like this:

1. India
2. Theravada countries
3. East Asia
4. Tibetan cultural area
5. the West

Peter jackson (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter! Long time no see :)

I will make it short: i am totally against going through another structure debate. You know as well as i do how much time and careful deliberation went into developing/agreeing upon the overall structure less than a year ago. (everybody who doesn't, please see the archives)

Also, if i recall correctly - well actually i am 100% sure - wasn't it you who suggested this very structure following Harvey's book in the first place? The reasoning behind the consensus we reached back then will certainly not have fundamentally changed so quickly.

So maybe you should take a mindful breath or two, take a step back, look again closely and compassionately at the (overall) structure as it is right now, and then simply fall in love with her again - isn't she a real beauty after all :)

Counting on you to save us all a lot of time (that could definitely still be put to good use on many parts of this article), with metta, Andi 3ö (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a number of possible arrangements. This was the one that achieved consensus, though of course consensus can change. I agreed to it as a great improvement on the previous chaos. The above is a point not made in the previous discussion, so I thought I'd mention it now. I'm not going to press it (or anything else for that matter). Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Buddhism" in the abstract and Buddhism as it is practiced should be balanced. Arranging this article by country would be unbalanced. We should start with a section on early Buddhism and then arrange by sect. Broadly speaking, the early material is the common denominator. Mitsube (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your wording seems to imply that '"Buddhism" in the abstract' is synonymous with 'early Buddhism'. That's a violently anti-Mahayana bias. As I've said before in this column, 'common denominator' is not synonymous with 'important'. In the complete works of Chinul, there's only 1 mention of the 4 NT, for example. They were simply not important in East Asian Buddhism until Western scholars started telling them what Buddhism 'really' is. Evene Tibetan Buddhism regarded them as only a preliminary step.

However, your proposal isn't actually much different from what I outlined. Expanded a bit, the way scholars usually cover Buddhism is something like this:

1. India
   1. early Buddhism
   2. Indian Mahayana
   3. Indian Vajrayana
2. Theravada
3. East Asian Buddhism
4. Tibetan Buddhism
5. Buddhism in the modern world

Perhaps, putting words into your mouth, your scheme would be something like this:

1. early Buddhism
2. Theravada
3. East Asian Buddhism (possibly including Indian Mahayana?)
4. Tibetan Buddhism (possibly including Indian Vajrayana?)
5. Buddhism in the modern world?

Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that "Buddhism" in the abstract and early Buddhism are synonymous. But even if I had, that would not be violently anti-Mahayana. Madhyamaka and Yogacara are largely filling out the details of the early texts. A lot of the Mahayana doctrinal "innovations" are actually just skillful means reformulations of early ideas, as well. This excludes salvation through faith doctrines, though these could have grown out of the Maitreya myth which exists in one sutta as a late interpolation, or through devotion to monks, which already provides a lesser version of salvation through devotion in the earliest texts.

The idea behind my proposal was that later developments in the Mahayana (and Theravada Abhidhamma and commentaries) mainly developed within Buddhism, with little outside influence, as attempts to fully explain or intentionally replace early doctrines. So to understand the later developments it is a great help to understand the early material. That is why I think the article should start out with the early material.

Ideally, I would present it as follows:

1. Early Buddhism (basically as described in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas), include bare-bones traditional biography of the Buddha with provisos
2. Short introduction to early sects and the Abhidharma period/genre
3. Theravada
4. Indian Mahayana
5. East Asian Buddhism
6. Indian Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism
7. Buddhism in Modern Asia
8. Buddhism outside of Asia

We begin the presentations of 2-6 by starting with the relation to lower-numbered topics. For example, the relation of 2 to 1 is primarily a shift away from phenomenology to metaphysics (not as pronounced in number 3, Theravada) in the Abhidharma (not all sects did this). The relation of 4 to 2 undoes this and shifts the goal from arahant to bodhisattva, and adds skillful means presentations, and devotional material. 5 can be loosely characterized as modifying 4 to a Chinese cultural setting. 6 is 4 with tantras and guru-worship added. 8 is largely derived from 7. When discussing 1 use Sanskrit words if they have already entered English, otherwise use Pali if necessary. Keep non-English words to a bare minimum in this main article. Mitsube (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your 1st paragraph is either OR or POV. However, your actual proposal seems reasonable enough. It even fits in with a citation I came across the other day:

"... this Hīnayāna/Mahāyāna/Vajrayāna schema is probably the most common one used by scholars to divide Buddhism into more manageable segments ..." (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, volume 2, page 336)

However, I have to add that I haven't come across any historical survey of Buddhism that actually arranges things that way. The arrangement I summarized above is used in

• Bechert & Gombrich, World of Buddhism, Thames & Hudson, 1984
• Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions, 5th ed, Wadsworth, 2004 (& all previous eds as far as I know)
• Prebish & Keown, Introducing Buddhism, ebook, Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2005, printed ed, Harper, 2006

Some sources that are closer to your scheme:

• (New) Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, 1984/1997, chapter 8: some information about later Indian Buddhism is given under India, some under "Eastern" & "Northern" Buddhism
• Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 1st ed, 2002, 2nd ed, 2007:
  1. early
  2. Theravada
  3. later Indian
  4. Tibetan
  5. East Asian
  6. modern
• Olson, The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005:
  1. early & Theravada
  2. Indian Mahayana
  3. Pure Land
  4. Tibetan
  5. Zen

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction. I omitted modern section at end of Olson.

On further consideration, I don't think your scheme would quite work, because of Shingon. More generally, remember all 3 branches include elements of all 3 yanas (Robinson et al, pge xxi). Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The following citation seems to cancel out that above:

"... the now outdated model of "Hinayana, Mahayana, Esoteric," ..." ([13])

[edit] 4 NT: suffering

Mitsube, I really am a bit puzzled by your edit to the 4NT section. What are you trying to achieve? Your short version is in no way helping the reader understand the 1st NT. How would you summarize this statement from the Buddha? (taken from the main article on the 4NT): "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."^[4][5]

I'd say, the pre-edit version sums this up pretty well: "Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering (dukkha) in one way or another." And btw. it does not say "Life ultimately is suffering" like you claim in your edit summary. It says "Life AS WE KNOW IT..." meaning life in Samsara. Sure, I do not know how many Arhants and Buddhas may be among our readers, but then again, they certainly will not need our explanation ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's original research from primary sources, contrary to policy. No doubt that applies to a lot of what's in the article already, but do you want to add to it? Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No i do not want to add to it, not necessarily that is, but as you know my attitude towards this, it will be of no great surprise to you that 1) i do prefer content that serves the purpose of informing the reader accurately - even if not properly sourced - over having no content at all or even some properly sourced academic statement that is not understandable to the common reader. Also 2) i dispute your notion of original research: summarizing and rewording for better understandability alone does not constitute OR. 3)only controversial statements have to be properly sourced (preferably with secondary sources) and 4)there are countless reliable sources that support the statement in question. In fact i will argue that you can just add any random WP:RS about the first noble truth as source for that statement without even reading it. You will almost exclusively find formulations that can easily be summarized with the sentence in question.

Andi 3ö (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there. In the statement "Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another," I think the word ultimately (which might get confused with ultimate truth) should be replaced with actually (which resounds more with the doctrine of the three types of suffering: dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara-dukkha). Emptymountains (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is the main problem. Andy is right that it should be better explained than I had it. Mitsube (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ok :), so should we change "ultimately" to "actually" then? everybody ok with that? Andi 3ö (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're all engaging in original research. What you're supposed to be doing is finding out what reliable sources say & putting that in the article. There's already one interpretation cited from an RS, the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Perhaps you can find others. You're not supposed to be putting your own opinions into the article, even if you can agree among yourselves. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As i already said above, i don't think we are. We are simply trying to find the best words to express the meaning the first noble truth has for Buddhists according to our memory of what RSs say. We do not have to use the exact wording of those RSs, as long as the words we choose convey an interpretation that is supported by RSs. We do not have to name those RSs as long as the content is not contested, which is not the case here as far as i can see.

I know that you want to source every single sentence of the article. For me that endeavor is of much lower priority (see above). Also, what you call an interpretation (from the Macmillan Encyclopedia) looks like names/labels/headings to me, not an interpretation; it conveys very little meaning to the reader. On a last note: Even if it was OR what we were doing, and i for example had never read a single RS about the four noble truths but in turn had heard/read like 20 explanations of the 4NT from 20 different Buddhist teachers (which, on a side note, i do not totally disregard as reliable (secondary!) sources) of different traditions and all of them had given more or less the same interpretation. Don't you think it would be safe for me to assume that RSs would then say the same? I do. And if not, frankly, i think those sources simply wouldn't deserve to be called "reliable". Andi 3ö (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think most 3RS get the Four Noble Truths wrong (e.g., all existence is suffering, all desires cause suffering, Buddhists try to eliminate all desires). I came across this all or nothing interpretation again when trying to find sources to post here below. Emptymountains (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How about these two sources:

In Buddhist philosophy, the entire phenomenal world is referred to as cyclic (samsara). This term indicates not only the endless cycle of birth and death posited by the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth, but also the universally cyclic character of phenomena: Perception and action form a cycle; motivation and action form a cycle; the seasons are cyclic; chains of interdependence of phenomena are cyclic; interpersonal relations are cyclic; craving and acquisition are cyclic. It is this metaphor, suggesting that all of unenlightened existence amounts to going around in circles despite the illusion of progress, that most poignantly captures the sense in which all of human existence is suffering. (Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, p. 196, n. 63)

Dukkha, then, names the pain that to some degree colors all finite existence. The word's constructive implications come to light when we discover that it was used in Pali to refer to wheels whose axles were off-center, or bones that had slipped from their sockets... The exact meaning of the First Noble Truth is this: Life (in the condition that it has got itself into) is dislocated. Something has gone wrong. It is out of joint. Its pivot is not true, friction (interpersonal conflict) is excessive, movement (creativity) is blocked, and it hurts. (Huston Smith, The World's Religions, p. 101)

I particularly like the term "unenlightened existence" (in place of "Life as we know it...."). Emptymountains (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Emptymountains. Very good. Peter will be quite proud of you ;) IF he accepts those sources as "reliable", that is (i have no opinion on that, simply don't know/care). Anyway, this gives me the opportunity to illustrate what i mean above: these two sources alone give us the freedom to extract various formulations: explicitely they state for example: "[...]all of human existence is suffering", "Life [...] hurts". Still Emptymountains suggestion "Unenlighted existance [...is suffering]" or the current wording "Life as we know it..." are also perfectly possible. It is on us to decide which exact formulation we are going to choose and we should do that according to our aim (in this section) of introducing the reader to Buddhist concepts, here specifically the meaning of the 1st NT. Andi 3ö (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "Life as we know it" does not alter the meaning of these two sources. There is a middle way between original research and plagiarism; I think it's okay to put things "in our own words." Also, just to be clear, "human existence" means "human samsaric rebirth," not existence in general. Emptymountains (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Smith source would count as reliable. I don't know about the other. The criterion given in the policy is the publisher, who's not stated.

Policy states that statements in the article must be directly and explicitly supported by the sources cited. Analysis, synthesis & interpretation are OR.

Andi, when you talk about 20 Buddhist teachers, you forget that all of them are Western(ized). They're the teachers who happen to be fashionable in the West. See User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism & the link there for citations to show that this is quite different from traditional forms of Buddhism. One source even seems to imply it's more different than they are from each other.

Buddhist sources are not reliable sources for the beliefs of other Buddhists. You wouldn't trust the Pope or Billy Graham for an unbiased account of Christianity. Most religious groups are nothing like as monolithic as the Catholic Church, & have wide variations within them, so sources aren't even reliable for the views of their own denomination.

As regards challenges, there's already an interpretation in the article sourced from an RS. That is an automatic challenge to any other interpretation. And yes it is an interpretation. It's saying that the 1st NT is suffering, not some statement about suffering. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths for more detail. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism translates as Four Ennobling Truths/Realities to cover the 2 different interpretations.

Some of the suggestions above risk violating NPOV. To choose the RSs that say what you want is suspect. What WP is supposed to be doing is presenting what RSs as a whole say. That is, the theoretical model is something like this. You read all the specialist RSs & then try to find statements in them that express clearly & succinctly the overall view(s) they express. To try to summarize in your own words (your interpretation of) what you vaguely remember of 20 unreliable sources is rather different.

To return to the main point. Most of people's suggestions above seem to be quite clearly interpretations, OR. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Policy states that statements in the article must be directly and explicitly supported by the sources cited.

I'd argue, that is the case with the statement in question and the two sources Emptymountains provided.

Andi, when you talk about 20 Buddhist teachers, you forget that all of them are Western(ized).

No, not all of them. But i hear you on that one and i can tell you i am cautious about westernized teachings.

Buddhist sources are not reliable sources for the beliefs of other Buddhists. You wouldn't trust the Pope or Billy Graham for an unbiased account of Christianity. Most religious groups are nothing like as monolithic as the Catholic Church, & have wide variations within them, so sources aren't even reliable for the views of their own denomination.

agree fully on the first aspect, and to a very large extent on the second

As regards challenges, there's already an interpretation in the article sourced from an RS. That is an automatic challenge to any other interpretation. And yes it is an interpretation. It's saying that the 1st NT is suffering, not some statement about suffering. See User:Peter jackson#Four noble truths for more detail. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism translates as Four Ennobling Truths/Realities to cover the 2 different interpretations.

agreed, that could be interpreted as a challenge although i pesonally think both views are easily reconcilable. We had a discussion on that point a while ago, remember?: [here, in section 20, "Comments"]. My point was that it doesn't matter for the purposes of this introduction to the beliefs/concepts of Buddhists if the four noble truths really are "stamements" or "things"/a division of phenomena(they are the latter afaik). In any way they convey the same message of suffering and liberation. That's the important part here and that's what the reader should be presented with.

What WP is supposed to be doing is presenting what RSs as a whole say. That is, the theoretical model is something like this. You read all the specialist RSs & then try to find statements in them that express clearly & succinctly the overall view(s) they express.

do i understand you correctly? 1) read all the sources. 2)Somehow internally calculate/synthesize an average/"overall view" (of all of them or a set of sources presenting a somewhat similar view). 3) choose a statement from one of the sources that comes closest to that average u have calculated before and then use that specific wording for the article.

Step 1 and 2 seem reasonable to me. Step 3 not at all. I think it's perfectly valid and for the purposes of non-academic publications like wikipedia often imperative to express the "overall view" you found in step 2 in your own words, focusing on understandability for the target audience and readability/good flow of the article.

Andi 3ö (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer you back to the policy wording I quoted above: "directly and explicitly". Average? No. Rather, if nearly all the sources say the same thing, that's what you say. If there are significant differences then you give both/all views. Peter jackson (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let me see where you got the quote from:

• WP:RS says: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;"
• WP:NOR says: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
• further down under WP:NOR#Sources it says: "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research"

For me the important words here (that you seem to have overlooked) are support and information and position. Sources should support the information and/or position that is stated in an article. The policies quoted are nowhere near suggesting that every single statement of the article has to be directly taken from a RS, much less the individual wording of those statements.

To the contrary: A bit further down in WP:NOR while talking about avoiding "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" it says:

• "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Regarding the "average": with including step 2) in the process i wanted to make explicit a step that is implicit in the "theoretical model" you presented but could easily be overlooked: What i wanted to express when i said, that in step 2) you "somehow internally calculate/synthesize an average/"overall view" was that citing sources cannot spare you of the thinking. You will have to decide "what the sources say", and you will have to decide if they "all say the same thing" (which they in a very strict sense of course will never do) and if they don't, how many different positions there are and which of them are significant enough to be included. There is no total objectivity, not in the "universe" as a whole imho, and certainly not in human communications, be it in the form of the spoken word, be it in the form of printed material some people found printworthy and we now are supposed to rely upon; even in the process of relying upon (using/citing) those sources we will have to think for ourselves and (ok,i'll say the evil word) interpret them to a certain inevitable degree. Andi 3ö (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly correct, except that when you say "you" that doesn't mean me. I'm not directly involved in editing articles. I'm here merely as a consultant (whether or not people actually want to consult me). Whether they take any notice is up to them. On the question of challenge, I think it depends exactly what you say. If you say the 4 NTs are statements, then the citation that says they're things challenges that. If you simply give those statments as supplementary information, that doesn't apply. Peter jackson (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, i know...and personally i very much appreciate your contributions! You do the job i am honestly too lazy to do most of the time. Digging out all those RSs and putting the material up here (your talk page) for other people to use. Please always feel free to inform me if there is any especially pressing matter that deserves attention. Maybe i can help. (gonna attempt the Liberation section soon btw, hopefully that is: unfortunatley right now i carelessly got myself sucked into a rather time-consuming task, that is trying to resolve some WP:NPOV issues with NKT related articles...) Andi 3ö (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Empty Notes section

This section has a Reflist template that does not yield any entries. It is the {{reflist|group=note}} template. Since this section appears empty to readers, it ought to be deleted. It is done.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Land

I've now found a citation saying explicitly that it's the most popular form of Buddhism in East Asia: Shaw, Introduction to Buddhist Meditition, Routledge, 2009, page 208. People might like to consider whether it's given negatively undue weight in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Buddha's birth.

Actually the year of Buddha's birth should be 624 BCE. According to Buddhist calendar maintained in major Theravada countries, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka, which started at the year of Buddha Parinibanna, Buddha's death at the age of eighty, it's now ( AD 2009 ) 2552-3. So by simple calculation it should be 624 BCE and Parinibana in 544 BCE. Wikikyaw (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

However, modern scholars have argued that this chronology is too early. Chinese sources traditionally give the date of the parinirvana as 949 BCE, but I think it's better to stick with current critical scholarship.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Tibetan tradition has another date again (838?). Most specialist scholars now date his death around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)