This is an archive of past discussions about Buddhism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@BaiulyQz: you added again diff info to the intro of the worldview section, with a number of references at the end without pagenumbers. This info hardly suffices as an intro to this section, and the references can't be verified without pagenumbers. The statement believing that consciousness continues after death is contentious, and needs very good sourcing. Likewise or worse, {{tq|within one of the six realms of existence, or afterlife within intermediate [[Spirit world (Spiritualism)|spirit worlds]] is untenable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I see, (sorry for the revert, I was to fast, your talk section was not here yet (when I saw/reverted you) but the content and references is already taken from around the article, specifically from the Lead, and shortened/summarized in the overview of 'worldview', where these summarized information was still missing. The respective references mention these content several times. I simply reused these content and references from pre-existing paragraphs within the article. I do not understand what the problem is with this shortened information paragraph, when the same content is found through the article, but without a summary for following content. I did simply reuse existing content in a shortened and explainable form, which was yet missing. If there are contentious parts, please correct or remove them instead of the whole summary, which is, in my eyes, necessarily here.BaiulyQz (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:Regarding the points you mentioned, they are sourced in this paper: "This article explores Buddhist approaches to death and ideas about what comes after. It reviews the concepts of samsara, karma, and nirvana. It also looks at more particular instances of afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos."[1]. Spirit world does refer to this state, but we can of course use another word or the exact wording. The other sentence was taken from within the anatta article. "While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence."[2][3][4] I.e. the not existing of self is not true, or a misleading wording pattern, there I want to make readers aware. We may include these references too, but the previous ones mentioned that already. I do not understand the exact reasoning. Could you please elaborate. Regarding the six realms, it is taken from this article too. It also has an own section here [1], eg. Six Paths. BaiulyQz (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Would you help to improve my previous paragraph and its citation style, so we can include it? Perhaps like that:
[1] Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and spiritual practices that are largely based on the Buddha's teachings and their resulting interpreted philosophies.[5][6] [2] Buddhist teaching generally views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness continues after death, although specific views vary widely across Buddhist cultures and societies.[7][8][9][10] [3] It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives.[11] [4] The goal of Buddhism is to overcome the unease (duḥkha) caused by desire (taṇhā) and ignorance (avidyā) of reality's true nature, including impermanence (anitya) and non-self (anātman).[12][13][14] [5] By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."[15][16]
I think that the first three lines of the first subsection, on the four noble truths, give a sufficient intro. Your summary is not a summary of this section, but an ecxuse to make a couple of highly dubious statements.
ad [1]: that's a good line for the lead, but non-informative for this section;
ad [2]: "continuum": not in the article; "consciousness continues after death": unnuanced; the article states it better;
ad [3]: unclear and unnuanced;
ad [4]: that's something for an intro - but already stated in the first lines of the first section;
Mmhhh, I am sorry, but I can't understand your accusation of "dubious" statements, when everything is referenced and further links/articles about the respective views exist too, next to parts taken from this article:
ad [1]: you say "non-infomrmative in this section" Okay, if you think so;
ad [2]: you say "the article states it better", well I know that, the goal of the paragraph is to create a short summary about the worldview/belief system. The word continuum (and its alliteration: consciousness continues after death) is from: [2] Quote: "Generally, Buddhist teaching views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness (the spirit) continues after death and may be reborn. Death can be an opportunity for liberation from the cycle of life, death and rebirth.";
ad [3]: Cited this reference: [3] Quote: "...afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.";
ad [4]: As I said, the goal is to make a short summary of the article, I know that it is already mentioned in more precise form elsewhere.;
ad [5]: huh? By archiving enlightenment (i.e. becoming a Buddha/Bodhisattva) it can result in a Pure Land (Nirvana). Free from the cycle of samsara and any forms of duḥkha. The disputes regarding the definition of self/non-attachement is also explained here: Anattā. It is not mentioned in the article precisely yet. See also: Buddhahood.
-
I do not understand your point. It should be a summary about the article, the worldview of Buddhism, not only the below section. Do you mean a summary is simply not necessary? Do you mean a summary must be placed elsewhere? Do you disagree with certain wording? Do you have suggestions for re-wording?
I do not insist on including the summary, I just thought, and still think, that it would be useful to make a short compact summary about the general worldview (taking into account the various different views within Buddhism, and its interpretations of the teachings).
-
Anyway thank you for your response. Maybe you could again clarify the points raised. Perhaps I made mistakes in my understanding, so please enlighten me. :) BaiulyQz (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
ad [1]: an intro for a section should be more specific, summarizing the section;
[It also looks at more particular instances of] afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.
- your line:
It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives.
- No mention of "generally believed"; no mention of "aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn; no mention of "individual existence." And obviously, the Bardos are not a 'general belief', but a specific Tibetan belief.
ad [5]: You wrote:
By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."[1][2]
Samsara ends if a person attains nirvana, the "blowing out" of the afflictions through insight into impermanence and "non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land.[1][2][3]
^Choong (1999), pp. 28–29, Quote: "Seeing (passati) the nature of things as impermanent leads to the removal of the view of self, and so to the realisation of nirvana.". sfnp error: no target: CITEREFChoong1999 (help)
^Rahula (2014), pp. 51–58. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFRahula2014 (help)
That's a really odd line, {{tq|non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land." It's not in Buswell & Gimello, nor in Choong. And it's definitely not what Rahula, a Theravadin, would say. Not surprisingly, it was added by ypu diff, with disregard of the sources.
Okay, thank you for your explanations and arguments. I see and understand. I will refrain from including my wording/interpretation of the respective references. I still think the article should go deeper into the varying views, as it presents it, although correctly, too one-sided. I mean it does not really mention that there are varying views/interpretations/arguments respectively to the points (anatta, samsara, non-self, what is reborn/enlightened, Pure Land, nirvana, etc.). But as I said, if you think the article is good in this state, I will have no problem either. Thank you again! Regards, BaiulyQz (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the conversation but I did want to add that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we don't need to go into super granular levels of detail on a broad-topic article like this one. Broad strokes are better, especially because the broad stroke statements are generally true of all of Buddhism, and when you start getting too detailed is when you have to qualify what specific school of Buddhism you're referring to, because what one school teaches differs (sometimes greatly) from what another teaches. When you start having to qualify what school the statement is true of is when you're getting out of topic of the general concept of Buddhism, and said content would be better served on the specific school's article or on the article for a specific concept (if it were proper to mention it anywhere). - Aoidh (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
We are aware, hence the template on the page. If you have any ideas as to how to make it shorter feel free to propose it here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've skimmed the article a few times and I think the best way to trim down the article would be to take all the subsections that have a "Main article" link (and which are therefore just summaries of that article) and cut them down by about half. Obviously "half" is an arbitrary value and each section should have enough text to be able to represent a good summary, but just as an example Buddhism#Vegetarianism and animal ethics could easily be trimmed down and still hit all the major points, especially when there's a main article link at the top of the section for readers who want a bit more information, in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style. I just didn't want to start cutting this article (roughly) in half without discussing it first, but I guess this is as good a prompt as any to share that idea. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that's a pretty good idea. Maybe some of the subsections could be combined since it looks like there are a ton of sub-sections in this article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654520:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made a few edits trimming down some sections, but before I do any more I want to wait a while and see if anyone has objections or suggestions. It's just under 300,000 bytes now, and I think that it could reasonably be trimmed down to under 200,000 while still maintaining the important information (but of course it should be stressed that content shouldn't be cut just to make the article's size a smaller number arbitrarily, but should be trimmed per Wikipedia:Summary style). - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
So when this discussion was opened the page had 110 kB of readable prose size, which is now down to 78 kB so the readable prose is ~30% smaller than it was. I think it could still use a little more trimming in some sections, but is the prose still so long that it needs Template:Very long? - Aoidh (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want to know about Buddhism, ask the Dalai Lama. He will be happy to explain the subtle points which baffle scholars. Since none of the Dalai Lama's books appear in the references, nor anyone with a Geshe degree, this article is speculative at best, bordering on fiction. Authoritative it is not. Hpfeil (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023
This edit request to Buddhism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please restore the original article. An annonymous user recently edited the article and posted misleading information on the main page. He edited that Buddhism is a "Nepali religion" and that it originated in "Lumbini". This is totally wrong according the factual evidence. Buddha was born in Nepal but he first began teaching in Sarnath, India. Buddhism reached Nepal via Indian missionaries from king Ashoka. Buddhism did NOT exist until Buddha was 35 years old, when he gave his first lecture in Sarnath. This "annonymous" person is likely a Chinese person, whose government sponsors such revisionism. This single edit cannot change what has been accepted by scholars for centuries. This person did not even change the source. Please see [4]. It is the exact same as the previous version. He is not using any evidence at all. He is being academically dishonest. Please, Please take this message seriously and make the appropriate change immediately. I trust the Wikipedia members to remain honest and to act accordingly. StanleyRS (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Nice. I guess the eight spokes refer to the eight truths, but I think you have a good point here. Also because it refers to an exemplary Indo-European token. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!04:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, Buddhist call themselves Buddha's followers or in Pali Language as Buddha Sravaka - listeners of Buddha.
The reason is if anyone wants to be a Buddhist, then he/she should follow Buddha's guidance in lay life and practice toward liberation from the concept of self.
So their lifestyles also will have to change accordingly.
Those who decided to embrace monkhood are called Buddha Putra — Son of Buddha.
Ask if more info is needed. Good luck.
It is also important to note that Sramanas came from all parts of ancient India (even according to greek sources : Śramaṇa#Porphyry_(233–305) :- "All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians." ).
Partly correct. Buddhism arose in the Ganges plain, which is definitely quite northern, compared to South India. It originated in the urbanizing regions; that's relevant, because those developments are related; South India is irrelevant in this respect. Is there any other suitable geographical term? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!08:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:Ancient India is appropriate term here since scholars use that. It does not make sense to add Northern India when linked article leaves out Bihar -core region important for development of Buddhism, Jainism. In core region specific reference to - Bihar-Eastern Uttar Pradesh - scholars use "Lower Gangetic plains" or "North-Eastern" for example see concept in studies like Greater Magadha. 117.198.115.210 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@SmoovOpr8r: you added the following text to the lead diff:
Buddhism primarily concerns the cultivation of the sotereologicalmental state named 'Awakening', commonly referred to as 'enlightenment', 'Nirvana', or 'Liberation', which is a unique, cognitive event broadly characterized as delineating the culmination of sati, also known as mindfulness.[1] 'Awakening' generally designates the onset of a permanent, elucidating metawareness of one's mental contents that is accompanied by the Anattā insight.[2] The central thesis of Buddhism is Siddhartha Gautama's diagnosis that the vast majority of humanity has not yet Awakened, and that this collective condition is the root cause of suffering. Awakening is the perscribed antidote to this suffering.[3][4] The Buddha, which translates as 'the Awakened one', is eponymously named after this mental state, and the religion is eponymously named after this namesake.[5]
References
^Goldstein, J. (2013). Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening. Boulder, CO: Sounds True.
^Culdasa. (2011). The mind illuminated: A complete meditation guide integrating Buddhist wisdom and modern psychology. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.
^Keown, D. (2000). Buddhism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
^Wright, R. (2017). Why Buddhism is true: the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment. First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition.
^Cohen, R. (2006). Beyond enlightenment: Buddhism, religion, modernity. Routledge.
As a starter: this is not a summary of the article, but extensive new content, which should not be in the lead in this way. But the text itself has also some shortcomings:
"Buddhism primarily concerns ... mindfulness":
'Cultivation of the mental state called awakening': the term "mental state" is nowhere mentioned in the body of the article, let alone explained; nor is it a common term in Buddhist studies.
"Awakening" is a verb; a mental state should be referred to with a noun, such as moksha or samyak-sam-bodhi.
"The culmination of sati" is an sich correct, but culminating in what? The sentence is not incorrect, but as it is phrased now it's very unclear, and mainly reflecting a Theravada/Vipassana perspective (as may be expected from Goldstein, a vipassana-teacher);
"'Awakening' generally designates the onset of a permanent, elucidating metawareness [sic] of one's mental contents that is accompanied by the Anattā insight." - not incorrect, but "meta-awareness" needs explanation, and is not in the body of the article. The term "bodhi" as "awakening" is complex"; originally it may simply have referred to the Buddha's insight that his practices (self-restraint and self-examination) lead to 'norvana', the extinction of primary and excessive impulses and clinging. "Accompanied by the Anattā insight": and what is "the" anatta insight? This needs explanation, and is a typical present-day Theravada view.
"The central thesis of Buddhism is Siddhartha Gautama's diagnosis that the vast majority of humanity has not yet Awakened, and that this collective condition is the root cause of suffering." - is this what those sources say? 'People are not awakened because they are not awakened'? 'The central thesis' is that people are driven by primary responses and impulses, and that this causes dukkha, unstableness, discomfort.
"Awakening is the perscribed antidote to this suffering." - the Buddhist pasth is the antidote to this unstableness.
"The Buddha, which translates as 'the Awakened one', is eponymously named after this mental state, and the religion is eponymously named after this namesake."- as explained before, the etymology of the term "Buddhism" needs to be explained and expanded; it may a modern, western term, reflecting western concerns and interpretations. "Awakening" is a complex term with multiple meanings and interpretations; the article should reflect this complexity, and the lead may not be the best place to summarise this.
"Awakening" is not a goal in itself, as some trophy to be gained; it's a reference to the release from excessive clinging and craving; this release is called awakening. As an additional note: summarizing the Buddhist worldview seems simple, but is a hell of a job; few editors, even those highly knowledgeable about the topic, have dared to burn their hands on it in this overview-article... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023
This edit request to Buddhism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have several criticisms of this page's introduction. Firstly, it doesn't even mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama'. It also makes no mention of the mental state of 'Awakening'. It also fails to even briefly discuss the central thesis of Buddhism: Four Noble Truths. It also fails to mention that 'Buddha' means 'the Awakened one', like other, less-salient, pages do, such as 'Outline of Buddhism'. Visitors that are new to Buddhism seeking a concise introduction at the page as it is now, will be, at best, left with a vague impression of Buddhism's characteristic tenets that instead downplays and disparages the psychological/phenomenological aspect of Buddhism that is quintessential to it. This is an encyclopedic disservice; this is what I was trying to correct before my edits were reverted.
Furthermore, by comparison to other major world religion pages, which all offer a brief explication of the central thesis of each respective religion and a brief background of their respective founders' role in the religion, this Buddhist page is inadequate. For example, the Christianity page explicitly states the religion's central thesis: that Jesus Christ is the messiah as prophesied in its antecedent religion, Judaism. The Islam page explains the religion's central tenets: Islam is the main and final Abrahamic religion, Muhammad is the main and final Abrahamic prophet, the Quran is its main and final canonical text, and that God (Allah) is one and incomparable.
My suggestions are:
1. Mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama' in the first paragraph.
2. Include a concise explication of Buddhism's central thesis (Four Noble Truths) circa the second paragraph in a manner that is informative to a general reader without prior background in Buddhism.
3. Include a concise mention of the identity of the Buddha in Buddhism as 'the Awakened one'. This should include a concise mention of how the cognitive event of 'Awakening' is characterized and its fundamental characterizations (e.g. irreversibility, uniqueness, singularity (occurring once), mindfulness proficiency, Anattā insight etc.)
4. Include that 'The Buddha', which translates as 'the Awakened one', is eponymously named after this mental state, and the religion is eponymously named after this namesake. (This is akin to how it is explained that Hindu is an exonym on its page)
I made a typo in the numbering of my suggestion list. Allow me to clarify what I am proposing:
1. It is of significant historical value to mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama' in the first paragraph. For example, the first sentence could read "attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, better known as 'the Buddha'"
2. The Four Noble Truths certainly were a part of the Buddha's teachings: the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which is the Buddha's first sermon after his Awakening, describes the Four Noble Truths. Furthermore, the truths deliberate the central thesis of Buddhism and ought to be explicated in the introduction.
3. The details that characterize the mental state / mental event of 'Awakened' / 'Awakening' into coherency should be mentioned (e.g. irreversibility, uniqueness, singularity (occurring once), mindfulness proficiency, Anattā insight etc.). This state/event is quintessential to Buddhism, and currently, is not even mentioned in the introduction.
4. The title 'the Buddha' which means 'the Awakened one', characterizes the Buddha by the mental event (or interchangeably, mental state) of Awakening. The "Buddhism" religion is eponymously named after this namesake. This is deserving mention in the introduction. SmoovOpr8r (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
1. Adding "Siddharta Gautama" is possible, of course;
3. Awakening as a "mental state," and it's characteristics, are not in the lead because they are not as such in the article. The 'definition' you added relies strongly on a Theravada/mindfulness-perspective, and is limited/one-sided;
4. See 3; and as stated before, tatagatha may have been the original designation. NB: the Etymology-section is incomplete and insufficient, but it does state that Indian Buddhists referred to themselves as Sakyan-s or Sakyabhiksu; so, a question then is: when did the term "Buddhism" come to be used, and by who? And note also that the term "awakening," derived from bodhi but referring to multiple terms, is not as straightforward as you suggest. So, before we can even consider such additions in the lead, they should first be explained in the body of the article, with good sources and in a balanced way.
Regarding the recent discovery of the Buddha statue in Egypt
Joshua Jonathan Hi Joshua. Good to see you again after a long time. I would like to add information related to the recent discovery of a Buddha statue along with a Sanskrit inscription and a few Indian coins in Egypt. I have noticed that you undid my addition about that. Would you mind adding that info as per Wikipedia regulations? Buddhism spreading to such farther areas in the known world is worthy to mention on the page. You may do so as per your wish. Take care.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
You're referring to this addition to the lead, where it definitely does not belong. I think it's WP:UNDUE for the body of the article also; though it's about a Buddha-statue, it points to trade connections between the Roman Empire and Egypt, not necessarily to the spread of Buddhism to the Roman Empire. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!04:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The first line of the lead section says that Buddhism is called Buddha Dharma or Dharmavinaya in Sanskrit. I have never heard of Dharmavinaya and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is there any source to support such a name? Æo (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Per Buswell, Robert Jr; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2013). Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691157863, p. 253: "Dharmavinaya is one of the terms (along with BUDDHADHARMA) within the tradition that is closest to what in the West is called Buddhism." JimRenge (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. As one of the various names of Buddhism in Sanskrit, yet not the main current one, I think it should be discussed in the "etymology" section with the Buswell & Lopez source but removed from the lead. Æo (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I have moved over 50 works into "Further reading" as they are not being used as citations. The section is now huge. For guidance on what, if anything, should be included see Wikipedia:Further reading. Someone familiar with the subject should give it an extensive prune. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael (article contribs).
The lede heavily implies that Buddhism can be considered a religion or a philosophical tradition. This is a relatively-new addition for the page, only added in 2021 with the justification that many religious and philosophical scholars see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy or "way of life".
Buddhism is, of course, both; as are all religions. But in the context of Buddhism there is a significant push to secularizing it to make it more palatable for Westerners.[1][2][3][4] Though Buddhism causes problems for very narrow definitions of religion based around what Durkheim and others called the "theistic conception", it is nonetheless a religion and among living Buddhists in, for example, Sri Lanka, it is parallel to Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam.[5][6] This push is related directly to orientalism in the Indian subcontinent and what Obeyesekere calls "Protestant presuppositions":
From Olcott's catechism grew the tradition of Buddhist ambivalence (if not outright hostility) toward the concept of religion, but his catechism had a religious origin in Olcott's own liberal Protestant Christian background. He took his challenge to be one of purifying Buddhism by returning to the fundamental teaching of the founder as recorded in its authoritative scriptures. The teaching he found in these texts had much in common with the liberal Protestantism of the late nineteenth century. It was opposed to "superstitious" practices, suspicious of miracle sand the supernatural, and respectful of the canons of reason.[7]
The source given for the claim that Buddhism can be a religion "or" a philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does not deny that Buddhism is a religion or propose it is something else, and only gives consideration of the historical Buddha as a philosopher (which the author admits is "controversial".)[8]
Second, lead follows body. There is no discussion of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not anywhere in the body. It is purely these two minor asides (in the lead and the etymology section) that seem to be there only to placate a very small number of Western Buddhist-adjacent people who are uncomfortable with the word "religion."
Lastly, while it might be interesting in an introductory religious studies class to discuss what makes Buddhism is a religion, or where philosophy ends and religion begins; it will only confuse new readers who want to know the basics about Buddhism. That is to say, it is an Indian religion with millions of adherents across Asia and the rest of the world. "It's not a religion, mannnn, it's a philosophy" drones notwithstanding.
^Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. Jr.; Buswell, Robert E. (2014-05-29). "Buddhism: Philosophy or Religion?". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
^Brazier, David (2014-12-17). Buddhism Is a Religion. Malvern, England: Woodsmoke Press. ISBN0-9931317-0-0.
^Cush, Denise; Robinson, Catherine (2020-11-20). "'Buddhism Is Not a Religion, But Paganism Is': The Applicability of the Concept of 'Religion' to Dharmic and Nature-Based Traditions, and the Implications for Religious Education". Religion and Education. BRILL. p. 66–84. doi:10.1163/9789004446397_006. ISBN978-90-04-44639-7.
^Herbrechtsmeier, William (1993). "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion: One More Time". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 32 (1): 1. doi:10.2307/1386910.
^Eckel, Malcolm David (1994). "The Ghost at the Table: On the Study of Buddhism and the Study of Religion". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. LXII (4): 1085–1110. doi:10.1093/jaarel/LXII.4.1085. ISSN0002-7189.
^Siderits, Mark (2011-02-17). "Buddha". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
There have been several discussions before on calling Buddhism a religion; numerous editors prefer to call it a philosophy. We've used a compromise here, calling it both, just like Hinduidm is called 'a religion or dharma. "Religion" is indeed a western term; as you admit, there are widespread objections againt this term, within and outside Buddhism. You also note that the term "philosophy" is also used in the etymology-section, not only in the lead. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Numerous editors do not trump WP:RSs. The "widespread objections" occur almost entirely outside of good-quality sources ("it's not a religion, mannn, it's a way of life") and undue weight should not be given here. Also, I explicitly noted that it is also used in the etymology section (I noted two minor asides in the lead and the etymology section). If you have an objection based on policy and not nameless editors who "prefer" to call it a philosophy, please state so here. Tryin to make a change :-/08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, the lede at Hinduism implies that "Indian religion" is interchangeable with "dharma" (which is somewhat accurate, one of the papers I referenced here notes āgama as the most accurate translation of "religion"). This is not the case for the Buddhism page, where the philosophical tradition is considered in opposition to religion. Tryin to make a change :-/08:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the use of the word philosophy in the lede has been in the article before, for example from November 2009 to July 2012 and from June 2015 to March 2016 where it was replaced by dharma, presumably for similar reasoning that Alan Watts described wherein Buddhism does not fit neatly into either Western ideas of philosophy or religion. It's not a philosophy the same way it's not a religion, but using the English language philosophy is as valid a descriptor as religion and as much as it is neither, it is also both. Just as the religion descriptor is relevant for the lede, so to is the philosophy descriptor relevant for the lede of a summary style article, where the details can be elaborated on in the article proper. The lede including the philosophical descriptor also reflects the article itself which describes it as such in various places throughout the article to varying degrees. Especially for this article, religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive terms so the article's lack of refutation of the religion descriptor does not imply a challenge of the philosophy descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I like what Aoidh says here. A challenge that Buddhism has had is that, because it is (mostly) atheistic, many theists would deny that it is a religion. Plenty of anglocentric dictionaries consider faith in a God (or Gods) as being a necessary differentiator for what makes a religion a religion. I would argue that (cf. Lord Buddha's many arguments against 'views') that Buddhism is, pretty much, an anti-philosophy - but I guess that's not going to help anyone here. For me, the question of religion is - does Buddhism require faith in anything? This, IMHO, can be answered definitively: A fundamental 'credo' of Buddhism is that there is such a state called 'awakening', which (for most Buddhist traditions) is available to us through the Threefold Training. (20040302 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC))
That question has the same answer as "what sort of religion doesn't have a God?" which is a question I've heard many times, and both presuppose that only things that meet our expectation of what an X is can be called X, when those expectations are not defining aspects of X, be that religion, philosophy, or many other things. Whether or not Buddhism being described as a philosophy is considered Right View (or in the case of what is currently in the article, a "philosophical tradition") may or may not be relevant to the person asking themselves that, but for better or worse Wikipedia uses reliable sources and due weight to determine such things. - Aoidh (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The theistic conception of religion is something Durkheimet al were tackling more than a century ago. There is no scholar of religious studies who would argue Buddhism is not a religion because it does not have a God. In fact, regarding reliable sources and due weight, I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition," whether exclusively such or in addition to being a major world religion in some sense. The only article that allegedly does this is the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which of course does nothing of the sort -- it concerns an overview of the historical Buddha within a Western philosophical framework ("The Buddha will here be treated as a philosopher.") There are a significant number of sources (which I've elucidated in the "Classification" section) which do the opposite, including several which talk about this problem in detail (describing Western attitudes towards religion and philosophy and Buddhism in particular.) The three sources which Aoidh (talk·contribs) provided, save the one by Tricycle which simply problematizes the binary between philosophy and religion, are essentially an Alan Watts quote (a notoriously bad source for Buddhist views and a scholar not taken seriously in Buddhist or religious studies circles) and a single Dzogchen teacher. Regarding the latter, Brazier discusses the modes in which Asian Buddhist teachers engage Westerners -- they know their American and European students view "religion" as a dirty word and are hesitant to use it as upāya. Again, actual Buddhists in Asia have no problem with this, and for example in Sri Lanka it is considered parallel to Islam or Christianity as an āgama or (religious) teaching.
Christianity and Islam, which are also major philosophical traditions (the former of which having far more secular export than Buddhism), are of course not described as such in the lede. It is only Buddhism, where a prominent (and damaging) history of orientalism and Western intrigue have made certain interested parties reluctant to identify with a "religion." As Joshua Jonathan (talk·contribs) said, the "philosophical tradition" adage is a compromise here, calling it both to placate numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. wound theology◈08:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition" I'm not aware of anyone on this talk page (I certainly haven't) that has suggested that it is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion. As I said above these descriptors are not mutually exclusive either in the article or in reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "actual Buddhists" but that seems like a No true Scotsman argument, and more importantly how the lede is written is not dictated solely by adherents to Buddhism whether they are "actual Buddhists" or not. - Aoidh (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
By "actual Buddhists" I mean the vast majority of Buddhists around the world, who are overwhelming in Asia. Western Buddhists make up a tiny minority of Buddhists altogether, and secular Buddhists are a tiny minority of those. Focusing on the views of Alan Watts or Western-facing teachers regarding Buddhism's relationship to religiosity, or viewing them equally with the views of 99% of living Buddhists in Buddhist countries, is giving undue weight. Also, a strange number of commentators who make this argument are "meditation teachers" or somesuch who do not identify as Buddhist for reasons related to their aversion to religion -- Alan Watts being one. If Buddhism is a psychology and not a religion, there is no need to call oneself a Buddhist. In that case, per their own admission, they are not actual Buddhists.
Regarding whether or not Buddhism is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion: the idea that Buddhism as a "philosophical tradition" can be separated from Buddhism as a "religion" is heavily implied by the lede (originally, when I started this discussion, it actually read "religion or philosophical tradition".) Religion already encompasses philosophy, the addition is thus redundant and adds nothing (it certainly does not contribute to a summary style): it serves only as a concession to numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. Again, Christianity and Judaism are never described as "philosophical traditions" -- either in addition to, or as an alternative to, being a religion -- because that would be redundant or incorrect, respectively. The "Buddhism, religion or philosophy?" debate is well-documented in scholarly literature; the current lede exists, primarily, as an acknowledgement of both sides despite one being far more accurate than the other and the latter being a rhetorical strategy to make a Western projection of "rational" Buddhism palatable to people who are uncomfortable with religion. This isn't "just" my opinion, but elaborated in the academic sources I initially gave.
My most recent revision to the lede added "dharma or āgama" as alternatives for "Indian religion", with the latter coming first since the former are probably unfamiliar terms. These are both endonyms, encompassing the entire denotation of "Buddhism" religious and philosophical, and it is the solution given on the Hinduism page, where it is described as an Indian religion or dharma. wound theology◈09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I rarely contribute to these threads nowadays, due to a sense that the participants appear to have forgotten that wikipedia is a collaborative, rather than a competitive, endeavour. It is well established that Buddhism has been called both 'religion' and 'philosophy' - one does not have to step far to find that. To say that Buddhism *is* this or *is* that, and claim that its identity is wrapped up in such labels is, frankly, precisely not what Buddhism, is about.. The entire argument about what Buddhism "is", I believe misses the central point of Lord Buddha's teaching on annata. Moreover, the lede could easily be adjusted to a manner that allows all the above signatories to be content, merely by restating the sentence to "...is known as...". There are good reasons why many non-Buddhists prefer to consider Buddhism to be a philosophy - for instance, so that they can consider engaging in mindfulness, and other Buddhist meditations without feeling that they are betraying their faith. Lord Buddha's encouragement of critical thinking again is a quality very rarely expressed in other religions, unless we want to consider science to be a religion. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this page, the only 'leap of faith' necessary to be a Buddhist is that there is such a state of enlightenment that is worth the endeavour. Even this is not, strictly, a credo - but merely a sound basis for engagement. Again, for what it's worth, I not consider the vagaries of Western academic publishing to be either a sole, or even (sometimes) suitable criteria for reliable sources. Much of these works are not peer reviewed in any sensible manner, and again, very few are peer reviewed by the well-established Buddhist academic communities of Asia and the far east, -such as the monastic universities of Drepung, Sera, or Ganden, for example, or other similar institutions of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan. I would argue that most reliable sources aren't even in English, and many translations themselves have not been adequately peer reviewed. (20040302 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC))
Rebirth in buddism
Hi friends i spoke to many teravada buddists and they claimed that Lord Buddha never asserted existence of god and rebirth. All he said is to believe once own experience. But this article is misleading. It talks lot about rebirh. Can some one refer me to right source of info and also pls correct this wiki page pls. RamaPandita (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "pls correct this wiki page pls": it's a complicated, but valid request; while scholars conclude that the belief in rebirth has been part of Buddhism early, it has less support in western Buddhism. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Several issues here. Theravada is not an authority on Buddhism, it is only an authority on Theravada. Moreover, the Theravada teachers do not all agree about everything - and this includes rebirth. Moreover rebirth itself is not a simple concept. There is the 'outer/physical' rebirth where the consciousness arises in a new body some time after physical death, but then there is the 'inner/psychological' rebirth, which is the moment of consciousness arising from the prior one. Both of these are considered as relevant and important in varying schools of Buddhism. As for rebirth itself, it is a necessary consequence of Buddhist Karmaphala (and I believe there is no school of Buddhism which rejects Karmaphala - Buddha says that actions always have consequences). The point is that if we accept this, then there is a concordance between mental actions having mental consequences. If mental consequences are an inevitability of mental actions, then there cannot be a cessation of mental activity. One of the distinctions between the Theravada and other traditions is that the cessation of mental activity is parinirvana (Ie, enlightenment is a true death of consciousness) - whereas the Mahayana assert that nirvana/parinirvana is the cessation of *only* contaminated consciousness. This specific difference legitimises the Mahayana project: While the Theravada hold the view that a Bodhisattva 'remains (unenlightened) in samsara until one can turn the wheel of Dharma' (therefore holding back from final enlightenment), the Mahayana recognise that the Bodhisattva engages in continual enlightening activity endlessly (sustaining a Nirmanakaya until all beings have been liberated from Samsara).
Moreover, a lot of the concepts of rebirth are easily misconstrued. For example, look at the corryvreckan whirlpool. This whirlpool manifests on each high tide. Is it the same whirlpool? While the energy and circumstances that form it remain, the whirlpool will arise in future high tides. This is a good allegory for Buddhist rebirth - there is no 'soul' or 'seed' that passes from one whirlpool to the next - merely the conditions for its arising. If the circumstances and conditions for a future RamaPandita-like whirlpool of consciousness and emotions remains after the current RamaPandita dies, then such a being will arise. Rebirth does not need to be established beyond modern scientific enquiry. This is why Buddhist rebirth differs from any form of Metempsychosis that requires a migration of the mind as a continuum. Of course we find such things in Buddhist texts, such as the Bardo in Tibetan Traditions - but it's not a necessary requirement for rebirth or karma. If we think that we must make a choice between scientific scepticism and rebirth, we have either mistaken scientific scepticism or we have mistaken rebirth. (20040302 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC))
In buddhism , rebirth is possible because Buddha himself sees the life as a energy which flows through our humanly body and we know that "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed , so it changes forms " , Maybe somewhere in the world the enlightenment of buddha is still present and which will come out to world when it finds a means 117.202.29.20 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024
This edit request to Buddhism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Buddhism was started from Nepal and it has nothing to do with india , it later came to India after 20 years when the previous time Nepal i.e. Bihar where Buddha went to teach some life values and medical sciences. Buddhism has a lot to do with Nepal and Tibet and there are people who follow ancient Buddhist rituals but in India even who follows those rituals are either Nepali origin people or Tibet origin people and some Bhutan origin people. Making such false claim on our sacred deity i.e Buddha makes our heart sad Buddha's child (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
To Zoozoor... I thought the vrddhi form (bauddha) referred to the followers of the buddha. (So the followers of the "buddha" would be the "bauddhas," just as the followers of the "jina" would be the "jainas.") Are you sure "bauddha dharma" fits here? Mark Froelich (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. I was basing my usage on the Hindi form, where they use both Bauddha and Buddha.
However, according to the example of Jainism, the faith is referred to as "Jain Dharma", as in the dharma of Jains, so i assume that this would be similar for the dharma of Buddhists ("Bauddha Dharma").
Well, if you're not sure about it, I'd suggest we'd change it back to "Buddha Dharma." Even though the term is obviously derived from Sanskrit, I wonder if it might be considered an English term now. "Buddha" and "dharma" are both terms found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nevertheless, I'm open to other opinions. I would cite hits on the two versions ("buddha dharma" vs. "bauddha dharma") in Google, but interpreting Google results can be tricky. (Google isn't always right.) Cheers! Mark Froelich (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright, the changes are complete. We will stick with Buddha Dharma, and I've placed my alternative in explanatory footnote "b." I will seek a good source to back it up.
If that works for everyone, then I declare this Resolved.
Thank you, Mark Froelich and Wound Theology, for bringing us to a consensus. Let me know if any further changes are needed. Zoozoor (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Origins in India vs. Indian subcontinent
@Wound theology: Greetings! Regarding this revert - your edit summary was a bit unclear. Are you objecting to not attributing the origins of Buddhism to what is now the Republic of India, or to the phrasing "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to something like "South Asia"? From what I can tell from the article, the geography of origin seems to span modern boundaries? -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: The article Indian religions defines that term as "the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent". I was attempting to refer to the origin only, as I think the original statement was. I was just trying to clarify "Indian" shouldn't be interpreted as referring to the modern Republic of India, which would be even more inaccurate for present-day demographics. Sounds like that's not clear, so maybe we should just say exactly what we mean: "religion originating in the Indian subcontinent"? -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: Who exactly are "they"? Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and either avoids or explains jargon and confusing or ambiguous terminology. We could write something like "a religion originating on the Indian subcontinent, known by __ as one of the Indian religions" or "commonly known as" or whatnot. Or "is an Indian religion (having originated on the Indian subcontinent)" or similar. -- Beland (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: Having received no reply from you, I put in the last-proposed phrasing above, but I see you've reverted it with the edit summary "superfluous". Perhaps this clarification is unnecessary for subject-matter experts, but for a general audience seems important because the phrase "Indian religion" is ambiguous. As evidenced by complaints about its inaccuracy, many readers interpret "Indian" to refer to the Republic of India (which it does not) or interpret it to mean that Buddhism is mostly practiced in India (which it is not). -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A lack of reply is not a certificate of nihil obstat. The current wording reflects the long-standing consensus, wait for more input from other editors before adding in contentious edits. wound theology◈08:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: Could you point me to the previous discussion or edits which decided against clarifying the meaning of "Indian religion" so I know who to consult for their opinion? Or alternatively, could you explain your position? I'm in the dark about where we differ; do you doubt that some readers are interpreting this phrase differently than the definition in Indian religions? -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
People who complain about Buddhism being called an "Indian religion" are not confused as to what that term means -- they're participating in nationalist internet arguments about whether or not the Buddha was born in Nepal or India. Scholarly consensus is that he was born in modern-day Nepal but taught primarily in India. Buddhism is an Indian religion, originating in India (whether understood as the subcontinent as a whole or as the territory of the modern-day Republic of India). People will continue to argue about whether the Buddha was Indian or Nepali regardless. wound theology◈01:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition.
Yes, people are being nationalistic, but is the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? The Buddha's life seems to have both spanned India and Nepal. It seems unclear that there is a specific day or year in which it's obvious that the religion was created, and thus it's difficult to know where the Buddha was at that time and thus where to ascribe "credit". Given how long ago it was and the available sources, it seems many of the geographic and chronological details are uncertain or disputed. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition. These people should take up their misgivings with the scholarly literature, not us. [I]s the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? No one is making this claim. The Buddha was born in modern-day Nepal and preached mainly in the modern-day Republic of India. Both Nepal and (the Republic of) India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are on the Indian subcontinent. The Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain spanning both modern-day India and Nepal in an era long before modern nationalism, and indeed ancient India was a loose collection of different polities connected more by economics and long-ranging social networks rather than a national or ethnic identity. If you insist on adding (what I consider to be) superfluous information already explained in the text, then I would not object to an explanatory note with something like: The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain, spanning both modern-day India and Nepal.wound theology◈06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The disconnect that generates complaints about geography of practice is that readers don't know that Wikipedia is using the term "Indian religion" in a specific academic sense that refers to origin, rather than one of several possible other interpretations. I'll add your proposed explanatory footnote. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: I couldn't find anything in the article that verifies the claim "The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic". Did I miss something or did you have a citation for that? Shakya seems to be the right link target; Sakya describes a school of Buddhism, not a republic. -- Beland (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Sakya is the Pali form of Shakya. Yes, the target is wrong. It is well-attested that Shakyamuni Buddha was born and lived first in the Shakya Republic. I say "founded his order" but that's not entirely accurate -- Vulture Peak was in Magadha and this is where he is traditionally held to have first preached. However he began his ascetic journey in the Shakya Republic according to the sutras (or suttas, more likely in this case.) If not the Sakya Republic, then Magadha; the Buddha was born in the S[h]akya Republic spanning India and Nepal and first preached in Magadha or what have you. wound theology◈03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: OK, can you give a citation for whatever it is that you think is an accurate statement? Secondary sources are preferred, because religious texts aren't necessarily historically accurate, and obviously don't know anything about modern geography. -- Beland (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan has removed the incorrect claim and attached some references to that explanatory footnote. Though the quotes from the references seem to verify the use of the term "Indian religion" and not the geography of modern countries where early teaching happened. -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The lede should follow the body, and the fact that Buddhism originated where it did is discussed elsewhere on the page. There's no need for references. wound theology◈06:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wound theology: I did a search of the article and did not find any mention of "Vulture Peak" or "Magadha". The section on the life of the Buddha only mentions the tradition that he attained enlightenment at Bodh Gaya; I don't see anything about the geography of teaching. I do see mention of the Shakya Republic as birthplace, but unless I missed something (maybe this information was removed at some point?) we would still need something added to the article to verify the claim "first preached in Magadha". -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The term Indian religion is linked, so readers can easily find an explaanation. And it is indeed a common term; not sure if a direct explanation is necessary. But we've done without a direct explanation for ages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!06:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm a college-educated American, I took a world religions class in high school, I have a dozen books on religion on my desk, and I wasn't familiar with this term. It might be more well known among people who study Eastern religions or who live in Asia, but for a general audience, I don't think most English Wikipedia readers are going to know the technical meaning. Longevity doesn't seem to be a guarantee of optimality, given that the term has been the subject of complaints. -- Beland (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Already done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Buddhism and other religions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Buddhism and other religions until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael (article contribs).
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)