Jump to content

Talk:Development of Karma in Buddhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modernist perspective?

[edit]

I find it rather implausible that there is consensus in the scholarly community that karma has "been of minor importance in early Buddhism". It seems to me this article is forwarding a certain perspective on Buddhism. The article reflects a strong "Pali Text Society mentality", presuming a universal, pure and undefiled Buddhism existed before the "local Asian primitives" started "distorting" Buddhism. Such a modernist perspective has presently been refuted by most of recent scholarship in Buddhist studies and related subjects. I propose that the article be edited to allow for a higher diversity of opinions.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Such a modernist perspective has presently been refuted by most of recent scholarship in Buddhist studies and related subjects." Please cite your sources for this statement. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Lopez.[2]. Similar discussions can be found in scholarly literature under the topics "karmic" vs. "nibbanic Buddhism", "protestant Buddhism", etc. These discussions usually categorize practices in Buddhism aiming at improving one's karma as part of "karmic" or folk Buddhism, as opposed to a pristine and unadulterated "nibbanic" Buddhism. My point is that the very existence of this article Development of Karma in Buddhism is informed by an outdated modernist understanding. It could be improved by adding a critique of modernist Buddhist ideas.

References

  1. ^ Buswell, Jr.,, Robert E. (2003). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (PDF) (online ed.). Detroit: Thomson Gale. p. 164. ISBN 0-02-865910-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Lopez, ed. by Donald S. (1995). Curators of the Buddha : the study of Buddhism under colonialism. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. p. 47. ISBN 0226493083. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote correctly. The lead says: "The concept may have been of minor importance in early Buddhism." Schmithausen is not a Buddhist modernist, but one of the most respected western scholars on Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I admit I shouldn't have left may out. Still, my point is that the article doesn't reflect a comprehensive perspective on the subject. That should be tagged or fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]