Talk:Buddhism

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template switcharound

Hi. I looked at the navbox stack and saw three templates - 'Buddhist topics' , 'Gautama Buddha', and 'Religion' - tucked into a hidden navbox list. The exposed templates were the Buddhism-in-(your choice of continent here). So I played with it, brought the templates out of the hidden-box, moved template 'Buddhism topics' to the top template slot, and left Gautama Buddha and Religion where they were. To me it flowed better, got more info near the top, and when I looked at the page it looked very nice - the colors, length of the phrasing, the aesthetics which seem to go well together when something is "right". Just some explanation of the "whys" of the edit. Does it seem okay to the long-time editors? Thanks. Randy Kryn 3:44 6 November, 2014 (UTC)

Later, have made a navbox stack with the title 'Buddhism by country' and put the five continent templates, which are just names of countries anyway, into that stack. Better. Randy Kryn 4:42 6 November, 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism: Definition

Articles on Buddhism Gautama Buddha and Faith are all opinions. It is not possible to correct them without rewriting them from the beginning. What is given as definitions are mere opinions and thus are biased. They all stem from the problem:there is no God in Buddhism yet exhibit the characteristic of a religion.

Here is a suggestion to get out of the problem.

All Buddhists, irrespective of their tradition, location on the planet earth, race, caste, creed claim that their religion is based on the teaching of the Buddha.

The above statement is a fact. The statement is neutral and free from bias.

What is common about different Buddhist traditions is they all venerate the Buddha. It is more accurate to say they venerate Buddho Bhagava not the Buddha. Buddha is an English word. I shall therefore use the term Lord Buddha from now onwards. It means Teacher Buddha or Lord Buddha because Bhagwan means Lord.

There are certain traditions that worship the Buddha in addition to veneration. Example, some Mahayana sects. In the Theravada tradition, Buddhist only venerate. They do not worship.

I stress what I have above are all facts and are verifiable.

If editiors are willing to accept the above one line defintions can be written.

Example. Lord Buddha is a Teacher (Teacher who lived) about 2500 years ago in India in what is presently known as Nepal.

Buddhist: One who venerates Lord Buddha.

Buddhism: All those who venerate Lord Buddha.

Saddha: Devotion (pure and simple devotion of traditional villagers.Buddhist scholars do not understand this. Simple Buddhists all over the world do. They do not discuss the philosophy of the Buddha) Comment 1: Use of faith for Saddha in has created all the problems in the study of Buddhism.

Note: There are and there will be no references for what I have given above except the Oxford Dictionary of English for Definitions of the few English words I have used. For example, Buddha, Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana.

A corollary of the above is Sanskrit word Sraddhaa does not mean faith. It means Bhakti.

Interpretation of Saddha and Sradda as faith is the Western perception of Buddhism and Hinduism. And misinterpreted both religions to the world.

All the above ideas are mine and solely mine. I daren't give the responsibility to any body else. The definitions above will require labelling almost all the information under the articles as opinions. Example, Kalama Sutta. All misinterpretations of a Dhamma-desana of Lord Buddha.

I am more than willing to answer any question from the editors, or even others. Dgdcw (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If all the editors without exception agree to the above, I shall present these ideas to Wikipedia.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'presenting them to Wikipedia'. In terms of your root definition, I'm not so certain that the distinction between veneration and worship is actually observed- it's a rather fine distinction that I think makes sense only if you accept certain underlying premises that are associated with particular monotheist dogma. I think the general plan of moving the intros on these articles a bit closer to the dictionary definitions is a good one, but the issue of bhakti vs. saddha as devotion vs faith would certainly require a more complete reference than that, particularly if the translation as something other than 'devotion' has sources in the recognized references (I know that the PED is not that highly esteemed by some, but don't know anything about specific disputes over the translation of this term) I would also encourage you to try out writing some of these introduction in userspace or a talk page- rewrites of the intros in these topics are always fraught and I do think that there is material in the existing introductions that should be kept to provide a more complete context than the dictionary definition. However, I've long advocated identifying the traditions as being united most specifically by the fact that they all trace their origin to the teachings of the historical Buddha- that at least puts an end to the argument over whether we are talking about one tradition or more than one.--Spasemunki (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect please

Is there really such a tsunami of vandalism that this page needs protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.83 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion

Original post Buddhist rites and rituals exhibit some similarity to rituals in other religions. So some three hundred and fifty million practice BuddhismDgdcw (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Buddhist philosophy is really an academic discipline. It has no relevance to the Buddhist.Dgdcw (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Many sources describe Buddhism as a religion (as you've shown above) and it is commonly discussed together with other religions so Wikipedia describes it as a religion. I doubt the number of sources describing Buddhism as an academic discipline is anywhere as great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is Dharma. Not religion. Religion is a western construct.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So is "Buddhism". Bacchiad (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I prefer the word "Buddhadharma", like many practitioners.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a suggestion for a change to the article, is it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Great analysis, solid conclusion. And I agree with Vic. As for myself: it's a fruitless discussion. Buddhism is indeed a practice, and it's a dharma. "Way of life" comes closer than "religion". For westerners, "religion" is an understandable term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous and inappropriate WP:OR analysis. Nothing but a waste of time, and suspect motives. On might even consider ti to border on being bigoted insofar as it attacks the integrity of a religion as such. WP:NOTFORUM--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel offended; he gave an alternative perspetive from an unexpected corner. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The only "unexpected corners" recognized on Wikipedia are the kind supported by WP:RS. I don't know the motivations of the user that posted that WP:OR, but I've just deleted it per WP:NOTFORUM.

Stick to reliable sources, and don't use this talk page to expound upon personal ideas that do nothing to improve the article and only waste other editors' time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the current wording proposed by Joshua. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We've got the same sort of solution at Hinduism: "Hinduism is the dominant religion, or way of life". Actually, there too "dharma" might even be better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "way of life"?PiCo (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang on - this particular issue has been argued on and off since the dawn of this article. There is no doubt that Buddhism is a religion, why are we going through it all over again? There are plenty of Buddhists who are non-religious too, but that merely demonstrates the complexity and variety of Buddhist praxis. Simply put, the expositions of Karma and Rebirth involve faith and both are necessary for the acceptance of the four noble truths, the fourth of which 'the truth of the path' is what we call 'Buddhism'. Until there is incontrovertible evidence of Karma and Rebirth, Buddhism is a religion. This is also true of any other religion. For instance, until the existence of Yahweh/Jehovah as the universal creator and judge is at some point incontrovertibly demonstrated to be existent, then the Ibrahimic faiths are likewise religions. We choose our beliefs - and our beliefs are what is true, for us. Our Lord Sakyamuni Buddha told us not to believe what he said just because he said it, but that doesn't stop us from having faith in metaphysical imponderables such as rebirth, karma, or the four noble truths. (20040302 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Nontheistic

It is true that all of Buddhism from Theravada to Tibetan Buddhism lacks a belief in a Creator deity. There is no doubt about that. But does a lack of a Creator equate to being "nontheistic"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes. Karma is the governing principle, not a deity of any sort.

That is not to say that there aren't deity like beings in various forms of Buddhism, but their relation to karma is probably something that sets event them apart from the notion of deity in the otherworldly sense.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Creator deity in any Buddhist sect.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, there are creator deities in some Buddhist traditions (cf. Amitabha in some of the pure land traditions, but also some interpretations of Brahma/Vishnu as a creator, but not as an omniscient judge, found in many variants of Buddhism. ); But regarding your initial question, being the creator-god is only one qualifier for being a theistic religion god as judge is another (Amitabha is considered able to intercede, but is not responsible for suffering); non-personality is sometimes considered to be non-theistic also. Regardless, and in general, Buddhism is best described as a non-theistic religion. (20040302 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

(Thanks to an old wiki editor, Peter Jackson), I learned that it's very hard to say anything concrete about anything as large, deep, and long-lived as 'Buddhism' - If you want a source re. the Pure land = "Pure Land Buddhism stresses faith in this power of Amitābha to save humankind from rebirth into the realms of ignorance and suffering by bringing those who call on him to his Pure Land." (Mitchell, Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 206)

Likewise the Jodo Shinshu (10 million followers) were considered to be 'just Lutheranism' by the Jesuits who encountered it. (20040302 (talk))

Amitabha is not a Creator in Pure Land Buddhism. In the basic Amitabha sutras (Smaller and Larger Sukhavati Sutras) its clear that Amitabha was just an ordinary sentient being at one point.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is right, But Amitabha is credited with omnipotence, which is something that belongs to theistic religions; by the time you look at traditions (NOT sutras), one sees much that parallels theistic religions.. Likewise, Vishnu as the sustainer of the universe, is often credited with creation of all things - and this is also something that belongs to theistic religions. (20040302 (talk))

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

its not Buddhacarita, its Buddhacharitha Niranjan46 (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Its Buddhacarita. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

chinese tibetan version of buddhism

There is no mention of absorption of local deities and customs in the chinese version of Buddhism. The earliest school was theravadan so I assume that is closest to Buddha's teaching who derived his knowledge from Vedic or Pre Vedic Indian philosophies.