Talk:Buddhism/Archive 10

message: The term Buddha and Buddhist must have one meaning. Just noticed Buddhist redirects to Buddhism and Buddha ends up being DMB. Perhaps this link Buddhist should be directed to Buddha as the term Buddhist defines the qualities of a Buddha. Its common sense, and then i noticed Buddhists redirects to List of Buddhas all this mess needs to be put up to Wiki standards. Just noticed one fat message on the top of the page and restricts any editing perhaps some editors could realise that Buddha has its own term and meaning and Buddhist should be redirected to Buddha as Buddha describes and defines a Buddha. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddhism is the path to becoming a Buddha. The path is different from the goal. Mitsube (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and the path is also different from those that walk it but have not yet reached it (buddhists) ;) ...seriously, this mess shouldn't be that difficult to clarify...--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define Buddhist 

message: Why is there a "Notes", a "References" and a "Further Reading" section?  The "References" section seems redundant.  If these sources are directly referenced in the article, they should be cited as such and would appear in the "Notes" (which would usually be called "References").  If they are not directly cited, they should be listed with the other "Further Reading".  It is not clear what distinction (if any) is at work between these sections.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, someone decided that those sources "often" referred to in the notes would be written out in full in a references section, & then given only in abbreviated form in the notes, to save lots of repetitions in the latter. As things keep on being edited by a variety of people, it's unlikely this idea is applied consistently at present. Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just put them all on a "notes and references" Actually they're fine as they're now--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes & References? 

message: ThinMan changed "traditions" into "sects" in the lead. Do you all agree that this is a better wording?(in german "sect" has quit a negative connotation) Should we try to agree on one wording or shall we use them in alternation? Andi 77.24.174.253 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me 1st copy some remarks I made on another talk page:
As regards schools, the situation is far more complicated than is allowed for in such simplistic terminology. There are a variety of overlapping classifications of Budhism:
#The most popular among scholars seems to be geographical/cultural:
##Theravada
##East Asian: China, Korea, Japan & Vietnam
##Tibetan
#The main organized denominational groupings are as follows:
##3 main monastic nikayas:
###Theravada
###Dharmaguptak: China, Korea & Vietnam
###Mulasarvastivada: Tibetan
##5 main denominational families of Japanese lay Buddhism:
###Jodo (Pure Land)
###Nichiren
###Zen
###Shingon
###Tendai
#Dominant doctrinal traditions:
##Theravada abhidhamma
##Madhyamika: Tibetan
##Tiantai: China & Japan (& Vietnam?)
##Hwaom: Korea
#Practice traditions:
##According to Erik Zürcher (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, vol 2, page 440):
###Theravada
###Mahayana
###Vajrayana
##According to Ruben Habito (Experiencing Buddhism, Orbis, 2005):
###Theravada
###Zen
###Tantra
###Pure Land
###Lotus/Nichiren (probably including Tendai)
##According to Carl Olson (The Different Paths of Buddhism, Rutgers University Press, 2005):
###Theravada
###Mahayana
####Bodhisattva
####Emptiness
####Pure Land (including Nichiren)
####Tibetan
####Zen
####Recent movements
##Probably others
#Possibly others
Nearly all Chinese Buddhism now is Pure Land, which is also followed by ordinary Vietnamese. Monastics & educated lay people in Vietnam follow Zen, as do, at least officially, Korean Buddhists. Shingon is usually classified under Vajrayana, which is usually considered synonymous with tantra.
As you can see, the situation is far from straightforward. & the above is itself an oversimplification.
As regards "sect", it isn't usually used in this context, & often has a somewhat derogatory tone. Sociologists use it in a quite specific sense, in which it would apply only to some modern movements. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Should be on separate sections because they're separate (related but different) concepts. So much that one may "believe in just one but not in the other".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to take a definite position on this now, but I suspect when we get down to detail we'll find them so interlinked a single section would be more sense. Peter jackson (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: This is an important concept which depicts the reality of the world - Anithya, Dukkha and Anathma. This has to be added as we are expanding the concepts section. --Chamath Mc (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it can go under "reality in Buddhism" maybe? It's indeed an important concept, but keep it short for now (until we summarize more the article).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thri-Lakshana - The reality of the world

message: Is the lead (paragraphs before the TOC) section fine now? I thought it was so I moved the  to further down the page. However someone moved it back, so I guess he/she does not consider it fine. Any proposed changes to the lead?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still lots wrong with the lead, but we can't do everything @ once, so I suggest leaving it to last. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I see someone is rewriting this, GOOD. There should be a short brief introduction to what this is. I am not a scholar, i have a passing interest in this, I am not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap. The article as it is starts out by saying its a religion, fine they quickly define what they believe in, DON'T start telling me about what country who lived in and what it is called now, or branches etc. If someone cares about this topic they would serve themselves well to keep it short at the beginning, don't think that because you think it all is totally gripping everybody else will.  And don't say "the burden is on you" - no, if i wanted to an expert then perhaps, as it is i want a very brief introduction - as it stands now its more a case of thinking, "damn that's a lot of werid stuff. Ok, Buddhism is a lot of weird mumbo jumob then" and move on. If that's your goal, by all means keep it as it is. --IceHunter (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP guidelines say there should be a lead section summarizing the subject in no more than 4 paras. We certainly need to deal with that, but my own inclination is to say that we 1st need to get the article right before we try summarizing it, tho' others may disagree. There's an enormous amount to do here, & I think we have to concentrate on 1 thing @ a time to avoid total chaos. The statement that it's a religion shouldn't be in the article because that's a matter of dispute. Unfortunately, it's also not possible to define what, if anything, Buddhists as a whole believe in, as that too is a matter of dispute. So I'm afraid the lead section will have to deal with divisions. Some of the other points you make are valid enough. Unfortunately, @ present loads of people are making all sorts of changes to the article in all sorts of different directions, so any comments we make are likely to be irrelevant in a few days time. Peter jackson (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be shorter, but what are you implying by "not interested in having to plow through 500 pages of over technical crap"? If you don't want to read some concepts that were original from sanskrit and later imported in other languages, I cann't help much (study other subject). If you think that the main article is too technical, then cite specific examples so that we have an idea of what you consider "too technical crap". If not, I cann't help you.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a short concise description of the subject 

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

message: Just saw the list of external links. Its too long and unwinded. See WP:EL + WP:SEH to cut it down. Indirect links are frowned up. Certainly a link to official literature by a sanctioned authority should be on top of the list, but there should be some moderation in placing links. Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that about references? what about divide them by type: paper and website?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is meant by "official literature by a sanctioned authority". As with other major religions, there is no sanctioned authority for Buddhism as a whole. There are authorities for particular groups, but I don't know whether any such links exist on our page. Is it in any case appropriate to have such here? Perhaps they should be in the relevant articles. Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the Pali Tipitaka, which is common among all Buddhist schools. And each school adds some other texts, AFAIK.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pali canon may be in some theoretical sense accepted by Mahayana, but that has little relevance in practice. Further, the links are to the pali text, which few coming to this articl;e will be interested in, or to unofficial & possibly inaccurate/biased translations of unofficial & possibly biased selections. Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: can this template be deleted?

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. We're still trying to sort it out. If they ever turn up, they might like to join in> Peter jackson (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup taskforce

message: No source is cited for this concept. Is there any evidence that it's important? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in Buddhism it does exist, see maitreya... the section just needs some references... if we plan to keep it.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha eras? 

message: Can we please have the quotes for this: "Scholars have failed to agree on a "common core" or "ideal Buddhism" behind the different forms." This is a matters of degrees. Of course they could all agree to some core elements. I think that this very short sentence is being used in a misleading way to advance a certain point of view. Mitsube (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in this I concur.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No common core? 

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

message: The 2 interpretations have got muddled up with each other. I'll deal with this when I have time, if nobody else does. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4NT 

message: ok, to resume (I think there is):
consensus:
*we prefer IAST romanizations over devanagari, at least on the main wikipedia article of Buddhism.
no consensus:
*but we don't know if using Sanskrit or Pāli as "main" or "default" language for Buddhist specific/technical terms. Apparently, there's some consensus on using Both but with one as "main".
--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: are you serious? "tradutorre, traditore"... at least with the citation of the original word; one can search further and actually know what concepts are being used on the article.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, look @ each case on its merits. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pāli, Sanskrit or both? 

message: The section gives certain explanations of the Buddha's reported silence on certain questions, describibng them as POVS. It then goes on to present 1 as fact, not POV. This violates NPOV. I changed it but have been reverted. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confused. The first sentence says, "The Buddha's silence does not indicate misology or disdain for philosophy." This is not an explanation of his silence. You misread it. Now the second: "Rather, it indicates that he viewed these questions as not leading to true knowledge." Now this also does not explain his silence. He could have viewed these questions as not leading to true knowledge and still given some response. The sentence is about the Buddha's philosopy. Mitsube (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While his wording might not be as clear as it could, Peter's concern (I think, correct me if I'm mistaken) is that these quotations are interpretations (explanation has different connotations) of scriptural narrative, instantiated in a specific school(s) of Buddhist practice, and should not be presented as hard fact. /Ninly (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in reality section