Talk:Buddhism/Archive 4

message: Altough the text complies almost to all of the GA criteria, minor adjustments are needed in order to have GA (the article will stay on hold for 7 days). Please address these elements to pass GA :
* The inline external links should adopt the inline citation format already in use.
* Loan words should be in accordance with the MoS... as they should be italicized unless they have common use in the English.
* It also lacks in citations.
* The section Buddhist Culture and Art should at least show a paragraph (like a lead for the main article).
* I agree with the trimming down of the external links section ... it could be spamming. Lincher 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lincher!  Could you please remind the acronymically challenged (e.g., me) what "GA" is? Thanks. --Andkaha(talk) 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it meant good article, you can see that the article was nominated on July 2 on the Nomination page of the Good article project which has the following criteria. Lincher 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA failed ... the minor adjustments were addressed. Also please consider dividing or archiving the discussion page. Lincher 03:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: There has been too little emphasis on buddhist doctrines. The language is terse and difficult to understand. we need to present the doctrines in a clear and concise manner that even a child can understand. Metaphysical aspects can be dealt with seperately. This is the opening page of Buddhism. lets not loose the practical- social spirit of buddhism and indulge in other worldly persuits and metaphysical concepts. I intend to simply the meaning of each and every term given in the doctrines. and add a few more doctrines like the law of kamma.--Yeditor 13:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, here we go again !--Stephen Hodge 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a small section of the discussion that took place between Nagasena and King Milinda (King Menandor of Bactria) recorded in Milinda Panha.  Milinda asked this question: "Why does religion languish?" Nagasena gave three reasons in his answer. 
(1)	The first reason is that the religion is immature. In that religion, the basic principles have no depth. That makes for a temporal religion, and the religion will hold fast only if it suits the times. 
(2)	The second reason is that there may be no learned men to spread the religion. If there are none, the religion languishes. Learned men should preach religious wisdom. If the propagandists of a religion are not ready to hold discussion with opponents, the religion will die. 
(3)	The third reason is this: If religion and religious philosophy are only for the learned, the religion will not survive.  For common ordinary people, there are temples and shrines. They go there and worship supernatural power. If this is the case, the religion languishes. 
Please refer to the 3rd reason. Removing Buddhism from the realm of day today practice and casting it into Metaphysics can cause it to languish.
Many western scholars are attracted to Buddhism because of the seemingly esoteric nature of Buddhism. But nothing can be further from truth. I have copy pasted below, for easy reference, the Basic path of the Buddha as enumerated in his ‘First Sermon’ in which he laid his religion open for examination.  One look at it will reveal a startling fact that there is nothing metaphysical or a speculative theory in it. Buddhism is practical. Buddhism’s beauty is that all its doctrines are stated to regulate and improve a man’s relations to another man. The Buddha’s core teachings operate and over the whole scale of one's attitudes; emotions; feelings and actions towards other beings. There is hardly anything in the path of the Buddha that is not social. The idea of Nibbaba (nirvana) also remains greatly misunderstood and many critics make nonsense of this doctrine.  There is nothing metaphysical about Nibbana - It just means happiness
Regarding Metaphysical and ‘other worldly’ speculations- To Anathapidika, the Blessed Buddha said “Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshipping Ishavara and praying
to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practise good
so that good may result from our actions."
The path of the Buddha
*(1)	The Path of Purity (Pancasila)
a.Not to kill
b.Not to steal
c.Not to lie
d.Not to indulge in lust
e.Not to indulge in intoxicating drinks.),
*(2)	Path of Righteousness (Ashtanga Marga; 8 fold path)
a.	Samma Ditti (Right Views) giving up of belief in the efficacy of rites and ceremonies, to sanctity of the Shasras, superstition and supernaturalism, speculations; requires free mind and free thought. 
b.	Samma Sankappo: teaches aims, aspirations and ambitions shall be noble and praiseworthy and not ignoble and unworthy 
c.	Samma Vacca (Right Speech) teaches: that one should not speak evil; slander; not use angry and abusive language; that one should speak kindly and courteously to all 
d.	Samma Kamanto: teaches right behavior. It teaches that every action should be founded on respect for the feelings and rights of others
e.	Samma Ajivo. Every individual has to earn his livelihood by good means without causing injury or injustice to others 
f.	"Samma Vyayamo: (Right Endeavour) is primary endeavour to remove Avijja 
g.	Samma Satti calls for thoughtfulness
h.	Samma Samadhi The five hindrances are covetousness, ill-will, sloth and torpor, doubt and indecision. Samma Samadhi is to cultivate a habit of good and always to think of good. 
*(3)	Path of Virtue (Parimita)
a.	Sila: The disposition not to do evil and the disposition to do good
b.	Dana; means the giving of one's possessions, blood and limbs and even one's life, for the good of others without expecting anything in return
c.	Uppekha; is detachment as distinguished from indifference. Remaining unmoved by the result and yet engaged in the pursuit of it
d.	Nekkhama; is renunciation of the pleasures of the world.
e.	Virya; is right endeavour. It is doing with all your might whatever you have undertaken to do with never a thought of turning back
f.	Khanti; forbearance. Not to meet hatred by hatred is the essence of it. For hatred is not appeased by hatred. It is appeased only by forbearance
g.	Succa; is truth. A person must never tell a lie. His speech must be truth and nothing but truth. 
h.	Adhithana ; is resolute determination to reach the goal. 
i.	Karuna ; is loving kindness to human beings. 
j.	 Maitri is extending fellow feeling to all beings, not only to one who is a friend but also to one who is a foe : not only to man but to all living beings.
The way to Nibbana (happiness) is to follow the 8 fold path and to reduce
1.	Lobha: all degrees of craving or attachment—such as lust, infatuation and greed 
2.	Dosa: all degrees of antipathy—hatred, anger, vexation or repugnance 
3.	Moha or avidya:  all degrees of ignorance—delusion, dullness and stupidity 
with metta to all 12:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist doctrines 

message: I have added a section on the law of Kamma. I prefer to call it Kamma (pali) instead of Karma ( sanskrit) as there is a negative meaning associated with Karma. Karma in the Hindu context means that ones deeds performed in previous lives are responsible for ones present conditions. This is a very pernicious Hindu doctrine and has been advanced by Hindu priests to escape from the social responsibility of alleaviting a man's condition. As per this doctrine all the poverty stricken, destitute people in this world must have been criminals in their previous lives. This cannot be true
The Buddhist law of kamma differs from the Hindu theory of Karma in this aspect. The buddhist law of kamma states that all actions are irreversable. That one cannot get rid of ones sins by asking for forgiveness or taking a bath in the holy river. An act once performed will leave its effect permanently on the society. It is the law of kamma that explains the maintainance of moral order in the world. It has nothing to do with the fortunes or misfortunes of people due to their actions in the previous birth.--Yeditor 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had a chance yet to read through the new section, but I would argue for using the term "karma" instead of "kamma".  "Karma" is a very well-known word in english, and is the word used in most Buddhist works in english.  Even if there is a distinction to be made between the Hindu and Buddhist concepts, I don't think that gives us license to change the terminology -- that smacks of original research to me.  thanks!  bikeable (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeditor presents above a very unusual view: this understanding of the workings of kamma/karma is at odds with very many Buddhist scriptures.  It seems like a reworking of Buddhist views on kamma/karma with a socio-political agenda -- maybe no harm in that, but it should not be presented as orthodox Buddhist teaching.--Stephen Hodge 19:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice edits, now the section is more simple and easy to understand. :) Monkey Brain(untalk) 22:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although it seems a little too concise now.  But I suggest that user Yeditor should go to the main Karma in Buddhism entry and add a short paragraph on Socio-political Problems -- describing the way the teachings on Karma in general can be abused (still today) to legitimize blatant injustices of the caste system, such as the all too real oppression that still happens to the Dalits in many parts of India.  There are possible problems with a simplistic application or interpretation of karma.  Applied literally, we might say that all those who died on 11/09 in the WTC deserved to die because of their karma or that the Lebanese civilians currently being murdered deserved their fate because of their past karma, etc etc.  So, I think there are some dificulties with a literal interpretation of past karma = present experience.  I personally think that past karma plays some part, but that also the "shit happens" model is also involved.--Stephen Hodge 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Monkeykiss, Stephen I agree with you. I will ad the socio-political implications in the main section. In my opinion, the deeds (kamma)and its effect of an individual, being completely irreversible, are stored in the collective memories of others. They pass on to others and future generations through social and biological mechanisms ( books, heridity, stories, fables etc). For e.g. Hindus and Muslims are still warring because of bad deeds of Muslims committed 1000 years ago. Thus there is no need for any etheral means for transfer of kamma from one generation to another. the rebirth concept is not necessary for the transfer of kamma. Anyways atleast one thing is certain that the same person never takes re-birth again. Kamma may recoil on the doer ( if i kill, i may get killed through revenge) or it may have an impact on others ( if i take a bribe, my children will have to suffer social stigma) or it can have effect on the future generations ( if i harm the environment mindlessly, future generations will not get clean water/air). It is not necessary that in all cases the deed kamma bounces back to the doer. Still the Law of Kamma is sufficient for maintaining the moral order as the key learning is that all actions will leave an impact which is irreversible. Thus its imperative to "THINK" before acting. There is no gain in regretting/praying later. Your opinion pls? with metta--Yeditor 09:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just some small thought I had, related to the preceeding two comments by Stephen and Yeditor, which I agree with.  All we have to work with is the way we perform our current actions, and karma is therefore, I think, a good incentive for following the Five Precepts.  Looking for the actions of kammic results is somewhat futile and only possible to do correctly if you're a Buddha. --Andkaha(talk) 10:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the law of Kamma 

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea if MonkeyKiss consulted first before arbitrarily deleting external links -- some of these are obviously not spam.  There is a hint of censorship at work here.--Stephen Hodge 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah sorry, I forgot about that. But I had not said that they, the two that has been restored, are spam. However, they are about sutras, the Nirvana Sutra and Tathagatagarbha Sutras. Each belonging in their rightful article. Not the main article.  Monkey Brain(untalk) 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The other ones are Either not notable and seems like promotion (buddhachat.org) or promoting a single sect(pure land link). Monkey Brain(untalk) 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supposed "spam" links

message: I have removed "this doctrine advanced by the Buddha is beyond doubt fatal to belief in God and creation" mostly because a citation would be appropriate, but also because it probably should be reworded slightly. Addhoc 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sentence 

message: it is a common misconception that the noble eightfold and the middle way are differnt things, but the truth is they are two differnt names for the same thing. thats why the beginnig paragraph should be changed from noble eightfold and the middle way to the noble eightfold also know as the middle way and the middle way article and the noble eightfold article should be merged together. thank you - User: Farzon Lotfi
:It isn't a misconception, it's the orthodox teaching. If you want to include fuller details on the identity of the two then please do so in an appropriate place, not in the first few paragraphs of Buddhism, or with no supporting comments on either Eightfold Path or Middle Way. The Buddha said many things, and he chose what he said according to who he was speaking to. Identifying the two doctrines is based, as far as I can tell, on one sutta (since the editors who keep making the changes do not bother to provide links or any kind of encyclopaedic comment) and too advanced to feature so prominently and without explanation. If you feel that this identity needs to be asserted please do so appropriately. Rentwa 11:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Can we have it integrated into WP appropriately, for instance in the article on the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta? (I presume it's a commentary on this sutta.) You can then put 'See also' links to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta on the Middle Way and Eightfold Path articles. Rentwa 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nirvana is not knowledge or enlightenment. Bodhi is enlightenment. It may or may not lead to Nirvana, which is the extinction of attachment or desire.Lestrade 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconception that needs to be fixed

message: Have a look at the Vibhajjavada article.  Somebody keeps reverting to an older version to suppress NPOV info they don't like. This guy won't discuss his problems on the Talk Page.--Stephen Hodge 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to my watch list.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As you know, this same guy keeps deleting valid material from the Theravada page.--Stephen Hodge 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vibhajjavada

message: jorge luis borges writes in 'the sect of the phoenix' (ficciones) that "the name which (budism) is known throughout the world, is not the one (budists) pronounce."
does anybody know something about that?
:It's essentially true- 'Buddhism' is a neo-logism coined by European observers.  In Buddhist countries I'm familiar with the terms Buddha dhamma-vinaya (teaching and discipline of the Buddha) and Buddhasasana (or just sasana, meaning message or teaching) being used.  --Clay Collier 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Clay is, of course, right that "Buddhism" is a neo-logism, I can't quite tell what Borges is getting at. If he's talking about Buddhism in Asia, where people don't speak English, then, naturally, they wouldn't call it Buddhism. On other other hand, almost all of the English-speaking Buddhists that I'e met do call it Buddhism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  borges 

message: Could someone kindly have a look at my article Buddhism for Humanists to see if it should be included as an external link?
Acampbell70 11:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link - Buddhism for Humanists? 

message: It is a common mistake to think that parinirvana only occurs at death.  See this definition from the PED:
Parinibbāna (nt.) [pari+nibbāna] "complete Nibbāna" in two meanings: 1. complete extinction of khandha-life; i. e. all possibility of such life & its rebirth, final release from (the misery of) rebirth and transmigration, death (after the last life-span of an Arahant). This is the so-called "an-upādi-sesa Parinibbāna," or "extinction with no rebirth-substratum left." - 2. release from cravings & attachment to life, emancipation (in this life) with the assurance of final death; freedom of spirit, calm, perfect well-being or peace of soul. This is the so-called "sa-upādisesa-P.," or "extinction (of passion) with some substratum left." - The two kinds are distinguished by Bdhgh at DhA II.163 as follows: "arahatta-pattito paṭṭhāya kilesa-vaṭṭassa khepitattā sa - upādi - sesena, carima - citta - nirodhena khandhavaṭṭassa khepitattā an-upādi-sesena cā ti dvīhi pi parinibbānehi parinibbutā, an-upādāno viya padīpo apaṇṇattika-bhāvaŋ gatā." - 1. D II.72 sq. (the famous Mahā-parinibbāna-suttanta or "Book of the Great Decease"); M III.127, 128; A II.79 (°samaye); III.409 (°dhamma, contrasted with āpāyika nerayika, cp. DhA IV.42); Mhvs 7, 1 (°mañcamhi nipanna); VvA 158; PvA 244. -- 2. D III.55; A V.64; Sn 514 (°gata+ vitiṇṇa-kankho); Vv 5324 (°gata+sītibhūta). This state of final emancipation (during life) has also received the determination of anupādā-parinibbāna, i. e. emancipation without ground. for further clinging (lit. without fuel), which corresponds to Bdhgh's term "kilesavaṭṭassa khepitattā sa-upādi-sesa p." (see above); thus at M I.148; S IV.48; V.29; A I.44; V.65 (nicchāto nibbuto sītibhūto etc).; A V.233=253=Dh 89 (+khīṇāsava).
--Stephen Hodge 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Stephen. I am pasting relevant text on the subject. For complete explanation refer The Buddha And His Dhamma
““There are certain misunderstandings about the Buddha's doctrine of Nibbana.
40. The word Nibbana etymologically means outblowing, extinguishing.
41. Taking hold of this root meaning of the word, critics have tried to make nonsense of the doctrine of Nibbana.
42. They hold that Nibbana means extinction of all human passions which is equivalent to death.
43. They have by this means tried to throw ridicule over the doctrine of Nibbana. 
44. That such is not the meaning of Nibbana is quite clear if one examines the language of the fire sermon.
45. The fire sermon does not say that life is burning and death is extinction. It says passions are on fire.
46. The fire sermon does not say that the passions must be extinguished completely. It says do not add fuel to the flame.
47. Secondly, critics have failed to make a distinction between Nibbana and Parinibbana.
48. As the Udana says: "Parinibbana occurs when the body becomes disintegrated, all perceptions become stopped, all sensations die away, the activities cease and consciousness goes away. Thus Parinibbana means complete extinction."
49. Nibbana can never have this meaning. Nibbana means enough control over passion so as to enable one to walk on the path of righteousness. It was not intended to mean. anything more.
50. That Nibbana is another name for righteous life is made clear by the Buddha himself to Radha.
51. Once the venerable Radha came to the Exalted One. Having done so he saluted the Exalted One and sat down at one side. So seated the venerable Radha thus addressed the Exalted One: " Pray Lord, what for is Nibbana?" 
52. " Nibbana means release from passion " replied the Lord.
53. " But Nibbana, Lord,—what is the aim of it?"
54. " Rooted in Nibbana, Radha, the righteous life is lived. Nibbana is its goal. Nibbana is its end."
55. That Nibbana does not mean extinction is also made clear by Sariputta in the following sermon:
56. " Once the Blessed Lord was staying at Shravasti in Anathpindika's Arama where Sariputta was also staying.
57. "The Lord, addressing the brethren, said : ' Almsmen, be ye partakers not of the world's goods but of my doctrine; in my compassion for you all I am anxious to ensure this.'
58. " Thus spoke the Lord, who thereupon rose and passed to his own cell.
59. " Sariputta remained behind and the brethren asked him to explain what is Nibbana.    
   
60. " Then Sariputta in reply to the brethren said : ' Brethren, know ye that greed is vile, and vile is resentment.
61. "'To shed this greed and this resentment, there is the Middle Way which gives us eyes to see and makes us know, leading us on to peace, insight, enlightenment and Nibbana.
62. " ' What is this Middle Way ? It is naught but the Noble Eightfold Path of right outlook, right aims, right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration; this, almsmen is the Middle Way.
63. " ' Yes, sirs: anger is vile and malevolence is vile, envy and jealousy are vile, niggardliness and avarice are vile, hypocrisy and deceit and arrogance are vile, inflation is vile, and indolence is vile.
64. " ' For the shedding of inflation and indolence there is the Middle Way—giving us eyes to see, making us know, and leading us on to peace, insight, enlightenment.
65. " 'Nibbana which is naught but that Noble Eightfold Path.' " 
66. Thus spoke the revered Sariputta—Glad at heart, the almsmen rejoiced at what he had said.
67. That the idea underlying Nibbana is that it is the path of righteousness. No one will mistake Nibbana for anything else.
68. Complete annihilation is one extreme and Parinibbana is another extreme. Nibbana is the Middle Way.””Yeditor 10:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parinirvana

message: The section on Nirvana erroneously mixes that concept with "Truth" and "Karma." Nirvana is simply the absence of attachment (desire) and, as a result, the absence of suffering. I deleted the sentence: "It is just the truth." Truth is the agreement between a cognition or judgment and something other than a cognition or judgment, such as an experience or a state of affairs. Nirvana is the absence of suffering, not the presence of joy or bliss. Therefore, I deleted "The happiness of Nirvana is the joy of having realized the ultimate truth; the bliss of escaping the endless chain of cause-and-effect." Nirvana is not related to the myth of Karma with its series of reincarnations. The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism clearly and distinctly show how suffering and attachment are characteristics of life. Nirvana is the mere absence of suffering and attachment. It is not truth or joy.Lestrade 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lestrade, I have noticed that you sometimes make very direct statements about the nature of nirvana. Have you done any sort of serious scriptural study to arrive at these opinions? If not, why do you choose to edit on this topic?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nirvana problems

message: Theravada does not mean ancient doctrine, although one could say that Theravada is an ancient doctrine now, after so many years. Ancient doctrine is a highly unusal translation, 
Thera means 'senior monk', not 'old monk' or 'old person'. It's not about age but about seniority in the Sangha, based on how long someone has been a monk, a member of the monastic Sangha. It reflects one's experience with the Buddhist teachings while being a monk. The Theras have been the leaders of the Sangha, that's why it's monastic lineage is called the 'Doctrine of the Elders' (as in elder experienced monk). Greetings, Sacca 07:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient doctrine

message: Just a note to those who participate on this page more than I.  Looks like it's reached 34.4 kB as of today, and is thus automatically tagged as a "Too Long" Page.  I'd suggest archiving soon.  Deebki 19:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Archive? 

message: I disagree with the current page where it staes that "budhism is not a religion." Anything that charts a path to or dictates the end of my being is a religion. Buddhism qualifies on both counts. (Someone put this right after my (Saccas) edit, but it does not belong to me) Greetings, Sacca 03:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disagree

message: Article states that the texts of the Pali Canon "are generally considered by modern scholars to be the earliest written Buddhist literature, and they are accepted as authentic in every branch of Buddhism." The linked article on Theravada goes somewhat further, stating that these texts and the parallel texts of the Agamas "are generally believed to be the oldest and most authoritative texts on Buddhism by scholars." Certainly this had been my understanding, but I have just read Donald S. Lopez Jr's introduction to his 2004 book Buddhist Scriptures (Penguin), in which he describes the 1894 Sacred Books of the East series as "[r]eflecting the opinion of the day that Pali texts of the Theravada tradition of Southesast Asia represented the most accurate record of what the Buddha taught (an opinion since rejected)...." (p. xv). Later he declares: "Scholars no longer regard Pali Buddhism as 'original Buddhism'...." (p. xxii). He does not footnote these assertions. Is anyone aware of to what scholarship Lopez is referring? Should such scholarship be referenced here, or do the assertions in this article and the Theravada article require modification in light of such scholarship? David Watson 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The various statements don't seem contradictory to me. The Pali Canon is considered by scholars to be the earliest extant written Buddhist literature; and similar texts are considered authentic in every branch of Buddhism; and, for that reason, they are considered to be relatively authoritative compared to other Buddhist literature; but, this doesn't mean that scholars regard Theravada as the original Buddhism. I only see a problem if there is an article drawing that last conclusion from these facts; perhaps the phrasing at Theravada is a bit too strong and has a chance of being misleading, but it looks acceptable to me.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nat here, I also believe the term original Buddhism is maybe not the best term to use, because Therevada and Mahayana are both original 'forms of Buddhism'. I like the term pre-sectarian Buddhism, which keeps it in the historical framework. Greetings, Sacca 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Nat and Sacca for the comments. I agree there is not an outright contradiction, but I am interested in the issue raised and whether it should be reflected on Wikipedia (if not in this article or the Theravada article, perhaps in the Pali Canon article, the Buddhaghosa article, or the Mahavihara article). I have an email from Dr. Lopez about this research, with which I will not clutter this talk page, but I would be grateful if both of you (and anyone else interested) could take a look at it on my user talk page and comment.  Thanks. David Watson 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Traditions - Theravāda 

message: I have shortened the Mahayana paragraph on Mahayana, it really was too long and going into a lot of detail on specific doctrines, which would be better done on the connected articles. Now it is of a comparable length to the Theravada and Vajayana. This appears to me to be very proper.
Also I will remove the polemical statements is the theravada paragraph, in particular to remove the Mahayanist opinions on Theravada which really do not deserve a place there.Greetings, Sacca 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: schools in the article

message: Sorry, I don't know how to get this in the proper place, so please so one move it for me.
I moved the category bar so it was not overlapping the exteranl links. You're welcome.
<P>
H-BOMB 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the formatting change which swaps the series box for the lead image. It uglifies the article and doesn't seem necessary.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Changes 

message: It seems to be ok to use the entires of the Pali Proper Names dictionary (see User_talk:Samahita). I wonder: maybe it would be good to have a template to indicate this, as is done with the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittannica? But before this happens, we need to be sure it is definitively all right to do so. Greetings, Sacca 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pali Proper names dictionary

message: This interesting interview with her is -beside other-  about women and buddhism, in times of Buddha Shakyamuni as well as nowadays. http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/clubs/buddhism/dailylife/khong.html
Is there a wikipedia site about women and or women in buddhism, maybe named differently? Austerlitz 88.72.2.212 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with [[Chan Khong]]

message: Dear Buddhist friends on the article Indian Buddhist Movement discussion page the anit-Buddhist active Hindu users are insulting His Holiness Dalai Lama as Hindutva wadi. These Hindutvawadis laid riots in Gujarat riots as well as Hindu Castiesm and Hindu Untouchability has destroyed the peace in whole India. Need explanation from the Buddhist world as the Hindu especially caste Brahmins are destorting the Buddhist History as well as now they are also insulting Dalai Lama. 
Dalai Lama has participated in INEB Buddhist Conference in Nagpur in 2005. Nagpur http://www.jambudvipa.org/index.html
The users primarily involved are vandalism on the article Indian Buddhist Movement are Bakatalk and Hkelkar. These are branding Dalai Lama as Hindutva supporter and anti Indian Buddhist. 
Dhammafriend 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insult Of Dalai Lama

message: I am trying to give present status of Buddhist Movement in India but the anti-Buddhist users especially caste Brahmins are reverting and distorting the article. Need to concentrate on the important article regarding Indian Buddhist Movement. On 2nd October 2006 thousands of people from various castes converted to Buddhism at Nagpur in India. Laxman Mane a tribal leader also converted to Buddhism. But my updates are always reverted without any discussions or proper explanation Dhammafriend 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Indian Buddhist Movement]]

message: I have posted a link, which is very relevant and scholarly, several times and it has been removed every time. Is this a propaganda page of Buddhism, or a serious page that shows all views and sides of the issue? The articles on Christianity and Islam are actually more fair and balanced than this article on Buddhism, which is quite surprising.
The article which I have linked "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth", is critical, but fair and factual, about Buddhism in Tibet. Indeed, the article actually quotes the Dalai Lama of Tibet!
This link is: #1 scholarly, #2 a unique perspective compared to the other links #3 informative #4 balanced.
Please see to it that this link, which is much needed to offer a balanced view, is not removed.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Thank you
65.240.227.45 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the Dalai Lama or Tibet. So, this link really isn't relevant to this article, to say nothing of the fact that, in my opinion, it isn't very scholarly or balanced, either.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Totally agree with Nat here rudy 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning repeated removal of critical links 

message: This sentence doesn't make sense in English, but I can't correct it because I don't know what it was supposed to mean. "It is essential sprit of when th passions of life is true of death." Art LaPella 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation problem

message: I took the "up to 708 million" reference from this page.  It derives from the numbers at Buddhism_by_country, which in turn were edited a year ago to reflect estimates of the Chinese Buddhist population which are dramatically at odds with other sources and which were clear violations of WP:OR.  The number at Buddhism_by_country is now about 416 million, much closer to adherents.com, and I would guess that estimates for other countries on that page were also changed.  I fixed only China and North Korea and don't have time to look at the rest.  Anyway, with those numbers, the 708 million is pretty far out of line.  bikeable (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For consistency, should you also change the sentence "Estimates of the number of Buddhists vary but the most common figure today is 708 million" under the "present state of buddhism" section? --Llygadebrill 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call.  I fixed it.  bikeable (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buddhism_by_country]] 

message: In the introduction, the article asserts that there are estimated to be between "200 and 500 million buddhists worldwide", with most estimates around 350 million.  Yet, in the "Present state of Buddhism" section, it states there are estimated to be "708 million" buddhists worldwide.
That's because the number was recently changed. If you look up I think you can still see the discussion. Zazaban 00:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it to say "between 350 and 400 million".  Given the sorry state of Buddhism by country, I don't think we can do better than that.  Adherents.com gives 376 million.  bikeable (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contradicts itself! (on the estimated number of buddhists worldwide) 

message: I have cut out this sentence: "It is essential spirit of when the passions of life is true of death" because it is poor English -- it is not clear what the contributor means.--Stephen Hodge 18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: I removed ", with the name Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: सिद्धर्थ गौतम)" because the Buddha was not born with that name, as the article stated, but received it after birth, or so I assume. I did not replace the text with anything because I decided that the name could be discussed in full under the article devoted to the Buddha. Kipholbeck 23:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Born with" or "born as" one's given name is a figure of speech, meaning that the person was given that name at approximately the time of her or his birth. That is, I think, the case with Siddhārtha Gautama. I also think that name is widely-known and significant enough to merit inclusion in this article.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Nat. I enjoy being as precise as possible; I admit it :). In this case, I would like to cite the following example: to a doctor, there is a very clear difference between a baby who is born with an illness and one who acquires it, say, one day after birth. To me, that difference is also very clear and applies in the case of naming as well. — Kipholbeck 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we would have to change the part of WP:MOSBIO#Names that mandates this style: "(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)" and all the articles that have followed it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest using the same format as the Encyclopedia Britannica, where the article on Bill Clinton contains the following: "born August 19, 1946, Hope, Arkansas, U.S."; "byname of  William Jefferson Clinton"; "original name  William Jefferson Blythe III". To me, it is simply incorrect to say that someone is born with a name, unless they have in fact been named before birth (which of course is possible now that the sex of a baby can be determined before birth). It would not matter if there was no room for misunderstanding. But there is. For example, babies are not always named immediately after birth. The vagueness of an expression such as "born John Smith" becomes more apparent, I think, in cases where a child is not named until a week, a month, a year after birth. I have read of such cases. The Britannica usage remains clear under this circumstance, but the current Wikipedia usage does not. — Kipholbeck 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree that "born John Smith" is completely incorrect if taken literally, but I thought it was an accepted figure of speech. It also can be vague in some cases. I'm not a diehard on this issue by any lights, but I would prefer it if you take the matter up at WP:MOSBIO rather than on this specific article.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right to say that it is an accepted figure of speech. It is the potential for vagueness that made me want to change it. Since, as you have pointed out, it is part of current recommended Wikipedia usage, I will do as you prefer and make my suggestion at WP:MOSBIO. Regards, Andrew. — Kipholbeck 20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alteration (GMT 2006-11-22 23:47) 

message: I just cut down the links. Most of them were pretty off-topic or POV. Zazaban 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are severe objections, I think I'll restore the link for Access to Insight.  While it contains some content specific to the Thai Forest Tradition, it is also the best and longest-lived source on the web for free English translations from the Pali Canon.  It also has very good overviews of Buddhism in general, with a great deal of textual references. --Clay Collier 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a bit strange consistency, in an article on American politics, would you delete a link to the Democrats? rudy 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The texts of the Pali Canon are present (sometimes incompletely, and sometimes in modified forms) in the Canons of the Mahayana schools as well.  As such, ATI is a commonly cited source of information about basic Buddhist teachings (the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Paticca Samipada, The Fire Sermon, etc.) that are common to several traditions.  Besides this fact, if there were comperably comprehensive sites for other specific Buddhist traditions, I don't see any reason why they ought not be linked off of the Buddhism article.  If we're going to give people an overview of Buddhism, linkage to comprehensive intros and translations for the major traditions would be nice to have.  --Clay Collier 09:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's some response here, I'd like to add the ATI link back in. --Clay Collier 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links. 

message: Why is this external link continually removed? http://americanbuddhist.net/ American Buddhist Net: Buddhist News & Forums.  It seems to be an active site chock full of interesting information.  I sympathize with the (anon IP) editor who keeps getting reverted on it.  The reversions are particularly annoying because they give no reasoning.  I think the link should stay. Hu 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you cool off before you accuse me of violating rules.  Your anger over this issue made you so hasty that you didn't sign your criticism on the user's talk page.  Your language there was intemperate when you said "no place on an international site", in complete contradiction to your statement here "I am not saying anywhere that it should not be on Wikipedia" in this slightly more public discussion.  You have been rebuked on your talk page for over-zealous deletion of other external links.  Besides, if you are so concerned about minimizing links, why are you adding junk links like this one: ?  Have you even looked at the link in question?  Only about 3 percent of the links on the main page there are North American.  The rest are general or international.  Stop claiming that it is "geared to a specific country".  Let it stand. Hu 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link vendetta? 

message: (1) The tripartite division of Buddhism is imposed by outsiders. Chinese and Tibetan Buddhists would identify more with each other than with Theravada. (2) Having a section called Buddhism after the Buddha immediately after the section on Buddhist doctrines suggests that the Buddha taught those doctrines, which is not unquestioned historical fact. Peter jackson 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: I'm not going to touch it, but the intro sounds a little POVy.
:In what way? GizzaChat © 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But ... there is such a profusion of them.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: U know it still amazes me....Buddha lived in India....became enlightened in India....taught in India...died in India....and was born on TECHNICALLY what is NOW called Nepal (in those days it was all one land)....and yet....in the first paragraph there is no mention that Buddhism originated from India....ive seen this before and i think its a joke ARYAN818 03:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was historical India, and in those days India was not the country it is today. You will see that Siddhartha was from a Sakya kingdom and that at that time Lumbini was in the kingdom although it is now in Nepal. It is also documented that the Buddha went to the kingdom ruled by Bimbisara, another at the time and also Kosala as well. If you read the Gautama Buddha article I'm sure it points out the relevant that Bodh Gaya is in modern Bihar and Varanasi, the place of the first sermon and the parinibbana occurred at Kusinagar, both of which are in Uttar Pradesh. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: India as a nation exist only bcoz of the British. Before the british came there are only some petty Kingdom in India sub-continent & the biggest kingdom was the Mongul. Before the british come there was no such thing as "India Kingdom". India is a nation created by the British, it consist of some petty kingdom put together in a Union & was named by the British as "India". 218.208.24.235 06:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been times when almost all of India was under the control of one ruler such as the Maurya Empire. Still, the subcontinent may not have been united politically but for the last 3000 years have been united culturally. This "civilisation" (not Kingdom/Empire) that has existed in the subcontinent for the past 3000 years is known as Ancient India, so one may argue that Buddha indeed did live in "Ancient India." GizzaChat © 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  India united culturally for 3000 years? Don't be ridiculous. --Naus 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INDIA should be in the first paragraph 

message: At the moment there is a section on Buddhism after the passing of the Buddha, but nothing during the lifetime of the Buddha. Thus, I feel this is a problem, as it doesn't explain at all how the religion arose or anything. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we present them all as per NPOV - is there any specific issue - we have sections on the teachings of each tradidtion. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section on Buddhism during the the lifetime of the Buddha 

message: I protest against the false definition of Nirvana in the Wikipedia article. Nirvana is the extinction or extinguishment of craving, attachment, willing, or desire. It is not the gaining of wisdom, knowledge, or enlightenment. The latter concept has its own designation, Bodhi. As a result of Bodhi, Nirvana can occur. As a result of Nirvana, suffering and pain can be alleviated. User:Nat Krause seems to think that this is all my idea. However, it is available to anyone who studies Buddhist literature without preconceptions, Western or otherwise.Lestrade 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite sources.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The source you have given itself says that Nirvana is the "absolute extinction of that life-affirming will manifested as greed, hate and delusion, and convulsively clinging to existence; and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death". Isn't that precisely what you removed from the article in this edit?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation of Nirvana

message: I don't think the statement in the article is correct for Buddhism as a whole. The Yamaka mentions those who will not attain the path, though I suppose that might be interpreted as implying that they could but don't. Yogacara sources speak of icchantikas, who are incapable of enlightenment. Peter jackson 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incapable of Nirvana (extinction of grasping) or incapable of Bodhi (enlightenment)?Lestrade 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incapable of both -- although the standard Yogacara term is for such people is agotraka rather than icchantika which used in tathagata-garbha literature.--Stephen Hodge 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can an agotraka be capable of one and not the other? For example, can a person be enlightened (possess knowledge and wisdom) but not be able to extinguish craving? And vice versa, can a person be ascetic (extinguish attachments), but not have enlightenment and wisdom?Lestrade 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Stephen for correcting my memory. If we remember that there are 3 grades of bodhi, its attainment is always combined with nirvana (& vice versa), at least according to Theravada. On the actual text here, the wording is in fact a statement about what the Buddha said, and should therefore be deleted or reworded, like all such, since there are no "facts" of this sort in the wiki sense; that is, there are sceptical scholars who doubt all such statements (see Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, 2nd edn, Routledge, London, 2006, pp20f), so they cannot represent a scholarly consensus.  Peter jackson 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone attain nirvana? 

message: The section on this seems rather unclear on whether it is talking about all 3 senses or just the  highest. Taken literally it seems to be all 3. In that case I'm not sure whether the statement about enlightened people being free from the round of rebirth is correct. The orthodox Mahayana view is that arahants remain in samsara; but perhaps they do that voluntarily, so could be said to be free. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of Mahayana can clarify this. Peter jackson 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodhi 

message: Unless somebody is working on it right now, something has gone wrong with this section of the article.--Stephen Hodge 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem appears to be curly brackets with unicode. Seems fixed now.--Klimov 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment of Theravāda Buddhism

message: The introduction to this section is true, indeed understated, but very misleading. In fact every school of Buddhism would accept most of these doctrines, but I don't think any form of Mahayana treats them as central, and some forms treat them as very peripheral indeed. If we want a genuinely shared (by most of Buddhism) core of teaching, I think it would be something like this: karma and rebirth in the five or six realms; faith and devotion; the five precepts; the monastic order; some form(s) of liberation and/or enlightenment reached usually by some form(s) of meditation. Peter jackson 12:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine 

message: The article seems very confused about classification, using different schemes in different places. It seems from the sources I've consulted that most scholars classify present-day Buddhiosm into three main traditions: Southern, Eastern and Northern (terminology varies). If this is so then presumably, by the rules of the game, we should do likewise. As regards the overall organization of the article, I would suggest that most readers looking up Buddhism will be mainly interested in what Buddhism is now, rather than its history. Therefore i think the large Indian section that currently dominates the article should be drastically curtailed, while the very brief sections on the living traditions should be greatly expanded. Peter jackson 12:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most of the article does seem to read either as if buddhism is still active in India, or it is extinct. Zazaban 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard the terminology "Southern, Eastern and Northern" before. I assume you are referring to the "Sri Lanka, etc.", "China, etc.", and "Tibet, etc." groups? Also, I don't think any sections in this arcticle should be greatly expanded. Perhaps some should be greatly reduced (and the text thereof moved to other articles, of course).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, that's what the terminology refers to. The sections on these traditions are very brief at present, presumably because the author supposed an account of Indian Buddhism sufficient. It isn't of course. I don't think there's even a mention of Nichiren, for example, one of the major Japanese schools. Apart from such specific points, though, do you really think the largely historical approach of the article is appropriate? Peter jackson 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, there's only a passing reference to Zen & Pure Land, with no explanation of what they are, and no mention at all of Nichiren or Tendai. It seems quite ridiculous to me that the article spends most of its space on extinct Indian buddhism while saying little or nothing about major living japanese traditions.Peter jackson 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification and organization 

message: We need to add something about the life of Shakyamuni Buddha. It currently begins at his death. Zazaban 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section. 

message: Buddhism is a retarded traditions: I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but is retarded the right word here??
:Is this unsigned comment for real or vandalism ?  I suspect the latter.--Stephen Hodge 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this? 

message: there's a rumour circulating that says buddhism isn't a religion. why do some say that? i think that "movement" needs some mentioning.
* Hallo my friend. Thanks for the question. There are a lot of people who prefer to strip away the "supernatural" and religious elements from the Buddha's teaching and then say that "Buddhism" is not a religion at all but a rationalistic philsophy. The fact is that Buddhism contains both religion and philosophy. But to say that Buddhism as a whole (including the Mahayana expression of it) is not a religion is simply inaccurate and wrong. Hope that helps! Best wishes from Tony. TonyMPNS 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In general the word religion means something that tries to know what God wants and tries to do that. In this sense Buddhism is not a religion. It is only about the individual helping themselves to salvation / liberation, and there is no need to ask for any divine help. This does not mean that Buddha denied the existence of Gods and Angels (Brahmas and Devas) as he did not. But he did state that they too roll in samsara and so are also subject to suffering. Ray Tomes 09:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would really like to see something of general feeling the preceding text to my own included in the article, which it does not so much do at this point. Buddhism's status as a religion is contested even among forefront scholars (Patrick Bresnan comes to mind in this case. I'd be glad to provide quotes from his books on Eastern thought if necessary in this case, as he is an authority on the issue.) It should be definitely noted in this case that Buddhism is to religion as tofu is to meat. It exists in companionship in its nascent state and then gleans parts of the religions which it coexists as a philosophy with to create something different. 68.96.255.13 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm certainly not a scholar on this, I think that if you drop Buddhism as a religion for some reasons, I would think that also Hinduism, Sikkhism and Jainism suddenly would not classify as a religion anymore. Interestingly, that leaves only the Judea/Christian/Muslim traditions a major world religions - and guess what the cultural background is of over 90% of what we call 'scholars' are. I am quite convinced that for practical reasons, it is quite safe to call Buddhism a religion, but of course, it depends on the scholarly definition of 'religion'that is used. rudy 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct- the real problem here is that there are a blue million ways of defining 'religion', and the definition that you chose often stems from the point that you are trying to make.  Someone who wants to cast Buddhism as an entirely rational philosophy will choose a definition of religion that says something about gods or the initial cause of existence.  Someone who is looking at religion as a social phenomena will likely not be interested in such metaphysics.  There has been, in my own opinion, a great deal of ink spent on definitional questions about whether Buddhism is a this or a that without much in the way of results to show for it.  In truth, there is no general solution to the question 'is Buddhism a religion' or 'is Buddhism a philosophy', or even for that matter 'is Buddhism a psychology'; all of those depend entirely on 1) what you consider to be Buddhism (is it just what's in the sutras?  Is it popular religion?  Is it the Sangha?  Is it meditation? Is it all of the above?) and 2) how you define what you are attempting to categorize it with.  The best we can hope for, I think, is to provide in the introduction a description of Buddhism that corresponds to the popular understanding of the concept of religion, and I would tend to say that if you took someone who had never seen or heard anything about Buddhism and dropped them into a temple or monastery, they would say that what was going on was clearly religion of some sort- though there could be plenty more going on as well. --Clay Collier 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It must have been Vandalism, which isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. GizzaChat © 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not a religion but a philosophy"