Talk:Buddhism/Archive 1

message: I am a specialist in Buddhist studies and have looked at a lot of the material contained here in the area of Buddhism. Most of it is terribly inaccurate and misleading. People should not be writing entries for a reference work if they are lacking in expertise on a topic. It will give people the wrong information, and give the project a bad reputation. Please don't write on a topic if you don't know what you are talking about. Charles Muller (www.acmuller.net/ddb)
: On the internet you could be a dog posing as a Buddhist scholar, who knows? Just because you're a self confessed 'specialist', doesn't mean you have the patent on what Buddhism is. 'Specialist' opinions on Buddhism have changed radically since 'specialists' started taking an interest, and continue to change. All any of us can do is give the 'truth' as we see it. Part of the fun of doing wiki is writing what you think, and then watching someone correct it with something better, so lets not get all anal retentive about it. 
:BTW when you do add your 'specialist' opinion, do take the time to link it into other entries, and do check to see what links to the information you have moved, and either change those links or provide forwarding (and backwarding). Otherwise, and this is my 'information specialist' opinion; otherwise however special your opinion is, it doesn't contribute to a harmonious whole. Also you can sign your posts here by doing ~~~~.  Mahaabaala 09:08, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism Wikipedia is filled with errors 

message: We need to think about who the audience for this page, and it's subsidiaries, is. Is this, for instance, supposed to be for the general public, or it is an academic reference work. The level is very mixed at present with most of it aiming at a general audience, but eg the schools section now looking like a university text book Mahaabaala 09:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: The purpose of this comment is to prevent an otherwise inevitable edit war.
"Buddhism" is a term that is not traditionally used by "Buddhists".
Instead, we ("Buddhists") have a whole set of other terms for "Buddhism" - such as Dharma, the law, etc. Also we 'Buddhists' traditionally tend to call ourselves "insiders".
I would suggest that the 'Buddhism' page be split into several subsidiarys that would allow for the plural nature of the 'Buddhist' culture to be more easily divulged.
We could have:
Western Academic views of Buddhism. 
Theravadin views of Buddhism.
Chinese (pure land) views of Buddhism. 
Chinese (zen) views of Buddhism. 
Japanese (zen) views of Buddhism. 
Tibetan views of Buddhism.
etc..
This would help us get over the philosophical and editorial problem of a "ONE TRUE VIEW" that contradicts directly the message of Anatta (Skt. anatman), and moreover would demonstrate that the idea of syncretising (US: syncretizing) a set of cultures, beliefs and ethics that have been diversifying for over 2,500 years is really an activity that will not reflect those cultures and beliefs without reducing them to something that loses their plural, exciting diversity. We should embrace diversity, not try to choke it with some reductive approach to unification, just to make it "fit in" with outsider's ideas of categorising everything into nice boxes such as 'religion'.
Regarding the current Buddhism article, to me it appears to be based upon (outsider) western academic ideas; to quote: "The Mahayana arose in the first few centuries". Well, according to whom?  Certainly not according to Mahayana insiders!  (Mahayana insiders assert that e.g. the events described in the "heart of the perfection of wisdom sutra" happened during Siddhartha Gautama Buddha's lifetime.)
:Well, given that Wikipedia is intended as a quasi-neutral reference source, shouldn't the position of secular scholarship predominate? I would assume, similarly, that the Wikipedia entry on the Bible discusses its composition and redaction by human authors and editors.कुक्कुरोवाच 15:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since we write in a linear format, something has to come first, if we're going to include both. Certainly we have to include at least one (since there aren't, generally, adequate English translations that are general enough to ensure that people know they're talking about the same thing). Seems to me both should be included for terms that are important both within the Pāli-language tradition and within the "Sanskrit" of the Mahāyāna. (Actually, almost no Buddhist writers (Nāgārjuna being the obvious exception) used Sanskrit; the Mahāyāna sutras are more typically composed in what is called "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit" (BHS), which is really just a prakrit dressed up to look like Sanskrit...but there's really no convenient way to indicate that in a short form that the average reader will understand, and most of the lexical items look the same as their Sanskrit equivalents, anyway.) The rule should be that when the term originated in Pāli (or, rather, when our first evidence of it is in the Pāli canon) and was grandfathered into later the BHS writings, then the Pāli term should come first. When the term is specific to the Pāli writings, it should be listed in Sanskrit only. (Unless it also wound up in Theravāda literature, though I don't know if that ever happened). I don't see how differentiating the origin languages for terms indicates any sort of bias; it's just good scholarship.कुक्कुरोवाच 15:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism - Please Read Before Editing Buddhism 

message: How does everyone feel about the current image accompanying this page "the Big Buddha"?  I don't like it that much, I think it looks kind of silly.  I can think of better images, but I don't know what is available in the public domain. - NYK 09:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Zen painting seems to be the most approachable visualization of Nirvana. A statue just represents the insecurities of man, not to mention innovation in religion. Usedbook 21:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The image

message: Wanted to give an account of why I'm messing with some changes that 195.232.57.17 made today.  I took out the part about how laypeople are often do not consider the 1st precept binding.  I'm not sure if that's true and emphasizing it so early in the article makes it seem like Buddhists condone killing, which would be a misunderstanding.  I also took out the word "uncontrolled" in "totally transformed them beyond birth, death, and subsequent uncontrolled rebirth" because again I'm not sure it's true and I think it detracts from the impact of the sentence -- also might give the impression that Dharma is about an ego trying to control his rebirths.  I removed the reference to Chan under Bodhidharma; I don't think it's necessary to go into all that here; the article on Zen is supposed to be about Zen/Chan/Soun in general as well as Japan-specific Zen.
I also added a new line about how some schools have additional "grave" precepts: I've seen several different lists of 8-10.  One more thing, it looks like we now have a complete list of which countries practice Mahayana, Theravada, etc. in two different places.  I didn't fix that this time, but we probably should at some point. - NYK 07:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes Mar. 14

message: Yesterday, Kukkovacara changed the beginning of the second paragraph from "Amongst the world religions, most of which proclaim the existence of a Creator god, Buddhism is regarded as unusual for being both non-theistic and a religion" to "Buddhism is unusual among world religions for de-emphasizing the role of deities in human religious life. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods (indeed, gods are frequent characters in Buddhist scripture), they are not regarded as ultimate powers in the universe or as special sources of salvation"  Thanks for getting rid of the "amongst".  However, it looks to me like you've changed the meaning of paragraph a little, still accurate, but less relevant. 
I think the average reader is more likely to want to compare Buddhism to the monotheistic religions that they are familiar with, rather than polytheistic religions with multiple "deities".  Furthermore, I think it's a really good idea to avoid words like "god" or "deity" which, in contexts like this, are so vague as to be almost useless.  I don't think there's anything in Buddhism that could accurately be called a "god" in English -- the sutras talk about devas, so let's say devas.  In any event, I don't think we need to discuss that in the intro.
:Also, Russell Dovey changed it to: "Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings. Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods, and they are frequently referred to in Buddhist scripture, but they are not regarded as ultimate powers in the universe or as special sources of salvation." 
:This looks fine to me. I don't like changing it to "devas", as that's just taking advantage of a language barrier to euphemize. I would accept changing it to "supernatural beings," though. Deva means "god," and particularly if we take it in the lower case, that shouldn't be a problem. We can also get into the issue of God with a capital G, but that might lead us into a Mahayana-Early Buddhism conflict, as the metaphysical moves that make it clear that Early Buddhism is incompatible with Monotheism (and pan-theism, and monism) are later drastically reinterpreted in some Mahayana schools.
(Formerly No Worship of Higher Beings-now merged)
"Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings."
:::Isn't this completely misleading? Now, without ad hominems, let's consider boddhisattwas and Buddha, as well as Buddhism, which though its sects can largely be said to abide quite closely to main principles and texts, is quite diverse in practice. I know Buddhism quite well, and I know its philosophies. However, in popular practice, especially Theravada and Vajrayana, petitions and rituals involving Boddhisattvas, who are basically depicted as quasi-divinity-god figures, and even the Buddha himself, are quite common. With nitpicking one can say they are 'only being looked up to for support' or being 'venerated for their wisdom', but they are CERTAINLY higher beings, whether formerly enlightened humans or not, and they are being worshipped to quite an extent, including many crossover practices from other Dharma faiths including incense, and devotional ritual. The culture surrounding Ma Tara, a co-opted Hindu mother divinity, is a potent example of higher-being worship culture. Thus, the introductory paragraph, imho, is inaccurate. I invite a discussion, to consider the statement (reproduced above) and assure you that I will not change anything without vigorous (and ahimsa-abiding) discussion. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:04, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
::::Your concerns are well-taken. We've already had considerable conversation on this issue (I just put some of it under the header Talk:Buddhism#Gods,_etc., for convenience of reference). Personally, I've been avoiding raising the issue of what constitutes "worship" (and I'll agree with you that the Buddhism practiced by the majority of Buddhists definitely involves worship) until we've pinned the question of what constitutes a god...
::::But if we wanted to get down and dirty and truthful, wouldn't we have to say something like this: "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods (and, indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe ultimate power, either for creation or salvation, to them; they may, however, be regarded as having less ultimate powers to effect worldly events and to aid seekers of enlightenment, and are frequently honored through ritual. Advanced Buddhist beings (Buddha, Bodhisattvas, etc.) may be regarded as similarly belonging to such an intermediate class of beings."कुक्कुरोवाच
:::::Actually, the more I look at that language, the more I like it. Would anyone have any objection to my putting it up in place of the current version, at least tentatively? Obviously it won't stay that way any longer than anything else on wp...
::::::I think the paragraph as Surya quotes it shows evidence of having been written by committee, so I don't know how firmly any one person would stand behind it.  It seems to me that it is difficult to make any one blanket statement for Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhists on this.  I have no idea how those Tantric types would describe their relationship with various dharma protectors, wrathful spirits, dhyani buddhas, etc.  But the suggest that a Buddhist could "worship" anything other than, perhaps, Buddha as an abstract concept, deserves at least to be controversial, the same as it would be if you described Christians as worshipping saints.  कुक्कुरोवाच's suggested text above is definitely an improvement, although I think it's still a little too strong (I would prefer "having some powers") and I am still uncomfortable with using "god" here (see below).  Moreover, I don't see why this should be discussed in the intro; if it gives the impression that deva and asura veneration is a key point, that's misleading; and we haven't even introduced the concepts of buddha and bodhisattva yet. - Nat Krause 04:42, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I went ahead, if only because the old wording was bugging me. Please feel free to revert if this was hasty of me. I changed gods>divinities and used Nat's "some powers" wording: "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of divinities (and, indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe ultimate power, either for creation or salvation, to them. They may, however, be regarded as having some powers to effect worldly events and to aid seekers of enlightenment, and are frequently honored through ritual. Advanced Buddhist beings (Buddha, Bodhisattvas, etc.) may be regarded as belonging to a similar intermediate class of beings." I also moved the para to the end of the intro section, since (while I think it's not a bad thing to talk about up front), I agree that it is nowhere near what is most important or primary about Buddhism. Now, that's not to say that any part of the intro really presents a dynamic introduction to the religion....कुक्कुरोवाच 06:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Part the first

message: In his edits yesterday, Kukkurovaca added a section about the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyanavagga Sutras which "reveal an earlier form of the religion."  This may or not be true, but the way it stands it begs for further information.  In any event, I think it should be under "history of the schools" or something, rather than in its current spot.  Any of this "earlier form of" stuff is usually going to have POV problems, because it is heavily contested by Buddhists.
:Hmm. Yeah, I suppose it's out of place. I added a link to an article in "Philosophy East and West" that discusses them, and I'm planning to put together an article on them which will summarize said article and substantiate the issue more generally, and also discuss their contents. I'm not sure they belong in history of the schools, however, as they aren't especially important within any school of Buddhism. But perhaps we can insert a bit at the beginning of "History of the Schools" talking about "Earliest Buddhism" and what is and isn't known about it.
::Have now moved the info to its own page.कुक्कुरोवाच 20:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Atthakavagga and Earliest Buddhism

message: My pal 20040302 made some changes on Mar. 24, including one referring to Hinayana literate as "encourag[ing] nirvāṇa| rather than Buddhahood]].  I don't even want to try to wrap my brain around the question of whether we can validly contrast nirvana and Buddhahood.  Can we just say "arhatship rather than Buddhahood"?  Also, is it necessary to say "spiritual enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings" in the intro?  Couldn't we just say enlightenment there and explore the subject further somewhere else?
:I concede your first point. I think your approach is well spoken. However, the sencond point (ones-self, or for all beings) I feel should remain. If it is not made explicit, most people will think that the enlightenment is for ones-self only, so it is good to point out that this is not always the case, though I am sure you could find a more eloquent way of phrasing that. (20040302 11:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreee with 20040302 on both points.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you guys want to keep it, let's.  But I think it's kind of damned-if-ya-do, damned-if-ya-don't situation.  Taking it out might cause the problem you cite.  But leaving it in sets up this dichotomy between "enlightenment-for-self" and "enlightenment-for-others" which is not necessarily valid.  I will defer to your judgment. - Nat Krause 12:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm all for the standpoint of secular scholarship on the points of dating. I think NPOV for encyclopedias should be regarded as secular (though never anti-sectarian) anyway, but in issues like dating, it just gets too confusing otherwise, and sooner or later you get somebody saying the Mahayana was writting millions of years ago in a different yuga.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I'm skeptical of the idea that secular research is necessarily NPOV whereas religious claims are not.  There's a lot to be said for the idea that western scholars do (or at least did at one time) bring a lot of their preconceived notions to bear in interpreting eastern religions.  On the other hand, the extreme case you describe about different Yugas does not seem very desirable either.  In any event a) I'm still not sure what the phrase is supposed to mean exactly; b) "generally considered" in this context sounds like we're talking about Buddhists.  If we're talking about what scholars generally consider, then we should specify that; c) I'm not sure how strong the scholastic opinion is right now on which schools developed first.  For instance, how much of the Gandhara material has been incorporated into the academic consensus?  Generally, considering the lack of contemporary documentary evidence, I regard all the research on this stuff to be interesting but fairly weak, so I would prefer to tread more lightly on the subject of what's the earliest and what isn't. - Nat Krause 12:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] to [[User:20040302|20040302]] 

message: Oh, yeah, and then there this thing about the "open source" canon ("Since it is a basic tenet of the tradition that anyone may become enlightened, it is also possible for new authoritative sermons to be delivered and recorded).  That's been in there for awhile, not sure who put it in, but it always seemed questionable to me.  What exactly is this referring to?  What does it "enlightened" mean here?  People really aren't supposed to go around adding new sutras to the canon -- the Platform Sutra is a very unusual case, and I think that's a mistranslation from the Chinese anyway.
:I didn't put the text there, though I did link it to "open source", which was somewhat silly of me, I suppose. I'm not attached to it, as I don't think any scriptural canon is ever as closed as its owners think it is.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] to ?

message: Okay, so tell me what you think.  If there are any points above that no one has anything to say about, I will probably start making some changes in about a week. - Nat Krause 11:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: What the? Anon user 67.42.67.85 put this in the intro section:
Buddhism largely consists of the doing of good action, the avoidance of bad action, and mental training. The aim of these practices is to put an end to suffering and achieve spiritual enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings. Spiritual Enlightenment (a translation of "Bodhi" in Sanskrit and Pali or Satori in the Zen tradition) is considered to be touching or abiding in Nirvana (Sanskrit; in Pali, Nibbana, literally, "unbinding" or "extinguishing".) Nirvana is a supramundane state which is unconditioned, unmade, unborn, unfabricated and results from unbinding from or extinguishing all that was conditioned, born, made, or fabricated; Nirvana can be thought of as a state of ultimate peace or reality in which all duality in the universe is resolved.
:What's up with this "unbinding" business?कुक्कुरोवाच
Okay, I took out the bit on Nirvana, and stuck it on the Talk:Nirvana page. Then I streamlined the rest somewhat to this:
"Buddhism largely consists of the doing of good action, the avoidance of bad action, and mental training. The aim of these practices is to put an end to suffering and achieve enlightenment either for ones-self, or for all beings. Enlightenment is considered to be touching or abiding in  (Sanskrit; Pali: Nibbāna), which means "extinguishing" or "extinction.""
Howzzat?कुक्कुरोवाच 17:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your change.  I'm still kind of uncomfortable with having the word "extinction" in there.  Clearly that word will have strong negative connotations for most people who read it.  "Extinguishment" is more neutral -- on the one hand it might imply something like the Fire Sermon, with the individual as a burning thing that needs to be put out.  However, if you want to keep "extinction" in, maybe if we want to shake people up a little on purpose, then let's keep it.  Which do you think is more faithful to the original Sanskrit? - Nat Krause 12:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thesis the 96th

message: I deleted the "featurenom" msg, as (a) We're actually on the Featured Articles list already (how the hell did that happen?), and (b) the only other article that actually has a featurenom tag is DOOM. And while it's always nice to be a in a group that selective...कुक्कुरोवाच
:Yeah, I've got to say, I would have waited for the page to settle down a little before featuring it. - Nat Krause 04:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featurenom

message: Here's a nit-pick about the three marks of existence (I've never seen mention of the "three marks of conditioned existence" before).  Not all three are about conditioned things nor about all dhammas.
The Dhammapada, verses 277-279, states:
        All conditioned things are anicca
        All conditioned things are dukkha
        All dhammas are anatta
As I understand it, "dhamma" as used in this context is the most inclusive, catch-all category in Pali.  Sue Hamilton (Very Short Introduction to Indian Philosophy) translates it as "knowable things", which I like. (2004-04-09T08:05+0000)
:Hmm. That's a fair point about "conditioned"--not that it's not conditioned existence, but what in Buddhism wouldn't be conditioned? Pratitya-samutpada tells us all things arise dependently, which is to say under conditions.
:Similarly, the "dharma" is the fundamental phenomenlogical constituent, so everything that enters into our experience is composed of "dharmas", so everything is about "dharmas," as well.
:"Knowable thing" is an entirely problematic translation, since the "dharma" is not an object of consciousness but an element of it, and of all experience. "Phenomenon" is the best short translation; one might also fuss about with "sensabile," if one so desired.
:All that said, what specifically might you want changed in the text as it stands? I'm not sure I see the distinction just yet.कुक्कुरोवाच
::(Meant to be on holiday, but hey.)  Well, Nibbana is most often cited as being unconditioned. Certainly, Nibbana that was Dukkha or Anicca would undermine Buddhism in a pretty major way, but everything is definately Anatta. (20040302 18:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point. Though that's a tangled metaphysical issue unto itself.कुक्कुरोवाच 19:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three marks of existence 

message: Okay, I've just stumbled across, like, five articles that weren't indexed in the "List of Buddhist Topics", which ideally should be encyclopedic. Keep your eyes open!कुक्कुरोवाच 23:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scavenger Hunt

message: I just added a bigger and more information-laden tree of the 18+ early schools over at Schools of Buddhism, and I'm in the process of making stubs for several of them, on the grounds that stubs are better than nothing, though I know there are some who disagree. (grin) Editing, enfleshing, and correcting on any and all of these things is much appreciated. However, I'm not going to put these in the Open Tasks, as some of these are genuinely obscure, and I don't expect them to get dealt with for some time. If you're more optimistic about some of them, feel free to add them.कुक्कुरोवाच 03:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Buddhist schools additions

message: Hey, folks. If you look at the Atman and Soul articles, (a) neither is satisfactory, and (b) maybe we should move the soul stuff to the atman page. Or point both towards anatta.
I figure we can all just chip away at (a) as necessary, but what about (b)?कुक्कुरोवाच
Ew. I hadn't looked at atman.. I added it to the x-ref line above. I don't know about mere points, as I think that we can say something about soul and atman rather than just 'this is what we think of anatta'. atman is illusion. yeesh. Sounds too much like some form of transcendentalist maya structure. (20040302 11:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Atman/Soul Question

message: I'm thinking partly for Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism here, but also for general utility: is there some article we have that's just a really good example of what articles on Buddhism should look like? (It could also be more specific: an article that's a really good example of what an article on a Buddhist text should look like, for example.) If so, what are the aspects of the article that constitute particular draws for you? If not, what would it take for an article to make the cut?कुक्कुरोवाच 03:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A "model" Buddhism article?

message: It seems like these guys don't necessarily warrant inclusion on the Buddhism "see also", but I'm not sure they fit in properly with "list of Buddhists"...do we have a "List of Buddhism-related authors" or something like that?कुक्कुरोवाच 02:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Couldn't we just put them under "Buddhist topics"? - Nat Krause 03:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hesse and Van De Wetering

message: On you begining paragraph for "Dalai Lama", you say that he is the most important religious leader in Tibetan Buddhism after the Penchen Lama. Then there is a link to "Penchem Lama", and the opening paragraph says that he is the second most important leader second to the Dalai Lama. Who is more important?
:What is this about? For the record: This appears to be an issue of pre-chinese politics - at which time the Dalai Lamas were (at least nominally) the heads of state, and the Panchen Lama was second to him in terms of religious representation, so this is more to do with Tibet than Tibetan Buddhism. 
:Certainly nowadays the 14th Dalai Lama is the Tibetan Buddhist teacher with most students, and he is undoubtedly a VIP at airports and hotels (and to me!), whereas the Panchen Lama is famous for being the youngest political prisoner of modern times and hasn't been seen by anyone but the chinese for several years. (20040302 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tibetan question from Ref desk

message: Heartjewel recently added this:
"There are two main branches of Buddhism: the Mahayana with an emphasis on attaining enlightenment through the development of bodhichitta; and the Hinayana with an emphasis on attaining liberation from samsara through the practice of moral discipline."
to more or less the very beginning of Buddhism. Now, the article already provides a discussion of the three vehicles that has been the subject of considerable out-hashing, and I don't think we need the discussion broached at the beginning of the article, but this can be the subject of further discussion. In any case, this division is fairly suspect, and would have to be heavily reworked, I think. Also, wouldn't it be "bodhicitta"? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:05, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
:'bodhicitta' Well, both spellings are generally used. I prefer the lack of the h, but then those who do not have any experience with the asian languages have difficulty with pronouncing it.
:Regarding the division though - yes. I still agree that the division remains deeply suspect, albeit incredibly popular. Regardless, Heartjewel is mistaken regarding the hinayana - both of these divisions depend upon the three higher trainings (sila/samatha/jnana), though mahayana traditions use the meme of six perfections, whereas the theravada prefer the eightfold path. Regardless, we should pull it until HeartJewel has something to say (20040302 04:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: recent edit by [[User:Heartjewel|Heartjewel]]

message: Are there any wikipedia-wide standards for what external links are deemed includable? I just deleted one singularly crappy-looking one, but maybe I overstepped. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
:Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing.  I don't know that there are rules, which makes it hard to know what should stay and what should go.  I see now somebody has changed the "google directory" link on this page to the "dmoz directory", but I have no idea what makes one better or worse.  There's also kind of a funny new link on Zen, Sit Down and Shut Up!, which is kind of an interesting site, but I am inclined to say it is not general interest enough for this page. - Nat Krause 04:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in terms of Buddhism, any external link should at least meet the criteria deals with entire concept of Buddhism rather than a specific tradition or aspect.  In this way, we will keep links to relevant pages.  There are a few to be removed even if we only decide on a simple rule like this one. --prat 01:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I went through and tried to make it so that all and only the links that are both encyclopedic and pertinent to Buddhism as a whole are included. But others should check and make sure I didn't miss anything and/or unfairly exclude anything. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards for inclusion of external links?

message: Am I totally goofy or did the Deer Park picture used to be a whole different picture?  I could have sworn it was a landscape at one point. - Nat Krause 17:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deer Park picture 

message: * Most Buddhist and other people, they don't unsderstand buddhism sharply. In buddhism, Buddha means the God. Any other religion in the world insist that human can't become the God (the god as in Christ, Muslim). but only the Buddha insist that human can be the god. this is greatest religious revolution in the earth. this is most important (core of the core) teaching of the Buddha. this is fundamantal difference to any other religion.
* so, in buddhism, meditation practice(study, not pray) and the zen test is most important. a person pass the zen test, he (or she) is authorized that he become the God.
* now, in south korea only, a few people has passed the exam. -- thirdid 01:01, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
----
:Uh-huh.  Why in South Korea only?  You wouldn't happen to be South Korean, would you?  I've noticed that all of your edits seem to involve promoting various things as being exclusively Korean. - Nat Krause 08:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the qualities and special features of Buddhism, unfortunately the thesis in this case in mistaken, Thirdid.  Various branches of Hinduism also say that it is possible to become God. Moreover, there are certainly parts of the Vedas that allude to this, which would mean that this religious revolution could not be said to have originated in Buddhism. Believe me, I personally have great faith in the paths of Buddha - more so than in any other spiritual paths, but I am merely pointing out an error in your somewhat militant statement. (20040302 09:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: User:JoaJoa opinions of Buddhism

message: Huh. Well. This kind of blows chunks. Specifically: (1) The new style, monobook, while aesthetically pleasing in the extreme, specifies Verdana, such that if you use it, the majority of Sanskrit diacritics will be not so much of the available. Also, Verdana's a pretty lame font as such. 
:Okay, update on this. It's pretty easy to customzie the css; just create yourself a subpage called monobook.css and include something like  * {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"}  I'm sure there's a less brutal way of doing it, but I wasn't in a patient mood. Also, does anyone know of (a) a good serif face with a full suite of unicode glyphs, and/or (b) a good free font of any kind with a full suite of unicode glyphs? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
::I used to use this one, a long time ago. I can't for the life of me tell you how well it supports Devanagari -- or even whether it's serif or not -- but I do remember its CJK support was decent (at least for the time). --Aponar Kestrel  (talk) 03:13, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
:::Using a font to change characters only works on those CPUs that have that font.. and Arial Unicode MS is generally found only on Windows. 
:::With respect to UTF-8, the reason that mediawiki doesn't encode it by default is probably that the DB Engine of choice (mysql) did not properly support UTF-8, so I guess the bods at mediawiki decided not to implement UTF-8 encoding until it was supported properly by mysql. (20040302)
(2) My beloved msg: system of transliteration seems to break somewhat in 1.3. Which is unfortunate. It also doesn't seem to break in a coherent or predictable manner. As I don't thin anyone else was using this extensively, this probably isn't a huge concern, but I will say that changing from msg: to template: helps exactly some of the time, and that part of the problem comes from having two msg: tags in the same word. The simplest thing would be to change over to subst: and have these things go back to their numbered entities, but unfortunately this doesn't always work. I'm pondering solutions currently.
:Okay, some of the time it helps to use a | at the end of the template name, like , but only some of the time. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Damn you, 1.3!!!

message: A couple days ago, Usedbook re-added a couple changes that he had put in place originally towards the beginning of the month.  I think they should be removed again, but I wanted to give my reasons before doing so.  With regard to nirvana="unbinding", Kukkurovaca, whose Sanskrit, I think, is better than any other regular editors here, has said on Talk:Nirvana "Nirvana does not literally mean 'unbinding'".  Usedbook says in his edit summary, "extinguishing definition rejected by Siddhartha".  What's the source for this?  And what does this even mean?  How do you reject the meaning of a word?  I could say something like, "The Great Extinguishment is not the putting out of a fire," but that wouldn't change the definition of the word extinguishment, especially not if you're giving a literal translation of it into another language.  I also take issue with "all beings have non-self", which is grammatically questionable and adds nothing over "all beings have no self." - Nat Krause 10:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no expert, and Nirvana is a rather widely interpreted word. But I'm pretty certain it originally meant extinguishing, and certainly that's the literal meaning. I think I suggested previously that if the "unbinding" definition has roots in a tradition, we should talk about that as part of that tradition, but certainly it shouldn't be given as the base definition. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: edits by Usedbook 

message: To my knowledge, the full Pali Canon has never been translated directly from Pali into any of the modern languages, including English. Can anybody shed light on this fact - is that true? The thing is that I recently learned than Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese new religion (it is known for its subway gas attack in 1995) has translated the Pali Canon into Japanese (and in full). But NatKrause says that the Pali Canon was translated to Japanese even before, but I can't check it. How could it be? Anybody can confirm?
:Didn't the PTS do a full translation to English? And I believe the major Asian languages have had their versions of the canon since ancient times. I don't know if these were all "full" translations--though I think the Mahayana tended to add to the Tripitaka, not take away. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to restate something I wrote on Talk:Aum Shinrikyo, to the effect that www.accesstoinsight.com claims that "almost all" of the Pali Canon had been published in English, with exception of "a few obscure books".  This is tangential to Kukku's point, though, because the PTS may have translated the whole thing but declined to publish certain parts (also, it was FWBOarticle, and not me, that commented on the Japanese translation). - Nat Krause 04:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The Pali Canon is also available in Sinhalese, Burmese and Thai. In the Mahayana (Chinese) Canon, is one of the sections on the Agamas, though that is from the Sanskrit translation and *may* differ from the Pali sources. PTS has more or less the full translation, though I believe some of the "smaller texts" (Khuddka Nikaya) is yet to be translated. Furthermore, the Sinhalese, Burmese and Thai translations each had minor differences in terms of their Abhidhamma.--ZhiXing-Bhikkhu 20:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to clarify what appears to be a minor confusion on the part of Kukku and ZX-B.  "Pali Canon" is a subcategory of "the agamas", i.e. it is specifically the Theravada version.  Therefore, the fact that the traditional Mahayana canons have their own versions of the same texts, while very interesting in general, is not relevant to the specific claims that Aum Shinrikyo makes about the Pali Canon.  Well, it is not relevant to the literal truth of those claims, although it might put their claims in a different light if there were pre-existing versions that were nearly identical.  (And, of course, the Sinhalese, Burmese, and Thai versions that ZhiXing mentions are almost certainly translations of the Pali version, anyway). - Nat Krause 09:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations of Pali Canon: was it ever translated in full?

message: I just stumbled on human realm (linked to from Human). What's the status of this? If it is valid, it should probably be polished and linked, if not, it should, hm, also be dealt with ;) dab 15:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it's valid (not sure about the "graphical representation part, though; it would be nice if someone could take a look at that), and it does need polishing and wikifying.  I've been meaning to suggest to User:beta m that it might be a good idea to merge human realm, animal realm, asura realm, hell realm, hungry ghost realm, and Gods realm into one more comprehensive six realms article. - Nat Krause 16:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[human realm]]?

message: Chuck Muller here. I'm a pretty extensive contributor to the Buddhism area. Suggestion: regarding the Buddhism box, I think the entry at the top "terms and concepts," is a redundant piece of human labor that does not well utilize Wikipedia's built-in tools, like ((Category:Buddhist terms)). In other words, rather than building a separate word list, we can just add Category links at the bottom of all these terms. I've begun to do it. Eventually, I would suggest the same kind of strategy for Buddhist persons, temples, texts, etc. Acmuller
:I've been thinking about this for awhile.  Eventually, categories will probably replace all sorts of lists.  In the meantime, some people still avoid using categories, so duplicating efforts might not be a bad thing.    I think one should feel free to work on one or the other or both.  Currently, lists do provide some advantages, primarily that it is easier to edit entries in one action.  Suppose we have a list of people, and I want to add the years when each one lived.  I can do that in a category by the format Attila T. Presley (566-593) or whatever, but it's a hassle to go through and do that for a bunch of people.  In the future, there may be tools to make this easier. - Nat Krause 09:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion regarding lists of terms, persons, etc.

message: Several articles were recently categorized by anon  62.252.128.15 as belonging to category "Theravada Buddhism"; this includes some articles, such as "Dharma", that some might argue (i.e., I might argue) should be implied to inhere to all forms of Buddhism, and that a Theravada category tag should be applied only to things pertaining to Theravada Buddhism as opposed to other forms of Buddhism. Otherwise we're going to get some serious redundancy going on. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally. The Buddhism category should do it for Buddhist terms and terminology. (20040302 17:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, also. - Nat Krause 12:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Theravada categorization 

message: I notice that on Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates people seem to be talking about references as a standard requirement of featured articles. Should we try to put together a list of works we've consulted in editing the Buddhism page? Most of my edits to this particular page have actually been based on general knowledge rather than specific texts, but if anybody can recall texts they've used... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References