Talk:Buddhism/Archive 6

message: The section now at Talk:Buddhism/Buddhism and Intellectualism consisted of 72 kilobytes of markup at 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism and Intellectualism

message: As of 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page notes

message: "I have not attempted to provide a summary of Buddhist thought and practice here. Such an undertaking is fraught with difficulties in a book-length study, and is impossible in a brief introduction." (Lopez, Buddhist Scriptures, Penguin Classics, 2004, page xl)
This is not a scholarly consensus, as a number of scholars have written just such brief introductions, but it is a scholarly view and has to be taken into account. It raises the more general question of how long the article has to be. If it has to satisfy a scholarly consensus of its adequacy then it would have to be extremely long. Presumably each scholar might have a different estimate, but most of those would be impossible to find out. Peter jackson 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply raising a question about the interpretation of the guidelines. Realistically, yes, we're not going to have a book-length article. In the proposed rewrite I've inserted a reference to Lopez' view. As to whether the article should be shorter, it's certainly a good deal longer than the recommended maximum, as the system reminds you automatically every time you go to edit it. On the other hand it's about the same length as Christianity and Islam. If anything one might expect it to be longer owing to greater variety, but Hinduism is actually shorter, though perhaps even more varied. In the proposed rewrite I've cut a lot of the history as I don't think that would be the main interest of readers, but I've added a lot on doctrine and practice, to make it, not so much longer, as more balanced: most forms of Buddhism are pretty much ignored in the current article, which, as far as teaching goes, is almost entirely Westernized Theravada. The net effect of these changes probably doesn't change the length much.
The Buddha may or may not have given a brief introduction to his own teachings, whatever they may have been, but he most certainly did not give a brief introduction to Buddhism. The conventional reference of the word Buddhism is not what someone said thousands of years ago but a religion followed by hundreds of millions today, and that is what the article must be mainly aboout. Peter jackson 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries 

message: Sorry if this is not directly related to the Buddhism page, but I would value an expert view on the strong suggestions that are made in the 'Greco-Buddhism' page as if Greek influence is of major not only to Mahaya Buddhist art, but also to its philosophy. Though the first claim may be based on some reasonable common sense, I really don't see how a Greek influence on Buddhist phlosophy can be found anywhere. There are many hints on the page suggesting that, but all that sources say is 'there may have been some influence' - with the same reasoning I can say that the Chinese may have influenced the Roman Church - in other words, it sounds like quite unfounded speculation to me?? Perhaps you noticed that I am suspicious of (us) westerners only interpreting the world from our own point of view, and if we hear of any sensible philosophy on this planet, it has to come from the Greek... rudy 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should look for the greek inflence on Buddhism not in Greece, but in Kashmir and Gandhara. For example the Milinda Panha is an example of greek-style questioning applied to Buddhism. And the Greek in Gandhara were supporters of Buddhism, and of course they brought some of their own influences to the religion, one of which was the creation of Buddha-images. I've heard before some claims that the greeks could have influenced Buddhist philosophy to grow more god-like, or at least given it a reason to go more into that direction, or else would have been interested in such kinds of Buddhism. Later, Mahayana became very strong in this previously greek area. There's also evidence of Asoka's missionaries going to Albania and spreading the Dhamma there - a long way from India, these monks would have to travel through Greece. This all happened at about 250 - 100 BCE. Also, one of the missionaries of Asoka was actually a greek, the first mention of a 'western monk', and Megasthenes was a greek ambassador at the court of Pataliputta. Just a collection of some facts. Greetings, Sacca 08:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a collection of facts, but a mixture of facts, theories & myths. Some of the Greeks in Gandhara ... The Greek origin of Buddha images is a theory, not an established fact. Yes, Asoka's missionaries went to Macedonia & Epirus, which may have overlapped into modern Albania, but the names of the missionaries are from later sources. Peter jackson 10:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a small point in ths context, but Asoka did not send any missionaries anywhere -- he sent imperial emissaries.  The big Buddhist missionary effort did take place during his reign, but it was not sponsored by him at all. This was demonstrated quite satisfactorily several years ago by KS Norman, I believe.--Stephen Hodge 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly Peter, so I think the entire page contents needs to be completely rewritten into 'may-have-been' and 'could-have-been', and then, it has no place in an encyclopedia??? rudy 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly: the guidelines say we should report widely held beliefs, but of course as such, not as facts. How much space they're entitled to in any given article needs to be looked at. Peter jackson 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's clear, but then, what is the 'widely spread belief' here? Perhaps the the influence of Greek art, but in my view certainly not any influence on philosophy, would you agree?rudy 10:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Greco-Buddhism]]

message: I'd like to get some more eyes and brains involved in this article- there are a number of problems with it regarding accurately depicting the variety of perspectives on the relationship between Buddhism & and Hinduism, as well as a recent dispute over how to incorporate views of Buddhism that emphasize its decent from the Hindu tradition.  Myself, Arrow740, and Rebel XTi have been going round and round for a bit, and I believe we're at the point where repeated reverting is blocking progress on the article.  --Clay Collier 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my two cents, I don't like the subject of that page at all; I mean that when you compare apples and oranges, it is very dificult indeed not to create a collection of points of view. If it were for me, such articles have no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia... As long as everyone is struggling even to get a decent article together describing Buddhism, and Hinduism is a barely definable other religion as every teacher within it can virtually start his own form of Hinduism, trying to compare the two objectively is pretty much a hopeless task in my view.rudy 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buddhism and Hinduism]] 

message: === Unacceptable Changes to Opening Paragraph of Entry ===
("Changes to Lead Paragraph" is new NPoV and WP-terminology section title; old title "Unacceptable Changes to Opening Paragraph of Entry" is now (subordinated to it but) retained so links to section still work.)
The section now at Talk:Buddhism/Changes to Lead Paragraph consisted of 26 kilobytes of markup at 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Lead Paragraph 

message: ("Changes to Lead Paragraph" is new NPoV and WP-terminology section title; old title "Unacceptable Changes to Opening Paragraph of Entry" is now (subordinated to it but) retained so links to section still work.)
The section now at Talk:Buddhism/Changes to Lead Paragraph consisted of 26 kilobytes of markup at 06:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable Changes to Opening Paragraph of Entry 

message: This was notified above about a month ago. It still has only 2 contributors, & only a few comments have been made on it. It looks like the only way of getting a response is to import it, so here it is. It's not intended as a finished product (nor was the old article) & still needs a lot of work, but I'd like other people to do some, not just out of laziness, but also to bring in different knowledge & perspectives. Peter jackson 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal has been mentioned a number of times on this page since the 11th of August. Most people have neither contributed nor commented. That's why it's here now.
If you think important stuff has been deleted you're free to put it back. However, bear in mind the question of the length of the article. The recommended upper limit is 32kb. The old article was far longer, but about the same as Christianity & Islam. The new version is in between. The only opinion expressed on this page (ignoring archives) is that of Sacca, that the old article was too long.
Yes, there are few refs yet. But then there weren't all that many before. I've given a few for "controversial" points, ie ones where Western Buddhists are often misinformed. I'd prefer to leave the hard work until we've sorted out exactly what we want in the article. Some parts should be expanded, others contracted.
The most important point is that the old article was grossly imbalanced. As I've said a number of times, it was mainly Westernized Theravada doctrine & Indian Buddhist history. The rest of the field was dealt with very sketchily if at all. Some major forms of Buddhism were not even mentioned until I put them in a while back. So a major rewrite of some sort was absolutely essential, & I started to do that my own way, but hadn't got far before this was proposed. I decided to ride with it for now, but I'm not committed to this particular way of doing it. If other people want to produce their own proposals for a balanced article, we can discuss which we prefer. Peter jackson 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Let's suppose we want to have this in the intro. I think everyone would agree that the intro should not say what Buddhism isn't without saying what it is, while the reverse is possible. So producing a summary of what it is must come 1st, & that must be fair to all main forms of Buddhism. Peter jackson 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of God in Hinduism is discussed in depth in the article Deva(Buddhism). There is no need to incorporate it into this article because the concept of god plays such a minute role in Buddhism.--ॐJesucristo301 11:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: God

message: As of September 18, 2007 11:50 PM EST, the Buddhism article states as follows:
"Buddhism is often described as a religion[1] and a collection of various philosophies.[2] To many, however, Buddhism is regarded as a set of spiritual teachings and practices rather than a religion.[3] [4] "
First of all the above writing technically does not even define what Buddhism is. It only states that is often described as a religion and that some people regard it as something else. The author seems like he or she wants to say that Buddhism is better regarded as something other than a religion or he or she seems to disfavor Buddhism being defined as a religion. Aside from being clear bias, it is wishy-washy and unacceptable for an encyclopedia article.
The question over whether Buddhism is to be regarded as a religion, or whether it is better understood as something else, should not be included in the introductory definition. As it stands, the excerpt quoted above would only serve to mystify Buddhism to more Westerners than to clarify it.
Also, if this article is to address the issue that many Westerners regard or refer to Buddhism as something other than a religion then it should also state it in the context of Western Buddhism. Therefore, it should say something to the affect of "...in the West [or] among Western Buddhists, Buddhism has been discussed as a philosophy rather than a religion", for example. This however doesn't mean that it can't be defined in the introduction as a "religion and philosophy, etc."
In order to give authors of this article some fresh ideas, please compare the above excerpt of the English Wikipedia article on Buddhism, with the opening sentences of the Thai language version. The first few lines of the Thai article reads:
"Buddhism or Buddhist religion or religion of Buddhism, as it is understood, refers to a religion of clear awareness, it is a religion that has the Triple Gem as its highest refuge, namely the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha."
"พระพุทธศาสนา หรือ พุทธศาสนา หรือ ศาสนาพุทธ โดยความหมายแล้ว หมายถึงศาสนาแห่งความรู้แจ้ง เป็นศาสนาที่มีพระรัตนตรัย เป็นสรณะอันสูงสุด อันได้แก่ พระพุทธเจ้า พระธรรม และ พระสงฆ์"
Also compare to the Spanish version's introduction:
"Buddhism is a non-theistic religion pertaining to the Dharmic family of religions. 
Additionally, it is also a philosophy, 
a method of training and spiritual practice and a school of psychology."
"El Budismo es una religión no-teísta perteneciente a la familia dhármica de religiones. Adicionalmente también es una filosofía, un método de entrenamiento y práctica espiritual y un sistema psicológico."
The Spanish version is accurate, simple and clear and reflects something accessible to Westerners. I suggest the English article should copy it. The Thai version's definition appears clearly religious but is nonetheless accurate. The word "philosophy" does not appear anywhere in the Thai language version. Coolbo 04:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words? 

message: Peter and Tony asked me to vote on versions (thanks, guys for your messages). So here I am voting:
* 158016049 dated 2007-09-15 08:24:07 by Peter morrell. One of the main reasons for this vote is to avoid information loss. Other reasons I would describe also as important. See discussion above. Klimov 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  U misunderstood. I'm not suggesting of having only 3 division. What i actualy suggest is that we start with the 1st section and then the 2nd...until the last. Instead of trying to modify the whole article all together. I agree with the way you arrange your version of the article & it size....but for most of the editor it will be just too overhelming to edit the whole article all at once. Sawadeekrap 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is not a debate we can win. Unfortunate but true, change does not generally happen on pages with many editors, regardless of the state of the article. --Gimme danger 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Additionally, it seems that using the talk page to make changes is fairly useless, as when I announced here that I was attempting a rewrite, you were the only one to respond at all, positively or negatively. Perhaps introducing improvements one at a time, though tedious, will be more effective. I must admit that I'm quite frustrated with this article, since I don't see much chance for change or improvement. And I must also admit that I'm still rather miffed that when I standardized and completed the reference section, that I was the one accused of both making insufficient references and not completing the task quickly enough! Alright, I'm done now. --Gimme danger 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how PeterJ's religion enters into the discussion. I was not aware that one had to be a Buddhist to edit this article. --Gimme danger 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am afraid that I haven't followed all of the discussion--it seemed to me to be rather a discussion among theologians and I am afraid that I just tuned out.  But can this consumer get a word in?  I have found the "old copy" very useful for my limited understanding and I have recommended it to others who have had the same reaction.  So it was to my surprise that I suddenly discovered that it had undergone massive changes.  I then found out that there had been an ongoing discussion which if I have understood it does not really seem to have made an overwhelming case for the kind of changes that have been made. Until it does, does not Wikipractice opt for the status quo?Joel Mc 17:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting for versions 

message: "Buddhism is conventionally classified as a religion, a point on which a variety of views have been expressed."
In other words, the author says: "Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion, but this is not necessarily the case." Essentially, the author is stating a contention not a fact. Imagine if the article on "Tomato" stated: "The Tomato is conventionally classified as a vegetable, but some people say it's a fruit." Or vice-versa. This is just ridiculous. The question "Is Buddhism a religion?" does not need to be addressed or referred to for the purposes of a general encyclopedia article. It would be an appropriate topic for an academic treatise however.
For the sake of general encyclopedia article, there's nothing wrong or biased with simply stating "Buddhism is a religion..." Buddhism in form and practice is a religion like any other religion: it has clergy, temples, relics, sacred texts, etc. (there's no need to source this statement, it's common knowledge). However, the possibility that Buddhism may *substantially* be something other than a religion, for example, a philosophy or way of life or whatever, is not precluded by simply stating "Buddhism is a religion..." One could also write: "Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy and...so on and so forth..."
This is my point: people do have a variety of views on what Buddhism is, but these variety of viewpoints and/or the fact that people have these views need not be stated in a general and neutral encyclopedia article on Buddhism, at least not in the introductory paragraph. The article is titled "Buddhism" not "Views on Buddhism" or "Different Conceptions of Buddhism." 
It's not false nor biased to state "Buddhism is a religion..." Besides the word "religion" could be broadly construed despite its connotations. Coolbo 07:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the Spanish opening: "Buddhism is a non-theistic religion..." I think that clears up one important distinction straight away. I also suspect that Buddhism's non-theism may be the point that has confused previous editors (possibly some with a strong background in the Abrahamic religions) into wanting to launch straight into a "but-it's-not-a-proper-religion" discussion at the head of this article. --Nigelj 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about opening with a sentence based on two or three short lists like, "Buddhism is a term that refers to a range of religious, physical, mental and spiritual practices, philosophies and beliefs that have developed and evolved over many centuries in many parts of the world." Then a unifying thought like the existing second sentence, "The writings and teachings of Buddhism are based on..." or, as it is,  "It was founded around the fifth century BCE by Gautama Buddha in what is now India." --Nigelj 11:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also like, "Central to most Buddhist teaching is the concept of awareness and the development of mindfulness, usually through the practice of meditation."  I'm sure, with a brief trawl of the literature, it would be easy enough to find citations for each of these words, and to wikilink them too. --Nigelj 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words Continue 

message: Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, Routledge, London/New York, 1989:
p1: "... the diversity to be found within Buddhism ... This diversity prevents, or strongly hinders, generalization about Buddhism as a whole. ... It is important to emphasize this lack of unanimity at the outset."
p2: "The importance of appreciating doctrinal diversity applies not just to Buddhism as a whole but to the Mahayana itself. There is a fallacy which I shall call the 'essentialist fallacy'. This occurs when we take a single name or naming expression and assume that it must refer to one unified phenomenon. this is indeed a fallacy, as a little thought will show, but it is a peculiarly pervasive and deep-rooted fallacy, giving rise to the feeling that because we use the same word so there must be some core, an essence, identified by the relevant definition. Thus the same thing is expressed each time the utterance is used. Because the expression 'Mahāyāna ... has been used by Buddhists from perhaps ... the first century BCE to the present day, from India through ... to ... the Western world, so it must refer to some identifiable characteristics which we can capture in a defintion."
p3: "Buddhist philosophy from its inception embodied a sustained criticism of this essentialist fallacy. ... It would be a good idea, I think, if we too could learn from the Buddhists at this early stage in our study of Mahāyāna to look behind linguistic unities and see them as simply constructions imposed by the use of a single naming expression. Mahāyāna is not, and never was, a single unitary phenomenon."
p4: "... Mahāyāna sūtras. If we look at this enormous literature ... what we find in reality is a shifting mass of teachings with little or no central core ... What unifying element there is in Buddhism, Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna, is provided by the monks and their adherence to the monastic rule."
To which I'd add that Japanese Buddhism has abandoned the monastic rule & most of its clergy are married. Peter jackson 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentialism 

message: Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism has 4 chapters on doctrine, covering rebirth & karma, 4 noble truths, Mahayana philosophy & Mahayana holy beings. Peter jackson 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: An AfD you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buddhist_polemics.  bikeable (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist polemics 

message: Just wondering if anyone wants a (GONG!) joss stick.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to wish people luck, or some variant of WP:TEA - I didn't mean anything particular by it, just a nice thing to say. there was apparently an edit war going on about something, and someone brought up the topic of "a nice cup of tea", so I suggested joss sticks, the burning of which I thought would be a nice and respectable thing to do, like sitting with a cup of tea. The "GONG" is a special effect. It seemed appropriate to the topic, and I was entranced by the smell of the incense in that Mahayana Buddhist temple by (or about a block from) the Manhattan Bridge entrance in Manhattan. (If you live in New York's Chinatown, you'd know what temple I'm talking about - that yellow building.) I learned of joss sticks from accounts of Chinese religion.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I found the temple in question, it's at 133 Canal St.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joss sticks, anyone?

message: Sooooo many times ive noticed people just dont want to admit that Buddhism came from India. I mean if I was somebody that didnt know anything about Buddhism, and I just skimmed the start of this article, I wouldnt think Buddhism came from India. I mean it starts by saying that its believed Buddha was born in present day Nepal......Folks.......This is annoying......I mean Buddha traveled all over India. He gained enlightenment in India. He died in India. And he was born in Nepal (but in those days there was no Nepal, so its just a technicality).....And yet.....People dont want to say Buddhism came from INdia or Ancient India.......All im saying is the article should start by saying something along the lines of "Buddhism originated from India" or you can say "Buddhism originated from ancient India"..........71.107.53.222 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I took care of it. Arrow740 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why dont you people want to say Buddhism came from India? 

message: Would those interested please comment at Talk:Gautama_Buddha#Name? Thanks, Arrow740 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at Talk:Gautama_Buddha#Name has evolved to discussing the possibility of renaming the current Buddha article (e.g., to Buddhas or sammasambuddha or Buddhahood) and moving the current Gautama Buddha article to Buddha.  Anyone with any thoughtful and sincere view on this, please add your ideas to Talk:Gautama_Buddha#Name.  Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't time to go off to another page but it does not seem a good idea to me renaming the article.  Surely this standard usage in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and a good number of books in the bibio.  Why confuse the world.Joel Mc 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it thoughtful to ignore the existing multi-person discussion, the exchange of rationales, and to simply post your idea here? What is the benefit to WP to have parallel conversations on multiple pages?  (After all, a similar request to the above has also been posted on Talk:Buddha.)  How is it civil to expect that people who have already posted on another page will reiterate their statements here simply because you don't have time to "go off to another page"?  Or are you presuming that someone will try to collate your words here within the existing discussion on Talk:Gautama Buddha?  If you have time to respond to this append, then you have time to click on the aforementioned link. I encourage your doing so and, frankly, post this append here to encourage others to think before considering following your example here. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My, my.  I am not sure what is behind such agression.  I have been reading the posts on the "other page", but don't have the time or really the competence to enter into the discussion on the other page. As I have said before, I am a consumer, not a theologian.  As a consumer I do think I am in a good position to feel that it is not a good idea to change the name and vote against it on this talk page which is what it is for, I believe.Joel Mc 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my response's harsh tone, especially the Edit Summary. As regards to the content of you statement, see Talk:Gautama_Buddha#Name. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The penny drops.  I should be the one to apologize for my unmindful response.  I thought that it was all about renaming the Buddhism article. I am agnostic about the proposal for the Buddha page. --Joel Mc 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joel - Given the page this is posted on, your misperception is completely understandable.  My impatience and self-righteous tone were not; so, again, I apologize, sincerely.  In addition, I appreciate your follow-up as it dispels any possible confusion.  Also, earnestly, your initial post motivated my checking on-line encyclopedias which unquestionably facilitated the whole decision-making process; so, again, you have my thanks.  I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: There should be at least some mention of the similarities between the two 'philosophies' (for lack of a better word) though they were developed completely independently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.249.183 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism vs Stoicism 

message: We seem to be slipping back into old faults. We now have a section headed Northern (Vajrayana) Buddhism. These are not necessarily the same thing. For a start, Shingon is often called Vajrayana. Peter jackson 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vajrayana 

message: Page was vandalized 13:38, 12 October 2007 by 209.120.161.36 and subsequent times by that IP and two junk usernames. I did a full article revert because, well, it's Buddhism. I hope I didn't screw something up. --einexile 14:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Sacca, please stop this. It is grossly unbalanced to give lots of lengthy citations from the few scholars who maintain that the early scriptures substantially go back to the Buddha but hardly any from the others who disagree, & not even mention that there are only a few who hold that position. It falsifies the state of scholarly opinion & is unacceptable. Peter jackson 11:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Peter, you've again vandalised material concerning pre-sectarian Buddhism in this article. Please stop this now, it's been going on long enough, and you should know by now that you're being watched with this. Greetings, Sacca 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Buddhism 

message: Someone keeps inserting references to the Maldives in this article. I've never seen them mentioned in any book about Buddhism that I recall. It sems unlikely they're important enough to mention. Peter jackson 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maldives 

message: Since there is no clear concept of what Vajrayana is (Lopez, Buddhism in Practice, intro), & disagreement over whether it's synonymous with tantra (Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, pp153-5 vs Skilling, Mahasutras, citation in Vajrayana), it's unlikely that statements about when it began make sense. Peter jackson 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Vajrayana 

message: I'm seeing this text being regularly inserted and deleted, several times, at the beginning of the "Divisions" section:
:The original teachings and monastic organization established by Buddha have been referred to as pre-sectarian Buddhismsee Sects and Sectarianism, Sujato bhikkhu, 2007. (non-for-profit publication available at Lulu.com, with [http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/conclusion online version)for example: ... stressed that the written canon in Buddhism is sectarian from the outset, and that presectarian Buddhism must be deduced from the writings as they now exist). Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, Leon Kurvitz, 1976, Columbia University Press (quote via Google Scholar search-engine), but all the current divisions within Buddhism are too much influenced by later history to warrant inclusion under this nameBy several centuries after the death of the Buddha, the itinerant mendicants following his way had formed settled communities and had changed irrevocably their received methods of both teaching and praxis., Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2004, page 501. 
The endnote references are:
:[1] see Sects and Sectarianism, Sujato bhikkhu, 2007. (non-for-profit publication available at Lulu.com, with [http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/conclusion online version)
:[2] for example: ... stressed that the written canon in Buddhism is sectarian from the outset, and that presectarian Buddhism must be deduced from the writings as they now exist). Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma, Leon Kurvitz, 1976, Columbia University Press (quote via Google Scholar search-engine)
:[3] By several centuries after the death of the Buddha, the itinerant mendicants following his way had formed settled communities and had changed irrevocably their received methods of both teaching and praxis., Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2004, page 501
To start with, I see there are general concerns about the term "presectarian Buddhism."  What are the various alternative, reasonable, possible ways in which this concern about this text could be addressed outside of repeated reversions (e.g., including the qualifier "arguable referred to as" along with pertinent citations)?  
I know there are additional concerns (e.g., regarding the second half of the above inserted text), but I think there might be benefit in approaching this in a piecemeal fashion for now (e.g., to avoid getting overwhelmed).  Thanks for any concrete help and, as always, thanks for taking time to patiently educate me, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Divisions" intro: PSB

message: I've created a subpage User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism to collect what scholars have said. This can be used in discussion of how to summarize the state of scholarly opinion. Please add anything you can find. Peter jackson 10:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Peter, thanks so much for doing this. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for early Buddhism 

message: This talk page is 244 kB, which makes it an unacceptable barrier to participation, even for those whose browsers can easily edit more than 32 kB. Some sections may be archivable, but i don't have time to figure out which they are. I'm moving out to subpages a couple of especially large sections, leaving behind links to the subpages under the current headings. It would be a really good move for those familiar with any large section, but especially those that are on subpages by the time they read this, to prepare summaries or other short orienting information, 5% or 10% the length of the discussions. I may do more on succeeding days.--Jerzy•t 05:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring needed 

message: I removed this section, because it seemed to have no point and contained no useful information. It also lacked neutrality. 
"
Other scholars take a skeptical attitude:
"The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."Lopez, Buddhism in Practice, Princeton University Press, 1995, page 4
This attitude has been criticized by other scholars to be one of 'extreme caution'‘’in the name of that extreme caution which some suppose to be the hallmark of the sound academic, some scholars have claimed that we do not know what the Buddha taught and cannot now find out.’’ AK Warder, Indian Buddhism, 1999, 3rd edition, preface to 1st edition..
"
Wikilost 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change reduces neutrality: you've removed the opinions of some scholars while leaving those of others. I'm trying to collect together all scholars' opinions I can find (& anyone else who wants to contribute) at User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism. Then we can discuss how to summarize the state of scholarly opinion in relevant articles. Peter jackson 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly Critisism 

message: I think the curse of this article, and articles on buddhism in general, is how fractured and diverse Buddhist views are.  Perhaps a new angle is required on defining Buddhism. at the 4th Global Conference on buddhism i heard on speaker (I forget his name) make a great point: that what makes people identifible as a group is that they argue about the same things. What is Buddhism? I don't think we'll be able to write an article that categorically defines what buddhists do, don't do; believe, don't believe. But we probably can show people what the key issues in Buddhism are - what we all can't aggree on - and leave the specifics for sub pages of doctrine from specific schools. otherwise we're never going to get this article to be what is should be: something for people who no nothing about buddhism. The article on sport doesent try to pin sport down to specifically this of that.. it gives the rough boundaries within which the concept sport is contained. Maybe the same method could be applied to this article. Sunfirejake (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport