Talk:Buddhism/Archive 5

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Buddhism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Buddhism]]

message: The first edition of this was subtitled something like "the four principal scriptures of the zen school". Is the statement in the article really true of later editions? Peter jackson 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that it includes non-Buddhist scriptures, such as the Tao Te Ching?  I know that the Tao certainly remains in current printings of Goddard's book- not sure if there are any other non-Buddhist/Zen texts. --Clay Collier 11:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement in the article was that Goddard intended it as representative. My point was that it's still, in my recollection, mainly Zen. Peter jackson 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  goddard's Buddhist bible 

message: It's great seeing all the "rvv" lines in this article's history because it reflects the many generous, thoughtful and energetic WP editors dedicated to protecting this article's integrity.  On the other hand, scanning the recent history page, I'm hard-pressed to find a single entry by an IP-address-designated user that isn't vandalism.  So, when does it come time to semi-protect this page (and how does one go about such)?  Thanks for any guidance, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support sprotect, perhaps indefinitely.  This page receives a lot of abuse and yes, you are right, I don't recall the last time an IP made a helpful change.  If someone could compile some relevant stats and take it to WP:RFPP -- we could ask for Template:Sprotected2, perhaps.  bikeable (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support it as well.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, seems to be a good idea. --Klimov 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's because vandals can't resist the big 3: sex, politics and religion. Not that they stop there! As someone who has seen and caught vandals on this article, I thoroughtly support semi-protection. Mallanox 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why THIS article? it's the most vandalised of all! Zazaban 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotect time? 

message: I'm wondering if anyone can get some material into this article about red string in the context of Buddhism? Thanks in advance! -- Ben-Arba 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  red string 

message: Hi, I came to this article to remind myself about the Budhist belief inreincarnation - all I found was one reference that Budha was reincarnated.
It's probably in one of the doctrines, but I found the article on reincarnation much easier to read and soon found out what I wanted to know.
Is there any chance of having a section "reincarnation" so that people looking for information on this aspect can find it easily?
Mike 11:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of reincarnation, Buddhists may believe in rebirth.  This is because there is nothing that can be re-incarnated ("made flesh again") since there is no absolute "Self", just a bundle of ever-changing processes that carry on through to the next life by their own momentum (that's a personal view, not necessarily doctrinal AFAIK). In the Buddhism article, you will find a link to rebirth under the "Key Concepts", and I believe that this is prominent enough. Andkaha(talk) 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A well-done response to the question.  Another way of saying the same thing is that the concept of the atman differs in the traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism, which is why the term Atman goes to a disambiguation page. Buddhipriya 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reincarnation 

message: 
A new user myself, I've edited without an account before... this is the first time I've come across a semi-protected article I've wished to add to, so I've created an account for that purpose. Wiki is asking for more references, so at least one I shall provide.
I would like to add to the References list with this entry:
Armstrong, Karen (2001). Buddha. Penguin Books. 
Although this book mainly covers the Pāli canon and the Theravāda school, it is an historical account written by a lapsed Catholic nun with a wealth of internal reference sources and explanations of potential conflicts or gaps in the historical record of the canon.
Part of the issues dealing with this article getting a "B" rating stem from its lack of reference material and citation. This book has no lack of either.
It is a book I believe that at least all Western (if not Eastern as well) Buddhists should at least give a chance. Thank you.
PhaedrusTheStudent 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait four days until your account is autoconfirmed. Then you can add the reference yourself, preferably using the  citation template. Sandstein 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Would the award winning film Sankara which is centered on Buddhist themes be acceptable for mention under the Cultural_elements_of_Buddhism section? Kisholi 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film about a monk

message: The semi-protection for this page seems to have been removed a few days back, and as a result the history page is quickly filling up with reverts from IP users.  Was there a particular reason the protection was removed, and can we get it restored? --Clay Collier 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To request resumption of protection any user can put a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I just put in a request, let's see what happens.  Buddhipriya 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, however I don't think the page should go into total lockdown like before. If we limit editing to registered users I think that will solve the problem.Sylvain1972 14:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection? 

message: I find this article to be rather too much a description of Buddhism itself, without enough critical/analytic content about Buddhism in the context of other faith systems.  It provides a thorough overview of the Buddhist system, but does not provide the critical framework (including any deserved criticism) that would make it a great article.  The issue noted below, with respect to the article at http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html, perhaps also addresses this matter.  Overall, the article reflects a "true believer" perspective, with little dispassionate analysis.
RonaldP 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, there doesn't have to be a criticism section for every religion, especially when there isn't really any significant criticisms. Zazaban 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Balance of Article 

message: The article on Atheism has made a request to be peer reviewed in order to get a wider range of views.  Currently there is some discussion taking place there regarding Buddhism, and I hope that some of the experienced Buddhist editors will take a look at that article and participate in the peer review process.  I have made some changes to that article particularly from the point of view of Hinduism and found that that the editors are trying to make a good-faith attempt to understand concepts that are not familiar to them.  Perhaps a good opportunity for interfaith collaboration exists there. Buddhipriya 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for peer review input on Atheism article 

message: It starts out discussing Buddhism as a religion and branches to discussing history and doctrine, then jumps to doctrine, then jumps back to history, then jumps to current practices, jumps to literature, jumps back to current state, one line link on Buddhist art, leading to comparitive religions, then closes with links.
It needs clear distinct section that deal with specific issues.
I'll start by separating the synopsis from history and doctrine. It needs clear demarcation between the two, rather than a vague blending of the two parts.
Straycode 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs tidying up 

message: Though we should certainly have one, it should be a picture of a representation of the Shakyamuni Buddha. Arrow740 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Greetings, Sacca 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, it would be better to have an image of Shakyamuni. Any suggestions?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: ...are no where to be found.  -richi 64.231.247.92 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure they are, they're listed under Śīla (virtuous behavior).   I suppose a heading name including the word "precept" might be handy, though.  bikeable (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed the heading to Śīla: virtuous behavior and the precepts.  Feel free to edit it to make it clearer, of course.  bikeable (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Precepts' 

message: Thinking about all the hullaballoo around 'Hinayana', I am starting to think that we need to really rework the 'divisions' section.  There are modern divisions of Buddhism, and traditional divisions, and the former generally fit into the latter.  I wonder if a better approach would not be to first, describe (in perhaps three or four sentences) the historical development into different division, and only then to try to describe the modern forms, explaining which of the historical groupings they fit into.  
I don't have a great reference for this at hand but it would seem a very straightforward endeavor.  Perhaps we can rewrite that section here (or in a subpage, like Talk:Buddhism/Divisions) and get some agreement before we put it on the page. 
I may try to take a crack at it later, but this is a very busy time for me, so if someone else is willing, please feel free.  
What do others think of the general idea of restructuring this section?  bikeable (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current description of the "divisions", I think, owes a lot to an unresolved discussion about how best to describe them. One point of view is that we should describe them according to geographical region, and one is that we should describe them according to the "yanas" paradigm. Since no agreement was reached, we ended up using both at the same time, which creates confusions such as the equation of "Tibetan Buddhism" with "Vajrayana". Unless we can solve the underlying dispute, I don't know how to improve the section.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I entirely agree.  I guess I was hoping that we could solve the confusion by first describing the divisions (briefly!) historically, out of which the major "yanas" will fall, and then we could identify the modern geographic groupings within their broader tradition.  It seems to me that that would be a more natural way to group things (more natural, that is, than starting with geography and working backwards, as we have increasingly been doing here).  bikeable (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Divisions' section 

message: Could somebody who knows how to do it please archive the older parts of this Talk page -- its become very long and takes ages to load.--Stephen Hodge 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive please

message: Somebody has created an article with the title "annitya" under the impression that this mispelling is valid because it can be found via Google.  I am nominating it for speedy deletion since "anitya" is dealt with under the article Impermanence.--Stephen Hodge 00:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annitya 

message: This section says that Greece, Poland, Denmark & Russia are the 1st European countries to recognize Buddhism as an official religion. This is meaningless without an explanation of what is meant by recognition as an official religion. Different countries have such different legal & constitutional systems that I doubt any useful definition could be found. Peter jackson 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present state of Buddhism 

message: I've moved pretty much everything older than this spring to Talk:Buddhism/Archive12, leaving just the recent and active discussions.  If I've missed anything, please retrieve it from the new archive page.  --Clay Collier 02:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Archives 

message: If you guys could check out that article and the linked one about the Buddha being an avatar it might interest you. Arrow740 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buddhism and Hinduism]] 

message: I suspect this is an artificial construct. The standard scholarly texts generally seem to treat doctrine in historical context. They do this in different ways. At one extreme, Gethin fills most of his book in the framework of early Buddhism, with 3 chapters @ the end on abhidharma, Mahayana & non-Indian Buddhism. At the other, Cousins deals with Indian Buddhism mainly only historically & deals with teachings in the context of the 3 living traditions: appropriate for the Penguin Handbook of 'Living' Religions. Peter jackson 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine section 

message: The Buddhism by country article is a bit of a disaster, but if any of the Buddhism editors are willing to pop in and take a look, we could use the help.  We're currently having a dispute about whether China is 8% or 80% Buddhist.  Thanks.  bikeable (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The English in the Explanatory section is also extremely poor and does not conform to Wiki standards.--Stephen Hodge 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is a disaster. Arrow740 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree.  The explanatory text was added as a justification for the high percentage (80%) of Buddhists in China; I consider it original research, but I can't just keep reverting.  I don't think there is much value in the article, but I hate to have it be off by (literally) a billion people.  bikeable (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buddhism by country]] 

message: Christian Thomas Kohl, Buddhism and Quantum Physics:
[removed link due to spam filter]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.255.117 (talk) 11:16, July 21, 2007
:see quantum quackery. dab (𒁳) 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did you read the book? --Liebeskind 10:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who are interested: a high quality podcast about quantum physics and buddhism which isn't quantum quackery at all (Buddhism and Quantum Physics - What's the Matter?) and another webpage  which illustrates the stuff descripted in the podcast. --Liebeskind 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism and Quantum Physics

message: One of the citations reads; Cousins, Dating.
:Hah, yes. The full citation is in the reference section: . The short naming would be Cousins, Dating. I was wondering when someone would notice that. --Gimme danger 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: plagarism?

message: As I was going through the references, I was unable to find the following: Janice J. Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, 1977. Mahāsāṅghika Origins: the beginnings of Buddhist sectarianism in History of Religions, Vol. 16, pp. 237-272. I've searched isbndb.com for both author names and for the title of the book. If anyone has any information about this reference, that would be greatly appreciated. --Gimme danger 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History of Religions is a periodical, not a book. The latter ref is in the article Buddhism, schools of, in the introductory section. You may find more details in the archive. Peter jackson 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference not found 

message: I've moved the following references, which are not mentioned in the notes, here to keep the information easily accessible while keeping the article uncluttered. 
*
*
*
*
*
*
::I would be against moving the "unused" references. First of all, these are useful references to the article and a first time visitor is unlikely to go to the talk page--which I understand is to be used for discussion, not for additional article info.  Secondly, the fact that a reference is not mentioned in a footnote does not mean that it has not been used in writing the article. I have reverted pending discussion by others about the wisdom of moving the references to the talk page.  If there is a consensus for such a move then fine, but it seems to me to set a bad precedent for other articles. --Joel Mc 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The logic behind my edit was an attempt to follow suggestions laid out in WP:Citing sources#Footnotes of having a notes section and then a reference section containing those sources cited in the article. Ideally, these references would be incorporated into the article through inline citation at some point, and would be added back. While it's probably true that most of these sources were used in writing the article, without pinning them to specific facts, the list doesn't help a casual reader see exactly where the information in the article came from. I moved the list to the talk page as a resource for editors, not readers. Perhaps a Further Reading section would address everyone's concerns?--Gimme danger 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been away so sorry for the late response to your points, Gimme danger.  I understand your concern, but I think that in this case reducing clutter may throw the baby out with the bath water.  I think that the references that you moved are useful resources for both readers and editors.  It is useful to have a number of resources even if they might contain repetition as many readers might not have access to a large library, but might be able to locate a couple of the books referred to, for example. --Joel Mc 17:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you feel, then, about clearly separating cited material from uncited material into a references and a suggested reading section, respectively. --Gimme danger 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references 

message: If attachment is all bad, why human being have to eat, sleep and shit? These are routinely activities and theoretically, these are addictions. Even a routine pray by monks and nuns is an addiction (attachment). Therefore, to me, attachment can be healthy and unhealthy. Healthy addiction will lead one to enlightment whereas unhealthy attachment bring one down.  The difference between buddha and ordinary person is that buddha realizes attachment and can brake it or utilize it wisely.  In another word, buddha controlls attachment while ordinary people is controlled by attachment
:Addiction is not the same as attachment. Arrow740 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Routine pray by monks and nuns is a routine, not an attachment. Attachment is felt in the mind (not in the bodily posture), comes from desire, and leads to identity-views. Greetings, Sacca 10:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, such attachment as attachment to food, according to Tarthang Tulku, could be overcome by using certain yogic practice, sky gazing. (See: Tarthang Tulku. Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality. Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977.) --Klimov 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment (addiction) is not a bad habbit, however depending on...... 

message: This term is not found in quite substantial & recent English dictionaries; likewise Abrahamic religion. These would seem to be very specialized technical terms. Should they be given such prominence? Peter jackson 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can remove this info I think, also from the Buddhism template. Greetings, Sacca 10:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharmic religion? 

message: There seems to be anenormous amount of minute detail here, which seems to me inappropriate in a general article on Buddhism. Peter jackson 11:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline in India 

message: The article on Atheism gives wrong information on Buddhism, even in it's introductory section:
some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic because of their lack of belief in a personal god.[5][6]
I've tried to correct this information, and replace 'personal' with 'creator', but they are reverting me. Anybody care to make some effort and correct it? Greetings, Sacca 10:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what is meant. I suggest simply capitalizing God. That would avoid the impression that Buddhism denies all sorts of gods. Or are you thinking of some Mahayana doctrines as being pretty close to the idea of a personal god? If it comes to that, one Mahayana text, either the Karandavyuha or the Karunapundarika, I forget which, says Avalokitesvara created the world, the gods and the Buddhas, while the Vimalakirti says the Buddha created the appearance of the world. Peter jackson 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applied to Buddhism concepts called God, theism, atheism, deism etc. might emerge as phantasm. Buddhism is just Buddhism. It doesn't match any existing schema. --Liebeskind 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong info on [[Atheism]] page

message: What happened to this? It seems to have disappeared. Peter jackson 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to Schools of Buddhism to simplify the section. A glossary is overkill for a main article. It's probably better to start over with that section than edit the existing one anyway, at least in my opinion. I didn't realize that this had been discussed before and I apologize for moving it. I figured someone would revert if they objected. --Gimme danger 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary of divisions 

message: I don't see why Buddhism is in this Project and not in the ones for India, China, Afghanistan, Nepal, Mongolia, Japan ect. Zazaban 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone tagged it in the Pakistan project and it hasn't been tagged in the others yet. Be bold and do it, if you like.--Gimme danger 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Pakistan