Talk:Buddhism/Archive 2

message: The Anatta doctrine is in stark semblence with the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where Yajnavalkya explains to Maitreyi about consciousness. While Sankara has dismissed it as a non-Buddhist proclamation, the fact that consciousness is not self is affirmed not only by Buddhism, but also by many other Upanishads in various places and happens to be highly coincidental with the anatta doctrine of Buddhism. This definition of anatta is very clear from the Anatta-lakkhana sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya Sutta pitika in the Pali Canon. 
:This is not at all NPOV, and clearly requires substantiation in scholarly sources, which I believe might be difficult to find, though, I should admit, I have also had my suspicions about certain Yajnavalkya passages. But Wikipedia is not a place for original research (or argumentation) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on upanishads 

message: An anon (using 62.252.128.17 at the nonce, though I don't know if there are also others) keeps adding (and re-adding!!!) the category willy-nilly, to mostly to pan-Buddhist concepts, occasionally to pan-Nikaya Buddhist concepts (not the same thing as Theravada concepts), occasionally to things that are actually Theravada specific. How can I make this person stop? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Kukku, I wanted to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your recent edits in terms of the Theravada category and anatta.  I might even prefer a more radical edit of the anatta contributions, but, then, I guess I am known for my newbie biting tendencies.  Agree in principle with your call for references, too, although I can't come up with any off the top of my head.  "General knowledge" is, of course, the bane of a well-referenced paper, and yet it tends to come in handy writing an encyclopedia. - Nat Krause 04:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Theravada 

message: Could you tell something about the relationship of Buddhism with non-violence and war?
Both what is preached and what Buddhists actually do.
Thank you.
:Good question.  I keep meaning to write an article on Brian Victoria's Zen at War.  A topic difficult to approach because of its broadness, though. - Nat Krause 04:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-violence and war 

message: By the way, looks like we've had a flurry of activity lately from new contributors on Buddhism-related topics.  This is great.  I've updated Template:BuddhismOpenTasks to keep track of new additions.  Interested parties may wish to refer to it for editorial purposes.  Thanks to Quadell and others for their work. - Nat Krause 08:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Open tasks

message: Does Wikipedia have a section on the two-truths doctrine in Buddhism? Also, what the appropriate name for such an article be, if, say, it doesn't have one and someone needs to start one? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article on Nagarjuna, it would seem to be upaya, but I know nothing about this topic myself. Shantavira 19:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that, and I'm almost certain that's my fault, but in any case it's definitely wrong. It's not unrelated by any means, but it's not the same; odds are I was just looking for it to point somewhere and that seemed like the least inappropriate. I know that for some schools it's "samvrti" v. "paramartha" satya, and there's something Pali that I don't recall off the top of my head (nitartha and neyartha, perhaps?), but neither end of either of these two poles probably warrants a separate article, whereas trying to cram them both into the title would be annoying, not to mention the fact that neither dyad is universally apt. I've seen the term "satyadvaya" used in secondary literature, but I don't know if that's a term of actual importance or just something that sounds cool to the people who write about Buddhism in academic journals...There's also dialetheism to consider, and I know that one of the people associated with that has collaborated with Jay Garfield in applying it to Buddhism, but I don't think this really helps solve the problem... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "samvrti" and "paramartha" are probably the best starting points, Kukk. I would suggest that the relationship between samvrti and upaya are hermeneutic - within the domain of the attitudinal shift of the practitioner- but one cannot say that upaya and samvrti are cognate.  There are some very interesting delineations/classifications of samvrti, and I for one would welcome an article on it, not that I have much to contribute (20040302 21:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Okay, nobody freak out.  I put up a new lead image for this article.  I've been seeing a lot of nice new images appearing on commons, so I thought I would try something different.  I don't know if other people will like it, and I don't if I think it's a keeper myself, but we might as well see how it looks for a little while. - Nat Krause 13:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I changed it back to the way it was before.  None of the other images I tried really grabbed me, and I got kind of attached to the old Big Buddha.  Might try again later. - Nat Krause 06:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: There was a line in this article about Tocharians (in the Gobi Desert) following Theravada Buddhism.  Now, I'm not sure, but I don't think I've ever heard a credible source say that Theravada was ever followed anywhere but Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, and sometimes India -- for the most part, it appears to have been an export from Sri Lanka, which would make it remarkable if it made it all the way to the Gobi.  Other Nikaya schools had followings in other places, though.  Pending further evidence, I changed the reference to Tocharians following Nikaya Buddhism. - Nat Krause 06:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Also

message: Our good friend, Mr Tan recently made a new page called Buddhism by country which is basically a table showing percentage of Buddhists in each country, along with links to country-specific articles like Buddhism in Singapore (thanks also to OneGuy for his work on the former article). He also replaced the link to Buddhist regions in Tempate:BuddhismOpenTask with a link to Buddhism by country. I want to get other people's opinions on whether this is a good idea. I tend to think that it is not. The Buddhist regions page needs work, but it seems like fundamentally a more meaningful way to discuss different varieties of Buddhism: Buddhist regions can encompass country-specific articles as well as broader topics like East Asian Buddhism and (legally) intra-national topics like Tibetan Buddhism. I would suggest putting Buddhist regions back in the template, and then having a prominent link to Buddhism by country at the top of that article. - Nat Krause 16:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism by country vs. Buddhist regions

message: The German Wikipedia's article seems much more colorful than the English one.  If anyone can translate the article and add the content here, it would be great... or add their pictures.  See: de:Buddhismus -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be of no help translating, but they do have some nice pictures. When I get a chance, I'll try moving some of them over to Commons and putting them into english articles. - Nat Krause 18:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Wikipedia 

message: Well, my planned expansion of the Western Buddhism page has turned into a brand-new article at Buddhism in America, mostly because I know next to nothing about Buddhism in Europe, Australia, and South America. I now envision that Western Buddhism will become sort of a clearinghouse page with short summaries and links to articles about specific countries or regions. On the Buddhism in America article, I still plan to add a few short paragraphs under Trends in American Buddhism, but the section on Tibetan Buddhism I'm going to leave somewhat underdeveloped. I figured there are some people around here who know the U.S. Tibetan Buddhism scene better than I do, so I just typed up a couple things that I thought of off the top of my head and will leave it to someone else to complete the section. Another helpful thing people can do to enhance the article would be to get together some more images for it (I still plan to add some more that are already uploaded). Most big cities in the U.S. and Canada have some kind of interesting-looking Buddhist temples in them someplace, so if anyone can get a chance to head over to one such temple, take a picture, and then upload it, we can probably put it into the article somewhere. - Nat Krause 21:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Buddhism in America]]

message: The passage... "he found a large tree (now called the Bodhi tree) under which he would be shaded from the heat of the mid-summer sun, and set to meditating. This new way of practicing began to bear fruit."
...seems to suggest that Buddha invented meditation. I don't know enough to correct this, but it existed long before, though he no doubt came up with new methods.
:I think when it says "new way", it means new for Siddhartha, not brand new in the world. Please go ahead and edit for clarity, though. - Nat Krause 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Meditation

message: I removed this from the Origins section for discussion (despite the note asking one note to do this, which, to be honest, I'm frustrated we left in the article for so long):
:The Buddhists always maintained that by the time Buddha and Mahavira were alive, Jainism was already an ancient and deeply entrenched faith and culture in the region. Buddhist scriptures record philosophical dialogues between the wandering seeker Buddha and Jain teachers such as Udaka Ramaputta. Early Buddhists posited the existence of 24 previous Buddhas (Buddhas who walked the earth prior to Gautama Siddhartha) many of whose names are identical to those of the 24 Jain Tirthankaras and other traditional Jain figures. Buddhist scriptures attest that many of the first Buddhists were in fact Jains (Nirgranthas as they were then called, meaning "the unbonded ones"), whom Buddha encouraged to maintain their Jain identity and practices such as giving alms to Jain monks and nuns. The famous ancient parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates the Jain science of Anekantavada, and is found in the Buddhist Pali text called Udana. Like most splinter groups generally, writers of the Pali texts clearly rejoiced in criticizing (and at times ridiculing) the Jains and celebrating the conversion of another Jain to Buddha's path. The texts show that Buddha vigorously appealed to the Nirgranthas that his path was nothing different from that with which they were already familiar, simply better.
:The Buddhist formulation of the "Middle Way" was a post-Buddha response by the Buddhist monastic community to criticism by the Jains (as seen in Jain texts such as the Sutrakritanga Sutra and Acharanga Sutra) that the Buddhist Bhikkhus (mendicants) were lax and not living the rigorous life of a true ascetic or Shramana (Samana in Prakrit). In defining the Middle Way, Buddhist scholars branded their faith with a unique identity that distanced itself from Jain tradition by providing an alternative to "extreme asceticism" (i.e., Jainism) on one hand and Buddha's own princely hedonism on the other. In describing Buddha's six-years of spiritual searching after leaving his family, Buddhist scriptures from the early post-Buddha period detail certain fasts, penances and austerities which Buddha undertook whose descriptions are elsewhere found only in the Jain tradition (for example, the penance by five fires and the consumption of food using only one's cupped hands). To this day, many Buddhist teachings, principles and terms remain identical to Jain ones. In short, a large body of evidence suggests that Buddhism is, in large measure, an offshoot of Jainism.
:(Note: If counterevidence exists to any of the above, it is requested that it be appended to the end.)
I find the above to be tendentious and argumentative, and, no, the solution is not to add on further argumentation. It is documented on the Jainism page (where the same text appears) by reference to two books, one by a Jain scholar and one by a Japanese one. I think that a theory like this should be better documented and presented in a more balanced fashion if it is going to be included. - Nat Krause 14:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jainism passage

message: The main article reads: It is derived from the verbal root "√budh", meaning "to awaken or be enlightened".
The square-root sign is not a transcoding error in the browser, but is explicitly stated with the √ entity.  
What is a square-root sign doing in a word?  Should that be some other symbol?  What language is this verbal root from?  IAC, it needs clarification.
:I believe it was added by a linguist, and has some kind of special jargony meaning among linguists. I would guess that √ means that what follows is a reconstructed (which is to say, speculative) linguistic root, rather than a complete word in any actual language. I agree that it looks weird now, but I'm not sure how to edit it. - Nat Krause 03:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the standard way to indicate Sanskrit and Pali verbal roots in Western sources.  Characterizing these roots as "reconstructed" or "speculative" seems to trivialize the matter -- very ancient lists for these roots exist in the various dhatu-pathas which form a corner-stone to traditional and modern accounts of morphological derivation.  But I suggest either retaining the symbol and deleting the explanatory "verbal root" or vice versa, since one or the other is redundant.--Stephen Hodge 01:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math Symbols? 

message: * Hallo. I see that a sentence has been added to the end of an early paragraph on the Buddha-nature and True Self in the general introduction to the Buddhism article, saying that the True Self is described as no self in all Mahayana Sutras. This is not quite accurate, unfortunately, as that is never stated in the Nirvana Sutra, which is the central Mahayana sutra for the teaching on the True Self. In fact, the very opposite is taught there: the Buddha insists that the non-Self is Samsara, whereas the True Self is the all-pervading Buddha in Nirvana. Could you modify your statement, do you possibly think? I hope you won't feel offended by my asking for this. I'd also be interested to know where the Buddha says that "the True Self is non-Self", as I haven't come across that in a single Mahayana sutra (this could well be my own omission or oversight, though!). Thanks very much for your co-operation (if you don't mind). Best wishes to you -  Tony   TonyMPNS 21:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the inaccurate addition mentioned above.  I wonder if the person who inserted it has read even half a dozen, let alone "all Mahayana sutras".  Though the "true" self is described as "no self" in the Mahayana-sutra-alamkara, I think the person who inserted will be unable to provide even two or three references to Mahayana sutras which state this.  Without such references, I would regard this addition as a kind of sabotage from somebody who perhaps cannot countenance the idea that some authentic forms of Buddhism did teach a positive "true" self.--Stephen Hodge 01:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sufficiently familliar with the Srimala to comment about that but in the Lankavatara Sutra one can indeed find a statement the the effect that the function of the Buddhist atman is "not to scare away ignorant people". I stipulate that it is possible to interpret the last two sentences of Chapter 6 as equivocation; but there are at least two other possibilities: later emendation, and/or a positive expression of sunya and dependent arising. --Munge 05:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Buddhists famously disagree about which text represents the final doctrinal pronouncement, so an encyclopedia cannot claim that one or the other has precedence. Moreover, I think not all Mahayana sects accepted even the universality of Buddha Nature as expresed in the (later versions of the) MPNS. Those that do accept such universality, including Tendai and Zen I believe, do not seem to regard the MPNS as expressing the definitive explanation of what Buddha nature is. And one cannot unilaterally say that these developments were degenerate. To try to search for some common ground here, can we not say something like "Buddhists unanimously and unequivocally reject the conventional notion of self. Differences appear from sect to sect, across time and geography, regarding what the true self really is—or even whether it exists. What Buddhists do agree on regarding the self is that awakening is possible. That transformation—or, according to some, a profound realization that there is nothing to transform—is the fruit of practice, devotion, study, or perhaps simply hearing the word of the Buddhadharma." I don't know if that's it. But again, this is an encyclopedia; it cannot advocate in favor of a particular vision of what true Buddhism is. It cannot imply that 1700 years of Chinese Buddhist doctrinal developments are somehow inauthentic; it cannot hold itself superior to the Nikaya schools; and it cannot deconstruct rationally those irrational elements that are so prevalent in certain strains of Buddhism, notably but not limited to Huayen and Zen. Not without becoming a platform for particular points of view. --Munge 05:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe I have read -- although not from anything like a primary source -- that the Tiantai school believed that the Lotus Sutra was the Buddha's ultimate teaching and that the Nirvana Sutra was on a slightly lower level; likewise, I thought that the Huayan school taught that the Avatamsaka was the highest truth, with, presumably, both the Lotus and the Nirvana Sutra on lower levels. Is this not the case? Certainly, Nichiren Buddhists, if no one else, believe that the Lotus is the ultimate truth, so it can't be literally true that all Mahayana schools take the Nirvana Sutra as ultimate. - Nat Krause 07:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Self = Non-Self in All Mahayana Sutras? 

message: (note: the following was written by anonymous #83.116.12.198 and added to the article itself. They belong here on the talk page, and so I am putting them here now - Nat Krause)
----
April 24. Plea to the administrator of the Wikipedia page on Buddhism:
The editor of your main entry on Buddhism seems to be an adept of the Theravada school. This has led to some misrepresentations of the Mahayana school of Buddhism while at the same time the history of Theravada is not full and frank as it should be.
As a nun who ordained 20 years ago, starting in he Theravada school of Buddhism and converting to the Mahayana I think I should give it another try, after my yesterday additions to the page were deleted.
----
The scribe seems to be a little bit obsessed with the Tathagatagarbha-theory. S/he writes: 
1. "Some Mahayana Buddhist scriptures (notably the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Srimala Sutra, amongst others) aim at encouraging the Buddhist practitioner to perceive the indwelling Buddha-nature, the "True Self" (as opposed to the impermanent, suffering-prone "worldly self") of the Buddha inherent in all sentient beings. Such a tathagatagarbha vision is said to usher in the realisation of Great Nirvana."
And in a later section s/he returns to the same subject: 
2. "However, in a number of major   Mahayana sutras (e.g. the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Tathagatagarbha Sutra, the Srimala 
Sutra, amongst others), the Buddha is presented as modifying this teaching and saying that there does truly exist an eternal, 
unchanging, blissful Buddhic essence (svabhava) in all sentient beings, which is the uncreated and deathless Buddha-nature or 
"True Self" of the Buddha himself. This immaculate Buddhic Self (Atman) is in no way to be construed as a mundane, impermanent, suffering "ego", of which it is the diametrical opposite."
Comment: When we speak about the Tathagatagarbha-theory we must understand what the Dharmakaya in this teaching means. The 
Srimala sutra, Wayman's (contested) translation on pp.98 and 99 says:
"Lord, the cessation of suffering is not the destruction of Dharma. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is named 'cessation of suffering' and it is beginningless, uncreate, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, seadfast, calm, eternal; intrinsically pure, free from all the defilement-store; and accompanied by Buddha natures more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, which are nondiscrete, knowing as liberated, and inconceivable. This Dharmakaya of the Tathagata when not free from the store of defilement is referred to as the Tathagatagarbha.
"Lord, the knowledge of the Tathagatagarbha is the voidness knowledge of the Tathagatas."
I think that this teaching is too profound for the average highschool student who is in search of material for a paper. The scribe best deletes these two passages. The tibetan lamas too will bless him or her for it.
----
The scribe has the true but limited representation of the root 'budh': "....verbal root "√budh", meaning "to awaken or 
be enlightened"."
Comment: I suggest s/he adds the classical Sanskrit meaning: wise.
::I don't think that "wise" is a meaning of the verbal root -- "wise" is an adjective.  None of the standard Sanskrit dictionaries give "wise" as a meaning of the verbal root "buddh" so I suggest the addition be deleted because it is inaccurate.--Stephen Hodge 14:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of things to be said in response to the above. I'm not going to respond to most of the points at the present, although I hope others will do so as they see fit. I did leave a message on anonymous' talk page on a few points; for instance, I think she is mistaken in believing that the main editor or editors of this page are followers of Theravada. The only substantial point I want to make concerns her a comments, re: "....the Pali Canon. This is considered to be the oldest of the surviving Buddhist canons, and its sutras are accepted as authentic in every branch of Buddhism." I think she is right in pointing out that we are needlessly conflating the Pali Canon with the agamas (a.k.a. the Nikayas) -- the former is the best known among the various versions of the latter. The rest of the passage is true with regard to the agamas. I will make this correction in the article. Note that to say "it is regarded as the oldest" does not necessarily mean that it is very old (should this be clearer in the article)? - Nat Krause 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that the nun's primary language might not be English.  "Tathagatagarbha-theory" is not an unreasonable translation for Tathagatagarbha doctrine.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 06:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments of a nun

message: :There are a number of things to be said in response to the above. I'm not going to respond to most of the points at the present, although I hope others will do so as they see fit. I did leave a message on anonymous' talk page on a few points; for instance, I think she is mistaken in believing that the main editor or editors of this page are followers of Theravada. The only substantial point I want to make concerns her a comments, re: "....the Pali Canon. This is considered to be the oldest of the surviving Buddhist canons, and its sutras are accepted as authentic in every branch of Buddhism." I think she is right in pointing out that we are needlessly conflating the Pali Canon with the agamas (a.k.a. the Nikayas) -- the former is the best known among the various versions of the latter. The rest of the passage is true with regard to the agamas. I will make this correction in the article. Note that to say "it is regarded as the oldest" does not necessarily mean that it is very old (should this be clearer in the article)? - Nat Krause 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the nun's primary language might not be English.  "Tathagatagarbha-theory" is not an unreasonable translation for Tathagatagarbha doctrine.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 06:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hopefully it's not just to inform people, but to spark a debate. Now, I'm not 100% sure that this is a POV issue--I think of it as an accuracy and standards issue, like any other convention I learned in school. Which is not to say it isn't abunbantly clear to me that BC and AD have no place in a modern encyclopedia--other than in articles about dating systems. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: Somebody recently changed the explanation for the term "Buddha", writing that "Buddha is a word in the ancient Indian spoken language of Pāli and its written counterpart Sanskrit".  This is inaccurate and ill-informed.  Neither Pali nor Sanskrit were written languages at the time of the historical Buddha.  Both subsequently became written languages.  It is also debatable whether Pali should be considered, by implication, a colloquial language.  Current thinking is that it was a kind of offical chancery language used in Magadha and Kosala. It is unlikely to have been a everyday spoken language as, for example, the anomalous presence of the many Sanskritisms, phonetic and lexical, found in Pali.  I have reverted the article to its previous form.--Stephen Hodge 23:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of "Buddha" 

message: Somebody has clumsily amended a part of the account of Gotama's origins.  The original was fine as it was but the revision is inaccurate and introduces concepts alien to Buddhism such as "Messiah". Additionally the quality of the English leaves much to be desired. As a contributor to Wiki, I really wish that some people would first think if they have the qualifications to add anything constructive and accurate to articles before wading in and making totally unncessary changes.  I have reverted the article to the earlier satisfactory version --Stephen Hodge 23:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: ElBodhisattva (Am I the only person who hates the childish way some people feel they have to hide their identities -- what's wrong with real names ?  Something to be ashamed of ?  No wonder few qualified scholars bother with Wikipedia !) has been busy again.  A gloss "(the Teaching)" has been added to the Dharma part of the Three Jewels.  This is debatable or, rhater, restricts the connotation of the term.  In this context "Dharma" can also mean adhigama-dharma (the Dharma as realization), which is not "the Teaching".--Stephen Hodge 23:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for addressing these topics. I have reverted all the edits by ElBodhisattva because I disagreed with them, which is not to say that he is unwelcome to try additional productive edits in the future. I thought this question about the Three Jewels was an interesting topic. A lot of the other stuff added, such as the misstatements about Pali, in my opinion don't really merit discussion on the talk page, so please don't feel obligated to spend your time discussing them here unless you are otherwise inclined to do so ... or unless it becomes a recurring problem in the article, at which point it because necessary to hash out. - Nat Krause 05:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Jewels 

message: A proposal has been made concerning the appropriate uses of BCE/CE and BC/AD era designations. As this is one of the most prominent Wikipedia articles to use the BCE/CE style, I thought you guys should know about it so that you could offer feedback. Kaldari 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal concerning era designations 

message: Hi, I have a quick question I was wondering if someone could shed some light on for me.  In the article it states that "Anyone can free themselves from suffering as Gautama did, regardless of age, gender, or caste." Now, as far as women attaining enlightenment, from what I understand there is a small section in The Lotus Sutra that discusses this possibility, but I was wondering if there were other sources that talk about this as well?  
Thanks!
Airosche 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Pali Canon, the Buddha agrees to ordain women because—despite the serious problems that this document claims the Buddha said it would cause—he agrees that a woman's capacity for enlightenment is equal to a man's. Some other Buddhist traditions, I believe, especially in Confucian East Asia, had the idea that women can become Buddhas or can enter the Pure Land only if they are first reborn as men. It also appears to be generally assumed that all Supreme Buddhas are male at the time of their final enlightenment. Consider that some Buddhist texts list quite a number of (seemingly arbitrary) characteristics that all Buddhas supposedly have, e.g. they are tall, they are born in India, etc., etc. Apparently, one of these characteristics is that they are male. - Nat Krause 08:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women attaining Buddha-hood? 

message: Guys, the Encyclopedia Britannica and most other textbooks on Buddhism agree that Buddhism originated in Nepal. Not only that, they have found a monument erected by Asoka stating "Here is the birthplace of the Buddha" in Nepal. kennethtennyson
:I just checked Britannica Online and its Concise Encyclopedia Article on Buddhism says "Religion and philosophy founded in northeastern India [...]".  According to Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990), the Buddha was born in a small republic which was located across the Naplese-Indian border.  He was enlightened in India and he was teaching the Dharma in the region of the Ganges basin in north eastern India (probably also in Nepal).  If Buddhism came into being as he got born, then yes, the origin of Buddhism might very well be Nepal.  One could also argue that Buddhism originated at the moment of his enlightenment, at the moment when he decided to start teaching, or at the first cermon (all in current India). Andkaha 11:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
----
May be we need to change it to China for Buddhism origins, because 
# During the time of Buddha there was no India, Nepal, Afghanistan etc. but some small kingdoms.
# People during the time of Buddha from Afghanistan in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Tibet in the north to the Lanka (now Sri Lanka) in the south did not thought Buddhism as a separate religion, neither do all of them now. I do have many friends in India who are Buddhist but also go to Hindu temples. Dalai Lama when he visit any new place, he also visit local Hindu temples that are important. Now same is true in Sri Lanka also, where people see less difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.
But I do not know whether Kenneth has something else in his mind, as I have noticed from his changes and he also mentioned he had some bad arguments with some Indians. Also see him not LOGGED on. 
His edits are , , ,  ,  
:-Bijee 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism origins

message: Buddy, don't put odd IP addresses to my name.  Secondly, I'm not the only person on this encyclopedia having issues with Indian nationals "rewriting" history and deciding that they invented one thing or another or that a certain history just doesn't suit their tastes.  See the whole Taj Mahal debate that has been raging on whether or not it is a Vedic temple. I actually do research on Asian history and I along with my colleagues have run into so many supposed "scholars" from India in the last few years trying to rewrite history that it has had us fed up.  We even had one "scholar" trying to convince us that the East India Company was actually from India and not Britain and another one who blamed Muslim fanatics for killing Gandhi. I'm not sure if it's due to the last decade of BJP / Hindutva rule rewriting the whole education system of India or just plain ignorance in a 3rd world country with a few hundred million  English speaking people.  I've never suggested that China was the birthplace of Buddhism, by the way.  My contention is that the older version of Britannica that I have along with most recent editions of books write Nepal as the Birthplace of Buddhism because it is the place the Buddha grew up in and lived most of his life.  You can split hairs and put India if you wish because he became enlightened there, but regardless the vast majority of Nepalese and Tibetans along with a lot of historians believe that Buddhism began in Nepal not India. Kennethtennyson 07:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are out of line.  Please support your facts by properly referencing your sources.  Leave personal attacks out of it. Andkaha 10:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
In Sixth century, if there was "NO INDIA", only smaller kingdoms, then you must also know that there was also no Greece, No Italy, no Rome, no China, no Nepal, no Iraq, no Israel, no America, no nothing but only "small kindoms" at that time! Nepal (Lumbini) was the birthplace of Buddha, but the Karmabhumi or land of action of Buddha was India. Also, in a cultural sense, India could be used. The birthplace of Gautam Buddha maybe specified as Lumbini (Kapilvastu) in Nepal, no problem! And as far as self proclaimed nouveau scholars of India are concerned, all passionate with Hindutva, they have no place in Wikipedia. It is a place of neutral point of view and no outpourings of a Hindu heart.
Cygnus_hansa 22:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't lie Bijee

message: I've been meaning to post a message here on this subject for quite some time—sorry for the delay. I had an exchange of e-mails a while back with a user who added two of the images which currently grace the article (specifically :Image:Temple of tooth.jpg and :Image:Sri lanka aukana buddha statue.jpg). I initially removed them for copyright issues, which were then settled; he wrote me to argue that they deserved to be in the article because there the other images are unfairly biased towards East Asian sources. I don't know if this is a good reason to exclude or include them, but I figured we should give more thought to what images to include or not include.
Until quite recently, Wikipedia almost never had to make choices about which images to include in larger articles, because there were very few images available to use (the lead image for this article was chosen simply because it was the first picture added, although I've grown rather attached to it). Fortunately, the number of choices has increased dramatically over the last year. This necessitates that we make some decisions about what to include and what not to.
To assist in this, I've made some notes on what types of images we currently have (as of January 18, 2005):
Buddhism currently contains 13 images:
*1 Buddha statue, East Asian (lead image)
*1 Buddha statue, from a Chinese-built temple in the United States
*1 Buddha statue, Sri Lankan (Image:Sri_lanka_aukana_buddha_statue.jpg)
*1 Buddha statue, Central Asian
*1 carving of multiple Buddhas/bodhisattvas, East Asian
*1 temple, Sri Lankan (Temple_of_tooth.jpg)
*1 temple interior, from a Chinese-built temple in the United States
*1 ancient Buddha foot sculpture, Central Asian
*2 images of monks, Tibetan
*1 image of monks, Burmese
*1 painting of monks, including an East Asian and a Central Asian
*1 Buddhist flag, designed in Sri Lanka
Overall, by type, that's:
*4 Buddha statues (including one mentioned above)
*1 carving of Buddhas/bodhisattvas
*2 temple images (including one mentioned above)
*4 images of monks (3 photographs and 1 painting)
*1 ancient aniconic carving
*1 symbol
And by regional style:
*4 out of 13, East Asian (all Chinese, in fact; half of which are located in the U.S.)
*3 out of 13 Central Asian
*2 out of 13 Sri Lankan (both of which are the images mentioned above;), not including the flag
*2 out of 13 Tibetan
*1 out of 13 Southeast Asian
*1 flag, designed in Sri Lanka, used internationally
Okay, so what do we notice
For one thing, in terms of subject matter, the current images contain no bodhisattvas (except for possibly in the Chinese carving), such as Maitreya or Guan Yin. I'm not sure how many different Buddhas are shown (Shakyamuni, Amitabha, Vairocana, et al). There are few images of temples, and, if we removed the Temple of the Tooth image, there would be no temple exteriors. No stupas. No diagrams or maps (although I don't know of any that would useful off the top of my head). There are currently no photographs of Buddhists other than monks (we used to have one of Thai people praying; not sure what happened to it).
There is a certain amount of geographic imbalance. Without the two Sri Lankan images, we have 4 out of 11 Chinese images (including the two Chinese-American ones, which are from Hsi Lai Temple), which is a lot. We don't even have any images from Japan or Korea. Sans Sri Lankan pictures, we only have one image from any of the Theravada countries, and that of child monks. Still, I'm not sure the two Sri Lankan images are the best solution here: the Temple of the Tooth picture isn't very striking ... we could probably find a better one from a different Theravada country. And the Aukana Buddha image, unless I'm missing some kind of historical interest, doesn't show a lot of specifically Theravada flavor to distinguish it from the three other Buddha images we have.
There is room for at least 1, possibly 2, maybe more images to be added without crowding (although I think the Aukana Buddha image is already crowded where it is, so I should say without further crowding). I think it would be a good idea, if possible, to leave an empty spot to encourage future editors to add one. I'm also interested in perhaps taking the advice someone gave on this talk page some time ago to use one or more images from the German version of this article—I have my eye on :Image:Wheel life 01.jpg (seen at right), or some other mandala, which would add some colour and variety. It would be nice to add at least temple exterior shot, preferably more than that, because temple architecture varies from place to place more than Buddha statues do.
What this means is that we don't have a lot of room left over to work with. We're going to have to think in terms of evaluating the quality of new images and the ones already in the article, and possibly dropping some current ones in favor of those that fit improve the article more (dropped images don't have to disappear from Wikipedia, they can often go to other articles; I made :Image:Temple of tooth.jpg the lead image on Temple of the Tooth a while back). I would suggest that we should perhaps discuss new image additions on talk beforehand and/or get comfortable seeing our changes changed by other editors. - Nat Krause 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I was wondering, does anyone know if there's any evidence for any influence of Buddhism on Greek thought? I was reading up on the Indo-Greek empire, and their emperor Demetrius apparently converted to Buddhism and was a friend of the defeated Mauryan empire. Was there much flow of people and ideas between the Indo-Greeks, the Bactrian Greeks, the Seleucids and the Hellenic Greeks, or were they fairly isolated against each other, bearing in mind the fairly large differences between the relatively close-together Sparta and Athens?
Basically my line of inquiry was sparked by something Ajahn Brahm said in a dharma talk about Origen, one of the early Christians and an apparent teacher of reincarnation, having been taught by Ammonius Saccas, and how eastern peoples and (according to him) ancient Greeks put their surnames first, and that Saccas Ammonius was in fact Sakyamuni, i.e. the Buddha. Interesting conjecture, or is there any evidence other than the coincidence in names?
Sciamachy 14:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Well...Origen was born in 182 AD/CE. Siddhartha Gautama is 
::traditionally stated to have lived between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE, with some Buddhist legends stating that he was born on April 8, 1029 BCE, and died on February 15, 949 BCE. Some scholars date him later, to the mid 5th century BC.
:So I'd characterize that as wild speculation.  --goethean ॐ 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a book or thesis written alleging influence of Eastern thought on Plotinus. I actually wrote a paper on it in college. But the book no longer appears in my alma mater's library collection, so I have no information about it. If I find the paper, I'll post the information here.  --goethean ॐ 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kālakārāma sutra "gains a high degree of historical importance owing to the tradition handed down by the commentaries and chonicles* that it was preached by the venerable Mahārakkhita Thera to convert the country of the Yonakas during the great missionary movement which took place in the reign of the Emperor Asoka. If the identification of the Yonakas with Greeks is correct, the choice of this deeply philosophical discourse for such a significant occasion, could not have been a mere coincidence...Tradition has it that the impact of the discourse on the Yonakas was considerable, for thirty-seven thousand people attained to the Fruits of the Path on hearing it...", from The Magic of the Mind (subtitle) An Exposition of the Kālakārāma Sutta, Bhikku Ñānananda, BPS, Sri Lanka, 1974, p1, * cited is Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, I, 573 f. I think this page is copied from that, and it has some links to give you a reason to believe or not; anyway, claim is they were Hellenic, not exactly Athenians, but I suppose there could have been traffic between Athens and Ságala. So I would characterize this version as speculation, but not necessarily wild. "Evidence"? Not much. Claim (easily verified?) is Asoka left some inscriptions that included names of Hellenic rulers. Another claim relating to somewhat later period was that Milinda's culture could have been go-between. Still, "tried to influence" does not equal "did influence". Some cites, I don't know how reliable, on this page. And Google "Ramanand Vidya Bhawan" with the word "Greek", though I can't vouch for that one either. Finally, yet another claim worth chasing down is that Greek community in or around India contained Buddhist converts who were the origin of Buddhist iconography; sorry, no cite (someone I trust told me this); but if Hellenic culture indeed influenced Buddhism, the reverse could be true.  --Munge 06:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks and Buddhism? 

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: Can information please be added to Women as theological figures? (Please include information on other non-European religions if available).
Jackiespeel 16:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Input sought

message: Hello Buddhists! Could you help us here? Check also the talk page. Thank you!  Subramanian talk 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Devaloka

message: I am about to change the numbering in the "The Cause of Suffering" section to fit better with the other sections.  Please say if you have any violent objections to this.  --Whiteheadj 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering of "The Cause of Suffering"

message: No objections, but who the HELL had earlier written "suffering, or penis-sucking jara marana" instead of "suffering, or jara marana"?
Cygnus_hansa 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of suffering

message: While we have an entire article on Greco-Buddhism, the article scantily mentions this concept, only referring to it in an image caption. Since Greek culture would have probably influenced it somewhat, or played a role (to what extent I do not know, perhaps introducing Greek philosophical ideas of democracy and egalitarianism to India or something)...or at least its art, it should at least be mentioned on the side? -- Natalinasmpf 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greco-Buddhism appears to be very theoretical in nature with "may have" repeated throughout the text.  Without some solid sources, a reference should be limited to a "may have" sentence, but more likely a "See Also" bullet point. Csbodine 13:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed - the whole Greco-Buddhism angle on WP is due to the dedicated works by User:PHG - who specialises in that area. It does not actually reflect a necessarily strong relationship - just strong editorial contributions. Moreover, most of the source material used by PHG comes from theories raised by academics involved in Art History, and many sources are notoriously outdated, and at the very least, creative theorisations that would not always pass the test elsewhere.  (20040302 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a narrow area, and that it is very difficult to claim any certainty on the exchange of ideas between Greeks and Buddhists, although many parallels are striking, and direct interractions in northwestern India are documented for several centuries (cf Indo-Greeks). I just added in the article a quote (certainly not outdated, not from a Historian of Art, and not a "creative theorisation" :) ) on the influences of Hindu, Persian and Greco-Roman thought on Mahayana, and mentioned Greco-Buddhist art as a visual example of such cultural interractions. PHG 13:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek influence 

message: Hi, this is a message for those involved in Wikipedia: Wikiproject Buddhism, since I was directed here as your discussion page. JuanMuslim and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with Buddhism being one of them. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. Would the people of WP Buddhism like to take responsibility for their faith's portal? I look after the Christianity one and JuanMuslim, surprisingly enough, looks after the Islam portal. What are your thoughts? Brisvegas 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal 

message: Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim  1m 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal on religion 

message: Why are the references and links on a separate page? I've checked them and they aren't so numerous. Many articles have much more references (see Hugo Chávez for example). The page Buddhism References and Links should be moved and deleted. CG 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it myself, and nominate Buddhism References and Links for deletion. CG 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Links 

message: I believe that according to Gampopa's The Jewel Ornament of Liberation (I'm not quoting, because it isn't in front of me), beings in the 3 Lower ("Evil") Realms have an incredibly difficult time hearing the Dharma, let alone practacing it or understanding it.  I believe that I have read somewhere that teaching Dharma to animals is consider a aberation since teachings are wasted on them. On the other hand, just hearing the Dharma can purify an animal's Karma and can result in more fortuitous rebirth. Csbodine 22:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallo All????????? Buddhism DOES promote vegetarianism and it is on the account of Buddhism that this concept was introduced to hinduism. You people are inventing your own logical conclusions about this matter....Early Buddhism enjoined upon its followers on vegetarianism. Later tantra and mantra and santra might have sprung up, but the truth is that its because Buddhism had gone to such countries where vegetarianism would be difficult—so the people modified the theory. And there is absoluteley no need to write a Mahabharata on "buddhism and vegetarianism" here. Yes, vegetarianism is not regarded as a "merit" or divine injunction, but rather a good way of life. Please remove all your original researches and write objectively.Cygnus_hansa 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does a dog have buddha nature? 

message: There are an awful lot of links building up at the bottom of the page. It seems we should probably sift through them and just keep the most important/relevent ones. --jackohare 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkcruft

message: Hi folks. What was the source for the 376 million followers statistic? The wikipedia Buddhism_by_country page lists 710 million followers, with 396 million in china alone. It would be good to bring these figures into line with each other or explain the discrepancy. I've read the archives and can't find any info on this. Here's some figures I found in a brief search. Let's document what we consider to be accurate:
* http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html (376 million)
* http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.786353/k.A7EE/World_Religions.htm (400 million)
* Buddhism_by_country (710 million)
* http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/sixreligons.htm (500 million)
* http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bud_statwrld.htm (360 million)
* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html CIA World Fact Book (381 million) Done by calculating %6 of world population.
I guess they've been taken at different times, yet it would be great to have a figure we can update regularly. I'd be inclined to use the figure we also use on Buddhism_by_country (710 million) because it seems well documented and I've seen it published elsewhere (though, can't find it now). The other ones appear to be citing each other at different times. Peace. Metta Bubble 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist Population Statistics

message: I would like to propose that 3.7 to 3.9 to be moved to somewhere else. I think 3.9 "Vegetarian" section is growing too big.  Idea presented in 3.1 to 3.6 are shared by all Buddhist schools.  Moreover they are core principles of buddhism  On the other hand, vegetarianism, karma, buddha-nature, meditation, though important, is not the central philosophy of buddhism.  My proposal is to create  separate two new section, move 3.7 to 3.9 into it and expand on it.  One is "Buddhist Practice" with subsection being, for examples, 1)Precepts (monk/nun and lay), 2) Meditation (Vipassana/Samatha, Tantric, Zen 3) Chanting 4) Vegetarianism 5) Dana and so on.  The other section being "Buddhist World View" in which the idea of Karma, Rebirth, Dependent Origination, 6 worlds are explained.  Tell me what you think. Yoji Hajime
No one responded to my proposal for 24 hours so...  Anyway, I have reduced "Principles of Buddhism" to "Three Marks of Existence", "Four Noble Truth" and "Noble 8 Hold Path".  I should remind you that the section is still somewhat large.Yoji Hajime
:I don't know Buddhism well. In chatting on Yahoo, religion, Buddhism I find there is an enormous variety of belief and practice.  I find it almost impossible to talk about people for the basic idea (call it philosophy) which prompted the young man who founded Buddhism to leave his wealthy home and seek his idea of man's spiritual existence.  As I understand it the 4 Truths and 8 Fold Path are but practices, the center of Buddhism has to do with an individual's ability to be causative to their own mind, (enlightenment).  The practices yield toward enlightenment and that is why they are practiced.  But the central idea, that an individual might know themselves better, it is hardly confronted or talked about in Yahoo Chat.  Instead the 'trappings' of it such as the 4 Noble Truths, 8 Fold Path, vegatarianism, etc. are talked about. Terryeo 16:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles of Buddhism

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I can't find a single reference to this word in google.  What is the source of this claim? Yoji Hajime
There is a discussion about this addition going on in E-sangha, and no one can find any official reference for this word.  The closest thing found was that a few people said that they  heard the word used informally in Sri Lanka.  I think the addition of this word needs to be referenced or removed. --Dorje Shedrub 02:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've never heard the term, either, nor could I find any reference in google more relevant than this, so I was bold and deleted it.  If someone comes up with a reference, we can add it back in.  bikeable (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pāpayāna = the Vehicle of Sin?

message: I want to start a discussion about using the styles "Lama" and "Rinpoche" in the :Category:Lamas, but not sure where this discussion should take place.  There was no talk page there, so I started one Category Talk:Lamas.  Can someone tell me if there is a better place, and also, how do I notify editors that work in that area to give comment?  --Dorje 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Discussion 

message: The prose of this article grows worse with each passing edit.  We need some people to take some passes at sections of the article to ensure that it is still readable.  In-regard to 'focus' in the introduction; keep in mind that it is an introduction.  It isn't a place to be excessively meticulous. An example is a recent snippet of the first paragraph:
 Buddhism, a religion and philosophy from ancient India, is based on the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, of the Shakyas. His lifetime is traditionally given as 566 to 483 BCE and spread from India throughout Central Asia, Sri Lanka, Tibet, as well as East Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Japan. It is classified as an Ārya dharma ("Noble religion"). It is one of the shramana religions existing today.
The first line uses needlessly broken prose and contains information unneccesary at this point in the article (i.e. 'Shakyas').  Someone made a grossly careless edit on the second line.  Additionally, dissagreements about the Buddha's lifetime can be addressed in the article on the Buddha, we just need a ball-park in the introduction.  Referencing "India" as the origination point twice is redundant.  Tracking the spread of Buddhism in the end of the second sentence is incomplete and inconsistent (some countries and some sub-continents).  It would be better served by a link to the Timeline of Buddhism article and referencing just sub-continents or just countries.  Finally, the last two lines are excessively esoteric especially in regards to the first paragraph and I suspect that their addition was due to historical non-NPOV initiatives.  If they're important at all they can be added to a later sub-section or to a companion article.
I've changed the first paragraph to the following:
 Buddhism is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of the Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, who lived in what is now Northern India between 566 and 483 BCE. The Buddha's teachings spread throughout the ancient Indian sub-continent in the  five centuries following his death. It continued its spread into Central, Southeast, and East Asia over the next two millennia.
RandomTask 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose and Focus in the Introduction 

message: First: I like the way the Theravada/Hinayana basic description was moved to "Major Sects". There has to be at least a basic introduction of the differences. That is why i, secondly,   inserted a short note on one (if not 'the') major difference, which is the different scope of the two paths (personal liberation vs. liberating all others). Thirdly, i removed the adjective "irreverently" from the way (some) Mahayanists refer to the Theravada as Hinayana. From what i understand, a Mahayana practitioner doing so would at least come close to a breach of one or more of his Bodhisattva vows (see number 6,7 of the first and 13,14 of the second list. In some translations root vow nr.14 is even translated expliciteley as "disparaging the Hinayana"). Nevertheless, out of respect for the feelings of Hinayana followers, recently the term Śravakayāna (Skt. Vehicle of Hearers) is used by some Mahayana scholars. For example, i have attended an 8 day teaching by HH the Dalai Lama in Zuerich last summer, where this term was used most of the time, although it is not precise: see discussion here: http://www.berzinarchives.com/comparison_buddhist_traditions/terms_hinayana_mahayana.html . From a Mahayana point of view, there simply seems to be no proper substitute for the term "Hinayana". For further arguments also see the extensive discussion in the main article on Hinayana 213.196.198.205 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortening the introduction --> Major Sects

message: I've started listing specific changes that have been made since 2004.  Hopefully this will make it easier to decide what action should be taken.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Buddhism/Summary of changes between 2004 and 2006|Summary of changes between 2004 and 2006]]