Talk:List of Buddhists
|
|
11/09/04 * Moved Shoko Asahara to 'recent and contemporary teachers/other traditions' (argumentation is below). User:ExitControl
14/09/04 I suggest adding Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche to 'recent and contemporary/tibetan'. A notable figure, Dzogchen lama. ExitControl
--
7/8/03 I've added a bunch of names here to give a better coverage. However it will take time to fill in all the gaps. I have put a request for contributions about teachers of the past on the Buddha-L listserv and hopefully people will come up with stuff! If it works out I'll do the same for Buddhists of the present. Celebrities are of no interest to me whatsoever so. Michael
- inconclusive discussion of alphabetical listing versus category listing
Is this list of Celebrity Buddhists factually correct?? Some of those individuals don't seem to be very Buddhist
- On the one hand, this is a loaded question - almost like asking if Torquemada and Jim Jones were true Christians. On the other, I have to agree with you that there is room for doubt here. According to http://www.caic.org.au/eastern/soka/soka.htm at least, Noriega is (or at least was at some point) affiliated with the controversial Soka Gakkai International movement. SGI is in itself a thorny subject, but IMO the short version is that they aren't Buddhists at all, although they make it a point to ensure otherwise. Tojo is of course a fairly traditional 1940s Japanese, and was a high ranked helper of the Emperor, who was at the time revered as the direct descendant of Amaterasu (a Shinto deity, not at all a Buddhist one). To this day about 90-95% of Japanese people are Shintoists and about 60%-65% of those are _also_ Buddhists in some way. Most (obviously not all) Buddhist schools place a strong emphasis on avoiding violence, so my best (and not very well researched) guess is that Tojo was a "pure" Shintoist. I may be wrong. The founder of the Aum movement has recently been convicted for his crimes, but he is apparently sincere. I don't want to argue whether he is "not a true Buddhist" or instead a troubled, disturbed one. Luis Dantas 01:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with this in general. I'm going to remove a few of the celebrities that I don't think are Buddhists (although they may be perfectly nice people nonetheless). I wouldn't say that SGI not Buddhist, so you can worry about that side youreself. Removing: George Harrison (a Krishna Consciousness guy until his death, unless I'm mistaken), David Beckham (his wikipedia entry doesn't say anything about Buddhism at least), and Shoko Asahara (does he claim to be a Buddhist?). I'm leaving Tojo: Brian Victoria says he talked a lot about Buddhism after he was imprisoned. Please correct any mistakes. There are a lot of other people that we maybe could remove: Penelope Cruz, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Oliver Stone, DiCaprio, Sting -- I'm not saying any of these people aren't Buddhists, just that I've never heard it before, their wikipedia entries don't mention it, and by itself this list doesn't seem reliable. Steven Seagal ... well, if Pema Norbu says he's a tulku, I guess far be it from me to remove him from the list. - NYK 08:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't take this personally, but I am beginning to wonder if there is a point to these lists. There is just no fair way of claiming people to be buddhist or not just like that. Anyway, Shoko Asahara did indeed claim to be following (and preaching) the "true" teachings of the Buddha - see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/aum.htm for instance. I will grant that his cult is not exactly "pure" Buddhism. According to this interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/94/story_9434_1.html) George Harrison indeed can't fairly be called a Buddhist. There was once an incident involving David Beckham and a Buddhist temple, but it doesn't look like evidence of he being a Buddhist himself IMHO (http://www.dharmalife.com/issue15/signs_of_life.html). Penelope Cruz has been on record claiming sympathy for Buddhism, but clearly not adherence to it. I am less sure about Brad Pitt, but his fan group on Usenet seems to claim that he is a baptist, albeit one who expressed sympathy for Buddhism. Keanu Reeves, however, seems to be indeed a Buddhist (http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/keanureeves.html at least claims so). Oliver Stone is also a Buddhist according to http://unbound.intrasun.tcnj.edu/archives/lifestyle/old/buddha.html . The Usenet fan group on Leonardo DiCaprio seems to suggest that he has no clear religion, despite some misunderstandings about an incident with a Buddhist monk in Thailand. http://www.grammy.com/features/2004/0205_sting.aspx makes it hard to believe that Sting is a Buddhist. BTW, rest assured - I will keep worrying about SGI, albeit certainly not because of this article. Luis Dantas 02:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- [[It is interesting to note that Soka Gakkai was a strong opponent of AUM Shinrikyo, though currently I cannot provide any links to justify this. AUM accused SGI in connection to Freemasonry and attempts to destroy AUM. As to the issue of whether AUM is Buddhist and whether its founder Shoko Asahara can be therefore listed as one of 'celebrity Buddhists', I can say the following: AUM is the only organization who translated the FULL Pali Canon, which is a collection of original sermons taught by Buddha himself, into modern Japanese. This says a lot IMO, as not only the Pali Canon was not yet fully translated even into English, but no other Japanese Buddhist denomination has anything besided the Chinese translations of SOME sutras (which are obviously hard to understand as they are written in ancient Chinese). SGI, be it Bugghist or not (I see no point in arguing over that), is just this kind of organization - its teaching are based over just 1 sutra, in Chinese (they sing that sutra during religious ceremonious, to my knowledge). AUM's teaching, on the other side, is based on full Pali Canon, fully translated. It is a little-known fact, most commenters speak of AUM 'preaching a mixture of' <something>, so I thought my contribution would be of some value. Note: I advise to include the late Ven. Ananda Maitreya, a great Theravadin meditator and scientist from Sri-Lanka, though he is little-known outside that country.
- It would seem to me that this article should be about a historical or conventional concept of what a "Buddhist" is, rather than a functional concept of who is really a Buddhist, because the latter is totally impractical, at least in this context. As I've argued below, I think that it should preferably exclude groups with unusual teachings claiming to be Buddhist unless they have been around for a long time, in which they have established their teaching, right or wrong, as not so unusual after all.
- The fact that Aum Shinrikyo translated the Pali Canon is interesting but doesn't establish anything. Robert of Ketton translated the Quran, but that didn't make him a Christian. I'll bet there have been Baha'is who translated Christian and Hindu holy books (probably Buddhist texts, too), and I'll bet Cao Dai people translated Victor Hugo, too. That's normal behavior for any syncretic religion. There seems to be a lot of different information floating around about what Asahara taught. What you wrote is at odds with what the wikipedia article Aum Shinrikyo says, but I see that you have posted a note there criticizing its accuracy. Were I more interested in arguing about this, I would want to see some sources, but as it happens I am not so interested. I'll keep Asahara in, until someone else wants to argue this further. However, I will move him back to "infamous Buddhists", where he should feel more at home. - Nat Krause 07:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I would say that normal behaviour of a syncretic religion is not to translate anything much, translating the full Pali Canon is an unusual behaviour. And if the group really studied these sutras and claims to be founding its docrtine on them, that makes us assume it is Buddhist, but would't like to debate this much. I would still argue for removing Asahara from the 'infamous Buddhists list'. He just doesn't belong there, he is not Tojo who is a buddhist by birth, Asahara founded his own religion. Maybe he is infamous, but he is at different level than Tojo or Noriega, namely a 'teachers' category. ExitControl
- The fact that Aum Shinrikyo translated the Pali Canon is interesting but doesn't establish anything. Robert of Ketton translated the Quran, but that didn't make him a Christian. I'll bet there have been Baha'is who translated Christian and Hindu holy books (probably Buddhist texts, too), and I'll bet Cao Dai people translated Victor Hugo, too. That's normal behavior for any syncretic religion. There seems to be a lot of different information floating around about what Asahara taught. What you wrote is at odds with what the wikipedia article Aum Shinrikyo says, but I see that you have posted a note there criticizing its accuracy. Were I more interested in arguing about this, I would want to see some sources, but as it happens I am not so interested. I'll keep Asahara in, until someone else wants to argue this further. However, I will move him back to "infamous Buddhists", where he should feel more at home. - Nat Krause 07:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I suggest removing the 'infamous' category. Almost every second Japanese or Thai embezzler or murderer fits into this category (infamous and Buddhist), so we could keep adding them, but would it make sense? We could invent the 'infamous Buddhist teachers' category, though. But I still believe it is acceptable to add him to 'contemporary figures/other traditions'. He is a notable figure.
April 9 2004: How on earth does Manuel Noriega fit in on this page? Is this a joke? Shantavira
- Luis Dantas 12:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) It may well be an exageration, but it is no joke. Much has been made of pictures of Daisaku Ikeda with Noriega - SGI is often critized for associating with him, although it doesn't really mean much IMO. And as I said, http://www.caic.org.au/eastern/soka/soka.htm at least claims that Noriega was once a SGI member. I have no clue whether that is true. Would you happen to have more info, Shantavira? BTW, thanks for the help with the Rebirth article.
Probably that's because you could become SGI member and won't ever realize that? :-)ExitControl
- Luis, thank you for your comments. I quite certainly do not take them personally. Actually, I msyelf wonder the same thing. I guess the point is the people should be listed should be in some sense notable -- that is, Joe Muskeyvote who doesn't know much about Buddhism sees the list and goes, "Oliver Stone is a Buddhist? Who'd've thunk it?" That is, the "celebrities" portion of the list should be primarily be of interest to people who are interested in celebrities, rather than to people who are interested in Buddhism. My concern is just that we will make the list a joke, and misleading to boot, if we clutter it up with a bunch of celebrities who are really actually not Buddhist. Better to have a list with 0 or close to 0 famous people and give people the accurate impression that Buddhism is not really about celebrity. In attempt to make an end-run around the detestable prospect of having to judge the glitterati's "True Buddhosity", I propose the following rough standards. 1) Does the person claim to be a Buddhist? Or, perhaps, do they claim some strong sympathy with Buddhism, especially in contrast to various other religions? If so, they're in! Except 2) Unless they are a member of some sort of unusual sect that distances itself from what most Buddhists believe or practice. And even then, maybe they should be included anyway. I would give a little bit of preference here to groups that have been around for a while and "stood the test of time". These are my grounds for excluding Shoko Asahara.
- Pretty much agree with you, but Asahara fits the criteria. He 1) Claims to be Buddhist, claims strong sympathy for Buddhism and backed this sympathy with investments 2) Does not distance itself from most Buddhists believe and practice, it is rather some Buddhists distanced themselves since 1995 for political reasons (speaking about Tibetan Buddhist officials here) 3) Stood the test of time: 20 years may not seem like a lot, but he founded religion that still lives; while Richard Gere didn't establish any and I am not sure twenty years passed since his conversion. If you want, I can produce quotes of Buddhist patriarchs praising Asahara and if you are very interested it is even probably possible to get some on video (though this may take time and I don't guarantee results). So I suggest reinstalling Asahara under 'modern teachers' section or something like thatExitControl
- Luis, thank you for your comments. I quite certainly do not take them personally. Actually, I msyelf wonder the same thing. I guess the point is the people should be listed should be in some sense notable -- that is, Joe Muskeyvote who doesn't know much about Buddhism sees the list and goes, "Oliver Stone is a Buddhist? Who'd've thunk it?" That is, the "celebrities" portion of the list should be primarily be of interest to people who are interested in celebrities, rather than to people who are interested in Buddhism. My concern is just that we will make the list a joke, and misleading to boot, if we clutter it up with a bunch of celebrities who are really actually not Buddhist. Better to have a list with 0 or close to 0 famous people and give people the accurate impression that Buddhism is not really about celebrity. In attempt to make an end-run around the detestable prospect of having to judge the glitterati's "True Buddhosity", I propose the following rough standards. 1) Does the person claim to be a Buddhist? Or, perhaps, do they claim some strong sympathy with Buddhism, especially in contrast to various other religions? If so, they're in! Except 2) Unless they are a member of some sort of unusual sect that distances itself from what most Buddhists believe or practice. And even then, maybe they should be included anyway. I would give a little bit of preference here to groups that have been around for a while and "stood the test of time". These are my grounds for excluding Shoko Asahara.
- 1) Asahara certainly claims to be a Buddhist, that much is certain. 2) Aum Shinrikyo, based on my limited knowledge of it, appears to be a heterodox group, if only because of their embrace of distinctly Hindu elements such as the worship of some god named Shiva, to say nothing of the more dramatic claims about their beliefs made in the popular press. This is not to say that some high-profile Buddhist teachers did not sometimes associate with Shoko Asahara in the past.
3) I agree that 20 years does not seem like a lot, especially when compared to the 2500 year history of Buddhism, and especially since Aum has been in a sharp decline since approximately 1995. The fact that Richard Gere did not establish his own religion, I would think, argues for rather than against him being a Buddhist. - Nat Krause 10:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So, let's see what we have. 1) Claims to be Buddhist, great. 2) See the Aum Shinrikyo talk for more info on Shiva I wrote for you, briefly: Lord Shiva=Adi-Buddha, so no problems here. Let us leave the dramatic claims of popular press to people not familiar with the subject. So far - very Buddhist 3) Richard Gere is Buddhist follower, not teacher, true. But I merely meant to establish that Shoko Asahara is Buddhist first, no less than Richard Gere. Then, as he also teaches Buddhism, we need to put him to this category - "teachers". As he established his own school/religion, I suggest 'contemporary'. ExitControl
- I'm hoping these suggestions will coincide with common sense. I don't think we need to go above or below the received opinion for this article. - Nat Krause 04:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Have added a number of key Buddhist figues of the past, and several contemporaries in the last two weeks.
Acmuller if you read this and decide you want to break this page up, then you much provide links to the news pages - both backwards and forwards, and you need to check other pages that link here and make sure that they link to the news pages as well.
The question is what purpose would it serve to break this page up? Why have three lists of Buddhists? Is there a precedent in Wiki for doing this?
Mahaabaala 09:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Hey, the "list of contemporary Buddhist teachers" page that acmuller started is now considerably more complete than the corresponding section on this page (although it has no links to it). What do you think is the best solution? Should the contemporary teachers page be merged back into this page? - NYK 08:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I would keep it. You can't mix Ole Nidal and Milarepa in single list, the scope of personalities and their impact to the is too different ExitControl
Okay, I merged in the list from "Zen teacher" (having merged in "list of contemporary ..." a while back). There were a few names that I left off simply because they didn't sound familiar, so I wasn't sure if they were bona fide notables. If anyone wants to check the discrepancies and add in anyone you think is appropriate, be my guest.
Also, not that it's important, but should we maybe move Steven Seagal to "infamous Buddhists"? I have a perverse (?) desire to flesh out that section. I keep thinking there's got to be some Mongol kings or somesuch we can include there. But I suppose to be infamous one must first be famous, and I don't think Genghis or Kublai Khans were Buddhist. - Nat Krause 08:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Who is this Phil Jackson, added today? It's a very common name. Add d.o.b? Shantavira 17:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I can't tell if you're joking or not. Probably not, because you are apparently British, and I wouldn't be surprised if Phil Jackson were only famous in America (also I'll wager Phil Jackson is a more common name in Britain). In the U.S., Phil Jackson is a famous basketball coach. I was a little surprised that he didn't already have a Wikipedia entry, but it looks like somebody wrote up a stub for him a few days ago anyway. He is well known to have dabbled in Buddhism (and is commonly referred to by his nickname, "The Zen Master"), but I always had the vague impression that he never really claimed to be a Buddhist. However, a couple minutes' research on Google indicates that I might be wrong about this, and, as I've argued at perhaps unnecessary length above, I think self-description should be the main criteria for inclusion in this list. - Nat Krause 06:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Should we continue to have an infamous buddhists list or should we stick with Political figures known to be buddhists as the anonymous user has made it? If the latter, we shall have to move Aung San Suu Kyi, Jerry Brown, and Phoolan Devi there, and have them cheek-to-jowl with Manuel Noriega. - Nat Krause 13:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I would vote for the change. What is infamous after all? Famous people with bad reputation. But what unites them is relations to politics. ExitControl
Well, after thinking about for a while, I decided to nix the "infamous Buddhists" list. I kind of liked the idea of keeping it, because I hoped it would promote humility by admitting that not everyone who claims to be a Buddhist is the nicest guy in the world. But I concluded that it is un-Buddhist for us to single a few people out without their permission as examples of how not to be. So, I moved a few things around, created a few new sections, and integrated the infamous ones into those. I made a section for "teachers of controversial Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced groups", which currently hosts Shoko Asahara. I can think of at least two other people who belong on this list, but for political reasons, I choose to refrain from mentioning their names at this time. - Nat Krause 09:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm taking responsibility for adding the Ajahn Brahm link under Theravadan teachers. I discuss why on the talk to the page. In my opinion there should probably be links to Ajahn Tate and Ajahn Maha Boowa who've had an enormous impact on Buddhism - actually they transformed Buddhism in Thailand and beyond - as prominent leaders of the Forest Tradition who are very widely regarded to be arahats (saints). And I'm surprised that Ajahn Sumedho hasn't been added. Whilst I may go on to add the former two, I'm going to refrain from the adding the latter as it's not so farmiliar with the situation in Europe. Solasaurus 08:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added Susan Blackmore today. See http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/whoami.htm and http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Zen/intro.htm for why. Yes, I know she claims not to be a buddhist in there, but the actual contect suggests otherwise. Luis Dantas 21:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
re Daisaky Ikeda
- NatKrause: also, I think for most people Daisaku Ikeda is pretty non-controversially a Buddhist teacher -- dispute on talk, please
- He is a founder (and honorary president) of Soka Gakkai International, "a controversial Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced group". I am not disputing whether Daisaku Ikeda is Buddhist teacher (this is interestic matter in itself, as there are different opinions), and whether SGI is a Buddhist religious group. Emphasis is on "controversial". Ikeda founded SGI, which was involved in various controversial matters and himself resigned over scandallous accusations. For more info on SGI controversies, please google for Soka Gakkai Victims Association. I therefore moved Ikeda back to "controversial Buddhists". NatKrause, I think Ikeda qualifies by reputation. If you meant controversies related to whether a particular religious leader teaches Buddhism and not something else, let's discuss further. I think the problem is with the name of this category. ExitControl
- Daisaku Ikeda is definitely controversial. That SGI teaches or practices Buddhism is by no means a consensus, much on the contrary. Both buddhists and SGI members are all too aware that the teachings of, say, Tibetan Buddhism, Jodo Shinshu, Zen and Theravada are far closer to each other than either to Daisaku Ikeda's - it is actually a point of pride for SGI. We just went through this on a brazilian Soto Zen list I participate. Luis Dantas 08:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Opening sentence
Does the opening sentence "A number of noted individuals have been Buddhists" convey anything useful? It almost suggests Buddhism is so small that it is remarkable that it should attract "noted individuals" Shantavira 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)