Talk:Buddhism/Archive
|
|
| Contents |
Vocabulary
I feel we should have a Buddhist vocabulary of some sort. All the Sanskrit/Pali/Tibetan/Japanese is disturbing to some people, but many terms lack good translations. There is a List of Islamic terms in Arabic so I'll start "List of Buddhist terms". Initially it will be short so feel free to discuss the format before the list gets too long. I suggest we make a rough school-language division:
--What are the following words meant to mean? Are they supposed to be equivalences? --
- Sanskrit - Mahayana (biksu)
- Japanese - Zen (no good term seems to exist, sensei?)
- Roshi? Uyanga 00:23 23 May 2003 (UTC)
--Roshi and Sensei are wrong. A zen monk has a different name to a zen master.
- Tibetan - Tantric (lama)
--This is very mistaken. A Tibetan bhikkhu is called a gelong if he is fully ordained, or getsul if he is a novice monk (of 36 vows). Tantra is a sanskrit word (The word "gyu" is the normative tibetan word for the sanskrit word Tantra), and is not equivalent to Theravada - Tantra is not a school. There are four well-known schools in Tibet, and numerous sub-schools and small schools, with different canon, different vinaya, and different lineages.Secondly, there are also four separate schools of philosophy in Tibet. What is Theravada? A school or a philosophy? The meaning of "lama" is a (canonical/normative) tibetan word for the Sanskrit word Guru. Also, almost all Tibetan Buddhists are Mahayana (tib. tegchen), but the monastic tradition holds a savarstivadin(sp.?) -Hinayana Vinaya tradition in the 'Sarpa' schools. Most modern tibetan practitioners will practice according to the entire Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantrayana texts. Far from being degreded, the Tibetan canon has the most complete and accurate set of sutras and commentaries as was found in Nalanda university during the 8th - 11th centuries. The sutras of the Pali canon (the Dhammapada is not a sutra, and is not found there) are all found in the tibetan canon and are also regarded as normative- therefore the Tibetan tradition is -inclusive- it is an EXTENSION of the hinayana tradition. So we cannot make big ideas about 'Lama==Bhikku'.
- Pali - Theravada (bhikku)
- English - common to all schools (monk)
- Korean
- Vietnamese
- Burmese
Should these be as separate articles or one file? Or maybe both?
- A 'Buddhist glossary' in one file would be a great idea. It should be basic; covering all 5 categories you've mentioned because there are many well done glossaries on the www. We can just add an external link section for, example, the AccessToInsight.Org glossary, etc. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Meditation
Q: There have been some questions about how much lip service should be given to meditation on the Buddhism front page. I've attempted to at least allude to it since it is a central practice to most traditions. Any other thoughts? Maybe a fork to a "Buddhist Meditation" page would be the best place to elaborate on the topic once it is given approriate coverage on the main page.
- A:Meditation should get the same amount of coverage as virtue, I agree. If you want detail, you should add to the Meditation page. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Q: Can anyone find the Wikipedia page listing famous/"celebrity" Buddhists?
A: it's under listing of noted Buddhists
Homosexuality
A summary of Buddhist views on homosexuality should be started on the new page discussing Religion and homosexuality.
- Agreed, but I don't think Buddhist views on homosexuality are particularly central to the religion.
- Homosexuality in Buddhist monasteries is quite a topic itself. We should add a Buddhist view to the Religion and homosexuality because most 'faiths' are anti-homosexual (like Islam). Buddhism is anti-caste & anti-racist. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
historical treatment would be appreciated
Q: Why are the links to "Perfecxtion of wisdom" not working in the section on Mahayana sutras? rossum 2002-11-13
A: Because they should be "Perfection of Wisdom" - capital W.
The Buddha vs Many Buddhas
I do have a problem with the wording in the page because it puts much too much emphasis on "the Buddha". In many traditions of Buddhism, there is the premise that there are many Buddhas, and that everyone can become a Buddha.
- I removed a few instances of "the Buddha" from the article. I think the ones that are left shouldn't be a problem. Your observation on "many Buddhas" and "everyone can become a Buddha" is of course a good one.
- I agree. But, you should know that the premise of many 'Buddhas' is recognized in Theravada AND Mahayana (Vajrayana included). The only difference is that Mahayana emphasizes these 'other Buddhas' more in practice, whereas in Theravada, Buddhists worry about this eon and its Buddha and Dharma. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
In all of the traditions I've read about where there are multiple Buddhas, they are held to be aspects of the same entity. All parts of the universal consciousness. It's all really just a minor matter of semantics.
-Are you refering to the Mahayana schools such as those of Tibetan origin? I think the idea of a universal consciousness is rejected by Gautama Buddha in the suttas where he describes the 25 false views of the self. I assume that in this analysis he'd also be refering to himself. - RSA
- That is a violation of Anatta. Even Mahayana scholars adamantly professed that the 'Universal Consciousness' is NOT a self! This seems to never make it into modern Western Buddhist books for obvious reasons: to propagate the god-like bodhisattva who can evade impermance for eternity to save every single being in samsara out of compassion. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Rebirth
I am surprised to find that the main article on Buddhism makes no mention of reincarnation and only has a link to nirvana. is this just my ignorance of buddhism (which is vast) or could these have been missed? I know that the average reader at least would expect treatment of these two issues as well as a snapshot of daily life for the average buddhist: visit to shrines, ancestor worship (which is also not mentioned), etc...
also, from the historical perspective, would it be appropriate to detail ways in which buddhism shows its hindu roots (if it has such roots, again, i think the average reader might expect clarification on this?) --Plasticlax
- Gautama Buddha never taught Reincarnation. He taught his version of Rebirth. Vajrayana, what is practiced in Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia, etc., does subscribe to reincarnation but this was transmitted from Hinduism into its all schools. 'OM' for example, which is used in Vajrayana is from Hinduism and is a derivative of Hinduism's 'AUM'.
The Buddhism section is still in it's infancy so we thank you for your input. We will work hard to provide concrete content. Usedbook 21:58 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
I removed "The precepts to seek Nirvana" and "The virtues". It seems Buddhism is literally prone to lists. Perhaps we will add them later in paragraph. Usedbook 14:33 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
For most people the distinction between reincarnation and rebirth is one of name only. So I think reincarnation can be mentioned, though it should obviously be done in such a way as to make it palatable to Buddhists.
kh7 11:17 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
What about adding a section on the history of buddhism from its foundation until the modern day? 28 apr 2003
- Good idea, our anonymous friend. See 'History of Schools' for the contribution. Be well! Usedbook 19:46 16 May 2003 (UTC)
==NPOV Issues ==
I removed the following since it is POV and historically incorrect. Should I mention 'Hinduism' never existed at the time of Gautama Buddha? Even democracies have their authoritive figures. Lastly, the Sangha order is a tradition and the 31 planes of existence is cosmology. Usedbook 14:07 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
- 68.5.87.191 wrote on May 3, 2003: Buddhism originated as a Hindu equivalent of Protestantism, but it departed more significantly from its parent tradition. The Buddha believed that his contemporary Hinduism had grown to place too much emphasis on authority, ritual, the supernatural, cosmology, determinism, and tradition. Authority, ritual, and tradition he expressly forbade; determinism he denied; cosmological speculation and mystical activity he dismissed as a dangerous waste of time. All that was left was meditation and self-improvement. After the Buddha's death, however, these six elements did appear in his religion.
- Pre-Hindu would be the correct term. He did not forbid tradition, but I understand and am with you on the points. How should we work this into the article? Usedbook 19:43 16 May 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is either POV or historically incorrect. (I think I can see how you could call it incorrect, but not historically IMO.) That's exactly what I was taught.
- I don't see how that is either POV or historically incorrect. (I think I can see how you could call it incorrect, but not historically IMO.) That's exactly what I was taught.
And I do think that "Hinduism" is as good a term as any to describe the contemporary religion of the Buddha's day. He was more or less a contemporary of the writers of the Upanishads. --Smack (yes, I am 68.5.87.191)
- Its quite rare for "Hinduism" to be used in this context in history books but I do notice it. We never label Jesus Christ as a Christian. He was a Jew. In the same respects, Brahminism during Siddhartha Gautamas time isn't remotely close to what we now know as Hinduism. It is even quite the opposite in some ways (cows are no longer sacrificed by Brahmin priests but presently worshipedby Hindu preists). In regards to the Upanishads, like most pre-Hindu and later Indian texts, they're not canonical and have authors making deletions and entries spanning many centuries.
Your paragraph touches on a noteworthy subject. In every society that Buddhism propagated into, they native indigenous cultures and religions were not disturbed. Although Gautama openly expressed his 'Right View', he did not supress other cultures. If a rite wasn't detrimental to the wellbeing of the people, it simply was ok. In Thailand, you will notice miniture houses infront of homes (of an ancient tradition) that are shrines used to respect the spirits. This unBuddhist ritual is considered usless, yet no coercion was issued. Often people mistaken the culture practiced in Buddhist societies as Buddhist. There are professed Buddhists who are speculative mystics practicing ritual within the complex of a Buddhist temple, and there are also professed Islamists by the thousands willing to commit kamikaze (an act they consider the duty and 6th pillar of Islam), but this doesn't mean its in the Qur'an and "in the religion".
I do apprieciate your work and agree that Buddhism is under a veil of culture; mistakenly an aspect of it but really just tolerated custom. Gautama was against many rituals that some Buddhists now adhere to. These I myself am against but the practitioners must, with their free will in mind, be able to see for themselves. The religion he established in doctrine and discipline is available for them under all that frivolous mumbo-jumbo. Be well. Usedbook 06:56 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- Its quite rare for "Hinduism" to be used in this context in history books but I do notice it. We never label Jesus Christ as a Christian. He was a Jew. In the same respects, Brahminism during Siddhartha Gautamas time isn't remotely close to what we now know as Hinduism. It is even quite the opposite in some ways (cows are no longer sacrificed by Brahmin priests but presently worshipedby Hindu preists). In regards to the Upanishads, like most pre-Hindu and later Indian texts, they're not canonical and have authors making deletions and entries spanning many centuries.
- How does 'proto-Hinduism' sound?
- 'proto-Hinduism' is more acceptable than Hinduism, but the whole sentence (as would be revised) "Buddhism originated as a proto-Hindu equivalent of Protestantism, but it departed more significantly from its parent tradition." remains set in POV. The teachings of Buddha were unconcerned with cosmology - this distinction means that Buddhism had little in common with either denying or supporting proto-scientific doctrines on the nature of the universe. Buddha basically told us that we would be less miserable if we stopped being self-centred. This idea was revolutionary, and remains revolutionary.
Unwanted External Links
We have had issues regarding the links at Buddhism and recently, User:Kh7 also had to remove many unwanted externals, stating that this article is not a directory for sites. I removed the following because we simply cannot have unrelated material; the trend spreads. If we add this one, why not for America, Canada, and France and entire Europe, since it has a higher numbers of converts. Australia has high Asian immigration (consisting of those escaping persecution, poverty, etc.), which is the majority of the growth number. Usedbook 19:43 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Nelson, Darren. Why is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in Australia? (http://www.buddhanet.net/whybudoz.htm). BuddhaNet (http://www.buddanet.net/).
- I added that link 'cause I thought we were supposed to quote sources. I had it listed as a source. Is there a problem with that? -- prat
- Perhaps source links should be made for less popularly known facts. I think your paragraph is fine without it. Be well. Usedbook 07:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have seen Buddhist as the fastest growing religion in Australia being a 'popularly known fact', with respect to a global wikipedia audience .. but, I don't really care either way... -- prat
Buddhism in the UK
There probably should be some material on the history of Buddhism in the British Isles and Western Europe and the role the Theosophical Society, the Younghusband Expedition, etc. played in its introduction. Uyanga 20:37 16 May 2003 (UTC)
- I'll try to get on this from a Theravada perspective. I have some reference material from Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Sumedho describing some of the early attempts at establishing a buddhist monastic community in England but I have no material for the Mahayana tradition. As earlier mentioned this would probably be best put under a different topic. --RandomCoda 13:20 22 May 2003 (CST)
Hinayana & Mahayana
I think it would be important to add some explanation of the origin of the terms 'Mahayana' and 'Hinayana.' I tried to do this, but then I realized that there were some problems with the structure of the article. The current structure of the section on the two schools places Theravada first and Mahayana second, which is logical because the paragraph on Mahayana needs to be followed by a discussion of the various subdivisions of that school. However, in the interests of the name explanation, it would be best to place Mahayana first, since it is the one that first named itself after the raft metaphor. --Smack 06:03 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- Good idea, Smack. Historically, of course, Theravada should remain first but with the name explanation, what ever makes the Maha-Hina conflict understandable is good for the reader. We should note that Theravada and Hinayana are not the same, which badly needs to be noted. Be well. Usedbook 07:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)
- It is best to tread this ground very lightly and try our best to make this topic as opinion free as possible. I'll try to get a friend (whose researched this extensively) to take a look. --RandomCoda 13:20 22 May 2003 (CST)
- RandomCoda: Are you planning to get this friend of yours to write up a paragraph or two on this? What exactly is going on?
Structure
- Well I'm newish here but I'm looking at this page and wondering what the hell is going on. I started tidying up bits but realised that there are major structural difficulties with the way Buddhism is handled. The whole subject area of Buddhism needs restructuring to make it more conherent and navigable. I've mucked around with the entries a bit before discovering this page so forgive me if I've stepped on anyone's toes. I'm looking around at how general books have structured their chapters to see if they provide a good model. But otherwise I'll try to make some thing up - I'm a librarian so this is what I'm good at. Michael 8 Aug 2003.
Buddhism Wikipedia is filled with errors
I am a specialist in Buddhist studies and have looked at a lot of the material contained here in the area of Buddhism. Most of it is terribly inaccurate and misleading. People should not be writing entries for a reference work if they are lacking in expertise on a topic. It will give people the wrong information, and give the project a bad reputation. Please don't write on a topic if you don't know what you are talking about. Charles Muller (www.acmuller.net/ddb)
- On the internet you could be a dog posing as a Buddhist scholar, who knows? Just because you're a self confessed 'specialist', doesn't mean you have the patent on what Buddhism is. 'Specialist' opinions on Buddhism have changed radically since 'specialists' started taking an interest, and continue to change. All any of us can do is give the 'truth' as we see it. Part of the fun of doing wiki is writing what you think, and then watching someone correct it with something better, so lets not get all anal retentive about it.
- BTW when you do add your 'specialist' opinion, do take the time to link it into other entries, and do check to see what links to the information you have moved, and either change those links or provide forwarding (and backwarding). Otherwise, and this is my 'information specialist' opinion; otherwise however special your opinion is, it doesn't contribute to a harmonious whole. Also you can sign your posts here by doing ~~~~. Mahaabaala 09:08, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Seems our specialist in Buddhist studies spat the dummy and went home with his toys. He's left a range of evils amongst the Buddhist pages which will take a while to track down and correct. Mainly a very academic approach which will bewilder most general users, but also a whole lot of links to his personal Buddhist directory which don't work because a login is required! Mahaabaala 16:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Audience
We need to think about who the audience for this page, and it's subsidiaries, is. Is this, for instance, supposed to be for the general public, or it is an academic reference work. The level is very mixed at present with most of it aiming at a general audience, but eg the schools section now looking like a university text book Mahaabaala 09:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Buddhism - Please Read Before Editing Buddhism
The purpose of this comment is to prevent an otherwise inevitable edit war.
"Buddhism" is a term that is not traditionally used by "Buddhists". Instead, we ("Buddhists") have a whole set of other terms for "Buddhism" - such as Dharma, the law, etc. Also we 'Buddhists' traditionally tend to call ourselves "insiders".
I would suggest that the 'Buddhism' page be split into several subsidiarys that would allow for the plural nature of the 'Buddhist' culture to be more easily divulged.
We could have: Western Academic views of Buddhism.
Theravadin views of Buddhism.
Chinese (pure land) views of Buddhism.
Chinese (zen) views of Buddhism.
Japanese (zen) views of Buddhism.
Tibetan views of Buddhism. etc..
This would help us get over the philosophical and editorial problem of a "ONE TRUE VIEW" that contradicts directly the message of Anatta (Skt. anatman), and moreover would demonstrate that the idea of syncretising (US: syncretizing) a set of cultures, beliefs and ethics that have been diversifying for over 2,500 years is really an activity that will not reflect those cultures and beliefs without reducing them to something that loses their plural, exciting diversity. We should embrace diversity, not try to choke it with some reductive approach to unification, just to make it "fit in" with outsider's ideas of categorising everything into nice boxes such as 'religion'.
Regarding the current Buddhism article, to me it appears to be based upon (outsider) western academic ideas; to quote: "The Mahayana arose in the first few centuries". Well, according to whom? Certainly not according to Mahayana insiders! (Mahayana insiders assert that e.g. the events described in the "heart of the perfection of wisdom sutra" happened during Siddhartha Gautama Buddha's lifetime.)
- Well, given that Wikipedia is intended as a quasi-neutral reference source, shouldn't the position of secular scholarship predominate? I would assume, similarly, that the Wikipedia entry on the Bible discusses its composition and redaction by human authors and editors.कुक्कुरोवाच 15:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, the very class of assertion about the Mahayana implies a reified, acontextual (objective) Weltanschauung (English: worldview) - something that many insiders would find it difficult to accept, as it contradicts with the basic message of Anatman (Pali: anatta).
Also, there is a seeming crisis in the Pali/Sanskrit issue; do we always need to write this with a predominance of one over the other e.g: Anatta (Skt. anatman) ? Do we need to do this at all? (Note the mild parodies above). Moreover, choosing Pali over Sanskrit appears to indicate a continuing subscription to an unfortunate split in traditional opinion; (what appears to be a Theravadin intolerance towards the Mahayana), which may not even be there. Hence, the idea of allowing for diverse views to be covered, high up in the tree of the Buddhism article, can avoid these challenges.
- Well, since we write in a linear format, something has to come first, if we're going to include both. Certainly we have to include at least one (since there aren't, generally, adequate English translations that are general enough to ensure that people know they're talking about the same thing). Seems to me both should be included for terms that are important both within the Pāli-language tradition and within the "Sanskrit" of the Mahāyāna. (Actually, almost no Buddhist writers (Nāgārjuna being the obvious exception) used Sanskrit; the Mahāyāna sutras are more typically composed in what is called "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit" (BHS), which is really just a prakrit dressed up to look like Sanskrit...but there's really no convenient way to indicate that in a short form that the average reader will understand, and most of the lexical items look the same as their Sanskrit equivalents, anyway.) The rule should be that when the term originated in Pāli (or, rather, when our first evidence of it is in the Pāli canon) and was grandfathered into later the BHS writings, then the Pāli term should come first. When the term is specific to the Pāli writings, it should be listed in Sanskrit only. (Unless it also wound up in Theravāda literature, though I don't know if that ever happened). I don't see how differentiating the origin languages for terms indicates any sort of bias; it's just good scholarship.कुक्कुरोवाच 15:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The image
How does everyone feel about the current image accompanying this page "the Big Buddha"? I don't like it that much, I think it looks kind of silly. I can think of better images, but I don't know what is available in the public domain. - NYK 09:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The Zen painting seems to be the most approachable visualization of Nirvana. A statue just represents the insecurities of man, not to mention innovation in religion. Usedbook 21:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)