Talk:Buddhism/Archive3

When you do, it may be relevant to mention that vegetarianism was a proposed rule suggested (?demanded) by Devadatta that resulted in the earliest schism. (20040302 08:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

There is a buddhist diet article somewhere...

Buddhist cuisine <-- a bit chinese..

Hmm, at some point I'll get around to actually writing something up on this. But it will be brief. - Nat Krause 17:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Without atman

Kukkovacara, your edit of the section on anātman, which starts out, "All things are without an ātman, meaning a "soul", or "self" in the metaphysical sense. In Indian philosophy, this carries the implication that they are without any unchanging, permanent essence," is very learned, but can we switch back the first line to something that would be a little more straightforward? The way it is now, it sounds like some kind of debate over Indian logical terms, and "implied" makes it sound like the meaning of non-self is tentative or unclear.

Hmm. How about something like, "All things are without an ātman, (Sanskrit: "soul"), meaning they have no eternal essence or nature."? It's important that we clarify in what sense things are said to be soulless, or selfless, as soulless and selfless alone each have their own particular (and equally if differently irrelevant) meanings in English.कुक्कुरोवाच 16:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be said, but there are many views of anatman in Buddhism. It is all well and good that I do my best to follow Nagarjuna, but others don't. So it maybe less controversial limit ourselves to sentient beings "... we do not have 'ātman', (Sanskrit: "soul"), meaning that we have no (eternal?) essence." (First person plural gets people to think about it more personally). I also feel it may be necessary to pull the 'eternal' qualifier (see Tsongkhapa), and assert the stronger statement (that we have no essence whatsoever), but also we lose the 'nature' as a stand-alone (it has many meanings in buddhism, and the statement could be misconstrued), though I am more happy with 'no essential nature' (though I am not sure what one of those would be). Also, the idea that e.g. a television (re. all things) has a soul is not something most readers would relate to.

How about "All beings are free from having any sort of 'ātman', (Sanskrit: "soul")', meaning that we have no essence, or essential nature." (Damn. essence is a stub).

Though I agree with Kukko in principe, I feel we should not be too explanatory here, but we need to intrigue the reader into wanting to learn more. (20040302 05:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I think the description in the article and as you are discussing is great. I just want to change the first sentence so that is says something clearly in English. In the second and succeeding sentences, we can develop what that means in terms of ātman. How about "All beings have no self"? - Nat Krause 12:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about now?कुक्कुरोवाच 23:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about now? I think the current version makes the succeeding sentences read better, too. I also made a few other small changes based on the "95 theses", which hopefully should be agreeable to everyone. One thing: I took out "extinction" from the translation of nirvana -- let me know if you object. - Nat Krause 07:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I do object, because Template:Nirvana has connotations of both extinguishing and extinction (these two words are actually the same, but have developed different connotations--thus my affinity for using both to translate Template:Nirvana. However, just "extinguishing" is acceptable for the Buddhism main page, I suppose. Grr. (grin)कुक्कुरोवाच 12:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I leave it entirely to your judgment if you want to put it back in. - Nat Krause 17:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnation

If there is no soul, in what sense can someone be reincarnated? Is it in some way similar to the way someone at age eighty can have virtually none of the atoms that were in his body at age two and yet be the same person? Gingekerr 17:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you this: if there is no soul, what is it that experiences anything from one moment to the next in the course of your one life? - Nat Krause 09:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnation and rebirth are used interchangeably which causes confusion. Rebirth has to do with becoming, with "rebirth consciousness" which is really the mental equivalent of the process you (Gingekerr) refer to. In other words, in an unenlightened being, there is a self which changes. The changes occur over time due to karmic repercussions of thoughts, words and deeds. The karmic effects can be felt after the body has died, and the body has causes in karma which was created before the body sprung up. I hope this helps.

Hi. I just expanded the stub at Rebirth_(Buddhist) but it could use some wikification and tidying up if anyone is interested. I'm rather new to this, but it looks like this is the appropriate place to make this sort of announcement and suggestion. Shantavira

Quite right. Also delightful to see the piece on Conze. In the future, you may want to add your contributions to the List of Buddhist topics, which is a sort of general index to the Buddhism-related articles.

Thanks, Shantavira, I will take a look at that sometime. - Nat Krause 09:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(divinities) frequently honored through ritual?

The phrase at the end of the introductory section claiming that divinities are frequently honored through ritual is a bit iffy in my view, particularly if you class Boddhisattvas and Buddhas as regular beings. At least in the Theravada tradition Devas, etc. are mainly spoken of in stories, but not ritual as far as I know. Mahayana does have some divinities such as Heavenly Kings, however I don't see these as being frequently honoured through ritual... --prat 03:10, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Well, the current language I think arises from a conversation with that Hinduism guy, Lord Surya (see 7.2.2 above, three sections). I'm not so comfortable with divinities now that I think about it: makes me think of divinity school, i.e. monotheist God. But "frequently honored through ritual" I think is fair, especially if you include buddhas and bodhisattvas, which I think the author of that section intended to. Even if you don't, certainly the Tibetans and those in their sphere of influence, if no one else, can be said to honor supernatural beings through ritual. - Nat Krause 05:06, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I amended the text quite a bit, as I disagree with honor. And I pulled the Buddhas and bodhisattvas sentence as too clumsy. (20040302 08:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)) PS I am 'in the sphere of influence' of Tibetans, and prefer the current edition.

I'm willing to concede "supernatural beings" purely in the interest of not squabbling, but for the record I think it's better to refer to them as deities which are in accord with nature than as "beings" who supercede it. "Transmundane" might be more apt, but certainly sounds goofy.

But what, particularly, is wrong with "honor"? Are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas not honored during ritual? And, if we do get rid of "honor", can we please find something other than "communicate", which I can only envision in the form of some kind of Buddhist seance?

I liked the other changes, btw.कुक्कुरोवाच 12:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I get your point. There is an implicit ambiguity in the text - are we talking about supernatural beings such as buddhas and bodhisattvas (in which case, just how are they supernatural?), or are we talking about supernatural beings such as yakshas, nagas, pretas, devas, smell-eaters, etc?

The paragraph is fine if we look at it's interpretation as to not include yakshasa thru smell-eaters, but not so fine if we wish to include buddhas and bodhisattvas! If we use 'transmundane', then this would work for buddhas and their sons, but not for yakshas etc.

So with regards to the practices that surround yakshas etc, there is a degree of 'honoring' them, just as we would politely 'honor' a guest at dinner. But we would not worship them, just as we would not worship a guest. Yes, communicate is not appropriate - maybe propitiate or appease (but both imply a defensive nature - one of being protected from wrath, which is not always the case) - we do not invite friends to dinner to appease them! (Well, not always!) But also, with the case of preta practices, the guests are invited to eat food as a means of appeasing their life in the lower realm. The act is purely based from generosity and compassion, and in this sense, honor could be read to mean that Buddhists consider ghosts to be superior to humans, which would be a mistake.

So, how about associate? Still dry, but generic enough as well, and no mediums! (this is what I did)

As for the practices concerning Bodhisattvas and Buddhas (the transworldly deities), they are much more complex; first of all there are indeed 'dinner parties' which involve inviting various transworldly deities, but there are many more that treat them in a distinctly different light - and in this way, we are left with interpretations based on oral lineage concerning the identity of the deities. For instance (and there are many interpretations, according to the context of the practitioner), the Buddhas and bodhisattvas are none other than the practitioner in a future state - so the contract is more like a sort of time travel: practitioner-present/practitioner-future rather than teacher/student or creator/creation relation. Thoughts? (20040302 13:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Ooh Nat.. I don't know about spiritual beings.. There is a gigantic difference between spiritual and supernatural. (20040302 17:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Ah, you pre-empted my explanation! Go ahead and revert if you object, but this strikes me as the best option. I don't like the word spiritual very much as a euphemism for religious, but in this case, isn't it what we're talking about: karmic beings with "subtle" (as Thich Nhat Hanh and probably some other people would say) bodies? Supernatural, on the other hand, I don't know -- I can never figure out what that's supposed to mean. I'm unfamiliar with a Buddhist concept of naturalness or something above it. But if you think spiritual is objectionable and supernatural less so, then that's fine. - Nat Krause 17:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the current text again, to:

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of other-worldly beings (indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgement to them. However, they are regarded by some as having the power to affect worldly events and to aid seekers of Enlightenment, and in this regard they are associated with via ritual.

How does the 'other-worldly beings' phrase look? In this way they are not seen as natural or supernatural, a distinction which some might call in to question. Also removed seemingly-superperfluous 'materially' (aid seekers of enlightenment...) - prat 01:00, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

This is all a bit of a bounce through the thesaurus, but how about 'mystical'? other-worldly is a little bit alien-lander, supernatural indeed has etymological troubles, spiritual can be read to be religious (and not supernatural), immaterial is not always the case (the texts claim that they do have material bodies, albeit subtly so); mystical just says 'mysterious' - or does that say religious too?

Prat, regarding materially - it was there solely to distinguish in a non-ambiguous manner that it would not be understood to mean something like 'divine grace' - which would be an ability to destroy one's karma. I'm not so precious about it, but don't want to go down divine worship for divine blessings (again). (20040302 04:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC))

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of mystical beings (indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgement to them, but as they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events, just as humans can, they are associated with via ritual by some Buddhists. - well, it's not so well structured as a sentence, and begins to warrant some explanation as to what sort of mystical beings there are... But to put it so high in the article would be a mistake.. ideas? (20040302 05:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Ai. What a mess. Pratyeka's last rewording helped, somewhat, and we're whittling it down to...something onoffensive, at least. But at this point, I'm inclined to say, delete it and create a subsection farther down the article (towards the end of the "Principles" section, mayhap) that goes into these issues in more detail. That way we don't have to decide whether Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are on the same level as devas, or whether it's better to say gods or devas; we can actually take a moment to explain these things.

I know that the difference(s) between Buddhism and other modes of belief are important, and that it's good to get people clear on issues like this, but if we can't come up with a coherent short answer that's really satisfactory, there's no reason to subject casual readers to this sort of confusion. And if we entitle it "God(s) and Buddhism", or something equally transparent, people who are wondering about whether Buddhists believe in God will probably be able to locate it quickly enough.कुक्कुरोवाच 08:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Prat's re-phrasing brings the sentence to life much more than my hash. I like it, and where it is now - as it immediately addresses issues of Buddhism as comparative religion. I definately like the idea of a full sized article on Buddhism and God or Divinity in Buddhism or something like that (Pratyeka - you have any good ideas?) etc. etc. - there is a lot of interesting stuff in talk:buddhism that would be edifying for the general public, including the creatively provocative (if unsubstantiated) discourses engaged in with Surya above. (20040302 09:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Hrrm. On a potential Buddhism and God, Alexander Berzin has a great article (http://www.berzinarchives.com/islam/common_features_islam_buddhism.html) over at his site regarding Islam and Buddhism. Seemingly he's had discussions with a great deal of Islamic religious leaders and academics, and has come up with a strategy for fostering dialogue between the two religions. He used a concept known as adi-Buddha from "Kalachakra (Cycle of Time) teachings", which sounds pretty Vajrayana and therefore unknown to me, but it seems to work. If someone's right in to it, they could do the research, send Alex some questions (I have his email address) and we could get the wiki started. prat 02:09, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Early Buddhist schools additions

I just added a bigger and more information-laden tree of the 18+ early schools over at Schools of Buddhism, and I'm in the process of making stubs for several of them, on the grounds that stubs are better than nothing, though I know there are some who disagree. (grin) Editing, enfleshing, and correcting on any and all of these things is much appreciated. However, I'm not going to put these in the Open Tasks, as some of these are genuinely obscure, and I don't expect them to get dealt with for some time. If you're more optimistic about some of them, feel free to add them.कुक्कुरोवाच 03:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More theses, perhaps

I have some concerns over a spate of edits made recently by 2.718281828 to the precepts, 8-fold path, and three jewels. I did some re-wording on them and 2.718281828 has gone back to do some more, and now I'm wading in again, which just has a bad feeling about it. There's progress, however, as I like this last round much more than the first one. But one persistent problem is with glossing Dharma as "ultimate truth" and calling it a refuge from suffering and fear. (A) Dharma is an extremely complex concept word/concept, and I think that "ultimate truth" may be misleading and in any case doesn't cover the complexity. Better just to link to the page and go into detail there. So I'm pulling both "ultimate truth" glosses. (B) It is not, in particular, a refuge form suffering and fear, as I understand it; one takes refuge in all three from suffering and fear.

I finally found this discussion...I had been looking before under the "vs. Anonymous section." First I want to thank you for honing what I wrote and for your bold editing. Of course, I will defer to you as to the literal meaning of Sanskrit words. However, when Buddhists take refuge, they are doing something very specific which may not preserve the original or even the correct meaning of Sanskrit. The only real refuge is Nirvana which is lumped under the "Dharma" heading. However, following the Buddha's teachings provides a limited and conditional sort of refuge. Buddha's teachings are considered a raft, and a raft provides a certain amount protection in perilous waters, however, the true place of refuge, is the other side. The Buddha and Sangha are less of a refuge and more of an inspiration.

According to Atisha and the subsequent Lamrim tradition, there are several purposes of refuge. In fact the Lamrim tradition introduces the concept of scope based exactly on these purposes. Worldly scope is to improve this life, Low scope is to gain high rebirth, middle scope is to achieve nirvana, high scope is to achieve buddhahood. (20040302 09:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I don't think Atisha is saying these are legitimate purposes of refuge (except for the highest one). Scrupulous Buddhists avoid any lesser "scope" than the highest scope Atisha articulates.

Are you refuting the claim based on actual knowledge of this specific tradition, or just on spec? Because there's a lot of range in what "scrupulous" Buddhists believe. And given the importance of the two-truths doctrine (we should really have an article on that) in so much of Buddhism, the concept of varying "scope" seems right at home. However, I'm willing to grant that one specific school's interpretation and no others' makes the section seem a bit lopsided, so I'm moving the Lamrim material to the Three Jewels page. Hope that's allr ight with 20040302.कुक्कुरोवाच 03:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Going for refuge has more or less the same meaning, as far as I can tell across traditions, although of course there will be different people saying slightly different things. For example, see, Bhikku Bodhi's Interpretation (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel282.html), Llama Surya Das's Interpretation (http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/TakingRef10594.html), A compendium of stuff from the Lam.rim tradition (http://www.gileht.com/Chariot/c6.htm#C6B1c) The last one seems to imply that in the Lam.rim tradition, the lesser causes or motivations must be accepted along with the higher motives. So I take back what I said about "scrupulous Buddhists." I would also like to pose the question of whether there is a distinction to be made about what leads people to take refuge, and the purpose of taking refuge while refuge is being taken.

That's delightful. We should put that in the Three Jewels section and/or the corresponding page (which is at the moment a stub.) The only that would need to be changed to make it article-ready is "In fact the Lamrim tradition introduces the concept of scope based exactly on these purposes,"--how about, "The Lamrim tradition frames this in terms of different "scopes."" (I'm not familiar with the tradition, so not sure how best to frame it.)कुक्कुरोवाच 10:03, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about that? Amend as you see fit. Atisha's text has an excellent late mahayana explanation of the complete lack of antagonism towards hinayana schools. See http://www.lamrim.com/hhdl/LordAtishasLife.pdf, page 8&9. (20040302 11:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Also, I don't see how the refuges have intrinsically so much to do with surrendering the ego as to a teacher. I mean, not that that doesn't happen, I'm sure, but I'm uncertain as to the pertinence.

The act of going for refuge helps put one in the right frame of mind.

Also, 2.7 might consider moving some of the extended discussion to the separate pages for the various topics. कुक्कुरोवाच 07:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your suggestion Kukkurovaca. However, I think some discussion is necessary, because while these lists of things (4 truths, 8 fold path, 5 precepts etc.) help in remembering these things to people who already understand what they are, it's difficult to see what they are saying from a bare list. Also I want to thank you for editing me, and I apologize for any long-winded quasi-personalized verbiage I may have written.

No need for apologies. As you point out, Wikipedia is about bold editing. (grin) And indeed I think the language in several places is better now than it was a while ago. But one of the reasons that the Buddhism main page may seem a little bare-bones is that it has to serve as an introduction to the whole spectrum of Buddhism, which includes an incredibly wide range of what, in many cases, are conflicting interpretations, doctrines, and practices. As a result, we have to be careful what we declare to be straightforwardly true. One of the reasons it's better to deal with the real meat of issues on their own pages is that there, we can have some room to maneuver and present multiple analyses of the complex situation.कुक्कुरोवाच 03:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kukku, I agree with your edits. Something about this guy's style of editing makes me uncomfortable: shows up at an already fairly complete article and without discussion starts adding longwinded and quasi-personalized text to an encyclopedia article. Of course, he should be bold in making edits but also we should be bold in unmaking them if it will improve the article. I don't know, partly I just have a bias against people making anonymous edits. - Nat Krause 08:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(s)he is possibly new to wiki, and feels that (s)he has something to add. Nat, you are v.good at encouraging the anonymous to be registered.. (20040302 09:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Yeah, you're right, I probably shouldn't be so critical. After all you were once an anonymous contributor, and you turned out to be an okay guy. But I do think it's important for people who are going to make significant edits to register. - Nat Krause 15:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I feel like a doofus now that I realized 2.718281828 was never anonymous after all, and that that number actually is his user name. What is that, the number e? I see that it is. Well, number e, I apologize for seeming a little bit nasty there before. I do think contributors, especially new contributors, should be conscious that when you make changes to an article that is already being actively worked on, you are essentially deleting the work of other contributors. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, just that you should be careful and you shouldn't feel bad when other people change what you wrote. And I don't mean this to imply that number e acting wrongly. - Nat Krause 10:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thesis 97 (2.718281828)

Okay, let's see if we can't work through a couple of the actual issues at hand.

Dharma
- One of the edits: "In this way, dharma offers a refuge. Dharma used in the sense of the Buddha's teachings provides is a raft and is thus a temporary refuge while entering and crossing the river, however, the real refuge is on the other side of the river which is Dharma used in the sense of "ultimate truth.""
- An explanatory bit from this page: "However, when Buddhists take refuge, they are doing something very specific which may not preserve the original or even the correct meaning of Sanskrit. The only real refuge is Nirvana which is lumped under the "Dharma" heading. However, following the Buddha's teachings provides a limited and conditional sort of refuge. Buddha's teachings are considered a raft, and a raft provides a certain amount protection in perilous waters, however, the true place of refuge, is the other side. The Buddha and Sangha are less of a refuge and more of an inspiration."
- Discussion
  - (A) This imbalance in the trinity (Buddha and Sangha "less of a refuge") looks suspicious to me. Certainly it doesn't look representative of the whole tradition. This could be discussed in reference to whatever schools or teachers advocate this view, preferably on the "Dharma" page.कुक्कुरोवाच

I agree that it could sound suspicious, but I haven't really found anything that says otherwise. In searching around to see if it was a representative view, I uncovered some material which would indicate that taking refuge in the Buddha is tantamount to taking refuge in the Buddha nature in one's self, and similarly with the Sangha, but it all seems to point back to the idea that realization of what is called dharma, what the dharma is pointing to (not simply the teachings themselves or listening and practicing the teachings) is the actual refuge.

Well, we certainly can't use "Buddha-nature," as that's clearly and solidly specific to certain Mahayana traditions. As to the broader issue, it's probably true that many traditions would say that the Dharma is the most important refuge (and others would probably say the Buddha), but I certainly wouldn't demote any of them to mere "inspirations".कुक्कुरोवाच

- - (B) Similarly, where is "dharma" used to mean ultimate truth? As I've encountered it, Dharma usually means the Buddha's teachings (which may be regarded as ultimate truth, but this isn't the actual meaning of the world, merely an attribute of it). Certainly I think it's wrong to say that all of Buddhism defines Dharma as "ultimate truth"; it's vague, it's misleading, and I think it might misrepresent a number of schools.कुक्कुरोवाच

You're probably right about all of that, and please see the discussion above. "Ultimate truth" may not be the best way to say it, although it frequently appears as a trope in different traditions. I would welcome a better way to put this.

Oh, I also came across this link I thought you would be interested in because it's intrinsically interesting as a statement about what Buddhists from different traditions agree on, and also because it uses the words "ultimate truth":http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

That's a really nifty link. And you're right that "ultimate truth" is used frequently in Buddhism; I'm just reluctant to have it be the primary gloss for "dharma." And indeed, Rahula posits it as the goal of the path, not as the dhamma.कुक्कुरोवाच

Thesis e and refuge

I am proposing this paragraph as a substitute for the Atisha stuff (currently the final two paragraphs) to be placed as the first paragraph under the 3 Jewels, which now that I (think I) understand it, I agree with:

"The pervasive suffering, stress and dissatisfactoriness (dukkha) in the world causes Buddhists to go for refuge from this suffering. The individual Buddhist may want to simply abate their own immediate suffering, to abate suffering in the future, to end suffering permanently, or to end suffering permanently for all living beings (or some combination of these). One kind of sub-motivation for some Buddhists comes from a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction with life which is related to questions similar to: Why we are here? Why were we born? What can we achieve? Is this all there is?"

I'm not crazy about the last bit, but I can live with it. I tweaked the wording very slightly for stylistic reasons, but otherwise it seems quite good.कुक्कुरोवाच

I struggle with this replacement, and indeed your thesis, e. My reasons are that they tend to point away from fact and towards POV. I basically disagree with the idea that there is a neat and tidy way in which people do or should take refuge: That there are many motives for adopting and practicing (any) religion is evident all around us. We find the same sort of discussion in modern christianity- the priest (or what-have-you) will say 'You must really understand and believe', but the individual may be thinking "Yadda yadda, I'm doing this because my wife to be is a Christian, and she asked me."

Secondly, the current writing style lends itself towards something that appears more relavant in a Buddhist journal than in an encyclopedia.

Moreover, what reasons do you have for not talking about Atisha? There is no doubt that he belongs to just one branch of Mahayana (albeit v.influential in Tibet), but his ideas are relavant and important to all of Buddhism. (20040302 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I think Atisha may be too particular to bring up at this juncture when concise explanation seems to be what the page is about. I tried to make the phrasing as neutral as possible--as something that all Buddhists would agree with, and thought I was simply paraphrasing what Atisha and others were saying.

Sorry if I am coming across defensive, e; I appreciate the intention, but wonder about the context: As I see it, this article's purpose is not about what Buddhists (in total, in majority, or popularly) agree upon, but what the facts are concerning Buddhism. The former is still POV (albeit Buddhist POV) and must end up being poorly syncretized; while facts remain NPOV. What appears (to me) to be useful about Atisha is that it is fact. He said it. He is an Indian, Nalanda (Mahayana) Buddhist. Citing his text helps in two ways: It shows that there are plural approaches to the concept of refuge in (primary source) Buddhist scripture, and secondly, it offers a valid alternative to the scholastic approach that the differing views and writings of Buddhism is evidence of widespread Buddhist polemical infighting.

Secondly, by removing the attribution, it turns the article into what looks like journalism - a set of (apparently rhetorical) statements that may be elegant, but that are not visibly grounded in facts. This means that subsequent editors will not be able to identify where key concepts of the article are coming from, even though the article may read better.

I don't think it is possible (or useful) to take all the moments of experience of all Buddhists over the last 2500 years and to definitively generalise them into some sort of reductive yet meaningful statement of what Buddhism is; we would have to include anyone who has ever had any relation to the word (and what it relates to in all the ways it is interpreted), regardless of whether or not they were a Buddhist; moreover, we are not even able to definitively draw a line (that everyone agrees upon) as to who is, and who is not, a Buddhist. So, 'what Buddhists agree upon' to me does not equate to 'what Buddhism is'. (20040302 16:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)~)

Well put!कुक्कुरोवाच 03:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I welcome your comments. user:2.718281828

Atman/Soul Question

Hey, folks. If you look at the Atman and Soul articles, (a) neither is satisfactory, and (b) maybe we should move the soul stuff to the atman page. Or point both towards anatta.

I figure we can all just chip away at (a) as necessary, but what about (b)?कुक्कुरोवाच

Ew. I hadn't looked at atman.. I added it to the x-ref line above. I don't know about mere points, as I think that we can say something about soul and atman rather than just 'this is what we think of anatta'. atman is illusion. yeesh. Sounds too much like some form of transcendentalist maya structure. (20040302 11:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Philosophy? Belief? Faith? Religion? System? Way of life?

User:Nick-in-South-Africa's recent change to Ashoka had summary: "(Replaced word faith with philosophy, many feel that Buddhist faith is an oxymoron)"

Well, it's probably not the best descriptor for the whole of Buddhism, but I don't like philosophy either, since there's a difference between a body of philosophic content (which is what I look to Buddhism for) and a living religious tradition (which is what the people I would call "Buddhists" tend to look to Buddhism for). So my first instinct is to go and change "philosophy" to "religion", but I thought I'd get a feel for all y'all's personal hair-splittings first.कुक्कुरोवाच 01:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist faith isn't really an oxymoron; I mean, you would translate saddha as faith, right? I do agree that it's problematic to describe the whole of Buddhism as a faith, the way you would talk about "the Christian faith". I also think "philosophy" has serious shortcomings. Probably the only really accurate way to describe it is as a type of dharma, but if we want an English word, which I think is advisable, then "religion" is closer than the alternatives. - Nat Krause 04:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, back to motive. If Buddhism was a philosophy, it would be a search for truth, which it isn't; or more literally, the love of wisdom - which is a quality that it has, but not a defining characteristic. Buddhism recognisably shares the features of religions (monks, ceremonies, prayer, institution, education, etc.)

In the end, we should use words as convention gives them to us. If Buddhism is acknowledged by the world as being one of the six world religions, who are we to argue with the world? Should Buddhism not be taught in the religious curriculum of Western schools? (20040302 04:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Philosophy does not equate to 'search for truth', which is more of a religious statement, in my view. In my view, early schools were more philosophical approaches to the problem of living than some modern day schools.

The fundamental, experiential, life-confirming quality of Buddhism is what I see as its philosophical facet - what perhaps draws some to its study, and has been partially responsible for its enormous growth in the West.

Regarding above, Buddhism does NOT include prayer to a 'creator', 'saviour', etc. and should therefore be made distinct from major world religions such as Christianity and Islam.

Another point, you have the complete avoidance of discussing some common religious questions by the Buddha himself as evidence that he wanted to provide a practical philosophy for life rather than some sort of 'blind faith' to be propogated.

I could ramble forever, but in summary my view is that Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy, and it is only through the degeneration of its practice in parts of the world that it comes to share qualities with the popular monotheist 'faiths'. (PS: I do not mean to start an argument here, you are entitled to hold differing opinions - By all means make use of that opportunity!)

prat 09:50, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Pratyeka, forgive me for editing out your views on Mahayana and Tibetans - IMHO they don't add to your argument, which is otherwise interesting and valuable; all such expression of views do is make you appear deeply prejudiced.

Thanks ;) (Still, appearing prejudiced, whilst not my aim, may be more accurate... I stand by the unedited version as a product of my thought process at some point in time, anyway!)

What remains unclear however, is just how you wish to define Philosophy. Wikipedia states that: "Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask". Well, that is not solely what Buddhism is about. No-one disagrees that Buddhism asserts the four noble truths. In short, Buddhism is concerned with the cessation of samsara.

Well that's a good definition for 'Philosophy' (the broad concept). 'A (practical) Philosophy', however, which is what I have seen Buddhism defined as, is "a set of answers to (those questions) posed as a methodology and framework from which to approach the challenges of human life." prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

So - You identify Buddhism as a set of answers?! Being able to rely upon a set of answers requires an authority, or they are there for us to question. If we accept the former, we need some faith in the structure of that authority. (e.g. Bible, Vedas in other practical philosophies). That leads us with the latter. so that Buddhism is defined as a set of questions posed as answers? Of course, the problem that we face (you and I) is that philosophy still does not claim authority, whereas Buddha (most famously) touched the earth as witness. He told us that he had experience of truth, and that we could also find it if we follow his recipe (aka methodology and framework). Good science. This still requires faith (in recipes, and in his word)...

Religion is also not accurate, I agree, but I consider it to be useful: I dislike the idea of divorcing Buddhism from religion if it means that it doesn't get talked about in schools. (In W.Europe, Buddhism -is- taught, whereas Plato is not.) See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3654263.stm

I don't think our word choice is leading any educational reforms here, wikis are great for linking to ideas with relationships of varying importance... I think creating such mental links is the least of our worries. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Maybe we would prefer to say "way of life" (see taoism, where the editors have settled on this).

I don't think "way of life" is such a great option because it suggests a single "way of life", whereas Buddhism, in my eyes, acknowledges different paths of coming to realisation for each person. Furthermore, different modern schools maintain widely different lifestyles for laypeople and Sangha alike. This is why I think a more mental phrase, such as "practical philosophy" may be best. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Buddhism is a faith, in that we are asked to accept karma and rebirth on faith (certainly it is assumed that we believe in both!), and a vast number of the jataka (and sutras) appear fictional if we do not believe in supernatural beings (yaksha, deva, sakka etc) as well. Maybe Prat, you think of Buddha as merely a good storyteller, but many Buddhists do not.

Right, on that one, you've got me in one! Except, we don't actually know anything at all was said by Buddha for sure, so you've got to wonder if those stories were written by him or were created later. By the way, not that anyone probably cares, in terms of sutra-based supernatural beings I think Buddha may have just been relating the correct teaching he perceived to a given being at a given time through the framework of the culture and beliefs in which they were already immersed. Unsure if this stands up with Brahmanism/Hinduism, but it's a working theory of mine... prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hehe.. You know about the Scotsman? (20040302 09:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well I didn't but after googling, I have some idea. However, I don't quite see how it applies unless you think I'm changing my opinion for the purposes of argument? By the way, my ancestry happens to be part Scottish ;) prat 06:19, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

Wow! Same here! Sorry the link was broken.. the point wasn't that you changed your opinion, but that you seemed to be restricting 'true buddhism' to a theory of yours, for which no texts can substantiate. It was not meant to be a big thing though! I am sure that you agree that the Wiki Buddhism article can manage to be more extensive than sentences that accord with your ideas alone! (20040302 10:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Even more fundamental (in terms of faith), is that we are asked to accept that it is worthwhile (i.e. of benefit) to examine Buddhism and Buddhist sutras; that we have to accept that on faith is inevitable; we do not achieve the path of insight instantly, without any effort on our behalf! So faith is required. But certainly the raison d'etre of Buddhism is not faith as it may be found in protestantism. (But then that is protestantism, not religion).

It then follows that it is faith which causes me to type a new sentence here? Quite to the contrary, it is experience. Buddha specifically said not to believe things that were written down, passed on, etc. on face value. He urged us to carefully consider from one's own experience and knowledge whether such teachings were of value, and to accept and pass them on carefully. Thus he did not urge us to place faith in texts, or enough faith in their value to trawl through them - quite the opposite. To my knowledge, on this point all Buddhist schools agree - one's salvation from suffering is (more or less) in one's own hands. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

All these terms have merit in context. We are not obliged to bottle Buddhism as belonging to just one of these to the exclusion of any others; rather, in my mind, to think we should or could choose between religion, philosophy or what-have-you appears to be both reductive and counterproductive. (20040302 12:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

At times it is useful to use a shorter phrase, for example in not so directly connected articles where it would be a significant tangent to discuss Buddhism's characteristics as a belief system. Thus it is of some value. Though, I agree that it's not really worth spending too much time on! (Eek, what a pendantic answer...) prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

A postscript. Pratyeka, you talk about the "degeneration of [Buddhism]" above. Assuming you are correct, does this mean that such 'post-pure' traditions are actually NOT Buddhist? Who or what do you hold as having the authority to say 'This (person) is Buddhist. This (person) is not.'? This is an important question for you, as the very basis of authority necessitates faith of some sort. (This sort of reasoning is why some philosophers assert that science is also a religion- it depends upon faith in scientific method(s)). (20040302 12:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well, I chose 'degeneration' regarding my personal view of the present situation, which in my view may be roughly brought down to widespread lack of respect for the dhamma, even in historically 'Buddhist' regions. Again in my view, this is occuring in both the formal Sangha and amongst laypeople. Thanks for your interesting points, but I don't want to get in to a formal academic discussion of philosophy on which I am not qualified. Furthermore, I never asserted my or anyone else's authority to define Buddhism. (You will note my previous postscript in that regard - my views are my own, and I do not assert their superiority.)

On a scriptural note, certain traditions see a decline in and loss of the Dhamma as written certainty, which may prompt the question, for some, as to whether this is indeed happening right now? prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, I should have known this would be a troublesome question. Though I don't think we've seen any other kind.

My suggestion is that "tradition" become the default thing that comes after "Buddhist." It's vague, it's innocuous, it can handle religion and philosophy alike, and if you don't think Buddhism is a tradition, you're very confused.

I don't personally see any problem with "religion," since it's a term that goes back not ultimately to monotheistic tradition but to pagan rome, which had a great deal of religious diversity, and needed a correspondingly very vague term that can easily apprehend a tradition like Buddhism. Now, "religion" and "philosophy" almost never evolved independently in India (and usually not anywhere else, either), so it's not surprising we should have conflict on this point. At the moment, philosophy has dominant connotations of technicality and proffesionalism. I dislike these, but they definitely augur against calling Buddhism as a whole a "philosophy." (I prefer William James's and G.K. Chesterton's definition of philosophy as any (person's) particular way of looking at the world.)

For the record, though, philosophy is just as much a matter of faith as anything else. Look at the Pragmatic tradition's (William James and W. V. Quine) and the Nietzschean tradition's (Nietzsche, Foucault) respective crushing critiques of foundationalism.कुक्कुरोवाच 22:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I like 'tradition' too, Kukku - but then 'religion' is good sometimes, and so is 'philosophy'. You probably know me enough by now on this: context defines what is best at any given moment. It seems to me terribly dangerous to hold any word, tradition(!), text, or thought to be truly transcendent over any other. All our castles are made of sand. (20040302 22:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

A "model" Buddhism article?

I'm thinking partly for Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism here, but also for general utility: is there some article we have that's just a really good example of what articles on Buddhism should look like? (It could also be more specific: an article that's a really good example of what an article on a Buddhist text should look like, for example.) If so, what are the aspects of the article that constitute particular draws for you? If not, what would it take for an article to make the cut?कुक्कुरोवाच 03:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What would it take?

Accurate listing of sources
Presentation of multiple perspectives (NPOV)
Completeness (exhaustion of sources)
Up to date (contains summaries of latest research/findings on subject)

Pretty similar to any other article, I think ... Buddhist or not. prat 14:10, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hesse and Van De Wetering

It seems like these guys don't necessarily warrant inclusion on the Buddhism "see also", but I'm not sure they fit in properly with "list of Buddhists"...do we have a "List of Buddhism-related authors" or something like that?कुक्कुरोवाच 02:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Couldn't we just put them under "Buddhist topics"? - Nat Kraus e 03:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Nick-in-South-Africa has made some edits to the Buddha article with the following summary: (Changed general term of buddha as in a buddha, anyone who happends to be 'awakened' to lower case leaving upper case for Siddhatha Gotama or The Buddha.) Is it just me, or is that wildly wrong?कुक्कुरोवाच 14:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm afraid that I've noticed I myself using that word capitalized and not somewhat arbitrarily. I wonder if there is an accepted standard in English-language academics? Same for bodhisattva. - Nat Kraus e 15:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the only English-language standard I listen to is the OED, and the OED has: "Buddha. The title given by the adherents of one of the great Asiatic religions, thence called BUDDHISM, to the founder of their faith, kyamuni, Gautama, or Siddartha, who flourished in Northern India in the 5th century B.C. kyamuni is regarded as only the latest of a series of Buddhas or infallible religious teachers, which is hereafter to be continued indefinitely," which treats it as a formal title throughout.कुक्कुरोवाच 15:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

With the humblest respect to Buddha, and all buddhas, the proper name rule is generally quite evident. As Doctor Smith is a doctor, so Akshobhya Buddha is a buddha, and christians claim that God is the only god. Can anyone think of a capitalisation rule that is not sentential, acronymic, or proper name based?

Ah but that is interesting, Kukku - that the OED should say "latest of a series of Buddhas" ! Hmm. The author says "the title, so here indicates that is similar to e.g. Doctor - But that still doesn't work in the generic. Also, did the author really write 'kyamuni' ? That has to be poor etymology - to split the name of the Sakya clan!? I also concur about the OED, but in this case, I am not sure I can agree with the article's author regarding capitalization, as it seems to be an exceptional case. (20040302 16:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC))

The "kyamuni" is almost certainly a function of OED's workaround for diacritics and special characters. As unicode isn't fully supported yet, a lot of sites make do by sticking image files in to represent characters like ś, and these don't cut and paste very well. Damn you, latin encoding, DAMN YOU!!!--sorry, what were we talking about? Ah, yes. I think Buddha has a different usage pattern than "doctor", and that while doctor as title (and thus implicit laudative) is not implied by "doctor" as mere agent noun, Buddha always carries enough of a charge (laudative, sacred, etc.) that it makes sense to me to always capitalize it. BTW, does someone have access to the Wikipedia-approved style manuals? They might help.कुक्कुरोवाच 18:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, what about bodhisattva, though? It seems like the same standard would apply, but to capitalize every instance of bodhisattva looks awkward to me. - Nat Kraus e 12:58, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, does silence mean approval? Do we agree on a standard of capitalizing every instance of "Buddha" but not capitalizing "bodhisattva"? - Nat Kraus e 06:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Does silence mean approval? Your question is your koan, Nat! I think it is fine. I was surprised by Kukko's point in the OED, and it probably remains controversial, but let us stay with that.

Tibetan question from Ref desk

On you begining paragraph for "Dalai Lama", you say that he is the most important religious leader in Tibetan Buddhism after the Penchen Lama. Then there is a link to "Penchem Lama", and the opening paragraph says that he is the second most important leader second to the Dalai Lama. Who is more important?

What is this about? For the record: This appears to be an issue of pre-chinese politics - at which time the Dalai Lamas were (at least nominally) the heads of state, and the Panchen Lama was second to him in terms of religious representation, so this is more to do with Tibet than Tibetan Buddhism.

Certainly nowadays the 14th Dalai Lama is the Tibetan Buddhist teacher with most students, and he is undoubtedly a VIP at airports and hotels (and to me!), whereas the Panchen Lama is famous for being the youngest political prisoner of modern times and hasn't been seen by anyone but the chinese for several years. (20040302 04:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Rogers and Buddhism

I was attracted to the mention of Carl Rogers wrt to Buddhism.

I recently wrote papers on psychotherapy and Humanism at the same time as writing on the Information Society and found many links between social contributions and technology, two examples being the invention of the book and now the Internet -- and this Wiki.

I see some flaws in even the best western psychology and I am therefore moving east to look for ideas.

John john_van_v@yahoo.com

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Buddhism/Archive3"