Talk:Buddhism/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article needs tidying up

It starts out discussing Buddhism as a religion and branches to discussing history and doctrine, then jumps to doctrine, then jumps back to history, then jumps to current practices, jumps to literature, jumps back to current state, one line link on Buddhist art, leading to comparitive religions, then closes with links.

It needs clear distinct section that deal with specific issues.

I'll start by separating the synopsis from history and doctrine. It needs clear demarcation between the two, rather than a vague blending of the two parts.

Straycode 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Samadhi - Misleading / Erroneous Entry

This entry is misleading and wrong. Samadhi as explained in the Sutras and by experienced meditation masters, is not control over one's mind.

Samadhi is the state of being At-One with the situation. Its when no thoughts arise to comment on the situation. Its when the feeling of self disappears and you are united with your environment (At-One). Sometimes referred to as being One-Pointed.

Even talking about it leads to confusion. It needs to be experienced first hand. Then it is known.

What marks Buddhism apart from all other major religions, is the emphasis on "No-I". This is one of the central tenets of all branches of Buddhism. It is one of the three signs of being (sometimes called the 3 seals). This "No-I", that the Buddha talked about, is central to the Buddha's teachings, is what is experienced in Samadhi. When the feeling of I and other (the separation) falls away.

This was the Buddha's great enlightenment. That this feeling (I-am) is an illusion. It is the cause of suffering. Remove I, remove the illusion, and bring an end to suffering. The whole of Buddhist training / practice is aimed at this end.

Straycode 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Straycode -

Thank you for sharing your obvious enthusiasm and knowledge with us.

Honestly, I'm not sure what this article said about samadhi prior to your edits but, in the interest in representing diverse Buddhist views on the topic, I'd like to share with you part of the definition for samadhi provided by the Pali Text Society's Pali English Dictionary (reflective of information from the Pali Canon):

Samādhi [fr. saŋ+ā+dhā]

1. concentration; a concentrated, self-collected, intent state of mind and meditation, which, concomitant with right living, is a necessary condition to the attainment of higher wisdom and emancipation. In the Subha-suttanta of the Dīgha (D i.209 sq.) samādhi-khandha ("section on concentration") is the title otherwise given to the cittasampadā, which, in the ascending order of merit accruing from the life of a samaṇa (see Sāmaññaphala-suttanta, and cp. Dial. i.57 sq.) stands between the sīla-sampadā and the paññā-sampadā. In the Ambaṭṭha-sutta the corresponding terms are sīla, caraṇa, vijjā (D. i.100). Thus samādhi would comprise:

(a) the guarding of the senses (indriyesu gutta-dvāratā),

(b) self-possession (sati-sampajañña),

(d) emancipation from the 5 hindrances (nīvaraṇāni),

(e) the 4 jhānas....

2. Description & characterization of samādhi: Its four nimittas or signs are the four satipaṭṭhānas M i.301; six conditions and six hindrances A iii.427; other hindrances M iii.158. The second jhāna is born from samādhi D ii.186....

Two grades of samādhi distinguished, viz. upacāra-samādhi (preparatory concentration) and appanā-samādhi (attainment concentration) DA i.217; Vism 126; Cpd. 54, 56 sq.; only the latter results in jhāna; to these a 3rd (preliminary) grade is added as khaṇika˚ (momentary) at Vism 144.

Three kinds of samādhi are distinguished, suññata or empty, appaṇihita or aimless, and animitta or signless A i.299; S iv.360; cp. iv.296; Vin iii.93; Miln 337; cp. 333 sq.; DhsA 179 sq., 222 sq., 290 sq....[1]

I write this in hopes that whatever change you make would include both Early Buddhist/Theravada and Mahayana/Vajrayana views. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment and Reference

Wow! What a lot of discussion! My initial impression of this article on Buddhism as it currently stands is that it might be considered by some to misrepresent certain basic principles common to all schools of Buddhism. It is interesting that the lectures given by Soyen Shaku during his visit to America in 1905-1906 are still relevant (one hundred years later!) in correcting common misconceptions regarding Buddhism (these lectures are collected in "Zen for Americans", translated by D.T.Suzuki, published by Barnes and Noble in paperback; this book is an unabridged reprint of the original 1913 edition entitled "Sermons of a Buddhist"). To start with the first sentence of the article: saying Buddhism is "non-theistic" and a "philosophy" are very misleading, as clearly explained in this short book (for example, the first chapter is "The God-Conception of Buddhism"; the self-evident fact that Buddhism is not a philosophy is quite clearly explained at various times, in particular in the 4th chapter "Buddhist Faith"). Of course this is only one book; I mention only this one reference for (1) brevity, and (2) because the primary purpose of many of the lectures was to correct misconceptions regarding Buddhism.
Above comment submitted by John T. Robinson
Jtrbnsn 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) John T. Robinson
Above comment edited to (1) make it clear I was referring to the article on Buddhism; (2) correct over-generalized wording (my apologies); (3) change Soyen Shaku to a link (I'm slowly learning).
Jtrbnsn 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)John T. Robinson

The difficulty here is that we need to present a broad view of Buddhism that encompasses 1) the variety of Buddhist traditions, and 2) the views of Buddhism presented by a number of scholars. The issue of whether Buddhism is a philosophy, a religion, etc. is a convoluted one primarily because definitional issues like this are a fertile ground for academic debates on terminology. While Soyen Shaku might espouse the belief that Buddhism has theistic aspects and isn't a philosophy, there are a number of contrasting views. Arguments that Buddhism isn't a religion or a system of philosophy tend to be made on very technical semantic grounds- you essentially have to begin your argument by picking a definition of these terms, and its easy to select one that excludes Buddhism. Using very broad and general definitions of philosophy and religion, it's very difficult to exclude Buddhism from these categories; furthermore, I'd argue that saying that Buddhism isn't a religion or philosophy fails the 'Duck test' (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck).

I think that it would be worthwhile to add a section to the article addressing the controversy over what Buddhism 'is'- definitional issues have been tackled by a number of scholars, and dismissed as a waste of time by others- but in terms of the introduction, if we're going to make this article accessible to a non-specialist audience, we have to call Buddhism something- we can't say 'Buddhism is this thing with some ideas, it's religious-like but maybe it isn't a religion, and the ideas are structured and somewhat systematized but it isn't really a philosophy...', and you end up saying a lot without saying anything at all, simply to avoid using terms that are perceived to be not quite right, or to be a simplification of the issue. --Clay Collier 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks, John, for your very interesting comments. Although I will surely be in a minority here, I for one totally agree with you. Buddhism is so obviously not just a "philosophy" (although it contains philosophy). It is a spiritual/religious way of life which embraces huges stretches of what might be termed the "supernatural" and which requires "faith". I like your reference to the lectures by Soyen Shaku. Very pertinent. Another really great Buddhist Zen master whose works you might find illuminating is So-kei An (a student of Soyen Shaku, I believe). He frequently links Buddhism to the notion of some kind of "God" or "Divinity", in the sense of an eternally abiding Truth or Reality. No mere dry-as-dust rationalism and ultra-destructive reductionism for him! Mystery, mysticism and direct intuition of this transcendental, all-knowing Reality are the dominant features of many of his lectures on Buddhism. But as I say: you and I will probably be in the minority on Wiki (if my several years of extensive experience are anything to go by!). Anyway, it was good to read your words, and I hope that you will add more to the various Buddhist entries/articles in the future. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We could find components that all sects have in common and see if that set of beliefs constitutes a religion. I think that beyond that, when the later sutras go back to the atman doctrine of Hinduism that is a religious belief, and when the other sects deny any metaphysical being that is also a religious belief. For the latter, it may very well be that at the highest level of attainment "questions of being and non-being do not occur to one," but for the average person the denial of all metaphysical being is not an obvious deduction and constitutes a religious belief. So whatever flavor, Buddhism is a religion. I think that makes it a religion as a whole. Arrow740 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Arrow! Best wishes from Tony. TonyMPNS 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful here. It's not correct to try to find a sort of lowest common denominator. Even if it exists, that wouldn't make that the "real" Buddhism. It's necessary to look at what each branch considers important, and in what way. And by branch we must mean all de facto groupings, regardless of nominal affiliation. This is a very complicated task. See my comments on the Wikiproject for an example. Peter jackson 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Though we should certainly have one, it should be a picture of a representation of the Shakyamuni Buddha. Arrow740 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Greetings, Sacca 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it would be better to have an image of Shakyamuni. Any suggestions?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, Sacca. Arrow740 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'Hinayana'

I noticed earlier today that there was no clear reference to "Hinayana" in the section on divisions of Buddhism. While I recognize that it is offensive to Therevadans, it is unfortunately the term which has been used for thousands of years. It is not up to Wikipedia to correct the language. Furthermore, Therevada is not a division itself but a member of a group to which the term "Hinayana" is generally applied. I re-inserted it, noting that it is considered offensive, and Sacca has now removed it twice. While I think we should qualify it as offensive, I think that omitting the term would be a mistake. The list of divisions of Buddhism has traditionally been Hinayana, Mahayana, and to a lesser extent Vajrayana. I strongly think that this reference needs to exist here. Comments? bikeable (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Bikeable and Sacca (and anyone else who happens to be reading this!). I'm with Bikeable on this one. I think that a section of the main entry called "Divisions" (with its ambiguity of meaning!) really should mention the "Hinayana" term. I also support Bikeable's mention of this word's being (quite understandably) offensive to Theravadins. But since the name "Hinayana" has been used down the centuries by Mahayana Buddhists (and is even found in the mouth of the Buddha in some major Mahayana sutras), I think it is reasonable that it should get a look-in in a section that deals with the "divisions" within the corpus of Buddhism. But it should always be stressed that Theravadins object to this term and find it offensive. Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bikeable and also Tony, yes I do have a comment, namely that the list is a quote from Gethin which is notably not at all about Hinayana or Early Buddhist Schools, but solely about Theravada only - read the note. Also the name hinayana has only been used by Mahayanists for thousands of years, never by other groups. Just like the term papayana is solely used in Sri Lanka, a Theravada country, for thousands of years, to refer to Mahayana. The major distinctions in Buddhism are Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana according to the scholar Gethin. But, according to Mahayanana religious convention, it is Hinayana and Mahayana. And for Vajrayanists, the major distinctions in Buddhism are Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. These are all just religious views, these names are all to do with praise (of oneself) and blame (of the other), two of the Eight Worldly Winds). And they don't belong in this article as far as i am concerned, especially since some high-level ecumenical Buddhist meetings have specifically stated that Hinayana does not mean Theravada. I hope you understand my drift. all the best Greetings, Sacca 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have a brief minute right now, and can return to this later. But I would say that Hinayana has been used, for better or worse, by Western scholars of Buddhism (no doubt influenced by the Mahayana) for many years, and it is not simply a derogatory term. (I've never heard the term "papayana" before.) Many Western scholarly texts divide Buddhism as is done in this article, and typically use the term "Hinayana", although the better and more recent ones note that it may be offensive. If I might quote a well-known scholar: In its original meaning, Hinayana is a term of abuse, and the Mahayanists used it but rarely. They usually referred to their opponents as The Disciples and Pratyekabuddhas. At present, when its original connotation is but dimly felt, the term Hinayana can be used for purposes of description, just as in art history words like Baroque or Rococo are nowadays descriptive terms, althought originally they expressed a disapproval of the art in question. (Conze, Buddhism: its essence and development, p121.) As another example of modern use: Engaged Buddhism has become so important in modern Buddhism worldwide that one Buddhist scholar has argued that it has become a new 'vehicle', joining the previously identified three vehicles of Buddhism (Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana). (Keown, Buddhist Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, 2005.) To be clear, I am not endorsing general use of the term Hinayana, but not defining it at all would be remiss, as it is a very common word in Buddhist studies. bikeable (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bikeable and Sacca for your interesting comments. I do still share Bikeable's position, and I think Bikeable has brought forward some valid arguments. And as for "papayana": I have never heard of this term before, and I cannot find any literary reference to it outside of Wikipedia! I think that the page devoted to it on Wiki should either be expunged altogether or it should supply some references. As it stands, it is nothing more than gossip or hearsay which the reader is expected to take on trust. With "Hinayana", the situation is quite different: it is a well-attested term (in sutric and commentarial sources) with a venerable pedigree. I agree with Bikeable's information that actually the expression, "sravakas and pratyekabuddhas", was more frequently used in the Mahayana sutras for the non-Bodhisattvic approach to Dharma and that "Hinayana" is less common in the sutras. But Hinayana is, nevertheless, a relatively common designation within Mahayana Buddhist literature over many centuries for a (perceived) type of Buddhism, so I think it is legitimate to mention it in the context of "Divisions" of Buddhism. Of course, neither myself nor Bikeable are endorsing any hostility towards Theravadins, needless to say! All the best to you Sacca and Bikeable. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree- Hinayana definitely needs a solid explanation within the article, as it's something that a new reader will likely have stumbled across previously. It's also worth mentioning that a lot of the anti-Hinayana writing produced, for instance, in East Asia, was created with little or no contact with the Theravada (or any other non-Mahayana) tradition, and as such represents a criticism of a recalled idea of 'Hinayana' based on earlier scripture, rather than a criticism of a tradition that was known particularly well the the authors.

Regarding 'Papayana'- I vaguely recall hearing something similar somewhere. I've tagged the article for verification/sourcing in the meantime. I'll see if I can find that reference this weekend. --Clay Collier 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Clay, for your helpful contribution and assistance. I think that you are right to tag the "Papayana" article: I am not saying that such a term is a fiction, but that within the context of Wikipedia it does require some kind of reference (either to a sutra, a commentary, or other scholarly literature) to legitimise its inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Otherwise the reader can have no confidence in its accuracy. I think we should also say, particularly for Sacca, that we are in no way trying to attack the Theravada here (just in case you have that suspicion, Sacca!). We are simply trying to determine what is "sound", reliable and significant information, and what is not. If editors started, within the articles themselves, wilfully abusing and slandering followers of Theravada, I personally would not support that, and I am sure that the other editors here feel the same way. All good wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got a reference or two on the Papayana thing. I'll try to dig it up in the next couple days. Arrow740 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arrow: it would be very interesting to see that. Such references could then potentially be added to the "papayana" article itself. Certainly it could do with some sound support as it currently stands! Best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia once used the term "Nikaya Buddhism" (mostly at my instigation, if I recall correctly) instead of "Hinayana Schools". "Hinayana" has disadvantage of not only being insulting, but also being some confusing, since the concept of "different levels of Buddhist practice" is not necessarily the same as the concept of "different historical schools of Buddhist thought", and "Hinayana" definitely refers to the former (in the Mahayana system). Of course, I do think we should mention the term "Hinayana schools" (and mention that it is offensive), because many people will have heard of this.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I still think you're mixing up the Theravada item, and wrongly adding to it a philosophical concept of the Mahayana, which only refers to an presupposed attitide to practice (in Mahayana eyes), or to all early schools together (in Mahayana eyes). Since the info of Vajrayana and Mahayana is also more terse than the info on Theravada (doesn't include info on history), i will just take out the whole mention of the early Buddhist schools, which takes up half of the entry on Theravada when the extra sentence on hinayana is included. The list is about current Buddhism anyway, and the other schools are all dead (anicca vata sankhara).

Also I noticed, the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism doesn't use the term Hinayana at all, but decided to use the alternative term 'Mainstream Buddhist Schools'. The entry on Hinayana explains it's a derogatory term, and then later you will not find it mentioned in any article. And this encyclopedia is written by Scientists, not by Buddhists (as most of us engaged in this discussion are). Of course you can find individual references by individual scholars to the derogatory term Hinayana. But interesting that when the scientists cooperate on an encyclopedia, they have enough sensitivity and sensibility not to include derogatory religious views whenever a particular school is mentioned. (comment made by Sacca.)

I think this is compatible with the point I made. "Hinayana" has two meanings: one is a concept in Mahayanist philosophy, and the other is a name used by modern scholars (especially in the early and mid-20th century) to a type of Buddhist school. Almost everyone would agree that it can easily be taken as offensive in the latter sense; it is offensive precisely because it implies a conflation of the Mahayanist concept of the "lesser vehicle" with a particular school. This is not our intention, however: we need to mention the term "Hinayana" because we are trying to communicate with readers, and this is the term that has been in widespread use (increasingly less so over time, though). We also need to point out that it is often offensive or derogatory.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nat, you are right that nowadays the scholars are increasingly catching up, nice to hear we can agree on this. I think hinayana can be mentioned in suitable places, for example the articles hinayana, Early Buddhist Schools, papayana, Buddhist polemics, and articles on Mahayana history. Outside of that, we should be more careful, circumspect and sensible. It should not be equated with Theravada. I thought Wikipedia had some policies on this already because of threats of lawsuits by people and organisations. Wikipedia doesn't need to fear a Theravada lawsuit, but still we could use those policies in this case.

So a section which is specifically about Theravada, it is not necessary to mention outdated, impolite and inaccurate categories. The category itself is never going to totally disappear unless the Mahayana denounces the use of hinayana whithin its own religious teachings - which is probably not going to happen. Thus it's always possible to find a reference mentioning hinayana using it in the sense of Theravada. Is that enough to put a derogatory term in the basic description of a particular sect, while even the real meaning of the two names differ and the source uses the names wrongly? Mahayana uses Hinayana in a wider sense than just Theravada as we all know, it never means just Theravada. For them Theravada is a hinayana sect, just as Theravada is a Buddhist sect. But Buddhism is not Theravada, and hinayana is not Theravada. The terms don't match.Greetings, Sacca 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find the papayana reference. I did find Mu Soeng (a Zen guy) noting that Hina could mean narrow but deep, and Maha could mean broad but shallow. So he's trying to reach out. One difference he notes is that the Nikaya sects restrict upaya to the noble eight-fold path, while Mahayana is willing to consider other skillful means to bringing beings to enlightenment. In another book I've read that the Heart Sutra itself contains a Mahayana critique of the Abhidhamma. Arrow740 06:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Mu Seong a scholar of Sanskrit, or is he speculating? My understanding (granted, I'm not a Sanskritist, either) is that "mahā-" means "great" and "hīna-" means "base" or "inferior"; they do not mean "broad" and "narrow".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be his personal interpretation. I'll get the quote here tomorrow or the next day. Arrow740 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion came up on a Pali discussion list a year or two back; 'Hina' does indeed mean 'low', 'inferior', 'despicable', etc. The interpretations as 'broad' and 'narrow', or 'for the few' and 'for the many' are modern rehabilitations of the word rather than based on traditional usage or etymology. --Clay Collier 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It could have different meanings in Sanskrit. Arrow740 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I read in one of Jeffrey Hopkins' books that the Gelugpas use the terms Hina- and Mahayana in 2 senses: doctrine & practice. Thus a Theravadin can follow a bodhisatta path, while some Mahayanists lack the motivation. Further, they say one cannot attain even stream entry without a Prasangika understanding of emptiness, which they claim to be the true teaching of all tantras, all Mahayana sutras except the Sandhinirmocana, & some Sravaka sutras. Peter jackson 10:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am re-adding the mention of Hinayana. Again, I think (and several other editors seem to agree with me) that we must mention Hinayana because it has been important scholarly term, even if it is currently being replaced (appropriately). I have supplied a couple of reference showing that the term is used in the scholarly literature. As another example, a keyword search in my university library finds 75 results for mahayana and 19 for hinayana.

Sacca seems concerned about identification of Hinayana with Therevada, but I don't think that's an issue -- the sentence makes very clear that Therevada is one of a group of schools sometimes called Hinayana. This is entirely apt. I think part of the problem here is that the "divisions" refers to current Buddhist practice, and Therevada is of course the only survivor of the early schools, but in a larger historical sense the division is between Mahayana and "Hinayana", and Therevada is in that view only the modern example of the latter. Perhaps we need to list the historical divisions first, and then describe the current divisions. bikeable (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo everyone. I like what Bikeable said above. I totally support what you write there, Bikeable. I think that "Hinayana" is too historically important a term for us to delete it from this section - but I definitely think that the supplementary comment should always be added that this is a term which Theravadins (and others) often find offensive. On Peter's (as always) instructive information: yes, precisely who is "Hinayana" and who is "Mahayana" (a Bodhisattva) can become quite complicated. For example, according to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a person is automatically a Bodhisattva if they revere that particular sutra - regardless of whether they have taken the Bodhisattva vow or aspired to Buddhahood or not! But generally (in terms of the doctrine promulgated in various major Mahayana sutras) a Hinayana follower is a person who does not strive to liberate the totality of sentient beings, but concentrates instead on his/her own personal liberation (not planning to "come back" after his/her parinirvana to help the countless beings into Nirvana who have been left behind ...). All good wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Bikeable, don't keep on adding your POV to the article (whether Tony likes it or not). The section on divisions is about currently existing schools. You are free to add anotehrr name to Theravada, but it should be about Theravada, not about the early schools. This particular addition messes things up. Just keeping things clean of POV, nothing personal. Greetings, Sacca 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wish you'd read the line above the list you keep changing: The most frequently used classification of present-day Buddhism among scholars[5] divides present-day adherents into the following three traditions: Seems pretty clear it's not about the dead schools you keep adding.Greetings, Sacca 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sacca, as far as I can tell, everyone who has expressed an opinion so far, except for you, agrees with Bikeable; it's not just him and Tony. I don't think anyone has suggested that we should say "Theravada is the same thing as Hinayana", so this would be a strawman. What we are doing here is providing additional information about it. I'm also a bit confused as to why you mentioned, "I thought Wikipedia had some policies on this already because of threats of lawsuits by people and organisations. Wikipedia doesn't need to fear a Theravada lawsuit, but still we could use those policies in this case." Wikipedia has neutrality rules that are older and more wide-ranging than the rules designed to avoid lawsuits. Rules specifically regarding lawsuits are not relevant here because, as you yourself conclude, we are not likely to be sued over this point.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, what Nat says.--Klimov 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly: I personally use the term Hinayana in a very respectful way. Every day I see many many people who could greatly benefit from the Hinayana teachings.--Klimov 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts and feelings and questions about the inclusion of Hinayana in this article; regardless, for the sake of fairness, I think it is worthwhile considering Peter's frequent invocation of the need for reliable sources. If the term is to remain in this article, then I think it is necessary to incorporate in an end note bikeable's, Sacca's and others' information about which scholars and scholarly publications use the term and which don't. (I can check Gethin and Robinson & Johnson.) Perhaps a more detailed analysis of which scholars say (or don't say) what on this matter would help guide us further? Also, is there a scholarly source that identifies the term as offensive? Happy Vesak to all. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option would be to mention Hinayana briefly as a term that has been historically associated in scholarship and popular understanding with Theravada Buddhism, and then direct the reader to the actual Hinayana article to document that vagaries of the history of the term's usage. The Hinayana article could certainly benefit from the expansion of sources that you're talking about, and it would allow the term to be well documented without giving undue attention to it on the main Buddhism article. --Clay Collier 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Clay, I very much appreciate your suggestion for a minimized presence of the H-word in this article.

If I may, though, having picked up my copy of Gethin (1998), I see that Gethin has worked out a third way that I think would benefit us to follow. In general, Gethin mentions Hinayana three times -- all three times solely in the context of Mahayana history. This to me seems to address some major concerns being identified here:

"Hinayana" is a Mahayana label imposed on and defaming Theravada heritage and practice; thus, out of the desire not to perpetuate cultural bigotry, we should not include it in a description of Theravada.
"Hinayana" is a meaningful term within the Mahayana tradition.
"Hinayana" is a term WP readers might be familiar with and thus it would be beneficial to provide them with a context for understanding it.

For instance, Gethin (1998), p. 1, starts off by describing the "Theravada tradition of Sri Lanka and South-East Asia, also sometimes referred to as 'southern' Buddhism." In this paragraph, Gethin does not mention "Hinayana." In the next paragraph he writes:

"The East Asian tradition of China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, [is] also sometimes referred to as 'eastern' Buddhism. Its scriptures are preserved in Chinese and its general outlook is that of the Mahayana or 'Great Vehicle', a movement of ancient Indian Buddhist thought and practice that from about the beginning of the Christian era dubbed those who did not adopt its overall vision of Buddhism – represented today by the Theravada – followers of the 'Lesser Vehicle' (hinayana)...."

Gethin (1998) does not mention Hinayana once in his chapters on Theravada Buddhism. It is only in Chapter 9, "Mahayana: The Great Vehicle," that Gethin (1998), p. 224, uses Hinayana for a second time when writing:

"... The path followed by Gautama is thus the maha-yana – the 'great vehicle' – or the vehicle of the Boddhisattva (bodhisattva-yana) ending in the perfect awakening of the fully awakened samyak-sambuddha as opposed to 'the inferior vehicle' (hina-yana), the vehicle of the disciple (sravaka-yana), ending in arhatship."

I'd like to recommend that we follow Gethin's lead - in this (and other?) WP article, reference Hinayana only in the context of Mahayana history/doctrine and leave it out of a definition of Theravada. What do you all think? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The list is not about this. It seems nobody is concerned about this except me, and that's why I don't accept the inclusion of hinayana here. Hinayana is already mentioned later on, where Theravada is explained in a bit more detail. The list in the beginning is just about the present situation. Since some others (mainly Mahayanist Wikipedians, i might add) are so bent on putting the origin of Theravada in this section, I will do the same for Mahayana and Vajrayana, too. Balance things out. In that way I can live with it.

It is quite astonishing that some people prefer not to look at the sources written just above the text, and have to add their own stuff to the opinion of reputable scholars. And so in the end this section has to be like it currently is, just to keep things even among the sects. 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to include the Early Buddhist schools as another item, number 4 in the list (or number one if we want to do it according to age). And change the whole introduction and take out the references, since they are about current sects, not old sects.Greetings, Sacca 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I weakened the use of language and balanced it now. Further changes are welcome in the spirit of cooperation. Greetings, Sacca 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that Vajrayana has reappeared as a synonym of Tibetan Buddhism. this would have to be justified: why is Shingon not Vajrayana? Perhaps what I mentioned earlier about the Gelugpas applies here too: do they distinguish Vajrayana doctrine & practice? If so it's clearly the doctrine that counts. Peter jackson 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone argues their case very well (above). I suspect that most of us would agree with Clay and Larry's sentiment that the term, "Hinayana", should be only minimally featured in the general "Buddhism" article. There is no avoiding the fact that the word is unpleasant to Theravadin (and other) ears. But I have just consulted a number of books on Buddhism and have done a search on the 'Net, using various search engines, and I find that there are quite a number of articles, lectures and books (of relatively recent provenance - i.e. in the last 10 years or so) - which do still operate with the terms "Hinayana" and "Mahayana" (as binaries). Given this fact that usage of the term, "Hinayana", is still current, I think it is best to have a brief mention of it in the "Divisions" section (as at present), and then move on. It seems to me that the function of Wikipedia is not to be prescriptive (telling people what they should be saying) but descriptive (outlining to the reader the actuality of what is said and taught, historically and today, within the vast field of Buddhism). On the other question of "papayana" (which is perhaps how many Theravadins view the Mahayana): I myself would have no problem with this being mentioned in reference to the Mahayana if it could be shown that this is a soundly attested term, used to a significant extent. But so far not a shred of hard evidence has been forthcoming on the "papayana" Discussion Page to warrant the inclusion of this term anywhere on Wikipedia, still less to devote an entire article to it. Anyway, regarding "Hinayana", I think we all agree that the term has a critical ring to it and that it should not be over-used; but to ignore it altogether in the "Divisions" section of the article seems to me to be going too far in the other direction. Perhaps we should have a vote and see how many of us are in favour of keeping that brief reference to it?? All best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear that, as a Theravada practitioner, I am not personally offended by the term "Hinayana." For me, living in big-town USA, it's just a word on a page. It never enters into my discussion of Dharma with anyone and thus, practically speaking, has no meaning. I suspect though that this might be different for others living in other cultures. (Perhaps if I had a bigger view of the world, I'd see better how it might impact my complete practice.)

I am concerned about what appears to be an insensitivity to minority viewpoints here. (The problem with "majority-rule" votes, as Lani Guinier might point out, is that they could lead to the abuse of minorities. And my mind presents to me a parody of this thread where in the Abrahamic Religions article there might be an introductory sentence saying: "Judaism, one of the Untermensch (which is currently thought to be offensive and little used)....")

Regardless, I personally think that, beyond a guideline for WP edits in general, in the case of contested text, WP:RS is a good principle to abide by. So, Tony, while I can understand that Hinayana-Mahayana are "binaries" (as you write) in past scholarly works and in some Mahayana doctrines and practices, for me the question is what the most current scholarship reflects. I've identified my source (the title, etc., are provided in this talk page's article): Gethin, 1998, published by Oxford University Press; and, I provided appropriate, substantial quotes. I believe that bikeable has done something similar. I kindly request that you do the same. I would sincerely appreciate it. If nothing else, within the guidelines of WP:RS, you would be teaching me and others something of timely value, for which I would surely be indebted. Additionally, perhaps more importantly, we could then package all this scholarship in an end note to diminish the chance of future challenges to this article's text.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, Larry, for your very thoughtful, reasonable and worthwhile comments. I totally share your sensitivity on behalf of minority groups (as a member of a "minority group" myself!). That is why I have always stressed (as have other contributors to this discussion) that any mention of Hinayana should bear the appended comment that this term is offensive to Theravadins and others. I don't think that speaking of "Hinayana" is comparable to comparing someone to an Untermensch (i.e. not even really human)!! But I know what you are getting at, and I do have some sympathy with your fears in this regard. I am not aware, though, of Mahayanists persecuting and assaulting Theravadins at the present time (you might think that I myself am doing that right now - but truly I am not!). On the substantive point of references: what I have found on the Internet is that there are quite a number of websites specialising in, or discussing, Buddhism which do use the "Hinayana"/ "Mahayana" categories to this day. So I think that the readers of Wikipedia's "Buddhism" entry may well be curious to know what these divisions refer to - hence a brief mention of the early schools of Buddhism and the extant Theravada in this context strikes me as legitimate. Just one example for several: Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche has the following to say on "Hinayana" (in the context of Mahayana and Vajrayana) in a recent article:

"Of the three Buddhist vehicles (yana) of practice, the first is the Hinayana. Hinayana literally means lesser vehicle but this term should in no way be a reproach or be construed to diminish the importance of these teachings. In fact, the teachings of the Hinayana are very important because they suit the capacities and development of a great number of students...." This is from the Simhanada website: http://www.simhas.org./teaching15.html Now, I personally do not share the view that the "Hinayana" practitioners are of less diligence than other Buddhists (as Thrangu Rinpoche later indicates), but that is not my point; my point is that this term, "Hinayana", is still used in contemporary Buddhist discourse (whether we like it or not - and most of us do not relish the word) and that therefore it should be registered in the general "Buddhism" article on Wikipedia. Another example would be Professor Paul Williams in his book Buddhist Thought (2000), where he writes of those who strive solely to attain Nirvana for themselves: "Note that those who attain such a goal are in fact the group called 'arhats', and within this hierarchical framework they have followed an Inferior Path (a Hinayana)." (pp. 101-102). Again, I am not saying that I myself share this approach (you will never see any such comments from myself in any of my published writings on Buddhism!), but still to this day a number of Buddhist books and articles and websites do speak in these terms. Wikipedia needs to give information on this, in my view (while indicating that the term is displeasing to many, both now and formerly). I don't have time to list more such references to Hinayana tonight, but the reader of these pages can easily find lots by "googling" the words "Hinayana and Mahayana". Lots of relevant things will come up ... Anyway, while totally supporting your wariness of, and opposition to, brutal domination of the "minority" by the "majority", I still think it would be fair to put this matter to a vote and see what interested readers of these discussion pages feel is in the best interest of an objective Wikipedia article. I myself would accept the majority decision (even if it goes against my own preference - of course!). Best and warm wishes to you, Larry. I value your input and friendly manner of discussion. It is refreshing! Cordially yours. Tony. TonyMPNS 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of having a brief mention only of the term "Hinayana"; I don't think anyone wants a verbose or emphatic discussion of it. I don't think we need to refer to the reader to the article on Hinayana, since we have a wikilink for that, and it would just draw more attention to it. Incidentally, I don't think that "Hinayana" as we're using it here is particularly a Mahayanan term, although it has its source in the Mahayana; it is a term that was picked up by Western scholars to refer to certain types of Buddhist schools. I doubt that many or most of the scholars who popularised it in English and other Western languages were themselves Mahayanists; they were probably almost all either Christian or nonreligious. In fact, I have the impression that they were usually distinctly sympathetic to Theravada. For example, this quotation (quoted here) from 1912 book, "The Northern (Mahāyāna), or debased ritualistic School of Buddhism, was the first to come into Burma from the North…. In the early centuries A.D. the Southern (Hīnayāna), or purer School of Buddhism from Ceylon, began to have influence…" Clearly, the use here is not meant to be derogatory. I don't support mentioning the term "Hinayana" under Mahayana instead; we are trying to provide some information about Theravada, viz what branch of Buddhism it falls under and what that branch used to be and sometimes still is called.

I certainly agree that Wikipedia should go a bit out of its way to avoid the unnecessary use of terms that are offensive, especially when applied to less influential subjects. However, there are many cases where it is impractical not to mention a particular name. For instance, some people find the term "eskimo" offensive, but the article on Inuit still needs to mention that they are sometimes called that. We are uncertain as to which is less offensive between "Bushmen" or "San", but that article needs to mention that both names are used.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just quickly (before I vanish for the night!): I agree very much with you, Nat. I think anyone who knows your work on Wikipedia (and that of other editors here) knows that you are not supporting any "Theravada-bashing" policy or discrimination against Theravadins (not that anyone is saying that, of course). I believe that you and I (and others of similar stance) are simply trying to say that "Hinayana" is a fairly widely used term for some early formulations of Buddhism (of which Theravada is a descendant) and for a certain approach to Dhamma/Dharma, as viewed by various commentators on Buddhism, both within and without. I think this important historical (and still contemporary) fact needs briefly to be acknowledged - and I think that the right, balanced note is indeed struck by that quick reference to "Hinayana" in the "Divisions" section of "Buddhism". Best wishes to all fellow editors. From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been part of the edit war regarding this thread and don't intend to be. Perhaps like yourselves, I regret that we cannot reach easy consensus on this. I also don't think it is in our community's interest for me to push further on this issue, so I won't.

Nat, thanks for the pointer to the Todd Perreira thread. Tony, thanks for continuing to reach out civilly. I respect your all's intelligence, honesty, articulateness, knowledge and hard work. And I'm glad that we often find much to agree on :-) (Relatedly, if there are no new changes to the Mahayana-template prototype in the next couple of days, I'll probably cut & paste it into an actual WP template mid-week.)

Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Larry. The dharmic affinities between us are surely far greater than any small differences! All my best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I can accept the article as it now stands, because it is equal in its reference to all sects' history. Votes are not the best way to reach a conclusion on issues like this, in which editors are clearly devidide along religious affiliation, and where the wikipedia mahayana editors are in the majority. Remember the procedure that Buddha laid out in the Vinaya, where decisions are be be made using unanimous consensus, not divisionist voting.Greetings, Sacca 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what most people seem to be saying, that the term Hinayana should be mentioned briefly with a note that it's often considered derogatory. Can I also remind people that Vajrayana is not necessarily regarded as synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism: the few references I've looked up also include Shingon. Likewise, Mahayana is often used in a sense inclusive of Vajrayana. Peter jackson 10:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Tibetan Buddhism is not necessarily synonymous with Vajrayana. For example, the Tibetan scholastic tradition devotes much time to the study and explication of Abhidharma and Pramana, as well as straight Mahayana sutras and shastras, without any reference to Vajrayana.--Stephen Hodge 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, the reference to the practice of tantra is probably unsatisfactory. As I noted above, it cannot be practice that distinguishes "denominations". More specifically, the tantra section of the Kanjur sometimes includes the Heart Sutra (see refs buried in the table discussion above) & even parts of the Pali Canon (as I've noted in a few articles). Peter jackson 10:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if the practice is adopted, you have a doctrine.Greetings, Sacca 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not so obvious to Tibetan scholars. In those Tibetan doxographical works which cover Vajrayana, it is commonplace to read that Mahayana and Vajrayana are identical in doctrine but different in practice.--Stephen Hodge 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A Theravada bodhisatta does not thereby hold Mahayana doctrines. I think we should go back to the scholars again. I think we have 6 citations for the same 3-fold division of living Buddhism, & none call any of them yanas. Prebish & Keown (very recent) do use the term Hinayana in a different context, so the term has to be treated as alive. Peter jackson 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to understand that Bodhisatta is not the same as Bodhisattva. They are different practices (Practice to become a Buddha versus practice to become a Buddha while at the same time holding back from Enlightenment until everybody is enlightened - something whihc Gautama Buddha obviously didn't do) adopted in different doctrines.

Also doing everything following some scholars sitting in some offices in some universities on some campuses... Obviously you would try to correct this by introducing some Living Buddhism from the streets. Which Rinpoche was it that calls his religion Northern Buddhism?

East Asian Buddhism derives from Mahayana. (a quote from the article). Do people agree on this?

Greetings, Sacca 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "derives" implies "secondary to".--Stephen Hodge 03:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - could you expand on "Prebish & Keown (very recent) do use the term Hinayana in a different context...." What is meant by "in a different context"? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't find Sacca's version and later versions entirely acceptable. The point here is not to discuss the early history of the three branches, but to briefly introduce them and give some context. I think that what is of interest to our readers is that "Hinayana" is a term that was very widely used in the 20th century and is still in fairly frequent use by modern scholars in reference to certain schools of Buddhism. We would certainly be doing our readers a disservice if we failed to point out, also, that "Hinayana" is often considered to be offensive, but I don't think there has ever been a version of the article that didn't mention that. I have made some edits to the article pursuant to this.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

10 Precepts'

...are no where to be found. -richi 64.231.247.92 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure they are, they're listed under Śīla (virtuous behavior). I suppose a heading name including the word "precept" might be handy, though. bikeable (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be. Iy makes more sense. Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

'Divisions' section

Thinking about all the hullaballoo around 'Hinayana', I am starting to think that we need to really rework the 'divisions' section. There are modern divisions of Buddhism, and traditional divisions, and the former generally fit into the latter. I wonder if a better approach would not be to first, describe (in perhaps three or four sentences) the historical development into different division, and only then to try to describe the modern forms, explaining which of the historical groupings they fit into.

I don't have a great reference for this at hand but it would seem a very straightforward endeavor. Perhaps we can rewrite that section here (or in a subpage, like Talk:Buddhism/Divisions) and get some agreement before we put it on the page.

I may try to take a crack at it later, but this is a very busy time for me, so if someone else is willing, please feel free.

What do others think of the general idea of restructuring this section? bikeable (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bikeable. I think your idea is really good. It makes a lot of sense to me. I was also impressed by Peter's insightful comment that a Bodhisatta (in the early-Buddhist tradition) following the Bodhisatta path would not, on that account, be one who embraced all the major Mahayana doctrines. A clever point - which had not occurred to me. Anyway, going back to your own suggestion, Bikeable: I personally like the idea of first giving a historical break-down of the main Buddhist divisions, and then having a section on the modern incarnations of those divisions and fresh scions. But having said all that - I'm not the best person to write such a section! Others here are far more knowledgeable on the history of Buddhist schools than I am. What do other editors think of Bikeable's idea? Any supporters?? Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The current description of the "divisions", I think, owes a lot to an unresolved discussion about how best to describe them. One point of view is that we should describe them according to geographical region, and one is that we should describe them according to the "yanas" paradigm. Since no agreement was reached, we ended up using both at the same time, which creates confusions such as the equation of "Tibetan Buddhism" with "Vajrayana". Unless we can solve the underlying dispute, I don't know how to improve the section.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I guess I was hoping that we could solve the confusion by first describing the divisions (briefly!) historically, out of which the major "yanas" will fall, and then we could identify the modern geographic groupings within their broader tradition. It seems to me that that would be a more natural way to group things (more natural, that is, than starting with geography and working backwards, as we have increasingly been doing here). bikeable (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem my mahayana friends?

I don't see the problem, is this just another attempt to re-insert anti-Theravada bias and remove possible Mahayana criticism? It does seem like that. Just start from the way things are now. It seems very artificial what you're doing. be honest, here Greetings, Sacca 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bikeable, are you making a joke here, when you say; first describing the divisions (briefly!) historically, out of which the major "yanas" will fall, and then we could identify the modern geographic groupings within their broader tradition.. This is what's there already! No need to adapt anything. Greetings, Sacca 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You think that a historical description needs to have some yanas falling out of it? that's quite a POV-statment. Greetings, Sacca 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's obviously so much discussion here that people can't keep track of it, so I'll have to repeat the main points here (as I see them).

WP is supposed to be following what the consensus of scholars say that Buddhists as a whole believe, not what this or that Buddhist teacher, inadequately informed about the views of other Buddhists, may imagine. Most scholars divide Buddhism as it has been for the last few centuries into 3 traditions, variously named. These are not the same as yanas as usually understood, since Shingon seems to be usually classed as Vajrayana; at least nobody seems to have produced a citation to the contrary. In fact, these traditions are understood in a geographical/cultural sense, so that they do not include their Indian precursors.

To answer a question asked me above, P & K don't use Hinayana as a name of 1 of the 3 traditions, but they do use it elsewhere: I noticed it in a heading about meditation, but I haven't read the book so it may well be used elsewhere as well. Peter jackson 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I have reverted your last edit since it made the section very badly readable, and words were missing which should have been there. Please preview edits before you decide to make them. Also, I oppose the distinction you make that East Asian Buddhism is not Mahayana. What is your reason for claiming this? Greetings, Sacca 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it's a bit unreadable, but I have only limited time & concentrate on content. A lot of the previous version was unacceptable as it made false statements about what the scholars say. I've tried to sort out the content again, adding references. Independently of the scholars, the use of Mahayana as a synonym for EAsian Buddhism seems very odd to me. I understand its normal meaning to include Tibetan Buddhism as well.

I don't recommend going into detail of Buddhists' own classification schemes here (though they belong on WP somewhere) as the 3 traditions evolved in almost total isolation & know virtually nothing about each other so their classifications, inherited from India &/or evolved internally, are simply out of touch with the real world. Peter jackson 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the complexity of the situation will impede any simple, fully accurate statement of the relationship between categories like "East Asian Buddhism", etc. and categories like "Mahayana", etc. Perhaps the best we could do would be something like, "X, which largely overlaps with Y"; even that isn't really true from a historical perspective. I don't know what the solution is.

As for the other issues under discussion, I have no idea what the consensus, if any, of the editors involved is. I'm going to be bold.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the nature of your edit, Nat. Bold, but not smart. Greetings, Sacca 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to insults at this point?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it only refers to your last edit. It was a bold edit, ignoring others' opinions, but certainly not a smart edit. I've corrected the s (deleted it). Greetings, Sacca 01:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Insult or no, you are nevertheless neglecting to actually discuss.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you complaining of a lack of discussion? You're the one who made the bold edit! We've done a lot of discussion above, what came out of that is now present in the article. Now suddenly you want to revert it, delete the info on origins of Mahayana, and put back the insult in the section on Theravada. Also, Hinayana, being a Mahayana concept, belongs much better in the Mahayana section. Greetings, Sacca 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that what you're describing reflects what you want the article to say. What's not so clear is how you draw the conclusion that this is the consensus. As I have argued above, "Hinayana" in this sense is not a "Mahayana concept", it is a term used by modern scholars to describe a particular historical trend in Buddhism. As an example, I've been reading Gregory Schopen's book Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks lately; I noticed that he uses the term "Hīnayāna" freely (in an article originally published in 1985) in reference to Indian non-Mahayanist schools. I've never had the impression that Schopen is a Mahayanist.

FYI, "discussion" and "bold editing" are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to note that Theravadins consider the Mahayana sutras to be heretical, we should note that the Theravadin Abhidhammapitaka has a similar status in Mahayana thought. Arrow740 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit different, actually. The status of the Theravadin Abhidhammapitaka in Mahayana thought is not relevant for the origin of Theravada as a school. At the time Mahayana was not existent, so it's critique of the Theravada Ahidhamma is not relevant here. It would be good to mention that Theravada Abhidhamma was not recognized as valid by the other Early Buddhist schools. Also the critique of Mahayana sutras doesn't mention Theravada, only the Early Buddhist schools. It is a critique by the schools that Mahayana split off from.

I have added the info already, Greetings, Sacca 04:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can come up with something better than this sort of back-and-forth tit for tat.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The prajnaparamita sutras were written partially in response to the abhidharma of the Nikaya schools. The article should mention that. Arrow740 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Theravada abhidhamma was unknown to the Mahayana. Its responses are to the Sarvastivada (Vaibhashika) abhidharma. Peter jackson 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I see that's unclear: "Its" means Mahayana's. Peter jackson 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Compromise?

Well, I had a long diatribe on why Hinayana belonged in the Theravada section, but instead I thought of a compromise and had to scrap the whole damn thing. Woe is attachment.

Take all mention of Mahayana, Hinayana, Theravada, etc., out of the geographical descriptions. That leaves us with Southeast Asian/Southern, East Asian, and Northern/Tibetan defined in terms of their national/geographic components.
Add a sub-section that includes the following:

- Mahayana is a philosophical and scriptural movement that split from the early Buddhist schools. It provides the canonical and philosophical origins for much of EA Buddhism.
- Theravada is one of the early Buddhist schools. It provides the canonical and philosophical origins of SEA Buddhism.
- Hinayana is a term of criticism applied by Mahayana polemicists to the early Buddhist schools. In modern usage, it is often incorrectly used as a synonym for Theravada.
- Vajrayana developed from Mahayana through the incorporation of tantric practices. It is sometimes used synonymously with Northern Buddhism, and sometimes considered to include certain East Asian esoteric traditions.
- Esoteric Buddhism describes a variety of Buddhist traditions incorporating tantra or secret initiation. In encompasses Northern Buddhism and certain East Asian schools.

Is this more acceptable? We're still hitting all the bases and telling readers how all the terms they may have heard map to modern schools, but we've avoided too much history of terminology. Obviously my descriptions are rough, but is this an organizational improvement? --Clay Collier 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As shown above, modern Mahayana doesn't seem to put a lot of criticism into the term Hinayana. E.g. the Nitartha online dictionary more or less neutrally translates theg pa chung ba as: Hinayana, lesser vehicle. There is also a special term common vehicles for referring to both Hinayana and Mahayana.--Klimov 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, what do you mean, shown above? You're using a Tibetan dictionary, that's not the meaning in Sanskrit nor Pali. Hinayana is a Mahayana term; Vajrayana has different attitude to Hinayana than Mahayana, but still it's denigrating - saying it's the lesser vehicle. Greetings, Sacca 14:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Sacca, I mean the positive teaching about Hinayana cited above.

You seem to imply that Vajrayana does not belong to Mahayana. As far as I know, it very much does.

I regret that you perceive the term as offensive. As far as I know, what is meant is that practitioners of Mahayana (including Vajrayana and also Dzogchen for that matter) have a more ambitious ("greater") goal in mind. On the other hand, the Hinayana teachings come direct from the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. I also would describe them as being much easier to understand. --Klimov 10:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Klimov, I really, honestly, do think it is offensive, i have added some quotes now to the section on Hinayana. I would like Mahayana to be able to turn back the clock of time, but it seems it's not possible ;-) I see the Theravada view as more open, it doesn't denigrate the Bodhisatta, it's an individual choice: how long do you want to take? Quick and to the point or very thorough and long? Both are legitimate, although on the long term, there will be more dukkha if you choose to do the (long) Bodhisatta path, just because of the time it involves. I believe that's why Gautama Buddha didn't tell others to do this, his teaching was just about the extinction of Dukkha. I have heard Dzogchen is just a restyled form of Vipassana, 'back to basics' attempt. Also i know there's some unclarity about Mahayana/Vajrayana: I myself think Vajrayana is more Mahayana than it is a seperate group. Also in its teachings Vajrayana is more ecumenical than Mahayana, it doesn't get involved very much in the criticizing and self-praise as the Mahayana Sutras do. It moved in the right direction, but we have to recognize the term is in itself, objectively speaking, of a derogatory nature. I tried to incorporate the non-perceived derogatory meaning it sometimes carries into the text as it now stands. Greetings, Sacca 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sacca, I do seem to understand your point of view. For me the term seems rather literally comparative: liberation of just one individual vs greater number of them (eventually). But I do understand that it could be perceived as not so neutral.

BTW, as a practitioner of dzogchen teachings, I wouldn't say that it's about Vipassana. One of the main methods in self-liberation is, I'd say, relaxation. --Klimov 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I don't know what you're refering to: do you mean self-realization as in vipassana or as in Dzogchen? Sidenote: Samatha is relaxation... And Samatha and Vipassana go together. Greetings, Sacca 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I am used more to the Tibetan terminology now. I was thinking at the moment that you were talking about Shamatha. And I am used to think about it as a form of fixation.

On the restyled Vipassana, I don't really know. I could guess that if you do have the natural state in Vipassana, then it should be it.

But as far as I know Dzogchen methods get you not only this mental stuff that one gets in Vipassana (that should be by itself really really good btw), but one gets also very spectacular bodily results (not very common but really well known and documented). --Klimov 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of subdivisions in Mahayana - it's too much and makes it look complicated. Theravada has also subdivision. This section is supposed to be just introductory - notice that we have already large sections on the individual schools in which these things are already mentioned. Also the info on Theravada is not correct, since every country has its own hierarchy, and in each country there are several sects.Greetings, Sacca 10:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Theravada isn't so often used for the early school, it's more the standard term for the later tradition.

I'll change northern to Tibetan to fit with Theravada & EAsian. They're mostly used by the same books. Peter jackson 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Spasemunki, to begin with, I would request you to tell me what the problem exactly is. This has not been done yet. I think it's pretty ok like this, also Peter Jackson seems to be fine with it. There's just the tendency of people to keep on adding stuff and rephrasing stuff, and they're not always very careful in their edits, so after a while it becomes too 'fluffy'. I've pruned it a few times already, now. I suspect this fluffiness is what you object to.

I am afraid that when you divide stuff like this in two sections, in fact it will be just saying the same thing twice. And why mention 'esoteric Buddhism'? That's the same as Vajrayana. I think we should be careful not to complicate things.

Another issue is, what is this leading to? Giving hinayana a mention in the second list, is like including the early buddhist schools in this list. Do we want to mention just the existing schools, or take a more historical approach and include Early Buddhist schools, too? If historical, I would say there's actually 5 groups: pre-sectarian Buddhism, Early Buddhist schools, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Greetings, Sacca 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the way I've done it now. It needs tidying up, adding links etc., which I'll leave for now as I had an edit conflict, which I'm not used to dealing with, though I managed to get the glossary in. I hope it's clearer for the reader. It seems to me that we ought to include here all the terms people are likely to come across, not just the ones we approve of.

Sacca, I don't think your 5 groups are based on any consistent principle. The scholars tend to divide historical Buddhism into 5, but quite a different 5: Indian, Theravada, EAsian, Tibetan & Western/modern. The Indian part is subdivided into 3-5 phases: original (for those who think that different from the next), early (presectarian, as found in the 4 nikayas), abhidharma/nikaya (for those who treat that as a separate phase), Mahayana & Vajrayana. Peter jackson 15:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I forgot the western one.... funny that you cannot see the similarities... ;-) it's just the way you think, I guess... thanks for the feedback anyway. Greetings, Sacca 15:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Spasemunki. This arrangement, if nothing else, improves the clarity of the presentation by actually settling on an order in which to present things: first the current situation, and then the historical/conceptual divisions. Most of your descriptions are uncontroversial, but I don't agree with the definition given for "Hinayana". In its modern use by scholars, it is not, so as I can tell, intended as a term of criticism at all; it has also been used widely by nonsectarian scholars (presumably including many Christians and nonreligious people), not only by Mahayana polemicists. And I'm not clear on what grounds we could say that it is "incorrectly" applied to Theravada. Offensive it certainly is or often can be, but I don't think we can say that all of the scholars who ever talked about Theravada as a Hinayana school were using the term incorrectly.

In addition, I would prefer to avoid simplistic descriptions of the origins of Mahayana. Very little detail is known on this subject. The statement that Mahayana broke away from the early schools is not very informative. Naturally, anything that is new broke away from what is old. However, one of the interesting aspects of the early known history of Mahayana is that there appears to have been a long period in which it existed as a movement inside of the schools, without breaking away.

I would also prefer to refer to Nikaya schools rather than "early schools", but I fear I may be a minority of one on that point.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is informative to say Mahayana broke away from the early schools, and it should be mentioned. Just saying 'Mahayana'; doesn't give us any information on where it came from. Greetings, Sacca 00:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My wording is that Mahayana emerged. That seems to fit the facts, that, as Nat says, there was a long period (up to about the 3rd century) when it was evolving within mainstream Buddhism. Probably it evolved to the point where the mainstream started to regard it as heretical & excommunicated it, so it didn't actually break away.

Early schools is probably the commonest nonderogatory term. We can include others as well.

To say that Hinayana is derogatory is an objective statement of fact, since hina means inferior. This is independent of the intentions of the users. Peter jackson 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think for the time being at least we should keep separate entries for esoteric, mantra, tantra & vajra, until we're sure they're synonymous. We should beware of taking things for granted in such an obscure area. Peter jackson 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief Explanation of Skandhas

Hallo Arrow. I see that you removed my brief explanation of what the skandhas are from the main Buddhism entry. I think that it is helpful for the reader to see what is meant by "the aggregates" (for most people, that will be a pretty meaningless term). That is why I added the explanatory bit in brackets, saying that these are "the transitory mental and physical constituents of the living being" - which is in fact what they are. As for your point about not characterising all of Mahayanan Buddhism in terms of Tathagatagarbha Buddhism: yes, that is valid (although I think that it is fair to say that Mahayana in general does not view the Buddha as a mere human being, but as something far more exalted and mysterious). What is not valid, however, is for you to claim that the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is "not Buddhist". It is a matter of historical fact that these teachings are Buddhist - whether people like them or not (which is, of course, totally irrelevant). To say that they are not Buddhist is as inaccurate as saying that the Pure Land teachings are not Buddhist; or that the idea of an Adibuddha is not Buddhist; or that the idea of the transference of merit is not Buddhist. In an encyclopaedia, we have to present the facts, regardless of our personal conviction. I am sure you will agree with that. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, yes I have to agree with some of your points. My problem with the skandhas piece is that I think it is vital to say that the skandhas are the transitory mental and physical components that constitute a living being. There is nothing else; that is anatman. Regarding the Tathagatagarbha doctrine being not Buddhist, I was referring to this book. It seems there is a discussion along those lines taking place in Japanese Buddhism now. Mahayana has a wide variety of beliefs and the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is on the extreme end, I don't think it should be overemphasized. Arrow740 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The current TG debate in Japan is very controversial with strong political undertones, so I would take some of it with a pinch of salt. The main proponent of the anti-TG camp, Matsumoto Shiro, is also quite a controversial figure with a definite agenda. There are also many, eg Shinnichi Tsuda et al, in Japan who regard him as a bit of a crack-pot in view of his generally obnoxious behaviour. Anyway, I have restored the bit you kindly removed since there is no mention of Tathagata-garbha doctrines there -- basically this is standard Mahayana fare (= the Dharmakaya & its relation to the Rupakayas), whether one likes it or not.

You also say, "the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is on the extreme end", from which I can only conclude, and I am sorry to say this,that you do not know very much about East Asian Buddhism or even much of non-Geluk Tibetan Buddhism, which is predicated on the TG doctrine which you with your apparently limited knowledge-base seem to think is marginal. Sorry to soynd so harsh, but your comments lead one to that conclusion. --Stephen Hodge 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't imply it was marginal. Please source the content about the being beyond categorization. Also I'd like to hear more about the political undertones of the TG debate if you'd care to summarize. Arrow740 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we should say what the skandhas are, then say that in the Pali Canon and some Mahayana thought, that's all that an individual is, while in other kinds of Mahayana thought there's this other thing. Arrow740 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive please

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

Three Types of Buddha

I notice that in the "Main Traditions" section, it says that all the main traditions of Buddhism "accept the three types of Buddha". This strange idea of there being a "sravaka-Buddha" or that the arhat is viewed as a Buddha (in Mahayana Buddhism) really bothers me. I don't think it is really correct. I have never come across it, except on Wikipedia, and I really think it is very dubious as to whether the Mahayana accepts the idea of a "sravaka-Buddha". I cannot recall ever having come across such a term in all my reading of the Mahayana sutras. The Mahayana accepts the notion of sravakas (general "disciples" of Dharma, particularly less advanced students, although the term can include Bodhisattvas); it also accepts the important position of arhats - but does not usually automatically view arhats as fully-fledged Buddhas. Mahayana does, however, accept "pratyekabuddhas" (seeing them as inferior to samyaksambuddhas). So in brief, I'd be interested to know what other editors feel about the references to "three types of Buddha" on Wikipedia. It personally irritates me, as I think it is not the general view in Mahayana Buddhism, and possibly not even the general view within Theravada. If it is a very marginal view (as I suspect), it should not be included in the section which deals with the main commonalities of belief between the various forms of Buddhism. Anyway, what do you think? Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's precisely because someone's trying to list commonalities of Buddhism that we've got this unsatisfactory formulation. I'd personally prefer it if we could get the accounts of different forms of Buddhism accurate before trying to see what they have in common. In terms of WP rules, I think this sort of synthesis is outlawed anyway. Peter jackson 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Peter. Thank you for your comments, with which I have some sympathy. I, too, would personally prefer to let Buddhism speak for itself, as the incredibly rich and all-but all-inclusive religious/philosophical phenomenon that it is - in all its seeming diversity - rather than trying to compress it into a straitjacket of fixed common beliefs. But on the specific point of implying that Mahayana has the teaching of "three types of Buddha" (sravakabuddha, pratyekabuddha, and samyaksambuddha) - I am pretty sure that this is plain wrong as regards "sravakabuddha". I have never seen that term mentioned in any Mahayana sutra or even shastra. But that might be something I have missed, of course. Let's see what other editors feel about this. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, according to the WP article Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana, in 1981 Walpola Rahula created a reputedly ecumenical document stating in part:

"...the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra, clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Sravaka-yana (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddha-yana (Vehicle of Individual Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the same Path...."

After a cursory search, I was unable to find the Sandhinirmocana Sutra on the web. Anyone able to verify or disprove this statement? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate a translation of the Sutra itself in my books, but I did find some descriptions of the content that seem to confirm that the statement is consistent with the contents of the sutra. The Sandhinirmocana Sutra teaches that the three 'turnings of the wheel' (the Sravaka-dhamma, the Mahayana/Sunyata teachings, and the teachings of the sutra itself) are all paths to Nirvana taught by the Buddha; the difference was that the first two paths required interpretation and explanation to follow correctly, and as a result became sources of dispute. The Sandhinirmocana Sutra proposes to present a teaching that requires no exegesis, and settles all early controversies, without claiming that the previous teachings were invalid. --Clay Collier 09:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On a quasi-unrelated note, I've created a new article for the Sandhinirmocana Sutra if anyone is interested in adding anything. --Clay Collier 10:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Clay - great new article! Also, thanks for sharing your research!

So, in reference to this thread's raison d'etre, perhaps if folks are inclined to indicate that the sravaka-yana is at least mentioned in a Mahayana sutra, it seems they'd have some coverage? Just a thought. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the interesting material and points above. I think the main point (of this thread, when I began it) is that the term, "sravaka-Buddha" is never used in the Mahayana. Also, we must note that there are different levels and types of Nirvana according to Mahayana. So I would say that the main point still stands: that it is atypical (if not downright inaccurate) to speak of a "sravaka-Buddha" or "three types of Buddha". Even the Sandhinirmocana Sutra does not speak of a "sravaka-Buddha". The idea of a "sravaka-yana" is indeed there and is mainstream Mahayana Buddhist fare (appearing in the Lotus Sutra, for instance). But that is not the same term as "sravaka-Buddha" - and I think that latter idea should be avoided, as it is not typical of the Mahayana. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha! Looks like another Mahayana lesson for me then. So, there are three vehicles but only two Buddha types plus arahats. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry. Good to hear from you, as always! Yes, I think the yanas are pathways/vehicles of varying degrees of completion or capacity. My strong impression is that generally (if not totally) in the Mahayana, the sravakayana is not graced with the term "sravaka-buddha" for one who traverses that yana/ travels in that vehicle. You are right - that arhats are seen as a stage on the total journey, but not yet as complete Buddhas. Of course, the arhat is still highly respected in the Mahayana, as the Buddha himself is always styled "arhat-samyaksambuddha" - but it is that last bit (the "perfect/complete Buddha") which is the clincher for the Mahayanists. In other words, a complete Buddha is automatically an arhat, but an arhat is not automatically a complete Buddha! Hope this helps a little. Best wishes to yourself and to Clay. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tony. FWIW, I tried to rehash some of the "Sravakabuddha" material on the Types of Buddhas page to indicate that it is a post-canonical Theravada term, especially since it is found in a number of Rahula's works. If anyone feels I've overstepped my blatant ignorance, feel free to revert. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to yourself, too, Larry, for your contributions and hard work here. My personal view is that, even from a Theravada perspective (as far as I can judge it), the term, "savaka/sravaka-Buddha" seems pretty marginal (just ONE post-canonical text comes up with this nomenclature) and therefore does not merit a whole section to itself (or at most - it should get only a very brief mention in the "types of Buddha" article). But if other editors are happy with "sravaka-Buddha" as mentioned in that sole and single Theravada commentarial work - I will not argue against it (as long as people do not say that this is also a Mahayana concept)! Thank you again, Larry, for your kind assistance and sincere endeavours. Best wishes to you once more. Tony. TonyMPNS 21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony & Larry: my Tibetan (mainly Gelug) teachers quite often refer to Sravakas, in fact it seems to come up almost as often as the expression Pratyeka Buddhas, and usually comes up in discussions of the various beings who achieved liberation.rudy 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Rudy, for your input. Actually, it is not the word "sravaka" itself that is contested here (it is, as you say, very, very widely used in Mahayana Buddhism), but the compound term, "sravaka-Buddha". That, it seems, is an all-but non-existent coinage in canonical Theravada literature and in the Mahayana sutras. But thank you again for telling us of your own experience, which was interesting. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

- Statements here suggest section 4.3 is rubbish. Peter jackson 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for drawing out attention to 4.3 and its claim that all schools of Buddhism accept three types of Bodhi. I've deleted that bit now, as I think it is not sufficiently sound. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, again, I'm basically ignorant (and I don't simply mean avijja) on this, am not inclined to run down reliable sources, defer to your all's judgment, and am not gonna revert or otherwise modify this article's text regarding this. However, based on what little I've read, I think Section 4.3 was fine. Here's a summary of my understanding:

Sammāsambodhi => Sammāsambuddha
Paccekabodhi => Paccekabuddha
Sāvakabodhi => A r a h a n t

3 bodhis, 2 buddhas & an arahant. Right?

Savakas can become enlightened (sāvaka-bodhi) too, they just don't become buddhas as a result -- they become arahants or noble disciples (ariya-sāvakas). Right?

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Larry, for your helpful input here. I think you put it rather well! I think the key point (from the Mahayana perspective) is that an arhat is not automatically deemed to be a Buddha (as you've correctly indicated). If you would like to modify the main text (4.3) along the lines you suggest - please feel free to do so (unless other editors object). Many thanks again, Larry. All the best to you. Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, as always, thanks for your cheerful kindness, goodwill and good insights. Also, I see I misspoke before -- as Peter pointed out & you fixed -- 4.3 was in error for suggesting that sāvaka-bodhi leads to buddhahood. (Can I type anything on a talk page lately without putting my foot in my mouth?) Perhaps additional article text pending ... I'd be interested to see if anyone else wants to weigh in or has a reliable source or two to cite. Thanks again Tony! With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Things are getting confused here. What I was trying to indicate was that, if what other people were saying about Mahayana was correct, then the section was wrong in presenting a solely Theravada position as the Buddhist one. Now it's gone into reverse & presented a solely Mahayana position as the Buddhist one. Peter jackson 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed and corrected in this section a statement that various things are extinguished at the point of enlightenment. I don't know the Mahayana position(s), but the Theravada holds that some of these are eliminated at earlier stages. Peter jackson 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 35 seems to bear no relation to the text it's attached to (I seem to remember pointing this out before.

2 types of Buddhas? I suspect this is an artificial construct. Is there any text of any school of Buddhism that says there are 2 types of Buddhas? Is there any that uses the term buddhas to mean sammasambuddhas & paccekabuddhas? Peter jackson 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Annitya

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

Present state of Buddhism

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

Talk Page Archives

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

Buddhism and Hinduism

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

A user is using quotes from a 19th century scholar he found online to the effect that Buddhism sprang from the Samkhya tradition. What are your opinions on this? Arrow740 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

unclear references

Hello, I am noticing a lot of references from the Penguin handbook. The problem is that the references give no information whatsoever about the references they are referring to. What page? What is the sentence that is referred to? What edition of the Penguin handbook? What year was it published? please add this info. I it is not added, I fear that in the future these references would best be deleted, since they cannot be confirmed. Greetings, Sacca 04:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you applying double standards here? You've written a whole article Pre-sectarian Buddhism without citing a single source, despite criticism on the talk page. Also, your reference from this article to that one has had a citation request on it since April, more than a month. But when people try to add a few references to another unsourced article you start quibbling about minor details.

The details of the edition are clearly given in note 5. As to where in the book to find the refs, it shouldn't take much intelligence to look in the table of contents & find the chapter on Buddhism. Most of the refs from this article (so far) are about the classification of Buddhism, which one would naturally look for at the beginning. I'll probably get round to looking up the pages for the others, but even there the reader can easily look through the headings for likely topics.

Please don't threaten to delete things for this sort of reason. We'd be within our rights to delete your entire article (& most of this one too) for lack of citation. I usually only delete things when I'm pretty sure they're wrong. Peter jackson 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said -- and long overdue !! --Stephen Hodge 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

HEllo, If you give a quote, it should give some info, and not just some claim that it's taken from somewhere, and then not including any info on what the quote actually says. Look at the quotes I used concerning the Hinayana word in the Buddhism article, referring to the Macmillan encyclopedia. These quotes give sufficient information.

Concerning the pinguin book, what is the edition of the pinguin book? what's the year? different edition have varying page numbers, info on page numbers is not sufficient. Also you should include an actual sentence, how do I know you're not just interpreting things?

It's wwrong to use the quote just in order to have a quote, it should give some information, and be verifiable. If you use a quote, use it well. Greetings, Sacca 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already told you above, the edition is clearly specified.

What are you suggesting? Do you think WP should consist entirely of

Statements made without any evidence at all
Direct quotations from sources?

That doesn't seem a very sensible way of doing things. Peter jackson 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Peter, just look at the entries for the Pinguin Handbook, they're saying nothing other than 'Pinguin Handbook'. You should add which edition, which year, and then also which page. And if you want to be really good, you can do more than that, too! Don't be so stubborn, don't try to wriggle out of some wholesome work... Please have a look at the notes on Pre-sectarian Buddhism. Greetings, Sacca 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, note 5 identifies the full title and year, so restating that for every note would be redundant. I agree that page numbers should be added, and more complete information to note 5, but I don't have time to do that right now. Gimme danger 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are adding notes from the same edition as used in note 5, but someone else is adding notes using another version, and also just saying 'Pinguin Handbook'. Thus, things get messed up. Full information should be added to each and every note. copy and paste is easy!Greetings, Sacca 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I propose adding an alphabetized reference section with full citations in addition to the notes section, as per WP:CITE. The notes are getting long and cluttered anyway. If two different editions are being used, then both should be listed in the references section and the notes should reflect this, ie (Penguin, 1988) or (Penguin, 2006), if those are the years the editions were published. I definitely agree though that somewhere on the page the source needs to be fully identified. --Gimme danger 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. But it should be (Penguin, 2006, p123), adding page number also... Greetings, Sacca 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the Penguin handbook didn't come out in 1996 and there have been several editions both before and after that. I don't know where the original writer got his cites, so I'm going to remove it and add citation tags. --Gimme danger 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine section

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

I thought I knew how to do bold italic but it didn't work. Peter jackson 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Gautama Buddha an atheist?

Gautama Buddha was recently added to List of atheists. I notice he's not in Category:Atheists, nor is he described as an atheist in this article. This was cited in support of the claim, but I'm ambivalent about the source and what it says--that is, I'm not sure (1) if the author's claims are consistent with scholarly consensus, and (2) if the author actually makes the case that Gautama Buddha was an atheist in this article. Any help, such as direction toward reliable sources, would be appreciated. Thankyou. Nick Graves 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Buddha mentioned deities, but they were described using mostly negative terms, and God in the Abrahamic sense was expressly denied. In fact it is even suggested that the Buddha was not making statements about reality, but only a pedagogical device. I can provide the source for that, but it seems a little far afield. Arrow740 04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, if I may offer my non-authoritative two cents, to the best of my limited understanding, in the Pali Canon, there are many devas and rulers of heavenly realms -- all of whom in English translation are refered to as "gods" or "deities." Not only do the Buddha and his monks have a positive relationship to these gods, but their achievement (of becoming a deva through virtuous behavior) is one of the things recommended for contemplation by the Buddha (e.g., see the Anussati article regarding "Recollection of Deva virtues (devatānussati)"). Further, one of the benefits of rightly popular metta practice is said to provide one with a heavenly rebirth in the next life (although, if enlightenment is not also pursued in this life, then the life after the heavenly realm could be one of hell or earth).

However, personally, I am not aware of a Abrahamic notion of "God" in the Pali Canon -- one who created the universe, who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omni-whatever, who demands allegiance and doles out punishment, etc.

So, strictly speaking, the Buddha did not believe in an Abrahamic God, but did unquestionable engage beings of heavenly realms. How does this fit in with Western notions of "atheism." For me, personally, this is far from clear cut. For me, an "atheist" is one who is aware of the Western notion of "God" and who, after consideration, rejects it. There is no indication that the Buddha was aware of such a notion and rejected it. In addition, most "atheists" that I've encountered tend to be materialists, even "spiritual materialists" (to borrow a phrase from Trunga Rinpoche). The Buddha, invested in Buddhist notions of karma, definitely decried materialism as one of the "wrong views" that is an obstacle to liberation.

I guess, just to wrap up this baby's-napping-chance-to-blog, to the best of my limited knowledge (and happy to be educated otherwise), the Buddha did not believe in -- was also not aware of and did not consciously reject -- the Abrahamic God, but I'm not so sure this makes him an "atheist."

With metta :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Take two (baby's still sleeping!): Nick, I had a chance to read the external article you cite -- it seems to set up an argument that the Vedic notion of Brahma is highly similar to the Abrahamic notions of Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah and the Buddha did reject Brahma's claims to omnipotence, omniscience and omnibeneficence. Thus, presumably, if the Buddha were to address Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, he'd put forth the same criteria for rejecting Him. Interesting idea. Having read this, I'm more willing to think of the Buddha as "atheistic" but, perhaps it's my Western inculturation, I'm still somehow somewhat hesitant. (Okay, baby's awake) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo everyone. I think Larry's initial comments are really excellent. It is certainly far too simplistic and distortionist to say, categorically, that "the Buddha was an atheist". It all depends on what one means by "atheist"! As Larry has pointed out, the Buddha was aware of the existence of (from our human perspective) high-level and beneficent beings called "devas" (gods) and certainly did not view them as a fantasy - although they are still caught up in the spinning-wheel of samsara. No atheist that I know of would believe in such heavenly beings, living in celestial worlds for literally thousands and thousands of years! The Buddha in the Pali Canon is most definitely not a materialist (as a lot of "atheists" are - they don't usually believe in personal survival after death or very happy godly realms). Larry is also right, in my view, to point out that the Buddha does not (in the Pali Canon) speak of the Abrahamic God (Jehovah) and deny him. He does say that the god Brahma is not as great and as omnipotent as he thinks he is! But there is a hint in the Pali Canon that "Dhamma" (the Law of the universe) could be seen as a transcendental regulator of our lives here on earth (through the complex web of Karma). Also, when we look at Mahayana Buddhism, it becomes more difficult to say that the Buddha was an "atheist", as the vision of the Buddha that we can find there is of a virtual Godhead (uncreated and indestructible Reality within all things and beings). Have a look at the "God in Buddhism" entry on Wikipedia for a more detailed discussion of this topic. Anyway, in sum I would certainly agree with Larry's initial feelings that we cannot categorically say that the Buddha was an "atheist" - and so I personally would never enter him into a list of atheists. I think that is far too limiting of what the Buddha was about and what he taught! I note, too, that Wikipedia's own definition of "atheism" is this: "Atheism is the philosophical position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities". I think that by these criteria it would be difficult to claim that the Buddha was an atheist. Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In the cited article, the author quotes Gautama Buddha making an argument against the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God, which is said to be incompatible with the fact of suffering. On that basis, I allowed the entry to remain at List of atheists. However, the author also mentions that Gautama Buddha acknowledged the existence of devas. If devas are a type of deity, I am leaning toward removing him from the list. An atheist doesn't just disbelieve in the Western conception of God, but in all deities. Nick Graves 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick, I think you are absolutely right. It is (in my humble opinion) absurd to claim that a person (in this case, the Buddha) who believes in godly beings, living in heaven for innumerable thousands of years and shining with a great natural radiance, and who also taught of the reality of demons and devils in Hell, was an atheist! If we call such a person an "atheist", we have to give a whole new definition to the term, I think! Cordial regards. Tony. TonyMPNS 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that he denies the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god and gives the devas no importance vis a vis prayer, worship, etc. They are more incidental. This article (search for "Use of Metaphor") is representative of a the idea that the Buddha did not intend to actually imply the existence of devas. I'm not entirely convinced by that argument. I think it would be safe to say that the Buddha spoke of heavenly beings without giving them a status superior to man. In fact it is inferior as the (mortal) devas cannot attain nirvana. The MPNS view of the Buddha is not relevant as regards ascertaining the historical Buddha's view of himself. However it's interesting to note that even in that kind of Mahayana thought the Buddha isn't omnipotent. Arrow740 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick, a minor point if I may, in the externally-linked article by Dr. Gunasekara, the Buddhist text that Gunasekara cites as countering the existence of an all-beneficent God due to the existence of suffering (dukkha) is from the "Bhuridatta Jataka." While I'd be interested in verifying this with someone who knows more about the Pali Canon than I do (e.g., User:Peter_jackson are you reading this?) but I think most scholars would balk at using a singular quote from a Jataka tale as a basis for ascribing actual ideas to the historical Buddha. (Perhaps an analogy would be something like attributing a belief to Jesus based on a tangential statement from the "Chronicles of Narnia"?)

Also, FWIW, I think there's a good deal of overlap in what Tony, Arrow and I write; it seems to me the critical question might be: how does one define "atheist"? To what extent can an "atheist" engage a divine cosmos and/or what kind of deity (Who?) must the "atheist" reject? Cheers, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, Arrow and Nick. I think Larry has put his finger on the key point again: what exactly do atheists reject? What type of God or gods do they spurn? I think that atheists not only reject the semitic idea of a sole, all-powerful Creator God, but also the notion of (e.g. Hindu or Greek) "gods". If that is the case, then the Buddha was not an atheist. Now, as for your interesting points, Arrow: I share your (implicit) scepticism regarding the idea that the "gods" in the Pali Canon are "mere metaphors". I think that it is difficult to sustain that argument with any degree of soundness, since the "gods" are one of the five (or six) "gatis" (reincarnational destinies/forms) into which we can be born - along with the realm of human beings and animals. Are we, then, to say that when the Buddha teaches of the existence of animals and human beings he is saying that animals and humans are mere metaphors - that there are no humans or animals? Of course not. Equally, when he teaches of the reality of gods (devas), he really means what he says: they do exist (although most of us are blind to them), and form a very real realm within samsara. Furthermore, the role of the "gods" is not unimportant for Dhamma/Dharma: it was the god, Brahma Sahampatti, who persuaded the Buddha to communicate his vision and Path to the world immediately after the latter's Awakening: without this god's active and wise intervention (in theory, at least), the Buddha may have remained in Nirvana and said nothing! So gods can be seen (even in Pali Buddhism) as an important conduit or catalyst for the infusing of Dhamma into the world. On the other point about the "historical Buddha": I was not actually referring in my words up above to the "Mahayana Nirvana Sutra" (although you can easily be forgiven for thinking that I was, as I often do!): I was speaking of how the devas are presented as radiantly shining, very long-lived supernatural beings, even in Theravada Buddhism. I doubt that any "usual" atheist would accept such "gods" as real - but the Buddha clearly does. Also, finally, I think it is ultimately impossible to know what the real "historical Buddha" believed about this matter in any case, as both the Pali texts and the Mahayana sutras are not generally viewed by scholars today as objectively factual and dependable historical-biographical documents. They are spiritual/religious documents - not text-books on theology or philosophy. The Buddha himself wrote nothing down. So there are various traditions and transmissions of his alleged teaching that have come down to us. None of us really knows for certain what the "historical Buddha" thought about anything in any great detail - if we are honest! Hope that does not offend anyone! Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no scholarly consensus on the original teachong of the Buddha: see the citations I've put in Pre-sectarian Buddhism. There are a few refs to a creator god (issara) in the suttas. Peter jackson 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to see consensus on WP Buddhism, even if it is only to remind me that any inferences I make about the historical Buddha are wishful thinking :-) Thanks to both Tony and Peter for underlining this.

Additionally, Peter, thanks for the pointer to your well articulated cautionary statements in the Pre-sectarian Buddhism article. (Among other things, I like how the notes reflect both Gombrich's rationale assessment and then his seemingly considered intuition.) I still believe though that, if one accepts that the Pali Canon somehow reflects the historical Buddha's actual teaching, then the Jataka tales are among the least likely to be credibly attributed to the Buddha. (Frankly though my knowledge regarding the Khuddaka Nikaya is extremely weak outside of the typical Westerner's knowledge of the Dhammapada, etc. I guess I was wondering if scholars such as Hinüber might have anything to date or otherwise assess the historicity of the various Jataka texts.)

Also, FWIW, if folks are looking for another scholar-monk's take on Buddhism and atheism, Nyanaponika Thera's article is on ATI at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html. Nyanaponika appears to say that, in terms of the strictest explicit technical definition, the Buddha was an atheist, but the notion of atheism has a great many connotations (e.g., materialism, man-made ethical systems, denial of divine realms) which the Buddha would emphatically reject. I think that this captures many of our concerns mentioned here. Perhaps using Nyanaponika as a source, the List of atheists article's mention of the Buddha could include a footnote distinguishing between atheism's denotations and connotations as they do or not apply to "the Buddha" (as he is represented in Buddhist scriptures).

As always, sincere thanks for deepening my thinking about the Dhamma, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nyanaponika Thera's qualifications are here. Arrow740 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards the Jataka, you have to remember the distinction between the canonical verses & the prose commentary. Warder (Pali Metre, PTS, table at end) dates the former on average to the 4th century BC, earlier than the Dhammapada for example. I don't know what other scholars think. Peter jackson 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As always, thanks Peter -- the Warder book sounds like an interesting resource. Thanks again too Arrow and Tony and, for the interesting topic, Nick. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the notation that the Buddha is an atheist, as in "disbelief in the existence of deity" (Marriam-Webster) or "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god" (OED). The Buddha does not deny the existence of deities, in fact he explicitly stated many times over, that there are beings in other planes of existences which may be invisible to most people but which do in fact exist. (See Maha-samaya Sutta for instance) The point about rebirth is central to the Buddhist notion. So neither the Dhamma nor the Buddha denies these. The only thing he claims is that as deities could themselves be deluded or uninformed it is important not to rely on them as a source or means to attend the highest liberation which he taught, known as Nibbana. 121.7.31.29 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup

I've spent some time clearing up the references today and I think 1-6 in the notes are pretty good. I've been moving full citations out of the notes and into the reference section and added information when necessary. It seems like the Penguin Handbook is a false one, at least it's not clear which edition the original editor intended to reference, since a 1996 edition was never printed. So I've removed some of the Penguin citations, but the rest need to be removed and any fact that is cited solely in Penguin needs a new citation. --Gimme danger 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent stuff- it would be great if we could unify the footnotes and references using something like the Harvard citation templates that are around. Thanks for taking the initiative to clean this up. --Clay Collier 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to use Johannes Kepler as a guide for footnote citations; I really dislike Harvard style, personally. I think it makes text look cluttered. What would be really nice is if there were page numbers to go with all these citations. But I don't exactly have access to a fantastic library, so I can't do much about that. --Gimme danger 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rushing in and removing the Penguin Handbook citations without checking with the editor responsible (User:Peter Jackson) seems a bit provocative as he is still around. It is fairly obvious to me that he was acting in good faith and merely misread the date -- which is 1998 -- for 1996. I suggest they be replaced by user Gimme and the date changed after it is confirmed that was the edition used. This kind of tactless behaviour really puts people off contributing to Wiki -- as these citations were being provided, it was clear that the editor concerned was putting in considerable time and effort.--Stephen Hodge 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll put them back when Peter Jackson confirms this. I thought it was important to remove a reference didn't clearly exist as soon as possible. I also put in considerable time and effort trying to find the reference. --Gimme danger 02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misread isn't quite the word. I do quite a lot from memory. I can't check this right now, but as far as I know there are only 2 editions: the original Penguin Handbook, 1984 I think, & the New Penguin Handbook. All other reprints should follow the pagination of 1 of these. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of readers if we gave both. Peter jackson 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had a chance to check the edition I used. It says it was first published by Blackwell in 1997, & then published by Penguin in 1998. It looks as if 1997 is the correct date, especially as no mention is made of a different title. Peter jackson 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Usually citations go by the latest date mentioned in the book, the rest are copyright records. So we can use the 1998 Penguin date. I'll correct that as soon as I can. --Gimme danger 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gimme danger, thanks for the work you put in and the mistakes you spotted. But there are still notes such as these in the article: ( this is notes 21 to 24 in the article. )

^ Penguin Handbook
^ Penguin, Harvey
^ R & J, P & K
^ Penguin, Harvey

I read in the talk-page here that Peter Jackson does things from memory, so maybe that's why he doesn't give the pagenumbers. But they are very important. How is anybody going to check these references?

R&J, P & K is (off course) also not a good note. Year? Name? Where/when does Harvey say these things?

Greetings, Sacca 11:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I've been on vacation in the real world and forgot that I had this yet to do. --Gimme danger 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism by country

The Buddhism by country article is a bit of a disaster, but if any of the Buddhism editors are willing to pop in and take a look, we could use the help. We're currently having a dispute about whether China is 8% or 80% Buddhist. Thanks. bikeable (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The English in the Explanatory section is also extremely poor and does not conform to Wiki standards.--Stephen Hodge 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That article is a disaster. Arrow740 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The explanatory text was added as a justification for the high percentage (80%) of Buddhists in China; I consider it original research, but I can't just keep reverting. I don't think there is much value in the article, but I hate to have it be off by (literally) a billion people. bikeable (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism and Quantum Physics

Christian Thomas Kohl, Buddhism and Quantum Physics: [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.255.117 (talk) 11:16, July 21, 2007

see quantum quackery. dab (𒁳) 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

did you read the book? --Liebeskind 10:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested: a high quality podcast about quantum physics and buddhism which isn't quantum quackery at all (Buddhism and Quantum Physics - What's the Matter?) and another webpage [3] which illustrates the stuff descripted in the podcast. --Liebeskind 10:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist terms template

I don't know where to find this in the system in order to change it. The example of it in abhidhammahas Pali in devanagari, which is completely wrong as it's only been used since the nineteenth century. I couldn't find a way to change this in the article, so I assume it must be hard-wired into the template wherever it is. Could someone tell me how to find it (or change it themself)? Peter jackson 11:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

it should be Template:PaliCanon --Liebeskind 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to type and corral a baby at the same time so please forgive my brevity: I think the template you're looking for is here: Template:Buddhist term. It was recently created by User:Dbachmann (based on something which User:Nat_Krause might have tried to start back in August 2006?) as indicated at Template_talk:DisplayTranslations#concerns. I suspect the concern you have is not so much with the new template but with the parameters passed to the new template. (Or perhaps, like myself, you're not thrilled with the placing of Roman-lettered words in parentheses, etc.) If I'm understanding you correctly and if you could spell out for me in more detail about what you would like to see (e.g., include punctuation, etc.), I'd be happy to try to make the resultant changes (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Baby's asleep so let me return to this.

There's a new Buddhism-specific translation-related template created by User:Dbachmann called Template:Buddhist term. It differs from the previously used generic translation-related template called Template:DisplayTranslations (created primarily by User:Buddhipriya and myself) in a number of ways, mainly in terms of significantly saving computing resources.

A more superficial change appears to be the new template's assumption that Devanagari is the norm and Roman characters should be parenthesized. (The generic template makes this a user/article-specific option.) My recollection is that this is the way that it in fact has been on the Abhidharma article for a while (Devanagari not parenthesized, Roman-characters parenthesized), but other articles (e.g., Sadayatana) have done it differently. I see different options:

non-Roman characters (e.g., Devanagari, CJK, Sinhala) are not parenthesized and Roman characters are parenthesized (which is the way Template:Buddhist term is currently encoded — although apparently not for Tibetan and Vietnamese terms).
Roman characters are not parenthesized and non-Roman characters are parenthesized.
Parenthesize nothing; put the terms simply side-by-side or force Devanagari to a separate row, etc.
Make the displayed term totally user configurable: so some articles might parenthesize Roman characters and others might not or the same article might parenthesize Devanagari but not parenthesize CJK characters, etc. (which is the way Template:DisplayTranslations is currently encoded).

Given Peter's expressed concerns, etc., I'm inclined to perhaps make Template:Buddhist term totally user-configurable (article-specific) regarding parentheses and other term-specific display information, but would only do so if others agree to this. Any other changes anyone wants I'd also be happy to pursue. (User:Dbachmann appears to created this as a gift for the WP Buddhism community and I don't think he'd object to our modifications.)

FWIW, other changes between new Template:Buddhist term and old Template:DisplayTranslations appear to include:

the new template is wider than the old template.
the new template might omit the user-configurable prefix phrase, "Translations of"
the new template does not include the footer: "view • talk • edit" (which probably would have been of use to Peter today).

I'd be happy to make any and all these changes as time allows if folks are inclined for me to do so (or, at the very least, if no one explicitly objects). With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to be precise here. Pali has been written in the following principal ways:

by large numbers of people for more than 2 millennia in various phases in the evolution of Sinhalese script
by large numbers of people for several centuries in various SE Asian scripts
by large numbers of people since the nineteenth century in Thai script
by small numbers of people since the nineteenth century in nagari
by small numbers of people since the nineteenth (or possibly eighteenth) century in Latin script

It should be obvious from this that there is no standard writing system for Pali, and most certainly not nagari. Therefore the way it appears in the abhidhamma article is totally wrong, as it gives the impression that nagari is the writing system. When I tried to deal with this on the particular article, I found that if I tried deleting the nagari the Pali disappeared completely, so obviously there's something in the template imposing nagari, which is unacceptable. If you're happy to deal with the technical stuff, which I'm not much good at, that's fine. What seems to me the sensible way to do it is to have Pali only in Latin, without brackets, because that's the way Pali is written in English. The basic situation is that there is no standard script and everyone uses their own. So obviously in Hindi WP Pali would be quite correctly written in nagari. The only acceptable alternative (acceptable in the sense of not misrepresenting the situation) would be to include all major scripts, including Latin, on an equal footing (without brackets). So my preference would be for the template to be altered so that only Latin spelling is entered in the Pali box. (A theoretically possible exception might be if a word is confined to, say, Thai Pali, but I don't know of any such.) Peter jackson 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter — Thanks for spelling it out, sharing your knowledgeable and considered perspective. Very thought provoking and meaningful. I still have some lingering questions (e.g., should all languages be represented only using Latin characters or do we allow for CJKV characters, etc.). Perhaps until community consensus is articulated (e.g., at the very least, User:Stephen_Hodge do you have a view?), we should change back to Template:DisplayTranslations in the Abhidharma article and you can modify the input as you like? We can then voice these concerns at Template_talk:Buddhist term. If you don't object, I'll pursue this interim fix later today if possible or certainly within a week. (My real-world life is insinuating itself again :-( .) Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that only romanization should be used for Pali and Sanskrit, for the reasons that Peter Jackson outlines and I am also a bit dubious about inserting CKJ characters. Some articles are a veritable clutter with all the terminological equivalents. Perhaps a more elegant solution is to create some kind of extension to the Glossary page -- one that lists all the terms in as many scripts and languages as any user might want. Each Buddhism article could have a notice inserted to guide users to that page.--Stephen Hodge 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, receiving the same guidance from Peter and Stephen is like receiving stone tablets on Sinai. So, unless anyone objects, I'll make Template:Buddhist term Latin-script-only and, as Stephen perhaps suggests, include in the template's footer a link to the "Glossary page" (where folks can work out the "extension" Stephen proposes). Before I do this (and it will likely have to wait at least till this weekend or maybe next Tuesday), I'd like to check:

Stephen, by "Glossary page," are you referring to Buddhist_terms_and_concepts?
Does anyone mind if I copy the majority of this thread to Template_talk:Buddhist_term?

Peter and Stephen, thanks so much again! (And, of course, as always, if anyone else wants to weigh in, your all's additional insights are always appreciated.) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, as preserved at Template_talk:DisplayTranslations#Non-English_languages, I'd like to acknowledge that rudy also maintained the Latin-script-only position back in February 2007 (along with Stephen then too). (I also see that part of the motivation for creating Template:DisplayTranslations was to move non-Latin-scripts out of the article's main text. I guess in the future if someone feels strongly that they need to include non-Latin-script in a WP Buddhism article they could still use Template:DisplayTranslations then?) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the potential use of this template on articles within the Hinduism project. Since many of the terms used are shared between these two great religions, the template can be of value in various places. The issus of romanization methods for both Sanskrit and Pali comes up often. I have collected a number of threads from previous discussions about IAST, which is the academic standard for the romanization of Devanagari, at: User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. Nothing there has any formal standing, but some of the recurrent issues are listed. It is important to note that IAST, which is used within the Hinduism project, is not exactly the same thing as the "Latin alphabet", which is used for a different romanization method often called "simple transliteration" or "simple romanization". In editions of Buddhist Pali texts that are published in India, it is quite common for the Pali to be given in Devanagari as the primary script. When the Pali texts are romanized, they are generally romanized in IAST, since that is the academic standard. Since IAST is not "Latin script" (because it uses some characters that are not in the Latin-1 character set), when i find things that are in simple romanization using Latin script I generally convert it to IAST, since that is a lossless romanization method for Devanagari. Thus the option to use both Devanagari and IAST in the template is a good idea as it will enable the use of the template on articles where it is desirable to establish academic credibility for the translation. The sound system of the Pali language can be fully-rendered in Devanagari script (or in IAST) but cannot be fully rendered in Latin script due to the smaller number of sound elements in the Latin alphabet. If a rendering is done in IAST there is really no need to show Devanagari because there is no information difference between those two rendering methods, and since most readers will be unable to read Devanagari showing it may be of limited value. However since romanization methods vary, it is important to signal to the reader which romanization method is being used. For that reason I feel that the best approach would be to standardize the "sa-romanization" parameter to be named "sa-IAST" in the template code itself for that reason. It is wonderful that we have an increasing number of options for methods of handling these languages. Buddhipriya 04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Buddhipriya! Good point and, in short, I personally agree. Following up on what you write here and at Template_talk:Buddhist_term, I'd be inclined to have the template automatically pass all input strings through the {{IAST|}} function (e.g., so the nasal velar ṅ could be appropriately displayed). Would this have any undesirable side effects? (Also, on a technical level, if there are no further objections to this proposed modification, I was going to remove all the "-Latn" suffixes from the template's parameter names and just specify that all input parameters are assumed to be IAST-compliant.) Any objections? (Secondarily, if you think this would definitely be used in WP Hinduism articles, should a template name other than "Buddhist term" be used?) Thanks for the additional edification! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on the technical issues about passing an IAST tag into the template (you will recall that this was an issue we dicussed when you did the excellent work to create the previous template). The issue is that in some versions of Internet Explorer, use of an IAST tag wrapping the text results in the most accurate rendering of them (as opposed to just having the raw characters). I think that in the template the parameter names itself should be "sa-IAST" and "pa-IAST" so that the user will be unlikely to use some other romanization method there. That may be another way of making the point that "all input parameters are assumed to be IAST-compliant" as you said, I am not sure. :) If there is a way to have the title be a user-parameter, but with the default value be "Buddhist term", then someone who wanted to do an article just on Indian or Chinese history could perhaps use it, for articles such as Kushan Empire that aren't Buddhist issues, but where Chinese, Sanskrit, and Greek terms are used. Note that that article is a case where Greek, a language not particularly prominent in Buddhism, is critical to Indian history in the same region where Chinese influence was high. Indian history has a lot of contact with China, and the Buddhist issues therein are one of the many interesting examples of cross-fertilization between the two cultures. That article also notes a speculation that Aramaic may have been in use, so you really can't predict what may come up on these articles. Let us not forget Bonji, which is a relative of Devanagari, and which was significant for some of the transmission texts during the period when Sanskrit texts were being transmitted beyond the borders of India.

As an elaboration on why IAST is not equal to the Latin-1 character set, to properly display all the diacritic marks needed for IAST transliteration, a Unicode font must include characters that are spread across several different Unicode character ranges:

Basic Latin: Range U+0000 – U+007F
Latin Extended-A: Range U+0100 – U+017F
Latin Extended Additional: Range U+1E00 – U+1EFF

Thus the IAST system is not limited to the Latin-1 set. The Latin-1 character set is the one used to do "simple transliteration" or "simple romanization", using only characters that appear in the English and Spanish languages. Buddhipriya 06:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, with all due respect, this discussion of Latin-1 is a red herring. By "sa-Latn" we mean IAST. "Latn" is the ISO 15924 code for the Latin alphabet, not for the ISO/IEC 8859-1 charset. Regarding Pali in Devanagari, I tend to agree. Giving IAST for both Pali and Sanskrit, there is no need to also give Devanagari (especially since Devanagari tends to render ugly, at least on all systems I am using). If we decide to only give romanizations (except for Kanjis, of course), I wonder if we need to keep the Sinhala slot, since Sinhalese terms mostly seem to be just a transcription of the Sanskrit one in Sinhalese script (?). I created {{Buddhist term}} paying attention that the full functionality of {{DisplayTranslations}} is preserved, but the idea is, of course, that it should now be optimized for the requirements of the Buddhist context, so please feel free to fiddle with it. thanks, dab (𒁳) 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was with regard to Pali only, where there is no standard script, and I'll leave argument about other languages to those with an interest. I was using the term Latin script in a broad sense. Strictly speaking, one might say that the letter w is not Latin because the ancient Romans didn't have it. There is a point to be thought about here, though. Many computers will not display some of the IAST characters. My own policy in actual articles, which I recommend for general use, is that both pointed and unpointed forms should be used on first occurrence in an article. Thereafter I think the unpointed form should be used, unless it's necessary to distinguish similar words. This avoids having the article full of oblongs. Whether this should apply also to these term boxes I'll have to think about. Peter jackson 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry, you ask "by "Glossary page," are you referring to Buddhist_terms_and_concepts ?" Yes, that's what I had in mind, although a separate simple listing of terms could also be useful to avoid definitional clutter. We should also make sure that users are aware that this listing exists, whether the existing Terms and Concepts page or a new listing. Also, what system is used for the diacritics encoded on that page ? A lot of them look horrible, especially in italics. And does anybody know what font I should have in order to display the Tibetan ? I just get rows of boxes ?--Stephen Hodge 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I use Tibetan Machine Uni for Tibetan script display and Tise for input. The font isn't always beautiful but it works fairly well, except that (for me, at least) superscript r does not display properly. It's still in development and should improve in the future. As for the diacritics, they look fine to me, but I have my font set to Doulos SIL, which is particularly diacritic-friendly. I do worry that the some large portion of our readership will have difficulty displaying diacritics, especially any relatively unusual ones, or that they will look awkward when they do display; but, hopefully, the next few years will bring significant advancements in how well diacritics and unusual characters display on the average person's machine.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment that an editor made ("I was using the term Latin script in a broad sense") is the point I was trying to make, which is that many people may use the term "Latin" in a general sense rather than in a specific sense of a particular romanization method, such as IAST. So when Dab says "By 'sa-Latn' we mean IAST" he is expressing the technical nature of the parameter. But many users, particularly those who may not be exposed to academic texts, may not be aware that IAST is the academic standard for romanization of Pali in reference works like Franklin Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary and in other academic studies of Pali texts. Is there disagreement that for academic transliteration of Pali the standard method is to use IAST? Regarding the issue that some computers cannot display IAST, the same can be said for the other non-Latin1 character sets involved, such as Chinese. That is not an argument not to use Chinese, however. Buddhipriya 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. it's not an argument for not using Chinese at all, but it is an argument for minimizing its use. Peter jackson 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not following up sooner, but I've been on the road and had only limited time and Internet access.

It sounds to me that we are agreed on the following:

Pali and Sanskrit entries should be done with Latin/IAST characters
Pali and Sanskrit entries should not be done using Devanagiri
A link to the Buddhist "glossary" should be added to the end

I plan on implementing these ASAP while making minimum changes to the current template (keeping in mind one caveat mentioned below).

I realize that there is intelligent, reasonable and truly heartfelt concern — especially by Buddhipriya — regarding the parameter names and, perhaps, whether non-IAST Latin should be allowed. I hope it is not seen as unreasonable that I'd like to hold this issue(s) in abeyance for the moment, to be discussed on an on-going basis. At the moment, I'm going to stick with the computer programmer's apothegm that simplicity is user-friendly and I'm going to simply use "pi" (not "pa", by the way, which is the ISO alpha-4 code for Panjabi) for the Pali parameter and "sa" for the Sanskrit. The template's description will include a statement that the expected input for these two parameters is IAST or, at least, Latin. (At this moment, I'd like to allow for the user who, e.g., does not feel comfortable typing in (or know how to type in) "Pāli" but would rather type "Pali" or even "Paali".)

The caveat is that while I haven't fully reviewed dab's coding I don't think it explicitly checks that where IAST/Latin is expected as input, Devanagari is not in fact passed in. That is, if we specify that a parameter should be IAST/Latin and a user passes it Devanagari instead, I think the template will simply show the Devanagari. Moreover, it's not obvious to me using WP tools how to check for this; so, at this time, beyond the planned template description's specifying that the Pali/Sanskrit parameters are expected to be in IAST/Latin, the ultimate line of enforcement will be our following up with appropriate edits and pointers to the consensus reached here in this thread.

I hope my decision to move forward as seen above is not seen as inconsiderate, unreasonable, contentious, harsh or otherwise uncaring. If so, please feel free to partially or wholly revert my pending changes to the Buddhist term template. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the above changes (more or less -- okay, I'm rushed for time, so I specified that "pi" and "sa" parameters should be IAST, period). I've also copied this thread to Template_talk:Buddhist term#Thread from Talk:Buddhism#Buddhist terms template. I'd like to suggest continuing it there, if need be? Thanks for your all's thoughtfulness and shared genius! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

plagarism?

One of the citations reads; Cousins, Dating.

Hah, yes. The full citation is in the reference section: Cousins, L. S. (1996). "The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Series 3 (6.1): 57-63.. The short naming would be Cousins, Dating. I was wondering when someone would notice that. --Gimme danger 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference not found

As I was going through the references, I was unable to find the following: Janice J. Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, 1977. Mahāsāṅghika Origins: the beginnings of Buddhist sectarianism in History of Religions, Vol. 16, pp. 237-272. I've searched isbndb.com for both author names and for the title of the book. If anyone has any information about this reference, that would be greatly appreciated. --Gimme danger 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I was unable to find the source mentioned here:See e.g. the multi-dimensional classification in Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan, New York, 1987.--Gimme danger 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Religions is a periodical, not a book. The latter ref is in the article Buddhism, schools of, in the introductory section. You may find more details in the archive. Peter jackson 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional references

I've moved the following references, which are not mentioned in the notes, here to keep the information easily accessible while keeping the article uncluttered.

Armstrong, Karen (2001). Buddha. Penguin Books, 187. ISBN 0-14-303436-7.
Buswell, Robert E. (ed.) (2003). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. MacMillan Reference Books. ISBN 978-0028657189.
Coogan, Michael D. (ed.) (2003). The Illustrated Guide to World Religions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 1-84483-125-6.
Dhammananda, K. Sri, What Buddhists Believe. [Buddhist Missionary Society of Malaysia]. (2002)

Dickson, John (2004). A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions. Blue Bottle Books.
Donath, Dorothy C. (1971). Buddhism for the West: Theravāda, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna; a comprehensive review of Buddhist history, philosophy, and teachings from the time of the Buddha to the present day. Julian Press. ISBN 0-07-017533-0.

I would be against moving the "unused" references. First of all, these are useful references to the article and a first time visitor is unlikely to go to the talk page--which I understand is to be used for discussion, not for additional article info. Secondly, the fact that a reference is not mentioned in a footnote does not mean that it has not been used in writing the article. I have reverted pending discussion by others about the wisdom of moving the references to the talk page. If there is a consensus for such a move then fine, but it seems to me to set a bad precedent for other articles. --Joel Mc 06:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The logic behind my edit was an attempt to follow suggestions laid out in WP:Citing sources#Footnotes of having a notes section and then a reference section containing those sources cited in the article. Ideally, these references would be incorporated into the article through inline citation at some point, and would be added back. While it's probably true that most of these sources were used in writing the article, without pinning them to specific facts, the list doesn't help a casual reader see exactly where the information in the article came from. I moved the list to the talk page as a resource for editors, not readers. Perhaps a Further Reading section would address everyone's concerns?--Gimme danger 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been away so sorry for the late response to your points, Gimme danger. I understand your concern, but I think that in this case reducing clutter may throw the baby out with the bath water. I think that the references that you moved are useful resources for both readers and editors. It is useful to have a number of resources even if they might contain repetition as many readers might not have access to a large library, but might be able to locate a couple of the books referred to, for example. --Joel Mc 17:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel, then, about clearly separating cited material from uncited material into a references and a suggested reading section, respectively. --Gimme danger 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Attachment (addiction) is not a bad habbit, however depending on......

If attachment is all bad, why human being have to eat, sleep and shit? These are routinely activities and theoretically, these are addictions. Even a routine pray by monks and nuns is an addiction (attachment). Therefore, to me, attachment can be healthy and unhealthy. Healthy addiction will lead one to enlightment whereas unhealthy attachment bring one down. The difference between buddha and ordinary person is that buddha realizes attachment and can brake it or utilize it wisely. In another word, buddha controlls attachment while ordinary people is controlled by attachment

Addiction is not the same as attachment. Arrow740 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Routine pray by monks and nuns is a routine, not an attachment. Attachment is felt in the mind (not in the bodily posture), comes from desire, and leads to identity-views. Greetings, Sacca 10:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, such attachment as attachment to food, according to Tarthang Tulku, could be overcome by using certain yogic practice, sky gazing. (See: Tarthang Tulku. Time, Space, and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality. Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing, 1977.) --Klimov 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives