Template talk:Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|
|---|---|
|
Contents |
[edit] Navayāna (Dalit Buddhist movement) added to "Branches" section?
In regards to today's addition of Navayāna to the "Branches" section of this template, can someone help me understand in what way Navayana is or is not comparable to Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Or is this a new variation on the above #needs more Japan discussion? I ask without reverting because I really know very little about Navayana and the editor (User:Koavf, aka, Justin Anthony Knapp) who inserted this information appears both very sincere and thoughtful. (I'll post to Justin's talk page momentarily.) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Navayana Larry, I added that group, as it appears they fall outside of those other three traditions (and, of course, the two early Buddhist branches.) Since the neo-Buddhist movement was founded by Ambedkar and is uniquely Indian, it is its own movement within the larger culture of Buddhism. I chose the "Navayāna" name even though it is a neologism for conformity with the names used for the other branches. I suppose it is not comparable to those other traditions due to its size and relatively sort history. Thanks for directing me to this discussion; I'd be happy to read others' thoughts. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bhumi
[[Bhumi (Buddhism)|Bhumi]]s was recently added to this template. I reverted this edit because I mistakenly perceived that this new text overwrote links to Meditation and Laity. I now see that my perception was incorrect: the Bhumi article did not replace the latter two articles but instead was inserted before them and they were placed on a new line.
However, I'm disinclined to self-revert (something I've done in the past) because I still concerned about:
- Universality: Bhumi appears to me to be too sectarian (perhaps Vajrayana Buddhism specific?) for the "Practices and Attainments" section
- Hierarchical significance: Bhumi appears to me to be a relatively secondary topic for this template (e.g., one that perhaps could be intellectually subsumed under the notion of "meditation," e.g., as presumably Dhyana is).
- Related expansions of template: Related to the second concern, if we allow Bhumi to be added, what would prevent the adding of topics such as Dhyana, Samadhi, Samatha, Threefold Training, etc., which would cause the expansion of this template contrary to previously expressed views?
Nonetheless, I'd be interested in others' views on this. Thanks for any additional feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Regions vs. Countries
This seems to be a recurring problem. Regions or Countries? On 24 March 2008, in the "Regions" section of this template, "East Asia" was replaced with "China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam". On 26 March 2008, "Mongolia" was added. Prior to all this, the following countries were already enumerated in this section: "India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Bhutan".
Do we want regions or countries? Since the tide has seemed to turn for the moment in the favor of the latter, I changed "Southeast Asia" to Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, etc., and renamed the section "Countries." And then to minimize overt POV, I alphabetized. (FWIW, I decided to finally intervene today because I noticed that the addition of Mongolia expanded the template's width so that the header was uncentered....)
I am completely open to completely reverting to regions (go ahead, do it now if you like, as far as I'm concerned), but I think a hybrid regions/countries section is problemmatic. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Tibet, China"
- A new anon user recently changed "Tibet" to "Tibet, China" and changed "Countries" to "Countries/Regions." I changed "Tibet, China" back to "Tibet" for three reasons:
- By changing "Countries" to "Countries/Regions," "Tibet" is now covered without reference to China
- Probably due to my ignorance (so correct me if I error) but "Tibet, China" sounds to me somewhat neologistic, vs., e.g., "Tibet Autonomous Region of China"
- "Tibet, China" expanded the width of this template which (as indicated a number of times on this talk page) we've been trying hard to maintain or reduce
- So, as it stands, the section title is now "Countries/Regions" and "Tibet" is "Tibet." Any objections? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Navayāna
On 26 March 2008, on-going WP Buddhism contributor User:Koavf added Navayāna to this template. The last time he did this was on 24 Jan. 2008; which long-time WP Buddhism contributor User:Sacca reverted on 28 Jan. 2008 with the Edit Summary of:
- somebody keps putting back the dalits who are theravadins
Is there consensus on this matter? Thanks. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Boy, my memory is feeble. This matter was initially broached above, with Justin's thoughtful response. If anyone is inclined to delete his addition again, can they please also add a persuasive reason for doing so on this talk page. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand the rationale for including Navayāna as one of the major streams of Buddhism. Navayāna has been associated as a movement based on Theravadin Buddhism [1].
- The Wikipedia article on the Dalit Buddhist movement contains this, entirely apt, quote from Gail Omvedt:
- The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?
- It is an open question. Surely not one that we should attempt to decide through our template on Buddhism. I would like to return to the traditional three streams of Buddhism until we can find an authoritative source that suggests that this is a fourth stream. Otherwise, we are going to be in for all kinds of original research claiming that various "Buddhisms" are unique (and potentially the fifth, sixth... nth "yanas"). Sunray (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
