Talk:Buddhism

Beyond Charles Eliot and the 4NT

Archived to Talk:Buddhism/Archive Buddhism_Policy and re-submitted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism

BUDDHISM IS NOT THE EARLIEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD

The three citations [182, 183, 184] referring to a claim that Buddhism is the earliest religion in the world is very misleading. The timeline showng the beginning of buddhism was only several hundreds years before Christ, however, in the Old Testament, one can easily find many books referring to the existence of religion far far before Buddhism. In Buddhism, the concept of causation of sin and punishment was described in the Old Testament in the Bible in book "Job", which was about 2000 years before Christ. Job was very faithful but he suffered a lot in his life. This book chapter in the Old Testament described his strong faith in God through his conversations with his best friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hk0618 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no actual physical evidence of Judaism before Buddhism, only fake stories written much later. For example, Abraham is a myth according to every scholar. LhunGrub (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hindu scripture goes back millions of years. Take that as you will ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.119.152 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

i would doubt that- there are books of the bible which are confirmed to be at least 4000 years old. also, I'm new to wikipedia, if i did anything wrong in writing this please inform me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.173.84 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(Preceding comment reformatted for display) Dru of Id (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kruger (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Why is there a false claim that there are no physical signs of Judaism before Buddhism. What about the first temple, destroyed 586 BCE? The temple was built 400 years prior to that. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls--themselves dating from 200 BCE (physical enough) and copies of Prophecies that came to modern times, (almost word for word in some cases) from other, independent sources. Also, who is "every scholar" who qualifies Abraham as a myth? Maimonides, perhaps? (sarcastic)Mark Kruger (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally find it hard to believe that any modern religion can claim to be the 'earliest' in the world. There are signs of religious activity (ritual burial, ornaments, etc) going back at least 40,000y if not 160,000y, but the remaining evidence (e.g. using red ochre during burial) of such activity bears no resemblance to any modern religions. If we are to accept religious texts as being valid, then Buddhism is indeed very old - indeed timeless, in that it predates the beginning of the universe, with Sakyamuni Buddha being the fourth Buddha of this particular universal cycle, but with an infinite number of cycles (and corresponding Buddhas) predating this one. However, if we want to examine the oldest extant religion using archeological data, we are still on incredibly difficult ground - for instance, pre-Persian (but nevertheless post-Abraham - see (see Semitic gods ) for pre-Abraham religious activity in the Levant) Judaism looked completely different from post-persian Judaism; one may claim that the thread of Judaism is long, but to claim that it's the same religion (and that it is unchanged over millennia) would not be acceptable to most scholars. Likewise, the thread of Hinduism, via the early Brahmin traditions centred on the Rg Veda, also go way back into the Copper age (7,000y). (see Proto-Indo-European religion It is hard to be precise about the age of the Rg Vedas, but they certainly involve such inventions as the bow, the chariot, and so on, so from an anthropological/archeological viewpoint they cannot predate the Copper age . Likewise, the Avestas of the Zoroastrians are ancient, and for many scholars appear to belong to an opposing but theologically related population. By the time one gets to examine the evidence of PIE religious activity it would be hard to separate 'Hinduism', 'Zoroastrianism', Pre-Abrahamic 'Judaism', from the generic Indo-European pantheon with any particularly meaningful distinction. I guess one may make an assertion that Zoroaster or Abraham popularised monotheistic religion, but that's not the same as stating that such religions are the oldest in the world. Of course, the unbroken thread of the dreamtime traditions of the Australian aborigines predate (evidence demonstrates at least 10,000y) the Copper age Indo-European pantheon (7,000y) by 3,000 years. (20040302 (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

There is a lot of evidence showing that Abrahamic/Semitic tradition predates Buddhism, which indeed inherits (and/or refutes) many doctrinal concepts from its mother religion Vedic Hinduism. I donʻt think I understand what user 20040302 means by "Pre-Abrahamic ʻJudaismʻ" since there was no ʻJudaismʻ before or during the alleged time of Abraham; perhaps a simple form of monotheism, but not the tradition originating with the prophet Moses some 400 years later.

Nevertheless, Buddhism, as past down from Siddhartha Gautama over 2400 years ago, is still fairly intact if we can accept that what is recorded in the Tripitaka is historical. The Vinaya lineage tradition (ʻcommandmentsʻ) is still practiced by both Theravada and Mahayana devotees, but are more or less limited in the Mahayana due to cultural constraints in various East Asian areas. We can at least confidently say that vinaya tradition goes back to the time of the Buddhaʻs immediate disciples, some 2400 years ago. -Ano-User (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that the sentence says 'oldest world religion', not oldest religion. A world religion is conventionally defined by having spread widely beyond the cultural group in which it originated- a description that would fit Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam but not Judaism or Zoroastrianism. Hinduism seems like a bit of an edge case- areas of Southeast Asia were certainly Brahmanist at various times, but that tradition does not seem to have spread much beyond the upper classes or to have endured historically much outside of India. --69.181.117.168 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The term world bears no weight, as the concept of the world is a cultural one. Ideas that there is a well-defined boundary of a 'cultural group' doesn't mean much either. IMO The claim is of no particular value, and is merely provocative. I would likewise state that for Buddhism, it's pervasion and or popularity doesn't demonstrate any particular quality or benefit. So what is it for? (20040302 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

astrologer

Is the reference to an astrologer who visited G shortly after his birth meant to refer to Kala Devala?Kdammers (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

--When editing the lead section keep in mind what a reader may want to know: what, who, where, when and how. Please don't delete this advice!--> Buddhism (Pali/Sanskrit: बौद्ध धर्म Bauddha Dharma) is a philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, Webdrag (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In this first part of the wiki about Buddhism i want to delete the part where they say Buddhism is a religion because its not.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Previous discussion on this issue may be found in the archives. While a good argument could be made for your position, the current version is the consensus version worked out by multiple editors through discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

rebirth

i want to know clear idea about this.i believe after death we rebirth and before birth we have some intermidite position untill we get rebirth.that mean when we die in the same time we will not go to next birth.sometime it will take time to get birth.so in that time what is happening us.ple give u r ideas about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.18 (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You may find what you are looking for at Talk:Tibetan Buddhism. Try there. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of Buddhists in the world exceed 1.5 billion by conservative estimates.

There are numerous credible reports that the majority of Chinese people are in fact Buddhist although the Government is Communist. The 350-500 million number estimate is a gross under-estimation as it is based on the CIA Handbook which every other site quotes off of. When it comes to China, the CIA Handbook is NOT a credible or unbiased source due to the PR war between both nations. There are many credible articles that suggest there are over 1 billion Buddhists in China and this has to be accounted for. Similarly, in India, there are reports of hundreds of millions of Hindus who also practice Buddhism, also worship the Buddha in their prayer alters and also subscribe to Buddhist philosophy. Swami Vivekananda himself verified this by calling himself a Buddhist on many occasions. It is very important to include this in the discussion when stating that there are only 350-500 million Buddhists. That is not accurate and Wikipedia should also strive for accuracy instead of merely regurgitating falsehoods. Thanks everyone for your kind consideration and thought on this topic. Here is an article that can shed more light on the subject: http://www.thedhamma.com/buddhists_in_the_world.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhistPHD (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Please see WP:GREATWRONGS. If "the number of Buddhists around the world is grossly underestimated", it is not our job to correct that great wrong. It is our job, on the other hand, to cite reliable sources and to compose accurate encyclopedia articles. As the talk archives show, the most reliable sources classify these numbers separately under different categories rather than lumping them into one category. Please consult the archives. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Brahmavihara, the four immeasurables

Hello. Would someone here kindly point me to the section of this article that explains Brahmavihara? I come a roundabout path which doesn't mention this, as far as I know, but it seems to be a central practice for Buddhism. Looking quickly in Google, "the four immeasurables" appear in Thubten Chodron, University of Pennsylvania, About.com, Buddhanet.net, Amazon.com, and Google Books. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read this article now, top to bottom. It doesn't mention Brahmavihara or the four immeasurables. How terribly sad that one could have a Wikipedia featured article on Buddhism that completely missed covering the path to Nibbana. I'd appreciate a note on my talk page if anyone ever responds to this comment. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will contact you on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a former Featured Article, so there is work to be done to improve it. I agree with Susan's point that the Brahmavihara is a central teaching. Sunray (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the unsourced version that was initially promoted, you'll find that it would not pass the current FA criteria, as much has changed since 2004. Brahmaputra does not appear to be a central teaching in Buddhism, as most Buddhists do not get that deep into the practice, unfortunately. For example, what percentage of Buddhists engage in daily meditation? And what percentage of those attain jhanas? I hope you see my point. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mention "Brahmaputra." I've always thought of that as a river. The Four Immeasurables are certainly important in Theravada (think Metta). Contemplation of the Four Immeasurables is one of the practices leading to Bodhicitta in Tibetan Buddhism. As to meditation: How could one call oneself a "Buddhist" if one doesn't meditate? Sunray (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of Buddhists who meditate is extremely small, probably 1%. You may want to take a look at Buddhism in Thailand as an example. My understanding is that the average Thai Buddhist does not meditate at all and leaves that type of thing to the monks. In any case, the reason for this is obvious. It is extremely difficult to live in the world and maintain a daily meditative practice, and one has to be very disciplined to do it every day. You also have to be part of a sangha and have a teacher, because if you do it by yourself without knowing what you are doing, strange things start to happen, and some people have a tendency to freak out if they don't have guidance. I'm also not aware of anyone who says you must meditate to be a Buddhist. (Apparently, Firefox's dictionary automatically changed Brahmavihara to Brahmaputra somehow, or perhaps I clicked it by accident.) Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we got into this discussion about Buddhist meditation statistics. I haven't seen any statistics on actual practice so am not able to discuss that beyond saying that it was taught by the Buddha and remains central to several traditions of Buddhism. Did you have more to add about Brahmavihara? Sunray (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Buddhist practitioners, meditation is one of two components that helps develop the state of mind needed for the brahmaviharas, the other being conduct. I've already informed SusanLesch on her talk page that she should make the changes she thinks are needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with your assessment, as many people who are Buddhists in Tibet and China use meditation via mantra practice regularly. These would be far above 1% of the Buddhists in those respective regions. There is also information supporting this in the records of Ming Dynasty China, that meditation and mantra practice were pervasive and popularly integrated into the lives of ordinary people. Tengu800 12:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely and implausible that the ordinary person in Asia would have the time and the skills to meditate. In modern times, it might be argued that "meditation is central to most Euro-American Buddhists, for leaders and lay people alike". However, "this is a startling contrast to historical Asian Buddhism, where meditation was always a relatively uncommon practice engaged in by a small number of elites, usually monks."[1] I believe that is the supported version of history. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"In Chinese Buddhism, lay practitioners have traditionally played an important role, and lay practice of Buddhism has had similar tendencies to those of monastic Buddhism in China.[23] Many historical biographies of lay Buddhists are available, which give a clear picture of their practices and role in Chinese Buddhism. In addition to these numerous biographies, there are accounts from Jesuit missionaries such as Matteo Ricci which provide extensive and revealing accounts to the degree Buddhism penetrated elite and popular culture in China.[23] Traditional practices such as meditation, mantra recitation, mindfulness of Amitābha Buddha, asceticism, and vegetarianism were all integrated into the belief systems of ordinary people.[23] It is known from accounts in the Ming Dynasty that lay practitioners often engaged in practices from both the Pure Land and Chán traditions, as well as the study of the Buddhist sūtras. The Heart Sūtra and the Diamond Sūtra were the most popular, followed by the Lotus Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.[23] Laypeople were also commonly devoted to the practice of mantras, and the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī and the Cundī Dhāraṇī were very popular.[23] Robert Gimello has also observed that in Chinese Buddhist communities, the esoteric practices of Cundī enjoyed popularity among both the populace and the elite.[24]" In addition to historical material such as this, there is much material regarding popular use of mantras by modern laypeople, such as recitation of Namo Amituofo, Namo Guanshiyin Pusa, Om Manipadme Hum, and even long Dharanis like the Mahakaruna Dharani, which are all forms of meditation. The importance of laity in Indian Buddhism and cases of advanced lay practitioners there is also documented in the travel journels of Chinese pilgrims. Tengu800 01:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you are being purposefully silly so as to spark discussion and refutation or if you are ignoring the entire history of Buddhism to promote a revisionist idea that the masses meditated in the world in the same way that the monks meditated in the monasteries or in caves, but it's not true, and no reliable source supports it. Some people make good meditators and others don't, and Buddhist schools recognized this a long time ago. Further, you have to have be relatively wealthy and have lots of free time, which aside from monks, is pretty rare. I suspect the only reason we know of any Buddhists who meditate outside of these schools is because of the recent migration of Buddhist teachers around the world due to conflict, war, and political pressures. This idea that the majority of Buddhists meditate isn't supported. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since both monks and ordinary laypeople use mantras in Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism, for example, you would be wrong to say that laypeople do not meditate using similar methods as monks. There is much historical evidence to support this, and all you have given are vague statements about "Asians". As for meditation requiring much free time, this is not true, and many meditators may only practice for a few minutes, or a half hour a day. In Japan, for example, laypeople were traditionally encouraged by the Zen school to practice for a small amount of time. You seem to be overlooking the fact as well, that meditation is not simply something that people may do while sitting down austerely in full lotus position, but is also something that may be practiced while standing, walking, etc. Classically in East Asia, for example, there are 72 sitting positions for meditation. If you would like, I can add material to the article in support of historical and contemporary practices of meditation in East Asia by laypeople. Of course, I do not (as you erroneously suggest) state that the majority of lay Buddhists meditate. What I do suggest is that it was never rare among Buddhists in regions such as China and Tibet. Tengu800 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion isn't supported by historical facts. Farmers do not have free time to meditate. Most Buddhists are not monks with free time to meditate. "Monks are to focus on meditation without the distractions of farming or the accumulation of personal wealth."[2] Why would Eisai make this observation about "actual contemporary practices"? Because the average Buddhist did not have the free time necessary to meditate unless they were a monk and most people were concerned with making money to survive. In the off chance you've never held a job or had to worry about making money, let me be the first to tell you that both of those things are not conducive to a daily, disciplined practice of meditation. That's why in the west, people are encouraged to go on retreats, as the Western lifestyle makes meditation very difficult. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your postings here are just original research. For example, how do you know how much free time farmers had in 15th century China, and what they chose to do with it? Do you have any actual facts, or are you just expressing your own personal incredulity and prejudices? There is much factual information about laypeople who practiced a variety of meditation methods, including personal anecdotes written specifically about farmers and villagers in imperial China who did meditate. Even the earliest Catholic missionaries to China wrote about such things, which is briefly hilighted in the text I included above. Tengu800 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me correct your misunderstanding of history: "Meditation is central to most Euro-American Buddhists, for leaders and lay people alike. This is a startling contrast to historical Asian Buddhism, where meditation was always a relatively uncommon practice engaged in by a small number of elites, usually monks."[3] Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Broad generalizations about "Asian Buddhism" are not comparable to a true study on practices in individual countries and traditions, which is what my material contains. Again, you seem to cling to vague pan-Asian theories of Buddhism which lack any specifics about practice, and cite no sources or have any clear basis in historical records. Tengu800 13:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're pushing a POV not supported by historical sources. See for example Welch, Holmes. (1967) The Practice of Chinese Buddhism, 1900-1950. Harvard University Press. The book describes the elite practice of meditation by monks in China during the early to mid 20th century, a practice that is consistently described as difficult and challenging. Then there's the debunking of Japanese Buddhism by Duncan Ryūken Williams. (2005). The Other Side of Zen. Princeton University Press. Williams maintains that "the vast majority of ordinary Sōtō Zen monks and laypeople never practiced Zen meditation".[4] The great difficulty of meditation and its historical absence of practice by the laity until the mid 20th century is also observed in Sri Lanka by anthropologists and scholars of religion[5] Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A western scholar saying that meditation is "difficult" does not make it fact, because that is like someone saying that riding a motorcycle is difficult. No matter what rationale there is for it, it's not an objective statement that can be proven, and each person may have different experiences. As for proof of lay practice of meditation in Chinese Buddhism prior to 1950, there is quite a bit of information available even in basic sources like the works of Charles Luk, a layman who was a disciple of a Tibetan tulku and the Chan master Hsu Yun during the first half of the 20th century. He was the author of a comprehensive book on Chinese Buddhist meditation. In addition to his own example, he also translates and cites many instances of laypeople practicing meditation and seeking out meditation teachings such as those of the Tiantai school and those of Tibetan Buddhism (i.e. Chinese seeking out Tibetan teachers). In particular, the accounts of Yin Shizi are rich and useful sources that date to the late 19th century or early 20th century. Yin even mentions that in his little village, there were a few elderly men who had "mastered the art of meditation," who gave him some advice when he first began practicing meditation. If you want more scholarly sources for practices such as mantra recitation, visualization, or mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha, then I can provide those as well. As for Japan and Sri Lanka, we are not discussing the Buddhist practice in those countries, nor have we been. Tengu800 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You refer to "the ordinary person in Asia." That is a very broad generalization. Practices are very different in Thai villages as compared to large cities. It is true that in some places Buddhism has more to do with religious observance than practice. However, I agree with Tengu800 that there is a long history of meditation in Tibet and China. In other countries, including Japan and Korea, there are many Buddhists who meditate daily. Sunray (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a long history of meditation by a small minority of Buddhists. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source for this. Do you have any? Sunray (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cook 2010. It didn't become popular until the 1950s. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read Tim Ward's What the Buddha Never Taught in which he describes Buddhism in Thailand. My problem is with making sweeping generalizations. Sorry about that, it's just my training in the social sciences :) Sunray (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cook's findings support everything I've said above. Meditation is uncommon because it is challenging and requires lots of free time usually only available to monks in monasteries. Tengu800 refuses to accept this fact, and that's fine with me. But you can find source after source making this claim. For example, in Jordt 2007 a monk claims that vipassanā meditation was uncommon in Burma before Mahasi Sayadaw brought it to the public, and didn't even become popular until the 1990s. Which is exactly what I've been saying. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Vipassana meditation" is irrelevant to this discussion because it is not a classical form of Buddhist meditation, and is basically a Theravada phenomenon, when we are talking here about regions such as China and Tibet. Note that vipassana is found in the classical texts, but only as a principle of meditation. Theravada Buddhism typically makes a strong distinction between the practices and responsibilities of monastics and laity. Essentially, laity are regarded mainly as the supporters of monastics, and are not typically encouraged to meditate in Theravada traditions. As I've stated before, meditation does not necessarily involve a great deal of free time, and your own opinion that it is "challenging" is just that — your opinion. Tengu800 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every source on the subject of vipassana, and the free time required for Buddhist meditation in general, as well as its challenging aspects, is at odds with your strange, personal opinion. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It is no use brandishing sources that are not available on the Internet, Viriditas, unless you quote from them. Also, I find Tengus' comments quite apt and useful. While this may be an interesting discussion, I don't think it should be pursued further here, as it now has scant relevance to the article. Sunray (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Meditation isn't easy, and it isn't widely practiced historically. It became popular after the 1950s. I'm sorry that you disagree with those facts, but they are fully supported by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion about how prevalent (traditionally) meditation has been (and is) amongst the laity of Buddhist countries with much interest. I have no vested emotional or intellectual interest in either side of this debate (for what it is worth, I personally think that meditation is generally extremely important as a part of Buddhist practice). However, as someone with 4 years' experience of living, studying Buddhism and teaching in Thailand, I can confirm that in Thailand at least it is far, far from usual for the 'laity' to practise meditation. Most of the Thais seem to be what I would call 'nominally Buddhist' (just as many English people might be termed 'nominally Christian'). I suspect that Viriditas is basically correct, and that this pattern of the vast majority of lay Buddhists not meditating on a very frequent basis is the norm - including in the Mahayana countries. Professor Carl Bielefeldt of Stanford University has some interesting words on this (he is writing about Buddhism in America, but also largely about the Mahayana forms of Buddhism in culturally Buddhist nations). He says:

'For the most part, laity in immigrant Buddhism, like laity in Asia, don't engage in meditation --a practice for the ascetic monks who are imitating the Buddha's lifestyle of renunciation. They don't expect to become enlightened beings like the Buddha; they just want the Buddha to help them make it through this life and into better circumstances in the next. This kind of old-time Buddhism doesn't often get into the American media and doesn't attract many converts from outside the ethnic group.' ('The Direction of Buddhism in America'). This tends to back up what Viriditas is saying. Of course, it is difficult to be certain about how many lay Buddhists did and do meditate, as no one has ever carried out an in-depth and extensive survey in this area (as far as I am aware). So it's possible that Tengu is right after all. My own impression, however, is that the bulk of cultural lay Buddhists did not, and do not, engage on a daily basis in what we would normally understand as Buddhist meditation (samatha and vipassana - which are also important in some significant areas of the Mahayana - my own field of study). That's my little contribution to the debate. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wish me luck because I came here to learn about this topic, rather than write it. Sunray, thanks for pointing out this is a former featured article. I went back in the history and didn't find any mention in 2004 either. We can try to fix that now. Also sorry if I mischaracterized the point of the four immeasurables which are essential to awakening. But probably more importantly, they lead people to a peaceful world plus they appear to originate with Gautama. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on your past contributions, I can't think of anyone more qualified than you to write it. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Here's another question. Where is a good source with a free license to something like this? Thanks. Three versions:

• May all sentient beings have happiness and its causes,
• May all sentient beings be free of suffering and its causes,
• May all sentient beings never be separated from bliss without suffering,
• May all sentient beings be in equanimity, free of bias, attachment and anger.

• May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
• May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.
• May all beings rejoice in the well-being of others.
• May all beings live in peace, free from greed and hatred.

• May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness.
• May we be free of suffering and the root of suffering.
• May we not be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering.
• May we dwell in the great equanimity, free from passion, aggression, and prejudice.

-SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Search for "metta bhavana". Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. That could come in handy for a missing citation. What I'm wondering is where are the original texts that must be out of copyright? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See p. 75 of the Shrīchakrasambhāra tantra: a Buddhist tantra, translated by Kazi Dawa-Samdup (1868–1922) and published by Biblia Impex India (1919) on Google Books:

May all sentient beings have happiness and be endowed with the cause thereof.

May all sentient beings be free of pain and its causes.

May all sentient beings ever enjoy happiness unalloyed with pain.

May they feel supremely equable.

Does that help? Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it does help. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Susan, looking for the most common of the four translations, it seems that the first one is widely used. I think we should use that one. We don't have to worry about copywrite issues because it meets the requirement for fair use. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't know what else we're missing but this topic seems covered now. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like what you have done with it and agree that it is well-covered now. Sunray (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The four bhrama viharas were never held to lead to liberation. They are the practice of devas and humans that only lead to a better rebirth. Please correct the article. CO2Northeast (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

CO2Northeast, you are welcome to make changes to this article and add any applicable reliable sources (WP:RS). I would say though that Karen Armstrong is a good source (plus she is mentioned in the article) not likely to mislead. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this last issue, The practice of Brahmavihara is widely regarded as a virtuous action (hence the high rebirth into the realm of Brahma) which acts as an antidote to the mental non-virtues of avarice, anger and pride. If we accept that the mechanism of the fourth noble truth are the threefold training of śīla,samādhi,prajñā - (as reflected in the eightfold path, the six perfections, and the tantras) then we can identify brahmavihara as a śīla practice of the fourth. More specifically, it is a desire-realm śīla practice. It is normally considered that liberation is not achievable without prajñā (see Pratītyasamutpāda ); likewise, there are plenty of texts which say that śīla-samādhi is common to Buddhists and non-Buddhists - leading to Deva rebirth. However, prajñā without samādhi does not have the strength to cut the root of suffering - and samādhi without śīla is considered unachievable, (though bear in mind that the actual nature of śīla differs in accordance with the method of achieving samādhi - and therefore there are different emphases of śīla across different traditions). If this reasoning is acceptable then we can definitively state that Brahmavihara does assist in the path to liberation - but they are not enough on their own to achieve liberation, as they themselves aren't prajñā, and therefore otherwise there would be no need for all three higher trainings. The question that I raise is what, specifically, CO2Northeast means by 'lead to'? Does CO2Northeast reject śīla as being unnecessary for liberation, does s/he reject Brahmavihara as being śīla, or is s/he merely stating common doctrine - that śīla without samādhi/prajñā cannot result in liberation? (20040302 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

The Four Brahmaviharas, if practiced alone, cannot lead to liberation. The Four Brahmaviharas are shared with other religions. Certainly the Brahmaviharas combined with understanding dependent coarising and sunyata can lead to liberation. CO2Northeast (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please correct this error. CO2Northeast (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Vairocana

Hello. I'm a little bit troubled by this sentence (in Buddhism#Similar_representations), and wonder if anybody here can and would improve it. I changed it twice and I hope it's fair to say now. "Statues of Amitābha, the central figure in Pure Land Buddhism, and statues of Vairocana, in Shingon and Vajrayana Buddhism, are likewise distinct from statues of Gautama." Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Steve (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

Snoochismooches (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)