Talk:Buddhist devotion

"Recognized by most scholars as early." Can this be sourced? Mitsube (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory you're right. WP:RS does say that statements of this sort should be sourced. Of course the whole article is in a very unfinished state. I wrote it because the whole topic is grossly neglected by the western(ized) Buddhists who write most of the WP Buddhism material. I assume you're Japanese, so perhaps you might look up the corresponding agama passage to confirm its presence there, on which basis most scholars would date it back to the Asokan period (tho' I can't supply a citation for that at present either). It's somewhat academic anyway since pilgrimage is mentioned in Asoka's inscriptions. Peter jackson (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's early. I'm looking for the reason for stating that it is. There is a lot of material from the Pali Canon that is early but also almost certainly falsely attributed to the Buddha and his disciples, such as the backdated prophecies and the glorification of silly vinaya rules. So why even mention that this and the charm thing are early? Yes it is there. If the point is to imply "the Buddha said it" that's not verifiable. If that's not the point then why say it?

I agree with you that we can't present idealized versions of Buddhism as the real Buddhism, western or otherwise. But to what extent we can indicate what scholars think of as the original Buddhism, we should. Where we can't we shouldn't imply that we are doing so. In fact we should wherever possible relate conclusions as to what things are later "adventitious defilements." That's possibly the most important thing that researchers try to figure out after all. Whether or not we glorify this idealized, completely modern "original Buddhism" we can be fairly certain that there was an original Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the current wording is liable to misinterpretation & should be improved. We mustn't give the impression that it's historical fact that something was taught by the Buddha unless there's consensus among historians to that effect, which in fact there never is. That is, there's nothing whatever that historians agree the Buddha actually taught. The nearest thing I've found to a citation on the subject is one to the effect that most scholars think the Buddha taught something of the sort. This applies across a very large number of WP articles.

As regards the particular material in question here, I think you'll find material of this sort in the Vinaya/Agamas of schools other than Theravada, from which most scholars would probably place it back to the Asokan period. I can certainly find a citation for the likely presence of raksha texts in Buddhism from that period. Beyond that, there's little or no hard evidence for anything. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain this sentence a little more: "According to a spokesman of the Sasana Council of Burma, it is essential for the realization of truth." Mitsube (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you want explained. Is it his status as spokesman, or is it the way it's essential? The purpose of the citation, as of the whole article, is to correct the Western rationalist idea of Buddhism, of course. Peter jackson (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Devotion to what, and what kind of truth. I think people in the West know that Buddhism has a lot of irrational elements. Western Buddhists must be clear that they are making their own way. Mitsube (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the whole paragraph.

"The rationality of Buddhism is not by itself enough–there must also be devotion in order that the truth may be realized. In Buddhism, mere belief is dethroned and replaced by confidence (saddha) based on knowledge of truth. Reason enables man to arrange and systematize knowledge in order to find truth, while confidence gives him determination to be true to his high ideals. Confidence or faith becomes superstition when it is not accompanied by reason, but reason without confidence would turn a man into a machine without feelings or enthusiasm for his ideals. Reason seeks disinterestedly to realize truth, but confidence molds a man's character and gives him strength of will to break all the barriers which hinder his progress in achieving his aims. While reason makes a man rejoice in truths he has already discovered, confidence gives him fresh courage and helps him onward to further conquests, to aspire to work strenuously for the realization of what has not yet been attained. It is this saddha which has the power to transform cold abstract rationalism into a philosophy of fervent hope, love, and compassion. It is also this saddha which is the basis of the loving devotion to the great teacher, the Buddha, his teaching and his holy sangha."

Bear in mind

1. verifiability policy requires that any statements cited from such primary sources should require no interpretation
2. as the article is still very short, we don't want to spend a large proportion of it on Burma

If people in the West know Buddhism has a lot of irrational elements, why didn't they put them in the Buddhism article? Nearly everything there, which is inadequate, was put there by me or at my request. Before I came along, there wasn't one single word about Pure Land, the religion of 1/3 of the world's Buddhists. There still isn't enough. Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the quote. The quote is not evidence of an irrational element. In context, the quote also does not say that devotion to the Buddha is necessary precondition to attain nirvana, which is what I assumed the sentence in this article to mean on first reading. He is saying that devotion to pursuing spiritual aims is necessary as motivation for achieving them. This devotion then produces as a derivative loving devotion to the Buddha, dharma, and sangha which greatly advance the pursuit. This needs to be amended.

Second, the "irrational" elements. Non-rational might be a better word. If there's no actual false logic it would not be "irrational." There should be a balance between theory and practice in the treatment of articles. Certainly Pure Land must be given its full weight. But there's not that much to say about it. People add what they're interested in do they not? If most wikipedians are interested in the ideas of monk Buddhism instead of lay Buddhism then that is what they will add.

In Theravada countries as well most people don't get into Abhidhamma and have a simple folk religion I assume. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the ideas of the Pali Canon far more than the lay practices of the majority of Theravada Buddhists. Ditto for Tibetan Buddhist theories vs. the folk religion which seems to me to be the twin of Hinduism, little as I know about either. The proper treatment is to say, the people who aren't deeply involved in pursuing the ultimate goal think about X Y and Z, while those that are get into the real meat of Buddhism, which is A B and C depending on the sect. Now if it is the case that the monks in Tibet mostly do worship that should be mentioned. But the advanced theories that are the real meat of Buddhism (whatever they are) should be fully explained as the real meat of Buddhism. The sects themselves (aside from Pure Land though this pays lip-service) say that what Western Buddhists are interested in is the real meat. Mitsube (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I only used the term "irrational" because you did. I agree it's not the best word.

It's not a matter of monks vs lay people. In China, even monks are almost exclusively Pure land.

In principle we should deal mainly with the "official" teachings in the scriptures & other recognized authorities, where this differs from folk religion. In fact, tho', much of what Westerners tend to dismiss as ignorant peasant superstition has clear scriptural authority. This of course applies to Pure Land, but also to relics, pilgrimage, protection spells &c.

You can't treat Pure Land as an exception. It's followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists. It would be like treating Protestantism as an exception to Christianity, when it's followed by about 1/3 of the world's Christians.

Bear in mind also that it's not our job to create an overall picture of Buddhism. that's forbidden by WP:OR. Our job is to try to summarize the pictures presented by scholars.

To emphasize advanced teachings & ignore elementary ones would give a false picture.

So far as I know, it's normal practice for monks following "advanced" practices to carry on with devotional practices as well, & I'm pretty sure tradition regards this as essential. The Visuudhimagga talks of surrendering oneself to the Buddha &/or one's teacher, & Tibetan texts say similar things.

Finally for now, you should remember that your own Japanese clergy aren't monks as understood in other Buddhist countries & the West, & indeed are mostly married. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes of course the Pali canon is full of superstitious nonsense. So there is definitely scriptural grounding. Also there are certainly Pure Land scriptures. I'm talking about levels of emphasis. Pure Land is an exception because in the other sects the monks (or priests or, as far as I know, lamas, though that situation seems to be more complex) are more engaged in meditative cultivation for the sake of pursuing enlightenment in this life. Or at least they should be doing so in theory, though I have no doubt that most Buddhist monks don't seriously pursue meditation. So there is a high vs. low distinction. Mitsube (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoping to potentially be helpful, if I may toss in an idea: Wendy Cadge's book (based on her dissertation) "Heartwood" (2005) documents two Theravada communities in the U.S. — one an immigrant (largely) Thai community and the other a largely "white" (her word) community (which she at times appears to refer to as typifying "convert" communities, although it's not clear to what extent the latter group self-identify as "converts"). Among other things, Cadge reports that the former community generally takes refuge in the Buddha to seek protection and participates at the their temple to achieve merit, while the latter does not necessarily take refuge or pursue "merit" at all and largely identifies with the "mental development" aspects (e.g., meditation) of Buddhism. While such does not necessarily create a division between uneducated lay and scholastic monastic practices of which Mitsube might be thinking, it is suggestive of a similar (perhaps overlapping?) distinction between traditional and Western practices (perhaps akin to what Peter is pointing to?). It also does it using, I believe, a WP:RS source (University of Chicago press). I realize this is limited to Theravada Buddhism (and is just a qualitative case study), but I thought such (especially if similar pan-Buddhist material could be found) might meet the desire to create a distinction between traditional/Western practices while using WP:RS sources. Two cents, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism says Western Buddhism is almost entirely modernist, not traditionalist. I already cited this at Buddhism in the West. The more detailed material you mention connects with Spiro's classification of Theravada into nibbanic, kammatic & apotropaic aspects, mentioned in that article. He makes the point I was making, that all of this is rooted in the Pali Canon. Also in that article is a listing of some categories of modern Theravada movements, including what has been called ultimatism, the concentration on the ultimate teachings while ignoring the elementary ones. Peter jackson (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, is it true that western experiments with Zen are also mostly modernist? Japanese Zen is already pretty "clean" but it also has excessive ritualism and dogmatism of its own. Western Tibetan Buddhists seem to have quite traditional Tibetan ideas from my reading. This excludes people like B. Alan Wallace but includes even such people as Robert Thurman who believes in the mythology. From your last quote what are the "elementary ones?" You mean the ritualistic aspects? Mitsube (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was you who talked of "advanced" teachings. What did you mean by that? I was simply stating a general principle.

I'm not an expert on Zen, so I can't go into much detail here. There's an article in 1 of the Encyclopedias of Buddhism, Macmillan or Routledge, I forget which, about popular misconceptions of Zen, but I haven't looked at it in detail. Something I remember from elsewhere (eg Dumoulin) is that since Hakuin, or shortly after, Rinzai has arranged its koans in a carefully graded system. Once you've "solved" a koan of the lowest grade to the satisfaction of your teacher, you get a nice calligraphic certificate saying you've attained satori of that grade, & if you want to continue you get a koan of the next grade. This doesn't fit the popular Western image of Zen. Devotional practices are standard, eg recitation of the Heart Sutra. (As an aside, I might mention here that the HS is included in the tantra section of the Kanjur, as is also, in most editions at least, a version of the Atanatiya Sutta, a standard protection text in the Pali Canon.

Likewise, I'm not an expert on Tibetan Buddhism. I think at present it's not too constructive to try to go into too much detail. The reason I created this article in the 1st place was that the chaotic arrangement of the Buddhism article left no obvious place to put this material. That's now been dealt with, so I suggest we not bother too much with this article until the relevant section of that one's been dealt with.

A bit more on the Pali Canon:

1. In so far as it's possible to tell, most of the Canon seems to be addressed to monks, so in that respect you're right to a fair extent about emphasis
2. However, most of the material in the Canon that seems to be addressed to laity is about the things that traditional Theravada laity concentrate on:
   1. in the earlier parts of the Canon, morality
   2. in the later parts, devotion
3. In the vast bulk of the Canon, there are only a handful of references to lay meditation

Conclusion: traditional Theravada is broadly faithful to the Canon, while modernist forms, while paying lip service, actually try to jump past to an alleged precanonical teaching. Peter jackson (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This page has many articles where Western Buddhist monks are showing how the Visuddhimagga strayed from the early material in the Canon. But they seem to still have a somewhat fundamentalist view of the Canon itself. That is unfortunate. Mitsube (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles by Buddhist monks are not reliable sources for the "correct" interpretation of the Canon. They simply give the authors' opinions. Anyway, did I mention the Visuddhimagga? I could have done, of course. In fact it supports your position more than the Canon does, having only a handful of mentions of laity. Peter jackson (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)