Talk:History of Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article History of Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 24, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article History of Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Councils[edit]

The current descriptions of the Councils are highly inadequate, characterized by a biassed Theravadin POV. It is rather a shame that my previous articles have been removed and replaced by what, in the case of the Second Council is a prick and replaced?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps on the Spread Of Buddhism[edit]

The maps on the spread of Buddhism are rather hard to read, pixelated, and in general not as helpful as they could be. A great map of the spread by Houghton Mifflin Compnay (the textbook people) is here. http://faculty.southwest.tn.edu/mpratt/1110Tele/MapAsiaBuddhism.htm The problem is it's copyrigted. Could we claim fair use or could someone with graphics knowledge take a map of asia and draw in the cities and arrows. If we did the latter, we could seek to illustrate the information in the article better instead of just emulating the textbook map. For example, we could have some sort of color coded timeline.

I would do this but am not good with graphics.

Ed-it 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Schools[edit]

In time, up to 18 schools of the traditional Buddhist thought arose, the only remaining one today being the Eastern Theravada school. I don't understand this: what about the Mahayana school? Are these 18 schools confined to an earlier period? Markalexander100 05:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mahayana is typically seen as a later development ... at least Mahayana as a school is. The wording "in time," should still be more specific. Personally, I think the idea of "the 18 schools" seems like an anachronistic oversimplification, but I don't know enough about it to speak authoritatively. - Nat Krause 05:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Introduced the following paragraph at the end of the life of the Buddha: "The Buddha's reluctance to name a successor or to formalize his doctrine led to the emergence of many mouvements during the next 400 years: first the schools of Nikaya Buddhism, of which only Theravada remains today, and then the formation of Mahayana, a pan-Buddhist mouvement based on the acceptance of new scriptures.". Indeed clearer I hope. PHG 12:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Several kingdoms competed for influence in the region, the Cambodian Funan, then the Theravada Buddhist Burmese Mon kingdoms. What does this have to do with the history of Buddhism? Markalexander100 05:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dropped the phrase PHG 12:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Buddhist faith was probably introduced from Central Asia: the first translators of Buddhists scripture were either Parthian like An Shigao (c. 148 CE), or Kushan. Translators into Chinese, or some other language? Markalexander100 05:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Into Chinese. Added in the text. PHG 12:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He ... forced the faith to go underground, therefore affecting the ulterior development of the religion and its arts in China. This is very cryptic. What was this effect? Markalexander100 05:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Modified for "Throughout his territory, he confiscated Buddhist possessions, destroyed monateries and temples, and executed Buddhist monks, ending Buddhism's cultural and intellectual dominance." PHG 12:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pure Land and Chan Buddhism however, at the origin of Japanese Zen, Were they both sources of Zen? Or just Chan? Markalexander100 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Addressed this point. Pure Land influence on Zen is minimal, except in the Obaku sect. - Nat Krause 06:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! Markalexander100 00:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a religion? My understanding was that it was not a religion.

It is, depeding on POV.

A bit could be said on the interaction of Sri Lankan, Myanmar en Thai Theravada over the last 500 centuries. Several times these countries relied on each oether to revive the lokal Sangha. 81.155.112.208 10:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashoka Column picture removed[edit]

This picture was removed because of possible copyright violation. The copyright notice on Wikipedia incorrectly stated that the picture is from buddha101.com and used with the permission of the author of that site. The picture is not on buddha101.com and no permission was given.

religious implication[edit]

Featured Article Status[edit]

This article was elevated to FA status a long time ago, and standards have changed since then. Currently, the article has no inline references, and many paragraphs are stubby or incomplete. If these issues are not dealt with in the next week or two, I will take the article to WP:FAR. --Danaman5 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the stubby paragraphs, I got the feeling that it's the result of the several cuts with which a number of editors has been trying to reduce its size (currently 53 KB), but I've been monitoring the page only for a month or two. I agree that there should be more inline references (it's not true that there are none); why don't you help putting {{fact}} where you feels there needs to be one? That would help the other editors to look for sources. --Εξαίρετος (Noia 64 apps email.pngmsg) 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish[edit]

There was a lot of this in the article, which I've deleted some that I've noticed. The worst was the crackpot theory of Buddhism in ancient Britain, but there's a fair amount of legends from various Buddhist traditions treated as historical facts, & theories treated as facts. Peter jackson 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the rubbish category we also have Thundy's phonetically and historically dubious connection of 'Theravada' and 'Therapeutae'. The one being not Pa li but Sanskrit, I believe, the other, a Greek Word of some likely antiquity with related words such as 'Therapon'. This sect was described by Philo as determined keepers of the Sabbath. Is there some Buddhist Sabbath keeping tradition that aficionados of Jewish and Christian Buddhist roots are keeping from the rest of us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuwhirled (talkcontribs) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable!![edit]

I am questioning the reliability of Donald A Mackenzie's quote of Origen in which he stated, "The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead" Origen, "Commentary on Ezekiel" I have searched for this quote of Origen and can not find it. Can anyone else? Is it reliable to use a quote that cannot be found? Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underated (talkcontribs) 16:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote has now been removed as it cannot be found in Origen's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underated (talkcontribs) 10:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have removed this again. See: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2927 --Ryan Baumann (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To be mentioned?[edit]

I've found this text casually and I don't know how best insert its content (or some of the information) into the text. Anybody who wants to can do it, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.22.216 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

Why is this one? It doesn't cite any source for even a single one osf the statements in it. A lot of them are just legends, theories, or just out of date. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I tagged the section on the life of the Buddha as NPOV, but I suspect that the same may apply to other parts of the article. The problem is that traditional accounts of the date of the birth and teaching of the Buddha are being used here as established history- the intro to the article even claims 6th C. BCE, which is earlier than a a lot of scholars place the birth of the Buddha. Traditional accounts from the Theravada chronicles need to be supplemented with information from archaeology and more recent scholarship- likewise with the story of the life of the Buddha. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about Buddha dates

I agree with you. The date of Buddhas birth is presented as a fact (623 BCE) and referenced with an anonymous article on a UNESCO-website. There has been a long controversy about the dates of buddhas birth and death. Prebish reported that most scholars "suggested that the Buddha died within approximately a few decades on either side of 400 B.C.E". (after a life of 80 years) He wrote: "On the surface, new dating for the Buddha's death doesn't seem terribly earthshaking," (but) "dates for the first, second, and third canonical councils—once thought to be certain—must now be reexamined".

Prebish, Charles S. (2008). Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism, Journal of Buddhist Ethics 15, pp. 1-21 (JimRenge (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC))

Which religion is older?[edit]

I want to get opinion from experts about which religion is older, Buddhism or Jainism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.150.90 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are intended for discussion of ways to improve the article. Questions like yours should be directed to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Please direct any further questions of this sort, there. To answer your question briefly, it appears that Jainism is older; Parshvanatha probably lived in the 9th Century BCE whereas Gautama Buddha probably lived in the sometime between the 6th-4th centuries BCE. --Richard S (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not viewing Buddha Dharma as a religion[edit]

The lead ends with the sentence "Quite a few scholars and practitioners of Buddhism do not see Buddha Dharma as a religion."

It is poor writing style to leave the reader hanging with such an unexplained assertion. The average reader will not understand what this means, especially since Buddhism is generally considered to be one of the major world religions. Also, both the Buddhism and History of Buddhism in India articles state that "Buddhism is a religion...". This discrepancy needs to be resolved. Note that I am not challenging the assertion; I am just saying that we need to elaborate on it just a bit more so that the average reader will understand what is being said and why. We need at least one more sentence that explains what a religion is in the view of the "scholars and practitioners of Buddhism" and why they believe Buddhism isn't one. --Richard S (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, that sentence is inappropriate and should be modified at the very least. A look at the citations makes clear that they do not support the statement. One is an opinion piece on a website, the other relates an anecdote about the opinion of the spouse of western participant at a Zen retreat who does consider Buddhism a religion.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)