Talk:Buddhism

Not an Indian religion.

I find it strange that Buddhism is actually considered an Indian religion here on Wikipedia. First of all, Buddhism originated in ancient India yes, however did the founders of Buddhism consider where they lived “India” and were they part of Indian (which people consider Hindu, no?) civilisation back then? If that’s the case, then why is it an Indian religion? Also, wasn’t Buddhism founded first in the northeastern part of India? Which if I remember correctly certainly wasn’t part of the Indian civilisation at first. Can anyone elaborate? Hayashihouyi (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a whole article about this very question ->Indian religions. It's going to be a steep hill to climb to change the consensus on this, but if you have any citations, that would be a good place to start. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It originated from India, and the founder of the religion/philosophy was Indian/Nepalese, so it should be called an Indian religion. ZetaFive (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It really isn’t a “steep hill” as you call it, POV? It’s more dharmic than Indian. As in originating in ancient India rather than being Indian. Apple dictionary definition of Buddhism: “A widespread Asian religion or philosophy founded by siddartha Gautama in NE India in the 5th century BC”. You seem to have missed some fundamental teachings, or maybe you are purposefully omitting these teachings, from Buddhism. Wherever Buddhism is going and wherever it gets picked up, it becomes of that place. Which is it? Hayashihouyi (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it is going to be hard to change the consensus. wikipedia reflects a rather oriental consensus about the nature of Dharma. Thr fact is, although Buddhism was born in India, that is not its defining characteristic. Just as we call christianity "abrahamic" instead of "israeli", it would be far more appropriate to call Hinduism and Buddhism Dharmic religions 68.225.238.172 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This message was written by me I wasn't logged in Josepherino (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: commas

Under “Life of the Buddha” section: the sentence “He famously sat in meditation under a Ficus religiosa tree now called the Bodhi Tree in the town of Bodh Gaya and attained "Awakening" (Bodhi)” could use 2 commas. So it would become “He famously sat in meditation under a Ficus religiosa tree, now called the Bodhi Tree, in the town of Bodh Gaya and attained "Awakening" (Bodhi)” Paste555 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done this but used emdashes rather than commas. That's seems natural to me to mark that interjected clause, but I'll change to commas if other want. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Buddhism wasn't developed in India but in Nepal at Kapilvastu ,Lumbini by Siddhartha Gautam known by the world as Light of Asia Gautam Buddha

We know that the founder of Buddhism is lord Gautam buddha. how can you say it is developed in India. lord buddha was born in Nepal. If you Want to know more use this link

https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/silk-road-themes/world-heritage-sites/lumbini-birthplace-lord-buddha#:~:text=The%20Lord%20Buddha%20was%20born,Emperor%20Asoka%20in%20249%20BC.

AnukaranGaire (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The religion was developed in India, though, historically. Gautama was born in modern day Nepal, but at that time, there were no borders and it was considered India. ZetaFive (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Info-dump

@BaiulyQz: you added again diff info to the intro of the worldview section, with a number of references at the end without pagenumbers. This info hardly suffices as an intro to this section, and the references can't be verified without pagenumbers. The statement believing that consciousness continues after death is contentious, and needs very good sourcing. Likewise or worse, {{tq|within one of the six realms of existence, or afterlife within intermediate [[Spirit world (Spiritualism)|spirit worlds]] is untenable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, (sorry for the revert, I was to fast, your talk section was not here yet (when I saw/reverted you) but the content and references is already taken from around the article, specifically from the Lead, and shortened/summarized in the overview of 'worldview', where these summarized information was still missing. The respective references mention these content several times. I simply reused these content and references from pre-existing paragraphs within the article. I do not understand what the problem is with this shortened information paragraph, when the same content is found through the article, but without a summary for following content. I did simply reuse existing content in a shortened and explainable form, which was yet missing. If there are contentious parts, please correct or remove them instead of the whole summary, which is, in my eyes, necessarily here.BaiulyQz (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Spirit world" most definitely is not in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Regarding the points you mentioned, they are sourced in this paper: "This article explores Buddhist approaches to death and ideas about what comes after. It reviews the concepts of samsara, karma, and nirvana. It also looks at more particular instances of afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.". Spirit world does refer to this state, but we can of course use another word or the exact wording. The other sentence was taken from within the anatta article. "While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence." I.e. the not existing of self is not true, or a misleading wording pattern, there I want to make readers aware. We may include these references too, but the previous ones mentioned that already. I do not understand the exact reasoning. Could you please elaborate. Regarding the six realms, it is taken from this article too. It also has an own section here [1], eg. Six Paths. BaiulyQz (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you help to improve my previous paragraph and its citation style, so we can include it? Perhaps like that:

[1] Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and spiritual practices that are largely based on the Buddha's teachings and their resulting interpreted philosophies. [2] Buddhist teaching generally views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness continues after death, although specific views vary widely across Buddhist cultures and societies. [3] It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives. [4] The goal of Buddhism is to overcome the unease (duḥkha) caused by desire (taṇhā) and ignorance (avidyā) of reality's true nature, including impermanence (anitya) and non-self (anātman). [5] By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."

References

What do you think about this summary? :) BaiulyQz (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the first three lines of the first subsection, on the four noble truths, give a sufficient intro. Your summary is not a summary of this section, but an ecxuse to make a couple of highly dubious statements.

ad [1]: that's a good line for the lead, but non-informative for this section;

ad [2]: "continuum": not in the article; "consciousness continues after death": unnuanced; the article states it better;

ad [3]: unclear and unnuanced;

ad [4]: that's something for an intro - but already stated in the first lines of the first section;

ad [5]: augh...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmhhh, I am sorry, but I can't understand your accusation of "dubious" statements, when everything is referenced and further links/articles about the respective views exist too, next to parts taken from this article:

ad [1]: you say "non-infomrmative in this section" Okay, if you think so;

ad [2]: you say "the article states it better", well I know that, the goal of the paragraph is to create a short summary about the worldview/belief system. The word continuum (and its alliteration: consciousness continues after death) is from: [2] Quote: "Generally, Buddhist teaching views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness (the spirit) continues after death and may be reborn. Death can be an opportunity for liberation from the cycle of life, death and rebirth.";

ad [3]: Cited this reference: [3] Quote: "...afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.";

ad [4]: As I said, the goal is to make a short summary of the article, I know that it is already mentioned in more precise form elsewhere.;

ad [5]: huh? By archiving enlightenment (i.e. becoming a Buddha/Bodhisattva) it can result in a Pure Land (Nirvana). Free from the cycle of samsara and any forms of duḥkha. The disputes regarding the definition of self/non-attachement is also explained here: Anattā. It is not mentioned in the article precisely yet. See also: Buddhahood.

-

I do not understand your point. It should be a summary about the article, the worldview of Buddhism, not only the below section. Do you mean a summary is simply not necessary? Do you mean a summary must be placed elsewhere? Do you disagree with certain wording? Do you have suggestions for re-wording?

I do not insist on including the summary, I just thought, and still think, that it would be useful to make a short compact summary about the general worldview (taking into account the various different views within Buddhism, and its interpretations of the teachings).

-

Anyway thank you for your response. Maybe you could again clarify the points raised. Perhaps I made mistakes in my understanding, so please enlighten me. :) BaiulyQz (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• ad [1]: an intro for a section should be more specific, summarizing the section;
• ad [2]: HSE Ireland is not WP:RS on this topic;
• ad [3]:

- you quoted a summary of a book, M. Alyson Prude, Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism; did you read the book itself?

- your quote:

[It also looks at more particular instances of] afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.

- your line:

It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives.

- No mention of "generally believed"; no mention of "aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn; no mention of "individual existence." And obviously, the Bardos are not a 'general belief', but a specific Tibetan belief.

• ad [5]: You wrote:

By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."

References

- The article does say:

Samsara ends if a person attains nirvana, the "blowing out" of the afflictions through insight into impermanence and "non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land.

References

That's a really odd line, {{tq|non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land." It's not in Buswell & Gimello, nor in Choong. And it's definitely not what Rahula, a Theravadin, would say. Not surprisingly, it was added by ypu diff, with disregard of the sources.

Altogether, if you want to add an intro to the section on worldview, then summarize it, but do not add WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. And, as I worte before, I don't it needs more intro then it has now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your explanations and arguments. I see and understand. I will refrain from including my wording/interpretation of the respective references. I still think the article should go deeper into the varying views, as it presents it, although correctly, too one-sided. I mean it does not really mention that there are varying views/interpretations/arguments respectively to the points (anatta, samsara, non-self, what is reborn/enlightened, Pure Land, nirvana, etc.). But as I said, if you think the article is good in this state, I will have no problem either. Thank you again! Regards, BaiulyQz (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the conversation but I did want to add that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we don't need to go into super granular levels of detail on a broad-topic article like this one. Broad strokes are better, especially because the broad stroke statements are generally true of all of Buddhism, and when you start getting too detailed is when you have to qualify what specific school of Buddhism you're referring to, because what one school teaches differs (sometimes greatly) from what another teaches. When you start having to qualify what school the statement is true of is when you're getting out of topic of the general concept of Buddhism, and said content would be better served on the specific school's article or on the article for a specific concept (if it were proper to mention it anywhere). - Aoidh (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Anatman

@BaiulyQz: you added diff the following text to the lead:

Buddhist teachings do not deny that there is a self, stating that the five aggregates that are described as non-self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience.

Yet, the original sentence, from Anattā, says:

According to Wynne, early Buddhist texts such as the Anattālakkhana Sutta do not deny that there is a self, stating that the five aggregates that are described as not self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience.

References

You changed the subject from "Buddhist texts" to "Buddhist teachings," and "not self" to "non-self"; that's something different. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, maybe my English skills are too less for these precise wording edits. I changed "not self" to "non-self" for consistency within article. In regards of "texts" vs "teachings", I thought the teachings are based on the texts? At least I would understand it that way: a religious text = a teaching of that particular religion. But I will accept your advanced English and Wikipedia skills :), sorry for the caused troubles.BaiulyQz (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

proportion of buddhists needs updating

For example, Buddhists now form 2.4% of religious affiliations in Australia/ https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia#:~:text=Religious%20affiliation%20in%202021,-In%202021%2C%20more&text=Christianity%20(43.9%25),Hinduism%20(2.7%25) Sdrol1 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The percentage of Buddhists in Australia, 2.4% per census, is already mentioned in Australia, Religion in Australia and Buddhism in Australia. JimRenge (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Long

Way to long to digest 84.203.42.136 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We are aware, hence the template on the page. If you have any ideas as to how to make it shorter feel free to propose it here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've skimmed the article a few times and I think the best way to trim down the article would be to take all the subsections that have a "Main article" link (and which are therefore just summaries of that article) and cut them down by about half. Obviously "half" is an arbitrary value and each section should have enough text to be able to represent a good summary, but just as an example Buddhism#Vegetarianism and animal ethics could easily be trimmed down and still hit all the major points, especially when there's a main article link at the top of the section for readers who want a bit more information, in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style. I just didn't want to start cutting this article (roughly) in half without discussing it first, but I guess this is as good a prompt as any to share that idea. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good idea. Maybe some of the subsections could be combined since it looks like there are a ton of sub-sections in this article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few edits trimming down some sections, but before I do any more I want to wait a while and see if anyone has objections or suggestions. It's just under 300,000 bytes now, and I think that it could reasonably be trimmed down to under 200,000 while still maintaining the important information (but of course it should be stressed that content shouldn't be cut just to make the article's size a smaller number arbitrarily, but should be trimmed per Wikipedia:Summary style). - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

So when this discussion was opened the page had 110 kB of readable prose size, which is now down to 78 kB so the readable prose is ~30% smaller than it was. I think it could still use a little more trimming in some sections, but is the prose still so long that it needs Template:Very long? - Aoidh (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the Template:Very long is no longer needed, I removed it. Feel free to revert me. I had no time to check details of the trimming. JimRenge (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Authors of books vs experience

If you want to know about Buddhism, ask the Dalai Lama. He will be happy to explain the subtle points which baffle scholars. Since none of the Dalai Lama's books appear in the references, nor anyone with a Geshe degree, this article is speculative at best, bordering on fiction. Authoritative it is not. Hpfeil (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)