Talk:Buddhism

Please add new topics at the bottom, in order to avoid confusion!

Archive 16 created

There were no posts between April 9th and 22nd, so I archived everything up through April 9th into Archive 16. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article?

Per the template at the top of the article, is there a group of people ready to work on cleaning it up? This article was once a feature article (see this) and seems to have seriously degraded into a confusing and wordy morass.

As a start, what do people think of the first paragraph here as a replacement for the current paragraph? Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied here for convenience:

"Buddhism is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama, who lived between approximately 563 and 483 BCE. This religion originated in India and gradually spread throughout Asia, to Central Asia, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, as well as the East Asian countries of China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. Buddhism is unusual among world religions because it does not involve the worship of gods or other higher beings. For the Buddha, the key to liberation was mental purity and correct understanding, and for this reason he rejected the notion that we can gain salvation by petitioning a distant deity."

We've already had lots of discussion on "religion" and "philosophy". There are various points of view here, of which that stated in this draft is only one. It therefore fails to satisfy NPOV.

Dates are probably wrong. See current article for what seems to be the majority position.

The bit about worship is highly misleading. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism has an article on worship that appears to give no indication that anyone might consider the word inappropriate to Buddhism.

All statements about the Buddha's own teaching are only theories. There is no consensus on what his teachings actually were.

The basic idea of Pure Land Buddhism, followed by about 1/3 of the world's Buddhists, is pretty much just gaining salvation by petitioning Amitabha Buddha.

"distant" deity is an insult to other religions. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like that paragraph isn't suitable (kind of scary actually in that it was the lead when the article was a "featured article" if it had all these mistakes!). Regarding your options above about reorganization, I suggest that "Thematic" be the first order followed by "Historical." (That is, organize by themes and then within themes order historically, e.g., "Practices" followed by "first this," "then this," etc.) How does that sound? Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of bad FA is History of Buddhism, which, when I queried its status on its talk page, appeared to have not a single citation for any of its statements, which seemed to include many theories, legends & mistakes presented as facts.

Looking on the bright side, I thought the present version was bad, but that old one is far worse. That's encouraging. The article has actually improved a lot over the last few years, which gives hope that it might get into a reasonable state in another few. After all, it seems from the above that nearly everything in the old intro is wrong. there's not much in the present article that's outright wrong, tho' there's a lot of questionable interpretation. More to the point is that the present version (largely) ignores most of the subject.

Now to your suggestion. I hadn't thought of combining 2 arrangements like that. If it's done that way we'll need an introductory outline of history to give context. It's an interesting idea. Perhaps it should be sandboxed. Trouble is, last time we tried working out a large-scale rewrite outside the actual article virtually nobody contributed, & then they kept reverting when I tried importing it to the actual article in the hope of getting some constructive response. We never did manage to get much of that, apart from some material from Tony on East Asian Buddhism, which now turns out not to be properly sourced (like much of the article). Peter jackson (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with a sandbox but am concerned about the reversions. I can't believe the amount of silly vandalism this page gets, which is a separate issue from the reversions.

Who tended to revert the edits? Can they be part of the sandbox? One suggestion is to do the outline in the sandbox so we know where we're going and then enter section by section into mainspace as it's done, which may mean that for a few days there is redundancy as new sections are added. Obviously, it'd be better to input the whole agreed-upon page at once as long as we have consensus and then carefully monitor the page after it's input (of course making sure that there is consensus). This might seem like ownership to new persons so we'd have to figure out a way to accomodate newbies so we avoid WP:BITE. What does everyone think? Windy Wanderer (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Structure

You'd have to look back to find who was reverting. There's a fair amount of discussion in the archives of this talk page, which would help you find the dates to search.

I'm not clear on the details of what you're suggesting. There's an enormous amount to be done on this article, & I don't whether it can all be sandboxed in one go. As I said before, experience suggests people don't participate, & then violently object to the result. So probably step by step is the approach. The 1st step is reorganization.

The historical arrangement is fairly consistently as follows:

1. India
   1. Early ("Hinayana"; derogatory name)
   2. Middle (Mahayana)
   3. Late (Vajrayana/tantra/esoteric)
2. Theravada: close to early Indian Buddhism
3. East Asian Buddhism: derived from middle-period Indian Buddhism, but adapted very substantially to Chinese civilization
4. Tibetan: close to late Indian Buddhism
5. Modern/Western

We don't need a sandbox just for tables of contents. Perhaps you can suggest an outline for a thematic arrangement. Peter jackson (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's been over a month for serious reversions? I've read the talk page and it seems that people have come and gone so I'm unsure of the current interest. If it's been over a month I suggest we just move forward. What would you think about archiving the talk page up to this point so we can start with the new structure? (Feedback from others welcome too.)

The historical arrangement looks great. Regarding themes within, how about:

1. Origins (where/who
2. Beliefs/Practices
3. Contribution to Buddhism today/Current groups
4. Relation to other Buddhist traditions

Having written this, I'm sure there are some commonalities across both, but (for instance), if the 4 Noble Truths occurred within the first historical time period above, then they would be covered there and then referred to in the other sections' Beliefs/Practices sections. Does this make any sense? Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you switching from historical within thematic to thematic within historical? That's what your wording suggests, but I find it hard to reconcile your numbered list with either arrangement. Perhaps you could do a fuller list of contents for clarity. Unfortunately, the religion project (to which this article was not affiliated last time I checked) doesn't have a standard recommended pattern for such articles. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting historical as the main structure, and then within that go by themes. I don't know the body of literature well so don't know much more to suggest. Here are some layperson ideas but I'm not an expert:

1. Origins (where/who/when)
2. Beliefs/Practices (what/how)
3. Contribution to Buddhism today/Current groups (where groups are? who practices? current activities?)
4. Relation to other Buddhist traditions (more conservative? literal? austere?)

What would you suggest?

Also, any other editors out there who want to give feedback on this? Windy Wanderer (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this. You want historical structure outside, then thematic inside, but 1 of your themes is Origins, ie history inside themes inside history.

Perhaps I should clarify the history a bit more. Indian Buddhism is virtually extinct. Recent revivals there are derived from elsewhere. The 3 main living branches are as listed above, & haphazardly detailed in the article.

Therefore, your headings above might have to be distributed differently for living & dead.

Historical arrangement has the advantage of being how most scholarly accounts cover the subject, so it makes it easier to find citations. The disadvantage is it's not what the reader expects of this article. It's what they expect of History of Buddhism. Thematic arrangement has the opposite (dis)advantages.

Another possibility is denominational. We could start with some shared ideas, tho' making clear they aren't necessarily the most important. Then deal with the different branches.

Let me try to rough out how your scheme might work in practice:

1. Indian Buddhism
   1. Early
      1. Origins: the Buddha &c
      2. karma & rebirth, 4 noble truths, 5 precepts, monastic order, stupas, abhidharma ...
      3. Theravada Buddhism close to this; many ideas & practices still used in mahayana as well
      4. ?
   2. middle
      1. origins of Mahayana
      2. teachings &practices: bodhisattvas, emptiness, mind-only ...
      3. East Asian Buddhism derived from this
      4. radical reform of earlier tradition
   3. late
      1. origins of tantra
      2. practices
      3. Tibetan Buddhism close to this
      4. less radical relative to Mahayana
2. Theravada
   1. arrival in Ceylon
   2. ...
   3. main religion of Veylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos
   4. conservative
3. East Asian Buddhism
   1. introduction to China
   2. Pure Land, Zen &c
   3. main Buddhism of China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan
   4. nonliteral
4. Tibetan
   1. introduction to Tibet
   2. ...
   3. Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, Kalmykia
5. ...

?

Peter jackson (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds great. Go for it! Does anyone else have comments? feedback? Now's the time to raise your horns if yes. Windy Wanderer (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was only a tentative attempt to see what your suggestion might mean in practice. You still have a lot of detailed working out to do, & I suggest again that you do things a bit at a time. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, As I mentioned before, I am no expert in Buddha so am relying on you and others to make sure the substance is accurate. I do know Wikipedia policies very well and am just here to help on that front. If you don't like what I did and/or think it's inaccurate, then please change it. I'm not sure what or who you're referring to above when you say "I suggest again that you do things a bit at a time." I thought you wanted to get an overall structure because you disliked the current organization and I just offered ideas. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify. As I said before, we did try to give this article a coherent structure before, but people just kept reverting it. Therefore I'm reluctant to try again myself, but I want to encourage others if they're interested, & offer advice. That's all. As regards doing things a bit at a time, it simply seems less likely to get reverted that way. Give people time to consider & comment on each stage before proceeding. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, doing a bit at a time sounds good. Looking forward to reviewing future edits. Windy Wanderer (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The material I've just deleted presents the 4 Noble Truths & 8-fold path as the main teachings of Buddhism. As the citations I've put in the sections on them show, that is not true. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The difs make it difficult to make out exactly what you did, but it looks like you just deleted one line in the lead? This is fine. Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New Lead

I agree that the opening paragraph is poorly-written. Not only does it over-emphasize the suggestion that Buddhism is not a religion, but it fails to summarize key distinctive features of Buddhism. I attempted to rewrite it, but was summarily reverted by someone who (I surmise) likes his own writing far too much. Hopefully this something that can be discussed rather than simply imposed by whoever has the most time to waste. Here is the new opening as I wrote it:

---

Buddhism is one of the world's major religions (though some argue that its doctrines are not essentially religious). Its founder, the historical Buddha--sometimes referred to as Siddhartha Gautama, or as Sakyamuni Buddha, in order to distinguish him from other enlightened beings--was an ascetic teacher who lived in north India around the 5th century BC.

His teachings--collectively referred to as the Dharma--describe a path through which practitioners may escape the suffering of samsara (i.e. the cycle of birth, death, and reincarnation) and ultimately attain nirvana. A paradigmatic example of these teachings would be the Four Noble Truths. Meditation and ethics are emphasized.

Buddhists generally revere the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. "Sangha" refers to the Buddhist community, especially monks and nuns.

Major varieties of Buddhism include

1. Theravada Buddhism, which is the major religion of Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand; and

2. Mahayana Buddhism, inclusive of

2a. Tibetan Buddhism, which spread from Tibet to Mongolia and various Himalayan regions such as Bhutan; and

2b. East Asian Buddhism, one of several important religions of Japan, China, and Korea. Examples include Zen and Pure Land Buddhism.

The world's population of Buddhists probably amounts to several hundred million. Depending on how one counts adherents who also identify with other religions, or who participate irregularly, the total might fall anywhere from ________ to _______.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.164.176 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Constructive. A few comments.

• Neutral point of view is especially important in lead paras. Therefore, if we mention the view that Buddhism is a religion, we must also mention, not only the view that it's not a religion at all, as you do, but also the view that it's more than one religion, as is done at present. Alternatively, avoid the question altogether, as I tried to do in my draft.
• To call the Buddha an ascetic is questionable. Asceticism is a matter of degree. Buddhism often talks of the middle way between asceticism & indulgence, but most ordinary people would regard Buddhist monks as pretty ascetic. Some scholars consider the middle way a later invention, with the original teaching more ascetic.
• Don't slur the difference between the Buddha's teachings, which are an historical matter on which historians disagree, & the teachings of Buddhism, which claim to be the teachings of the Buddha, in some sense.
• The teachings of Buddhism describe a variety of paths, which some people might regard as essentially the same. Jodo Shinshu does not teach a path at all: salvation is a free gift of Amida.
• Describing the 4 NTs a a paradigmatic example is not neutral. they are far more important in Theravada than in Mahayana.
• Ethics comes before meditation. Also, depending how you define meditation, the degree of truth of this statement varies a lot. Most Buddhists practise little or no meditation in the sense in which most readers would be likely to understand the word. To make the statement broadly true it's necessary to make clear that it includes devotion, ritual, study, listening to sermons ...
• Sangha traditionally means either the communion of saints, to borrow a Christian term, or the monastic order. Use to refer to the Buddhist community as a whole is, as far as I know, modern.
• East Asian Buddhism should come before Tibetan Buddhism because
  • it is older
  • it has far more followers
• Similarly, Pure Land should come before Zen because it has far more followers.
• "Several" sounds a bit big. "Hundreds of millions"?

Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, can you offer a specific rewrite below of what 218.167.164.176 wrote above? That's easier for me to see what you mean? (and maybe 218.167.164.176 will agree with it too) Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with WW's suggestion.

The meaning and scope of the word "religion" is not at all clear, and perhaps "religions" is correct--but this is a subject better left to the articles on "religion" or "religious studies." As a practical matter, the whole world and most Buddhists think that Buddhism is a religion, and so it is.

Perhaps we could refer to the historical Buddha as a "renunciate." I was going to say "religious teacher," but that would be too repetitive, and "spiritual teacher" too woo-woo.

No argument with the order of presentation. One difficulty is that in fact, Tibetan Buddhism also incorporates Pure Land practices--but oh well, good enough for jazz.

As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, my impression is that the Four Noble Truths (and their sixteen elaborations) are often referred to--but in connection with the "First Turning." Where Theravadins accept them as expressing the highest truth, Tibetans see it as relatively introductory comparared to emptiness and bodhicitta. But the fact that they see it as a suitable introduction also recommends it for use as an example here, as I see the matter. For the sake of comparison, practically all Christians seem to approve of the Sermon on the Mount, though it is less often put into practice.

In view of the diversity within Buddhism, perhaps a handful of Buddhist practices might be described--"meditation" (whatever that means), sadhanas, prayers to Amida, charms for snakebite and easy childbirth, etc. This would pose a real writing challenge, though, if they are to be incorporated in a summary.

Think--what is most important for an uninformed person to know about Buddhism? I look forward to your rewrites. --Dawud

It's not my job to rewrite other people's proposals. My own was entered above, now archived by WW.

In my draft I did try to leave out the question of religion. the point I was making above was that if we do it at all we must be neutral & give different views.

I'm not sure what you mean by Pure Land practices in Ribetan Buddhism, as I don't know all that much about it. In East Asian Buddhism it means mainly recitation of homage.

4NTs. Christianity is not an appropriate analogy here. Christians follow largely the same scriptures (& Muslims follow entirely the same scriptures), while Buddhists follow quite different scriptures. So we have to look very carefully at balance. To oversimplify, we might divide teachings into levels:

1. karma & rebirth
2. 4NTs
3. Mahayana

We might then say that Theravada recognizes 1 & 2, Mahayana 1-3. A lead is supposed to cover all the most important points in the subject. This would include all 3, with the disagreements pointed out. This is the theoretical side. On the practical side we have devotion, morality, meditation &c, as you suggest.

Another point in the guidelines on leads is that they are supposed to be self-explanatory. So

• Should we be mentioning the 4NTs in the lead without explanation?
• Should we, as in the last proposed draft, mention types of Buddhism without description?

On the 1st point, we might alternatively try to talk in terms of liberation/enlightenment, mentioning that there are different ideas.

"real writing challenge", as you say. hence I think we need the full suggested 4 paras. Peter jackson (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Do you have the dif or an approximate date of the lead you wrote? Let's just re-paste it here. Thanks, Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is a religion, if the word is to have any meaning at all. Sure, a few revisonists deny this, but there's no reason to credit their claim with any special importance--let alone to insist on "balance" with the more sensible view. For the sake of comparison, some Christians deny that Christianity is a religion (because "religions" try to reconcile man with God, but Christianity recognizes that this cannot be done, or some such). Think about it: practically every introduction to world religions ever penned has included Buddhism (and Christianity), though some doubt is typically expressed with respect to Confucianism. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.36 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look around [1] you'll find that essentially all religions have some followers who say they're not a religion. In principle the question is whether significant numbers of scholars in the field of religious studies say it's not a religion, which might be hard to find out. There's also the plurality view, which is held by many scholars. Some scholars might say that "religion" has no meaning,it'sjust an arbitrary category. More likely, some say it should be understood in terms of Wittgenstein's doctrine of family resemblance: members of a family resemble each other in many ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines membership of the family, & indeed it can be fuzzy at the edges. Peter jackson (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Lead Proposal

I think this is the lead Peter referred to above (his proposal):

"Buddhism is the beliefs & practices regarded by their respective adherents as the teaching of the Buddha (awakened 1). The Sanskrit form of his name was Gautama, & he lived & taught in or around the 5th century BC in NE India, including parts of present-day Nepal. According to the Buddhist tradition, one's karma, ie actions by thought, word & deed, tends to produce appropriate rebirths (strictly speaking, reconceptions) &/or experience. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to transcend this in some sense. In most of the Buddhist world a leading role is played by a celibate order of monks, & sometimes nuns. Japan, however, has a mostly married clergy.

Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) Buddhism teaches a graduated path. Starting from a moral foundation, one practises various forms of meditation to calm the mind. These are followed by, or combined with, meditational practices to develop insight into the true nature of reality, using doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity. By doing this sufficiently, one can attain liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

All other present-day forms of Buddhism are classified as Mahayana (Great Way or Vehicle), which emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of others. Pure Land Buddhism is an essentially devotional tradition. Its main practice is recitation of homage to the Buddha Amitabha. Followers hope or expect to be reborn in his Pure Land of the West, a spiritually advanced realm.

Zen (Meditation) Buddhism emphasizes forms of meditation intended to break through conceptual thinking. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is a devotional tradition. The main object of its homage is the Lotus Sutra, the principal scripture of this tradition. Tibetan Buddhism, also found elsewhere, is often grouped together with Shingon (True Word) under the heading Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle). These traditions emphasize various ritualistic forms of meditational practices. There are other forms of Buddhism. Falun Gong is sometimes counted as a form of Buddhism."

• After reading this lead and the other one proposed above, I can say that they are FAR easier to read and comprehend than the current lead, so I hope you come to agreement so we can put in this new lead soon. Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no progress can be made until the "reverter" is kicked off the Wikipedia. Is there an administrator in the house? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.177.36 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. I think the only response was from someone who objected to my "emphasizing" "minor" differences. If we want to describe Buddhism as a whole we might say something like this:

"Most forms of Buddhism teach practices that they claim lead to favourable rebirths and ultimately some sort of enlightenment. The nature of the practices and the enlightenment is a matter of disagreement among schools."

Peter jackson (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's only a rough draft. I think we have to do things in sequence:

1. agree roughly how we want the lead to go
2. work out the details in the course of finding citations (notice that the present version, for all its faults, does provide a citation for nearly every statement)
3. put it in

Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Alternative Lead Proposal

ok, sorry to jump in out of the blue, but after reading everyone's points here, I've gone ahead and taken a stab at rewriting the lead. there are a couple of problematical points with what I've got that I can see, but I've tried to integrate most of the comments people have made. let me know what you think...

version 1

Buddhism refers collectively to a diverse set of faiths, religions, and practices derived from the 5th century BC teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. According to legend, Siddhartha was the son of a king, who at the age of 29 renounced his position and all worldly goods in order to pursue spiritual attainment. After his enlightenment - meaning in its simplest sense that he became aware of both the source and the cure for human misery, though interpretation of the word "enlightenment" is varied - Siddhartha, now known as Sakyamuni Buddha, spent the remainder of his life teaching what he referred to as "the middle path."

Sakyamuni Buddha's teachings -- collectively referred to as the Dharma, or Dhamma -- describe how practitioners can understand and escape the miseries that are a concomitant of human life. At its core are the Four Noble Truths. These explain that our suffering (literally dukkha, variously translated as suffering, uneasiness, distress...) is not caused by the world, but by our cravings, which continually reinvent themselves in our lives (and according to some traditions, across lifetimes). Freedom comes through the gradual lessening of these cravings through practicing the Eightfold Path of "right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." Some later forms of Buddhism have de-emphasized the importance of the Four Noble Truths (the escape from suffering) in favor of more universal notions of emptiness and Bodhicitta (attainment of enlightenment for the benefit of all beings).

Buddhism has tended to blend with local cultures and religions as it has moved across asia and into the west, leading to a broad and sometimes confusing range of thoughts and practices. Some forms of Buddhism are devotional in nature, where practitioners hope to attain enlightenment through worship of the Buddha; others are more esoteric, believing that enlightenment is attained through meditation and contemplation. Some forms hold that enlightenment can only be found over the course of many lifetimes; others strive to achieve it in this lifetime. Some forms have a rich pantheon of iconic "deities"; others are overtly agnostic. However, the major threads of esoteric Buddhism are generally taken to be:

• Theravada - a south east asian variety that is commonly considered to be closest to the original practice of Sakyamuni Buddha
• Zen and Chan - a variety of Buddhism found in east and north east Asia (China, North Korea, and Japan), that tends towards austerity, and follows the Mahayana focus on the welfare of all beings
• Tibetan - a north west asian variety that follows the Vajrayana path, using tantric and other techniques as aids in spiritual development

Pure-land buddhism is the primary devotional form of Buddhism throughout East Asia.

---Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see someone else appreciates the complexity of the subject & the likely need for a long lead.

1. "set of faiths, religiopns ..." has the opposite problem to most people's versions: that is, it assumes the opposite POV
2. should read circa 5th century
3. the name Siddhartha cannot be regarded as historical, appearing 1st about 100BC
4. wording should make clear that "legend" applies to the whole para: some scholars deny that the Budha taught the middle way
5. Sakyamuni is mainly a Mahayana name, tho' it does occur a few times in the Plai canon
6. likewise, the statement that the 4NTs are at the core of the Buddha's teaching would be rejected by some scholars, as well as all traditional Mahayanists
7. "some later forms of Buddhism" is an understatement: this is the whole of the Mahayana, ie the majority of the world's Buddhists
8. Bodhicitta is not usually considered as the attainment of enlightenment
9. I don't think it's right to blame culture for the variety of Buddhism
10. "esoteric"s not usually used in this sense: it normally refers only to tantric practices
11. only modern/western(ized) Buddhism is agnostic
12. not North Korea specifically, if at all; also, I'm not sure NE Asia is an appropriate term
13. ditto NW Asian
14. it's misleading to classify these as specifically meditational schools; the fact is that, except in japan, different approaches coexist within the same "denominations"; generally, most people follow a primarily devotional form of practice & expect the path to take many lifetimes; those who consider themselves suffiently advanced meditate

Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, I really don't see how you can have a short lead on this. for instance, mine could be trimmed in a few places, but I haven't even touched on demographics, which really ought to have some place in the lead. and I'll add, I'm more of a philosopher than a historian, so I appreciate your corrections.  :) so let me go through your comments and get some clarifications; maybe we can work out the kinks (and by the way, I edited your bulleted list to a numbered list for easier reference)

1. on your point 1: I think what needs to be emphasized is that there are many different flavors of Buddhism that all descend from the same thread. plus, I understand the problem with words like 'faith' and 'religion' - some buddhists would take offense at that, while others would think it was perfectly appropriate. what would you think about something like this? "Buddhism is an overarching idea that encompasses all the faiths, practices, and philosophies derived from the (circa) 5th century BC teachings of Gautama Buddha."
2. on your points 3,4, and 5: I was actually thinking that this whole 'legend' part should be cut, and that the lead should move straight to the teachings. Gautama's history belongs on his page, not the buddhism page. would that work?
3. your points 6, 7, and 8: well, hmmm... are you sure about this? I mean, I learned the 4 Noble Truths from a Tibetan buddhist, and I've discussed it with Zen practitioners (though, of course, that's all from a US perspective). I don't think any of them would deny that this was the core teaching of Gautama Buddha, though they do argue that it's not the most important point in practicing 'modern' Buddhism. maybe if I stress that the 4NT were gautama's teaching, and that mahayanists have rejected thought that the primary goal should be escape from the karmic wheel (in favor of an ideal of universal enlightenment...)? not well put, of course, but maybe you can see where I'm going...
4. your point 9: it's not intended as blame. it seems to me that Buddhism (being a very mild-mannered belief system) has always tended to adapt to its environment: taoist influences in China, Shinto in Japan, shamanic religions in southeast asia and tibet - even individualism in the US has had an impact. I think this is because buddhism doesn't try to impose itself, but rather to explain itself, and it does that references from whatever place it finds itself in. at any rate, I think it's clear that Buddhism has absorbed regional differences - can you think of a better way of putting it? or do you think it's better explained by philosophical changes?
5. your points 10 and 11: we can use another word, if you like. but I think I should point out that the way 'esoteric' is used in the buddhist community is not the way it's used in the greater world. we have to write to non-buddhists. that being said, I may have made the same mistake with the word agnostic.
6. your point 12, 13: oops. not paying attention. my bad. :-)
7. I think your last point gets to a deeper issue. in the west we tend to forget that buddhism is deeply integrated into asian communities, and we tend to get a rather monastic view of it (like someone from the east whose only experience with Christianity came from visiting a Catholic monastery). that integration makes it hard to define. I think we might want to take a clue from the Christianity page and really downplay the sectarian differences in the introduction.

let me know what you think about these, and I'll try a rewrite. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the numbering; I should have done it that way in the 1st place. I get in the habit of using unnumbered lists, even tho' they're more difficult to type. I don't know why. Sometimes I've gone back & changed them myself.

1. The point I'm getting at here is that there's a disagreement among experts on whether there is actually a single "thing" called Buddhism, so Wikipedia mustn't take sides. Therefore your latest wording won't work either. We can say it's a "term", which is obviously true & uncontroversial, & that all its varieties derive, in some sense, from the Buddha's teachings. That isn't saying much: eg one could say that Christianity derives from Judaism.
2. I think the reader would think it odd if the lead said nothing about the founder. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about his existence, or about the name Gautama/Gotama (but note that we don't know what dialect(s) he spoke, so he might have called himself Gotama, Godama, Goyama, Govama or Goama; in practice everyone uses either Sanskrit or Pali).
3. What we're dealing with here is a rather bizarre form of colonialism. It's obvious that modern/Western(ized) Buddhism is affected by all sorts of Western ideas like rationalism, feminism, Marxism, evolution ... What's not usually realized is that it's also affected by Western ideas about Buddhism itself. Since the 19th century, Western scholars have been telling Buddhists what their religion "really" is, & have been quite often believed. Those scholars, on a rather superficial reading of parts of the Pali Canon, decided that the teachings of the Buddha were summed up in the 4NTs, & so presented these as "Buddhism". The fact that real-life Buddhists didn't agree with them didn't bother them. They knew best. Why their ideas came to be quite widely adopted by actual Buddhists is another question. Suffice it to say here that this is so to a very large extent in Ceylon, Thailand & Japan. This in turn has resulted in succeeding generations of Western scholars, & Western Buddhists, assuming it must be right because "native" Buddhists (now) say so. Sort of feedback cycle. Only in qite recent decades have some scholars started to catch up with the reality, & many less specialized ones have still not done so. Also, as I said before, there is no consensus among historians on what the Buddha actually taught.
4. That Buddhism has adapted to local culture is generally accepted. The point I wanted to make here is that this doesn't account for all the variation, or probably even most (tho' I don't know how you'd quantify it). There's much variety even within a culture.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by "greater world". Scholars writing about Buddhism use the word in the sense I gave. I know of no reason to suppose that the general public would classify all meditation as esoteric. The "Buddhist community" doesn't use the term, for the most part, as it doesn't speak English, but I've never come across your usage in the English-speaking Budhist community either. The point about agnostic is not, as far as I can see, about words at all. It's simply the case that all traditional forms of Buddhism took for granted the existence of gods. Agnosticism is a modern invention.
6. Our job is to give a fair picture of Buddhism, both agreements & differences. If you look at practices, it's true that there aren't all that many differences that could be considered important:
   1. the absence of the traditional monastic order in Japan & the presence of nuns only in China, Korea & Vietnam
   2. the Tibetan practice of sexual yoga, rejected by the rest of Buddhism

Those might be all. But then, if you stick to that level of generality, what differentiates Buddhism from other religions? They also practise devotion, morality & mental cultivation.

If you go on to doctrine, there's rather more difference. In particular, what's distinctive about Pure Land is not devotionalism, or concentration on the next rebirth rather than ultimate enlightenment. Both of those are perfectly normal: most Buddhists practise them. What's distinctive is the idea that one's reborn in the Pure Land, not as a result of one's karma, but by the power of Amitabha himself: salvation by divine grace, pretty nearly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I think I'm following you. let's try this then... (still need demographics - what is the current population of buddhists in the world, and how many are in which group?)

version 2

Buddhism. There is general disagreement about the best way to classify Buddhism. For some, Buddhism is a single cohesive faith/religion with regional differences and philosophical variations. Others see a set of distinct faiths, tenuously connected by reference to a common source. Still others see Buddhism as a set of practices, or as a philosophical perspective, with or without a religious component. What is clear is that - in all of these perspectives - Buddhism traces its origins to Gautama (Gotama) Buddha (circa 5th century BC), and his teachings about the nature of human existence.

According to legend, Gautama was born the son of a king, but at the age of 29 he renounced his position and all worldly goods in order to pursue spiritual attainment, achieving enlightenment after six years of wandering. 'Enlightenment' is one of the key concepts in Buddhism, though its precise meaning and use is also subject to disagreement. In its simplest sense, it is used to signify that Buddha became aware of both the source and the cure for all human misery - this sense is a defining characteristic of being Buddha (which translates as 'Awakened'). There is a general hope for enlightenment in all forms of Buddhism, and a general belief that following a virtuous path (dharma/dhamma) will free one from the cycles of karma that are inherent to human existence. However, there are vast differences between forms with respect to the qualities and necessities of a virtuous path.

There are several major traditions of Buddhism that are commonly recognized:

• Theravada - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in south-east asia. This tradition bases itself in the Pali Cannon (also known as the Tipitaka); Theravedan monastics use meditation and contemplation to free themselves of the cravings and attachments that (according to the Pali Cannon) keep them from seeing the truth of their own condition. Progress towards enlightenment is slow, often covering many lifetimes. This tradition is often considered to be closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha.
• Zen and Chan (Mahayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in China, Korea and Japan. This tradition acknowledges the Pali Cannon (a version of which it preserves in the Agamas), but relies more on teachings called the Mahayana Sutras that are not recognized by Theravadans. The Mahayana tradition tends to place greater emphasis on the welfare and enlightenment of all beings as a goal, rather than personal attainment, and are fairly eclectic in their practices, accepting different kinds of meditational and devotional techniques. It is in some ways a more philosophical tradition than Theraveda.
• Tibetan (Vajrayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in Tibet and other Himalayan regions. This tradition is sometimes considered an extension of Mahayana, and sometimes classed as a separate tradition in its own right. It follows the Mahayana Sutras, like Zen and Chan Buddhism, but utilizes a set of tantric yogas designed to accelerate the process of spiritual growth, so that enlightenment might even be attained in onme lifetime.
• Pure-land buddhism - somewhat different than the other traditions, and often practiced in conjunction with Zen/Chan, this tradition holds that enlightenment can be achieved through devotion to Amitābha Buddha, without an express need for meditation, yogas, or any other spiritual practice.

--- doesn't feel quite complete to me, but are we getting closer? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Miscellaneous comments:

1. (remembered to number this time!) "Gautama (Gotama) Buddha (circa 5th century BC), and his teachings about the nature of human existence": we ought to make clear that there's disagreement among Buddhists (& historians) about what his teachings were.
2. "cycles of karma": rebirth should be explicitly mentioned.
3. Canon, not Cannon!
4. "Theravedan monastics use meditation and contemplation to free themselves of the cravings and attachments":
   1. "monastics" seems to slur over the absence of nuns in the tradition;
   2. they're supposed to, but don't always;
   3. not much difference between cravings and attachments, while hate & delusion not mentioned
   4. what's the difference between meditation and contemplation?
   5. what about lay people?
5. arrangement:
   1. space should be allocated roughly by numbers of followers, so:
      1. Theravada 1/3
      2. Pure Land 1/3
      3. others 1/3:
         1. Zen
         2. Nichiren (if you include fringe groups like Soka Gakkai/Nichiren Shoshu, this is probably more numerous than either Zen or Tibetan)
         3. Tibetan
         4. maybe Shingon
   2. I think it would be clearer to give the general information about Mahayana before the 1st Mahayana school (whatever order we follow)
6. "Zen and Chan (Mahayana) - a variety of Buddhism found primarily in China, Korea and Japan." I'm not sure whether the primarily bit is intended of Mahayana or Zen. It's probably misleading either way. I think there are more Buddhists in Vietnam than in Korea, so Mahayana is primarily in 4 countries, when interpreted exclusively of Vajrayana. Zen is primarily in Japan & Korea, + small numbers in Vietnam & probably even smaller in China.
7. Tibetan (Vajrayana):
   1. most authorities seem to include Shingon in Vajrayana;
   2. to say they follow the Mahayana sutras like the others is misleading. In fact they take a similar attitude in theory towards those as Mahayana does to the Pali Canon, regarding them as valid teaching, but not ultimate. Their own ultimate teachings are in the tantras.
   3. "enlightenment might even be attained in onme lifetime": this is also the Zen position, & indeed a common Theravada one; it all depends what you mean by enlightenment, & how many people are covered
8. Pure Land:
   1. "often practiced in conjunction with Zen/Chan": misleading:
      1. China: virtually everyone practises Pure Land; a few monks also practise Chan
      2. Vietnam: monks, nuns & educated lay people practise mainly Thien (Zen), with a bit of PL; ordinary people practise PL with virtually no trace of Thien, tho' perhaps a bit of tantra
      3. Korea: officially Son (Zen); we have to assume until further information is forthcoming that this reflects actual practice, tho' there's certainly a substantial admixture of other traditions
      4. Japan: Zen & PL are separate schools, tho' Tendai (c 3 million) includes some of both in its eclectic tradition
   2. "holds that enlightenment can be achieved through devotion to Amitābha Buddha, without an express need for meditation, yogas, or any other spiritual practice": most PL doesn't claim that enlightenment can be achieved thus (tho' I think some does); what is achieved is rebirth in the Pure land, where conditions are conducive to progress towards enlightenment; & again, I think it's important to mention that this rebirth is attained thro' Amitabha's power, not one's own karma; that's the really distinctive thing
   3. Be careful here about the afterthought mentality. Eg English-language books about Christianity often say "Christians believe ... Oh but actually Catholics believe ..." (Eg "The Bible has 66 books. Oh but actually the Catholic Bible has 73.") This is blatantly biased, given that Catholics are about 1/2 of Christendom. Try it on Theravada: "Buddhists believe in following the bodhisattva path. Oh but actually Theravadins don't." Sounds biased to me. Remember there are about as many PL Buddhists as Theravadins, so PL shouldn't be treated as an afterthought or exception.
9. general: we have to remember what we're supposed to be doing: not trying to decide the truth ourselves, but simply reporting expert opinion, including its disagreements; we need citations for everything, & are likely to have to revise things in the light of what we can actually find citations for

I don't want to sound too discouraging. As I said at the start, that looks pretty good. To answer your question, yes we are getting closer. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

no worries, I never get discouraged in conversations like this. I learned a long time ago that consensus doesn't come easy, and that it's always worth the effort. but let me make my (self-perceived) role clear: I'm a good writer, and pretty good at incorporation a set of ideas into a cohesive whole, and I know a good bit about buddhism and faith in general, but I'm no historian. I'm trying to take your insights and objections and work them into a readable construct, but I've been assuming that you have the citations and references to back them up (because I sure don't). I figure if we get something we can all basically agree to, then we can add in the support for it as we go along.

now, your points...

(1), (2), and (3): I'll see if I can fix these (with the minor objection that I think I a Pali Cannon would be pretty cool - at least, there's a few people I'd like to blow a little enlightenment into...). I do have a question about rebirth, however. while I know it's explicit in Theravada, and obviously Gotama referred to it (because he was debating philosophy with hindus), but I'm unclear on how central it is in the other sects - for instance, it does not seem to be a central issue for the zen monks I've talked to. do you have any insights on that?

(4):

1. I think your first two points here are not sufficiently central to buddhism to be part of the lead para. I mean, there are no female Catholic priests, and priest are not always as celibate as they are supposed to be, but those are hardly defining qualities of Catholicism. I could make similar points about Judaism, Islam, Protestantism, Hinduism, and probably most every other faith on the planet. these are maybe political/social issues that need to be discussed in the body, but are not relevant here.
2. I was trying to limit the extent that I got into buddhist philosophy, because that's part of the problem we've been having. I used cravings and attachments because neither word is quite correct, and I skipped hate and delusion because (arguably) they are secondary results of cravings and attachments. I can draw the discussion out more, if you think that would help, but I'm worried that the more I draw it out, the more viewpoints I need to consider, and the more congested this little bit gets.
3. contemplation is primarily a cognitive activity (self-reflection, self-analysis, etc), whereas meditation generally aims at reaching an a- or ana-cognitive state. at any rate, I know that discussion, reading, and learning are as much a part of spiritual progress as meditation or devotion, so...
4. let me roll lay people in with your next comment..

(5): Why should space be allocated according to number of followers? what we're trying to do here is capture the basic differences between the major varieties of buddhism; that should be doable as a purely linguistic exercise, without reference to political or social factors. I don't want to get into 'my faith is bigger than your faith' kinds of things...

part of this problem comes down to how we want to deal with lay people, as you suggest. Buddhism (like most faiths) has a distinct education gap between practitioners and lay people, meaning that monastics are generally far more knowledgeable about their faith than the laity. in buddhism (as in most faiths) this sets up a tension between the practitioner (who works for the benefits that accrue from the faith) and the lay person (who doesn't work for, but is considered entitled to, the benefits that accrue from the faith). For buddhism, reincarnation is one tool to deal with this tension (because everyone will eventually have a chance at enlightenment), devotion to Amitabha is a different tool (because everyone will go to the pure land, where enlightenment is easier...), and there are probably others. I mean, if you want my own bias, I would say that pure-land buddhism should have a smaller representation than the other forms, because it is the one that deals least with the complexities of Buddha's teachings, and therefore is the least Buddhist of the Buddhisms. I'm not arguing for that, mind you, I'm just trying to point out that there are other considerations than mere size that apply here, if we are going to go that route.

(6), (7), (8): ok, I see these, and I'll fix them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got citations for quite a lot (quite a few of them I've already put in the article) & can find others. Other things, as I said above, will have to be rewritten to fit. I have to be careful to distinguish between my own "original research" & what I can source, but that to some extent can be left to later.

Centrality is a tricky concept. It's certainly true that all traditions believe in rebirth, but how central they consider it is another question.

I've returned the compliment by numbering your list.

(4)

1. I was discussing how one might try to present Buddhism as a whole. However, the fact that many scholars don't regard it as being a whole seems to imply that we cannot present it as one without violating NPOV, so what I said there is probably irrelevant.
2. I'll leave this for now.

(5)WP:WEIGHT: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

Running out of time. More in a couple of hours, I hope. Peter jackson (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, to continue here I left off. Forms of Buddhism aren't exactly the same thing as viewpoints, but I think analogy applies here. Prominence might mean more than just numbers here; it might also mean the prominence of the particular Buddhists concerned, so you might classify Vietnamese Buddhism as Zen rather than PL. However, Chinese Buddhism at the present day is almost exclusively PL, & has maybe 100,000,000 followers, so that doesn't make much difference: PL is still roughly 1/3 of Buddhism, within the margins of error of our estimates. Your own "bias", as you call it, can't be followed by Wikipedia, which has to be neutral. It can't take sides & decide who's more Buddhist than whom. So I come back to my previous position: I can't now see any alternative to having a 4-para lead as follows:

1. general
2. Theravada
3. Pure Land
4. others

The order, of course, is not sacrosanct. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

version 3

Here's an attempt to update my version, tho' it still needs more work.

Buddhism is conventionally listed as a religion. Whether religion is the appropriate category, which has been questioned, is a matter of definition. A more substantive issue i s raised by the great variety of Buddhism, which hsa led many scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though another point of view speaks of "similar concerns". Buddhism was founded by the Buddha, which means, literally, Awakened One, or, less literally, Enlightened One. The Sanskrit form of his name was Gautama, & he lived & taught in or around the 5th century BC in Northeast India, including parts of present-day Nepal. Buddhism spread from there around Asia, and then to the rest of the world. Experts give its presnt-day number of followers variously as 230-500 million, with most of them giving figures around 350 million. According to the Buddhist tradition, one goes through an indefinite series of rebirths (strictly speaking, reconceptions), usually or always determined by one's karma, i.e. good or bad actions by thought, word & deed, which tends also to produce appropriate experience. Buddhists aim at avoiding unfavourable rebirths, attaining favourable ones, with the ultimate goal of transcending this in some sense and attaining some sort of enlightenment. Details vary.

The primary division of Buddhism is into Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) Buddhism teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects:

1. morality: this is perfected in the life of the monk
2. concentration: various forms of meditation to calm the mind
3. wisdom: meditational practices to develop insight into the true nature of reality, using doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity

Mahayana (Great Way or Vehicle) emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of others, and includes a number of different forms. Pure Land Buddhism is an essentially devotional tradition. Its main practice is recitation of homage to the Buddha Amitabha. Followers hope or expect to be reborn in his Pure Land of the West, a spiritually advanced realm. This is widely believed to be through his power, not one's own karma. Followers of this tradition often believe that in these degenerate times few if any can reach enlightenment through their own efforts.

Zen (Meditation) Buddhism emphasizes forms of meditation intended to break through conceptual thinking. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is a devotional tradition. The main object of its homage is the Lotus Sutra, the principal scripture of this tradition. Tibetan Buddhism, also found elsewhere, is often grouped together with Shingon (True Word) under the heading Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle). These traditions emphasize various ritualistic forms of meditational practices. There are other forms of Buddhism. Falun Gong is sometimes counted as a form of Buddhism.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

One other point I want to mention now. I don't think we should emphasize the "Buddhism/Theravada/... is found mainly in Sri Lanka, ..." bit. That's colonial thinking: Buddhism is a religion of "natives". Look at the Christianity lead, which doesn't do that. I now follow that model. Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I wasn't trying to impose my bias (which I fully recognize as a bias...), but I was trying to avoid a numerical bias. numbers are unfortunately convincing regardless of whether they have meaning. but, we'll work it out...  :)

so what I've done is taken your last lead version, and tried to roll mine into it in a way that (hopefully) works. it might be time to sandbox this, actually - it would have been easier for me to just edit yours in place... but at any rate, see how this flies with you.

version 4

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though others recognize "similar concerns" (need to elaborate this). The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. over the course of the next three or four centuries, his teachings spread throughout Asia, and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism between 230 to 500 million, with most most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is comprised of a series of rebirths (or strictly speaking, reconceptions), where the nature of a rebirth is largely determined by karma. actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves, and such 'karmic cycles' mean that our future reconceptions are predicated on what we do now and have done in the past. Buddhists aim for favorable rebirths, with the ultimate goal of awakening and transcending the cycles of karma entirely. In this sense, every Buddhist hopes to attain enlightenment; Gautama Buddha is venerated in part because he attained it originally, without the instruction that he left for the rest of the world.

The two primary divisions of Buddhism are Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism (literally the Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects: morality (perfected in the life of the monk), concentration (developed through various forms of meditation to calm the mind), and wisdom (through practices that develop insight into the true nature of reality). This form of Buddhism is largely considered to the form closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha, though it is occasionally criticized by Mahayanists as having too narrow a world-vision. Mahayana Buddhism (the Great Way or Great Vehicle) instead emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of all, even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others. Mahayana itself is split between devotional and meditational traditions, though the divisions are not rigid and Buddhists will often use elements from different traditions together. The largest devotional tradition is Pure Land Buddhism. Their central belief is that a celestial Buddha named Amitabha has - through many lifetimes of reincarnation and good karma - created a 'Pure Land' where (unlike the given world) it is easy to escape the bonds of karma. Followers recite homages to Amitabha in the hope that through his intercession they will be reborn in the Pure Land. Zen/Chan Buddhism (the name derives from a corruption of the Sanskrit word for meditation) is one of the two primary meditational forms, emphasizing meditation intended to break through conceptual structures. Zen is well-known, in fact, for its use of paradox and absurdity as teaching tools. The other Main meditational form is Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle), comprised of Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism, which add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations. These rituals and practices are intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is another common devotional tradition, and Falun Gong is sometimes considered as another meditational form of Buddhism.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got long, so I probably won't have time to say everything now.

1. "over the course of the next three or four centuries, his teachings spread throughout Asia": wrong: the only country outside India it is known to have spread to in that period was Ceylon. It didn't reach Mongolia until the 13th century I think. We don't need to say, but a Buddhist Mongol tribe migrated to Europe in the 17th century. Make sure wording is consistent with this. Also, I'm not sure about throughout Asia. There was little or no Buddhism in Muslim areas, SW & Central Asia.
2. Your description of karma & rebirth seems rather vague. Perhaps mine was too. In particular:
3. "actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves": true, but this is not karma in the strict sense
4. "with the ultimate goal of awakening and transcending the cycles of karma entirely. In this sense, every Buddhist hopes to attain enlightenment": misleading if not false; some Mahayana authorities speak of deliberately avoiding enlightenment to help others; they (or some) say this is itself a sort of enlightenment
5. "Gautama Buddha is venerated in part because he attained it originally, without the instruction that he left for the rest of the world.": according to orthodox Mahayana doctrine he was not a real human at all, but a magical creation by a celestial Buddha enlightened ages before

TBC Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ok. sorry about point 1 (told you I was no historian - lol). I'll change that to "after that his teachings spread slowly throughout the bulk of asia," and we can spell out the details in the body. and I'll add that part of my vagueness was generality; we humans are the only beings capable of dharmic action, but all beings are subject to karma.

now karma is a very difficult subject, but it is central to buddhism, so I suppose we can draw it out more. I mean, I think my phrase about how "actions, speech, and even thoughts tend to recreate themselves" was actually on the money, but maybe not completely clear. Karma is a cause-and-effect concept. let me spell out some of its aspects, and if you agree, I can work them in.:

1. (basic, but stemming from Hinduism) your actions (including words, and in most cases thoughts) bear fruit for you and for others, and thus you are responsible for the fruit that gets born.
2. (primarily Buddhist, but I think with some heavy Taoist influence) your actions (or more particularly your motivations) plant "seeds" in your mind that will grow later, which means that you will tend to recreate the actions you engage in.
3. (basic) dharmic (correct) action does not build karma (though in some traditions - particularly Pure Land - one can accumulate dharma)
4. these karmic/dharmic effects can perpetuate across reincarnations

I'm not sure your point 4 is true. in the Mahayana tradition, bodhiccitas consciously choose reincarnation. this doesn't mean that they reject enlightenment or nirvana, but rather that they are consciously working for the enlightenment of everyone. I can rephrase it a bit, though...

point 5. ugh. this can get into a real tangle. technically speaking, Buddha is not a person; Buddha is a state of existence, but... I think maybe this phrase is more trouble than it's worth, so I'll just scrap it.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What the lead is primarily talking about is karma in relation to rebirth, because that's necessary background for understanding a lot of other things. Karma in the proper sense (at least in Theravada) means something happens to you as a result of something you do. In particular, rebirth is always (in Theravada) the result of karma. This is not true for some Mahayana authorities:

• many Pure Land authorities say one is reborn in the Pure Land thro' Amitabha's power, not one's own karma
• some or many Mahayana authorities say a sufficiently advanced bodhisattva can be reborn by free choice

The other thing you mention, doing something because you did something before, is not karma in the proper sense (at least for Theravada), & in any case may not be important enough to go here (we're in danger of clutter).

The Theravada view on actions that do not produce karma is that this applies only to the arahant.

I was talking about your "in this sense". All Buddhists pursue enlightenment in some sense.

More later I hope. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the spread wording from Christianity for comparison:

"Through missionary work and colonisation, Christianity spread firstly in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and parts of India and subsequently throughout the entire world"

That's the model I suggest we follow. For your latest wording I'd only suggest deleting "slowly".

There are at least 4 self-proclaimedly different concepts of enlightenment:

1. the early Buddhist/Theravada one
2. the early Mahayana concept of Buddhahood, which they made a great point of claiming to be superior to 1
3. the idea found in Fazang that renouncing enlightenment for the sake of others is the real enlightenment
4. wu (satori), which early Chan deliberately so named to distinguish it from Buddhahood, tho' I don't know what the difference was supposed to be

This is in addition to different interpretations of the above.

If we assume that all those who have the idea of renouncing enlightenment to help others agree with 3 then we can say all Buddhists pursue enlightenment. However, I don't know of any source for this assumption, so at present we might not be able to say this in the article.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying only humans are capable of dharmic action. Let me give you the Theravada position here again.

All beings are capable of producing both good & bad karma, except for the unconscious gods. Humans and all gods except the unconscious gods, the gods of the Pure Abodes (because the latter have already attained Non-return) & the gods of the formless realm can attain Stream-entry. Humans and all gods except the unconscious gods can attain arahantship (in the case of the formless gods this is possible only if they attained Stream-entry before being reborn there).

To return to the question of bodhisattvas renouncing enlightenment, this is very confusing &/because scholars have not dealt with it properly. Part of the problem stems from the Lotus Sutra, which states in quick succession that the Buddha's lifetime is very long & that it's infinite. Problem: which statement is to be taken literally? One view within Mahayana is that the latter statement is literal. This is the Tibetan (or at least Gelugpa) view. On this interpretation there's no point renouncing enlightenment. However, if you take the other view, the possibility at least is open. It doesn't follow at all: eg Theravada thinks a Buddha can achieve more in an ordinary lifetime than a bodhisattva in eternity, & maybe many Mahayana authorities take a similar position. Nevertheless, the possibility is there of drawing the conclusion that a bodhisattva might achieve more in eternity than a Buddha in a very long life, & some Mahayana authorities did draw just this conclusion.

A distinct question is whether this renunciation is actually for ever. A bodhisattva in this way of thinking renounces enlightenment as long as there are beings to help. Does that mean for ever? Fazang doesn't say so explicitly, tho' some other Mahayana authorities do.

This is all very complicated and difficult to find out about. I really think we should try to avoid cluttering up the lead with more than a necessary minimum of complications.

"intercession" is the wrong word: it means prayer

Your classification of Mahayana into devotional & meditational looks like "original research": what is the basis for saying that tantric rituals are meditation but devotion is not meditation?

"Buddhists will often use elements from different traditions together": "often" is a bit of an overstatement; "sometimes"?

You've deleted the point I made about vipassana being based on docrinal frameworks. These may be very complicated, as in Abhidhamma, or just 1 or 2 simple formulae, but this distinguishes vipassana from Zen.

"corruption" is probably not the right word either: words often change between languages; one doesn't usually call it corruption.

"This form of Buddhism is largely considered to the form closest to the original practice of Gautama Buddha, though it is occasionally criticized by Mahayanists as having too narrow a world-vision." Considered by whom? Historians are not agreed on what he taught/practised. Theravadins obviously consider this, Mahayana fundamentalists equally obviously not. What historians probably do agree is that it's closest to the Buddhism of early centuries. "occasionally" is probably an understatement.

Now, back to numbers. You were talking earlier about "what we're trying to do here is capture the basic differences between the major varieties of buddhism; that should be doable as a purely linguistic exercise". Your model seems to be of hierarchical classification on an Aristotelean model:

1. define the genus religion
2. give the differentia of the species Buddhism
3. give the differentia of the subspecies Mahayana
4. ...

It doesn't work like that. As far back as 1912, Leuba (Psychology of Religion) listed 50 theretofore proposed definitions of religion. There must be far more by now. Certainly some scholars have suggested that the concept "religion" should be looked at in the light of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblance: members of a family resemble each other in various ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines membership of the family. Similarly, these scholars suggest that religions resemble each other in various ways, but there is no characteristic or set of characteristics that defines "a religion". I don't know how widespread this idea is among theorists of religion.

Similarly, it's likely that Buddhism itself should be looked at in that way, tho' I haven't come across anyone saying so. Very likely those who say Buddhism is more than one religion would call it a family of religions, but again I have no citation. At any rate, if Buddhism isn't 1 thing, then it wouldn't have a definition. The idea of understanding in terms of family resemblance has certainly been suggested for Mahayana, so again there are problems.

In conclusion, then, I say we can't give hierarchical definitions after your model without violating NPOV between scholars of differing views on that point. & I can't see what other reason in terms of WP principles could justify violating fair allocation of space to different forms of Buddhism according to their numbers of adherents. Even if you give some allowance for the past, it wouldn't reduce the prominence of Pure Land: before Communist persecution & indoctrination there were far more PL Buddhists, which would surely offset early Buddhist history before PLB. It would, on the other hand, introduce various extinct forms of Buddhism into the equation, tho' on the 3rd hand it would eliminate various modern movements. Easiest is the ethnographic present. 131.111.164.220 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me, logged out by "loss of session data". Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'm working on a revision that covers most of your points (which are all good, so assume that I'm addressing them unless I have questions below...), but there are still some things that we need to clarify. I am beginning to see part of our communication problem, though - you're approaching the issue from the ethnographic present, whereas I tend to approach it from the philosophical ideal. different means; we'll have to find some way to work with them. so, some thoughts...

Karma. I am aware that karma and reincarnation are connected in buddhism, and I am working that in more carefully, but clearly karma is a broader concept. there would (for instance) be no possibility of enlightenment in this lifetime unless there was a way of dispersing karma in this lifetime. and since you mentioned theravada explicitly, I'm pretty sure they would hold that the work of improving your rebirth involves freeing yourself from cravings and etc. in this lifetime. let me see what I can do with it...

Enlightenment. you have to beware of mahayana philosophical mind-traps. when Mahayanists speak out against enlightenment, they are speaking out against the idea of enlightenment, which (for them) is simply a mental construct to which one can develop attachments. they do not so far as I can tell have a problem with enlightenment as a concrete event, but do feel that craving after some abstract notion of enlightenment is not likely to get one very far. and I'll add (re the lotus sutra discussion) that it seems clear to me that Buddha is not speaking as a man (which is why you get those references to 'many names' and 'appearing to pass from the world'). but regardless, I think that's all way out of scope for the lead.

I hope I'm not doing original research; I'm just trying to create an effective rubric that captures some of the differences between sects (differences which, honestly, you've made me more aware of). and while I am a fan of Wittgenstein (and Beethoven - Ludwigs2, yah?), I lean more towards his language games in this case. it seems to me that Buddhists (for all their internal differences) do recognize each other as Buddhists in a way that can't be attributed purely to colonial imposition. rather than a family resemblance, though, what you have is a collective context in which the term is used, that binds the various forms together

see, this is what worried me about the 'ethnographic present' approach: it comes dangerously close to reducing buddhism to a set of ethnic/cultural phenomena. it doesn't account for any common philosophical roots, even though (I suspect) most buddhists would argue that they are more alike than they are different precisely because of those philosophical roots. see what I mean?

by the way, I'm adding sub-sub headings for each revision - this is starting to get long...--Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've indented your last remark to avoid confusion.

1st, let's remember the WP principles we're supposed to be working to:

• verifiability: everything we say must be clearly stated in a reliable source
• NPOV: this means that when reliable sources contradict each other we have to give a balanced presentation (except perhaps if 1 can be simply dismissed as too out of date or non-specialist)

This is actually quite hard. We keep getting the sort of problems we've been discussing. Therefore, I strongly suggest keeping things simple, trying to avoid complicated issues as much as possible.

Karma. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "dispersing". Let me again explain the Theravada doctrine. Anyone other than an arahant generates karma all the time. This can operate in various ways:

• it can produce a result directly; this can be
  • a rebirth
  • an experience in life
• it can strengthen other karma
• it can weaken other karma

It also operates in different time scales:

• some karma can only have its effect in the same life
• some only in the next life
• some only in some lifetime subsequent to those 2

If karma in the 1st 2 doesn't manage to take effect in the appropriate lifetime, or if karma in the last doesn't before the final life (ie arahantship) then it becomes ahosi-kamma, lit "has-been" karma.

Are you beginning to get some idea of how much detail & complexity exist in just 1 school? I don't know much about the doctrines of other schools. Do you? It's really difficult to find out: there's a lot of study required, a lot of the literature hasn't been studied &/or translated ...

"mahayana philosophical mind-traps": indeed, but the problem is far worse than you indicate. The main problem is that Mahayana often uses a pragmatic notion of truth: doctrines are "true" in the sense of being spritually beneficial. As a result, Mahayana is quite happy with all sorts of contradictory doctrines. Sometimes they devise detailed schemes (some of which may be easy to find out about, but others not, as remarked just above) in which they present hierarchies of truths. However, these schemes contradict each other, & also many Mahayanists regard all doctrines as equally true (which is equivalent to saying they're equally false). Overall, then, it's impossible to say what Mahayana "really" believes, so we have to be very careful here. If there were a clearly established scholarly consensus then we could follow that, but I'm not aware of any such.

Now, on the specific question of enlightenment, let me say here that Fazang's position seems to be quite explicit (of course I can't read Chinese so have to go 2nd hand). He says that a bodhisattva should carefully avoid eliminating the defilements in order to avoid enlightenment. That's not about conceptions of enlightenment. The reasons he gives are as I explained above.

There was certainly a lot of mutual recognition of Buddhists long before the colonial era. It's by no means universal, tho'. Many Theravadins, particularly in Burma, don't recognize Mahayana as proper Buddhism.

"most buddhists would argue that they are more alike than they are different precisely because of those philosophical roots": no. Most Buddhists know nothing of those philosophical roots, if indeed one could correctly say that the roots of Buddhism are philosophical, which is questionable. Also, most Buddhists know nothing about other forms of Buddhism so have no (worthwhile) opinion about them.

I have 2 main reasons for suggesting the article, & so the lead, should be mainly about the present:

1. it's what most readers would expect to see in this article (as opposed to History of Buddhism)
2. it's simpler

The ethnographic present would fit 2 even better, but 1 worse. Possibly the article might be organized thus:

1. history
2. ethnographic present
3. modern developments

Then we'd have to sort out allocation of space.

"Zen is well-known, in fact, for its use of paradox and absurdity as teaching tools." This is mainly Rinzai (Soto is bigger in Japan; not sure about Korea).

"The other Main meditational form is Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle), comprised of Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism, which add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations. These rituals and practices are intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development.":

1. Do Shingon & Tibetan group themselves together, or is it only Western scholars? I know no citation for the former.
2. There are 2 different views in tantric Buddhism:
   1. tantra is a faster route to enlightenment
   2. tantra is ultimately the only way to enlightenment (eg this is the Gelugpa position)

Consider the wording in the light of these points. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More from WP:WEIGHT:

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Bear in mind that there's no consensus among experts as to whether there's such a "thing" as Buddhism. A fortiori, there's none on what it is. In particular, the article can't be based around your ideas of what Buddhism's philosophical roots are. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

lol - ok, let me say up front that I love discussions like this. thank you for being both clear and persistent.  :-)

I think you are taking a lot of very good and difficult points that ought to have a presence in the body of the article, but you are introducing them into our discussion of the lead where they are just a distraction. let's simplify... here are what I think are the operative problems we're having.

1. I am uncomfortable with restricting the notion of karma to rebirth in the lead. you have shown yourself that there are types of karma in theravada teaching that can have 'this life' effects, and I'm reasonably sure I can find references that show that Zen/Chan's notions of emptiness and vajrayana's 'skillful means' are both intended as ways of breaking karma's power (if only momentarily...). but those are discussions that should occur in the body - for the lead, I think we need to use the broader notion of karma (giving strength to the rebirth concept with a phrase like 'this may happen within a lifetime, but is more generally considered to occur across multiple rebirths')
2. I think you've stated Fazang's position correctly, but I think you've missed his intention. why should a bodhisattva avoid enlightenment? it's because a bodhisattva wants to continue returning to aid all other beings. this neither denies nor diminishes the centrality of enlightenment, it's only a kind of stop-loss measure, and so I think that we should leave the discussion of enlightenment pretty much as is. and I'll add that while word-literal readings of texts is important in all fields of knowledge, in religious/philosophical discussions it has to be tempered by some analysis of the author's intentions, otherwise you end up with a distinct POV that presents itself as objective because it's literal (think creationism...).
3. I do think that people want to learn about present day buddhism, but also I to think that most would be interested in learning the basic philosophy behind buddhism. granting that we won't be able to do anything like a complete job of it in the lead (or even in the main article) it would be remiss of us not to try.

side points (just because it's an interesting discussion...):

• soto and rinzai zen both use the same kinds of koans; rinzai, though, is much more aggressive in their use.
• many protestants don't recognize catholics as 'proper' Christians, either (and vice-versa), but they still recognize them as Christians.
• the fact that some scholars do not believe there is actually such a thing as buddhism is something we ought to touch on in the lead but mainly leave for the body. whether we like it or not, we do have a category called 'Buddhism', and we need to treat it as a cohesive category. if future scholars decide that there is no such thing as buddhism, we (or they) can come back and break this page up in a appropriate ways. at any rate, it's certainly not our job to worry about whether it's true; all we need to do is acknowledge and explain the position, and (at this point) that means explaining it as a critique of the establish position that there is such a thing as buddhism.

give me a couple of hours before you respond (say, till 3:30 PST) and I'll finish a new version with most of these things implemented. well see how it looks.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

version 5

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms" or "Buddhist religions", though others recognize "similar concerns" (need to elaborate this). The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. After that his teachings spread throughout the bulk of asia (add date/means specifics), and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism between 230 to 500 million, with most most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed'). In its loosest sense, karma connects causality and responsibility, such that our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - are influenced by our past experiences and influence our future experiences. Buddhism in general holds that karma extends across lifetimes, so that one is reborn (or strictly speaking, reconceived) into conditions appropriate to one's karmic state, and it suggests that one can find release from these karmic cycles (samsara), though again, the process generally requires being reborn into more favorable conditions over multiple lifetimes. However, there are dramatic variations between traditions over the proper means of achieving more favorable rebirths, over the speed at which progress can be made, and even over the desirability of leaving the world of samsara. In some sense, every Buddhist holds enlightenment as an ideal, but there are extensive differences in their relationship to it.

The two primary divisions of Buddhism are Thervada and Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism (literally the Teaching of the Elders, or Ancient Teaching) teaches a path traditionally analysed into three stages or aspects: morality (perfected in the life of the monk), concentration (developed through various forms of meditation to calm the mind), and wisdom (through practices that develop insight into the true nature of reality, which use doctrinal frameworks of greater or lesser complexity). Mahayana Buddhism (the Great Way or Great Vehicle) instead emphasizes dedication to the spiritual welfare of all, even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others. Mahayana itself has devotional and meditational forms, though the divisions are not rigid and Buddhists will sometimes use elements from different forms together. The largest devotional tradition is Pure Land Buddhism. Their central belief is that a celestial Buddha named Amitabha has - through many lifetimes of reincarnation and good karma - created a 'Pure Land' where (unlike the given world) it is easy to escape the bonds of karma. Followers recite homages to Amitabha in the hope that through his intervention they will be reborn in the Pure Land. Zen/Chan Buddhism (the name derives from the Sanskrit word for meditation) is one of the two primary meditational forms, emphasizing meditation intended to break through conceptual structures. It is noted for its anti-conceptual, pro-experiential stance. Vajrayana (Thunderbolt Way or Vehicle) is the other primary meditational form, and includes Tibetan Buddhism and Shingon (True Word) Buddhism. Vajrayana forms are distinguished because they add various ritualistic forms and yogic practices to their meditations; 'skillful means' intended to purify the body and spirit to accelerate spiritual development. Nichiren Buddhism, named after its founder, is another common devotional tradition, and Falun Gong is sometimes considered as another meditational form of Buddhism.

---

a couple of points I didn't address earlier:

1. where I sad 'humans are the only beings capable of dharmic action' I hadn't been thinking about gods. quite the contrary: I was thinking about beasts. I may be confusing hindu and buddhist philosophy here (correct me if I am, please) but animals and the like are beings reincarnated in that form because of their own karmic burden, and in that state they have lost the ability to make dharmic choices, and need to simply work out their karma slowly until they reincarnate in human form. again, I apologize if I've butchered a belief here; it's not my view of the world, so it's very possible I've gotten it wrong. at any rate, your point about gods is taken.
2. I wasn't trying to be Aristotlean; I was trying to be Wittgenstinean. in other words, I have not been trying to present a view of the subject that reflects some ontologically pre-existent truth, but rather generate a use-structure that we can all (more or less) agree is (more or less) functional. I have, however, tried to de-emphasize some of the distinctions made so that they seem less hierarchical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

addendum... can anyone with a better historical sense than I fill in the two bolded areas in the first paragraph? Peter, I think you need to do the first - I don't know what you mean by 'similar concerns'. plus we need a very brief synopsis of how buddhism spread.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm introducing all these complicated points into the discussion is not to suggest that they should be included in the lead, or to oppose simplification, which I explicitly called for above, but to try to make clear that your particular simplifications are wrong or misleading in the light of actual facts. Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that it's possible to simplify at all, but we can carry on trying. I want you to be clearly aware of some of the complexities before you start trying to simplify, otherwise we may well not get anywhere.

"while word-literal readings of texts is important in all fields of knowledge, in religious/philosophical discussions it has to be tempered by some analysis of the author's intentions, otherwise you end up with a distinct POV that presents itself as objective because it's literal (think creationism...)": true, but we're not allowed to do this ourselves (no original research); we can only take such analysis from reliable sources (which is what I did for Fazang; possibly it would look different in the context of the source as a whole)

"the basic philosophy behind buddhism": there you go again; I can only repeat that there's no consensus of expert opinion that there's any such thing, let alone what it might be.

TBC Peter jackson (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think you've stated Fazang's position correctly, but I think you've missed his intention. why should a bodhisattva avoid enlightenment? it's because a bodhisattva wants to continue returning to aid all other beings." No, I said that:

"Nevertheless, the possibility is there of drawing the conclusion that a bodhisattva might achieve more in eternity than a Buddha in a very long life, & some Mahayana authorities did draw just this conclusion."

"soto and rinzai zen both use the same kinds of koans; rinzai, though, is much more aggressive in their use." Looking at it from the other end, Soto dosn't use koans much, was what I was trying to say.

"many protestants don't recognize catholics as 'proper' Christians, either (and vice-versa), but they still recognize them as Christians." I don't think that's always true. The Westminster Confession classifies "Papists" as idolators, which suggests it doesn't regard them as Christians.

I did read somewhere (can't remember where) that Theravadins often say "How can they be Buddhists? They don't know Pali." Certainly the governing council of Burmese Buddhism has declared (citation in Theravada) that there can be no valid ordination of nuns in modern times. This plainly implies they don't regard Mahayana nuns as validly ordained. I don't know of any reason for this that wouldn't apply also to Mahayana monks. My guess is that it's simply that Mahayana ordinations don't take place in Pali. At any rate the Vinaya commentary says a mispronounced ceremony is invalid.

"the fact that some scholars do not believe there is actually such a thing as buddhism is something we ought to touch on in the lead but mainly leave for the body. whether we like it or not, we do have a category called 'Buddhism', and we need to treat it as a cohesive category. if future scholars decide that there is no such thing as buddhism, we (or they) can come back and break this page up in a appropriate ways. at any rate, it's certainly not our job to worry about whether it's true; all we need to do is acknowledge and explain the position, and (at this point) that means explaining it as a critique of the establish position that there is such a thing as buddhism."

This is not NPOV. Given that there is a disagreement, WP cannot take sides. The article itself could discuss the different POVs at length, but the lead can only mention them. I'm assuming there is a disagreement, which seems likely, tho' I know of no evidence that it's not now the case that most specialists regard Buddhism as a plurality. We just don't know until someone finds a suitable citation.

"similar concerns" was intended as a placeholder; perhaps someone makes a stronger statement

"Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category." read "some scholars"

"The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama": misleading, as it implies that there are agreed "basic teachings", which is only true if "basic" means "elementary".

"According to the Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed')." read "existence for living beings" or something similar: there's disagreement about whether "the world" is produced by karma.

"In its loosest sense" (karma). What's the reader supposed to make of this? This supposed loosest sense is not, as far as I know, recognized by Theravada. Is it recognized by any tradition, or is it a modern invention?

"conditions appropriate to one's karmic state": what's that supposed to mean?

"In some sense, every Buddhist holds enlightenment as an ideal, but there are extensive differences in their relationship to it." Yes, but the wording should make clear that "In some sense" applies to "enlightenment" as well as to "ideal". Read "relationship to, and conception of, it."

"even incorporating a concept of a Bodhiccita - a being who chooses to reincarnate rather than leave the karmic world, in order to help others."

1. bodhisattva
2. Theravada also has a bodhisatta concept
3. the substance is confused; there are a variety of different concepts of bodhisattva:
   1. Theravada & some Mahayana have the idea of a bodhisattva as someone who takes the long path to Buddhahood rather than ordinary arahantship; there are differences on the meanings of these terms between the 2, & within Mahayana; furthermore, there are differences in view about the relation between the 2
      1. Theravada & some (largely extinct) Mahayana say that these are distinct paths to distinct goals; thus a bodhisattva takes the long path to a different goal to help others (more)
      2. most later Mahayana says that ordinary arahants must then become bodhisattvas
   2. some Mahayana has the idea of a bodhisattva renouncing Buddhahood itself, as discussed above

"animals and the like are beings reincarnated in that form because of their own karmic burden, and in that state they have lost the ability to make dharmic choices, and need to simply work out their karma slowly until they reincarnate in human form." Again, I don't know what you mean by 1/2 of this. What is "dharmic action"? What is "work out"? Let me mention that in the Pali Canon (specifically the Vimanavatthu) there are (at least) 2 stories of animals being reborn as gods as a result of good karma performed as animals. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LS recommends 3 or 4 paras for a long article like this. I can't find anything anywhere to say how long a para should be, but that page does provide a link to an example lead which it describes as "good length". My word counts of its 4 paras are as follows:

1. 97
2. 131
3. 90
4. 57

My counts for your version 5 are as follows:

1. 147
2. 158
3. 309

You might like to think about whether you're trying to fit too much in.

Now, to return to the question of balance. I just came across today WP:VA, which lists 1000 vital articles that every good WP should have (ie in any language). Buddhism of course is there. Why? Because it's a major world religion. That is, it's the religion (or whatever) of 350,000,000 people. That's why it's a VA, that's what it's here for, that's what most readers expect it to deal with & that's what it should mainly cover. It should give a fair & balanced account of the religion(s) those people belong to.

This is not quite the same as the religious beliefs & practices of those people. Eg Catholicism is (roughly speaking) what the Pope says it is, not what people calling themselves Catholic actually believe, which isn't always the same. You can look at this diferent ways:

1. you can say that the official teaching is what Catholics believe in so far as they are genuinely Catholic
2. you can say that by associating themselves with the Church they authorize it to include them in its numbers

Most major religious groups don't have Popes. (Perhaps the Karmapa is a Buddhist example.) The appropriate definition of "offical" religion varies with the group concerned. Some, like Baptists & Bahais, are democratic, electing their clergy, so perhaps in those cases the popular & official versions might be the same, but in general that can't be assumed. It's generally very hard to find out what Buddhists as a whole actually believe & do.

Anyway, in the line of the above thinking, I still say coverage should be roughly in accordance with numbers of adherents, because that's the basis for the importance of the article.

The article as it stands is far from being a fair & balanced account of the religion of 350,000,000 people. In fact it's mostly about those bits of that religion that appeal to a few million Western Buddhists. To some extent I've been able to deal with this by adding citations that alert the attentive reader to that very imbalance. That's much harder for the lead, as there's far less space, which is why it's particularly important to get that properly balanced. Bear in mind a lot of people will read only the lead. Peter jackson (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter... I'd like it if you would stop limiting yourself to destructive criticism (or maybe deconstructive is a better term) and start making constructive criticism. don't get me wrong, I appreciate the value of de(con)structive criticism (i.e, pointing out flaws and limitations of a particular approach), but the problem with it is that I then have to guess about the best way to address it constructively (because there are few constructive clues in your comments pointing in any direction), and to date my attempts (obviously) have not satisfied you. I'm trying to work with you here, but you have this discussion tangled up in a knot and seem reluctant to let go of any of the ends so that we can untangle it.

couple of substantive points:

1. I'm beginning to think we should scrap the entire third paragraph, and not even get into sectarian divisions in the lead. just say something that indicates divisions exist, that maybe notes the mahayana/theravada distinction, and then lets it go. we can deal with the details in the body. that would solve a lot of our quibbling, as well as shortening the lead significantly.
2. you are over-extending the NPOV issue to the extent where it makes it impossible to talk about anything. I mean literally: I could go to any subject on Wikipedia - lets take the page on elephants for an example - and argue that "according to Wittgenstein's language theory 'elephant' is no more than a linguistic/conceptual structure that has been applied to objects that may or may not have any relation to each other, and according to non-dualistic religious philosophies and modern existentialism these objects may or may not even exist." it's a valid philosophical viewpoint with a decent number of sources I can cite - should we go start arguing that on the elephant page? well, it might or might not fly for elephants, but any less concrete subject (christianity, democracy, quantum mechanics, buddhism, etc.) is completely vulnerable to this approach. it's a complete non-starter of an argument.
   1. and to add, it's inherently logically problematic. the phrase 'there really is no such thing as buddhism' implies that there is a false concept 'buddhism' which needs to be challenged. very zen, yes, but still it's our job to explain the concept, and in the process point out that some people think it's a false concept. or we'll have to rename the article 'the object formerly called buddhism' - lol
3. you yourself said that part of theravada doctrine is that that karma can produce 'an experience in life', which is not that dissimilar from what I wrote. remember that karma is a concept borrowed from hinduism and extended into buddhist doctrine. please read the karma page, with which I am wholly consistent.

finally, I'm not interested in word counts at this stage. let's agree to something, and then we can trim it if we think it's too long--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to destructive criticism. Why do you think I keep giving you these lengthy essays on Buddhist doctrine? It's so you'll have information from which to work.

1. This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. We mustn't give the impression that there's some core teaching that all Buddhists are agreed is the most important, because that doesn't seem to be true in any obvious way. The lead is supposed to give the most important points about the subject, which means everything regarded as of sufficient importance by any sufficiently important form of Buddhism, regardless of what other Buddhists think of it. It doesn't mean some sort of artificially created lowest common denominator.
2. The article is supposed to be about Buddhism, not about concepts of Buddhism. There's a paper titled "What, if anything, is Mahayana?" by Jonathan Silk. It appeared originally in the periodical Numen (I can get you the ref if you want) & was reprinted in Williams, Buddhism, Routledge, 2005, vol III. He distinguishes 2 types of definition: stipulative, where you lay down the law on what the word means; and lexical, where you try to describe how the word is actually used in real life. He criticizes those scholars who stipulate a definition of religion & then say therefore Buddhism isn't a religion. He says what they should be doing is trying to describe how the word "religion" is actually used, including the fact that Buddhism is regularly included. He says that the concept of religion should be understood in terms of family resemblance. If you think about it, if there were a logical (Aristotelean) definition of religion that actually fitted usage, someone would probably have thought of it by now & it would have become generally accepted. So imagine trying to apply this to WP. The fact that there's no agreed definition of religion doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. But it also doesn't mean that the article should be written as if there were an agreed definition. The same applies to Buddhism: the article, & particularly the lead, mustn't be written from the POV of some particular idea of what Buddhism "is".
3. The traditional notion of karma is always, as far as I know, one of actions resulting in experiences, active states of mind causing passive ones. I don't know of any premodern use of the term to refer to actions causing other actions.

Perhaps, re definitions, I should point out that the ideas of karma, rebirth & liberation, which are common to all Buddhist traditions (as opposed to modern movements), are also shared by Hindus, Jains & Sikhs.

Finally for now, let me say that I prefer the present lead, which doesn't say anything, to one that gives a false, misleading or unbalanced impression. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ok. I hope you realize that I don't really disagree with anything you say, but I *do* think that you are straining things past their limits. for instance:

1. I'm not suggesting we "give the impression that there's some core teaching that all Buddhists agreed is the most important." further, I don't understand why you would think I was trying to do that, since I am doing my best to make as objective a presentation as possible. I am suggesting that there are certain core concepts (enlightenment, karma, dharma...) that all Buddhism(s) use in one way or another, though not necessarily in the same ways. are you suggesting that this is not the case?
2. you said "The article is supposed to be about Buddhism, not about concepts of Buddhism," but I'm not at all sure what that phrase might mean. regardless of whether you consider Buddhism a faith, a religion, a philosophical perspective, a cultural phenomenon (or whatever you might think it is) it is clearly a concept or conceptual structure, not a material object. if you refuse to talk about concepts then you miss the very thing that makes buddhism buddhism. it's like trying to talk about Christianity without mentioning monotheism. I'm not saying that we avoid views like Silk's, since they are an important part of discussing buddhism; but refusing to say anything about buddhism at all because it violates Silk's position is giving undo weight to that POV.
3. straight from the karma page: "The philosophical explanation of karma can differ slightly between traditions, but the general concept is basically the same. Through the law of karma, the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well." read that, and tell me what (precisely) in the second paragraph of the proposed lead you disagree with. and more importantly, tell me how you think we can fix it.

I respect the effort to give a balanced and unbiased opinion, Peter, but unlike you I do not prefer a lead that says nothing at all to one that tries (imperfect though it may be) to address the material. if you are really interested in making a good lead, then please take an active part in constructing it. however, if you are just trying to block any change at all, please let me know and I'll go away. I'm only trying to help out here, and I have no interest in a pointless wrestling match. ok? --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to give such an impression, just warning against the danger of having that effect.
2. "if you refuse to talk about concepts then you miss the very thing that makes buddhism buddhism." But that's to assume that there is such a "very thing", which is begging the question.
3. "our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - are influenced by our past experiences": that's what your draft says, but the passage you quote clearly agrees with what I said above, that karma is about actions influencing experiences, not the reverse. Delete "are influenced by our past experiences" and the following "and".

I don't necessarily "prefer a lead that says nothing at all to one that tries (imperfect though it may be) to address the material". It depends how imperfect it is.

Now I have some time to "take an active part". I'm not going to produce a draft right now, but let me suggest, in the light of the family resemblance concept, that we approach it somewhat on the following lines. We can start with the conceptual, historical & demographic intro as we've been working on. Then we make roughly the following points:

1. Nearly all Buddhists practise devotion to 1 or more Buddhas, & often other beings as well. The most popular are the historical Buddha, & the celestial Buddha Amitabha.
2. Most/nearly all believe in rebirth (strictly, reconception) ...
3. This is regarded as usually being in accordance with karma (which also influences experiences during life) ... However, many/the majority believe that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually can determine their own & others' rebirths. In particular, many believe Amitabha will ensure his devotees are reborn in his Pure Land.
4. Buddhists believe in the importance of generosity, particularly to support monks.
5. Most Buddhists accept, at least as an ideal, a morality based on the 5 Precepts: refraining from killing living beings, stealing, sexual immorality, lying & intoxicants.
6. Most Buddhists are led by an order of monks, & often nuns (tho' the latter, where they exist, are subordinate.
7. Buddhists believe in the necessity of meditation at some stage of the path, tho' most do not regard themselves as having reached that stage yet.
8. Nearly all recognize scriptures, tho' they disagree on which are authentic & important. Reading, study, memorization, recitation & devotion are widespread practices.
9. Some Buddhists study various doctrinal systems to provide a framework for the development of insight in meditation. Others regard conceptual thought as an obstacle to insight into reality.
10. Buddhists recognize 1 or more concepts of liberation, ususally liberation from rebirth. Some/many talk of renouncing liberation to help others spiritually.
11. All recognize the ideal of dedication to helping others spiritually, & the majority believe everyone should follow this.
12. Nearly all participate in rituals, & some regard this as very important.
13. Some believe in the practice of sexual yoga, but most disapprove.

The order here is roughly progressive. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is useful. and don't worry, I don't mind fleshing out drafts, all I wanted was a little more positive insight into what you were looking for, because I felt we were going around in circles. I'll make a stab at a redraft given what you've said here (again, give me a couple of hours to do that. I will say, however, that we still have to work out this Wittgenstein problem. I am still worried that you are giving priority to an opinion that is both academic/intellectual and unrepresentative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

version 6

try this on for size. I didn't address all of the points that you made above (mostly in consideration of space; I prioritized).

--

Buddhism is conventionally considered a religion, though scholars have questioned whether this is an appropriate category. The extensive variety of of practices and beliefs that are clustered under the name Buddhism has led some scholars to talk of "many Buddhisms," "Buddhist religions," or similar phrases. The basic teachings of Buddhism are attributed to Gautama (Sanskrit form: see Buddha for variant anglicizations) Buddha, where the title 'Buddha' is an honorific which translates literally as 'Awakened', or more colloquially as 'Enlightened'. Gautama Buddha lived and taught in or around the 5th century BC, in parts of what is now northeast India and present-day Nepal. After that his teachings spread throughout the bulk of asia (add date/means specifics), and in modern times have reached the rest of the world. Experts place the present-day number of followers of Buddhism in all its forms at between 230 to 500 million, with most suggesting approximately 350 million.

According to Buddhist philosophy, existence is largely dictated by karma (literally 'action' or 'deed'). In its loosest sense, karma connects causality and responsibility, such that our actions - which often include speech and thoughts as well as acts - influence our future experiences. Most Buddhists believe in rebirth (or strictly speaking, re-conconception), and that the rebirths one experiences are usually determined by karma. However, most Buddhists also hold that those who are sufficiently advanced spiritually are not bound by karma in this way; they can influence their own rebirth, or the rebirth of others. While Buddhists do believe that meditation is necessary at some stage, most do not believe they have reached that stage, and as a consequence practice devotion to one or more Buddhas or other beings (except in the western world, where Buddhism has largely been adopted in a philosophical/meditational form). Buddhism does, however, present a strong ethical code, including generosity - particularly in the support of monks - dedication to helping others spiritually, and the Five Precepts: refraining from killing living beings, stealing, sexual immorality, lying, and taking intoxicants.

Nearly all Buddhist recognize some version of a basic common text, called the Tipitaka (literally "Three Baskets", found in the Pali Cannon and the Agamas), which is generally attributed to Gautama Buddha. Other texts exist, however. In particular, a majority of Buddhists recognize a set of texts called the Mahayana Sutras (not generally attributed directly to Gautama). This difference marks off the most commonly noted division in Buddhism, between Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism and Theraveda (Teaching of the Elders) Buddhism. Within each of these sects, however, there is a broad range of doctrinal frameworks of differing degrees of complexity, and an assortment of different practices and rituals. --

and I'll remember to sign this time - lol --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldnt it say he was born in ANCIENT INDIA?

I dont understand this. When you go to the Buddha article (not this article but the actual Buddha article) it says he was born in Ancient India. And yet in this article it says he was born in Lumbini. And I think this is wrong. In those days there was no Nepal. Today we usually refer to those times as ANCIENT INDIA. I mean even here on Wikipedia there is an article called ANCIENT INDIA and Nepal is under that catagory. And yet in this article it says he was born in Nepal? Well that conflicts with the "BUDDHA" page & the "ANCIENT INDIA" page (in a way). Instead, I think it should say that Buddhism came from India, and that the Buddha was born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini, Nepal. Isnt that more fair? I mean to the average person who may not be familiar with Buddha, if the user types in Buddhism, and just skims the article they might not think that Buddha was an actual Indian and/or Indian prince. So why not just say he was born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini, Nepal? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

that's worth considering, and certainly something that we need to put on the list of things to do. however, it seems to me that using the term 'Ancient India' is incorrect, since (in fact) there was no 'India' prior to the colonial era, either. probably the best way to put it is to say something like "He was born in in a kingdom called ... which is part of modern-day Nepal", and then stress the fact that it was a predominantly Hindu culture.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: I'm not sure I follow you. The article does not say he was born in Nepal.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lumbini is not the modern name, it's the ancient name. The modern name is Rummindei. Peter jackson (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok first of all there is a such thing as Ancient India. Theres even a page on it here on wikipeida. I mean its not something I just came up. There are people who recognize an "Ancient India"....Secondly, this page even says that Buddhism came from India. So if it came from India, why cant it say Buddha was born in India? Yes i know back then there was no India. BUt there was also no Nepal either. But we still have to call it something right? And the best answer would be India. I mean if this page admits that Buddhism came from India, and Buddha gained enlightenment in India, and he first taught in India, and he was born right on the border of what is today now known as Nepal & India, then its fair to say that the article should say something like "Buddha was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Nepal. I mean let me give u an exmaple. If Buddha was born in a part of Paksitan, you wouldnt say he was born in Paksitan. You would say he was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Pakistan. Now I agree there was no term as India back in those days. But we have to call it somethign and most people accept the name India or ancient India. I wouldnt mind calling it the LAND OF THE ARYANS, but i dont know how many people would accept that name. SO India, or ancient India is the best name probably..........Thirdly....if u go the article on wikeipdia under Buddha, it says on that article that Buddha was born in Ancient India, which is now known as Nepal. So i mean this page contradicts the other page about Buddha, so thats another reason to change it to Ancient India......And lastly.....Yes i know the article does not say he was born in Nepal. But to a user who does not know much about Buddhism, and clicks the link LUmbini, they might think ok Buddha wasnt Indian. HE was Nepali or something 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This page does not contradict other articles on Wikipedia, because it does not say that the Buddha was not born in India, nor does it say that he was born in Nepal.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

U KNOW I TYPED ALOT. I TYPED ALOT. THE LEAST U CAN DO IS ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT I TYPED INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING ONE SMALL RESPONSE......AND BY THE WAY....TYPE IN BUDDHISM ON WIKIPEDIA.....AND GO FIND THE PART WHERE IT SAYS HE WAS BORN IN ANCIENT INDIA 71.105.82.152 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Peace, my friends. why don't you look over the revised version that Peter and I are working on in the section above - see if that addresses your issue.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for revised intro (I only moved things around and added one or two words)

Buddhism is a way of life influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha.[2] It is sometimes described as a religion[1], or as a set of teachings that helps us directly experience reality[3][4]. Buddhism attempts to identify the causes of human suffering and offer a path to end, or accept, suffering. It is said by some to be a body of philosophies and many scholars say that there is not one Buddhism but many Buddhisms, as noted in the re-titled textbook Buddhist Religions.[5] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dharma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around the 5th century BCE in India with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly referred to as "the Buddha", which means "awakened one" in Sanskrit.

69.138.237.183 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Pam dougpamjones@comcast.net (can't find my login info--I believe I'm a registered user)

Hey Pam! for small changes like this, go ahead and work them into the main page. if someone object they'll revert or revise.

that being said, Peter and I have been trying to hash out a rewritten version, above New Lead. you want to read over our latest attempt (near the end) and make any suggestions?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)