Talk:Buddhism and Christianity

Phantom tags

Hi, how do you clean up phantom tags?--Shravak 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of the quote table

Would it be okay if the table used normal sized font? It's a tad hard to read as it is and increasing the font size doesn't make the page too much longer. Koweja 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Harris

Marvin Harris detected the apparition of peace and love religions that focus on the spiritual over animal-sacrifice religions (Buddhism, Jainism, modern Hinduism, Christianism) and attributed them to population increases and ecological-economical changes that make inconvenient or unfeasible the use of religion for meat distribution. So some of the parallels may come from concurrent evolution rather than contact.

Criticisms Section

To me this article comes across as biased towards making out Christianity borrowed most of its ideas from Budhism, should there be a section summing up the arguments against this and pointing out the differences between the two religions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.247.29 (talk • contribs)

It is considered preferable to make each section of an article NPOV rather than adding a Criticism section to a POV article. So everywhere the article says Christianity borrowed from Buddhism, it is appropriate to demand reliable and verifiable sources, even if they are scholarly books buried in theological libraries rather than pop religion sites. This groung has been trod by scholars for many generations. Thre is no excuse for making any historical claim without providing scholarly references which cite archeological finds and ancient writings. Edison 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the more recent version is far more biased in that it glosses over (and often completely ignores) the parallels of Buddhism and Christianity, not to mention Buddhisms influence over Christianity.

True, the original version did seem to have a slight biased tone, but that does not undermine the actual facts presented, which were (as far as I could tell) fairly accurate.

In the criticism section there is a statement: "They ignore, for instance, the utter lack of atheist themes in Jesus' teachings. Were he truly schooled by Buddhists, there would likely be at least some indication of an awareness of atheism of the Buddhist type in Jesus' sayings. Furthermore, atheism and the associated Buddhist sensibilities would no doubt have been found by Jesus to be both incomprehensible and repellent." I think it would be wise for this section to differentiate between quotes from critical sources and NPoV statements of Wikipedia within the section as this strikes me as a strongly biased position; it not being the place of Wikipedia to comment on what Jesus, should he have existed, would or would not have thought on a subject. Furthermore I'd question the validity of the argument since the "athiest" teachings of buddhism vary heavily from location to location as Buddhism is particulary open to Syncretism as it spreads. For examples of syncretism within Buddhist practice one can look at the effect of Taoism on the development of Ch'an buddhism, the adoption of the goddess of mercy, Guanyin, as a boddhisatva (which certainly runs contrary to "athiestic" ideals of original buddhist doctrine), and the adoption and adaptation of Japanese shamanic (proto-shinto) rituals by early Buddhist missionaries in Japan. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should have been deleted!

Previously, two identical articles to this were created under an almost identical names, then got put up for deletion and eventually deleted (Click Here) Probably the same person has created this article under a subtly different name (by adding an underscore in the title) in order to follow their agenda of trying to create an article promoting their theory that Christianity was copied from Buddhism. In doing this they are not only abusing Wikipedia's good reputation by using it to look like a credible source not only supports their view but presents it as undisputable fact (so they can go posting on forums etc, ‘look, even Wikipedia, famous for its neutrality, supports everything I say…’) as well as completely disregarding Wikipedia's deletion policy by recreating the article after it repeatedly gets deleted. Can this article, on the bases of previous deletion votes get deleted? Moreover whomever keeps creating these articles on the parallels of Buddha and Jesus not just recreate it under an almost identical name after it is deleted and respect Wikpedia’s deletion policy!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.247.29 (talk • contribs)

Those with knowledge of and interest in the subject should give it their editorial attention. Similarities of Christianity and eastern religions was suitable subject matter in Christian protestant theological seminaries for the past many decades, so the subject is notable.This is a part of Comparative Religion, which is in the curriculum of many leading universities. The only question is the quality of the references provided and the need to keep the article NPOV, which is properly addressed by the editing process. In other words, there is nothing forbidden about the article topic, which is notable and found in paper encyclopedias and in the world of religious scholarship. Such scholarship is an alternative to the viewpoint that one's religion was revealed miraculously by God in its final form. Edison 15:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You linked to Wikiquote, which is not the same thing as Wikipedia. They have their own rules for what topics are not appropriate so just because something is deleted from wikiquote it doesn't mean it should be deleted from here.Koweja 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry-I didn't realise wikiquote had different rules, I now know for future reference

Original work?

References for most of the work has been added and there is very little if any "original work"...Most of the work, the central core of this article, has been supported by previous scholars and religous figures and their works are mentioned in citations.--216.254.121.169 16:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely no citations for describing the "parallel sayings" as parallel sayings. That whole section seems to be completely original research in its layout and in what it suggests. The fact that the quotes are real quotes has no bearing on the question of whether that's original research. Xtifr _tälk 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the sources are listed on the bottom of the page. There are many books with their own parallel sayings findings and this is an anthology and breaking down of the Buddha and Jesus myths, the easiest way to present these similarities is in a table format as there are so many parallels,Kersten alone claims to have found more than one hundred passages in the New Testament that can be aligned with Buddhist scriptures--216.254.121.169 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources of many of the parallel sayings and lives which I have listed at the bottom of the table: sources:

Elmar R. Gruber & Holger Kersten. The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, Acharya S.

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Seastone Series)(Paperback)

by Marcus J. Borg (Editor), Ray Riegert (Editor), Jack Kornfield (Introduction)<

Blavatsky Collected Writings Volume 14 introduction by Boris DeZirkoff Excerpt- http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/bcw/vol14/mystery-about-buddha.htm

Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India. His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion, Element, Reprint 1999</ref>

Holger Kersten, 'Buddhist Thought in the Teachings of Jesus'

Ok, thanks, that works for me, but you need to make it a lot more clear. This section was probably the most commonly cited feature mentioned as a reason for deletion in the deletion discussion. I voted to keep, but this section still made me very uncomfortable, the way it's presented. The table format may be easy, but there really needs to be more evidence that it's not OR. At the very least, I strongly suggest that you break it down into sub-tables by source, for easier referencing and citing. And make it a lot more clear, in general, who is making the claims of parallelism, so the reader can judge for themselves. Frankly, some of these don't seem very parallel to me, no matter who claims they are. Even if it's not OR, it seems a bit POV, and, in general, it's best to present such things as an expert's opinion, rather than baldly stating them as fact. Comparitive Religion is a topic fraught with points of view, even (or especially) among the experts, so it's best to as much room for multiple POVs to be shown in an article like this. Cheers. Xtifr _tälk 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S? Have you ever read WP:RS? She has to publish with a publisher that focuses on UFOs. That should tell you something. A.J.A. 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Bodhisattva" as a Mahayana concept

As I was reading I felt that the Mahayana perspective was getting left out somehow, and this quote confirms it:

"... Bodhisattva [is]the term traditionally used to refer to Gautama before he becomes a buddha."

This is (at best) the perspective of the Nikayas ("pali canon", theravada, agamas, etc) where "bodhisattva" is not an important concept. The Buddha appears as a bodhissatva (a bodhisattva, not the bodhisattva) mostly in the Jataka tales which tell of Gautama's previous lives. But in Mahayana the Bodhisattva is central, and there are a myriad of Bodhisattvas. They are all on the path to full buddhahood, but not to become Gautama, who is already a Buddha, but to become future Buddhas.

The use of the term "bodhisattva" almost certainly means that the type of buddhism being discussed or referred to is mahayana, which was already becoming the dominant form of Buddhism in China and along the silk road. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

Hitting the reset button

I grow weary of the table. Tables are ugly. It still lacks decent sources. Nobody bothered to remove the quotes which aren't even similar yet are listed as parallels.

The title of this article is POV. A.J.A. 17:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the table to have some very insight comparisons. It could be better cited and some comparison could be removed, but overall it had some great points. Subjective ugliness is certainly not a reason to delete information. Juan Ponderas

Insightful comparisons are WP:OR. A.J.A. 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Insightful comparisons improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia: Ignore all rules -Juan Ponderas

Insights have to be noted in verifiable and reliable sources. If an editor has the insight, it is original research. Find reliable scholarly sources to quote. Edison 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

The first item listed on Further Reading was Helena Blavatsky. Now Blavatsky is obviously a fringe source, but there may be similar items lists which aren't so obvious, suggesting the entire list needs to be carefully sifted. Therefore I'm moving it here.

• Blavatsky, H. P. Isis Unveiled (1877)
• J. Duncan M. Derrett. The Bible and the Buddhists. Sardini 2000. ISBN 88-7506-174-2 [1] [2]
• Richard Garbe: Indien und das Christentum [3]
• Elmar R. Gruber & Holger Kersten. The Original Jesus: The Buddhist Sources of Christianity.
• Streeter, Burnett H., The Buddha and The Christ, an Exploration of the Meaning of the Universe and of the Purpose of Human Life, Macmillan and Co., London, 1932.
• Allegro, John, The Mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls Revised, Grammercy Publishing Co., New York, 1981 (first published Penguin Books, 1956).
• Amore, Roy C., Two Masters, One Message, The Lives and the Teachings of Gautama and Jesus, Parthenon Press, Nashville, 1978.
• de Silva, Lynn, A., The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity, Macmillan Press, London, 1979. -Reincarnation in Buddhist and Christian Thought, 1968.
• Haring, Hermann & Metz, Johann-Baptist, eds., Reincarnation or Resurrection?, SCM Press, Maryknoll, 1993.
• Head, Joseph, & Cranston, S.L., eds., Reincarnation An East-West Anthology (Including quotations from the world's religions & from over 400 western thinkers), Julian Press, New York, 1961.
• Howe, Quincy, Jr., Reincarnation for the Christian, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1974.
• Leaney, A.R.C., ed., A Guide to the Scrolls, Nottinham Studies on the Qumran Discoveries, SCM Book Club, Naperville, Ill., 1958.
• Lefebure, Leo D., The Buddha and the Christ, Explorations in Buddhist and Christian Dialogue (Faith Meets Faith Series), Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1993.
• Lillie, Arthur, Buddhism in Christendom or Jesus, the Essene, Unity Book Service, New Delhi, 1984 (first published in 1887). *India in Primitive Christianity, Kegan House Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1909.
• Lopez, Donald S. & Rockefeller, Steven C., eds., The Christ and the Bodhisattva, State University of New York, 1987. Phan, *Peter, ed., Christianity and the Wider Ecumenism, Paragon House, New York, 1990.
• Pye, Michael & Morgan, Robert, eds., The Cardinal Meaning, Essays in Comparative Hermeneutics: Buddhism and Christianity, *Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1973.
• Radhakrishnan, S., Eastern Religions in Western Thought, Oxford University Press, 1939.
• Siegmund, Georg, Buddhism and Christianity, A Preface to Dialogue, Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, trans., University of Alabama Press, 1968.
• Smart, Ninian, Buddhism and Christianity: Rivals and Allies, Macmillan, London, 1993.
• Tambyah, Isaac T., A Comparative Study of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, Indian Book Gallery, Delhi, 1983 (first edition 1925).
• Yu, Chai-shin, Early Buddhism and Christianity, A comparative Study of the Founders' Authority, the Community, and the Discipline, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1981.

A.J.A. 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I will shortly be making an RfC.

Although I explained my removals in the edit summaries, let me take the opportunity here to explain at more length, or rather to indicate where I'd like the article to go and how I expect my actions will help it get there. As I said in the AfD discussion, a high-quality article on the general topic would be encyclopedic and interesting, and have virtually nothing in common with the version then under discussion. Unfortunately, there is enough deceptive similarity to discourage movement in the right direction. That version is long, it has pictures, it has (as has been pointed out by the person/people I'm in conflict with) references. But it's a polemic in favor of a minority viewpoint, namely that Christianity is copied from Buddhism. I realize that "Christianity is copied from previous religion Y" is a popular argument with certain skeptics (who are over-represented on the internet); it is nevertheless not taken seriously in accademia, and even if it were could only be described neutrally, not advocated. In this case, the primary contributor (an anon who may or may not be the same person as User:Dembot) is not a typical skeptic but rather apparently a Buddhist who has been editing to promote the view that other religions in general copied from Buddhism (see Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism).

I concluded that the article needed a total re-write. I considered the content for some time and could find very little that could be salvaged, so I turned it into a stub. Although I'm probably not going to be able to produce the article that should be there, clearing the ground is necessary so there's room for it and so potential contributors will see the lack of good content right away. Of course, others may be able to salvage bits of the old version I couldn't, which I would welcome.

I also moved the article to its current title, which is both more neutral and broader in scope than the previous title, "Buddhist-Christian parallels".

The anon/User:Saavak123/Dembot has reacted by accusing me of vandalism (both in edit summaries on this page and on WP:AN/I, where it was ignored), being uncivil in various other ways [4], edit warring, and pasting his version onto all the redirect pages [5] [6] [7].

His version is [8], and mine is [9]. A.J.A. 18:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs an overhaul -- or deletion. Seems a random collection of ill-substantiated facts, not an article. Goldfritha 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a non-article right now-- it's more an idea for a good title for an article. I'd say if anyone wants to take a stab at writing a good article with this title, they should feel free to. --Alecmconroy 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there is some quite interesting material here in the long form of the article, a lot of it is poorly sourced and tendentious. In most of the parallel sayings, for example, the parallelism is pretty weak. Suggest retrieving about 1/3rd of the original article - the material that is best sourced - and place it in more rounded context. Also should mention the views of scholars who suggest that similarities are due to idepenendent convergence rather than influence. NBeale 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalisms

It seems the "edits" being performed remove everything that certain Christian groups find offensive. What is left is left makes it seem that Christianity influenced Buddhism or say nothing at all. All of the removed information has adequate reserarch and bibliography.

Additionally there is a link for a book from a Christian author whose subject has nothing to do at all with this topic. Nothing more than an attempt to use a "scholarly" approach to silence a subject that some view with disdain.

There seem to be a variety of policies of which you are unaware. Most obviously, WP:CIVIL. You shouldn't be accusing me of vandalism when what is going on is an ordinary content dispute.

The most important policy is WP:NPOV. NPOV stands for "neutral point of view", and the policy means Wikipedia articles should not be advocacy pieces for a controversial theory. A.J.A. 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the best way to rewrite this article would be to post the original, albeit potentially NPOV, text so that it can be worked with. The connections between Christainity and Buddhism are definitely in need of considerstion, and this article needs some seed to work off of before the article can be appropriately reconsidered. I would simply add a stipulation that the re-inserted text would be used as a resource, and not simply copied in verbatim.

Talk:Christianity and Buddhism/Old version

Here is the "original" version (as in the last non-almost-blanked version before the page was locked). Maybe we can work on this as the annon suggested above. Maybe we can stop with the name calling and simply deleting things because we don't like the format and would rather complain about what other people aren't doing than to actually do it ourselves. Then maybe, we can have an article that is more than a stub with two template stuck on. Koweja 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity page templates

How come the Buddhism is one is pushed down below the Christianity one? They should be side-by-side for political correctness. Some one please fix this -Thegreyanomaly 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

People should work on this

This has a lot of historical stuff FROM GOOD SOURCES that should not be deleted.

If Christians like to put some more info that supports their own theory , than fine -- but don't delete the work of others.--Great111 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Artical restructure + related comments.

A lot of this article is phrased on the basis of a very biased link at the bottom which should be removed. A website called Christ Never Existed does not seem to be an unbiased site.

The parallelisms of Christianity are not denied by either religion and both religions acknowledge the other for doing a lot of good in the world.

Additionally, notes on the recent push to have Jesus be noted as a Buddha should be added, as well as notes about a large number of articles paralleling him, as well as several Christian Saints to Buddha.

The Christian saint I have most commonly seen called Enlightened is St. Francis of Assisi. Having had friends of the family at a Franciscan monastery during my childhood, I observed the tranquility and enlightenment of the people there first hand. For more information on St Francis of Assisi see pertaining Wikipedia Page(s).

As an additional note relevant to recurring events on this and other articles: A pending change page may be useful to reduce vandalism. Users who have gained enough trust should be allowed to commit changes made to the pending change page, and maintainers should be given the duty of doing so when not done by others. I personally think it above any true follower of Christ or Buddha to do such things, but imitators outnumber the real thing at least 10 to 1 in both cases. 71.55.58.112 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Robert William Francis Ruedisueli ruediix@gmail.com

Peer review

OK, I was asked to comment on this because I closed the last AfD. Of course neither of the two versions are satisfactory at all. Christianity and Buddhism is a major topic and we should be able to tell more than the stub we have now. If that's all we can say then we better not bother. Regarding the old version, I didn't read through it but it is evident that it is riddled with original research by synthesis. The following two quotes are verified claims:

• "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)
• "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Gospel of Luke 6:31)

But to claim that they are "parallel" is an interpretation, and we leave interpretation to authorative sources. So "In his essay, Christianity, Buddhism and Altruism Prof. Beetlbrow compares ...." is a synthesis made by an authority. So the first tak here should be to identify the most authorative sources. This is comparative religious studies, so there should be reams and reams of academic sources, and should always refer to themost authorative ones. So check Google Books or do a library search, if you find a book that seems relevant follow up on the author and the publisher, see if they are of high academic caliber, and let yourself guide by what they have to say about the topic. So task 1: Create a compilation of the best sources on the topic. Good luck. ~ trialsanderrors 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page. This is not an endorsement of either of the two versions per my above comments, but a call to all editors to use the talk page to discuss content disputes. ~ trialsanderrors 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the creator of the stub version. I agree that it's not very satisfactory, and I'd welcome more provided it's not original research and not an advocacy piece for what is, essentially, a fringe view. In other words, as long as it's not the old version. I won't revert it just yet so you and others can comment, but I won't rule out reverting tomorrow. A.J.A. 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently going through 2 books on Buddhist ethics and they mention Christianity at parts. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles so I guess they are not as authoritative as desired. Through skimming, here are some points made in The Nature of Buddhist Ethics by Damien Keown:

1. compare Christian love with karuna, whether each is an end, as in utilitarianism
2. righteous anger tolerable by Christianity, not Buddhism

An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics by Peter Harvey:

1. Christian value of an individual vs. the lack of permanence of the self eliminating bad thoughts towards others
2. lay-monastic relationship unlike that of Christian 'monks'
3. "Protestant Buddhism", "Engaged Buddhism" as responses to Western values
4. Max Weber said that Calvinist Protestant Christianity led to capitalism, while Buddhism could not
5. like Puritans, ordinary work can be done in a spiritual mindset
6. ill-will against someone vs. within oneself

The books focus on Buddhism, so the analyses aren't too elaborate, but if someone familiar with the needs of this article (I cannot go through all of this right now) thinks they should be included, then I will read more and cite them. Pomte 00:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the authors don't need articles to be authoritative, and that's exactly the kind of content that should be added. A.J.A. 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, I should be able to add them in a coherent NPOV manner into the appropriate sections within a few weeks. Pomte 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

is there a consensus for this

this version to this version. not knowing if there is, it looks like vandalism to me. i reverted it once and looking at the history so have others. El hombre de haha 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of vandalism. A.J.A. 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely no consensus. For what it's worth, I find the information deleted to be quite... informative and of a topic worthy of inclusion. Juan Ponderas

I find both versions to be somewhat distasteful. There is some useful information in the long version, but it also contains lots of unverifiable original research. I find the edit war stretched out over a period of months to be distasteful as well. I believe I was the one who got the article semiprotected, but that hasn't helped the situation. Please refer to trialsanderrors's post above in "Peer review" to see what needs to be done here. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletions seem to have been going on here. I reinstated a lot of the deleted material, and did some clean-up. Deletions seem largely unjustified as there are actually many references throughout. Let's improve this article rather than transform it into a meaningless stub. PHG 10:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Having ref tags is not the same as being encyclopedic. If you're sincere about improving the article, why don't you salvage anything that isn't purely polemic? A.J.A. 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just destroying the article and the work of others is not a solution. Let's work together to try to improve on the current content. Regards. PHG 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "current version" is so bad that improvement means totally replacing it; but that's "destroying... the work of others"; it appears you are against any real improvement. A.J.A. 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A.J.A. that there are significant problems with this article. The main problem is that it reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry and thus is in need of significant rewriting. However, I object to A.J.A.'s stubifying of the article. That seems inappropriate and I agree that it borders on vandalism when done without consensus. Let's stop arguing about the stubification (don't do it anymore) and start working on improving the article. --Richard 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it as an essay, but the basic problem is that the article exists for polemical reasons. Until that gets tackled, working on improving the article is going to make trivial differences. Goldfritha 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

People keep using the word "polemical". What is the polemic here? That Buddha and Christ are essentially the same person? That Christianity is basically a Western version of Buddhism? If that is the thesis of this article, then the critical point is for the article to stop asserting things as fact and put the words into the mouths and pens of reliable sources. Instead of simply saying "X", the article should say "According to source A, X is true" or "According to theory B proposed by sourc C, Y is true". --Richard 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone accusing me of vandalism or demanding I "improve" rather than delete done one damn thing to remove the bias? No? Then STFU. A.J.A. 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

One editor made an edit with the summary, "Cleaning up intro to make the thesis of the article more explicit".

This article is not going to be neutral until it does not have a thesis, which is very unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Goldfritha 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So.... that editor would be me. And, yes, I understand what you are saying and I agree in principle. However, if I had had more space, I would have added that I intended on changing the underlying thesis of the article. The thesis of the article which led A.J.A. to want to stubify it was that Buddhism DID influence Christianity. My intro suggests a different thesis.

Re-read the new intro

Given the remarkable amount of parallelism between core principles of the two religions, many have been moved to ask whether the parallels are simply coincidence or whether there was a direct or indirect influence of Buddhism on early Christianity. One area of study has been the possibility of interactions between Buddhism and pre-Christian religious belief and philosophical thought such as the Greeks and Jews. In addition, there has been speculation regarding interactions between Buddhism and early Christianity.

The new thesis is that many (perhaps I should have changed it to say "some") have been moved to ask "whether the parallels are simply coincidence or whether there was etc etc....". This is neutral. Ain't saying there was an influence; ain't saying there wasn't. Just saying some people think there was. That's NPOV.

Now I admit that I haven't had time to go through each section of the article and shift the tone to this "agnostic" viewpoint. But I did try to do that with a few sections. Maybe you can help.

--Richard 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-read it yourself. The entire lede. And then instead of going on, re-work it, because that opening is not "agnostic." It entirely supports the side that there is influence.

The statement "Given the remarkable amount of parallelism. . ." has got to go, because in fact the parallelism is hotly disputed, let alone its "remarkable" extent.

I'm certainly not going to help on an article whose deletion I have voted for when my opinion of it hasn't changed.. Goldfritha 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did re-read it and you're right the intro still seemed biased towards the conclusion that there was influence. I have weakened that bias in the intro.

I looked at the two AFD debates on this article and didn't see your vote. I certainly didn't see any extended explanation from you as to why this article should be deleted. Thus, it's not clear to me what your objections are.

Let's be collegial about this. Please explain your objections here and let's see if they can be addressed or if you are simply deadset against the existence of this article.

One pro-deletion editor said "Comparison is inherently OR". I disagree. There is a field called "Comparative religions" and comparison is not OR if there are reliable sources who did the comparison.

I am not advancing the thesis that there definitely was an influence of Buddhism on Christianity. I readily accept that this is a theory advanced by those on the fringe rather than those in the mainstream. Nonetheless, I think the topic is encyclopedic even if the treatment given it by the current revision of this article is not.

Where do you stand?

--Richard 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"parallels between the two religions have been noted across the ages by scholars." -- this does not appear to be supported by the article itself, which is drawing parallels without providing any instance of scholars "across the ages" who noted them. Furthermore, it does not note that other scholars have rejected those parallels when drawn. And "In addition, there has been speculation regarding interactions between Buddhism and early Christianity" -- who speculated? When? Where? And why is it noteworthy? Goldfritha 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... do you have any answers to these questions or are you just pointing out the flaws? I can only do so much. This is not an area that I know a lot about. I'm just trying to clean the article up in response to A.J.A.'s attempt to stubify it.

I'm still trying to understand... are you criticizing the article because you think the treatment of the topic is biased or because you think the topic is unencyclopedic? --Richard 05:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article can only be cleaned up by someone who knows or finds out the answers to those questions, because it won't be clean without them. Goldfritha 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So. After a month of "cleaning up", we're still recomending Blavatsky as an authority? SHAME. A.J.A. 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article remains worthless garbage. A.J.A. 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderfully Great Article

Every religion has its fundamentalists. This article is a great piece of truth. Unfortunately this is getting deleted. It was deleted from Answers.com. But it reappeared on wikipedia. BIG THANKS.

I have more material if wikipedia ppl like to add:

Alexander Founded city Alexandria on Egyptian shore.

Alexander invaded India(327BC) but he was impressed with Buddhists teachings.

After alexander the greek kindom was divided in 4 parts Bactria, Antioch, macedonia(Greece) and Alexandria(egypt) under Ptolemy. In Bactria(Afghanistan) Greek king Menander became a Buddhist & so all his generations for a long time until muslims invaded.

Alexandria became a great center of learning under Ptolemy kings starting from 300 BC to 500 years probably in the same lines as that of Taxila or Nalanda.

Seleucus Nicator (358-281 BC) the greek successor to Alexander ruled a vast empire from Afghanistan to Syria.

King Chandragupta Maurya(322BC) defeated Seleucus Nicator & married his daughter after a treaty. Seleucus Nicator sent greek ambassador Megasthanese to Indian mauryan capital Patliputra. Megasthanese wrote 'Indika' a book about Indian kingdoms.

King Ashoka 273-232BC (grandson of King Chandragupta)of India utilized good relations with Greek empire and sent buddhist missionaries to Antioch(syria), Greece(macedonia) , ALEXANDRIA(under ptolemy) and magga(iraq) in around 240 BC. Written records for this are available on stone pillars of King Ashoka (edict 13 ).

see : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya

Bilingual Ashoka Rock Eddict in Greek and Aramaic from Kandahar(Afghanistan) shows influence of Buddhism on Greeks and Jews (probably in Alexandria )

Aramaic is the Language Jesus & his Disciples Spoke

In Alexandria(Egypt) there were jew monks called THERAPUTAE .

The word Theraputae & Therapy come from a popular buddhist word THER ; Ther means an elder monk in buddhism who has completed 15 years of monkhood. Those who went to meet Theraputae were blessed & cured of their diseases hence the word Therapy. The Buddhism in Srilanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia & Laos is called Therawada Buddhism.

Father & mother of Jesus fled to Egypt in order to escape from persecution of king Herod of Israel. Jesus probably learnt Buddhist principles from Egyptian Buddhist ascetics (Theraputae) & stayed there until he was older & king herod was dead.

Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) has mentioned about Buddha & Buddhist Monks specifically which is the proof of existence of buddhism in Alexandria.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM

Buddhist & christian beliefs & practices are same practically based on compassion, nonviolence & love.

The practice of having confession box in every church comes from Buddhism only. Buddha had several rules for monks for confession for various misdeeds which are properly mentioned in VINAYA section of Buddhist philosophy.

Jesus opposed rituals similar to Buddha. Jesus said - Sabbath is made for man . Man is not made for sabbath.

Probably Jesus was killed because he wanted to incorporate love & compassion from Buddhism to Judaism which was resisted by Jewish people then who believed eye for an eye and tooth for tooth as mentioned in Torah.

The Buddhists first started building their temples (called stupas) with very high pinnacles , it appears that early Christians copied from Buddhist for building high rise churches with pointed tops called steeple.

The only difference between both is, belief in God, but in Buddhism , Buddha is called God.

Buddha declared that he does not see any being higher than him not even angels ,arcangels,gods & godesses. Rather he declared that even angels and arcangels are in the grip of devil (mara) because they also have a finite lifespan after which they have to take rebirth as any creature as per stored desires of deeds(karma). But He (Buddha and his equals ) is free of karma & will never be born in any plane of existence(world) due to their passage to nirvanic state of eternal super conscious (called nitya) hence he is in the state of LORD/God. Not only him but many have crossed the boundary of deathless awareness of all seeing and omnipotent.

Jesus did not pray to GOD(in general) . Rather he always prayed to heavenly father . That , is probably to Buddha.

Jesus went to wilderness for divine contemplation & the devil tempted him with riches of the world which Jesus rejected hence leading to his ascension. This is similar to Buddha going to jungle for divine contemplation & he was also tempted by devil(mara) with riches of the world including beautiful girls, having rejected all that , the divine eye of Buddha opened , with which he was able to see the truth. The truth about his countless rebirths as motion pictures and also the ability to see the truth of other creatures past, present & future.

Once Jesus cleaned feet of his disciples & taught them to serve one another. Similarly , once Buddha cleaned a sick disciple with hot water who became very weak due to diarrhea and later taught his disciples to serve each other just like he did.

When Jesus said “Kingdom of heaven is within you” it was a Buddhist principle to search the truth within.

When Jesus said “you have to become like a child only then you can enter the kingdom of heaven” , it is similar to what Buddha said “you must unlearn (old teachings) before you can know the truth”.

The concept of devil & demon possession is similar to Mara (god of sex,violence,disease & death) which was a new concept given by Buddha. Prior to this Indians believed that disease & death were also acts of God.

Jesus said “if someone slaps you on one cheek,Show your other cheek” , it is a Buddhist principle of tolerance which says that even if some people cut you to pieces using a saw , don’t curse them rather bless them.

The “Eternal Life” & “Salvation” promised by Jesus is same as “Nirvana” of Buddhists in concept which means a blissful state of continuum without rebirth & death.

Jesus said – “do not believe on astrology”. Buddha also said – “do not believe on astrology it is meaningless”. Jesusisabuddha 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? The name Jesusisabuddha itself suggests a bias. Your praise only makes me question the article even more... 151.201.9.156 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, but i have to say, the first few points about alexander has it's worth. everything else is disputed, that's why this discussion is here.

Improvements

None have been made. The (astonishingly few) changes were either cosmetic or made the article worse. If you intend to make the "long" version into a genuinely encyclopedic article, you can work on it on a sandbox page. The current article remains shameful on a site which presents itself as an encyclopedia. A.J.A. 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This article lists a fair quantity of information which is fairly referenced. The way is to improve it, not to delete it outright. PHG 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Name some. A.J.A. 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, all the historical part (most of the article) is fairly accurate and highly referenced. PHG 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time ATM, but this is absurd, and I intend to explain why later. A.J.A. 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to revert User:A.J.A. but since User:PHG did, I urge A.J.A. not to do it again. The fact that you think you're right doesn't give you the right to do this. Please form a consensus for such actions first. While "voting is evil", it might be useful to do a straw poll to determine where consensus lies. So I'll start one. Please express your opinion below.

Option 1

Leave the article the way it is and improve it incrementally to address various issues raised by A.J.A. and others.

• Support PHG 19:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• SupportGiovanni33 19:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

Start with A.J.A.'s "neutral stub" and improve it from there

Discussion

• Deleting referenced material is just not the way to edit on Wikipedia. Deleting an article compiled by other in order to start from scratch is quite unheard of, and as far as I know goes against the rules of this encyclopedia. PHG 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nah... you overstate the case. It's not unheard of to stub-ify an article because it is deemed hopelessly bad. Sometimes, it's easier to start from a blank page than to fix a very bad article. Me personally, I think we should work with the current article because there is a lot of information in it. Moreover, there are processes for building a consensus for a stubification such as A.J.A. wishes to execute. A consensus on this Talk Page or an AFD discussion would be legitimate grounds for doing it. This article is pretty bad. The question is whether it is better to fix it from its current state or from a "neutral stub" such as the one A.J.A. replaced it with. --Richard 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First, there is essentially no legitimate information in the article. Second, I have left it alone for a long time and esstentially nothing was done to fix it. A.J.A. 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides some stylistic issues, this article is actually highly referenced and uses a lot of historical background. The reason given for deletion, that it contains "essentially no legitimate information", does not seem accurate. PHG 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Highly referenced? I especially like footnote 15: "^ Blavatsky Collected Writings Volume 14 introduction by Boris DeZirkoff Excerpt- http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/bcw/vol14/mystery-about-buddha.htm".

This, after almost two months for carrying out all the impovement you called for. In fact, you demanded that I stop so that you could work on improving the article. And now, after almost two month's time to work on it, we get... references to Helena Blavatsky and other such sources. Do you realize that this is currently being presented to the world in all seriousness as part of an encyclopedia?

Rather than the arrogance you're displaying, you should both exhibit some, well, shame is the only emotion that comes to mind. A.J.A. 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a specific reference, indeed let's challenge it and discuss it (I personnaly do not know about this Helena Blavatsky), but this is certainly no ground to delete the whole article. And please A.J.A., respect Wikipedia:Civility rules. PHG 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., I am actually quite embarassed by this article because, in many places, it presents X, Y and Z as fact when it should be making statements like "According to Blavatsky, X is true" and "According to Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Y is true". It is reasonable for Wikipedia to present the wacky and fringe theories of crackpots. What is not reasonable is to present them as incontrovertibly true. We should not give undue weight to fringe theories. However, it is not our job to determine what "THE TRUTH" is. It is our job to present all notable viewpoints on what "THE TRUTH" is and let the reader decide for himself/herself what he/she wishes to believe.

You should remember that the idea that God exists, that Jesus is his son and that Jesus was resurrected from the dead are as questionable beliefs to some people as the ideas expressed in this article. Nonetheless, Christianity deserves to be described here in great detail because of its importance in the history of world affairs. "Christianity and Buddhism" also deserves to be described although with far less coverage than Christianity.

You can help shift this article towards a more NPOV stance but only if you help rewrite the text. You won't get there by throwing out all the information that is being presented.

--Richard 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

God vs Mahavairocana, Buddha vs Saint and Bodhisattva vs Guardian Kings ....???

While I was editing the article of Shingon Buddhism, I came to realize the equivalence indicated on the subject line. I'm not sure what others think this about. To be very strange,

• whenever I see a Cross, it reminds me Five Dhyani Buddhas which I see it as manifestation from the Cross, or vise versa

• When I see the mandala of Womb Realm, it brings me the images of the flags which contains the Union Jack.

• When bicolor flags is in the front of my eyes, the Mandala of the Two Realms are prompted. Some buddhists may see it the presence of Aksobhya and Amitābha.

• If triband flags are in front of me, I'll see the presence of Trikaya

Proposed move

This is not an article about mutual influences of Christianity and Buddhism on each other. It is an article about hypothesized influences of Buddhism on Christianity. Therefore, I propose that we move it to Buddhist influences on early Christianity. That, IMO, is a more accurate title. --Richard 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be a more precise, and accurate title.Giovanni33 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But still a comprehensively inaccurate article. A.J.A. 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I'm not sure what you mean by inaccurate. I hope you don't mean "truth" (according to you) since WP is about verification not truth. These theories, as reported on here, are well sourced. Disagreeing with them as inaccurate would not be a good argument to not report on them. Instead the remedy is to find a reliable source that disputes this as inaccurate, and include that POV, as well, per NPOV--as well as fix pov language that may exist in the present version of this article.Giovanni33 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We could try to balance the current article with elements on the influence of Christianity on Buddhism (the visit of Saint Thomas to India in the 1st century and early Christian thought are sometimes said to have influenced the development of Mahayana). I think an article under the title "Christianity and Buddhism" is a necessity anyway, just as we have Chrisianity and Juddaism, Christianity and Islam etc... PHG 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that and I'm not opposed. It would balance this article in line with its current title, if we don't change it to the above proposal. Given that you have pointed out we have other articles along these lines, this seems like a good idea to keep with that established norm.Giovanni33 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping an article at this title provided that it has more balance between "Buddhist influences on Christianity" and "Christian influences on Buddhism". However, the current text is entirely about "Buddhist influences on Christianity" and has so much content that I doubt that there can ever be a bi-directional balance. That is the rationale behind my proposal to move this detailed treatment to a separate article. A summary can be provided under the current title. --Richard 05:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard, why move this article to Buddhist influences on Christianity without even the start of a consensus on the question?? This is not proper Wikipedia procedure. As far as I'm concerned, this should be reverted. PHG 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is proper Wikipedia procedure. I proposed the move. Although there was some flak about the quality of the article, no one objected to the move per se so I was bold and did the move. I'd be OK to move it back except there is an AFD in process. Let's talk about the title after we see whether or not the article survives the AFD.

--Richard 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the discussion we had up there, nobody agreed to your move, and I actualy said that we needed a "Christianity and Buddhist" article anyway, as for other religions. Please correct this, if you can't, ask an Administrator to do it for you. This is independent from AFDs. PHG 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stubbed version:

The stubbed version of this article needs SERIOUS revision. First, it contains NO premise about the natuure of the article. Second, It alludes to texts not explained anywhere. The line about rosaries is thoroughly out of context and doesn't explain what 'versions' of what were islamic? The Francis Xavier materail, and the positioning of hands, also lack a fundamental premise. The entire article, as stubbed, is a shoddy work, and if A.J.A. continues to insist that the version AJA reverts to is 'better', then said editor should SERIOUSLY clean up the page. IF you're going to edit war, at least have a version to revert to which makes sense. I'm not jumping int othe 'which version is "Right"' fight, but I will say that the stubbed versions is internally so bad that the other version, with greater sourcing and a better attempt at a Lead Paragraph, should be up until the stub is refined to make some sense. ThuranX 06:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ths stubbed version is incoherent. But, I see no valid basis to remove the sourced content of this article back to the stub, anyway.Giovanni33 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR POV - Slash and burn? AFD?

I just do not like the premise of the article. I have a feeling that it should be AFDed. If not, why not start over with a stub, ban anons from editing, and make an NPOV article? WhisperToMe 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I think a better rationale is needed here. Also, have you looked at the top of this talk page? This article has been AFD'ed twice in the last year and survived both times. However, if you really think it should be AFD'ed again, you are welcome to do so. Just provide a better rationale than "I just do not like the premise of the article." What, in your opinion, is the premise of the article and what don't you like about it? --Richard 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, what this article needs is various points of view about Christianity and Buddhism (as in a comparison) from various scholars and notable people - If this cannot be found, this article should be trashed. WhisperToMe 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please add other views about this question. There is notable scholarhip on this subject presented in this article, so it does not need to be "trashed."Giovanni33 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible major problem

The current major problem of this article might be its structure and that too many topics/questions got mixed up.
The article could be split into the following sections/articles:

1. Comparison of the contemporary doctrines and world views of Christianity and Buddhism - similarities and differences.
2. Possible historical influences of Buddhism on european philosophy and/or Christianity.
3. Possible historical influences of greek/roman philosophy and/or Christianity on Buddhism.
4. A Buddhist view on Jesus: Was Jesus a bodhisattva? With which requirements did he comply?

--Liebeskind 19:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion

For those interested, the AFD discussion is here. PHG 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between Buddhist monasticism and Jewish asceticism

I've removed this unsourced speculation from the main article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There are strong similarities between Buddhist monastic teachings and Jewish ascetic sects, such as the Therapeutae and the Essenes.

Philo Judaeus, a 1st century AD contemporary of Josephus, described the Therapeutae in his tract 'De Vita Contemplativa'. It appears they were a religious brotherhood without precedent in the Jewish world. Reclusive ascetics, devoted to poverty, celibacy, good deeds and compassion, they were just like Buddhist monks in fact.

From the Therapeutae it is possible that Buddhist influence spread to both the Essenes and to the Gnostics – adepts of philosophical speculations.

The Essenes were a monastic order that did not marry. They lived in the desert and were very simple in their life styles. They did not believe in animal sacrifice and were vegetarians. They believed in the pre-existence of the soul and in angels as divine intermediaries or messengers from God. They were famous for their powers of endurance, simple piety and brotherly love. They were interested in magical arts and the occult sciences.

John the Baptist was an Essene. His time of preparation was spent in the wilderness near the Dead Sea. Jesus was greatly influenced by his stay with John the Baptist. Many of the basic tenets found in the teachings of Jesus can be traced back to the ideas flourishing among groups such as the Essenes.

Article name

I've moved this article back to Christianity and Buddhism from the previous move (Buddhist influences on Christianity). Comparative religion articles on Wikipedia use the "X and Y" format. This title also has the added benefit of neutrality, and accurately describes the subtopics within the article; many of the so-called "influences" exist only in the headings, which is somewhat misleading. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mauryan proselytizing

I'm removing some of this as OR synthesis. —Viriditas | Talk 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kersten contrasts the "bloodthirsty and vengeful deity" of the Old Testament's Semitic tribes with the "totally different God" who has illuminated "the philosophy behind Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, as relayed by Matthew's Gospel":

"Where did Jesus learn the precepts he proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount?" ... "No other religion of the eastern Mediterranean area lays claim to the magnanimously loving Grace preached by Jesus".(Holger Kersten, Jesus Lived in India. His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion, Element, Reprint 1999.)

Ashoka's pillars give us some of the earliest Buddhist ideas written in stone:

"Dhamma is good, but what constitutes Dhamma? (It includes) little evil, much good, kindness, generosity, truthfulness and purity." Pilar Edict Nb2 (S. Dhammika)

"And noble deeds of Dhamma and the practice of Dhamma consist of having kindness, generosity, truthfulness, purity, gentleness and goodness increase among the people." Rock Pilar Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

I moved the above reference to brakets so as not to interfere with the reflist furter down. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the article

Richard's most recent edit [10] treats the topic as if it were Buddhist influences on Christianity. This is contrary to his stated intent to wait until the AfD discussion is closed to settle the issue. He has yet to demonstrate that an encyclopedic article could possibly be written on his proposed topic.

Finally, it appears to be OR. Who classified them into five mechanisms? A.J.A. 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is OR in the sense that I don't have a citation that lists these precisely these five mechanisms. If you would prefer, I can change the text to read "Proposed mechanisms... include:" The point here is that the lead is a summary of the article and the five mechanisms listed form the organizational scheme that I have deduced from the article. If you have a different organizational scheme to suggest, we can discuss the merits of yours versus mine.

My "stated intent" was to wait until the AFD discussion was over to settle the issue of the title. The scope of this article has been the same for many months, probably since its creation. My edit did not change the scope of the article, I was just summarizing the content of the article in the lead. The "lead jockeys" keep trying to change the lead in the hopes that it will somehow change the scope of the article. If you want to change the scope of the article, you have to add content that fits your envisioned scope.

Is it my fault that the entire content of the article is about "Buddhist influences on Christianity"? Have I deleted any content in this article to push it towards this scope? In fact, has anybody? Has there ever been content outside of this scope in this article?

My preference is to have the title match the content of the article. At the moment, this article is entirely about "Buddhist influences on Christianity" because, AFAICT, that is all anybody has ever written about here regardless of what the title was. If you wish to push the article towards a balanced discussion of "Christianity and Buddhism", why don't you add some material about "Christian influences on Buddhism"? Or "Buddhist persecution of Christians"?

My personal perspective based on Googling is that there is some material to be written about "Christian influences on Buddhism" but less than "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" and the material is of a markedly different nature. That is, most of the discussion of "Christian influences on Buddhism" is more grounded in fact whereas the "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" is more grounded on conjecture and marginal, fringe theories. I would prefer to have an article titled Christianity and Buddhism which mentions "(purported) Buddhist influences on Christianity" and then links to Buddhist influences on Christianity where the topic is disussed in greater detail. That would leave Christianity and Buddhism to talk about those other topics that I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

--Richard 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not even creating a synthesis of published sources. You're using the article itself as a source for the claim. Intros are supposed to summarize the article, but every factual claim in the lead should be backed up by citations in the article. Instead, your interpretation of the article's history is the only evidence you've cited.

The same high standards I've come to expect. A.J.A. 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal attack that I don't deserve.

The sections in the article are the claims (some of them poorly sourced, I admit). The lead is just summarizing the claims in the article. If a section is deleted, the corresponding entry in the list should be deleted as well. If a section stands, then the entry in the list should also stand.

As your repeated stubbification in the past shows, you have a problem with the existence of this article. If you and others cannot form a consensus to delete it, then help fix it or leave it alone.

If you have a problem with a specific section, then please list the problems with that section and let us discuss and fix those problems. I've already deleted two sections today which, once I actually got around to reading and thinking about them, seemed to be of little relevance.

--Richard 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As documented above, User:A.J.A. and I have a difference of opinion regarding text that I wrote for the lead. Since I try to hold myself to one revert, I am not going to revert his second deletion of the text. Instead, I will provide it here and ask for the opinion of other editors.

The text in question is as follows:

Proposed mechanisms by which Buddhism may have influenced the development of Christianity include:

1. Pre-Christian interactions between Buddhism and Greece
2. Suggestions that Jesus may have studied under the Therapeutae in Alexandria
3. Suggestions that Jesus may have traveled to India and Tibet during the "Silent Years"
4. Influences of Buddhism on Gnosticism and Manichaeism

--Richard 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If I was opposed to the existence of the article I would have made it a redirect. I don't oppose its existing, I oppose its being crap. Which appears the most common sentiment on the AfD discussion.

In fairness, the second version, which you quoted here, is less obviously OR than the first one. Your description of its function makes perfect sense... except for the fact that we already have that. It's called the table of contents, and it automatically expands and contracts in the manner you advocate. Unless there's a serious case that this article needs a redundant manual outline, the only possible reason for your list is to ennumerate the "proposed mechanisms", which gets us back to OR. A.J.A. 04:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to name the article Buddhist influences on Christianity, because at this point, the influences are hypothetical, and barely putative. Let's stick with Christianity and Buddhism (or Buddhism and Christianity) for now, because that is neutral, and does not take sides. The same holds true for the section headings, which are attempting to sway the reader. For the second time, I'm going to neutralize those headings. Let the material speak for itself. We have Edward Conze, a scholar of Buddhism who claims that it is possible for the Buddhists to have influenced the Gnostics, but the evidence is far from conclusive and we must be very careful not to let editorial bias intrude. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship and Objectivity

Please delete this foolish article and be done with the repetitious old game played by the opponents of orthodox Christianity. These pages echo, often word by word, inumerable books and articles filled with claims connected with Christianity. How many religions wish to have credit for the teachings of Jesus? Are they all true? Obviously not. How many times will the shallow scholarship that so often raises the spectre of some "lost christianity" or "left out gospel," have to again be shown to be unsupported by even weak academic research. Yes, of course there are parallels between all of the major religions on some points while they differe dramatically on the essential ones. The words of Christ are perfectly joined continuations of the words of Yaweh beginning in the book of Genesis. Buddhism, like Hinduism before it, branched off of the laws of the creator given before either of them existed. Clement and the other Christian "Church Fathers" knew about and would have referenced other religions but no respectable scholar would claim that the "orthodox" (those who followed the actual teachings of Christ and the apostles) church believed anything except what was handed down from Jesus and his disciples. Articles such as the one we are discussing gain all fo their power by one thing, the suggestion of doubts about Christian doctrine and its true origins....please delete this article if you wish to enhance the integrity of Wikipedia.

68.84.79.101 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)George

Thank you for your comment. The best place to express this opinion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity. --Richard 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Please review the "Criticism" section which I copied almost verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia. My question is whether this section should be kept intact in its current form or split up and spread out to be integrated with the sections that describe the theories that it criticizes.

--Richard 06:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I edited quite a bit, especially due to the POV tone (more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedic entry). Best regards. PHG 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those edits and was happy that you edited out the more extreme sections. However, this doesn't address my question of whether the section should remain intact or get spread out among the topics that it addresses.

--Richard 06:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This section still reads like a catholic encyclopaedia with obvious bias. It states that Jesus would be appalled at the atheism in Buddhism. 203.143.238.107 06:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's because Jesus WOULD be appalled at the atheism in Buddhism, and he would have been equally appalled at the polytheism in those sects of Buddhism where Buddha became revered as a deity. And Buddha would also be appalled by Jesus's apparent devotion for a certain Deva called YHWH (I doubt he would have any understanding of Elohim). I mean, hell, philosophically maybe there are some parallel and influences, but theologically the faith of the Jews was in no way compatible with the Dharmic religion. 151.201.9.156 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you suggest that Buddhism would accept syncretistic influences from animistic and shamanistic religions but not from monotheistic / pantheistic ones? What makes Buddhism less compatable with early historic Hebrew faith than with Proto-Shinto shamanism? Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Buddhism

OK, now that the AFD on this article has closed, I think it's time for us to discuss the possible linkages between Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Buddhism.

During the AFD, I got the insight that much of the original article text was basically making the argument that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism and/or Manichaeism and therefore Buddhism influenced Christianity. These arguments do not suggest influences on Jesus (via Therapeutae or trips to India/Tibet) but suggest influences on non-mainstream Christianity.

There is scholarly support from Conze and Pagels for a minority theory that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism and/or Manichaeism. The problem was that there is this missing link. Even if we assume that Buddhism did influence Gnosticism, what evidence is there that those Buddhist influences traveled from Gnosticism into mainstream Christianity? Darn little as far as I can tell.

As for Buddhist influences on Manichaeism, did Manichaeism influence Christianity or was it the other way around? Manichaeism is often described as a syncretism of Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. The only evidence that we have that Manichaeism might have influenced Christianity is via Augustine or Priscillian. Augustine saw fit to criticize Manichaeism in his writings but were there any Christians who were following Manichaean beliefs?

Here's what the article on Manichaeism says

The extent of influence that the Manichaeans actually had on Christianity is still being debated. It has been suggested that the Bogomils, Paulicians, and the Cathars were deeply influenced by Manichaeism. However, the Bogomils and Cathars, in particular, left few records of their rituals or doctrines, and the link between them and Manichaeans is tenuous. Regardless of its historical accuracy the charge of Manichaeism was levelled at them by contemporary orthodox opponents, who often tried to fit contemporary heresies with those combatted by the church fathers. The Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars were certainly dualists and felt that the world was the work of a demiurge of Satanic origin (Cross), but whether this was due to influence from Manichaeism or another strand of Gnosticism is impossible to determine. Only a minority of Cathars held that the evil god (or principle) was as powerful as the good god (also called a principle) as Mani did, a belief also known as absolute dualism. In the case of the Cathars, it seems they adopted the Manichaean principles of church organization, but none of its religious cosmology. Priscillian and his followers apparently tried to absorb what they thought was the valuable part of Manichaeaism into Christianity.

Is there a connection between the dualism of the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars and anything in mainstream Christianity? If there is one, it is through Priscillian but Priscillian was executed as a heretic so where's the link from Manichaeism to mainstream Christianity?

It was the difficulty of establishing this linkage that caused me to remove the discussion of Manichaeism from this article. I also considered removing the Gnosticism section as well but it seems more reasonable to consider Gnosticism a defunct offshoot of Christianity whereas Manichaeism is not. (Maybe that's an arbitrary distinction but that's the one I'm using right now.)

All of the above could be used to argue for articles on Gnosticism and Buddhism and Manichaeism and Buddhism. I think this approach would resolve some of the heartburn that people get around Christianity and Buddhism. It would allow us to document theories about Buddhist influences on Gnosticism and Manichaeism without implying that Buddhism thereby indirctly influenced mainstream Christianity.

The claims about the Therapeutae and the travels of Jesus to India/Tibet do make the claim of a direct influence. In those cases, we have to present the evidence along with any rebuttals and let the reader decide for himself/herself.

--Richard 23:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the Buddhism and Gnosticism section quotes from a work referred to as 'the 2007 book' Killing The Father and Son To Realize East is West by Daniel Hopkins. An Amazon search reveals no trace of any such book. A Google search yields three results: one mention on a Richard Dawkins discussion board (now a dead link) and one mention on Craigslist (also now dead). The third - the sole live reference to any such work - is to this WP article itself. I am therefore treating this material as tantamount to unreferenced original research and, accordingly, have removed it. Wingspeed (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Wingspeed is deleted work by Daniel Hopkins because his book is not found at Amazon. That half witted schmuck should go to FatherAndSonEastIsWest.com to view the book he could not find before deleating work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, even a Google search by title gives only one result, this article itself. The anonymous objector has the advantage of me: the name of the author's website. Going to www.fatherandsoneastiswest.com reveals the work in question to be self-published & printed on demand. The same obstacle therefore still applies: it ranks very much as original research for WP purposes. I would also draw the attention of 76.117.89.159 to Wikipedia:NPA. Wingspeed (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me Wingspeed if I am not familiar with yours/wiki's definition of research, but everything you deleted had citations embeded. For instance when he writes of the bowl and the people "chewing, without chewing" in the Infancy gospel of James, he then cites the Buddhist texts where this can be found. etc.. You need to explain yourself better before you delete. So how do you write this off as "original research" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You indicate you are not familiar with "wiki's definition of research." In which case, please see WP: SOURCES. More specifically, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" WP:REDFLAG. And, particularly relevant in this instance: WP: SPS, regarding self-published sources. Further: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material": WP: BURDEN. The content you have re-inserted fails to meet the necessary criteria on each of these grounds. Wingspeed (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey- Wingspeed you delete my _hit one more time, I am going to let you know who the f I am. It was posted under theory you half-wit and under your definition of research Thomas Paine would not be able to publish his Age of Reason, now this is the last time, you delete my _hit and I am going to make it my ambition to pay people to cause havoc through violent edits like your own, so go ahead, delete my post again, I'll even pay bumbs to start editing, and don't blame me, your reckless redactions will have caused it. I ran into a schmuck like you when I was editing the page on ridderless-horse, they claimed that the American funeral prosessions riddrless-horse was trace to Ghangis Khan, he got it from the Gandhara Buddhists who depicted the Buddha as a ridderless-horse. Now tommorow I will epitimize Hopkins work more, and if you delete it I gonna spend alot of money to make those homoginized editers of wiki earn their keep. O' and check out my contribution to the wiki page on free speech, I will sumerize it for you, 'fuck you asshole'- in jest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP, you seem to be new to Wikipedia, so let me say that your edits appear to be in violation of several policies. Most importantly, your last edit is in violation of WP:NPA, and more importantly, contravenes the principle of acting like a rational adult. So please, stop with the insults, please read WP:OR, particularly the section WP:OR#SYNTH, and explain to us (without the insulting language) why this material belongs in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To Akhilleus, we are all human, so I had to let my frustration out. There is no way that all of Wingspeeds criteria is met by all of wikipedias pages. Anyway why do you call it original research when I restate his parallels and give the Buddhist and Christian text. Furthermore, why does wingspan lump my whole post under "exceptional claim". Claiming that the gospels are allegorical is far from exceptional, and then showing a possible (Theories(post is under)allegorical connection to Buddhism is only exceptional because it is outside the mainstreem thoughline. You may be right some of his claims might need to be explained better, but the post is only meant to summerize, such as when he claims the etymons in the title Christ are from Sanskrit, in his book, he explores the account of Prometheous bound and the use of the word Christon and I believe he believes it stems from the Sanskrit KrisTihan. It would be one thing if he deleted specific lines(and then explained why, but he labled the whole thing under "original research". Now I demand more then his wiki policy quotes. The post is under THEORIES not "Theories from renowned scholars"- The oppisite of courage is not fear, rather conformity-(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Future incidents of letting your frustration out may lead to your IP address being blocked from editing. Please stop hurling insults around, and instead discuss the situation calmly. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus-- you are correct I am embarrased for my tone, but I did address the situation calmly in my first response to Wingspeed, yet he ignored it and gave the same stock reason. I thought that Wiki was a chance for everyone to introduce beliefs as long as they were relevent to the topic, otherwise we should change the name of the article to Ancient Buddhism and Ancient Christianity. But as this topic is important to the current east/west dialogue I suggest that, as Wingspeed claims, wiki wave the rule to allow only "accepted" authors contribute as this is Aristocratic especially involving taboo topics. But I would like to say to Wingspeed that I could, an intend on, cleaning up my review, and cite not only the relevent text, but an "accepted" translation etc..., if I have offended Wingspeed, I would like him to know that I felt terrible and that I only wanted him to address my comment about originally citing sources in my post.

Direct Influence

When there is a stone pillar which writes the names of the kings of those regions in museums and written by a HISTORICAL EMPEROR (Ashoka) who sent Buddhist missionaries to those areas, saying he has won conquest of the Dharma -- you have a direct influence of Buddhist ideas available in the Middle East...What's the dispute?

Are they so shameless to deny obvious historical/archeological evidence?

You'd wish archeology is that simple. 151.201.9.156 00:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

User:A.J.A. seems to insist on leaving the "Disputed" tag at the beginning of the article, inspite of the numerous improvements and additions (especially references) that have been made over the last month (and no comment from his part during that time). A.J.A., you will have to give your exact rationale if you want to leave that tag. Regards. PHG 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus is the Trinity: Father, son (the word) and holy Ghost" -- the article says that. Apparently anyone who thinks this sort of thing is unacceptible isn't welcome here, but please at least keep some vestige of standards around. A.J.A. 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Anything else? PHG 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus is the trinity" is objectionable? Excuse me, but it's right in the Bible.

1 John 5:7–8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Perhaps only AJA's ignorance of the Bible is the only thing unacceptable here.--149.4.108.141 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No... the text that you introduced did not capture the idea well (Christianity has a Trinity as arguably does Buddhism). In fact, it did not even represent the Christian concept of the Trinity accurately. Jesus is not the Trinity but rather one Person in a Triune God.

Please avoid personal attacks. Although I'm not always happy with the way in which AJA makes his points, there has been validity to his issues with this article in the past and this article has been improved greatly in response to his criticisms.

AJA, it really is not appropriate to just slap a tag onto an article without explaining on the Talk Page what you consider the issues to be. PHG is right to ask for an explanation of the tag. You can't just say "I don't like the article so I'm going to slap the tag on to show that I don't like it." I'm going to remove the tag. Feel free to replace it along with an explanation here of why you think the tag belongs there.

--Richard 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Anyone reading AJA's post would see that it's AJA using personal attacks. Pointing out incorrect information isn't a personal attack.

Actually I see the problem...

I am merely talking about the trinity as presented in the New Testament scriptures and NOT ABOUT CHURCH TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY which is a church view (which is what richard and AJA are talking about) - and this is a huge distinction. Similarly I am not talking about Buddhist schools, but rather direct quotes from the Pali Canon.

So when I say, Jesus is the Trinity, I am talking about Jesus's singular name to represent the trinity and the New Testament contradictory verses, and not about the Trinitarian theology official position of three equal but separate beings in one Godhead.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). John 14: [8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? --149.4.108.141 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

149.4.108.141 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your heresy is beside the point. BTW, the text you cited is an interpolation. A.J.A. 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize AJA, I reposted my response since I realized you and Richard were talking about the Catholic doctrine about the trinity and trinitarianism...and I was merely posting references to the unity of the "trinity" in the name of "Jesus Christ" in the New Testament and did not at all mean to represent official church doctrine...

Fair use rationale for Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg

Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Theories

There's a lot in this article that looks like fringe material, such as the statements about evidence for Jesus going to India. Does any reputable scholar take this seriously? The material about theories of Buddhist influence on the origins of Christianity may well be similar. Certainly a lot of the sources quoted are from a very long time ago, & are unlikely to represent up-to-date scholarship. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Budddhism (2004) (Volume One), page 159, says:

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation."

Peter jackson (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Mr Wales himself says, quoted in WP:NPOV:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

So can anyone find a prominent scholar who maintains any of these theories? Obviously, "prominent" must not be interpreted so as to include "notorious crackpot". Peter jackson (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a prominent scholar who maintains that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? The issue is not whether the theories are espoused by a prominent scholar but rather whether the theories are notable enough to be encyclopedic. We are not asserting that the theories are true or even held by a significant minority of the academic community. We are simply stating that the theories have had sufficient dissemination to be worth documenting in an encyclopedia.

--Richard (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That won't wash. The article isn't called Fringe theories about the relationships between Buddhism and Christianity. It's supposed to be a balanced account of the subject. Instead it's a totally uncritical account of fringe theories only, & the statement I included from a r4eputable source stating that all such theories are unfounded has been deleted. this is unacceptable. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote not because of it's content because you should avoid quoting sources directly. Could you please reword the information if you wish to include it the introduction. I would like to remind you to please assume good faith.Coffeeassured (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that. Such technicalities are no excuse for deleting reputable POVs. My understanding of the WP:NPA is that one must choose one's words carefully so as to criticize actions & words, not people. Seems rather a pointless distinction to me, but that's what I try to do. I've now reported this article on the fringe theories noticeboard. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that you are restoring censored content is not assuming good faith when you have no evidence that was the reason it was removedCoffeeassured (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

It is apparent that this article has been impacted by User:PHG. I am very familiar with his pattern of editing, the insertion of original research, cherry picking sources and quotations, use of obscure sources, book cover images, and maps based on original research. I have made a first attempt at cleaning up this article, but there is much more to do. I suggest establishing an outline of what the article should cover, with headings, and then we should rewrite it top to bottom, removing anything dubious and adding references to high quality academic works that are recognized as the best sources. Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you have removed those tables, thank you I was about to do that when you put up the AfD.Coffeeassured (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with giving the top references, but the fact is there is the "fringe" groups and it is quite popular, a separate section for them perhaps instead of deleting them. An encyclopedia should be thorough and include different views. Madame Blavatsky was one influential "fringe" woman -- no matter what your personal opinion.

However, I disagree with editorializing the table. When scholars say that there are "so many similarities"...than I want to know what the similarities are. These similarities are sourced through primary sources found by many people who studied the 2 texts.

I LOVE THE TABLES!

I don't mind a clean up...but let's be a little better with "deleting" stuff -- I think REARRANGING and REORGANIZING can be a better step instead of massive deletions -- especially if they are sourced --216.27.141.135 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

These "tables" have nothing to do with me. Look at the state of the article, even before I contributed anything [11]. I probably contributed something like 15% of this article, essentially historical background and photographs. Cheers PHG (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And this would include your uploading and inserting the image [[12]] into the article. A book which the academic community turned up their noses, after its same author's dreadfully received The Jesus Conspiracy.--Firefly322 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The material in the two-paragraph section The Trinity is imho very tenuous, so much so that I'm removing it as part of overall copyedit & clean-up. The source for the first par appears to be the, by most accounts, dubious Jesus Conspiracy & the second par's assertions are unsourced. Wingspeed (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

In this version of the article, Elaine Pagels is given as an example of a scholar who "believe[s] that Jesus may have been inspired by Buddhism, and that the Gospel of Thomas and the Nag Hammadi texts reflect this influence." Her books The Gnostic Gosepls and Beyond Belief are mentioned as places where this belief may be found. I don't have Beyond Belief, but I have The Gnostic Gospels, where Buddhism is only mentioned on two pages in the book. One of those isn't relevant to our subject here, so in fact Pagels devotes very little space to the possible influence of Buddhism upon (Gnostic) Christianity, and she says, "These hints include the possibility, yet our evidence is not conclusive. Since parallel traditions may emerge in different cultures at different times, such ideas could have developed in both places independently...we look forward to the work of scholars who can study these traditions comparatively to discover whether they can, in fact, be traced to Indian sources." (The Gnostic Gospels, p. xxi) This is not an example of Pagels believing that Gnosticism may have been influenced by Buddhism, it's an example of her raising the possibility, in passing, in a book that is mostly about other issues. So I don't think that she should be mentioned as a scholar who supports this view, unless she devotes more substantial attention to this in Beyond Belief.

Pagels mentions one scholar who argues for a Buddhist influence on Gnosticism--Edward Conze, "Buddhism and Gnosis," in Le Origini dello Gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966 (Leiden, 1967). Conze is mentioned in this article, but in a way that makes it clear that the editor who put him in had only read Pagels. This is not a great way to cite things or to add article content... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Propose break up of article

This article is unstable in great part due to its large, partially controversial mass. I want to propose the break up of the article into a series that would tie together with template box. A rough start would be:

1. An article on the academic Burkhard Scherer. Most importantly, what might his peers say about his scholarship?
2. An article on the academic Thomas Tweed. Most importantly, what might his peers say about his scholarship?
3. An article on the extraordinarily non-controversial area of parallels between Christianity and Buddhism (To this hobbyist, parallels as cultural comparisons without causal relations have never been a serious source of controversy in a hundred years.)
4. An article on 1st Millenium cross-cultural influences between Christianity and Buddhism.
5. An article on the extraordinarily controversial area of Buddhism's possible influence on Christianity and pre-Christian Mediterranean cultures possible awareness of Buddhism (To this hobbyist, such a causal relation and such an awareness has only ever been speculated about or mentioned in passing. Will Durant's mention of buddhist missionaries and the ethics of Christ is mentioned in one sentence on page 449 of a 1049 page book and it is clearly qualified with the word perhaps. Looking at her wikipedia aritlce, I learn Elaine Pagels scholarship has always been controversial.)
6. An article on turn of the century buddhist influence on Christian WP:FRINGE like that of Arthur Lillie.
7. Other appropriate articles as outlined by current article. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These could be created as daughter articles, with a brief summary of each included in Buddhism and Christianity. See WP:Summary style. Part of the problem with the current article is that it is so expansive a topic. The things covered are just a tiny bit of what's there, inevitably leading to undue weight. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pagels' scholarship is solid and well-respected, but she doesn't argue that Buddhism influenced Gnosticism--she mentions it in passing as an intriguing possibility that earlier scholars have brought up, and says that future research will clarify the question. I wrote about this above. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not to discount what you wrote at all (it's excellent), it's just that I've read Elaine Pagels#Reception--her views on Christianity seem controversial. If she's not an authority here, then her work need only be less abused (no more undue weight), similar to what appears to be abuse use of the Will Durant work. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled & shocked at the proposed break-up of this article, which I've only just recently come across. It's a perfectly respectable subject, both in an academic sense & in terms of contemporary global culture: in other words, more & more people who are products, obvious or less so, of each cultural tradition are encountering & inevitably influencing each other as we write. I must have in my library at least a dozen books on the consequences of the encounter between the Christian & Buddhist traditions. The historian Arnold Toynbee notoriously once said (I think in the 50s) that in future centuries that encounter might be seen as having constituted the most momentous phenomenon of the 20th Century. This article & its discussion are themselves - even in their current form - symptoms, however small & sad, of that phenomenon. Despite having read all the musings above, I'm still none the wiser as to motivation. Were it not the case that most of us are presumably doing our best the best we know how, I'd be led to suppose this tattered terrain of anxious talk to be the work of some adept troll who'd succeeded in stirring up a hornet's nest of religious sectarians. Please tell me I'd be wrong. If it's any suggestion that the Buddhist tradition somehow in the foggy past influenced Christendom that gets some people so prickly, what interests me far more is the demonstrable but hardly surprising influence in recent times of Christian culture on the Buddhist tradition: the very idea of "Buddhism," some have argued (Wilfred Cantwell Smith & others), is largely an occidental/Christian construct which has now fed itself back into Asia; after 2,500 years of palm leaves, the Pali canon in Thailand was actualy printed for the first time on Christian printing presses. There are numerous other examples, sometimes freighted with similar unintended irony. This is a hurried response by dint of its urgency. In the meantime, apart from Cantwell Smith, I commend to any not acquainted with them the respective works of the Catholic monks Thomas Merton, David Steindl-Rast, Wayne Teasdale and, most readably, the former Catholic nun Karen Armstrong, all of whom are most exercised by the encounter between so-called Buddhism & Christianity. Regards,Wingspeed (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Perhaps you could slow down and address things point by point, with evidence from reliable sources, rather than making appeals to authority and sweeping generalizations. The quality of this article is very poor. We need to identify the top scholarly works on the subject and summarize what they say. We need to identify the main sections for this article. I'm neither Christian nor Buddhist, so I no personal beliefs about whether one begat the other. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever scholarship honestly says is all I care about in regards to this article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the article needs to be broken up, but its scope needs to be clearly defined. Right now, the lead looks like the introduction to a compare-and-contrast essay, which is not a great format for a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the scope problem along with issues of maintenance can be solved by dividing the article into a series, along the lines of the Intelligent design article. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, I agree with defining the scope (i.e., identifiying the main sections), identifying top scholarly works, and summarizing them. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Jehochman: Please forgive me. I suspect I've misunderstood what you propose & read "break up" - given all the talk here above & at the top of the article of deletion - as just that: a proposal of deletion. Hence my haste. I was not seeking to defend the article, merely to make a plea for clemency in the face of what I took to be possible sudden death. I hope I'd be the last, self-respecting armchair anarchist that I am, to make appeals to authority. I thought you may be questioning, as have others on this page, the validity of the subject itself. That's why I quote Toynbee. The responses of Akhilleus & Firefly, with which I think I agree, make it easier to appreciate what you propose. It's not a death-threat, right? The work of Thomas Tweed seems to me in its area important & solid scholarship, if under-appreciated, as is sometimes the case with works that don't necessarily reinforce stock assumptions & come with a pretty high cover price. As so often, it's the garbage that attracts attention; and the article as it stands appears to have its share of that. I list some names merely to identify one or two prominent in this particular area of what's been called inter-spiritual understanding, & to imply that their omission would be a major failing in any proper coverage of the topic. I'm not acquainted with the work of Burkhard Scherer, so I'm unable to comment but I'm now quite eager to check him out. With so much else in need of urgent address, Arthur Lillie is too cobwebbed & obscure to warrant detailed attention at this stage but, hey, if someone's eager to do so, why try & stop them! Charles Allen's The Buddha and the Sahibs: The Men Who Discovered India's Lost Religion, though not the work of a professional scholar as such seems to me important & was greeted with more or less unanimous critical acclaim when it appeared a few years back. He almost certainly covers Lillie, but I haven't yet been able to check in my copy. Stephen Batchelor's How the Buddha Came to the West is also worthy of more than a mention. Firefly drawing attention to the structure of the Intelligent Design article (only the structure) - complete with imposing sidebar - enabled me to get, if I understand you aright, what you're proposing. But to go from here to there is like expecting the broken contents of a model aircraft kit to be somehow lashed up to look like Concorde. The article in its present form is an embarrassing rag-bag. If people are gonna do the work, fine. Let's start by sorting through the heap in sequence, from top to tail. When Achilleus says that the present lede's like a "compare & contrast essay" he or she is being charitable. But basic copy-editing's not aeronautical engineering. It's what I used to do for a living; so if no one objects, I'd be happy to go through sorting out syntax etc, bringing some elementary standard of coherence to bear: clearing out the syntactical & obvious rubbish, rather than burning down the admittedly wind-blown hangar. That would at least make it easier for volunteers to then commence the more ambitious heavier work.

P.S. Just noticed that in my first response, above, I meant to say what interests me far more is Christian influence on the Buddhist tradition rather than the converse. Have now corrected the error.Wingspeed (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a good opportunity here. Please do make bold edits to the article and see if you can improve it! Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Providing no one else objects, I'll set to. Wingspeed (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I created a template. What are other editors thoughts and suggestions? --Firefly322 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar (or template) looks great. Thanks for that, Firefly. The right place for it just now, though, is surely the Sandbox or/and this page. Clicking on it & getting blanks, newcomers will wonder what on earth is going on! Good to see what it would actually look like in situ, though. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It also occurs to me that basic copy-editing would become a nightmare if people were simultaneously adding/subtracting to a template in real time. It's like putting up all the signposts in Chicago before the city is built, and before there's even a town plan. Let's go one step at a time when it comes to the actual front page. Do you mind if we move the template as a matter of urgency to somewhere less audacious and less vulnerable to wreckage?

P.P.S. Great! You've already moved it. Phew! Was I imagining things?:-) Wingspeed (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Identified another book. Dalai Lama's The Good Heart: A Buddhist perspective on the teachings of Jesus --Firefly322 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Identified another book. Thich Nhat Hanh's Going home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers --Firefly322 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress report: have fashioned an intro. Am now pursuing further sources. Thanks for those two recommendations. As it happens, I'd referred to Thich Nhat Hanh & the Dalai Lama in my rewrite of the opening. That you should come up with them simultaneously bodes well. Shall keep you posted. Wingspeed (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Shall continue to work on it, but now in a position to upload, as proposed, new lede - prelude to further salvage work. Comes with (see below) PHG's find: a rather apposite opening pic from Commons. All suggestions & brickbats (if not too bruising ;D) welcome. Wingspeed (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

========

INCLUSION OF TABLES:

The tables cannot constitute "Original research" according to wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

THIS TABLE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE AND CLAIMS BY MANY OF THE SCHOLARS THAT THE LIVES HAVE PARALLELS.--216.27.141.135 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Did you forget login, or do you prefer not to register? The tables are synthesis. You cannot take facts from different places, create a table and on the basis of that construction draw a conclusion. If scholars claim that the lives have parallels, this should be written up, reporting what each scholar says separately. A variety of statements cannot be merged together to draw a conclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But is that true? I was under the impression that the tables were taken from Marcus Borg's book, Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (1999; Duncan Baird Publishers). Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

Christ and Buddha, by Paul Ranson, 1880.

Here is a nice painting by Paul Ranson (1864-1909), which could be used as an illustration to this article. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find! Not sure I'm that enthusiastic about the painting qua painting, but it's just the ticket for this article - particularly since it was done around the time archeological finds in India had confirmed the Buddha to be an historical personage rather than mere myth. Also serves to illustrate reference in my first couple of (new) paragraphs to the growing interest at the time among Western writers & artists in the religions of the Indian sub-continent. I doubt that we could have a better opening image. Have taken the pic into my sandbox. Many thanks again. Wingspeed (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Christian interactions between Greece and Buddhism

I have looked at Kenneth Scott Latourette's books and the other listed in the removed section. None provide support to having such a section neither in title nor in length. In fact, Latourette wrote a book Introducing Buddhism, which states on page 14 "We know nothing from the records of the countries themselves of the missionaries that Asoka claims to have sent to Egypt, NOrth Africa, Syria, and Macedonia." --Firefly322 (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I'm now doubting my actions were warranted, because another source states that Menander I was written about by Plutarch. However this source also states (Religions of the World by J. GOrdon Melton and Martin Baumann ISBN 1-5760-7223-1) that "The rise of Christianity and later of Islam blocked any further exchange until the travels of Franciscan friars to Mongolia in the thirteenth century." (p. 192)--Firefly322 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Source

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions mentions budhhism on pages 49, 68, 162, 175-76, 194, 217, 226-27.--Firefly322 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovery of Buddhism by the European world

The French historian, specialist of Pakistan and India and professor at Inalco, Jean-Marie Lafont (PhD) wrote an interesting article entitled "La découverte du bouddhisme par le monde européen" ("The discovery of Buddhism by the European world") in Dossiers d'Archéologie No254 June 2000 which nicely covers a lot of the historical background in this article (ancient exchanges between Buddhism and the Mediterranean world). Here are some of the main points he makes (please feel free to include these in the article):

• The influence of the ambassadors of Ashoka on the Mediterranean world may be felt in the philosophy of Hegesias of Cyrene:

"Cyrene, city of king Magas, (was) one of the five cities to which Asoka sent a Buddhism mission. The philosopher Hegesias of Cyrene, nicknamed Peisithanatos, ("the one who persuades people to die") was a contemporary of Magas and was probably marked by the teachings of the Buddhist missionaries to Cyrene and Alexandria. His influence was such that his disciples were prohibited from teaching".

• The Indo-Greek king Menander I's interest for Buddhism is testified by the Milindapanha:

"The interest that Menander I had for Buddhism circa 160 BC is attested by the question he asked to the Monk Nagasena in the Milindapanha".

• Altogether, there were nearly 7 centuries of contact between the Greek and Indian worlds, precisely in the geographical area where primitive Buddhism was transformed into Mahayana Buddhism, interaction which translated into the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara.
• Influences of Buddhism on the Essenes and various gnostic schools is debated, but that of Buddhism on Manicheism is undisputed, as is, to a large extant, the influence of Manicheism on Christianity.
• A letter of Mani talked about the parinirvana of Jesus.
• Possible (but not demonstrated) influences of Buddhism on Christianity (p.78-79):

- The cult of the relics.

- The very shape of the church over the tomb of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, encircled by a path for processions.

- The birth and the organization of the monastic orders of the primitive church.

- The system of confession, with tarification for penance, similar to what was practiced in Indian Buddhist communities in the 4th century BC.

Cheers PHG (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this source. Has this scholar had much work presented at significant international conferences? Any work published in major English historical journals? What scholars, which journals have critiqued his work? Until a scholar's worked has been seriously vetted (i.e., essentially graded), it's not really useable as a source in wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Lafont is referenced by various authors as a specialist of the history of Pakistan and India Google Books. Some of his work has been praised by Frank F. Conlon, Department of History, University of Washington, Seattle Pdf, where he is described as "Jean-Marie Lafont of the Institut des Langues et Civilizations, Orientales, Paris, a scholar already known for his research on the French in India". Several of his books have been published by the Oxford University Press (Chitra: Cities and Monuments of Eighteenth-Century India from French Archives, New Delhi, Oxford University Press (2001) ISBN 0195657314, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Lord of the Five Rivers (2002) ISBN 0195661117). Cheers PHG (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This confirms what I have thought for some time (to wit, "Buddhism's alleged influence on Christianity is, at best, an influence on Gnosticism and thereby, at best, very indirect"). See Gnosticism and Buddhism for the best place (IMHO) to put this material. It would be good if we could find a reliable source that specifically states this idea (i.e. Buddhism's contact with the Greek world influencing Gnosticism rather than mainstream Christianity). --Richard (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a Buddhist I have found this article really exaggerated. The article is structured in a thread of isolated dates giving a sensation of photocopy of one religion in another.

I think nobody can discuss influences of Buddhism in Christianism across the time, neither of Hinduism or Taoism in Buddhism, even of Christianism in Buddhism again in Medieval even modern times. That's logical in a historical process. However, we cannot miss the point about the God notion was present in Egypt from 1350 BC with Akhenaton. Many of these influences of course are real. Specially in Christian monastics or in those 30 years missed in the life of Christ. Sure he was learning form many sources. However, Christianism is a different religion with a clear different basis.

Rome Church is a prolongation or Roman, Greece and Egypt priests. If you go to Italy, still you can view some Christian catacombs decorated with Egyptian gods, characters and figures. Early Christians was a time for many sects and ideas defending different views around Christian doctrines. Also, note the Christian Church is a big community with many tendencies and views inside from the beguining.

I mean, we can find around the world many histories about a king who found an strange artifact gived to him by heavens, angels, gods, etc... From Britain to Polinesan islands. These coincidences only point us to a common pattern in the development of such class of important events for some culture. In the same way, we can check that Krishna, Christ, Budhha, etc... all they had common events in their lifes and teachings. No thing strange. On the contrary, it shows there is a common pattern of events surrounding the life of these importnat figures. It is not because a world conspiracy or an ancient hidden photocopy machine.

Other example in the article is the Kuan Yin/Virgin Mary. It is ridiculous when there are tons of literature about this female goddess subject. Even Neanderthal had a sacred mother .

Well, I think the article cannot be deleted because it is interesting and dates and speculations must be preserved. However, maybe somebody with a better English can put some spaces to add more sense and objectivity among them. Metta to everybody. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.79.67 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent books on a possible relation between Buddhism and Christianity

In 1992 Christian and Professor Zacharias P. Thundy wrote a book titled, Buddha and Christ, Nativity stories from the Indian traditions in which Thundy concludes that there was a substantial amount of borrowing by Christianity from Buddhism.

In 2007 Doctor of Asian studies Christian Lindtner published his book Geheimnisse um Jesus Christus. Dr. Lindtner compares the Pali and Sanskrit Buddhist texts with the Greek gospels and determines that the four gospels were reformulated from older Buddhist texts based on gematria values, puns, and syllabic equivalences. Those who have scrutinized his work claim that his gematria values and syllabic equivalences are coincidental and that his puns exist because the Greek and Sanskrit are from the same language family. Those in support of his work claim that is findings are unique and that similar finds could not be made in regard to any other seemingly non-connected literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

bad shape

this article is generally in a bad shape. I tried improving it by making a better introduction. The main problem is that people don't know how to reference something, and that some (buddhist) wikipedians add a lot of low-quality material, and really phrasing things in a long-winded manner.

Saying that "In 2007 Professor Geraldinia published a book on this-and-this subject and he says that thus-and-thus... Other people disagree because... and some people support him because.... "

That's NOT how to do it. It is not encyclopedic, it is very long-winded, it is not readable, it is simply quite bad in style.

Please start to investigate how to make a proper reference like this: . Did you see the little number on top? that's how it should be.

Wish you good luck,

Greetings, Sacca 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, with all respect, I believe it is attitudes like yours that have homoginized wiki's pages. If people cannot epitimize others work in their own way then there is nothing altogether new about wiki. Why is it not appropriate to summerize theories under "THEORIES" topic? If you have a problem with, as you write, someones writing style then you should rewrite it in a more "accepted" way, to say that it is not correct is misleading, just as spelling is neither correct or incorrect rather accepted or standard and not. So before you delete the book reviews on relevent theories I ask that you ask two questions, 1. is their anything that is hype or misstatded, 2. should I really delete an edit because it is not "encyclipedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be anything new. It's intended simply to collect together in convenient form material from reliable sources. Speaking of which, the following has been deleted again:

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Budddhism (2004) (Volume One), page 159, says:

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation."

The 1st time it was deleted on the inadequate ground that it was a direct quotation. The deleter could pefectly well have rephrased it. I did that myself, but it's now been deleted again. I don't know what reason, if any, was given this time. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the text but in the intro to the "Theories" section rather than the intro to the article. I think this is a more appropriate place for it. --Richard (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, the lead being in its current state. When I put it in before, the lead was quite different. Peter jackson (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"RELIABLE SOURCES" is not only presumptious, we are to blot others of our time? Wiki is new because instead of a small group of editors, we have many, some who dispute the accepted method as being partial. the term "reliable sources" should'nt appear in wiki, just as the word reasonable should not be in the constitution FOR the United States (which it is)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sacca is, unfortunately, correct. The article has serious issues, and I've tried to help rewrite it in the past, only to keep coming up against editors who prefer to keep it in terrible shape. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro does not summarize the article

Consult WP:INTRO. The intro should provide a succinct stand-alone summary of the article. The current intro does not do this.

The reason is that this article originated from Buddhist influences on Christianity and the bulk of this article is still on that topic. The intro, however, provides a very short synopsis of the article title "Buddhism and Christianity" which covers more about interactions between the two religions than about influences between them.

Given prior debates about the NPOV nature of Buddhism and Christianity over Buddhist influences on Christianity, I will not argue for making the intro summarize the current article. Instead, I suggest that we need to expand the article to cover the topics mentioned in the intro.

Doing that is a big task which will radically change the scope of the article and may necessitate re-creating Buddhist influences on Christianity as a subsidiary article. Nonetheless, this is the compromise which has been hashed out over a couple years of AFD debates and it is time that we executed the compromise rather than just giving it lip service.

--Richard (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Buddhist influences on Christianity a neutral title, given the mainstream scholarly view that there was none? Should it be "Alleged ...", or "Theories about ..." or something along those lines? Peter jackson (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there could be two seperate articles, one titled Buddhisms influence on Christianity, and another titled Christianity's influece on Buddhism, but I think this would be a mistake, rather this article, I believe, should be titled, "The first Appearence of Similar Themes from whitin the Buddhist and Christian traditions", this could be even more refined, or this article could be named the Alledged Buddhist influence on Christianity.-hopkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or simply "Buddhism and Christianity" with one section "Parallelisms" and another one "Influences". Any thing without a direct evidence would be parallelism, otherwise an influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.86.1 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats why 'first appearence of similar themes' is more descriptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten per WP:LEAD. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

About the wheel section

just some examples to show this section is a total speculation without basis. Wheel is a common symbol in many religions around the world even before Buddhism:

10.000 b.C http://i6.tinypic.com/8331df5.jpg

Egypt http://showcase.netins.net/web/ankh/wheel1.jpg

Etruscan tomb http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41469000/jpg/_41469268_etruscan.jpg

Roman altar for Jupiter http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7383/altarelasargues0of.jpg

Celtic taranis http://www.wheeloftheyear.com/images/taranis.JPG

Anyone can connect any of them with Christians to conclude in:

- this is a Christian altar for Jupiter or Etruscan deities: http://www.moleiro.com/facsimile_books/Beato-de-Silos-(Beato-de-Lieacutebana)-f.-86v-El-Cordero-y-los-cuatro-seres-vivientes-Facsimile_book-108.jpg

- this is from some ancient buddhist people in Kosovo: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Roue.png

Nosense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.86.1 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all it should be known that Buddhism spread to most of these locals. But it is the eight spoked wheel that the Christians took from the Buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMUALSO (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is still trash

Is there still an angry horde which will fight like rabid wet cats against any and all attempts at removing the large quantities of fringe advocacy? A.J.A. (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but your christian advocatism is still not welcome here. If the idea that Christians borrowed much of their stuff from other religions bothers you so much, you better go pray or better yet - find some common sense and learn to accept the facts instead of trying to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.146.157 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"... speculation concerning the influence of Buddhism on the Essenes, the early Christians, and the gospels is without historical foundation." Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 159

I've entered this in the article at least twice, but I can't find it now. This rather tends to support AJA's take. Peter jackson (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of context quotes from tertiary sources aren't the best references. What exactly do we mean by "historical foundation"? A historical foundation for what? The connection between Buddhism, the Essenes, and the Christians was popular in the late 19th century, and there is a lot of literature on the subject. Arthur Lillie seems to have been the largest proponent of this idea at the time, so relevant criticism should address his work - and that shouldn't be hard to find as he was mercilessly attacked for his ideas. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remove some of the fringe material, but I was reverted back. Maybe someone else can do it at one point or another. ADM (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mudra

Unfortunately the arms are missing here

Jesus making the mudra gesture

The article mentions the mudra in passing, but needs to discuss it in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asceticism

The material about asceticism needs to be rewritten or removed as it is a distortion of the Buddhist concept and ignores the Middle Way. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan have both published widely on this topic, so it was strange to find them missing from this article. Also, the tables of related sayings that were deleted appear to be sourced to Borg. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

I've added her to the lead to illustrate the second paragraph, but I hope to expand more of her work in the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the lead section

User:Ishmaelblues has twice altered the lead section in a manner that is neither consistent with the MOS (adding footnotes to the header) or with the text that was in the lead before his changes. I have twice engaged Ishmaelblues on his talk page without any response, but he continues to revert. I am therefore starting this discussion here in the hopes that we can resolve the problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

As for pointing out, and minutely describing at what point, how, and why such a connection was made, there may be none who can offer direct textual, epigraphical or any other such evidences deemed satisfactory to modern source criticism, regarding historical figures at the beginning of the Christian calendar, with synchronistic convictions regarding Buddhism and Christianity. Some who have theorized a connection between Buddhism and Christianity vaguely point to certain individuals or groups who, by their brand of doctrine, may have commenced borrowing from one faith to the other, such names as Asoka, Kanishka, the Ptolemys, Nagarjuna, among others appear often in speculative form. The author Godfrey Higgins, in several of his books, claimed that after Asoka's subtle mandate of Buddhist worship, the Brahmins soon chased the Buddhists out of India where they established themselves with the European outposts of Asoka's missionaries.

This is one of the worst paragraphs I have ever seen. It confuses the primary topic in a wishy-washy, milquetoast tone, and makes statements that can never be properly sourced. It sounds as if Charlie Brown himself wrote it. Recommend deletion. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and Christianity

Do you want to remove Buddhism and Gnosticism and Parallels between Buddha and Jesus also ? The problems I had about the article Buddhism and Christianity can be summarized with the following :

1. It talks about Jesus instead of Christianity and Buddha instead of Buddhism
2. It gives too much emphasis on Gnosticism instead of Christianity in general.
3. It describes the ancient Greco-Roman world, which, stricly speaking, has nothing to do with either Christianity or Buddhism. ADM (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you:

1. Jesus is to Christianity as Buddha is to Buddhism.
2. Emphasis on Gnosticism is due to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. It does not mean that the rest of Christianity is left out.
3. Buddhism and Christianity were both practiced within and during the Greco-Roman world. You may be interested in reading about Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Roman Christianity Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Buddhism does not consider itself to be monotheistic, this is why some scholars have challenged comparisons between Jesus and Buddha, given that the former is part of the dharmic religions. In fact, Jesus is probably closer to the Jehovah of Judaism or the Allah of Islam than to the ancient Buddha.
2. If you're talking about the pre-Christian Greco-Romans, you should maybe check out the entry on mystery cults, which is an academic term for what is known as Paganism. Freemasonry also claims to be a descendent of those primitive mystery cults ; do you see any similarities between Buddhism and Freemasonry ? Or even between Gnosticism and Freemasonry ? ADM (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Are you criticizing the article or some ideas you have about religion? If you have specific criticisms about the article, please raise them. We don't use the talk page to discuss the topic, only how to improve it. If your points above somehow relate to the article, please show me, otherwise I won't address them. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was probably more interested of talking about contemporary interfaith relations instead of doing comparative religion. This article, I think, is written from the perspective of comparative religion, and does not really attempt to describe recent trends in detail such as the development of the inter-religious movement, especially since the time of the Second Vatican Council and its constitution Nostra Aetate. For instance, there have been been several meetings between the Pope and the Dalai Lama, something that would have been impossible before the 1960s. What I had in mind was probably something like Christian-Jewish reconciliation or Islam and Protestantism. ADM (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think comparative religion and interfaith dialogue are two different topics entirely. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, do you think we could have a different entry that would describe contemporary Buddhist-Christian relations ? Do you have any suggestions for a title ? ADM (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you contact WikiProject Buddhism and WikiProject Christianity and ask them on their respective talk pages? Post a message on one, centralizing the discussion, and then point the other project to the main link. I'm still not clear why you think this is the right place to discuss it or to change the scope of the current article. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please dont remove anything. Let us all consolidate. To find the ultimate truth and understanding.

Gospel of Thomas

We must be claer on the nature of the gospel of thomas, which is certianly an early gnostic text, why not label it as such instead of "early christian" this carries the connotation that it was a widely read an accepted gospel, which it never was, except in gnostic circles. So we can call it a gnostic text or an early christian/gnostic text, but early christian by itself is misleading and in error. Ishmaelblues (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Are you claiming that the Gnostics weren't Christians? I'm also not clear on what you mean by "widely read" or "accepted", since prior to canonization, there were many texts in circulation, and this is not under discussion here. Could you please tell me exactly what is misleading or in error, using the actual content in the article and the sources to make your case? It sounds like you are trying to push a specific POV. You say that this wording carries a "connotation", but I'm afraid it does not exist. If you have better sources that describe the problem you see, or think we are missing something, by all means, please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

the gospel of thomas was never a widely read gospel, and it is a gnostic text. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, nobody has claimed anything was "widely read" so why do you keep saying that? Also, nobody knows what was read and what was not read, simply that canonization of texts did not occur until much later. You need to pay close attention to what the article says, not what you think it says. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

all i am asking for is that it is labeled gnostic along with, early christian, or whatever. It is a gnostic text, there is no reason it should not be labeled so. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you seem to be asking for many things actually, and your latest edit warring shows that you want to label it "New Testament apocrypha" when that is not the subject of the discussion or in the source text. Please stop trying to force your beliefs into the article and use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i did not add that label, however i have added back the word apocryphal because that is what the gospel is. Concerning the Gnostic label, gnostic implies a specific christianity which the gospel belongs to, we should add this too, what do you think? Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. What does the source say? Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

thr source refers to it as a gnostic text, pagels is a gnostic expert and the wikipedia page refers to it as a gnostic gospel, i really think this is how it should be labeled now. Ishmaelblues (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The source says nothing of the kind. Please read it again and use quotes to show where it refers to it as "gnostic" and "apocryphal". Your use of apocryphal is not supported in this context, and your continued POV pushing is getting tiresome. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

once again i did not add that it was apocryphal that was not my original edit, i restored it after you erased it for no reason and the gospel is a gnostic text."The Gospel of Thomas is one of the most important Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi" www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html here is a link to pagels book, used as the source http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532 the book is called the gnostic gospels and focuses much of the attention on thomas. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ishmaelblues, it doesn't matter if it was not your "original edit". You restored material that isn't supported by the source, and the book you cite isn't being used as the source in the article. Do you understand that the word "source" refers to the references that appear as footnotes and not as a title of a book? We don't edit Wikipedias based on our beliefs or opinions. We edit based on the sources. The focus here is not on whether the Gospel of Thomas is considered "New Testament apocrypha" or "gnostic" but whether it has similarities with Buddhism. Please try and stay on topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ishmaelblues, this edit doesn't make sense. Whether the Gospel of Thomas is considered "apocryphal Gnostic" is irrelevant to the discussion of Buddhism here. Do you understand? Also, we only use sources that concern themselves with Buddhism and Christianity. I understand that you feel strongly about the Gospel of Thomas being labeled as "apocryphal Gnostic", but it doesn't belong in the lead section, nor does it have anything to do at all with the connection to Buddhism. What you are doing is a special case of poisoning the well, where we are supposed to disbelieve any connection of Buddhism and Christianity simply because they are categorized as "apocryphal Gnostic". It's a silly, childish tactic and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

it is important that people understand the nature of the gospel, especially in relation to the others and that it is gnostic. As far as i am concerned you may remove the apocraphal reference because although true it holds a similar, but less specific connotation as gnostic, in fact i'll remove it. But yes the reader needs more information rather than less and one or two words is not a lengthy digression. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it "important that people understand the nature of the gospel"? Especially in the lead section? Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is important for people to understand things, are you implying you do not want people to understand things? thats the point of wikipedia, as for th lead bit you right the lead is far too large it should be split up before going into specific authors and such. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia based on what you personally want people to understand. Please review WP:NPOV. I've already asked you to discuss your controversial edits here before you keep changing the article and I'm getting closer to filing an Administrators' noticeboard complaint against you because you are not listening. You began this discussion by claiming that the Gospel of Thomas was not "widely read". According to Ron Cameron (1982), that is false:

The existence of three different copies of the Greek text gives evidence of rather frequent copying of this gospel in the third century..the fact that the Gospel of Thomas was repeatedly referred to by name in church writings of the third and fourth centuries confirms that it was widely read in the early church...the Gospel of Thomas is based on a tradition of sayings which is closely related to the canonical gospels but which has experienced a separate process of transmission. The composition of the Gospel of Thomas, therefore, is parallel to that of the canonical gospels. Its sources are collections of sayings and parables contemporary with the sources of the canonical gospels. In this respect, the Gospel of Thomas can be profitably compared with the Synoptic Sayings Source, common to Matthew and Luke, generally referred to as Q...It is probable that many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas which are not preserved elsewhere also derive from early traditions of sayings of Jesus.[13]

The most neutral term we can use here is "non-canonical". Again, I am going to ask you to stop making controversial changes to this article as your information is simply biased and inaccurate. Use good sources for your edits, please. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

non canonical is a good replacement for apocrayphal. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it would also help if you would do some research on the subject. Try to read authors on both sides to get a balanced POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the New Testament apocryphal wikilink, not Ishmaelblue. The Gospel of Thomas article describes the text as Gnostic and a New Testament apocryphon, and both those articles link back to the text. I'm not concerned whether individual WP editors want to believe that the Gospel of Thomas (primarily consisting of logia attributed to Jesus) is "Christian" or "Gospel", but I am concerned with repeated WP:WEASEL edits trying to dumb-down this article. Both "apocryphal" and "non-canonical" are misleading. The former is overly general ( Apocrypha lists the Gospel of Thomas under the "New Testament apocryphal literature" section) and the latter redirects to New Testament apocrypha. Can we compromise on using something like "Gnostic and New Testament apocryphal Gospel of Thomas"? Keahapana (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

great "New testament apocrypha, gnostic gospel of thomas" is what i wanted in the first place, but i will wait for viriditas to confirm if we should change it. Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Gospel of Thomas in the context of what some call the "New Testament", and referring to biblical literature as "New" and "Old" is problematic in a number of ways. "Non-canonical" is something we can all agree on. We are also not discussing the Gospel of Thomas in terms of the New Testament, so I don't understand why it is being used here. "Apocrypha" is another problematic term that carries more prejudice than "non-canonical". Although I cannot be sure, it is possible that Keahapana has not thought this through. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

it is called New testamnet Apocrypha because it is about the same subjects and people as the New Testament. However, either term is fine with me (New testamnet Apocrypha, Non-canonical), but lets see what Keahapana says. Ishmaelblues (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section

I broke the beginning off after the second sentence or so and the put a heading for the rest so the intro split when the article gets into specifics. Now the article does not look like a blob. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I asked you to stop doing that, as the lead section was inline with WP:LEAD. Please either review policies and guidelines or feel free to ask questions. Stop editing unilaterally and use the talk page to propose your changes, first. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to review WP:OWN, as well as WP:NPOV. There is no valid reason to remove a brief mention of the fact that Thomas is not an early example of the kind of Christianity any of our readers would have encountered; omitting it only serves to create false impressions. Also, your demand above that sources used in this article must describe both Christianity and Buddhism, or the two together as one topic, is completely arbitrary except for the fact that it limits our sources to cranks, producing a fringe, POV, inaccurate article, which is what this has almost always been. I support Ishmaelblues's changes. A.J.A. (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Ishmaelblues's recent changes are counterproductive and this "blob" is a straw man. Without the salient Pagels quote, the current lead paragraph is less informative and violates WP:LEAD. Edit wars waste time and harm Wikipedia. I agree with Viriditas's suggestion to request help from WP:ANI. Keahapana (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

fine i'll put the two sections back together, it was not even my idea in the first place. Ishmaelblues (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

old citation tags

the article has one tag from july 2007, concerning "In their book The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy argue that the Therapeutae are possible candidates for the origin of what they characterize as "the legend of Jesus Christ"." i do not own this book and it does not appear to be at my library so i cannot get a page number or anythign for a proper chicago style. The tag is two years old but i thought i would bring it up here and wait a week or so in case anyone can cite and quote it, and judge the reliablity of the source, before i remove it.

also there are 3 tags that are over a year or so, but i'll deal with tha after this one. Ishmaelblues (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie and Origen

Archaeologist Donald Mackenzie believed that Buddhist missionaries had a good footing in pre-Christian Britain. He quotes the early Church father Saint Origen as saying, "The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead" - Origen.

This quote to Origen is dubious at best and has been removed. See: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2927 --Ryan Baumann (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it dubious? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie attributes only to Origen's Commentary on Ezekiel, which is a lost work, and the quote is not in any known surviving fragments or witnesses. The first appearance of this quote is Thomas A. Wise, History of paganism in Caledonia: with an examination into the influence of Asiatic philosophy and the gradual development of Christianity in Pictavia, London (1884), p.204. Wise's citation is to Davies Gilbert, The Parochial History of Cornwall: founded on the manuscript histories of Mr. Hals and Mr. Tonkin in four volumes. Vol. 1, London (1838), p.193 (mis-cited by Wise as p.93), where the word "Buddhists" does not appear. Even the quote found here is most likely based on an inaccurate (see Ronald Hutton, Blood and Mistletoe: the history of the druids in Britain, p.59) translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, in William Camden's Britannia (the trans. Philemon Holland (London, 1610) edition is available online, where the quote is on p.68). See the link for a full discussion, links, and quote extracts. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Ryan Baumann in each regard. Further: much as it would be wonderful to believe, as a self-respecting Scot, that there might be some basis in reality for Mackenzie's assertion, the direct quotation attributed to Origen is sadly laughable because so crassly anachronistic. The term 'Buddhism' in English (or indeed its direct counterpart in any other European language) - as is now well established courtesy of a clutch of recent PhD theses - does not pre-date the 19th century, the fact that academics who should know better will continue to insist upon using it notwithstanding. The notion that Origen in the third century could possibly have spoken of 'Buddhism' is, with respect, preposterous. Wingspeed (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why a "lost" work would have been quoted, and when it was lost? Also, I doubt anyone thinks Origen used the actual word "Buddhism", so that's a very, very strange argument to make. Clement of Alexandria, for example, speaks of very similar things in the 2nd century CE, as do others before him. See Gymnosophists. So, on the face of it, there is nothing at all bizarre or strange about this claim. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie's book was reviewed in Nature in 1928, so we have an indication of notability. Other review, such as the one in the American Journal of Archaeology summarize the argument and criticism quite nicely. This should not have been removed from the article, but rather expanded with the appropriate criticism. I will continue to challenge Ryan Baumann's removal of this information. Whether the information is accurate or not, it is a significant part of the historical discourse on the subject. Furthermore, Mackenzie's argument does not rely solely on Origen, but on a detailed, hypothetical argument supported by many different authors and proposed artifacts. This still does not mean it is a "correct", but does give weight to a proto-comparative archaeology in the early 20th century which sought an explanation for similarities in what Mackenzie called a "Celto-Buddhist God". This idea was apparently in vogue from the late 19th to early 20th century, and there are numerous works on the subject. Again, this does not mean that it is "true", but rather that the idea was entertained in a serious manner at one time. More importantly, we would benefit from briefly covering the history of this idea and comparing it with the conclusions reached by modern, scientific scholarship. Ignoring it as Ryan Baumann proposes, is not an option. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not propose ignoring it, such a section could be interesting, were someone to take the time to write it. I merely object to the dubious quotation of Origen to establish a false source of antiquity for 19th/20th century claims. I would say that the quote attributed to Origen is an exceptional claim, and Mackenzie is not a high-quality source for it, therefore it should not be included (Wikipedia:Verifiability). "Mackenzie believed that Origen said" is the only claim about the Origen quote that the Mackenzie reference is a reliable source for, which is not particularly relevant to the section in its current state. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me when the text in question was "lost" and why Mackenzie had access to it? I don't think anyone honestly believes that Origen used the word "Buddhism". This is supposed to be a translation, much like the statements by Clement of Alexandria. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The burden of evidence for a controversial claim (in this case, that Mackenzie had access to a lost work of Origen) does not work that way. Nor is it possible to easily provide a precise "when" for when the majority of "lost" texts are lost (or even that a text is "lost"). Origen (c.185–254) wrote his Commentary on Ezekiel c.238-244. Eusebius (c.263–339) states that it consists of 25 books, and Jerome (c.347-420) states there are 29. These are the last sources I could find who claimed to have knowledge of the existence of the full text in their time. When C.H.E. Lommatzsch is publishing (1831-1844), he has only a fragment of the 20th book (see: A Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, p. 277, at Google Books), and the same for Migne (PG XIII, p. 665, at Google Books) in 1862. Mackenzie, who was not to my knowledge an expert in patristics, cannot (in 1928) pull a quote not from any known source or edition of Origen and attribute it simply to the Commentary on Ezekiel and be treated as a reliable source for it. For him to do so is to make an exceptional claim not covered by mainstream sources in the field. It is incredibly unlikely Mackenzie had access to the text. As I detailed earlier, the exact quote Mackenzie uses can be traced back to Wise in 1884, and his citation for it (Gilbert 1838) does not include the word crucial for relevance to this article. Here are the exact quotes in question:

The island has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. --Mackenzie

The island has long been predisposed to it (i.e. to Christianity), through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead. --Wise

The unity of the Supreme Being was the foundation of their religion ; and Origen, in his Commentaries of Ezekiel, inquiring into the reasons of the rapid progress of Christianity in Britain, says, “this island has long been predisposed to it by the doctrine of the Druids, which had ever taught the unity of God the Creator.” --Gilbert

Gilbert's citation for the quote traces back to Graves’s History of Cleveland, p. 4. Carlisle. 1808, p. 4, at Google Books, which itself has no scholarly reference for quoting from the Commentary:

The religious ceremonies of the druids were few, and greatly similar to those of the ancient Hebrews. The unity of the Supreme Being was the foundation of their belief; and Origen, in his Commentary upon Ezekiel, canvassing the reasons of the rapid progress of Christianity in Britain, says, that “this island had long been predisposed to it, by the doctrine of the druids, which had ever been, the unity of God the creator”.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion over whether or not the "translation" should use the word "Buddhism"; there is no actual edition of the Commentary ever cited as a source for any of these translations to have come from. Consider however the similarity of the quote with that of Camden's inaccurate (see earlier comment) translation of Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, in his popular Britannia (1586, trans. Philemon Holland 1610):

But to this purpose maketh especially that which erewhile I alleged out of Tertullian, as also that which Origen recordeth How the Britans with one consent embraced the Faith, and made way themselves unto God by meanes of the Druidæ, who alwaies did bear upon this article of beleefe, That there was but one God.

For Origen's Homilies on Ezechiel, Homily 4, chapter 1, there exists a scholarly source: Jerome's Latin translation, available to us by way of Migne's Patrologia Latina XXV, p. 725, at Google Books:

Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando terra Maurorum, quando totus semel orbis? Nunc vero propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel, et capax est bonorum secundum fines suos.

Camden's original text, p. 40, at Google Books of this section reads:

Huc etiam facit tùm Origines in 4. ad Ezechielem, tùm Tertullianus contra Iudæos. Hic enim intimas Britanniæ regiones, & inaccessa Romanis loca sua ætate Christum amplexas fuisse tradit; ille verò Brittanos in fidem consensisse, & ad Deum per Druidas viam sibi muniuisse ostendit, qui vnum esse Deum semper inculcârunt.

--Ryan Baumann (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See Śramaṇa in Western literature. We are specifically looking for the Greek. You can see samples of it on that page. Ryan, I know you saw this link on roger-pearse.com. Is there a reason you ignored bringing it up, especially after Wingspeed's comment? It clearly shows that not only was Wingspeed wrong about the term (it was used by Clement as I said previously, disputing Wingspeed's claim that it was anachronistic) but it also shows that Origen likely referred to Buddhists in some form or another in 248 CE in his work, Contra Celsum. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet none of this is evidence for the "quote" about westward expansion of Buddhism currently being attributed to Origen. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but the bulk of that argument about westward expansion concerns claims regarding missionaries sent by Ashoka the Great. However, I agree that Mackenzie's claims are speculative, and it looks he stole a misquoted passage from Wise. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on Ezekiel

Ryan, I can only reply to one point at a time. First let's start with your claim that Origen's Commentary on Ezekiel "is a lost work, and the quote is not in any known surviving fragments or witnesses." When I asked when this work was lost and why Mackenzie would have access to it, you answered the latter, but regarding the former you backpedaled and said that it is not "possible to easily provide a precise "when" for when the majority of "lost" texts are lost (or even that a text is 'lost')." So, what's this about Ryan? You can't have it both ways. If you didn't mean what you originally wrote, then say so, and amend your previous statement. You can't maintain both positions. Please respond to this point first. Is the work considered lost or not, and if so, when was it lost? Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to explain the reality of the situation to you. By "lost" I mean the work is considered lost by mainstream scholarship, as illustrated by the references to Migne and Lommatzsch. Because of this, it is unlikely Mackenzie (or Wise, etc.) had access to it and are casually referencing their afternoon translation of a text which would be a breakthrough discovery in patristics. When the work is lost is impossible or incredibly difficult to know. We do not, for every lost work, have evidence or a narrative of the loss such as "the last known copy of Aristotle's On Comedy was destroyed in a fire at an Italian abbey in the 14th century." --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Donald Alexander Mackenzie

For the record, I believe the person we are talking about is Donald Alexander Mackenzie. The book we are referring to is Buddhism in Pre-Christian Britain [1928] (1977). The evidence Mackenzie brings to the table consists of much more than Origen, and Ryan's focus on just this one point as his sole criterion for deletion misses the point entirely. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite explaining the other evidence, I object only to the quote from Origen. The sentence as it stands now:

Folklorist and historian Donald Alexander Mackenzie argued in his book, Buddhism in Pre-Christian Britain (1928) that Buddhism might have influenced pre-Christian Britain.

Is fine to me. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Ryan, there is no burden here. We already verified that Mackenzie said these things. We are not trying to show they are correct, so there is no burden to meet. See WP:V. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Origen quote, however, I feel falls under undue weight. --Ryan Baumann (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, per the comment below. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wise and Gilbert

Ryan, you say that the first appearance of the alleged Origen quote from Mackenzie (1928)[14] is from Wise (1884), who in turn cites Gilbert (1838). It certainly looks like Mackenzie cribbed the quote from Thomas A. Wise without proper attribution, but I find this strange because he uses footnotes throughout the chapter.[15][16]. So, now we come to Gilbert. The quote from Wise is not the same quote from Davis [sic] Gilbert. What's going on here? First of all, why would Mackenzie steal a line from Wise without using a footnote? Second of all, why does Wise say he is quoting Gilbert, but when we look at Gilbert, we see a different quote altogether? The simplest explanation might be that Mackenzie stole the quote from Wise, and Wise made it up and attributed it to Gilbert. Whatever the reason might be, I now see that the quote cannot be verified at this time other than through Mackenzie, and since this is already dubious, I'm going to remove it. I think we can make the same point more accurately with a simple paraphrase of Mackenzie's primary hypothesis, which for the most part, does not rely on Origen. Still, something seems out of order here. Why would Mackenzie go through the trouble of stealing a quote from Wise, a quote that it seems Wise invented? This doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Researching GOD Jesus Light and Buddha Human

These 3 points are left outstanding in my search. Jesus golden light and Buddha humble in brown robes.

A consolidation is requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.103.62 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)