Talk:Buddhism

Beyond Charles Eliot and the 4NT

Archived to Talk:Buddhism/Archive Buddhism_Policy and re-submitted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism

This article is full of absurd claims about a Nepalese Gotama

Nothing in the history, archaeology, literature, or art of early Nepal has the faintest hint of Buddhism, and it is uncanny that the patently absurd story of the rise of Buddhism in Nepal has survived scholarly scrutiny for nearly a century. Sir Aurel Stein, who almost single-handedly established the material basis of Buddhism, found nothing in Nepal. It is most important to note is that the antecedents of Buddhism are found in the Indus-Saraswati area and South Iran, not Nepal. The largest number of Buddha images is from Gandhara, not Nepal or eastern India where one should expect them in the Jones-Cunningham Theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you cite one of these "absurd claims"? I see three references to Nepal in the article: only one mentions the Buddha's birth and upbringing in a location that happens to fall within Nepal's modern-day boundary (nothing there about early Nepalese culture, the "rise of Buddhism", or where Gotama subsequently lived and taught). The others refer to the modern presence of Buddhism in that country, not its development or historical importance. If it is the first mention you are talking about, and there is evidence that the given birthplace is incorrect, I am not familiar with the scholarship and would love to know more—but I'd hardly conclude that the article is thus "full of absurd claims". /ninly_(talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned comment about birthplace of Buddha is fully biased and ridiculous. Commenter should be an Indian guy who has no knowledge about Buddha and his birth place. It is 100% true that Buddha was born in Kapilbastu, Nepal. All the archeological and ancient history are still there and world know it. You can lie the people with rumors and words but cannot hide the truth. Indian government made a structure (building)considering Lumbini as a Buddha's birthplace, which is officially formal recognition by the Indian Govt. You can see this link, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666, which is the evidence of UN recognition of that fact. I hate to debate with you in this well established matter but I compelled me to do so. So, dont go beyond the truth. Dont be fool yourself. Ask yourself three times before expressing your thought specially in the matter that has associated with someone else country and nationality.

As far as I know, the Buddha Gautama is believed to have been born in Lumbini, in what is now southern Nepal. He was born into the Indo-Aryan janapada Shakya clan of the Kshatriyas, inhabiting the foothills of the Himalayas. Gautama is believed to have been raised in Kapilavastu, the capital of the ancient Shakya Kingdom. Whether the region of "Nepal" was actually recognized as a kingdom independent of Ancient India, I do not know, but the culture there was primarily a Hindu (or Indian) culture. Nepal was and is ultimately a part of the Indian subcontinent, and may have not been distinguished from India during the Buddha's time. However, this needs to be researched more, and shouldn't be taken to mean that Gautama wasn't born in what is now southern Nepal. -Ano-User (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a broader trend of Nepalese nationalists who also seem to lurk on the Siddhartha Gautama page, acting as though they are indignant, and denouncing the article as being full of lies propagated by the people of India. You could point out that the article in question does not mention the modern state of India, or uses the term "ancient India", or that Nepal did not include Kapilavastu until two or three centuries ago, or that "Nepal" did not exist 2500 years ago.... Still, none of these things will matter because the person claiming the unfairness of the article probably never even read the article text in the first place. They usually don't bother to respond either. Tengu800 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Story

The story of enlightenment was when Sidharta (Buddha), was trying to find enlightenment. He fast, and became so thin it was said you could see his spin through his stomach. He eventually realised that none of this was getting him very far, so he sat under a tree, vowing not to move until he had reached his goal of enlighten ment. And there it was he found it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipa25 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I think there's better images that could be put in the lead. Does anyone else think that? Someone65 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any to offer or suggest? /ninly_(talk) 13:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is Lord Buddha?

Gautam Buddha was physically born in Nepal. He is formless God come to play Divine role to teach people how to get enlightened(From mind to soul) or free from suffering,In other words to attained liberation .There is still proof of his divine play from birth to end in Kapilvastu, Lumbini(Nepal). He forbid his disciple don`t pray by making his idol.Once he spoke that " You are also Buddha, I am also Buddha difference is that I am aware of it but you are still in deep sleep. " He has taught how to realize the universal truth! the ultimate truth. Truth is God. According to Lord Gotama Buddha, "All the people in this earth are Buddha. All have Buddha(Self)nature. Here, the Self indicates SOUL. Every living being have Soul. This soul or self nature is Buddha nature. Nowadays people have many paths(ways) to pray or worship the God. There are so many ways but the goal is same. Hence, what the Lord Gotama Buddha saying is that "This world itself is Gumba(Monastery) where Buddha resides. Your Body itself is Gumba (Monastery)where the Lord Gotama Buddha resides. There is only one religion the religion of Love. There is only one caste, the caste of humanity. He did not come to established new sect what nowadays people are saying Buddhism, Hindu, Christian, Muslim etc. These are the human made label(Name). He came to this earth to show the whole humanity:the right way! Gotama Buddha infact himself is Supreme One. You may find somewhere his pose indicating I am the Supreme One. But he never say about God or soul. He refused to answer such questions.Infact, religion and Dhamma are different word and differnt meaning. Name can be changed, form can be changed but the Dhamma can not be change. Dhamma means the law of nature. Dhamma means the quality of element,the self nature! Let us say the sun in the sky gives light and heat and it is Dhamma of the SUN. However, without the Dhamma of the Sun, there is no life in this earth similarly without the Self(soul)there is no life of living beings. If we follow our self, we never make mistake.But, if we follow our mind(Monkey mind) we may do many many mistake. Hence,Once Buddha spoke that "Ahimsa Parmo Dhamma." If you wake up from yourself, you never do himsa. He came to this earth to unite the people,not divide the people. God never discriminate same like the sun in the sky never discriminate among the living and non living beings. The Lord Buddha`s Dharsan often termed as ShunayaBad. It means he can be visible and invisible. He comes from Zero (0) and merge with Zero (0). He is immortal. He has no start no end. He is omnipresent, omnopotent and omnificent. "You are also Buddha, find Buddha nature in yourself". This is Lord Buddhas profound saying. He was for whole world, He is for whole world and he will be for whole world. His divine play is for whole humanity! This is fact! He did not come to this earth to make sect. The term "Buddha" indicates the selfnature i.e. quality. Infact, the religion is a Greek word which is combination of two words: Re+Ligion. Re= Again, and Ligion= Join back with Supreme one! Hence, the Love is the royal road to close with Supreme one. The main objectives of spiritual (Dhamma) practice is Realising that All is One and One is all. Infact, all are interconnected and interrelated. Blind leads Blinds. Ha Ha Ha....! Books for Reference- 1)Dhamma- An art of Living (By: Satya Naryan Goenka) 2) Characterology ( By Swami Sachchidananda BishuddaDev) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.213.156 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The figure of 1.6 billion Buddhists

The figure of 1.6 billion Buddhists is ridiculously exaggerated. Counting the amount of followers of Chinese folk religion, Shinto, Shamanic religions and other Asian religions as Buddhists is totally amiss and inane. They're not Buddhists and their religions are not Buddhist schools, even though Buddhism exerted somewhat of an influence on their organizational and artistic features. The old figure of 350 million Buddhists in the world is obviously totally outdated, particularly given the recent rise of Buddhism in China where 20% of the population tend to identify as Buddhist. The outright number of Buddhists in the world today is probably between 600 and 700 million, and many studies endorsing similar figures can be found throughout the web. Some examples:

• http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Compare-Contrast-Hinduism-Buddhism/160128
• http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VGQ3BUyYQAoJ:www.heritage-cartman.co.in/artpdf/Inter-religious%2520Harmony.pdf+600+million+buddhists&hl=it&gl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESivlldPq_qCBZBgfV8OlNAXsbQoFz-4thRGdj9R7YQtq-z3fiIghWD9B-okFYAtfyKOvnDg-Jus5d8XUDtP6e2tn0A4iWAeKSq23FFC3-idJidFmi40-Do6n6lQjfUx9k-0N7Rk&sig=AHIEtbTwjMKMZiIJiDKevesdJOs4F02fNQ
• http://books.google.it/books?id=nr1qxpJ9vksC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=600+million+buddhists&source=bl&ots=P7ZCHve95e&sig=Wb4QPemCkqULpiLmsC8ClexDxwU&hl=it&ei=ZNZTTcr3JsyaOvTi4KMJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=600%20million%20buddhists&f=false
• http://books.google.it/books?id=5KYSwOO3DBIC&pg=PA13&dq=600+million+buddhists&hl=it&ei=z9ZTTb2-Eo6hOo3JvccJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=600%20million%20buddhists&f=false

--79.50.78.247 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you, but unfortunately, others are not, and they have overturned my edits. I suggest that this dispute be elevated to at least an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy used google books Viriditas, didn't you say we don't use this? Yet you're in complete agreement? Then why don't you at least put his sources insteaed of declaring there are only 350-500M Buddhists

Look at your sources more closely, your "Buddhism" by Di Sue Penney is giving you official figures when most Buddhists in China aren't assigned officially at a temple, how about Buddha Nature Now"? It says there are 1.8 billion muslims when the true figure is 1.6 billion(http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx). But worse, it claims 1.1 nonbelievers, you seriously believe this?

I also don't think there are 1.6 billion Buddhists, it's probably closer to 1.4 billion, but estimates are estimates. I also don't think there are 350 million Buddhists, an absolutely ridiculously low number, yet I don't remove it, didn't we reach an agreement on this already?

I'm not saying that Taoism/Confucianism/Shinto/Jainism/Kirant Mundhum/Shamanism/whatever is Buddhism, I'm just saying they mix it, look at the international religious freedom report at places like Burma, it says "Buddhism coexists with astrology, numerology, fortune telling, and veneration of indigenous pre-Buddhist era deities called "nats.", in Taiwan it says "Researchers and academics estimate that as much as 80 percent of the population believes in some form of traditional folk religion. Such folk religions may overlap with an individual's belief in Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or other traditional Chinese religions.", in Thailand it says "most Buddhists also incorporate Brahmin-Hindu and animist practices", in Vietnam it says "Many Buddhists practice an amalgam of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism that is sometimes called the "triple religion."", do I really need to continue? Anyway my sources say "Buddhism" not that there are 1.6 billion Taoists, so I'm not making facts up and counting Taoists/Confucianists/whatever as Buddhists, I'm not making this stuff up, the data is there

Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He said we don't use Google searches, which is true. Google Books is fine if the source is reliable. I'm not sure a 125-year-old article without an author counts as reliable. /ninly_(talk) 13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the other references (besides the 1884 article) now. Still, we need proper citation of these if they are to remain. Also review the bold, revert, discuss process before undoing reversions. My impression of this is that, even given this data, we can't claim 1.6 billion Buddhists. Maybe something like "Buddhist thought and practice has strongly influenced as many as 1.6 billion people" would have better traction among editors (although that is imprecise and synthetic as is). /ninly_(talk) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you say sorry because you realized that these old sources are there only so that I can claim that Buddhism was once the largest religion? What's the difference between Google searches and google books, all you have to do is get into the book and a google search turns into a google book, you don't have to delete all of this just for that, fix it rather than eliminate it. Besides, the most important source for the claim that Buddhism was the largest is a google book, not a search Define " proper citation" Actually Viriditas discussed nothing and he reverted it back to how it was, meanwhile, I discussed this topic a long time ago and the users have agreed to the 1-1.6 billion estimate along with the lower estimate, I didn't edit it that way, I only returned it to the way the users who agreed with me edited this, they agreed and they edited, should just anyone delete stuff on wikipedia after people reached a census just because something seems unlikely? I might as well claim that +2 billion adherents of Christianity is unlikely since it's so high, would we say that most of those are secularists like you guys do with Buddhism? No, why are you giving Buddhism a special treatment This is consuming alot of my time guys, look, we discussed this long ago and we reached an agreement, I already laid out everything, why go on over this again? Am I supposed to do this next year also and the year after that just because some guy thinks this is improbable? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologized because I made my first statement based on seeing only the first of several references (the 1884 document), whose reliability i questioned. Proper citation is discussed at the link I posted, and more fully described there under inline citations and text-source integrity. Also see Embedded links. A reader should be able to look at the footnote associated with a reference and determine some information about the source – nominally its author, title and publication, at least (publisher and date are also standard) – ideally without having to click on any links.

I would contend that a stable consensus has never really been reached on this topic. /ninly_(talk) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We have that, thefirstpost article for example was published in 2010. In addition, another sources which I mentioned and are not there are "The complete book of Buddha's lists--explained" in 2006 by David N. Snyder, also Alex Smith article in 2004(http://web.archive.org/web/20050205002827/http://www.seanetwork.org/article.php?story=20041020143036414)

A census was reached, they got it into the +1 billion figure not me, were you even there to make that claim? What? Now all of a sudden there is no consensus and I'm supposed to start all over again because a new guy joins in and declares these numbers to be improbable? And this even happened without any talks at all, some guy just comes and removes all the sources that I worked so hard to find and declares that no concensus was reached and I'm supposed to accept this?

If you disagree then give me a reason, opinions are meaningless in the face of evidence Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 3-year-old discussion (which I happened to initiate) of the issue. My point in linking it is to show that I've been following this discussion (and occasionally involved in it) for some time. That particular thread ended with the removal of a poorly referenced 1.6+ billion figure, but I recognize that much has happened since then. Note that I said there has never been a stable consensus. Like many specific points in religion articles, there are diverse and strongly felt differences of opinion on this matter. We therefore need to be very careful about what is stated as fact and how we reference the data that backs it up. /ninly_(talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kim-Zhang-Hong

You have the burden of proof, Kim. Here's why your edits are not acceptable:

• The complete book of Buddha's lists--explained By David N. Snyder - This is a self-published book. It does not meet our criteria for a WP:RS.
• Religioustolerance.org - The references offered at RT quote Wikipedia.[1] This is a self-ref and unreliable.
• The First Post, a free and independent daily online news magazine, whose author quotes a figure about Buddhist adherents without any reference, likely taken from Wikipedia or RT above.[2] Again, a self-ref.
• Non-Resident Nepali Association - a website hosting a speech. Not a reliable source.[3]
• Educational Leadership - a 1954 article.[4] Out of date, and misused to push your POV. This is called original research and is unacceptable.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to an 1884 book.[5] Unacceptable misuse of source. You can't just perform a Google search and use the result as a "source" to prove your POV.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to many things, all of which are irrelevant.[6] Misuse of primary sources.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to a book published in 1910.[7] Unacceptable misuse of a primary source.
• Buddhism: Religion in Korea - An interesting book about Korean Budhism published by a reliable source,[8] but looking at it in depth, it appears to be written as a promotional hagiography. It would have to be used very carefully, and with attention to any references used by the author. I looked for references in the book and found none. This tells me it is more of a textbook than a secondary source, and we generally avoid tertiary sources like textbooks.

I am therefore reverting Kim's additions. More importantly, the misuse of all of these sources together is evidence of original research and POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems there are (at least) a couple of points that perhaps should be discussed separately:

1. Buddhism was at one time the most populous religion (whatever the population figure), and
2. the 1.6 billion figure.

If true, the first point should be easier to cite, provided proper references. The second point involves a more difficult discussion of how or whether mixed adherence or heavy Buddhist influence should be counted. /ninly_(talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are quite a number of Buddhist scholars who have received PhD's in Buddhist Studies in the last three decades, so we should be able to find scholarly material for use in this article. For example, many popular reliable academic sources about Buddhism are listed on the University of California web page. It should be easy to find at least one that has the information we need. There's also the Group in Buddhist Studies at UC Berkeley and the Center for Buddhist Studies at Stanford University. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Although this is not exactly the best source, the Buddha Dharma Education Association (as of 2008) maintains the number of 350 million, which is in parity with other sources.[9] Note, Chinese traditional religion is not included in that number. Adherents.com lists an updated (current) number of 376 million.[10] Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem with Kim's research is that it is not a representative sample of reliable secondary sources, but rather cherry picked POV from unreliable sources. When we truly start to look at the RS, we find the following:

• "Today, it is considered that there are more than 300 million Buddhists in the world..." [11] Faith & Philosophy of Buddhism (2009) Kalpaz Publications. Please note the extensive bibliography.[12]
• "There are over 300 million Buddhists in the world."[13] A World Religions Reader (2009). John Wiley and Sons.
• "There are over 300 million practicing Buddhists worldwide today."[14] The Knowledge Book (2009). National Geographic.
• "There are somewhere between 230 and 500 million Buddhists in the world today..."[15] Globalization (2009). John Wiley and Sons. Note: This publication makes use of extensive footnotes.
• "There are 350 million Buddhists worldwide making up 6% of the global population (www.adherents.com)."[16]Religion, Belief and Social Work (2010). The Policy Press. Note from publisher: "This book is the first to deal with social work and religion so comprehensively and will therefore be essential reading not only for social work students, but also for practitioners in a range of areas, social work academics and researchers in the UK and beyond."[17]
• "...in sheer numbers there are...roughly 350 million Buddhists (Theravada and Mahayana)..." [18] Introducing Philosophy of Religion (2009). Routledge. Note from publisher: "...ideal for student use...this is the perfect introductory package for undergraduate philosophy of religion courses."[19]
• "According to Russell Chandler, the author of Racing Toward 2001, there were an estimated 359 million Buddhists in the world in 2000, with a projected growth rate of 1.7 percent annually. Some estimates have placed this number much higher with over 1 billion Buddhists worldwide, and an increasing number coming from the West." The Everything Buddhism Book (2011). Adams Media. Note: the author appears to be quoting Chandler's 1992 book, which estimates the size of Buddhism in 2000. This 1992 estimate has been superseded by more current sources. The "some estimates" claim about 1 billion Buddhists does not have a footnote. The author of this source does not take a critical view of Buddhism, but rather promotes it as a religion for interested neophytes. The publisher is known for its selection of popular religion books, but not for academic works.

Something to be aware of: One of the archived discussions of this topic raised the issue that the estimate here did not jive with the numbers at Buddhism by country. That page uses a different, more piecemeal approach to securing and citing its estimates, and while it does acknowledge that numbers depends heavily on the "degree of syncretism" allowed in making an estimate (if I'm reading it correctly), it also gives a fairly confusing presentation, in my opinion, and appends a more daunting list of references than would be appropriate here. I would also ask whether mirroring the results of that approach constitutes synthesis, at least for the purposes of this article. /ninly_(talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That "3-year-old discussion" wasn't mine, I wasn't there, and my case was by far stronger, I cited sources much more than this and the users agreed with me. Viriditas although didn't agree, but he didn't offer any counter argument so I thought he was finished, yet now he comes back after halfd a year and I'm supposed to take his editing and get back to that old subject? Remember, the users edited it to the +billion figure, not me

Viriditas, even now you did not answer everything, I cited many many more sources some half a year ago and there were sources that you didn't respond to at all For example, the World Religions Special Report (1998) estimates there are 760 million Buddhists in Asia alone See here: http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_86.html#617 You never disputed this source and you agreed a while ago to the 700 million figure so why only claim there are 350-500million while recognizing these are among the lower-estimates?

Religioustolerance.org says something wikipedia says, it's not using wikipedia as a source for the +billion Buddhist figure

The First Post: Right, so because it doesn't clearly say where it got it's information it must be from wikipedia, sorry, doesn't work that way. You can use the same kind of logic on just about any source, this kind of logic is no good

Non-Resident Nepali Association: if speeches are unreliable then we should stop listening when the Dalai Lama talks about Buddhism right? Nope

Educational Leadership : I used this to claim that Buddhism was ONCE the largest religion, I'm not using it as a reference to the +billion figure

Google Search : if a search is unacceptable then just use the book itself as a reference, what's the big problem with that? It says it "it has the largest number of followers of any religion" how is that irrelevant, that's exactly what I'm telling you all along. Buddhism was once the largest religion. "Unacceptable misuse of a primary source"? Why is that?

Buddhism: Religion in Korea: If it's a reliable source then what's the big problem? So what if it tries to promote some saints, doesn't everyone view saints positively? Isn't that the reason why they became saints in the first place?

More evidence that there are over 350 million Buddhists:

"Theravada...followed by over 100 million...'Eastern' Buddhism followed by 500 million to one billion people" http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGYlhRRBuxMC&pg=PA229&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=PrVvTfkCk6jwA5iGpa8I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6SULoikuV9kC&pg=PA136&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=5LVvTd3vLoqj8QOixMGvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

"The Buddhist religion is now embraced by one billion followers" http://books.google.com/books?id=1B4XPF1P4a4C&pg=PA261&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=UbZvTeCHGIWY8QOL-ZmvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTg8#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

"If China's Buddhists were counted, Buddhism would join Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism as a religion of over a billion adherents" http://books.google.com/books?id=bGa6uyFTrZAC&pg=PT28&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=zLhvTfDWIoSp8AOInqCvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTjIAQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

"the majority of Chinese people follow Buddhism(between 660 million, 50 percent, and over 1 billion, 80 percent) http://books.google.com/books?id=nvt5I-1PcM4C&pg=PA152&dq=buddhism+1.5+billion&hl=en&ei=5b9vTbCHPIav8gPnm6ivCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBziMAQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%201.5%20billion&f=false

More evidence that Buddhism was once the largest religion:

"For instance, many do not know that there are more Buddhists than Christians ; that about one-third of the population of the world are Buddhists" http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Buddhism+today+has+the+third+largest+membership+of+all+faiths+after&btnG=Search+Bookshttp://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=For+instance%2C+many+do+not+know+that+there+are+more+Buddhists+than+Christians+%3B+that+about+one-third+of+the+population+of+the+world+are+Buddhists&btnG=Search+Books#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&source=hp&q=For+instance%2C+many+do+not+know+that+there+are+more+Buddhists+than+Christians+%3B+that+about+one-third+of+the+population+of+the+world+are+Buddhists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fdd35f689f495207

"Even at the present time Buddhism has the largest following of all the living religions. About one fifth of the total population of the world today profess the Buddhist faith" http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Even+at+the+present+time+Buddhism+has+the+largest+following+of+all+the+living+religions.+About+one+fifth+of+the+total+population+of+the+world+today+profess+the+Buddhist+faith&btnG=Search+Books

"The religion which to-day counts the largest number of adherents, Buddhism"(year 1897) http://books.google.com/books?id=57XYliTPpWUC&pg=PA28&dq=largest+adherents+buddhism&hl=en&ei=c0p2Tb6PGYaZOpOymI0G&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=largest%20adherents%20buddhism&f=false

"This is attested by the religion which counts the largest number of adherents on earth, the ancient, highly moral, indeed ascetic Buddhism, — whose adherents now number three hundred and seventy millions"(years 1901, 1936, 1926) http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=This+is+attested+by+the+religion+which+counts+the+largest+number+of+adherents+on+earth%2C+the+ancient%2C+highly+moral%2C+indeed+ascetic+Buddhism%2C+%E2%80%94+whose+adherents+now+number+three+hundred+and+seventy+millions&btnG=Search+Books

"The result is that Buddhism can claim the largest number of adherents in the world, in fact, one-third of the human race"(year 1930) http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=The+result+is+that+Buddhism+can+claim+the+largest+number+of+adherents+in+the+world%2C+in+fact%2C+one-third+of+the+human+race&btnG=Search+Books Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I misunderstood; I thought you were referring to me as the "new guy", and the "3-year-old discussion" was only meant to show that I'd been consistently involved in discussions on this topic for a while – I didn't mean in the least to point out the outcome or content of that discussion. /ninly_(talk) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider that 3 year talk as a discussion, the guy just cited a buddhist source and finished, I cited by far more and gave reasons and engaged in argument with different users and still that guy comes after some half a year reverting things back as they were, why didn't he speak up at that time, I waited a long time for him to respond, I thought his silence was his way of saying he agrees, and again, the users changed it, not me. And now he comes along and disappears again, I'll wait until next month, if he doesn't respond and if there isn't anyone who disagrees with the +billion figure and that Buddhism was once the largest religion then I'll cite my sources again. So how about you? Do you oppose what I'm saying? Do ou still think there are only 350 million Buddhists? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please recognize that I did not cite that talk page archive to make a point about its content or outcome. It is irrelevant to the current discussion.

I am not sure which user you are talking about, but silence does not typically indicate consent. I haven't seen positive agreement that these references are reliable enough to change claims about current or historical Buddhist populations.

I personally think the current wording (under "Buddhism today") is sufficiently broad to reflect current scholarly estimates while acknowledging the difficulties in making those estimates. As for historical numbers, I would prefer to see wider agreement before they are added to the article; I don't know enough to appraise these older references. /ninly_(talk) 14:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant, don't mention it. The new user I was talking about was you, I don't remember you were here when we discussed the Buddhism estimate, and that discussion was larger and longer than this one, so I consider it to be more important, yet Viriditas edits out these high estimates out, the high estimates that the users who discussed things with me agreed to, so your argument that silence doesn't mean consent doesn't work here, the other users were consent, they edited it, and for half a year the guy said notrhing even though he was there at the discussion, what, for how long am I supposed to wait for him? And why should I let him edit out things other users agreed about and have that old debate all over again? It's tiring, I forget most things, and it takes alot of time, let's finish this already. Is this "positive agreement" you're refering to is the current agreement or the old one I had? Why do you consider these sources unreliable? And cite ALL of them, remember, if just one is reliable that's enough to refute your claim, and how much wider agreement for the argument that Buddhism was once the largest do you want to see, I gave over 7, want me to cite them all at once again? If you don't know enough what am I supposed to do about it? Just ignore these sources and pretend they don't exist? Christianity surpassed Buddhism because they gained adherents in Korea partly at the expense of Buddhists, and gained adherents in sub-saharan Africa(which btw has high birth rates) and because of China's one-child policy, when you consider that it's very believable that Buddhism was once the largest, and that's what these sources seem to point out to. As for your 500 million source, again, ignoring China, ignoring syncretism, and if there are only 500 million why does wikipedia claim these are lower estimates? Apparently even wikipedia confesses there are higher estimates, so why not put it? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As for positive agreement – I am talking about the current discussion, and I have not seen any other editors agree, in positive terms, that any of these references reliably support the statement that Buddhism has over a billion followers. I would like to see at least one reference that is both 1) recent, and 2) from a peer-reviewed or other recognized scholarly source in Buddhist/Asian Studies (or a related, impartial field) – a secondary source. The reason that higher estimates have been repeatedly removed from the article is that no one has been able to point to an unequivocal secondary source with the higher figures.

As I stated above, I feel that the question of whether Buddhism was historically the world's largest religion is separate – and to be clear, some of your references may be sufficient to state that. However, they are all quite old, and it may constitute synthesis to use them alone. I don't know enough about the history or sources of the writing to judge, so again, I'd like to see either 1) a recent scholarly source saying that Buddhism was once the largest religion, or 2) assessment of those references by someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Finally, please recognize that we are all working to improve the article here, according to Wikipedia guidelines and processes, and that complex issues do take time to resolve. /ninly_(talk) 04:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Current discussion? But there's just the two of us, so really 50% of the people hewre agree with me, that's fairly decent, and what? I have to convince people every time someone disagrees?

What is this, a popularity contest? At least some sources report higher estimates, why not include them? Even if you think there's probably just 350 million Buddhists point out the higher "unlikely" numbers

Almost all of my estimates are recent, the only ones that aren't are the ones declaring that Buddhism was once the largest religion, and that bit doesn't matter because they are claiming that it was the largest only at a certain time, not that it is the largest currently, so I don't have to keep finding current estimates foer that one

Peer-reviewed, what is this a scientific argument? Let me remind you that many peer-reviews claimed Zoroastrianism had only a hundred thousand believers, Guinness at once even declared it as the major religion nearest extinction, now all of a sudden most sources claim it has 2 million and some even as much as 3.5 million Zoroastrians. Demographics are not 100% accurate, probably not even 90% accurate, but it's useful for generalizations

Anyway, what exactly the definition of "peer-reviewed or other recognized scholarly source " by what scholar and what is exactly a peer-review, that many people checked things out behind it? That it has multiple authors? If so then we have those

Nah, it's not because nobody has been able to point out an unequivocal secondary source(which won't surprise me, this is just a free encyclopedia), it's because most sources don't count China, literally, some of these 350 million sources even show me a map and the percentage of Buddhists in each country and I see no percentage estimate in China, why? It's also because Buddhists tend to be quieter and mix many religions with their own, so seeing the 1.6 billion figures puts us in doubt, Buddhism has as many adherents as Islam? Can't be! Right?

"some of your references may be sufficient to state that"

Excellent, then I can put them right? Again, don't tell me they are too old, doesn't matter because they are referring to a certain time, no matter how much time passes historical sources claim that Alexander the Great was born at 356 BCE, period, and a later book on Alexander won't matter because we're talking only at a certain time in the past

The sources do state it was once the largest religion, that's notr a synthesis, want me to quote them?

Alright, sure most people probably want wikipedia to improve, otherwise there'd be no wikipedia, however, there are some people that remove and edit wikipedia with a biased view of point and it's much easier to destroy than to build so it's difficult to stop them even if a quiet agreement was reached by several users to improve wikipedia Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that in the case of Chinese Buddhists, it is impossible to separate "Chinese Folk Religion" from Chinese Buddhism, and anyone following "Chinese Folk Religion" is basically a Buddhist in some sense. For East Asian Buddhism, the 500 million to 1 billion figure seems about right, but probably closer to 500 million than to 1 billion. Also, many of these Buddhists may not study the sutras or sit in meditation, but they would visit a temple to pay respects, burn incense, etc. This still counts as Buddhism, and Theravada laypeople have followed the same general practices of merit-making. The similarities between lay practice in ancient Indian Buddhism and that in Chinese Buddhism are even more striking. This is logical since China absorbed Buddhist practices from the Silk Road and from India over hundreds of years. It seems that in this whole controversy over the number of adherents, in addition to the difficulty of finding accurate figures, there is some elitism regarding exactly who counts as a Buddhist. Tengu800 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I Noticed that you said "For East Asian Buddhism", does that mean that Buddhism overall has more adherents, such as perhaps those Buddhists in Thailand? East Asia actually isn't the most devout Buddhist place. Thailand and Cambodia have higher Buddhist percentage and Burma is the one that spends the most on Buddhism per percentage gained. Aside from that I noticed that you accept the billion figure as a possibility although you personally believe lower estimates are more accurate, am I right?

So what if many of these Buddhists may not study the sutras or sit in meditation, did you know that only 45% of Americans can name the first four gospels?

http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx

Yet nobody would doubt that most americans are Christrian, at least three quarters of them. Who said everyone is devout? Using that definition we can get much lower estimates for Christianity or Hinduism, most Christians have no clue what's in the Bible aside from what their preachers teach them. This is just a no true scotsman fallacy Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tengu, for your perspective. I really do not wish to appear elitist or biased. In many ways I personally agree with both of your arguments – but my opinion doesn't matter much. My concern is primarily with the verifiability of our sources and the quality of our citations. Kim-Zhang-Hong, you asked:

what exactly the definition of "peer-reviewed or other recognized scholarly source " by what scholar and what is exactly a peer-review, that many people checked things out behind it? That it has multiple authors?

First of all, these definitions are quite well presented here and here. This is not a popularity contest (as you point out, there's no one here); my concerns are based on my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines such as these, and the fact that the billion-plus figures have been repeatedly reverted and contested over the past few years.

Peer-reviewed, what is this a scientific argument?

Insofar as sociology is a social science, yes it is. I don't demand that all references be from scholarly journals, but I am concerned that none of these references offers scientific backup to the population figures they supply – i.e. they don't identify the methodology or precision of those figures. On the contrary, numbers are just mentioned in the context of other topics and various points of view (Christian evangelism, Tibetan political activism, in one case some kind of personal essay about romance novels, etc.). You are correct that demographic techniques are inexact, but when done properly their inaccuracy is well understood using statistical tools (and presented along with results in margin-of-error figures and the like).

It is likely that high-quality evidence exists outside of English-language sources. I unfortunately don't read the most relevant languages and in any case wouldn't know where to look. If someone does find something in a foreign language, we should note these guidelines.

As a side note, Tengu, can you point to source(s) that equates "Chinese Folk Religion" with Buddhism as you have done? That may be a starting point for more fruitful discussion. However I suspect it would entail more revision of the article, since syncretic/lay Buddhism isn't covered in much detail (don't want to give numbers for something that's not really being described). /ninly_(talk) 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did not mean to imply that you were elitist or anything like that. It was just a comment about some general trends I have noticed when this issue arises. I would not equate Chinese Folk Religion with Buddhism, but I think it would be accurate to say that Chinese Folk Religion implies Buddhism, Daoism, and other beliefs. Therefore, if there are for example 500 million Chinese who follow Chinese Folk Religion, then it follows that it would be accurate to say that there are 500 million followers of Buddhism, 500 million followers of Daoism, etc. This would have to be qualified in some way, but Chinese Folk Religion basically would not be what it is without Buddhism, nor is it strictly separable from Buddhism even among very devout and well-educated Chinese Buddhists. I think maybe a starting point would be to establish that a follower of Chinese Folk Religion is to some degree a follower of Buddhism as well. I will have to do more reading to find out if there are actually good sources which describe this basic relationship. Many authors like to pour over old texts and make their own interpretations of them, but few actually study Chinese religion in the modern world, unfortunately. Tengu800 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right; equate was poor word choice on my part. This approach and starting point sound right to me; I agree that work along these lines would take a bit more qualification than just adding/changing numbers. /ninly_(talk) 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I used newspapers, journals, textbooks, which are considered reliable according to your links. The links you gave don't explain the problem you're having with my sources

Social science is not a hard science like Physics or Math .Demographics are used in social science but are they part of it? I doubt it, the closest thing in social science that has anything to do with demographics is geography, and the study of their countries behaviors regarding religion, but that alone doesn't tell us much how many believers there are

They do identify the methodology$precision of those figures, polls, specifically 50% to 80% of those in China claim to be Buddhist, that's over 650 million Buddhists in China alone

It's true that Buddhism sometimes isn't the main topic of my sources, but if it was then you would probably tell me it was too much pro-Buddhist and that it's just trying to make Buddhism look big and important, what about the book everything buddhism if you want something that specifically talks about buddhism, it reports that some estimates give the figure at over 1 billion although it reports many sources also report a lower figure, the figure we're talking about here, seems good enough, religioustolerance also talks about this topic and details the problems of why some sources put Buddhism at only 350 million while others put it much higher at 1.6 billiom, ditto for Alex, he also talks about why Buddhists are underestimated, do I nweed to mention more sources? Comon, how many more sources must I give so people would understand that 350 million Buddhists is a low figure that counts only those who went for refugee

So what if some of them are from evangelics, I don't see anyone opposing the Christian Encyclopedia or someone opposing the +2.1 billion Christians figure, why is Buddhism different when these evangelicals claim things about Buddhism

The inaccuracy of these Buddhist numbers is like the inaccuracy of Zoroastrianism, because it was persecuted most people thought Zoroastrians are an extremely small minority, just about a hundred thousand, now that America invaded countries like Afghanistan and tries to set it up as a democracy we feel the presence of Zoroastrians more. Likewise now that China is opening up to the world and to religious freedom we can no longer pretend Buddhists are just minorities that Christians surpass in China, a few decades later these 350 million sources will be laughed at, just like today hardly anyone thinks there are just a hundred thousand Zoroastrians and Guiness Book no longer claim it as a near extinct religion. Or maybe it's also like arguing with someone that there are more than 300 million english speakers, sure some sources report that but it's ridiculously small considering those whose first language and native tongue is english and ignoring all the places that the British Empire influenced like India that has at least 200 million speakers, a much more accurate figure is at +1billion English speakers. Same thing with Buddhism, I won't erase the 350 million figure, but if you truly agree with me we should tell readers that some sources put it at over a billion Buddhists

I can search outside the english language, but no matter how many sources I give you claim it's not good enough, so what's the use? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's beat this dead horse, here are more estimates

This source says there are 1.5 billion Buddhists worldwide:

http://www.ethique.inserm.fr/ethique/cours.nsf/bccd132de8453295c125685b004bb3a8/e7572871d84b5307c12569ee0046f8af?OpenDocument http://www.ethique.inserm.fr/ethique/cours.nsf/bccd132de8453295c125685b004bb3a8/e7572871d84b5307c12569ee0046f8af?OpenDocument

This source says 230 Buddhists although it recognizes other sources speak of 1691 million:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1265965

This source says between 230 to 1691 million:

http://www.dualista.com/relis.html

This source says 230 million although puts it up at 1000 million if Chinese would also confess their faith:

http://www.cambio.com.co/tendenciascambio/772/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR_CAMBIO-4103042.html

This source recognizes again the low estimates of 230 and 500 million but says it might be as high as 1600 million:

http://www.elrevolucionario.org/rev.php?articulo917 Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As you have been repeatedly informed, none of those sources are reliable enough for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So you say, though when pressed for reasons you can't give much, I already refuted your arguments about why you think they're unreliable. You think the sources we use for things like Christianity are more reliable, like the World Christian Database, seriously, the World Christian Database, do I have to tell you how unreliable that source is, yet it's there in the "major religions category" as a source for the number of Christians worldwide. Yet with Buddhism you guys use completely different standards, religioustolerance alone is enough to show that there are more than just 350 million Buddhists, so many sources and yet you claim not a single one is reliable? No way Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than posting huge swaths of text with non-descript links that vary widely in quality, why not gather the best and most reliable sources of these, present an organized and concise proposal, and then make some modifications based on input from others if necessary? Tengu800 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources that claim +500 million are Buddhists or the ones claiming that Buddhism was once the largest religion? As far as I'm concerned, all of these sources are reliable, I have no idea why you don't accept them, how about giving a reason for why you don't accept the below:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

"Theravada...followed by over 100 million...'Eastern' Buddhism followed by 500 million to one billion people" http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGYlhRRBuxMC&pg=PA229&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=PrVvTfkCk6jwA5iGpa8I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6SULoikuV9kC&pg=PA136&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=5LVvTd3vLoqj8QOixMGvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

"The Buddhist religion is now embraced by one billion followers" http://books.google.com/books?id=1B4XPF1P4a4C&pg=PA261&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=UbZvTeCHGIWY8QOL-ZmvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTg8#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

"If China's Buddhists were counted, Buddhism would join Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism as a religion of over a billion adherents" http://books.google.com/books?id=bGa6uyFTrZAC&pg=PT28&dq=buddhism+billion&hl=en&ei=zLhvTfDWIoSp8AOInqCvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTjIAQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20billion&f=false

http://www.religion-religions.com/html/sub_chapter.php?select=budah000400&religion=Buddhism

the World Religions Special Report (1998) estimates there are 760 million Buddhists in Asia alone See here: http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_86.html#617

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60490,people,news,dalai-lama-joins-ashton-kutcher-and-stephen-fry-on-twitter Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.64.0.254, 11 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On the first line of the Buddhism article it says Buddhism is a religion. I believe citation is needed for this claim, as it is debatable.

http://www.amtb.cn/e-bud/releases/educati.htm

188.64.0.254 (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: You are correct in observing that it is debatable. Please look at the archives, where every conceivable aspect of this debate has been covered, including a look at probably every English source on the subject. The consensus on this debate is settled: we describe it as a religion and a philosophy. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

spelling error

The word "comparison" in the second paragraph of this article is spelled incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanClan (talk • contribs) 26 February 2011

Fixed, thanks. /ninly_(talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone is illegally erasing my disscussion about Buddhism being born in Ancient India

I have started a discussion about Buddha being born in Ancient India, in what is now known as Lumbini Nepal, and someone took it off. This is wrong. The point of discussion is to discuss. And if your taking that off, then your not even allowing discussin. 71.106.83.19 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this discussion, which was archived late last year? Please look through the archives and edit history before assuming bad faith. As yet, there has been no significant agreement to change the current wording about the origins of Buddhism. /ninly_(talk) 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Buddha was bone in sri lanka.In sri lanka have so many evidence to that, but anyone not belive . becouse sinse the large number of years we ware think with "Janaprawada" from palli Mahawansa (written 800yeras after Buddha's life), that was written by Mahanama thero (Mahayanik).But remember sri lanka had a hela mahawansa which is written 300yeras after Buddha's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakshinajayadewa (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs load more emphasis on divya caksus

Since the divya caksus is the central thing in buddhism and is acknowledged from Theravada to Vajrayana, shouldn't there be more emphasis on this?Thigle (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The divine eye (divya caksu) is not commonly mentioned in the sutras or emphasized. Even when it is mentioned, it is usually just in passing reference. For example, in the Diamond Sutra, it appears in a list of the different types of vision the Buddha has. It is a pretty small detail in the overall scheme of Buddhism, though. Tengu800 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tengu. As I suggested at the end of this exchange, the emphasis you suggest would require the support of references showing that this concept is considered central to Buddhist thought or cosmology. /ninly_(talk) 04:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Shinnyo-en

Why is Shinnyo-en listed among the major buddhist traditions in East Asia in the introduction of the page? It is a derivative of the Shingon school and claimes about one million adherents according to the Shinnyo-en wiki-page. How could this be mentioned, but not the four different Tibetan schools, for example? I propose to remove it. --Guttormng (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shaolinguy, 6 May 2011

Contrary to popular belief, Buddhism is NOT a religion nor a philosophy. Shaolin Temple's official website (http://shaolin.org.cn/templates/EN_T_new_list/index.aspx?nodeid=389) defines it as: " Buddhism is the teachings of Buddha rather than a religion of Buddha worship; it is neither a religion nor a philosophy.". Shaolin Temple's reference is important because they have a direct connection with Buddha and Buddhism. Here is the linage which directly connects Shaolin with Siddhartha Gautama http://shaolin.org.cn/templates/EN_T_new_list/index.aspx?nodeid=358&page=ContentPage&contentid=2308 .

Shaolinguy (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus view in scholarship is that Buddhism is essentially religion, which is often qualified in some way, so as to not lead people to believe that it is the same notion of religion as in Abrahamic religions. The Shaolin Temple's website just gives a very broad and simplified overview of Buddhism, and is not really an appropriate reference for a page such as this. Tengu800 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Which scholars? And, about the reference in this article, what makes Encyclopedia Britannica an authority on Buddhism? How detailed should the clarification be when affirming that something "is not" something? There's much more detailed information about what Buddhism is in Shaolin's website. I can't find anything that even remotely relates Buddhism to a religion or it being referred as that, and why should they spend their time clarifying something that they clearly are remaking that it isn't? There should be valid proof that Buddhism IS a religion and a philosophy from authorities in the subject, not proof that it is REFERRED as one, and I seem to find none. Then, how are we claiming that it IS a religion? --Shaolinguy (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How many sources have you examined? How long have you been studying Buddhism? Tengu800 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Shaolin Temple is not the end-all-be-all of sources. We use a variety of sources to back up the information here, some of which may contradict other sources. As far as I can tell, the source you are actually suggesting, which is a primary source, is not as reliable as other sources listed on the article already (by the way, even your source says, "As one of world religions, Buddhism is..."; it goes on to qualify the statement, but even the intro states that it is a world religion). You're going to need to provide more and better sources to make this change. Further, given your chosen username and edits on this site, I am concerned you may have a conflict of interest on this subject and editing in a more objective manner may be helpful to all involved. Thank you. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 21:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to make such a major change, Shaolinguy, you'll need to present us with some independent secondary sources, ideally scholarly sources, that state that Buddhism is not a religion. If you have such sources, you can change the "yes" in the template above to "no", but without clear verification, we can't make that change. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninformed view of Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.

The actual orthodox view of the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, is that it refers ONLY to the POTENTIAL of a human to become a Buddha, like milk can become butter. Thigle (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the Tathagata-garbha Talk Page. Who decides what is "orthodox " ? The people who misread and misinterpret the sutras ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 03:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I,m sorry vm

but not Polish buddists but Czech. The Czech Republic or Czechia is a country of Central Europe. Poland and Czechia are two absolutely different countries. Don,t speak each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.112.130.1 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldnt the first paragraph say it is Indian reliigino or from India?

I would think one of the most basic things to write is that Buddhis is a religion from Ancient India, or of the classified "Indian Religions" (such as other religons have Abrahic Religions....I mean this has been disputed, and yet when evidence is given, it is settled, and yet now it is back to this?....I mean....it should start by saying it is a religion from Ancient India, or classified as a Indian Religion.........71.106.83.19 (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)