Talk:Humanistic Buddhism

Caring for the Dead?

I don't get it. I don't know anything about caring for the dead in Buddhism. As far as I know, all Buddhists care for the living, not the dead. So, why is this sentence in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.102.129 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are funeral rites in Tibetan Buddhism, such as dedication of merits. The same is true of Jodo Shinshu and, I assume, many other schools. Luis Dantas (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've updated: During Taixu's time, and earlier, Chinese Buddhism was tending more and more to becoming a bunch of funeral rites and the like. After the funeral itself, there are more rites on subsequent days, etc. and the funerary urn is kept in a pagoda, etc. etc. Please see my updates in the article page itself.  :) Huifeng (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

In many contexts, "Engaged Buddhism" is used as an analogous term to "Humanistic Buddhism." Both are valid translations of the Chinese 人間佛教. Caorongjin (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose the merge. 'Engaged Buddhism' is the much more standard term in discussions of this movement in Buddhism in English-language scholarship. I'm not sure that it and Humanistic Buddhism are the same thing; Thich Nhat Hanh is the major figure associated with Engaged Buddhism, which is focused more on the idea of applying Buddhist principles in the service of social causes than with making Buddhism more compatible with humanism. At the very least, we should get a better indication of what the relationship between the two traditions is a little unclear to me. It seems that perhaps the same term in Chinese is being used for two different movements. --Clay Collier (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look for instance at http://buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/~mb/publications/bingenheimer.yinshunRenjianFojiao.pdf, a digitized version of a publication from Taiwan, Bingenheimer discusses how "Engaged Buddhism" is a term that comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's translation of 人間佛教 (renjian fojiao). The basis for his work is that of Yinshun, perhaps the second major figure of Chinese Humanistic Buddhism (next to Taixu). Recognizing this and the tendency for people to use both terms analogously (correctly or not) would imply, at minimum, that Engaged Buddhism is part of the trajectory of Humanistic Buddhism. Caorongjin (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just ammended the section in Humanistic Buddhism to discuss the relationship with Engaged Buddhism. Hope that clarifies things. Caorongjin (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a good solution. Thanks. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Though the term "Engaged Buddhism" seems much more common amongst Westerners, considering that several large Chinese (Taiwanese) groups use the English term "Humanistic Buddhism", and they do have a fair body of literature, in English, we can't just overlook "Humanistic Buddhism". Besides, there are some differences between the two, as well. Huifeng (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make changes to the article

I have 4 points (and requests to the originator of the article to consider): /1/ This article is about Buddhism and its global humanistic aspects, and not about promoting certain individuals. Referring to a ceratin activist once or twice is acceptable but to make the article based on one side makes its value weaker and incomplete. /2/ I was about to delete the "SIX CHARACTERISTICS" but I leave it to the originator to do something about it. Again - the mentioned "6 charactyeristics" are produced by just one view, and which is inconsistent. The first characteristic about Humanism says it is based on Humanism! This is circular reasoning. These characteristics also lack the most important factor of NON-VIOLENCE as characteristic to Buddhism and to Humanism. After all just the foundation of BODHISATTVA and altruism is sufficient and contains all aspects. /3/ Why do we speak about Buddhist Humanism? It is because all people are equal in having the potential for Buddhahood, the Buddha nature and which was not mentioned at all. /4/ When we are speaking about Humanism it means we are referring to the whole world. To distinguish "IN TAIWAN" as a major title means that the Humanistic movement did not develope in other places. It is possible to refer to Taiwan but if I want to add and refer to Japan, China, USA, France etc... this will make the article full of titles about all countries. Please keep it short. I suggest replacing "IN TAIWAN" by "WORLD WIDE".

Thank you for your work but please let's work together to make the article solid and deeper in contents. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism?

I am very curious about the recent appearance of a new section on Humanism in Nichiren Buddhism and related Japanese groups. As far as I know, the general notion of "humanistic Buddhism" 人間佛教 is one of Chinese origins. Could someone please verify that Nichiren et al do in fact use this basic term - as opposed to simply being "humanistic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huifeng (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there! Thank you for your querie about the Humanistic teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. Let me start by saying that the title "Humanistic Buddhism" is rather sematically weak: because there are no 2 types of Buddhism: one Humanistic and another non-Humanistic. I think we should alter the title into "Buddhist Humanism". If you trace the word Humanism you'll find various views: Christian Humanism, secular Humanism...etc... and adding the term "Buddhist Humanism" is appropriate.

• Secondly, the term Humanistic Buddhism or Buddhist Humanism, whether in China or Japan or the USA, is based on the Buddha's teachings - in particular the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. (The article mentions this clearly). The Lotus Sutra - of course - is not a private property of a certain temple or nation (Chinese, Japanese etc...) Buddhism of the Lotus Sutra is a universal teaching for all Humanity.

Historically, it was TienTai of China who placed the Lotus Sutra as the highest of the Buddha's teachings. Later it was introduced to Japan and the Tendai Sect emerged upholding the Lotus teachings, which was the ground for Nichiren, who appeared in 1222, to declare his teachings based solely on the Lotus Sutra. Currently, a 12 millions Samgha Nichiren Buddhist group (the Soka Gakkai International) is actively working for: "Spreading Buddhist Humanism in the Community" :http://www.sgi.org/about-us/members-stories/spreading-buddhist-humanism-in-the-community.html

• Nichiren Buddhism focuses on the Lotus Sutra: “Buddhist humanism: It is a philosophical perspective that reflects the core spirit of the Lotus Sutra”

Buddhist Humanism: http://www.daisakuikeda.org/main/philos/buddhist/buddh-05.html

• I think it is more accurate and more professional to refer to Buddhism as either Theravada or Mahayana. In China or Japan, you have Buddhist schools which are either Theravada or Mahayana. There is no such thing as "Chinese" Buddhism and "Japanese" Buddhism. Using the term Chinese or Japanese Buddhism is plainly wrong. For example Zen has branches and temples in both Japan & China. It remains Zen. No need here for confusing "passport" added to Buddhism. Nichiren Buddhism is found all over the world but mostly parcticed in Japan, this does not make it Japanese, but correctly: a Mahayana school based on the Lotus Sutra. It is even not logical to speak about Humanism and Humanity and in the same time restrict Buddhism to artificial national descriptions of Chinese and Japanese terms.

• Wikipedia articles must be impartial and must bring various views. Humanistic values of Buddhism cannot be patented to this temple or that priest only. All respect worthy people working to spread Buddhist Humanism must be acknowledged. I am doing research to include the participation of various Mahayana schools in the teachings of Humanism of the Buddha teachings which are for all Humanity. Thank you for your input and let's cooperate to improve the article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title or adding a new article?

If you take a look at the right handside of the article, you'll see a column with various titles referring to :Christian Humanism, Jewish Humanism but no article for "Buddhist Humanism". I will start an article on "Buddhist Humanism", or we can change the title of the current article. The current title " Humanistic Buddhism" is inaccurate. Millions of people follow other schools of Buddhism, not necessarily a Taiwanese Buddhism, and they are Bodhisattvas whose teachings are firmly based on Buddhist Humanism and the Lotus Sutra. The article must refelct this truth. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am waiting for opinions and cooperations to make the article better and encompassing to all schools of Buddhism. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello SafwanZabalawi, While you do raise a good point that it is well worth having an entry for a broad range of "Buddhism Humanism", it is still a fact that the specific phrase "Humanistic Buddhism" is in fact used by a number of Buddhist groups. It is these groups that are the original focus on this entry, I believe. On one hand you seem to wish to make the article encompass "all schools of Buddhism", which of course would defeat the entire purpose, would it not? We would just be replicating the general "Buddhism" entry. On the other hand, you are also trying to both claim that all Buddhism is simply Buddhism, but that somehow "the term Humanistic Buddhism or Buddhist Humanism, ... is based on the Buddha's teachings - in particular the teachings of the Lotus Sutra", which is clearly already a sectarian position itself. The Chinese forms of "Humanistic Buddhism" (a term they themselves use) are not at all particularly focused on the Lotus Sutra. I won't go into some of your other claims, but simply suggest that you do a little more study of some other traditions, eg. the claim that "Zen" in China and Japan are the same. In the end, I think it fine to have some content from Nichiren Buddhism in this entry, but please don't hijack it. Huifeng (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)