Talk:Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Buddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
April 11, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
July 24, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Buddhism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Related move discussion[edit]

FYI Talk:Sigala (musician) In ictu oculi (talk)

Buddhism and Nepal[edit]

Actually, don't know if this is good to do or not. But I feel like you should include the topics like "Buddhism And Nepal" since the then Kapilvastu now lies in Lumbini in Nepal. There is Mayadevi temple, actual birthplace of Gautam Buddha. And there are a lot of activities going around with a big project by the support of different countries with the aim to make it more popular. Respected wiki editors are requested to visit and study , if possible, about the relationship between Buddhism and Nepal. Cause looking this edited version of wikipage is not satisfying. I feel something more important missing there. Thanks. Looking for the introduction of this chapter in this Buddhism page, if possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avijit107 (talkcontribs) 05:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See Buddhism in Nepal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Buddha was born in Nepal not in India

Prabin bista (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016[edit]

In the section, "Meditation and insight." The second sentence has "isnight" instead of "insight." Keep up the good work ;)

Adamaero (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 01:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This article must be edited because birth place of Buddha was Nepal not India Prabin bista (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Theravada and Orthodox Buddhism[edit]

@VictoriaGrayson: You deleted the Theravada and Orthodox Buddhism sentences with the edit comment, "Theravada is not orthodox". Would the following quotes suffice?

  1. Kinner et al, Worshiping Siva and Buddha, University of Hawaii Press, page 20: "Orthodox forms of Buddhism are collectively called Hinayana (...). Present-day practioners of orthodox Buddhism prefer to use the name Theravada (Buddhism of the Elders)."
  2. William M. Johnston Encyclopedia of Monasticism, Routledge, pages 221–223: "(... in the cases of Burma and Thailand), toward a Theravada monastic emphasis. (...) In the case of Burma, a specific form of religion without further commentaries, based on the Pali Tripitaka, has become the best known form of "Orthodox Buddhism".
  3. Ilana F Silber Virtuosity, Charisma and Social Order: A comparative sociological study of monasticism in Theravada Buddhism and Medieval Catholicism, Cambridge University Press, page 57 footnote 1: "According to Theravada Buddhism, which claims to be the only true, orthodox Buddhism (the “Doctrine of the Elders”), the...."

I am open to alternate wording, or clarifying the "orthodox Buddhism" if you have a WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The Encyclopedia of Monasticism is talking about specific local context in Burma. It is irrelevant and doesn't even refer to Theravada.
  • The Catholicism book uses the word "claims".
  • There is nothing orthodox about Theravada historically or its Abhidhamma. Mayahana was the dominant Buddhism of India for hundreds of years. And the dominant Abhidharma was Sarvastivada.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Any WP:RS for your claim "there is nothing orthodox..."? We can skip the 2nd source (if you read the article, Johnston is discussing Theravada, giving Burma as a specific example). Source 3 is fine, if Theravada claims to be orthodox, and WP:RS states so, it suffices. I am open to rewording, "Theravada claims to be...." to more closely match the source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I dispute that book on Catholicism is RSVictoriaGraysonTalk 19:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: What? That is a comparative religion book, why ignore the Theravada Buddhism in the title? It is recent text, by a scholar, published by Cambridge University Press. BTW, it is well known that Burma is Theravadin country par excellence. See Gombrich (1988), page 137. But, to avoid OR-Synthesis issue, we can drop source 2. Do you have any for your "there is nothing orthodox..."? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Gombrich (1995, page 47-48) too acknowledges the same, "Theravadins claim that they alone represent true Buddhist orthodoxy, and that other sects are heretics". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The removed sentence was as follows:

"The Theravada tradition traces its roots to the Pali Canon, and has been the more orthodox form of Buddhism."

The second part could be something like "and considers itself to be the more orthodox form of Buddhism." NB: the first part may be somewhat problematic too; strictly speaking, the Theravada tradition traces its roots to the (words of the) Buddha himself, and preserves these words in the Pali canon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016[edit]

Buddhawasborninnepal (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admin/ Concerned

i am writing this to bring to your kind attention that it is a criminal offence to mislead people by falsifying facts. someone rightly said little knowledge is too dangerous. Hence my suggestion to you is to 1st spend time on research and also be a critical reader. know your sources and also examine them before you hastily decide to put them in a public information board like wiki.

Please note the following points. 1. Buddha was born in Nepal in a place called Tilaurakot near Lumbini which is in Kapilvastu district of Nepal. 2. The matter of fact is that, India is a name given by British Empire when they ruled them. Hence you cannot put that india existed those times. There were many small estates , each estate ruled by a ruler. Still Nepal Existed Tall. Buddha was a prince of Sakya Dynasty who is of Nepalese Origin.please note that,we still have a huge majority of population who belong to this race."Shakya". 3. If Buddha want born in Nepal why would one of your famous leader king Ashoka who is your national Hero visited Lumbini and erected the shrine in the name of Buddha?. Because he wanted to provide homage to Buddha and his ideologies. The point to be noted is Emperor Ashoka visited Lumbini and erected the monument to mortify Buddha and his preachings. Eg Jews visiting Jerusalem and Muslims visiting Makka. Hope you get the bigger picture now. 3. As a responsible person i hope you would have a general courtesy to go back and add these facts and correct your falsifying facts.


Jai Nepal.

I'm afraid your request is incomplete. You have not made any specific suggestions. Please write out exactly what sentences you suggest should be in the article, citing reliable sources, and state exactly what text you want to replace. If you are suggesting that any sentence be removed that is already cited to a reliable source, you will need to provide a rationale for its removal. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016[edit]

Typo in the "Dukkha" section, 6th paragraph: impernanent -> impermanent

2601:7C0:4100:3C00:BACA:3AFF:FE83:E037 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Already done — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nepalese religions?[edit]

@Belbasesuraj: With this edit, you changed Buddhism's classification from "Indian religion" to "Nepalese religion". That is WP:OR. The scholarly support for Buddhism to be an Indian religion is: 1 (page 18, published by John Wiley), 2 (page 52, published by University of Chicago Press), etc. Please discuss this and do not edit war in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Is buddhism a universal religion or Indian/Nepalese religion ?[edit]

Initially I changed Indian Religion to Nepalese Religion but later I corrected it and made it a universal religion in place of Inian religion . Buddhism is not only an Indian religion, it is a universal religion. If you are arguing on this topic then then tell me about Hinduism ??, Islam ??, Christianity??or other religion. Otherwise make it neutral i.e universal religion. I have gone through this article and what found is that it is written from the Indian point of view. What I believe is that we should make neutral point of view while writing an article. @Ms Sarah Welch: what do you think about neutral point of view in this article? The link you placed talks Buddhism as a universal religion. we wikipedians should write article considering neutral point of view and our article must be verifiable and reliable. Wikipedia is yours,Keep learning ! Cheers!.--Belbasesuraj (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Belbasesuraj: NPOV is good, but alas you misunderstand WP:NPOV. That policy reads, "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not mean "Indian point of view", nor "Nepalese point of view", nor "universal point of view", nor "point of view that agrees with a wikipedia editor's wisdom / prejudice / opinion". A religion can be present in many countries, and also be referred to as an Indian or Abrahamic religion in reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources state "Buddhism is an Indian religion", then we must too in this article regardless of your POV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)