From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Need a more nuanced outlook on claims of Theravada being "Oldest" or "Most Authentic"[edit]

Theravada Buddhism is a term which was first used 1000 years after the Buddha's death, and only came into widespread use to refer to Southern forms of Buddhism in 1950. It is radically different from one country to another, is often filled with superstitions from the cultures it is associated with that have no Pali scriptural basis, and claims of being "the oldest" have as much to do with historically powerful schools with government support legitimizing themselves in the face of competing schools. This is what modern scholarship agrees. Claims that it's "authentic" ignore the fact that we have no contemporary information on the 400 years following the Buddha's death, yet the second sentence of this article repeats this misleading view. I would recommend the authors of this article check out this book, among others: Theravada Buddhism: Continuity, Diversity, and Identity (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary, Indic scripts[edit]

Rupert loup It is considered standard when reverted to take it to talk: this is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. First, you are wrong. Wikipedia states unequivocably that "[t]here is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." The use of devanagari in lead is against policy. The use of devanagari is also ahistoric, as devanagari was not invented until approximately the 10th century and was only adopted for Sanskrit on any wide basis in the 1900s under the British colonial scholars. Use IAST, as it is reasonably legible to Latin alphabet users and this is the English wikipedia. Second, hotlinking an article title is inappropriate. This is the lede: we make it simple. There is no cause to hotlink Theravada: you should include the definition in the article directly. Ogress smash! 08:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: You left this comment on my talk page: "Hello, you should read MOS:FOREIGN and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly, regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)" I was unaware I was using other languages unsparingly? I do not understand how either relates to this issue. Ogress smash! 08:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: Sorry I didn't see that you replied here, seems you have a point, the links that you showed said that there is no consensus but is recommendable to use IPA instead, until we have the IPA translation should be used this. The external link should stay because it helps readers to research for the etymology of the word. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: No, we should include the etymology of the word in the article. I'd note that all the wiktionary page actually says is "From Pali थेरवाद (theravāda), from Sanskrit स्थविरवाद (sthaviravāda); compare वाद (vāda)." This is not actually correct! It's not derived from Sanskrit (although there is a clear Sanskrit equivalent). Instead, it was coined by Buddhists who used Pali as their liturgical language. Other Buddhist schools Sanskritized their texts, as it was long-dead as a spoken language before Buddha was born; the form "sthāviravāda" never actually appeared. There's a reason the Sanskrit of Mahayana Buddhism is called Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, as it was Sanskrit learned by Apabhramsa and Prakrit speakers, who stapled Sanskrit forms onto their native grammars.
How about we write '''Theravāda''' ([[Pali]], literally "school of the [[bhikkhu|elder monks]]")? That is one of the recommended ways of opening a lede where translation might be useful. Ogress smash! 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I support that. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll add it and see if anyone reacts. BRD! Ogress smash! 20:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths[edit]

I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on this question regarding the best exposition of the four noble truths, a central teaching in modern Buddhism.

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths


Robert Walker (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest to write a section about the Bodhisattva ideal in Theravada?[edit]

The Buddhist Publication Society published recently a book "The Bodhisattva Ideal – Essays on the Emergence of Mahayana", ISBN: 978-955-24-0396-5. Its a very good exploration about the Bodhisattva ideal in Theravada and I think this article needs a section about it. So far, two articles of the book are online:

Both are updated or revised articles of earlier versions. For the time being, I will link Samuels’ article in the link section. Hope this is ok for you guys. Kt66 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)