Talk:Buddhist ethics (discipline)

Separate Topic?

Does it make sense for this to be its own article, rather than a part of either the existing Buddhist Ethics articles? From what I can tell, it seems to be primarily about attempts at creating an academic interpretive framework for the ethos embodied in Buddhist texts and practice- which could be seen as either an analytic perspective on traditional Buddhist ethics, or an ethical focus to Buddhist studies. Essentially I'm asking if there is there evidence that Buddhist Ethics is regarded as an independent discipline, rather than as a focus or specialization. For instance, we would discuss the academic study of Buddhist art in a single article, alongside the phenomena that it studies. In my opinion, the existing Buddhist ethics article would be much improved by discussing the history of Western attempts to assess the Buddhist ethos in a structured way. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of leaving this article separate from the main Buddhist Ethics article, especially as the Buddhist ethics article is policed by people with a very traditionalist viewpoint. At least there is recognition here that Buddhist ethics is also a matter of academic discussion in the West, aside from and in addition to its traditional sources. There are differences between the academic study of traditional Buddhist ethics and the philosophical discussion of how Buddhist ethics should be applied in other circumstances. A similar thing might be applied to an article on Buddhist art if one wanted to make a distinction between traditional Buddhist art and how art inspired by Buddhism is taking new forms in the West.Evenbalance (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'll clean this page up a bit - as I created it. But I appreciate the comments thus far and would be grateful for further assistance. I think it should be kept separate; just as "Buddhist Studies" has its own page and so does "Critical Buddhism" each of which could be awkwardly (IMHO) merged into "Buddhism" and "Japanese Buddhism" respectively.--Buddhist philosopher (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Buddhist Ethics" vs. "the study of Buddhist ethics"

I note that neither in Keown's book nor on the Journal of Buddhist Ethics website is the term "Buddhist ethics" in inititial caps. Is Wikipedia meant to coin this neologism, or shouldn't we just say "the study of Buddhist ethics"? Emptymountains (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhist ethics (discipline). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220151652/http://www.buddhistethics.org/1/white1.html to http://www.buddhistethics.org/1/white1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)