Talk:Bodhisattvas of the Earth

Contested deletion
Please do not delete. I have revised the article extensively. The draft you deleted was my first working draft and you froze the article before all the edits were made.

In retrospect I should have edited the article in my sandbox.


 * The article as it stands is still a copyright violation. I'm using the tool here. --Richard Yin (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * please be patient. I am working on this. I need a day or two.

@Richard Lin, we have a problem here. The wmflabs tool you use is not accurate for this type of article. This article is based on religious scripture, historical names, and nomenclature. There is no substitute, for example, for a terms like "Bodhisattvas of the Earth," "Shakyamuni," "Bodhisattva Superior Practices," "Lotus Sutra," etc. The one passage from "The True Aspect of All Phenomenon" cannot be substituted with another one--it is a very famous passage and the sole one to make the point here. Thus quantitative measures derived from the wmflabs tool should not include such words or quotations. When these words are subtracted the percentage total of replicated words or phrases will be minimal. I believe direct quotes are properly cited and attributed. Thank you.
 * I've done some minor copyediting on the prose that is not significant in form but still closely paraphrased. As above, the terms used and the included longer quote seem OK as presented, since the terms are factual and the quote is the matter of analysis and context. I think this is OK from a copyright perspective now. Crow  Caw  21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The term is an issue within Nichiren Buddhism, yes. But with all due respect and keeping articles on mind like Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda we do come to a point where Wikipedia is misused to foster and propagate a certain religious group. It is getting to a point where some more admins should be taken on board.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the person who replaced the tag offers no proof of plagiarism besides someone's blog entry that in fact postdates this article. I am afraid that the author of this blog posting in fact plagiarized FROM this article.--BrandenburgG (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Help
This article at this point is SGI full stop. This term stems from the Lotus Sutra??!!!
 * I've added an Unbalanced template based on the above comment. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

SGI=Sota Gakai Internacional is a not autentic group zen budist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra avaloquiteshvara (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing tags
I would like to ask for opinions about removing the tags that precede the article. There are no copyright issues as far as I can see. A WP robot found a blog entry somewhere that was similar to the article. However, the author of the blog copied the WP version that was out there at that time.

I am working on a few additional sources for Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, and Rissho Kosei-kai and these will soon appear.

I am going to keep working on this article until all objections are met so please do not hesitate to find ways it can be strengthened. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you not to delete the tags and instead work on the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you on this. As the primary author it should not be my decision to remove the tags.  I am requesting feedback, however, from other readers.  In the meanwhile I do plan on continuing work on the article.BrandenburgG (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, @Catflap08, can I ask for your thoughts? Do you see the article improving?  What do you suggest? I am currently working on a new subsection, "Characteristics of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth."BrandenburgG (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not see the article improving as I would suggest it to be mentioned in the article on the Lotus Sutra.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Awww, c'mon @Catflap08, give me a break. It's an ongoing discussion on whether the article should stand on its own or be incorporated into the Lotus Sutra article.  Fair enough, we have different viewpoints.


 * Still, the article is improving. There are now many viewpoints (and soon an expanded entry about Lotus-school interpretations) and I just don't see how a lack of neutrality can now be claimed. There is no longer any OR.  There are no longer any primary sources being used.  It's no longer an orphan.  Please at least acknowledge the changes.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The page remains a 90% match as plagiarised from a Soka Gakkai page. How can you expect us to consider it not a problem. Ogress smash! 02:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What "Soka Gakkai page" are you referring to? If it is to the one a robot picked up, please see below.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is absolutely no plagiarism. A robot picked up a similarity to a blog posting: https://nichirenbuddhisminthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/458/. Note the date of this posting. The article precedes the blog posting. I'm afraid that the blog posting infringed on the article and not the other way around. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, https://nichirenbuddhisminthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/458/ is obviously plagiarised from this version of the wp article (section headers included). It does not appear plausible that the 16 February 2015 version of this article was copypasted from a blog published on July 10, 2015. The copypaste template states: "Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror."   JimRenge (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree therefore agreeing to speedy deletion. The article still promotes one single religious group and now rather hectically other Nichiren groups/schools alleged stances are added - rather biased may I add as for Nichiren Shoshu for instance. If any religious group does indeed hold the concept dear it should be raised in the respective beliefs and practise section, apart form that it is just one of many many issues raised within the Lotus Sutra and that is the place it should be mentioned - if at all. Wikipedia is no soapbox.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the copyvio allegation. The blog posting is obviously predated by the Wikipedia article so the allegation is not valid. S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Swarm. Thank you.


 * Keep - Bodhisattva of the Earth comes up in some of the non-religious Japanese online dictionaries as a stand alone item stating that this concept is deemed important mainly in Nichiren Buddhism. Lmkei22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmkei22 (talk • contribs)

Discussion on removing tags
I know there is still discussion on whether this article should remain. Fair discussion. But in the interim can we please see whether any of the tags merit removal.

These are the current tags, all stemming from early 2015: 1-This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (January 2015) 2-The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2015) 3-This article possibly contains original research. (January 2015) 4-This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (January 2015)

IMHO the article is much more comprehensive than its first forms. I would like to see each of these points discussed. Can any of these tags be removed? BrandenburgG (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * BrandenburgG has improved the article by including additional interpretations and references (Soto Zen, several Nichiren based denominations/lay movements). I have removed the "unbalanced" and "neutrality" tags because I think they can`t be justified any longer. I believe the "original research" tag should be substituted by "citation needed" tags to help editors identify remaining problems. The article could be improved with more secondary/academic sources, especially in the "description" section.


 * Sectarian interpretations should be moved from the "description" section to the "interpretations" section. JimRenge (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, let me work on this tomorrow. Thank you for your recent edits.


 * @JimRenge: Done--it took me longer than I had promised but I believe your suggestions are all now incorporated. I don't think the article relies on too many primary sources and the tag placed in January 2015 should be reconsidered. Also, I think the article merits more than a "stub" categorization.  Please advise.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "primary" tag encourages editors to add more secondary sources, substitute primary with secondary sources and supplement religious texts with secondary sources that critically analyze them. However, many secondary sources have already been added, I assume it would be no problem to remove the "primary" tag and add in-text "better source needed" tags where appropriate. You can list the article for assessment here.  JimRenge (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources
please indicate why you felt "The Nichiren Mandala Study Workshop, "The mandala in Nichiren Buddhism, Part One: Introduction: mandalas of the Bun’ei and Kenji periods" was not appropriate. I know that this is a self-published book and it is not clear who are the people in the workshop.  But wouldn't this still qualify as an appropriate source?  They, it is true, are engaging in OR.  But I, as an editor, am not.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not JimRenge, nor do I play him on television. But I think you answered your own question when you said, "this is a self-published book" "it is not clear who are the people" and "they... are engaging in OR". WP:RS would nix it as a self-published work alone. Ogress smash! 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ogress, Thank you for your comment and levity. I don't have much vested on this point so this is academic to me.  The quality of the self-published book as well as its associated website seems very thorough.  From what I can see there is not an affiliation with a faith (an some might take objection because of the depictions of so many gohonzon). As I said, the sentence in question is no big deal so perhaps it should just be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.127.224 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BrandenburgG, the reference is not acceptable because the book is self-published. Please consider removing the sentence yourself if you can´t find a reliable source. Thanks  JimRenge (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2015 (UT:::gotcha. Will do.

Merging with Lotus Sutra article
I personally think it would be a mistake to merge this article with the Lotus Sutra article. To several of the Nichiren and Lotus sects, the BOE is such a prominent topic that readers will look for a stand alone treatment. There is no shortage of sources on the precise topic and I think we have only just scratched the surface. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Nichiren and Lotus sects are usually referred to as being the same thing. Again, the weighting of the BOE is quite differently interpreted within various sects, lineages and organisations that claim to be based the Lotus Sutra. The BOE are no separate concept outside of the LS but have to be discussed and described as a part of the LS. I see no problem to include a section on the BOE within the article on the LS, but the BOE, and dogmatic effects on various Nichiren groups, should be discussed in the articles on respective groups. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see this entry expanded rather than combined. The effect of the BOE on the Buddha's disciples is mind-boggling. It prepares them for the 16th chapter and the truth of Shakyamuni's enlightenment. There is so much drama attached to their appearance, so much meaning, that could be expanded.Goldenrescue15 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose a merger. There are a terrifyingly huge number of topics which have been developed based exclusively on those subjects being discussed in religious literature. The huge number of such topics which can be developed on exclusively Christian versions of the Bible is one example. This specific topic seems to have been the subject of enough specific discussion as a topic unto itself to meet basic notability guidelines, and there seems to be enough material, extant and potential, related to the topic to make a separate article to house that information a reasonable alternative. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this topic should be extensively discussed, though a merger seems not essential. I'd like to restate that BoE comes up in some of non-religious online Japanese dictionaries as a stand alone item.Lmkei22 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger: This article should not be merged with the Lotus Sutra because the Sutra covers many topics which can not be discussed in detail there (BOE are already mentioned in the "Outline of chapters", ch 15 and ch 21). The discussion of the BOE in reliable secondary sources shows that this is a notable topic and I think the article should be preserved. JimRenge (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This might very well be my last entry for some time being here on en.wikipedia. What other issues are there that are raised within the LS that cannot be discussed in the article on the Sutra itself? So far references given are linked to schools based on, or at least who value the, LS. If resources would be included, as one editor indicated, that would describe the BoE influence for instance on literature in general it would support the separate article as such. In that case I could then understand to have a standalone article on the BoE outside a religious context. The BoE are an indeed prominent feature of the LS, if not even a key issue. Having said that the BoE’s religious implications should be discussed in the article on the LS or linked to religious groups based on the LS. The religious groups that focus on the BoE are very, very limited, what implications that has within the dogma of respective groups should be discussed separately. The groups to whom the BoE are a dogmatically noteworthy issue cannot agree on what weight should be given to the BoE. If in the end the article’s only purpose is to highlight that within Nichiren Buddhism there is no agreement on how to treat and interpret the BoE why not elaborate on within exiting articles? It say this because as the article’s history indicates towards the weight given to the BoE as part of the Soka Gakkai dogma – there is nothing wrong with that as such, it just puzzles me that the article on SG/SGI does not underline the issue.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A consensus seems to have been reached with five people opposing a merger and one person supporting it. I am going to remove the tag. Lmkei22 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Anesaki
Hello BrandenburgG, I am a bit concerned about your use of 100 year old sources. Anesaki was a pioneer of Buddhist studies in Japan but his writings are outdated. Ruben Habito comments: "(...) Anesaki Masaharu's 1916 work, Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet, which portrayed Nichiren in glorious terms as embodying features of both mystic and prophet (two typologies often set in contrast in religious studies), but which based these largely on texts that later scholars (beginning with Asai Yorin) earmarked as questionable." (Ruben L. F. Habito, Reviewed Work: Nichiren, der Ausübende des Lotos-Sūtra by Yukio Matsudo. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2005), pp. 166-174, see p 171) Anesakis translation of BOE as "Saints-out-of-Earth" appears problematic. The age of a source does matter; it may be a good idea to avoid such sources. JimRenge (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @JimRenge, for your feedback. I will try to locate the Habito article.


 * Let me here just explain my thinking.


 * From the perspective of historiography, Anesaki is a very interesting person/source, even meriting a longstanding WP article about him. He and Arthur Lloyd (missionary) seem to be the English-language "discoverers" of Nichiren to the best of my knowledge. Their perspectives are very seminal because they predate the descent of Nichirenism into militaristic apologism and the rise of the SG and other new religious movements. The divergence of current discourse, I believe, could be enriched and moderated by incorporating older sources.


 * The first English translations of Nichiren come from them as well (again to the best of my knowledge). A and L come a bit after Burnouf and Kern but the latter scholars are still recognized and cited.


 * I understand that "the age of a source does matter" and maybe the use of these sources should come with a "reader-beware-hundred-year-plus-full-disclosure" warning. (Excuse my coyness, I've been working too hard.) "Saints-out-of-Earth" seems clumsy in retrospective because modern translations of the LS did not start appearing until after WWII.  But in my honest opinion, as a first stab, it still deserves a place at the table (although, admittedly, perhaps not in the lede).BrandenburgG (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Masaharu Anesaki´s book is difficult to use in wikipedia because a contemporary scholar of Buddhist Studies should interprete and analyze it. I took a closer look at the "Supreme Being" chapter, which discusses Nichirens Gohonzon. I can only speculate about the reason why Anesaki tends to apply Christian terms for his translation of Buddhist terms but the result is potentially misleading. In wp the term Supreme Being is explained as God, it remains an enigma for me if he is equating "Reality-as-it-is", the "original Buddha" or the dharmakaya or the Saddharma with the term "Supreme Being" or even with God. This is just one example of many uncommon, ambiguous, or Christian terms in his book. Anesaki was not a native speaker of English and in the introduction to his book (p. VII-VIII) he mentions that the Harvard Professors Royce and Moore helped him with proof reading. Please do not hesitate to ask other experienced editors what they think about the use of 60-100 years old academic publications. JimRenge (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) suppl.  JimRenge (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I hear what you are saying, @JimRenge. Can you recommend a WP forum of some sort where this discussion can take place among experienced editors?


 * This is a pretty far-reaching discussion because scholars must always be seen contextualized by the ecology of scholarship of their times. Scholars of the 1950's, for example, are invariably influenced by Cold War outlooks.  In the case of Buddhist scholars such as Masaharu Anesaki, Arthur Lloyd, and Junjirō Takakusu, their analyses of Nichiren must have been influenced by the "cristo-centric" Lotus Sutra scholarship of the turn-of-century.


 * My take would be to scrutinize the idea rather than the scholar. Perhaps "Supreme Being" or "Saints out of Earth" should not make the cut or be relegated to a note on a case by case analysis.  But discounting the scholars would be a loss IMHO.   Even the chapter you refer to has some great insights if we could put aside the disastrous "Supreme Being" translation.


 * This is a fascinating discussion and I look forward to hearing the ideas of the experienced editors.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:AGE MATTERS, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. (...)" ( see also WP:ONUS) Proposed changes and supplements to this policy can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.

I think the Anesaki´s translation of "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" as "Saints-out-of-Earth" has been superseded. It should be removed per MOS:NEO. Saint is not a generally accepted translation of the term Bodhisattva. JimRenge (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * @JimRenge, I removed "Saints-out-of-Earth." I think you are right that scholars have found better translations.  To me, however, the issue is the translation itself, not the underlying research. It bears weight as one of the earliest works on Nichiren in the English language.  It was written (and influenced by) at the time of the emergence of the Nichiren revivalism in the early 20th century.  "Older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed..."  Very true.  For example the authenticity of various works in the Nichiren corpus have been questioned over time through modern scholarship.  Anesaki claimed 400 but the article now indicates some 300. But these incidents can be quickly indicated and revised without rejecting the entirety of Anesaki's work.  BrandenburgG (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)