Talk:Buddhism/Archive 15

Buddhism
Please change: From: Buddhism /ˈbudɪzəm/[1][2] is a nontheistic religion[note 1][3] or philosophy (Sanskrit: dharma; Pali: धम्म dhamma) that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one").

To: Buddhism /ˈbudɪzəm/ is a religion that teach us to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind[1]. Buddhism is based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one").

Reason: “to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas”. (Dhammapada 183). This is the Executive Summary of Buddhism. By reading this sentence all readers may have a global comprehensive understanding regarding Buddhism.

Source: [1] Dhammpada 183

HartonoLowis (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The lead sentence is supposed to tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is.. See MOS:BEGIN for more information.  The current first sentence gives a general overview of what Buddhism is.  If you want to insert the specific teachings of the Buddhas elsewhere in the article that would be acceptable.  Please give a specific location and reactive this request.  Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

buddhism
The article should state that Buddha did not think that total understanding of the concept of the universe and or god was important to practice Buddhism or Indian religion that became Buddhism. Total understanding may be too complex and living according to karma would lead to the path of god or the eternal universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.34.248 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Countries in lead
The list of all the countries in the lead is undue and confusing.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits. You have not explained how it is undue here and what is confusing in it. -- Human 3015   TALK   16:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The info clearly belongs in the body of the article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead should summarize the article. Even if you think that it should be in body then why you are removing it from article? It is useful information. -- Human 3015   TALK   18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't even understand the second paragraph with all these countries in it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is article on Buddhism. Lead should talk about some general things about Buddhism like various schools, teachings and obviously about Buddhist countries. Lead should talk about which countries are Buddhist majority countries. But as there are multiple schools of Buddhism we should mention it schoolwise. If you or anyone else don't understand it then it is not reason for removing it but you can make wording or structure more simple to understand it properly instead of removing it from article. -- Human 3015   TALK   18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Christianity article does not list every country. Mostly geographic regions. Same with the Islam article.  Same with the Hinduism article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have done some copy-edit, removed some countries where region was mentioned. You can read 2nd para, I think it can be easily understood now. -- Human 3015   TALK   18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism can be simply reduced to Himalayan region and Mongolian region.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mention of Kalmykia is important because it is only region in Europe where Buddhism is majority religion. Nepal and Bhutan is removed. -- Human 3015   TALK   19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to replace "Himalayan region of India" with "Himalayan region".VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes replaced. But there is no separate page for broad Himalayan region which describes all nations within this territory, so piped article remains Indian Himalayan Region. -- Human 3015   TALK   20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then rephrase to "countries surrounding the Himalayas".VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015
Could someone please change Dharmacakra to Dharmachakra? I know it's not that serious, but it really bugs me... Thanks:)

123.231.125.32 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015
And could someone also add Dharmapada under scriptures? Thanks:)

123.231.125.32 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add it, but where exactly does it belong? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Theistic & Theistic Buddhism
The lead of the article says that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion (or a philosophy) which is oftentimes the case, but there are actually theistic schools of Buddhism, and many Buddhists do have a concept of God as evidenced in the links below (that lists many sources). A poll even shows most American Buddhists are indeed theistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghyang_Adi_Buddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/06/buddhists-do-believe-in-god/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/buddhist/

I'd edit the lead and have it read: "Buddhism is a religion (oftentimes nontheistic) or philosophy..." It's a simple accuracy concern. Israell (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism "Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

The Buddhism page claims Buddhism is "nontheistic religion" while writing in the same page: Asuras: variously translated as lowly deities, demons, titans, or anti-gods; not recognized by Theravada tradition as a separate realm;[note 3] Devas including Brahmās: variously translated as gods, deities, spirits, angels, or left untranslated.

37.142.176.161 (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015
Channasandeepanaperera (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016
In the first sentence, where it says "Sanskrit: dharma", add धर्म​ in front of "dharma". This is the same word written in Devanāgari.

93.136.73.48 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetization and linking in Sources section
I am trying to get the authors in the Sources section linked to their individual articles when such an article exists, and also to clean up the alphabetization by author by surname. However, I am not entirely certain for some of the authors which aspects of their names are actual parts of their individual names as opposed to titles or honorifics (such as Bhikkhu or Ajahn), and/or whether certain aspects of names are surnames or not (due to differences between traditional Western naming conventions and naming conventions from certain other cultures.) So, for anyone who is more familiar with these aspects of this topic, I would welcome your input and/or assistance and/or corrections regarding reviewing the Sources section. Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend WorldCat in these cases. (example) JimRenge (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pure Theravada as in the Pāli_Canon and derived Mahayana
Dear Jim,

Everyone believe and there are many evidence that the pure Buddha's teaching is the Pāli Canon. Please study the history of Pāli Canon. Any thing doesn't match with the Pāli Canon should not pure Buddhism. Lord Buddha has teach in the Pāli Canon, we have a way to check whether something is a Buddhas word. Match anything with his pure words, if anything doesn't match with it is not a Buddhs's word. So, Mahayana Buddhism is not a teaching of the Buddha. Buddha's never tell to stay in the cycle of rebirth, Please study Lord Buddah's final word. They never magnify the Smasara even a little bit.

What I want to tell you is Mahayana is a derived version of the pure Buddhism. Many Buddhist in the world not following pure Buddhas word what a sad thing. So, please revert my change. It will help many people to understand what is the Buddhism is. I think it is better to maintain separate page for Mahayana.

We pure Buddhist believe that the creator of Mahayana Buddhism should be in a hell, since he created a schism within the pure Buddhism while changing the ultimate reality(Dharma) and prevented many beings reaching eternal happiness Nirvana. It is one of the five Anantarika-karma.

Thanks for your great effort to maintaining the Buddhism page while distributing the true. You may receive many merits in the cycle of rebirth.

Regards, Muditha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudithachampika (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * please read Presectarian Buddhism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Muditha- this is not the place to proselytize belief. It is the place to discuss editing the article, based on independent source analysis. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I reverted your edit because it does not appear to conform with wikipedias neutral point of view policy. Feel free to believe "(...) that the creator of Mahayana Buddhism should be in a hell, since he created a schism within the pure Buddhism (...)" but I don´t think it is appropriate to add this sentence/point of view to an article. JimRenge (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for the comments. First Buddhist council was held three months after Gautama Lord Buddha's Parinirvana (passed away) with the leadership of Great Arahant Mahakassapa Thero and King Ajātasattu was sponsored to it. All of the 500 members was great Arahant Theros (monks) who don't have any wrong views (frames). It took the monks seven months to recite the whole of the Vinaya and the Dhamma and formulate it to the Tripitaka (Pali Canon). Also the great Theros made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules of the Vinaya, even the lesser and minor rules. But the Lord Buddha has said minor rules of Vinaya can be change. Vinaya are rules which quickly guide to the eternal happiness with fulfilling requirements(Paramita). All second and third also held by great Arahant Theros. All I want to tell you that current Tripitaka (Pali Canon) is the same Dharma and Vinaya (except some commentaries) as formulated at the First Buddhist council which held three months after Gautama Lord Buddha's Parinirvana(passed away). So, 'Pre-sectarian Buddhism' and the Theravada Buddhism is the same thing. It is true that currently only few follow pure teachings as in Tripitaka. But they are exist. So, the time-line in the page is wrong. Mudithachampika (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Pre-sectarian B uddhism for some informative reading on the early history of Buddhism. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't read all of Wikipedia policies, but I think an encyclopaedia should only display important things about a subject. minor things should be there as minor. When we find the temple(or the school) which Theravada Buddhism started, it should be the temple which Great Arahant Moggaliputta-Tissa Maha Thera(or Sthavira) lived. He was the leader of third Buddhist council. When we talk about a religion temple is a minor thing. Nikāya of a monk is something like family name. Some Buddhist Nikāya may have different minor Vinaya rules. But it is not so important. We should talk about what they are following in generally. I think there should be two main categories in Buddhism. Which is the pure Buddhism as in the Tripitaka(Pali Canon) which formulated three months after the Gautama Lord Buddha's Parinirvana(passed away). Other derived versions are not teachings of the Buddha. There are some Sūtra which is not preached by the Lord Buddha(not in the Pali Canon). Followers of those Sūtra are not Buddhist. I will tell you something which pure Buddhist believe(so, this cannot put in a encyclopaedia). A Great Arahant(or Anāgāmi,Sakadagami,Sotapanna) being has perfect faith to the lord Buddha. So, they will never make any schism within the Buddhism even if their life is ending. They only teach the pure Buddha's teaching and try to protect the pure Buddha's teaching. An Arahant being has perfect understating about the 'Four Noble Truths'. But they don't have perfect knowledge in every subject like a Lord Buddha has. This is for your reference: 'The Four Noble Truths' by Ven. Professor Rerukane Chamdavimala Maha Nahimai
 * Mudithachampika (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please DO read the Wikipedia policies. Articles here are preferably based on third party analysis. You have clear personal opinions. These are not what articles are based on. If there is a specific problem with the article, and you wish to propose a factual change to the article, this is the place to discuss it. Simply expressing your fundamentalist religious beliefs here and trying to convince others is not appropriate. Tao2911 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Perfect knowledge
So, where did the Buddha state that he had "perfect knowledge in every subject"? And how do you know that the buddha himself stated that? Where you there? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua-please don't feed the trolls. : ) Tao2911 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua,
 * Thank you for the question.
 * Yes. It is according to the Dharma(Pali Canon). One characteristic of a Lord Buddha’s intelligence is called “Anavarana Gnana(Un-coverable Intelligence)”. Whenever he directs his mind to something, there arises no obstacles to his understanding, to his comprehension, Nothing covers his ability to comprehend the true nature of the thing that he has directed his mind to. Of course the mind has got to be directed, or there has to be mindfulness directed to that object. See sammasambuddha.


 * Below are two Suttas from the Pali Canon which describe Lord Buddha's ability:
 * 'Maha-sihanada Sutta'
 * Another one is 'Cūlanikāsuttaṃ –– The thousandfold world system'. But I could not find any good translation for this Sutta. This one has some mistakes but you can get the idea. Please read the last Sutta: Anandavaggo sutta


 * Any way I don't know whether I was there at the Buddha's time as a human. I don't have any Jatismarana Jnana (ability to remind my several previous lives, may be Atma_Siddhi) received with Karma or any super-normal intelligence(Ṛddhi) gained with higher meditation. :Any way, definitely I(my generation of mind) was in the Samsara at the Buddha's time. But there is no permanent material(Rupa) or nun-material(Nama) thing as I. I is just a combination of material(Rupa) and nun-material(Nama) things. Hope I answered to your questions within the Pali Canon. Thank You again. --Mudithachampika (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you for your answer; good answer for the second part ("where you there?")! Regarding the first part: yes, okay, they do say that the buddha says that he's all-knowing et cetera. Toucher. Nevertheless, it's still not a guarantee that the Buddha himself said this. And even if he did so, it does not necessarily mean that he really was all-knowing, only that he stated to be so. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mudithachampika (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your comments and arrangements. We believe noble people(Ariya-puggala) never tell lies in any case. But it may not a reason for others to believe it. I think I did a mistake in some point. I think(only a my personal idea) a Lord Buddha may not have all knowledge in all subjects with the Buddhahood(they should have perfect knowledge about 'Four Nobel Truths' with the Buddhahood), but they have ability to know anything they want with their supreme intelligent and super-normal abilities without any obstacles. So, Lord Buddha's are capable of knowing any subject in the universe. I think there was a Sutta describe this. But I forgot the name.

Your doubt is reasonable as a non Ariya(noble) being(Prutakjana). It is not possible to scientifically prove these facts. But there is a way to verify 'Four Nobel Truths'. But it is just for you(or the specific person). If there are things which is ultimate right and if any one follow these right, then he should be purify to a noble being. So, right can be verify by following. Ultimate right is the 'Nobel Eightfold Path'. If any one follow 'Nobel Eightfold Path' he should gradually getting the perfect knowledge about 'Four Nobel Truths'. Finally he will become a noble being and he will tell that I don't have any doubt about 'Four Nobel Truths' now, but it is only for him. --Mudithachampika (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ten Meritorious Deeds are acts which Buddhist follow in everyday life
It is widely known that Ten Meritorious Deeds are acts which pure Buddhist(who follow Pali Canon) practice in everyday life. I am going to stop editing Buddhism page I think. As every edit is reverting. Dear Wikipedia please distribute only the truth. --Mudithachampika (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016
71.59.151.232 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC) may I edit I Have some facts with Hinduism also
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 02:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016
In the second sentence of introductory paragraph it states "According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, present-day Nepal sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE". I would like to point out that the historical Buddha lived and traveled across lands which are Present day Nepal and India. He would most likely have spent his first 29 years in Kapilavastu which happens to be located in present day Nepal. For the 51 years of his later life, he lived and traveled across lands which are all located in modern day India. His Enlightenment took place in Bodhgaya, India. His first Sermon took place in Sarnath, India. Finally, he died in Kushinagar, India. He also spent most of his time in cities such as Rajgir and Sravasti, which are all located in mordern day India. Please edit that particular sentence to "According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, present-day Nepal and India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"

Vamar123 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a change.VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither India or Nepal existed back then, Indian subcontinent is appropriate term to use here and it will also stop constant edit warring by nationalists. You can see in Buddha's page where Shakya republic and Malla republic is mentioned in historic context regarding birth/death place of Buddha instead of Nepal/India.


 * Regarding birth of Buddhism as religion - First Buddhist council was founded in Magadha, particularly in Rajgir where its objective was to preserve the Buddha's sayings (suttas) and the monastic discipline or rules (Vinaya), after the death of Buddha. Magadha is also where Buddha gave his first sermon (Saranath was part of Magadha kingdom) and reached enlightenment (Bodhgaya was part of Magadha kingdom). Therefore, it would be appropriate to use Magadha as birth place of Buddhism in historic context. Pebble101 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pebble101, with [this edit] you supplemented a sentence in the lead: "(...) the Buddha lived (...)" with "in ancient Magadha kingdom". I reverted this addition per WP:BURDEN because your source (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_32lbud.htm) does not confirm this. Feel free to reintroduce this, together with a reliable source that clearly supports the statement that he "lived in Magadha".  JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Dharma" instead of "philosophy"
Better, much better. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lift "do not change" HTML comment tags from "Buddhist Concepts" and "Practice" section
Here are just a few things that I'd like to change.


 * 1) There are categorical flaws in the structure:
 * 2) *The Noble Eightfold Path belongs under The Four Noble Truths. Likewise with Dependent Origination
 * 3) *The Four Brahmaviharas are better categorized as a practice rather than a concept.
 * 4) The current structure continues the confusing trend of "Theravada says Mahayana says Theravada says etc."
 * 5) The current sections go into excessive detail beyond the main "Buddhism" article should cover. Many of these topics don't need their own h3, just a mention within a section is enough to inform people about the concepts, and inline wikilinks will lead them to further detail.
 * 6) Some of the material is better placed in a different context entirely, such as in the "History" section. The sections in the "Liberation" section are a bit disconnected. Placing the different notions of liberation in historical context, and showing how different takes on Buddhism evolved over the centuries will help people to actually understand these concepts, rather than in arbitrary lists, which is essentially what these two sections are: collections of arbitrary lists.

People are still monitoring this page, so it's not as if changes can be reverted. However, if I had to explain and get consensus for every step of what I am planning on doing (which includes far more than just what was listed above), it'd never get done. Buddhism can get back to GA status, but that means changes to what's already there have to be made. Furthershore 02:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss all changes on this talk page and get consensus before making changes to the article.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bulleted list in lead for clarity
I object to the treatment of Buddhism as a single dharma on this page. There are several mutually exclusive dharmas in both Theravada and Mahayana, not to mention the drastic differences between the major branches. IMO it could be debated whether there should even be a full article on Buddhism or if it should just lead to a disambiguation page, because there is no single "Buddhism" anymore.

However, if Theravada and Mahayana are separated in a bulleted list in the lead, I wouldn't mind how Buddhism is treated in the first sentence, because people who read past the first sentence will at least get a clear understanding of the distinction between the two. Look at the way the page is right now. Show the second and third paragraphs to a friend who knows nothing about Buddhism, and then ask them to explain the difference between Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Tibetan Buddhism. I'd be willing to bet they couldn't do it because the current prose jumbles all four concepts together and then spreads them out over two paragraphs.

My way may break with "proper lead format", but it's more clear, and doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's core content policies, so there is no reason why it should be excluded from consideration. Buddhism is far from an ordinary subject, so doing something extraordinary in the lead isn't out of the question. Furthershore 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs)

Please research the term Buddhadharma.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked at the term Buddhadharma. The term's inclusion in the lead section just seems to make things more confusing, and just because some people say that their Buddhism is the Buddhadharma, doesn't mean that their Buddhism is the same as other peoples' Buddhisms.
 * At this point it's not so much about what is absolutely correct, because people disagree about what Buddhism is. The most important thing is helping people to understand what all Buddhisms have in common, then explaining the clear difference between the major divisions. If you want to include "Buddhism is a Dharma" in the first sentence, I am ok with that as long as the list is included as above, which explains the differences more clearly. However, adding Buddhadharma as an alternative to Buddhism is just going to confuse people. Furthershore 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism defines Buddhadharma as: "“the teachings of the Buddha”; one of the closest Indian equivalents to what in English is called “Buddhism”" <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You clipped the definition down. The actual definition is:


 * "“the teachings of the Buddha”; one of the closest Indian equivalents to what in English is called “Buddhism,” along with DHARMAVINAYA (teaching and discipline), BUDDHANUSASANA (teaching, dispensation, or religion of the Buddha) and SASANA (teaching or dispensation). This term is also used [...]"


 * Buddhadharma should not be in bold alongside Buddhism any more than any of these other terms should. And even so, saying that the term Buddhadharma is equivalent to the term Buddhism is not the same thing as saying "Buddhism is a Dharma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs)

Can you look into this?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer Furthershore´s presentation of Theravada and Mahayana in the lead because it is easier to understand. Bulleting should be avoided. JimRenge (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But he wants bulleting.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 00:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe thee bulleting can be solved another way, but I also prefer his version.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yoga: Remove this section entirely
This section is problematic beginning with the name of the section. Thus far I've given a lot of criticism about vague, disorganized writing, and I thought at this point it'd be best to give an example. Here it is:
 * First sentence: "Buddhism traditionally incorporates states of meditative absorption (Pali: jhāna; Skt: dhyāna)." [This would be ok if some explanation of what jhana is were given, however the paragraph (and the section) flys off in a different direction, and never explains what jhana is.]
 * Second sentence: "The most ancient sustained expression of yogic ideas is found in the early sermons of the Buddha." [Unrelated to vague first sentence, doesn't belong in the same paragraph]
 * Third sentence: "One key innovative teaching of the Buddha was that meditative absorption must be combined with liberating cognition." [Related to the first sentence but not the second, and we still don't know what meditative absorption or liberating cognition is, so this doesn't help us.]
 * Fourth sentence: "The difference between the Buddha's teaching and the yoga presented in early Brahminic texts is striking." [Related to the second sentence but not the first.]
 * Fifth sentence: "Meditative states alone are not an end, for according to the Buddha, even the highest meditative state is not liberating." [Ok, this isn't bad, but it should be a topic statement, not buried in the middle of a paragraph which can't decide whether it's about jhana or about yoga.]
 * Sixth sentence: "Instead of attaining a complete cessation of thought, some sort of mental activity must take place: a liberating cognition, based on the practice of mindful awareness."This isn't entirely accurate: what must happen is a liberating experience of release based on cessation of unskillful qualities, not "a liberating cognition, based on the practice of mindful awareness."

This is just the first paragraph — the following four paragraphs are similarly disorganized. So remove it entirely, kind of like a blow it up and start over, only without the starting over, because this is a comparative study, and belongs in a Buddhism and Yoga article, not a main Buddhism article.

Meditation: Rewrite
From the Meditation section: "According to Theravada Buddhism the Buddha taught two types of meditation, samatha meditation (Sanskrit: śamatha) and vipassanā meditation (Sanskrit: vipaśyanā)."

This was clearly written by someone in the Vipassana tradition. People outside that tradition don't say this, in either Theravada or Mahayana. The rest of the section supports this statement, and since the statement is false, the entire section needs to be rewritten.

Furthershore 06:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthershore's proposed structure changes: Conclusion
Look: This article does not need to cover everything. The Meditation section in this article should be nothing more than explain that Buddhists meditate, not how. Leave the how to the article on Buddhist meditation. This is just one example about how the entire article strives to dive into concepts that should be left to more peripheral Buddhism-related articles that this page refers readers to.

When we have the opportunity to present ideas in a proper context, we should not prefer to pull ideas out of that context Under the Buddhism Today subsection of the History section, there's an explanation of differences between the branches:

"By the late Middle Ages, Buddhism had become virtually extinct in India, although it continued to exist in surrounding countries. It is now again gaining strength worldwide. China and India are now starting to fund Buddhist shrines in various Asian countries as they compete for influence in the region.

Most Buddhist groups in the West are nominally affiliated with at least one of these three traditions:
 * Theravada Buddhism, using Pāli as its scriptural language, is the dominant form of Buddhism in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Burma. The Dalit Buddhist movement in India (inspired by B. R. Ambedkar) also practices Theravada.
 * East Asian forms of Mahayana Buddhism that use Chinese scriptures are dominant in most of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam as well as such communities within Indochina, Southeast Asia and the West. Vietnam and Singapore are major concentrations of Mahayana Buddhism in Southeast Asia.
 * Tibetan Buddhism is found in Tibet and other parts of China (particularly in Inner Mongolia), Bhutan, Nepal, Mongolia, areas of India (it's the majority religion in Ladakh; significant population in Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim), and Russia (mainly Kalmykia, Buryatia, and Tuva).

Formal membership varies between communities, but basic lay adherence is often defined in terms of a traditional formula in which the practitioner takes refuge in The Three Jewels [...]"

This obviously could be expanded on a little bit — the three points in the list could even be given their own subsections. However, a list like this satisfies the article's obligation to cover Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism. We don't need endless sections and subsections within this article attempting to explain the different Theravada and Mahayana viewpoints back-and-forth on a concept-by-concept basis. According to the MOS, the criteria is that content in the lead has to be expanded on in the article somehwere. It doesn't say how or where that has to be done, so explaining the differences between the branches in the History section is perfectly acceptable, which frees the Buddhist Concepts and Practice sections to cover what they have in common.

Similarly with other concepts: anything specific to Theravada and Mahayana can be explained under the explanations of what Theravada and Mahayana are, rather than being extracted and arranged into an arbitrary list which disrupts the flow of the article.

Furthershore 06:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Move History section to top
This is the way the body of the article currently starts: "This narrative draws on the Nidānakathā of the Jataka tales of the Theravada, which is ascribed to Buddhaghoṣa in the 5th century CE. Earlier biographies such as the Buddhacarita, the Lokottaravādin Mahāvastu, and the Sarvāstivādin Lalitavistara Sūtra, give different accounts. Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order, but do not consistently accept all of the details contained in his biographies.

According to author Michael Carrithers, while there are good reasons to doubt the traditional account, "the outline of the life must be true: birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death." In writing her biography of the Buddha, Karen Armstrong noted, "It is obviously difficult, therefore, to write a biography of the Buddha that meets modern criteria, because we have very little information that can be considered historically sound... [but] we can be reasonably confident Siddhatta Gotama did indeed exist and that his disciples preserved the memory of his life and teachings as well as they could.""

This is from the first paragraph of the History section:

"Historically, the roots of Buddhism lie in the religious thought of ancient India during the second half of the first millennium BCE. That was a period of social and religious turmoil, as there was significant discontent with the sacrifices and rituals of Vedic Brahmanism."

You had me at "social and religious turmoil." If I were reading this article top-to-bottom and knew nothing about Buddhism, I'd way rather read about "social and religious turmoil" than about scholars sitting around and arguing over "traditional accounts".

Additionally, the History section currently serves as a good introduction to the concepts. On the other hand, the Buddhist Concepts section doesn't serve as a good primer for the History.

Furthershore 07:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This article has a lot of arbitrary lists disguised as subsections
When you look at the table of contents, the individual sections (mainly the Buddhist Concepts and Practice sections) seem like arbitrary lists, sort of like an outline of Buddhism. We already have an Outline of Buddhism, we don't need another one. The article doesn't flow at all and can't really be read from top to bottom without becoming bored to tears.

Remove h3s under Buddhist Concepts and promote the existing h4s to be the new h3s
This article has too much detail, and is too long. Buddhism is an extensive subject, but a basic understanding can be achieved in under 50k characters, and this should be an objective of people working on this article.

Life of the Buddha: Remove first two paragraphs
This section has two paragraphs of unhelpful reflection on the impossibility of verifying ancient history which is huge overkill. The entire article continues to constantly bash Buddhism's foundation as being historically unreliable. It isn't the Buddhism article's job to provide this much meta-content for readers who just want to be introduced to Buddhism. Move this elsewhere.


 * I'd like to revise this to just remove the section entirely. Some of the content can be merged into the History section, the rest into the Gautama Buddha article, and anyone interested in a summary of the Buddha's life can read the lead of Gautama Buddha. Furthershore 07:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Samsara, Karma, and Rebirth into a single h3
Karma and rebirth are both part of samsara, and the separation of karma and rebirth into separate h4's is unnecessary in this article. Best to provide an overview of "karma and rebirth" and put in the section that the cycle is called samsara.

Remove Noble Eightfold Path section
Right now the article is over 100k characters. Giving the Noble Eightfold Path it's own section is too much detail. Should just have one paragraph about it in the Four Noble Truths section.

Move The Four Immeasurables section to Practice
This is a meditation practice and does not belong in between Noble Eightfold Path and Middle Way.

Remove Middle Way
This is redundant with Noble Eightfold Path, and Noble Eightfold Path is already too much detail on it's own.

Remove Dependent Arising
This is too much. A reference to this can be included elsewhere. Furthermore, this is a list inside of a list: a list of the twelve nidanas inside of a list of Buddhist concepts. Stuff like this should only be included as reference information, and reference information doesn't belong in the main Buddhism article.

Merge Emptiness content into History section
People would gain a much better understanding of this content if it were placed in the middle of the History section, where this Mahayana stance can be better explained as part of a history along with areas that Mahayana began to diverge in the early AD centuries. Look at the first sentence: "Mahayana Buddhism received significant theoretical grounding from Nagarjuna (perhaps c. 150–250 CE), arguably the most influential scholar within the Mahayana tradition." Up to this point, I still don't really know what Mahayana is, much less what happened in Mahayana Buddhism before it received "significant theoretical grounding."

Liberation: Rewrite
This whole section whipsaws back and forth between Theravada and Mahayana views, and strangely has separate Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism sections, respectively; and neither of those fit in with subsection list of the other liberation "options".

Furthershore 06:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 one external links on Buddhism. 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://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/allexistence.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.4ui.com/eart/172eart1.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/kamma_in_context.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/2013171148400871.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/budhumanism.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tibetan%20buddhism
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iop.or.jp/0414/kanno2.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhistethics.org/13/zse1-kasulis.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/whatbelieve.pdf

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 18:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016
I request that in this article, Buddhism is changed from a "religion" to a non-theistic religion for such reasons.


 * 1) The linked article on the word religion, does not encompass all of the tenants or systems of buddhism.
 * 2) Buddhism does not believe in a supernatural or higher power, one of the main facets of "religion".
 * 3) Buddhism is largely focused on spirituality and the self, whereas religions such as Christianity, Islam etc. focus on the worship of a deity or God, and the spreading of their belief.

While Buddhism sits between philosophy and religion, I feel it is misinformation to surmise that Buddhism is in whole-heartedness, a religion.

I request the article be revised to a non-theistic religion, or at least a more encompassing definition that understands the nature of buddhism and spirituality, so as to reduce misinformation.

121.222.36.6 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Feel free to reopen the edit request when there is clear consensus in favour of this change. <b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 03:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The user making the flag request makes deeply biased and questionable assumptions about the definition of Buddhism. Each of the user's points could be hotly debated, with plenty of historical and apologetic examples to counter these points. While they do clearly represent certain common attitudes among some Budhdists, they by no means encompass all schools of Buddhism and its wide variance of belief systems.Tao2911 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nor does it represent an accurate understanding of Christianity. It's probably mor representative of 'New Age Buddhism' and 'modern spirituality.'  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed.Tao2911 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Characterization of Buddhism as a Non-Theistic Religion Removed
Why it was removed:

a. Using words like that to describe Buddhism will inherently oversimplify the matter. Buddhism tends to resist categorization according to overtly western classifications, it is no more non-theistic than it is ecumenical. b. It doesn't apply universally within Buddhism, as put by Dr Guang Xing speaking of Mahayana Buddhism, Buddha is considered "an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead." -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Buddha and Buddhism explicitly rejects the concept of God and divinity. Those who claim otherwise are promoting a deliberate misinterpretation of what the Buddha actually said; more to the point, they are promoting non-Buddhist, cultural appropriations instead.  Your edit is incorrect as is the author you cite. In reference to the Bodhidharma apocrypha, Xing commits the same error as the Emperor.  To view Buddha as a divine being or God is to misunderstand the entire corpus of Buddhist philosophy.  Your edit should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.130 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Template switcharound
Hi. I looked at the navbox stack and saw three templates - 'Buddhist topics', 'Gautama Buddha', and 'Religion' - tucked into a hidden navbox list. The exposed templates were the Buddhism-in-(your choice of continent here). So I played with it, brought the templates out of the hidden-box, moved template 'Buddhism topics' to the top template slot, and left Gautama Buddha and Religion where they were. To me it flowed better, got more info near the top, and when I looked at the page it looked very nice - the colors, length of the phrasing, the aesthetics which seem to go well together when something is "right". Just some explanation of the "whys" of the edit. Does it seem okay to the long-time editors? Thanks. Randy Kryn 3:44 6 November, 2014 (UTC)
 * Later, have made a navbox stack with the title 'Buddhism by country' and put the five continent templates, which are just names of countries anyway, into that stack. Better. Randy Kryn 4:42 6 November, 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana
Nirvana and the cessation of suffering:

1) Although what's written on the Buddhism page about nirvana is probably the standard you would find in many temples of Asia, I respectfully ask that you consider the following, as I feel it will give people who come to this page a much more clear understanding of Buddhism.

2) Nirvana is a state of being, true; but it is also a place (otherwise called Pure Land in some branches) outside of Earth, elsewhere in the Universe where life is much better than here (on Earth)

3) The cessation of suffering in Buddhist terms really means one's soul leaves Earth (due to the good influences and attempts of a person to be good as recommended in Buddhist teachings plus Amitabha's help(or most major religions' holy teachings, for that matter)and is reborn in nirvana or the Pure Land.

4) Amitabha Buddha is the energy and Love that created our Entire Universe, not the person of Shakyamuni Buddha. (Shakyamuni Buddha told his followers NOT to pray to him, as he was only a person, and not the all powerful force that Created Our Universe

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

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

previous Buddhas - "Hindu"
It is important to state in the article that previous Buddhas before the current known Gautama Buddha were "Hindu" or "Vedic" (Hinduism didnt exist at the time) and that after Buddha died many new original source writings were added to Buddhist texts. Buddha made an attempt to organize teachings as many followers of Vedic philosophy were being influenced by influences outside of the Indus Valley and later Buddhas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * These are uncited opinions. Many of these points are highly disputable.Tao2911 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Buddhism. 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/20100331102337/http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm to http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080106085643/http://www.vam.ac.uk:80/collections/asia/asia_features/buddhism/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/buddhism/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101223120609/http://www.sentientpublications.com:80/catalog/lazarus.php to http://www.sentientpublications.com/catalog/lazarus.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060505140240/http://www.saigon.com/%7Eanson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm to http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Life of the Budddha" section
Please delete entire Life of Buddha section in Buddhism article<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No Buddhism without a Buddha. A short introduction of the Buddha might be useful. JimRenge (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it's an interesting proposal, given the fact (...) that his "biography" cannot be considered to be a factual account. But, as Paul Williams noted in his 2012 edition of "Buddhist thought," it does have a pedagogical function, and cannot be dismissed.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Move the info from Buddhism to the article Gautama Buddha.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 04:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @JJ/@JR: @Vic is pointing us in the right direction, though I agree a brief introduction is useful and necessary, for pedagogical reasons. Perhaps the "Life of Buddha" section should be trimmed to ~25-40% of what it is now, and linked to the main article. Astrologer visit etc need surgery, unsourced text need some rethought/ deletion/ moved into notes after the addition of RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ms Sarah Welch, a trimmed version of this section, about 40% of the present text volume, would be much appreciated. :) I propose to remove the "undue weight" tag. JimRenge (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

While a reduction is appropriate, it is not appropriate to remove the entire section. This is, after all, the page about Buddhism. Ogress 19:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a separate Gautama Buddha article?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ... It's still relevant to discuss the Buddha, after whom Buddhism is named and the presumed founder and ideal role model after which Buddhists model their behavior. Islam discusses Muhammad. Christianity discusses Jesus. I'm legitimately confused why a short section on Gautama Buddha is out of place on the page about Buddhism. Ogress 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Buddha's life and his influence on Buddhism needs to be summarized. I added sources, embedded / moved text into notes or quotes for WP:V. This was the first pass. I welcome further edits, changes, moving more text into notes, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yah, it seems a no brainer that Buddha has something to do with Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGreenCahuna (talk • contribs) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bronkhorst section 7.2.2
Bronkhorst (1993) section 7.2.2 is not at pages 64-65, but at pages 88-91. Section 7.2.2 does not say that the four dhyanas lead to the state of "nothingness"; that's an arupa jhana. Section 7.2.2 shows how attempts have been made in the Buddhist tradition to assimilate the arupa jhanas into the rupa jhanas, and how these attempts failed. Page 88 clearly states "equanimity and mindfulness remain." The remaining of "mindfulness" is essential; it marks the difference between Buddhist meditation and the non-Buddhist practices from which elements were incorporated into the Buddhist tradition. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are several versions of Bronkhorst book. The 1993 version (1st edition?), and the 2nd edition reprinted in 2000 but also mentioned as reprint of 1993. You will find 7.2.2 on pages 62-66 of the latter (I cited pages 64-65 for quicker WP:V). On page 64 of the 2nd edition, Bronkhorst discusses successive cessations in the four dhyanas to the state of nothingness, line 17 onwards. Bronkhorst mentions this point on other pages again, as well. Sorry for the confusion, but with two Bronkhorst versions with same title and same year, this was bound to happen!! :); Are you looking at the older or the newer print? One more thing: I am unable to find "dhyana is liberating practice" in Vetter, I must be missing the paragraph. Which one is it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: FWIW, I am fine with the version you revised it to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've got the 1993 version, from Motilall. Best to add the 2000 print as an additional source; mentioning the section was a good idea. The section is indeed on cessation, but not on attaining insight after attaining the stage of nothingness. His point here (or in the next section) is that those arupa jhanas were incorpoarted from other traditions. In chapter 8 he gives his arguments on his thesis that insight is a later development; see the start of section 8.4.3: "liberating insight takes place in th Fourth Dhyana."
 * Regarding Vetter:
 * page xxvii: "Originally this ["the fourth stage [...] that state of pure equanimity and awareness"] may have been the only ground of an experience of release."
 * page xxviii: "Incidentally, this state of pure equanimity and awareness may also have been the origin of the method of discriminating insight."
 * page xxviii-xxix: "In order to solve [...] a very practical way."
 * page xxxiii: "an older stage of the same path to salvation ends in the right samadhi,"


 * I'm glad you've no objections; I have to confess that this topic of insight versus dhyana is an important topic for me. In my personal experience, insight alone does not suffice, despite the fact that it can be mind-changing. There's been a lot of ideological dispute and fighting on this in the Buddhist tradition; see also Peter N. Gregory, Sudden and Gradual, a mind-changing study on the role of ideology and powerply in the development of Zen; and John McRae, Seeing through Zen, a great critical study, which further explores this theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)

Article size
The size of this article is growing every day. WP:SIZERULE states that articles "> 100 kB almost certainly should be divided." JimRenge (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @JimRenge: Indeed, it is getting big. I see opportunities to trim by removing unsourced, non-mainstream and non-RS text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran a DYK script to see how big the article is, and how much of the bulk is from notes and source-references/etc sections. I get for the current version, Prose size (text only): 77 kB (12203 words) "readable prose size". That is sub-100 kb, but the article is big, with some content repetition, some content that is unsourced or non-RS based and undue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The pdf has 51 pages, (31 pages text + pictures) . This article shows several "This section requires expansion" tags and the "Zen" section in "Mahayana traditions" invites the addition of similar sections for the remaining major Mahayana schools. Compare to Islam: 36 pages (16 pages text + pictures); and Christianity: 44 pages, (21 pages text + pictures). I agree, there is potential for trimming. JimRenge (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as with most long pages, it contains much repetition, does not use terminology with any consistency, and practically redefines "overlinking". Ogress 21:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @JimRenge: This older version had more prose words, 54 pdf pages (38 pages text+pictures). So we are making progress. Slowly. I agree with @Ogress, there is way too many dup-links in this article. But, let us worry about dup-links a few days from now, after @JR, @JJ, you and others have had a chance to trim it down a bit. 44+ pages in itself is not the problem, but 44+ pages because of repetition, unsourced OR/content and inconsistency is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have 1 page lead, ~2.5 pages TOC, 4 pages Buddhist concepts, 12 pages Bhavana/Practice, 10 pages History, ~2.5 Buddhist texts, + rest. We have ~17 pages of references/sources. To trim, Bhavana, History and Ref/Sources is where we have the most bulk. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

, @Others: Are we making progress? Any particular sections to further trim? We are in the latest version at 10425 prose words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. JimRenge (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article should not mention historical changes in the frequency of Buddhism
1. WP:PRECEDENT justifies this, look at the articles on Christianity (no mention of when started to spread or when it schismed or even when Jesus was born), Islam (no mention of the Islamic Golden Age or the unprecedented period of territorial expansion before that or the end of the Golden Age due to the Mongols), and so on for Jainism, Sikhism only mentions the founding, and Hinduism mentions a small detail like that but not in the second sentence but the last sentence of the introduction (edit: and that's still more about origins).

2. Could we get an explanation as to why that particular decline was notable enough to get such high mention? By common sense I would have thought it would be less important than the sentence that follows mentioning the major sects of Buddhism.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , Indeed, the decline in India and Srauta seems undue in the lead. How about we move some of that into main? Proposal:
 * Now: Paralleling developments in Hinduism, the Buddha taught an internalization of the three-fire Śrauta system.[4] Buddhism originated in India, from where it spread through much of Asia. It declined in India during the middle ages, but left deep traces in Indian culture and religiosity.
 * Proposed replacement in the lead: Buddhism originated around 500 BCE in India, from where it spread through much of Asia, branching as traditions.
 * How about moving the remaining into the history section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the last part of that proposal needs some work, I'd also be fine with having the sentences left as they are but moved down a couple paragraphs. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ollyoxenfree: The proposed replacement ties into the sentence that currently follows in the first para: "Two major extant branches of Buddhism are..." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue for me is "branching as traditions. Two major extant branches of Buddhism are..." doesn't really flow.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I will delete that part, and then give it a try. Let us see if the new lead version reads any better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch's Extensive Changes to Article Since May
You have made extensive changes to this article since May, and not for the better. For example, your recent lead scrubs any mention of Tibetan Buddhism and introduces a mostly unsourced paragraph about the history of Buddhism in India, which is off-topic and sounds like an essay: "Early Buddhism grew as an oral tradition, with its first canon written in 1st century BCE. Eighteen schools of early Buddhism are known. After gaining the support of Emperor Ashoka in India, Buddhism expanded in India as well as towards west, central and southeast Asia. Mahayana gained prominence after the 2nd century CE, while Vajrayana gaining after the 5th century. During the middle ages, Buddhism declined in India, vanished from west and central Asia, while thriving in the Himalayan, east and southeast regions of Asia. It contributed to and influenced ideas that are now part of other Indian religions such as Hinduism, deeply influencing the culture of South Asia and the East. In the modern world, Buddhists number between an estimated 488 million and 535 million, making it one of the world's major religions."

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: That is just a summary of the main article. I will link the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that noone has agreed to your lead. I agree with JJs last edit.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed draft for the last para of the lead:
 * Early Buddhism grew as an oral tradition, with its first canon written in 1st century BCE. Eighteen schools of early Buddhism are known. After gaining the support of Emperor Ashoka in India, Buddhism expanded in India, and thereafter through west, central and southeast Asia. Mahayana gained prominence after the 2nd century CE, while Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) gaining after the 7th century. During the middle ages, Buddhism declined in India, vanished from west and central Asia, while thriving in the Himalayan, east and southeast regions of Asia. It contributed to and influenced ideas that are now part of other Indian religions such as Hinduism, deeply influencing the culture of South Asia and the East. In the modern world, Buddhists number between an estimated 488 million and 535 million, making it one of the world's major religions.

How does this last para look with sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ps): I am fine with the paragraphs in the last @JJ edited version, that precede this proposed last para. The proposal is per WP:LEAD, because the main article has and continues to dedicate a lot of prose words to early Buddhism, texts, history etc ... this is notable and needs to be summarized in the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of material in this article should be moved to History of Buddhism.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: No. Because the present is just one point in the timeline of Buddhism. We can't understand the now, without the yesterdays. History provides the context, the depth, the substrate, the dynamics, the inertia, the momentum behind the current ideas. I see some (minor) issues in the history section, opportunities to trim too, but perhaps @JJ should take a look at the history section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current history section, information and sources seem accurate. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Rollback to May 26
This rollback to May 26 is unacceptable: Demanding to dicuss edits before making them is typical WP:OWN behavior; a wholesale rvert, without specyfying what one finds problematic, is useless. If there are edits which you find problematic, point out what problems you see. But this way, there's nothing to discuss, since there's no clue what is problematic. I'm not going to revert a second time, but this rollback has to be undone. The edits of at least 20 editors have been reverted this way. And no, I don't see myself taking ownership of this page. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * diff "Reverting back to May 26. Undue extensive changes to article with no discussion"
 * diff "WP:KETTLE You and another editor have taken ownership of this page since May 26."
 * Demanding to discuss edits is WP:OWN behavior? What about WP:BRD? Also why can't you compromise over even 1 sentence? Clear case of WP:KETTLE.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * BRD means: try to improve the edits that are problematic, and discuss them; only if there's no improvement possible, and the edits are clearly problematic, then you can rollback. Regarding compromising on one sentence: I've clearly stated, several times, that this info is interesting and relevant, but needs to be expanded and contextualized, and doesn not belong in the lead. I'm reading that article now, it's interesting; but since you're the one who added it, you could make some effort to respond to those concerns, and try to expand and contextualize it, instead of sticking to cryptic condensations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)
 * You again say it doesn't belong in the lead. A blanket refusal. This is what I mean by an uncompromising attitude.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 11:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Victoria Grayson: You have been watching and co-editing this article since May 26: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you had BRD-style objections you would have raised them all along, weeks ago. But you didn't. Now, @JJ has questioned WP:DUE/WP:LEAD of 1 sentence on "Srauta" you added to the lead. That addition of Srauta to the lead para of this overview wikipedia article on Buddhism is WP:Lead fixation and WP:UNDUE, because the main article does not explain Srauta or its significance. Instead of addressing @JJ's comment, you are questioning his integrity with this strange allegations of WP:OWN. FWIW, the 26 May version you have reverted to, has no mention of Srauta either, not even in the main article. It is unusual that you prefer that "no Srauta at all" May 26 version, over @JJ version that retained a mention of Srauta in the main, but you want a compromise that includes Srauta in the lead because "it is a must have in lead" leveraging the absurd allegations of WP:OWN. Your behavior is puzzling, not helping this article, and your edit warring disruptive. Why don't you draft something more on Srauta on this talk page or in you sandbox, and work with @JJ to develop a compromise? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Vic, please explain to us why this belongs in the lead, while it's not even in the article. Putting this in the lead suggests that this is a deeply fundamental point about Buddhism, a core basic teaching which is de facto derived from Brahmanism. Questioning this, and asking for an expansion & contextualization, is not "an uncompromising attitude"; I think you know that too.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in the body of the article. Do a word search.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 12:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is essentially the same line. If "Srauta" info is a core basic teaching or fundamental point about Buddhism, why isn't it discussed in depth in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it's slightly different: "Paralleling developments in the Brahmanical tradition itself, Buddhism originated as an internalization of the 3-fire Śrauta system,". That's quite a statement! It refers to pages 121-129; I'd really like to see an exact page-reference, with quote, where Shults makes this statement.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read pages 125-129, section "Reinterpreting Vedic Ritual Fires." Apart from treating "the three Vedic sacrificial fires," and not using the term " 3-fire Śrauta system," this section nowhere makes the statement mentioned above. Shults argues that the texts use a reinterpretation of the three sacrificial fires to further Buddhist ideas. Page 126: "In AN iv 45 the Buddha will try his hand at explaining the fires in order to aid the reception of his teachings."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mutual interplay
The line above, in th eprevious section, stands in this context:
 * "New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition in the form of the Upanishads, and outside of the Vedic tradition through the Śramaṇa movements.[343][344][345] Paralleling developments in the Brahmanical tradition itself, Buddhism originated as an internalization of the 3-fire Śrauta system,[346] and was one of the several Śramaṇa religions that emerged in ancient India. The term Śramaṇa refers to several Indian religious movements parallel to but separate from the historical Vedic religion."

Correct would be to write something like: (not sure about the exact position of the Upanshads; corretc me if I'm wrong)
 * "New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition and outside of the Vedic tradition through the Śramaṇa movements.[343][344][345] The Śramaṇa religious movements developed parallel to, and in interaction with, the historical Vedic religion. Its influence on the Vedic religion is reflected in the Upanishads, while Buddhism was one of the several non-Vedic Śramaṇa religions that emerged in ancient India. Brahmanical motifs can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts. For example, paralleling developments in the Brahmanical tradition itself, which internalized and reinterpreted the fire-sacrifices, Buddhist texts also refer to the Vedic 3-fire rituals, which were reinterpreted as to reflect altruistic ethical conduct.[346]"

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea that the Upanishads are influenced by Śramana, rather than being the state of realization of Śrauta ritual, is an example of one-sidedness.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @JJ: I like much in your draft, except the "Its influence on the Vedic religion is reflected in the Upanishads". That is swinging too much on the other wrong side. How about,
 * "New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition and outside of the Vedic tradition through the Śramaṇa movements.[343][344][345] The Śramaṇa religious movements developed parallel to, and in interaction with, the historical Vedic religion. Buddhism was one of the several non-Vedic Śramaṇa religions that emerged in ancient India. Brahmanical motifs can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts. For example, paralleling pre-Buddhist developments in the Brahmanical tradition which internalized and variously reinterpreted the fire-sacrifices as concepts such as Truth, Rite, Tranquility or Restraint,[347] Buddhist texts also refer to the Vedic 3-fire rituals reinterpreting them as ethical conduct.[346]"
 * [347]: page 127 of Brett Shults (see various combinations of ideal ethical behaviors). For talk page watchers, JUB on that page is part of a Brahmana layer of the Samaveda, and is pre-Buddhist. This internalization of Vedic fire ritual from external event to human ethical values is found elsewhere too, in Shatapatha Brahmana of the Shukla Yajurveda (mentioned by Shults, top few lines of page 123). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, p.123, refers to Bronkhorst as stating that the Brahmanic and non-Brahmanic ascetic groups were initially separate groups, but that there was interchange. Samuel also refers to Gombrich as stating that the Buddhists seem to have known Upanishadic material, "suggesting that the sayings that they knew were part of a floating body of wisdom sayings, circulated primarily in oral form." Well anyway, we'll have to stick to the original first sentence. MSW's fourth sentence is unclear; here's another try:
 * "New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition in the form of the Upanishads, and outside the Vedic tradition in the Śramaṇa movements.[343][344][345] Buddhism was one of the Śramaṇa religious movements, that developed parallel to, and in interaction with, the historical Vedic religion. Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical ascetic groups shared and used a "floating body of wisdom sayings," and Brahmanical motifs can be found in the oldest Buddhist texts. For example, paralleling pre-Buddhist developments in the Brahmanical tradition, which internalized and variously reinterpreted the fire-sacrifices as concepts such as Truth, Rite, Tranquility or Restraint,[347] Buddhist texts also refer to the Vedic 3-fire rituals, reinterpreting them as ethical conduct.[346]"
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Ok with me. @VictoriaGrayson: Any objections/suggestions to @JJ proposal? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * JJ, nice version.  JimRenge (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"The early Buddhist sütras suggest knowledge of this early Upanisadic material (Gombrich 1990), though not necessarily of the texts as later compiled, suggesting that the sayings that they knew were part of a floating body of wisdom sayings, circulated primarily in oral form."
 * JJ's edits don't explain the "floating body of wisdom sayings" are still Upanishadic. Samuel actually says:


 * The sentence "New ideas developed both in the Vedic tradition in the form of the Upanishads, and outside of the Vedic tradition through the Śramaṇa movements" doesn't seem to be supported by the references cited.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: Did you really read the sources? Crangle's pages 58 etc? Nakamura? etc? I will embed some quotes to allay your concern about the "New ideas...". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking at Crangle page 58. I don't see any mention of Upanishads.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The footnote please, the footnote on page 58. It names three Upanishads. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Three-fire sacrifice
can you explain this edit little more?D4iNa4 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is hiding the info that states that Buddha taught an internalized version of Śrauta. Do you agree with hiding it?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's undue for the lead, but it's interesting info. Therefore, I didn't remove it, but hid it. I took a look at the source; it's a summary of Gombrich. As it is now, the line suggests that Buddhism originated as a modification of Srauta rituals; that's not what Gombrich is arguing. Gombrich argues that the oldest sutras contain many allogories and linguistic "jokes" and modifications, turning Vedic/proto-Hinduistic beliefs and rituals into Buddhist ideas, meanwhile changing the contents of those beliefs and rituals. According to Gombrich, this was done to use language which was understandable for an Brahminic audience, to won them over. So, it's not the specific three-fire ritual which is relevant here, but the specific use of language, and the interplay between early Buddhism and Vedism. I think that this info is best placed at Presectarian Buddhism,a s a separate section; Gombrich has more to say on this topic (he's a great scholar, really worth reading).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NB: page-numbers 121-125, or 125-129?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NB2: see p.125: "I'm not suggesting [...] concerns."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

He cites Gombrich, but it is not a summary of Gombrich.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @JJ: Indeed, you are spot on. This is undue in the lead of this overview wikipedia article on Buddhism. It is interesting and needs to be better explained in the main. Yet, we can and should try to present this "fire symbolism" in one or two short paragraphs, to keep a balance on notability with respect to topics such as dukkha/anicca/anatta/samsara/rebirth/prajna/dhyana/etc or early Buddhist school history etc in Buddhism. @VictoriaGrayson is pointing us in the right direction. The interiorization of fires and the fire-symbolism was a parallel development, it happened in Buddhism, in Jainism and in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads/Brahmanas/Aranyakas. Brett Shults on page 121 focuses on Sundarika Sutta (there are others). Shults acknowledges this parallelism over 121-125, then 126-127 citing Gombrich. Another WP:RS on the fire symbolism in Buddhist history is Skorupski's chapter titled Buddhist Permutations and Symbolism of Fire, on pages 67-125 of Payne and Witzel edited book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So, we're discussing this topic. Meanwhile, my temporary hiding of this info has been reverted two times now:
 * [diff by [[User:HemaChandra88|HemaChandra88]], edit-summary: "unwanted edit. Buddhism was inspired by Hinduism". Incorrect and uninformed. I've already explained above why I hid this info; this explanation is completely ignored. The author speaks about 'Brahmanical motives', not about Hindu influences'. There was no Hinduism at 500 BCE. Please read the source. This looks like the usual Indian POV-pushing [on Hinduism], instead of a serious interest in building an encyclopedia. It also makes oder why HemaChandra88 (and D4iNa4) pop-up here. Who's edits are you following?


 * diff by VictoriaGrayson, edit-summary "Does it seem right that 2 editors make extensive changes since May without listening to others?" What kind of a complaint is this? We're discussing this here; I've explained that this info is undue for the lead, and should be expanded and contextualized when included; who's not listening?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally making edits is not listening. I have reverted back to May 26. Please discuss your changes to article on this talk page.  By the way, comments like "the usual Indian POV-pushing" reveal your bias.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unilateral indeed. Regarding "Indian," I was already on the point to rephrase that. But to call this a "bias" is misplaced, as you know very well. You know that the pov-pushing on Hinduism is a problem that runs deep and is highly disruptive; don't put the blame on my side for this pov-editing.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Racism
First of all, it's very racist of you to say that. I'll make sure this incidence gets reported to mods. Secondly, under what pretense are you saying that Hinduism didn't existed in 500 BCE? I see you are comfortable saying it Brahminism. In that case please define what Hinduism is how is it different from Brahminism. And finally, I have many areas of interest and frankly speaking it's none of your business. HemaChandra88 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably missed it, but I already striked the word "Indian." But your further reply, and this edit, are illustrative for the kind of POV-pushng we regularly meet at India- and Hinduism-related articles. Regarding the "internalization of the three-fire sacrifice," this is undue for the lead, and not a correct representation of the source; you simply ignore the discussion on this, and you aapparently haven't read the source. That's a aproblematic way of editing. Regarding the "definition" of Hinduism, and it's history and emergence, read the relevant sections of Hinduism, or User:Joshua Jonathan/Roots of Hinduism; also read through Talk:Hinduism, including its archives, to understand how it's different. And regarding your appearance here: yes, it is my business, since we're interacting.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Lets focus on this article. Can you provide any support for "Buddha taught an internalization of the three-fire Śrauta system"?, something @VictoriaGrayson and you want added to the lead and you have now edit warred over. Which specific page number does Shults state this, or what is in Shults that implies this? As mentioned above and elsewhere on this talk page, this is a major claim, one without any discussion/explanation in the main article or any reliable source. Neither @VictoriaGrayson nor you have provided a source yet, but need to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , did you forget WP:NOR? Editors are not supposed to judge the merits of an academic paper for there are academic experts for that. "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." HemaChandra88 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but "Buddha taught an internalization of the three-fire Śrauta system" violates WP:NOR. There seems nothing in Shults that supports that allegation. I am not questioning Shults, but your OR on Shults. Identify the page number, please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See new section below.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The last para of the lead again
@VictoriaGrayson and @HemChandra88: Is your main concern that the lead does not acknowledge the mutual influences? How about we add a sentence on the mutual influences between Indian religions and replace the last para of the lead to the following,


 * Early Buddhism grew as an oral tradition, with its first canon written in 1st century BCE.[1] Eighteen schools of early Buddhism are known.[2] After gaining the support of Emperor Ashoka in India, Buddhism expanded in India, and thereafter through west, central and southeast Asia.[3][4] Mahayana gained prominence after the 2nd century CE, while Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) gaining after the 7th century.[5] During the middle ages, Buddhism declined in India, vanished from west and central Asia, while thriving in the Himalayan, east and southeast regions of Asia.[4] Buddhism was influenced by and in turn influenced other Indian religions,[9][10] deeply affecting the culture of South Asia and the East.[6][7] In the modern world, Buddhists number between an estimated 488 million[web 1] and 535 million,[8] making it one of the world's major religions.

We can trim a bit from the 2nd and 3rd para to keep the lead within a reasonable word limit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Theravada/Mahayana repetition
There was a duplication of the Second Council story in Early Buddhist Schools and Theravada School sub-sections. I have removed one of the paragraphs, replaced it with a sentence and sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Interiorization Quote of Shults
Shults says:""I suggest that these and following verses represent a Buddhist version of an attempt to interiorize the fire sacrifice." pg.123 of On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts"" <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @VictoriaGrayson: Anything else? Because that does not equal or support, "Buddha taught an internalization of the three-fire Śrauta system". That quote and what follows on page 123, including that of Cone-2010 and Bentor-2000, are better summarized as "Buddhist texts also reinterpret, internalize and explain Vedic fire rituals in terms of ethical conduct", or something similar to what @JJ has drafted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. See also page 126: "In AN iv 45 the Buddha will try his hand at explaining the fires in order to aid the reception of his teachings." At p.123 Shults also speaks of "a willingness to adopt a rhetorical stance toward fire in keeping with Brahmanical sensibilities," and "willing to engage the Brahmanical thought world on its own terms." See also p.125, "the Sundarika Sutta appears to build on what Brahmanical experts had started, moving the interiorization of the fire sacrifice beyond interiorization as such and towards typical Buddhist ethical concerns."
 * When you take the sentence "I suggest that these and following verses represent a Buddhist version of an attempt to interiorize the fire sacrifice" too literal, quote it out of context, or put it at such a prominent place in the lead, then it suggests that the Buddha, or early Buddhism, taught nothing but a modifed version of Brahmanism. I think it's clear to most people that this is a suggestion that is totally out of line with any common interpretation or understanding of Buddhism, and not supported by this particular source. What's relevant here is the interiorization of religious rituals, a Brahmanical development which was also paralleled within Buddhism - but which does not mean that Buddhism was a form of Brahmanism. It means that various religious groups interacted at the time, and that the Buddha/early Buddhism used Brahmanical motifs to introduce and explain its own ideas in terms which were recognizable for a Brahmanical audience.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you always see groups of 3 in Buddhism?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like four truths, the five (or six) sense-, the eightfold path? But I understand what you mean, but I don't think this leads staright to the conclusion that Buddhism was a form of Brahmanism, does it? Compare it to Samkhya: numbered lists.~Compare it also to western Buddhists: they cannot help but present Buddhism in a western way, with Christian and 'self-development' themes.
 * As an aside, but relevant here: Shults p.129, "linking the fires to specifically altruistic conduct because, as Moody has shown, they are the emblems of consumate selfishness." I was reading AMA Samy yesterday; he writes somewehere something like 'enlightenment is emptiness plus compassion'. At the four truths article, we were pondering over dukkha: "suffering," or "the unsatisfactory nature (sic) of temporary states and things." I've been wondering, how does the ending of dukkha relate to compassion? If it's only about one's own suffering, literal suffering, then compassion seems like a strange jump. But if unselfishness is such a central theme, then it makes sense: from selfishness to unselfishness; from a selfish concern with, and attachment to, temporary states and things, to an unselfish understanding of change, and the unselfish concern with others. Not a selfish concern with the small picture of one's own predicament, but an unselfish concern with the bigger picture, satya, of change and pain. In that regard, unselfish concern with others, and the pain one may endure from this concern, may be an "arya" form of suffering, a worthy form of 'suffering'. Maybe.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Theravada and Orthodox Buddhism
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.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 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 RS<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 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)

Buddhism and Nepal
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016
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
Typo in the "Dukkha" section, 6th paragraph: impernanent -> impermanent

2601:7C0:4100:3C00:BACA:3AFF:FE83:E037 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nepalese religions?
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 ?
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. 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)

Parratanatai
Parratanatai or Tairak means 3 crystals of all Buddhists. Ratana is defined as a crystal because this is sublime with a high value and rare to find. Ratana is similarly a crystal ornament.

Parratanatai means 3 crystals, including Buddha, Buddha's teaching (Natural Law) and all Buddhists (monks,persons and either man or angel) —Buddha is an enlightenment by himself and to teach people to behave through action, speech and mind based on Discipline. —Buddha's teaching (Natural Law) is a discipline, representing natural law. The discipline is related to the fact of nature such inside suffering and how to end the suffering. Buddha's Discipline was transferred by memorizing and telling each other, called as "Mouphartha". Then, the discipline has been recorded in words as scriptures and become Parratanatai and other scriptures. —all Buddhists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisomphong (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2016
Please remove the sentence " Buddhism is an Indian religion attributed to the teachings of Buddha." because a religion cannot be of a country. Is christianity a Israeli religion?

Deadsoulvamp (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Deadsoulvamp: "Indian religions" is the scholarly/widely used term for several religions that started in South Asia, just like Christianity etc are classified as an "Abrahamic religion". Please see content policies of wikipedia. We need to stick with the WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2016
Please change the name of birthplace of Siddhartha from Kapilavatthu to Kapilvastu ( it has spelling error), which in situated in modern day Nepal.

Deadsoulvamp (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Deadsoulvamp: That is the Pali spelling in the Buddhist Canon, and per WP:RS. We can add a note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Deadsoulvamp, Ms Sarah Welch, Kapilavatthu appears more neutral because "In order to stress their claim to possess the historical Kapilavatthu, the Nepalese government in 1961 'renamed' Tilaurakot and the entire surrounding district Kapilavastu (the Sanskrit form of Kapilavatthu), so that the place appears under this name on recent maps. Indian aechaeologists, on the other hand, maintain that Kapilavatthu is identical with Piprava (...). ("Schumann, Hans Wolfgang (2004). The Historical Buddha: The Times, Life, and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., p.15)


 * "The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown.(Trainor 2010, pp 436-43) It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,(Nakamura 1980, p=18) or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.(Huntington 1988) Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart.(Huntington 1988)" See Gautama Buddha for references and notes. I think we should follow WP:NPOV; in the context of Gautama Buddha redirects (Kapilavatthu) and links to Kapilavastu in Nepal should be avoided. A separate article about Kapilavatthu (or Ancient Kapilavastu) might be useful. JimRenge (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @JimRenge: Indeed. That is along the lines of the note I added, but will reword it a bit more to clarify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Buddhism. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5vDULzfTE?url=http%3A%2F%2Findology.info%2Fpapers%2Fcousins%2F to http://indology.info/papers/cousins/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913092107/http://www.palitext.com/JPTS_scans/JPTS_1992_XVI.pdf to http://www.palitext.com/JPTS_scans/JPTS_1992_XVI.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Right resolve or right intention
I have seen both. See Tilmann Vetter's page 12, and Peter Harvey's page 81, for instances of "right resolve". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links. Both translations are okay. Right intention just seems to be the most popular. The second most popular is "right thought", and then there are a few others, all of them valid. I personally prefer sticking with the most popular renderings of Pāḷi terms. With metta, Stephen Karakashev (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Eu.stefan: I am fine if we stick to the reliable scholarly sources for sammā sankappa. May be, we should just append a note with alternate translations for NPOV, embed in the note a reliable source for each such translation. Just a thought, I have no strong preference either way on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. I also have no strong preference regarding this. With metta, Stephen Karakashev (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

PageViews graph
- now that's a nice one! I'll copy it to my tools-list. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017
Two spelling errors under 3.5 Dhyana - meditation, section "Four rupa-jhana and four arupa-jhana" : 1) "Third dhyana: loose feeling of rapture" -- "loose" should be changed to "lose" 2) "Fourth dhyana: cease all affects" -- "affects" should be changed to "effects" Kellimalea (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your feedback is welcome and appreciated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Number of adherents not supported by citations
In the first paragraph, it states "Buddhism is the world's fourth-largest religion, with over 500 million followers or 7% of the global population, known as Buddhists." But the link to the source Gallup states 488 million. Moreover, later in the article there is a range given, two of the three sources stating the number is below 500 million, not over 500 million. Could the sentence in the first paragraph give a range instead? It seems that would be more accurate. Thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottahunt (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Scottahunt (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two sources: Pew states 488 mio in 2010 (0.9% growth per year) and the other one states 520 mio in 2015. JimRenge (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the word 'Buddhism'
Could you please consider adding the origins of the word 'Buddhism', which I've read is a 19th Century term coined by British writers? It would also be wonderful to have a brief review of what the native terms for Buddha's Dharma were in the major countries where Buddhism flourished. Thank you for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottahunt (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Scottahunt (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign... Scottahunt (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Lumbini, again
This edit changed "India" into "Lumbini", again; we missed it. [[User:FightersMegamix|FightersMegamix] corrected it. So, no edit-war, but a legitimate correction. [[User:Joshua Jonathan| Joshua Jonathan  ]] -  Let's talk!   04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I thought our persistent Nepal-POV or India-POV team is back! But we missed this somehow. I was self-reverting and revising it to (ran into edit conflict)...


 * He was born in Lumbini, sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, meditated in what is now a part of Ancient India. Buddha's ideas spread through much of Asia, whereafter it declined in the Indian subcontinent during the middle ages.


 * But I am fine with the version you corrected it to. So FightersMegamix, you and others decide. I have no strong preference on this, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware there had been a history of edit wars on this subject, I apologize. It was just that I saw that it was credited as having stared in Nepal, which was odd because the rest of the article listed it as an Indian religion. I also do think it might be worth nothing that a few other countries that exist now were part of India back then, thus explaining why a lot of the original Buddha stuff in those places, but I disgress - the current version is acceptable to me.FightersMegamix (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017
Silly grammar: Buddhism is an religion attributed to the teachings of Buddha.[15][16] to Buddhism is a religion attributed to the teachings of Buddha.[15][16] Mtpanchal (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverted vandalism, back from "an religion" -> "an Indian religion". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Liberation
It seems to me that the section Buddhism places too much emphasis on nirvana as the ultimate goal of Buddhism. I miss some specific Mahayana-views, which say that the bodhisattva is the spiritual ideal; and that nirvana is not a 'transcendent' reality as in in Theravada, but to be found in samsara: nirvana = samsara. I'll have to dive into the sources to make verifiable changes here, but maybe someone else has got some relevant info at hand rightaway? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Buddhism. 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/20160303184353/http://www.china-zentrum.de/fileadmin/redaktion/RCTC_2012-3.29-54_Wenzel-Teuber_Statistical_Overview_2011.pdf to http://www.china-zentrum.de/fileadmin/redaktion/RCTC_2012-3.29-54_Wenzel-Teuber_Statistical_Overview_2011.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stat.go.jp/data/nenkan/zuhyou/y2322a00.xls
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://indology.info/papers/cousins/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020100448/http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf to http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/globalReligion-full.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian religion?
BUddhism is not an indian religion it is an nepali religion. Buddhism is founded in Nepal by Gautam Buddha. He spread differnent knowledges on the non-violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.93.27 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a Nepali religion either. The historical Buddha was born in Lumbini, a town in the terai region of Nepal bordering India, attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, then in the region of Magadha, now in the Republic of India, and then crossed the Ganges at Varanasi to walk 10 miles north to give his first sermon at Sarnath (also in the Republic of India).  Buddhism suffered Sanskritization in India well before Bakhtiyar Khilji raided Nalanda, a victim of Hindu orthodoxies, especially as practiced by the Shaivite rulers of eastern India. It disappeared in North India by 1300 CE and in South India around 1500 CE.  It is not referred to as an "Indian religion" by the majority of tertiary sources (including encyclopedias and survey or review articles on Buddhism; we need a consensus there to establish DUE), not a few secondary sources that describe it as an Indic or Indian religion, for I can find just as many which describe it as a "world religion" or "universal religion" or simply "religion" without qualifiers.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f: Allow me to ignore some of your comments. It would be helpful if you actually cited your sources with whatever you are trying to suggest to improve this article, rather than claim that you could do so. No, the newly added sources for Buddhism as an Indian religion, are not "secondary", they are three encyclopedias or "tertiary" sources. I saw over 10 secondary sources with Buddhism discussed in Indian religion context, but intentionally chose the tertiary sources. A religion can be an Indian religion and a world religion, or an Abrahamic religion and a world religion. I have no objection to adding in another sentence on Buddhism being world religion / universal religion / whatever, with a high quality scholarly source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS We can't pipe link "Indian religion" to the Wikipedia article Indian religions and then find a reference that cites something mentioned in that article, whether Dharmic, Indic, or something else. We need to be able to cite the expression "Indian religion" for Buddhism for a majority of reliable sources.  We already say, "it originated in India" in the very next sentence, so "Indian religion" cannot mean "originating in India," either. Besides, "Buddhism is a religion" had pretty much stood in this article for seven years until someone added Indian a few months ago, without any supporting references, for the two references had been used for "Buddhism is a religion ..." for upward of seven years.  I am therefore removing "Indian religion" and replacing it with religion and making the claim appropriate to what the cited sources are saying.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that what Fowler&fowler may be getting at, although it might be better placed on the Indian Religions talk page, is that the land that is now India should not be called "India" when referring to events occurring 2500 years ago. No one disputes where the Buddha was born (modern day Nepal), nor what kingdoms were called then, nor where the Buddha did his ministry (mondern day Ganges valley). No one disputes where Buddhism propagated during its first few centuries. The question is, can (or should) we call this "India"? If not, what could we call it? "The land that came to be called India"? I'd like to hear F&f, Sarah, and anyone else chime in on this. When, temporally, do we start calling India "India"? Mark Froelich (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, wikipedia articles shouldn't pipelink or cite wiki articles. The old cite reads, "Retrieved November 26, 2009"... who knows who added that 8 years ago. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all sorts of unreferenced, mis-referenced, badly referenced or poorly referenced stuff is a part of the open platform. Yet, Buddhism is classified as an Indian religion, just like Christianity is classified as an Abrahamic religion. That is true, Mark Froelich, whether we agree or disagree on when do we start calling India "India"? That is just nomenclature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting only that the words "Buddhism is a religion ..." had stood in this article for upward of seven years, cited to two sources (Britannica and Lopez). A few months ago someone changed it to "Buddhism is an Indian religion " cited to the same sources.  But the Britannica article, written by  Donald S. Lopez, Hajime Nakamura, Joseph M. Kitagawa, Giuseppe Tucci, Frank E. Reynolds, David Snellgrove, all great scholars of comparative religions and history of religions, says very clearly, "Buddhism, religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: “Awakened One”), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and mid-4th centuries bce (before the Common Era). Spreading from India to Central and Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, Buddhism has played a central role in the spiritual, cultural, and social life of Asia, and during the 20th century it spread to the West." (Both "religion" and "philosophy" are pipelinked to Britannica's articles).  How does a precis of this become, "Buddhism is an Indian religion," especially when it disappeared entirely from India in the middle medieval period, and today there is an infinitesimally small population of people, all followers of B. R. Ambedkar, the Dalit leader, who call themselves Buddhist in the Indian census?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that F&f has a good point here. Oddly, I can't find the insertion in the history of the page. It magically appears between these two edits diff diff. Strange, isn't it? Or am I overlooking something? Thereafter, I reverted the removal as being an unexplained removal.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, F&f, for your clarification. I should have mentioned that I also have access to Britannica. I might have saved you some typing, or copying and pasting. I wish you would have waited with your editing, however. It wasn't even an hour after I asked you to please discuss this on the talk page that you made an edit. And another one since. The Britannica article, even though it may not use the term "Indian religion" does go on to state that Buddhism "arose in northeastern India sometime between the late 6th century and the early 4th century bce, a period of great social change and intense religious activity." Clearly Britannica is referring to this land mass as "India," even if it is ancient India. Sarah... yes, it is nomenclature. Isn't nomenclature what we're talking about? (Whether it should be designated as an "Indian religion" or merely as "religion"?) Mark Froelich (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks   Since you have the Britannica article, you will readily see that it says in its "Historical development" section, "With the collapse of the Pala dynasty in the 12th century, Indian Buddhism suffered yet another setback, from which it did not recover. Although small pockets of influence remained, the Buddhist presence in India became negligible."  It thereafter devotes three or four times as many words to the Historical development in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Southeast Asia and East Asia.  It is a long article.  It obviously can't be an "Indian religion," especially in the first sentence of the lead, when people even in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, are looking for information.  As for having originated in India, we say that too in the second sentence.  We always have.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @MF: I disagree with much F&f wrote earlier and now. Allow me to ignore it as this talk page is inappropriate for FORUM-y debates. A religion can still be classified as Indian religion, even if it became negligible in India at some point; Judaism and Christianity can be classified as Middle Eastern religions regardless of the dynamics between Islam, Judaism and Christianity there after the 7th-century. Buddhism is classified as an Indian religion in numerous RS, and I have added three tertiary sources into the main article as support. Yet, I support "Buddhism is a religion..." in the lead sentence, like F&f and JJ do, because it is clearer and better. Nomenclature are partly a matter of convenience and conventions, useful they are even when we are not certain or when we disagree. Daoism and Shen are sometimes classified as Chinese religions, even if we wonder when do we start calling China "China"? FWIW, we have persistent internet warriors with "India" and "Nepal" POVs in this and other Buddha-related articles, and this may have come about due to their disruptive dynamics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Given these dynamics, I ynok it's unwise to add "Indian religion" to the first sentence in the lead. It is, when meaning "originated in India." But that's indeed mentioned too. "Indian religion" will unnecessary stir nationalistic emotions, and cause further unrest at this page.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f, yes, I'm well aware, without reading the Britannica article, that Buddhism died out for five centuries in India coinciding with the rise of Islam. (Although there's debate as to it dying out completely.) And then it came back. But I don't see what that has to do with the term "Indian religion." Does Indian religion mean that the religion can't exist elsewhere as well? I'm beginning to see your second point, however, that the article soon mentions in the lede that it arose in ancient India, and it may be more elegant. I'm just trying to understand the term "Indian religion." Wikipedia has a page for that term, so presumably there's a reason for the term. If there's a reason for it, why would it not apply here, in this article? Mark Froelich (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am saying simply that it is not a term that is used by a majority of the sources on Buddhism as a first description of Buddhism. "Buddhism is a religion," however, is. I am traveling in an antipodal part of the world from my home, so this is all I can add. All the best. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * F&f, point taken. Though I'm not sure if a "majority" of sources is needed for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Even if the term isn't used by a majority, does that make it necessarily an unsuitable term or neccesarily imply that it's not generally accepted? (I've noticed, by the way, as you might have, that Britannica does use the term "Indian religions", in the "Classification of religions" page.) What I'm interested in is your opinion on that term. Do you agree, for example, with the accuracy of the first sentence of the [Indian Religions] article in Wiki, which lists Buddhism? Mark Froelich (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you will have seen on that page, religions have been classified on many principles: morphological, phenomenological, geographic, normative, and so forth. In the geographic classification (in Britannica) Buddhism belongs to both East Asian and Indian.  The Indian religions page is POV.  That the term "Indian religions" means "religions which originated in the Indian subcontinent"  is not accepted by everyone for many reasons.  Many scholars do not consider Hinduism to have entirely originated in India. In fact, as  will probably agree, the Historical Vedic Religion, the historical predecessor of Hinduism, is a syncretic mix of pre-1500 BCE Central Asian, even southern European, religious beliefs and myths.  On the other hand, many consider Indian Islam to be an Indian religion (see the works of Richard Eaton), having changed so much after arrival in India that it cannot be described as a "foreign" religion in India.  The same for Indian Christianity.  The IR page in Wikipedia, originally began as a page about religions in India (see its early history until 2007), but then some POV-pushers managed to change it to mean something else.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As annoying as you can be with your straight logic, it is logic indeed. Nice point, about the extra-Indian origins of Hinduism. Though the mix, of course, happened in India - eh, South Asia.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, both of you. Now, Fowler&fowler, I see where you're coming from. I'm gathering that you feel the "Indian Religions" page is a mess, and that the Buddhism page shouldn't associate with it. Cheers! Mark Froelich (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhism. 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/20160808095741/http://alc.ucla.edu/refguide/refguide.htm to http://alc.ucla.edu/refguide/refguide.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017
Buddhism is divided into two sects. One is Hinayana and the other one is Mahayana Tressseme456 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Related move discussion
FYI Talk:Sigala (musician) In ictu oculi (talk) http://www.buddhanetz.org/texte/rights.htmTrankhayla (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Important Information nowhere in whole article
Should'nt we add line "Buddha was born in Royal Hindu Family" as I could't find it anywhere in article and some sources for my claim are — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostProducer (talk • contribs) 4 october 2017 (UTC)


 * No. From the article (emphasis mine):
 * There was no such thing as "Hinduism" at the time of the Buddha; there was the Vedic religion, c.q. Brahmanism, but not the synthesis which is Hinduism. I suggest you don't do Google-searches which confirm your worldview, like Buddha born in Hindu family, but instead read some serious sources on Buddhism and the history of Hinduism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no such thing as "Hinduism" at the time of the Buddha; there was the Vedic religion, c.q. Brahmanism, but not the synthesis which is Hinduism. I suggest you don't do Google-searches which confirm your worldview, like Buddha born in Hindu family, but instead read some serious sources on Buddhism and the history of Hinduism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hindu Synthesis started from 500BC and Gautam was born on 483 BC in Hindu "Kshtriya" family. So there was Hindu Synthesis at the time of Buddha. GhostProducer (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * c. 500 BCE.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

?? What are you trying to say Please elaborate GhostProducer (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That it's bullshit to state that the Buddha was born in a royal Hindu family. You're not interested in Buddhism, c.q. a factual portrayal of Indian history; nor in writing an encyclopedia; you're interest is in promoting Hindutva.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017
In the section "Four Noble Truths - dukkha and its ending", second paragraph, first sentence ("The truth of dukkha..."), the quotation marks are mismatched. Add a quotation mark before "impermanent states and things", since there is one after it. Or, remove the quotation mark after "mundane world,". I'm not certain which is correct since I don't know the Four Truths myself. 142.163.73.148 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ none of the mismatched quotation marks seemed necessary Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion
It is a philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.131.217 (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Philosophy/ religion, what is/are the difference/s? They only exist due to human existence. They are not like physics or maths which exist whether there are humans in this universe or not.2A00:23C1:C11A:D500:5087:8F3:FF98:2521 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence for the claim that maths and physics exist in the absence of humans in the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.45.192 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * More importantly, what about Buddhism makes it not a religion? It incorporates belief in the supernatural, so right there it seems hard to disassociate it philosophically from religion. Chuck (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS section on articles Buddhism
Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have started a policy proposal to include into the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles about Buddhism. Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhism. 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 tag to http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/filemanager/ASDP/WabashDePauw2014/Buddhist_Asia_Bibliography_China_and_Tibet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106085643/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/buddhism/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/asia_features/buddhism/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Polygamy
How polygamy is dealt in Buddhism ? I have seen no cover of cultural aspects or rituals in detail. I would love to expand that.StLouis2 (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your topic is too specific for this article. Feel free to expand Buddhist view of marriage - based on independent reliable sources, such as academic journals and books (see WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. JimRenge (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Morals and key tenets
To state that there is no morality in Buddhism will need very good sources. And to state that anatta is the "key tenet" of Buddhism also needs much better sources than these two sources. To postulate any key tenet, apart from escape from smasara, will need very good sources. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Anatta is what separates Buddhism from all other religions. It is the key cause of dukkha as an attachment to the self allows for suffering, and thus it is the reason that one ought to escape samsara. There are no morals in Buddhism as there is no moral authority. The Buddha never said there are thing that you should do no matter would, he just taught how to escape samsara and why that is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * . You specifically made the following changes and additions:
 * The discussion if Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy has been going on here for I don't know how long; see the archives of this talkpage. The term "dharma" was added as a compromise. Although WP:BOLD is encouraged, in this case discussion before editing is to be preferred. And the source is not good enough for such a statement; please try to find scholarly sources.
 * "observance of moral precepts" - changed into "behavioral precepts", with the following edit-summary: "Improved description of buddhist ethics. There is no morality in Buddhism but rather karmanically skilful or unskilful ways to act". The term links to "Buddhist ethics"; you changed the term without giving any source. So far, it's your personal opinion.
 * Those sources are not good enough for such a statement. Dana Nourie, If Not-Self Then What?, is a blog, and she doesn't even write that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. Narada Thera, Anatta or soul-lessness, also doesn't state that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. It may be the view of some specific teacher(s), and it is indeed important in Buddhism, but to present it as the key Buddhist tenet is inappropriate. Actually, to present any teaching as the essence of Buddhism is not in line with mainstream scholarly views, which state that "Buddhism" may as well be seen as "Buddhisms," that is, plural, given the broad range of teachings and specific points.
 * Those sources are not good enough for such a statement. Dana Nourie, If Not-Self Then What?, is a blog, and she doesn't even write that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. Narada Thera, Anatta or soul-lessness, also doesn't state that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. It may be the view of some specific teacher(s), and it is indeed important in Buddhism, but to present it as the key Buddhist tenet is inappropriate. Actually, to present any teaching as the essence of Buddhism is not in line with mainstream scholarly views, which state that "Buddhism" may as well be seen as "Buddhisms," that is, plural, given the broad range of teachings and specific points.
 * Those sources are not good enough for such a statement. Dana Nourie, If Not-Self Then What?, is a blog, and she doesn't even write that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. Narada Thera, Anatta or soul-lessness, also doesn't state that anatta is the key tenet of Buddhism. It may be the view of some specific teacher(s), and it is indeed important in Buddhism, but to present it as the key Buddhist tenet is inappropriate. Actually, to present any teaching as the essence of Buddhism is not in line with mainstream scholarly views, which state that "Buddhism" may as well be seen as "Buddhisms," that is, plural, given the broad range of teachings and specific points.


 * See also WP:RS. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much,User:Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! , for your comments. I must admit my edits were partially affected by my own opinions as well as those of several scholars I know personally. I am studying Buddhism and would be keen to help out with any wikiprojects regarding the topic as I think my knowledge would be somewhat helpful. As you may have noticed I am new to Wikipedia so I am still learning the ropes. Sorry if I have caused you any troble and please do keep me posted if you ever need any help with and Buddhism related topics. Thank you once again, Raymond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Leonard (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018
In the Infobox and in the "Life of the Buddha" sections there are translation errors. "error: : unrecognized transliteration standard: IAST (help))" I would remove the attempts at Sanskrit until an editor can make the appropriate tags, the Sanskrit versions are not a requirement for EN pages. Thanks in advance. 2600:1700:1111:5940:A5E7:8C37:782B:AD9 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Bandaged it for now. The root issue is probably some core template somewhere about which I am clueless. Need some coding wizard's help, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism is Universalizing Religion
"Ethical religions fall into two subcategories. First are the national nomistic (legal) religions that are particularistic, limited to the horizon of one people only and based upon a sacred law drawn from sacred books. Above them are the universalistic religions, qualitatively different in kind, aspiring to be accepted by all men, and based upon abstract principles and maxims. In both subtypes, doctrines and teachings are associated with the careers of distinct personalities who play important roles in their origin and formation. Tiele found only three examples of this highest type of religion: Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism."
 * Excuse the intrusion but if I'm understading the situation correctly I would encourage everyone to discuss the validity of the universal-ethnic concept on the universalizing religion talk page for the sake of keeping discussion orderly as the term features in multiple articles and it appears concerns of a similar nature have been raised. Thanks. Thrif (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018
please correct the fact that buddhishm is not an indian religion. it is completely wrong. buddha was born in nepal and he was the creater of buddhism not an indian religion. 2600:8802:2200:EC00:E850:481C:2B8E:AA7 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be helpful, there is no scholarly consensus on whether Kapilavastu (ancient_city) was in present day India or Nepal. This scholarly article has good background information. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018
A historical map was added, but was unsourced and reverted. I believe a historical map would be helpful to show how various schools of Buddhism spread and I found a map from Cornell which lines up with the previously added map. I don't have a preference for the specific map used, but I think adding an appropriate map would make the article more scholarly.

If no other preference is determined, I would add this map from this edit back to the top of the "Historical Roots" section. Thanks in advance! 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. feminist (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why would this need consensus as a scholarly historical map in the historical section of the article? A very similar map appears in the lede of History of Buddhism article, use that one if you prefer. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , They want you to talk about it first with others. I don't usually add maps to articles, but don't you need a map which is not copyrighted? Or are you going to ask the website for permission?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that consensus needs to be reached before this image is used. ToThAc (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , that is actually not open for discussion here. The discussion is about whether the image should be added. I don't object to it, provided it doesn't violate copyright policy.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not in favor of adding a copyrighted map without permission. I actually noted that there is a map on History of Buddhism and that map or could just as easily be used, assuming it does not have a copyright issue. To come full circle, the edit that added the map was not questioned for copyright or consensus, it was reverted as WP:OR which it is clearly not. The argument has morphed a bit, I am not sure why there would be an issue with consensus on a scholarly map, but my goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not cause any disruption. If people feel a map hinders the article rather than improving it, then I don't have much to add. Thanks for the discussion either way. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , as I said, for me, the issue is just the copyright. If you have the permission of the website, you have mine. I don't know why you got reverted either.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Revert back to 22 February version. Additions by user Realphi fall in a pattern of POV pushing by that user and are not included anywhere else in the article, therefore have absolutely no good reason to be in the first sentence of the lead. (i.e. see revert rationale by FyzixFighter on Jan. 26) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 198.84.253.202. JimRenge (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018
76.64.52.157 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC) There is no time line called BCE. The time line is BC (Before Christ) as per the current calendar. Please make the correction.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: actually, yes there is. See Common Era. Nici  Vampire  Heart  22:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Need to have a Buddha image in meditation pose on top or prominent part
Most Buddhist temples have the Buddha sitting in a meditative pose, therefore it is appropriate to have a image of a Sitting Buddha in meditative pose on top, instead of the present image of the Standing buddha from the Tokyo Museum, as it does not correctly represent buddhism. The suggested images are one that is used on top of the wiki Buddha page A statue of the Buddha from Sarnath, Uttar Pradesh, India, 4th century CE https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buddha_in_Sarnath_Museum_(Dhammajak_Mutra).jpg#/media/File:Buddha_in_Sarnath_Museum_(Dhammajak_Mutra).jpg

Another similar (Dharamchakra pose), which is the most popular pose in Buddhist temples. Buddha's statue located near Belum Caves, Andhra Pradesh, India https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buddha%27s_statue_near_Belum_Caves_Andhra_Pradesh_India.jpg#/media/File:Buddha%27s_statue_near_Belum_Caves_Andhra_Pradesh_India.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajiv.dhy (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, though I agree that an image in a more meditative posture is more iconic, it appears the current image is one of the oldest. So there are good reasons for either image on top, and I don't think change is necessary.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

OR tag
HERE MSW says "should not be seen as a social reformer" is a direct quote of Richard Gombrich. I checked the source and its a quote of Christopher Queen describing Richard Gombrich's position. There are also numerous other errors like incorrect page numbers. Lastly, the section is just OR. As was pointed out by others at ANI, MSW's edits don't actually reflect the sources.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You've got a point about the "Gombrich"-quote, and I've found a major fault elsewhere too; yet your change of
 * into
 * into


 * is not exactly a correct paraphrasing or summary; better said, it's a bold statement which is incorrect.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think that looking at who edited what is a good criterion to go by when cutting out text. I absolutely agree with the part on misquoting Gombrich, as I have made a similar argument against myself. Still, Sarah is not Satan, even though the names look the same: I am sure that there has been some good editing she has done, and even if that is not the case, every edit should be judged by itself, regardless of who edits it.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With regard to the three fires, it looks partly legit, but originated and system are not the right words. It should be something along the lines of "Buddhism developed a similar ethical concept of three fires, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion". This is from Gombrich's What the Buddha Thought--not sure about the ethical conduct though, doesn't look very precise.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The long quote above was rephrased by me at 19 june 2016.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Better.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a brief "Criticism" section
Would suggest inserting a brief "Criticism" section into the article, similar to the sections other philosophy/religion articles have, and linking to the full "Criticism of Buddhism" article. (As opposed to only having the link at the bottom of the article) 23.250.113.36 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Vesak a new year celebration?
Your opinion in this discussion is appreciated.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The following topic should be mentioned.......

 * Creator in Buddhism
 * , go ahead and try some sourced editing.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction has gotten very long again, and hits the reader with a lot of details and repeated links in a short span. It also manages to completely omit monasticism(!). I'm proposing rewording the second paragraph to be more generally applicable:

All Buddhist traditions share the goal of overcoming suffering and the cycle of death & rebirth, either by the attainment of Nirvana or through the path of the Bodhisattva. Buddhist schools vary in their interpretation of the path to liberation, the relative importance and canonicity assigned to the various Buddhist texts, and their specific teachings and practices. Widely observed practices include taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, observance of moral precepts, monasticism, meditation, and the cultivation of the Paramitas.

And cutting most of the tradition-specific details out for coverage in their own articles, leaving: Theravada has a widespread following in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Mahayana, which includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Shingon and Tiantai (Tendai), is found throughout East Asia.

Vajrayana, a body of teachings attributed to Indian siddhas, may be viewed as a separate branch or as a part of Mahayana. Tibetan Buddhism, which preserves the Vajrayana teachings of eighth century India, is practised in regions surrounding the Himalayas, Mongolia

Thoughts? --Spasemunki (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The present lead summarizes the article, as it should do. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning monasticism is a pretty glaring omission though. 'Path of liberation' is currently introduced without establishing liberation from what. The 'rainbow body' is introduced as being separate from the goal of Buddhahood or nirvana, but never discussed in the body. I think a shorter version still adequately summarizes the article but is easier for the non-specialist to read and understand. --Spasemunki (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The currently displayed lede is as follows: Buddhism is a religion and dharma that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to the Buddha and resulting interpreted philosophies. Buddhism originated in Ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, spreading through much of Asia before declining in India during the Middle Ages.  Much that it represents a reasonable snapshot of what Buddhism could be described as, I personally think that ending on a 'declining' note is really not great at all, regardless of the trailing specificity to India. I am going to juggle the lede somewhat just to reflect a slightly less pessimistic approach to this world religion. (20040302 (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC))


 * I have modified the lede paragraph such that it reads on link summaries as Buddhism is the world's fourth-largest religion with over 520 million followers, or over 7% of the global population, known as Buddhists. A dharma religion, Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to the Buddha and resulting interpreted philosophies. (20040302 (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

I cut down the lead to reduce the amount of tradition-specific jargon. Getting into a presentation of selected aspects from each tradition is too much for an introduction, and many of them were not discussed significantly in the article which doesn't match the MOS. It would be nice to have an English gloss for Nirvana to comply with the guidelines but I can't think of one that would work- maybe a footnote? --Spasemunki (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks better.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 14:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nirvana - probably worthwhile looking at a good gloss for the nirvana article too... 20040302 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the OR tag
Chris Queen is at Harvard, teaching Buddhism and World Religions. How about we replace the current note "While some scholars suggest that Buddhism may have developed as a social reform to the Vedic religion, Gombrich argues that it is incorrect to regard the Buddha as a social reformer, because his concern was "to reform individuals, help them to leave society forever, not to reform the world... he never preached against social inequality".[352]", with "While some scholars suggest that Buddhism may have developed as a social reform to the Vedic religion, according to Christopher Queen - a scholar of Buddhism at the Harvard University, Gombrich states that it is incorrect to regard the Buddha as a social reformer, because his concern was "to reform individuals, help them to leave society forever, not to reform the world... he never preached against social inequality".[352]" We can additionally add a summary note about the same from Gombrich's book on Theravada Buddhism, then remove the OR tag. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Queen's introduction describes several sources that disagree with the 'reformer' idea- it would really reflect the source better to change it to 'other scholars' rather than single out Gombrich, and then either remove the quote or attribute it directly to him as an exemplar (there's a reference to the original source of the quote in Queen's article). In terms of addressing OR or citation issues in that note, the most pressing thing to me seems to be to provide a citation that says who claims that the Buddha was a Vedic social reformer- maybe that is in Queen's article, too, but I can't see the whole thing on Google. Outside of that I don't see a major OR problem in the early history section- can expand on what the issue with the section was since she added the OR tag? --Spasemunki (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * tehere you are :) I'll have to look at the details; welcome back. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a look. Spasemunki's suggestion is a good idea, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * JJ: I too like Spasemunki's comments and the generic "other scholars" suggestion. The article will be clearer and better with a specific example of professor Gombrich as an exemplar, in a form Spasemunki suggests. We can quote exact from Gombrich's book, as well as include a short review summary from the Chris Queen source. The "Buddha was a Vedic social reformer" is indeed something we need to look into, cite or clean out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There's another interesting piece of info: according to Bronkhorst, Greater Gandhara, the regio were the Buddha was active was settled by Aryans, but was not Vedic. Kshatriyas were the hihgest varnas, and the Buddha opposed the influence of Vedic Aryans. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * JJ: Bronkhorst has written some interesting papers in recent years from Lausanne, which he acknowledges are novel to mainstream scholarship and has some issues. He is a respected scholar, WP:RS therefore. If we decide to include his thoughts, we need to be careful in properly attributing his ideas to him, unless we can show that 2017 and 2018 mainstream Buddhism and Indology publications have accepted these interesting proposals from Bronkhorst. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed revision
Historically, the roots of Buddhism lie in the religious thought of Iron Age India around the middle of the first millennium BCE. That was a period, states Abraham Eraly, of great intellectual ferment, when the Upanishads were composed marking a change in the historical Vedic religion, as well as the emergence of great Sramanic traditions. This was not only a period of intellectual ferment but also socio-cultural change quite distinct from the early Vedic period. Archaeological and textual evidence suggest that urbanization, political unification, relative economic prosperity and socio-economic consolidation had already occurred in the Ganges river basin before the birth of the Buddha. According to Christopher Queen – a scholar of Buddhism, various scholars consider early Buddhism neither as a movement for stable order nor as a reform for a just society, but a methodology for individual's awakening and personal transformation particularly by mendicant monks. Richard Gombrich – an Indologist and Buddhist Studies scholar, states that while some Buddhists and modern interpreters have portrayed the early Buddhism as a social reform, this interpretation is incorrect and a serious anachronism. Buddha's concern, states Gombrich, was "to reform individuals, help them to leave society forever, not to reform the world (...) he never preached against social inequality, only declared its irrelevance to salvation". Gombrich's position is shared by other scholars. They state that the philosophical roots of Buddhism, and related ideologies in ancient India such as Jainism, aimed at the spiritual salvation of man through different forms of renunciation and religious individualism.
 * Historical roots

Comments and suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and put a suggested version on the main page- I like keeping the 'social reformer' discussion in a footnote because I think the topic could easily overwhelm the historical narrative. Let me know what you think, or revert if you think it cuts too much. I think the Queen chapter is OK as a reference for the idea of some interpreters reading the Buddha as a social reformer, but it might be nice to have something more explicit to direct people to. It seems to me that there are two discussions mingled here- one is the historical relationship between Buddhism and Brahmanism, particularly re: caste & interactions between Vedic and possibly non-Vedic culture, and the other is the Engaged Buddhist reading of the historical Buddha & Sangha suggested by Rahula and Ambedkar. That view probably deserves a mention but I would think would mostly belong in the Engaged Buddhism or Dalit Buddhist movement articles. --Spasemunki (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Spasemunki: I like it. Indeed, "could easily overwhelm" was bothering me, given, and I have tried in the past to trim down and reduce the jargon from this article. I removed the tag and linked the Gombrich reference. JR/JJ/others: please review as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion about social reform is only relevant and due in a more specific context, for example, a paragraph about Buddhist modernism.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add the following to the section of See also.....

 * List of Buddhist universities and colleges
 * List of modern scholars in Buddhist studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Chinese Buddhism
 * Buddhism in Sri Lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Walser
Is Joseph Walser putting references in the page to "See Walser (2018)"? And if so, isn't this a violation of some original research provision or conflict of interest? Mark Froelich (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Joshua Jonathan, User talk:Joseph Walser, Talk:Śūnyatā, and Talk:Anatta. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of these provisions and have since removed all references to my work on all of these pages.--Joseph Walser 10:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

Is it possible to make links to the following articles....

 * Karma in Buddhism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jewish Buddhist
 * Buddhism and Hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "make links"?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please link the following article to this topic.....

 * Criticism of Buddhism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.16.249 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
Buddhism is not an indian religion. 2606:6000:6660:B800:8974:7BF3:2F66:838B (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019
Original Text: a town in the plains region of the modern Nepal-India border, and that he spent his life in what is now modern Bihar[note 3] and Uttar Pradesh.[25][17] Suggested Text: a town in the plains region of the modern Nepal, and that he spent his life in what is now modern Bihar[note 3] and Uttar Pradesh.[25][17] of modern India.

I suggest that Lumbini and Kapilbastu to be written as located in Nepal. The text says located in border of Nepal-India, which is very confusing. Mrcouthy (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , see Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This appears to be extensively debated/researched, based on the page linked by User:Farang Rak Tham, and is not an uncontroversial change. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 03:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dukkha
regarding this edit, edit-summary Fixed grammar, which changed

into

and this edit, edit-summary PLEASE DO NOT REVERT MINDLESSLY. This is to correct grammar only. The sentences made no sense., which changed the dirst sentence again, now to


 * the sources do not call 'crav[ing] and cling[ing] to impermanent states and things' a "state"; that would be dukkhata (Nyanatiloka 1980);
 * 'crav[ing] and cling[ing] to impermanent states and things' is not a "concept," even lest a concept called dukkha; this clinging and craving to impermanent states and things is dukkha, "incapable of satisfying" and painful.

"Dukkha" is a notoriously difficult "concept" to translate; "pain" or "suffering" is too literal. "Unworthy," "unwise," are other terms which come to mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, I do not question your credentials for interpreting complexity in the sources. I would simply like English grammar to take precedence over such complexity. Without rummaging through the guidelines, I believe that Wikipedia policy will back me up here. In the offending phrase the problem is as follows. A relative pronoun must refer to a noun or noun-phrase, but it is not clear to what exactly "which" refers. Is it "basic orientation", "impermanent states and things", what? The phrase goes on to define "dukkha" as "'incapable of satisfying', and painful". This just adds to the confusion, since these are not nouns but adjectival phrases, and indeed one is active and other passive. It is like saying that a tree is "incapable of growing, and pleasurable". Does that make any sense to you? This is what readers will see. Presumably you will respond to the effect that, yes, all this shows how difficult it is to translate "dukkha", and indeed you have even denied that "dukkha" is a "concept". But no: "dukkha" is certainly a concept, which is just another word for "idea". And it is surely not the role of Wikipedia to reinvent English grammar in deference to abstruse ideas. It is the role of Wikipedia to explain these ideas, or concepts, clearly. I have no more time to spend on this but I hope you will take into account the points raised. Rollo (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019
Buddhism is NOT a religion nor a belief, it is a practice. 2601:405:C100:7CD0:7950:C750:D639:AFCB (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We just reflect how reliable sources describe it. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism in India, and its history
There is a requested move here, for which everyone's input is needed. Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
X: BCE to Y: BC(Before Christ, < year 0 )

As the official calendar in use by the whole world is the ROMAN calendar. [and AD = Anno Domini > year 0] Nelujohn (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Buddhists ain't Christians. If we are to take the birthday of a lord as starting-point in this article, it should be the Buddha's birthday. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Structure of "Path to liberation" section is in need of a serious restructuring
There is a note in this section which says the structure has been agreed upon by consensus. But if this is the case, that was a problematic agreement, because this section is kind of a mess at the moment and does not give the best overview of the variety of Buddhist paths among the different forms of Buddhism. I'm working on a restructure of this and I think it would look better to split this section into two, "Paths to Liberation" will have information on the overall structures of the path in Early buddhist texts, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Then another section tentatively called "Common elements of Buddhist paths" should contain sub-sections like "Sila", "Samadhi" and so on (including a new sub-section on Mindfulness). That way we lay out the basic overviews of the paths in the first section and then discuss the man elements found in those paths in the second one. Anyone have any thoughts ( Joshua Jonathan, Farang Rak Tham , JimRenge)? I'd like some input because I am working on this now and I do want to go ahead and make this change when I am done. Javierfv1212 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020
Original buddhism come from Hinduism as family of gautam buddhi was from hindu family only. Techbaba (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is plainly false. Hinduism is a religious synthesis that arose during the Medieval eras. It doesn't make sense to say that the Buddha was a Hindu. The Buddha would never have even heard of such an appellation. Not only that, but the Sakyas are depicted in the early texts as not supporting brahmins, so they were most likely not even followers of the brahmanical religion. Javierfv1212 21:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a relevant discussion, in this regard.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 14:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism
Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism stands in sharp contrast to Vedic Hinduism.But Abhidharma elaboration of self echos the Vedic mahavakyas, especially “Prajnanam Brahma” of “Aitareyo upanishad” from Rig Veda. Would suggest reframing of caption than deletion.M K Mani muttappillil (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion
The term religion lacks definitional agreement.It is a spectrum with an almighty punishing god at one end and it’s absence at the other.Miracles myths and rituals are cultural additions over time In Theravada Buddhism Buddha is an arhant,an enlightened human being,not a god.Vaipulya sutras are later additions.but added a social orientation to it by the terms Maha Karuna and Maha Prajna.At least it is more a philosophy.True the Myanmar events have tarnished it’s image Was Marxism also a ,religion ? M K Mani muttappillil (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the article isn't the place to argue the merits of meeting the definition. Most (if not nearly all) reliable third-party sources describe it as such, which is why the article does. - Aoidh (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See the previous threads on this topic... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tantric Theravada?
Your input is needed here in this discussion. Thanks. For important updates in Wiki articles on Buddhism, save this page on your watchlist.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo in caption for 'Śīla – Buddhist ethics' section image
The caption reads 'Buddhist monks collect alsm in Si Phan Don, Laos. Giving is a key virtue in Buddhism.' In that text, alsm should be alms. I lack permissions to edit this and don't know if this is how to bring attention to it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.220.213 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks JimRenge (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020
Under "Vegetarianism and Animal Ethics", in the forth paragraph, the sentence "In the East Asian Buddhism, most monastics are espected to be vegetarian, and the practice is seen as very virtuous and it is taken up by some devout laypersons." exists - however it is clear that "espected" is meant to be "expected", this is likely just a typo or a misspelling. Chalk (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject
I have made a proposal for a WikiProject called "WikiProject Mysticism" at WikiProject Council. I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in this proposal? Vorbee (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thantric bhuddha statue from kerala,india
add this to vajrayana thumb|Thantric Buddha statue called pathikkalappan from Meloor,[[Koyilandy,Kozhikode ]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.240.203 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021
I would like to change the number of followers to the current statics by WRO ( World regilious organit Doctor John Doctorrine in socioclogy (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)zion)
 * Please provide the exact edit you'd like to make, as well as the source. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In the history of buddhism,it is stated " the arrival of Communist repression to Tibet (1966–1980) " which should read (1966-present). The Chineese government is STILL repressing Buddhism in Tibet as well as basic human rights.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021
Change:

Buddhism is an Indian religion

To:

An Indian religion, Buddhism UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This does not seem to be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No it isn't an improvement and it's grammatically awkward. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021
Budha was born in Nepal so it was formed in Nepal and should be known as a Nepalese religion 204.11.188.30 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also review Wikipedia's policy on original research. Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Large amounts of misinformation
Zen is not a Mahayana school. There is so much wrong with this article it's not even worth addressing here, especially considering wikipedia is based more on politics than it is on facts, so it won't matter what I say and there won't be any honest, open, discussion from he opposing party about what I say here. Even saying Zen is not Mahayana will get ignored and justified to be an "incorrect view". It's what you get when you let scholars and (wiki-)politicians become an authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.193.183 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In all respect, categorically, Zen is widely considered by academics to be a form of Mahayana. It is admittedly (in my opinion) quite different in some ways from many other sects considered as apart of the Mahayana tradition, but even then, it's a pretty well established as being a decedent of the tradition.  - Euphoria 42  (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Buddhism is not a religion
Modern scholars say that Buddhism is a science of mind training, not a religion. There is no worship of a deity. Buddha Shakyamuni was an example of what is possible for all to accomplish. His teachings are instructions to follow in order to achieve enlightenment. There are so many different teachings because there are many different types of individuals of different capacities for understanding. There should be 6 billion different religions (7.8 billion as of May 2018). See Dalai Lama "Art of Happiness" and http://meridian-trust.org/video/the-four-noble-truths-1-of-2/ Hpfeil (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Buddhism is definitely a religion; and Buddha-worship was there right from the start, maybe even while he was alive. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Buddha did not believe in gods and certainly isn't considered a god by adherents to this philosophy. Whether it is a religion or philosophy is still hotly contested by scholars so calling it a religion in the very first line of this article demonstrates ignorance of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.208.109 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Very difficult choice indeed-Buddhists with good understanding of it’s philosophy will not accept its a religion.But national and social reality is different.M K Mani muttappillil (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Faith in and worship of Buddha's and Bodhisattvas; what else but religion? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article Faith in Buddhism contains sources about the role of faith and other religious components of Buddhism.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether Buddhism is a religion or not depends on how one defines religion. I suggest the person who typed that Buddhism is not a religion reads about the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, the former denying the existence of deities, the latter accepting spiritual realities. Vorbee (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * According to me and other Asians, Buddhism is not a religion but wisdom and philosophy, Buddhism only teaches "truth" and is towards humanity and reality, it is atheistic and criticizes superstition. However, Westerners and radical materialists have a different view of Buddhism, it doesn't matter, Buddhism itself respects freedom and human rights. But whether it's religion or not is not a problem at Wikipedia, it's just superfluous, after all, Buddhism also teaches us how to be self-reliant as well as calm down and let go of delusion for liberation, the only problem is the way of looking at each person's point of view and in Asia or Europe only, Buddhism is complex but surprisingly simple :) We just need to live well in this life, which includes giving up this pointless debate on Wikipedia :) 14.248.102.77 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Buddhism encompasses a wide range of sects and practices, some of which are religious and some of which are philosophical. As a Buddhist myself, I am also agnostic, along with a large portion of my temple. I think the lead should be changed to "Buddhism is an Indian religion or philosophical tradition based on a series of original teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha." PtolemyXV


 * Don’t want to get dragged into a debate, but much of Mahayana Buddhism at least involves the view of the omniscience of the Buddha and the worship of Bodhisattvas and Devas. If that’s not a religion, I don’t know what is.KashKarti (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We are talking about Buddhism in general, not just Mahayana or any school, instead of arguing, it is best to write both (philosophy and religion) as the current version. Mhmedian (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Chart
Should we have a chart similar to the Taoism and Confusionism pages giving the name of Buddhism in different languages? Doremon764 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably not - those charts have been removed from Taoism and Confucianism. PtolemyXV (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nguyen.nikki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JustinV1024.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022
- ! Division ! Eightfold factor !Sanskrit, Pali ! Description Kaniskam (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022
Gautama Buddha at his last sermon said that, no one can challenge the authority of the Vedas, and Buddhism is no different religion, it is a sect of Sanatan Dharma Kaniskam (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022
Worldview --> The Three Jewels --> Sangha --> 6th paragraph --> the last instance of the word bothisattva is missing the "v"

"In Theravada, the future Buddha is called Metteyya (Maitreya) and he is revered as a bodhisatta currently working for future Buddhahood." LaaxPedia (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing this out. The required changes have been made. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a similar typo in an image caption, that is also fixed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk  •  contribs)  12:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022
Buddhism is a Nepali religion. Princika gurung (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 05:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is Peter Harvey?
I assume people in the west familiar with Buddhism know who he is, but his name just appears with no context, no mention of qualifications, and no link to his article. The phrase "according to Harvey", or "according to Peter Harvey" shows up numerous times in the article. This leads me to think all of these references were added by a single contributor, and I'm wondering if his influence is really that big in Buddhism. Nerfer (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * His article is Peter Harvey (academic) and the book that's being cited in this article is An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices published by Cambridge University Press. That said I agree that the article doesn't appear to link to his article at any point, and does a poor (nonexistent) job of explaining who this person actually is. He is mentioned in the article a lot, perhaps disproportionately so. - Aoidh (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above sentiment. An earlier editor used Harvey as a "one true source" for many depictions of Buddhism and Buddhist history which, unfortunately (but unsurprisingly), are not always accurate. Harvey is invested in (and certainly used to lead a meditation group that was derived from) a Theravada/Pali centred approach to Buddhism.  This is not wrong in itself, but I believe it tends to cast a bias when attempting to depict or describe  traditions and systems outside of one's own expertise.  (20040302 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC))

Influence of Buddhism on other religions?
The strong influence(s) that Buddhism has had on Christian worship (cf. Cenobitic monasticism -> Therapeutae ref. 3 (Kleinhempel); Three hares; Barlaam and Josaphat, etc ) as well as the influence it has had on other (more local) religions is definitely downplayed. Is it something that this article would want to avoid? (20040302 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC))


 * I think it's a hopeless topic; way too broad. No doubt Buddhism has influenced a lot of religions - which is equivalent to saying that Asian religions developed in mutual interaction, and also influenced western religions. "Strong influence" is a strong assertion; that alone yet would take a long discussion. So, yes, personally I'd avoid it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: commas
Under “Life of the Buddha” section: the sentence “He famously sat in meditation under a Ficus religiosa tree now called the Bodhi Tree in the town of Bodh Gaya and attained "Awakening" (Bodhi)” could use 2 commas. So it would become “He famously sat in meditation under a Ficus religiosa tree, now called the Bodhi Tree, in the town of Bodh Gaya and attained "Awakening" (Bodhi)” Paste555 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done this but used emdashes rather than commas. That's seems natural to me to mark that interjected clause, but I'll change to commas if other want. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate
There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Not an Indian religion.
I find it strange that Buddhism is actually considered an Indian religion here on Wikipedia. First of all, Buddhism originated in ancient India yes, however did the founders of Buddhism consider where they lived “India” and were they part of Indian (which people consider Hindu, no?) civilisation back then? If that’s the case, then why is it an Indian religion? Also, wasn’t Buddhism founded first in the northeastern part of India? Which if I remember correctly certainly wasn’t part of the Indian civilisation at first. Can anyone elaborate? Hayashihouyi (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's a whole article about this very question ->Indian religions. It's going to be a steep hill to climb to change the consensus on this, but if you have any citations, that would be a good place to start. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It originated from India, and the founder of the religion/philosophy was Indian/Nepalese, so it should be called an Indian religion. ZetaFive (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It really isn’t a “steep hill” as you call it, POV? It’s more dharmic than Indian. As in originating in ancient India rather than being Indian. Apple dictionary definition of Buddhism: “A widespread Asian religion or philosophy founded by siddartha Gautama in NE India in the 5th century BC”. You seem to have missed some fundamental teachings, or maybe you are purposefully omitting these teachings, from Buddhism. Wherever Buddhism is going and wherever it gets picked up, it becomes of that place. Which is it? Hayashihouyi (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but it is going to be hard to change the consensus. wikipedia reflects a rather oriental consensus about the nature of Dharma. Thr fact is, although Buddhism was born in India, that is not its defining characteristic. Just as we call christianity "abrahamic" instead of "israeli", it would be far more appropriate to call Hinduism and Buddhism Dharmic religions 68.225.238.172 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This message was written by me I wasn't logged in Josepherino (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Buddhism wasn't developed in India but in Nepal at Kapilvastu ,Lumbini by Siddhartha Gautam known by the world as Light of Asia Gautam Buddha
We know that the founder of Buddhism is lord Gautam buddha. how can you say it is developed in India. lord buddha was born in Nepal. If you Want to know more use this link https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/silk-road-themes/world-heritage-sites/lumbini-birthplace-lord-buddha#:~:text=The%20Lord%20Buddha%20was%20born,Emperor%20Asoka%20in%20249%20BC. AnukaranGaire (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The religion was developed in India, though, historically. Gautama was born in modern day Nepal, but at that time, there were no borders and it was considered India. ZetaFive (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Anatman
you added diff the following text to the lead:

Yet, the original sentence, from Anattā, says:

You changed the subject from "Buddhist texts" to "Buddhist teachings," and "not self" to "non-self"; that's something different. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I see, maybe my English skills are too less for these precise wording edits. I changed "not self" to "non-self" for consistency within article. In regards of "texts" vs "teachings", I thought the teachings are based on the texts? At least I would understand it that way: a religious text = a teaching of that particular religion. But I will accept your advanced English and Wikipedia skills :), sorry for the caused troubles.BaiulyQz (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)