Talk:Buddhism in the Philippines

Untitled
Thanks for this information. Can you tell me what your sources are for your historical information about Buddhism in the Philippines?

Dukkha and Bodhi are Indian words.
The words Bodhi and dukkha are only Indian words and it does not mean that it is belonging to the Buddhist religion.

Srivijaya
Please note that SriVijaya was a Sumatra kingdom of today's Indonesia, not Malaysia.141.213.240.242 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold
Be bold, edit! and improve the articles as you see fit. --Noypi380 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stats
Both this page and the Religion in the Philippines page claim that 3% of the population is Buddhist, but the CIA world factbook lists a total of 1.8% of the population as being 'Other'- meaning that at most 1.8% would be Buddhist. Are there updated demographics available for religious affiliation in the Philippines? Here's the CIA WF link:

Asking People
A lots of people in the Philippines didn't know that the first foreign religion came in the island before Islamization and Spanish Colonization,Which is Hinduism and Buddhism alots of Pali-Sanskrit words are changed into Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.215.12 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The ridiculous saying of the people

 * TAKE NOTE: I AM NOT INSULTING ISLAM BUT THIS IS A FACT**When you asked what is Buddhism in the Philippines some will say its,"Islam".A lots of people didn't know whats Buddhism,Buddhism starts in India in 520 BC and Islam starts in Saudi Arabia in 622 CE
 * I agree. I'm pretty sure that Buddhism and Islam are two very different religions. WadeSimMiser (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Vajrayana not Theravada
Srivijaya is the center of Vajrayana Buddhism in Southeast Asia, not Theravada Buddhism. Perhaps the esoteric practices and teachings of Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism has an easy appeal to the masses who were brought up to respect the powers of nature spirits, witchcraft and sorcery.

See Wikipedia's own entry on Srivijaya.Ushiwaka (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tondo and some Lost Chinese Empire
There are references to Chinese having established some sort of empire in the Philippines. There is no historical proof within SE Asia to confirm this. Tondo for example comes from the Malay-Tagalog word Tundun. This can be seen in the Laguna copper plates from 900 AD. It became Tondo not because it was the capital of a Song emperor but because of the mispronounciation of Spaniards in the same way that Maynilad became Manila and Tagalog was once Tagalo. In addition, in Spanish, most words end in a vowel sound so it was natural for them to drop consonent sounds. Furthermore, if there had been some lost Chinese empire, why did no other SE Asian country write about it? Why didn't the Spanish write about it? The Spanish did note that they saw a few Chinese in what is now Ilocos and they did see a few Japanese in Manila. Most Chinese words entered Tagalog and Philippine languages after the Spanish imported Chinese to act as merchants and these merchants later married native Filipinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good information on Pampanga
Really interesting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Laguna Copperplate Section
I have grave concerns about the 'Laguna Copperplate' section. First of all, there aren't sources cited for the translation, and more critically for the conclusion drawn. Judging by the material that is presented there, the case that these regions had 'converted' is very thin- it seems to be based on the fact that a couple of words with a Buddhist association (Vesak, Swasti) are in the plate. Vesak is a month on the old Indian solar-lunar calendar- it's name precedes the prominence of the Buddhist holiday, as far as I know. Likewise, swasti is a term that is common to India generally, and could just as easily be from a Hindu source. There's no reference there, and it seems like someone's personal interpretation of what are some very thin facts. If there's no additional sourcing, I think the section should be removed. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

San Nicolas Biscuits.
Remove this article "San Nicolas Biscuits have it's roots on Buddhism" it is not relevant, biscuits have more of it's origin in Europe = Spain, the article must state the true history of the Buddhist religion in the Philippines, religious articles like this must have reliable citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update this article.
Updating this article will be good for it will reflect the current religious affiliations of the Filipino people.--121.54.68.114 (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research and essay-like tags
I added the tags to the article. This article has had a lot of content added to it recently - thank you! However, this content has not generally been backed up by reliable third-party sources, which violates Wikipedia's principle of verifiability. See Verifiability for more details. Also, the order has become a little strange - the very start of the article should give a broad summary of the subject, but instead it launches into details straight away. It's not immediately obvious what this sentence has to do with Buddhism in the Philippines: '"Hauntingly serene" describes the mien of a kinnari that stands for a half-human and half-bird creature.' See Layout and Lead section for more info here. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Colonial Period
I changed "statue" back to "statues" because there were two giant statues of Buddha that were destroyed at Bamiyan. They were also not primarily destroyed by mortar. Please see the Wikipedia article "Bamiyan Buddhas". You should also consider deleting this reference entirely, since it relates to modern Afghanistan, not to the pre-colonial period of your topic (which is fascinating, by the way). SeoMac (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Inline citations
I've added a few inline tags to the first two paragraphs of the "Pre-Colonial History" section, indicating how the article needs to be cited. This isn't intended as anything bad, it is just that there needs to be a lot better citing of sources to fulfil Verification. Feel free to take some of the tags down on the less controversial sentences if you don't want them there. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rajah-states
What is meant exactly by the phrase "Rajah-states"? It comes up in the "Pre-Colonial History" section a lot. Maybe this means Thalassocracy, or maybe it refers specifically to kingdoms, sultanates, or rajahnates mentioned in History of the Philippines? Clarity would be good here, I think. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Colonial History length
Hi there, I noticed that the "pre-colonial period" section of this article has become very long. Maybe we could consider making a new article for it? How about Buddhism in the Philippines (pre-colonial period)? Please suggest any other names if you think they are better. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 13:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Dharma Wheel
One of the recent edits introduced this reference - "The Dharma Wheel, 1:1, 1998 Philippines Centennial Issue". I haven't been able to find any mention of The Dharma Wheel journal through Google. Does anyone know where I might find a copy? — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 03:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic influences
I have tagged the whole of this section for original research. The reference that questions the relationship between the languages in the Philippines and Buddhism does not appear to be a reliable source. Here is the quote about the author from the article: "The author was born in the Philippines. With her husband, she runs Time N Treasure, which sells Indian handicraft and other items at The Fort". This is pretty far from being a scholarly source. I think the claim that the words come from India is uncontroversial enough, but there is no source that suggests that they are from Buddhism. If anyone can find a source, then we can keep the section, but otherwise I intend to remove it.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Heiwa Kannon.JPG