Talk:Buddhist philosophy/Archive 1

Merger
I oppose merging this article into Buddhist Religious Philosophy. There are many people including myself who try to adhere to Buddhist ideals and principles without being religious about it in any way. The two articles cover distinct areas of knowledge. The merge notice should be removed. Hu 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if Buddhist philosophy had strong religious association (for instance, if the philosophy were organised around questions seeking to justify faith and doctrine) it would still be legitimate in being kept separate from Buddhist religious philosophy or Buddhism in general ... there don't seem to be any proposals to rename the Christian philosophy page. A further argument is that Buddhist philosophy, in general, doesn't tend to be oriented toward the same things that scripture/doctrine based inquiries are oriented. There are many streams of inquiry in Buddhist philosophy that have nothing to do with attempts to confirm or refute doctrine or proposed religious entities. Buddhist philosophy tends to be more method than subject matter. (Leo T) 66.91.249.23 05:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because the new section is created in Buddhism article. Philosophy subsection in Buddhism has direct link to this article. Vapour

New Proposal-Renaming the title to Buddhism and Philosophy
The title is confusing. Metaphysics, Epistemology and Phenomenology are concept developed and belong to (Western) philosophy. Buddhism's idea should be explained in its own term probably by expanding the article about dependent origination. This article is essentially an comparative study and the title of the article should reflect on it, IMO. Vapour

I vote NO. The curent title is just fine. Making it Buddhism and philosophy implies something seperate, different from philosophy, which is incorrect to say. Buddhism is based on philosophy. Monkey Brain 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote, YES. So when will it move? Monkey Brain(untalk) 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems we should then introduce some changes into the article to reflect the new title, shouldn't we?--Klimov 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops right, lol my bad for not realizing the obvious. Monkey Brain(untalk) 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote YES. It seems to me highly controversial to consider the Buddhadharma being based on philosophy. Please see Buddhism#Intellectualism_and_Buddhist_worldview. --Klimov 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We could e.g. keep Buddhist philosophy as a redirect to Buddhism and Philosophy.--Klimov 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote a hard NO, ever since its inception Buddhism has been involved in philosophical debate and argumentation. The Indian tradition of Dharmakirti and Dignaga were definitely doing serious philosophy, albeit through a Buddhist lens. This is like saying that Christian scholasticism and Islamic philosophy is not philosophy because the people doing it were religious! Buddhism is a religion, but Buddhists did practice philosophy such as logic (nyaya) and epistemology (pramana). I would refer to the work of those such as Mark Siderits and Jay Garfield on this. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu)

Sprotect time?
Second revert on the same funny stuff in 2 days. Sprotect?--Klimov 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not agree to "Merger"
i am not to agree with 'Merger' title written here, as it states :"There are many people including myself who try to adhere to Buddhist ideals and principles without being religious about it in any way". Actually, there is a need for him to understand something: Buddhism is special. All of the Buddhist around the world wouldn't ignore this fact: Buddhism is 'the way of life', neither religion nor philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.190.124.133 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahman
"The Yogacara school, somewhat later, would later elevate the mind to act as a substitute for brahman, much as the pudgala replaces the ātman." Can someone explain this? I think this is an oversimplification which results in not being true. Mitsube (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This article contradicts this. This was a misconception of early scholarship. The whole section is confused. Mitsube (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other debates in metaphysics and phenomenology include the issue of the pudgala, or 'person', which was postulated by the Pudgalavada school as that which transmigrates and which carries the burden of karma from one life to another. Other schools made unsurprising objection to this. There were further sub-debates regarding whether the pudgala was real or illusory or something in between."

This uncited sentence seems completely misleading and in fact false. No scholar would say that Yogachara is a monistic philosophy and this whole section is thus tainted. All schools have a fundamental level of mind which carries karma, how is the "pudgala" specifically controversial? Only if it were self-existent would there be controversy. Mitsube (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Organisation and name
Why is this article organised into sections such as Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc - which are branches of Western philosophy? Shouldn't the sections be based on the key Buddhist concepts such as Anatta, Pratitya Samutpada, etc?


 * There is nothing wrong with using English words to describe Buddhist ideas. Mitsube (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be "Buddhism and philosophy".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at some academic texts you will find the phrase "Buddhist philosophy" quite often. Mitsube (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical context section
This quotation from Randall is too long to constitute fair use, and in any case long quotations do not constitute an encyclopedic style. It should be paraphrased. Also note that the style guidelines for quotations recommend avoiding wikilinks within quotations (i.e., the text should appear exactly as it does in the source). Where hypertextual elucidation of terms is desireable, paraphrase of the source material, integrating it into the article's own voice, is probably also merited. I'll see what I can do after digesting the content for a while, but someone more familiar with the philosophical discourse (Mitsube?) could probably do a better job than me. Thanks! /Ninly (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points. Mitsube (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, nice work! /Ninly (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Later developments"
According to the article, "The main Buddhist philosophical schools are the Abhidharma schools, particularly Theravada and Sarvastivada (the latter includes the Madhyamika, Yogacara, Huayan, and Tiantai schools)."

Period.

Seriously, that half-sentence is all the article has to say about the various Mahayana schools which, if this were a scholarly publication, might be expected to take up (say) half the content.

Why is this? Has someone been reverting Mahayana material, or has no one ever edited here who was interested in those forms of Buddhism? --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not very well-organized. There is a great deal of Mahayana material before the "later developments" section, though there could be more in this article. Mitsube (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also absurd to describe the Mahayana schools as being included in Sarvastivada. 131.111.164.219 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Phylosophy or religion
Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place for fringe theories. There is not a reputable Buddhist scholar on earth who believes that Buddhism was originally a monotheistic religion. Just because a particular section notes a disagreement about a matter, that is not an open invitation to list the views of anyone and everyone about the subject in question. Policy clearly states that the views of people who have no recognized authority about the subject in question should not be represented in the article.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have skimmed through the fringe theory article but I doubt my edit falls within that category. Would you be please kind enough to direct me to the section why exactly my edit should be removed, before I revert? Views do not solely have to be from Buddhists. They could be from non-Buddhists and indeed the author is highly recognized, though obviously not by the Buddhists. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is an article about Buddhist Philosophy - not about what other religions think about Buddhism. Jikaku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Exactly. Views have to be from experts or authorities on the subject under discussion. Mirza Tahir Ahmad is not qualified at all as an expert in Buddhist philosophy, and there are no experts who share his views. That is the very definition of a fringe theory.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jikaku, The article's heading is Buddhist philosophy, but the subheading is not - it is 'Philosophy or Religion'. Secondly the arguments presented is not directly what other religions think about Buddhism, but rather what is Buddhism (from buddhist writings). The only difference is that he is not Buddhist.
 * Sylvain1972, Ahmad is not specifically an expert on buddhism, but rather several faiths. Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the content being discussed here pertains more to the classification of Buddhism as a religion (in terms of comparative religion). It does not properly belong to this article's discussion of Buddhist philosophy (a category of philosophy developed by Buddhist thinkers over several centuries).
 * As such, this content would be more pertinent to the article on Buddhism itself. However, I think you're going to have a lot of trouble (for the same arguments given above) gaining consensus to add it. If you'd like to pursue it anyway, you'll need significant corroboration from other reliable sources showing that Mirza Tahir Ahmad's views on the classfication and origins of Buddhism are relevant. / ninly ( talk ) 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right Ninly, the whole section should go. I'm deleting it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In what article should that section be put then, including my edit? Buddhism? Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since your edit was primarily about the opinions of a single Islamic author/thinker/religious figure? regarding the teachings of a different religion, I would think your edit would likely be most appropriate on an article page about *him*. Jikaku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Though he is not a contemporary Buddhist, he does believe in Buddha. Maybe a section could be created Other views on Buddhist Philosophy? Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * His views are not appropriate for inclusion in any article about Buddhism, because he has no credentials on the subject, as explained repeatedly. Jikaku is right - put it in the article about him, because that is the only place it belongs. You are just wasting our time with this, and we have better things do do. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the wording correct?
Instead of "(...) and whose animal sacrifices increasingly distasteful and irrelevant", shouldn't it be "(...) and whose animal sacrifices increasingly they found distasteful and irrelevant"? It feels like there's a missing verb in the original sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.135.202 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Joking; or Insanity
It would take me MONTHS to make this article actually empirically correct and faithful to the Buddhist teaching...

I am losing hope in Wikipedia...

Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, the heresy of NIHILISM is outright denied by Gotama (ucchedavada)... Liberal-Western idiocy has ruined everything... Buddhism is APOPHATIC methodologically, people, this is obvious... Buddhism does not teach we are soul-bereft ape-slime... Sip your Starbucks delicacy and lazily call yourself "Buddhist", "post-modern" Westerner -- your pathetic tragedy is greater because unseen...

All these articles are trash, honestly. I give up. I do not have YEARS to labor, forgive me... The massive stupidity here is THAT BAD... Goodnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with Western liberal postmodernist people? ATMAN is not DENIED in atheist materialist nihilism of profane vulgarity -- but the soul is cleansed of any association with the Cartesian ego, all its modes and components of phenomenal superficiality, in order to apophatically AFFIRM the SOUL'S NOBILITY. Argh!

http://jmerritt.net/documents/Philosophy/History/Ancient/Socrates.htm

"Socrates believed the true self is not the body, but the soul (or psyche)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Buddhist philosophy. 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://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/philosophical_schools.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddhist philosophy. 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/20110723211924/http://www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis_index.html to http://www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis_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) 05:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Secular Buddhism not presented with Neutral Point-of-view

 * The sentence about "secularization of Buddhism" seems pejorative, inconsistent with the Secular Buddhism wikipedia article and does not provide a neutral point-of-view.
 * This sentence is also inconsistent with the content of the Stephen Batchelor article that it hyperlinks.
 * Some of the philosophers who write/speak about secular buddhism characterize their work as Buddhist Reformation or recovery of original meanings or alternatively, as evolution of Buddhism to apply to a scientific/rationalist/empiric perspective.

These flaws in this article seriously detract from the article, which in many other respects is well done.Sbelknap (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you quote the sentence? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The characterization as "Western" seems inaccurate; consider, e.g., Jodo shinshu
 * The characterization of Batchelor's work as a secularization of Buddhism is incomplete and misleading, as Batchelor also champions a return to early Buddhist texts, particularly the Pali canon; Batchelor has characterized his work as a Buddhist Protestant Reformation as well as a secularization of Buddhism.
 * Although not explicit in this sentence, some might dismiss Batchelor's scholarship because he lacks academic credentials; perhaps it would be better to simply read what Batchelor writes and listen to what he says rather than focus on "credentials." It seems to me that Batchelor's careful parsing of the First Discourse and his take on the Four Noble Truths has much to offer all Buddhists, even traditionalists.
 * Although not explicit in this sentence, some might dismiss Batchelor's scholarship because he lacks academic credentials; perhaps it would be better to simply read what Batchelor writes and listen to what he says rather than focus on "credentials." It seems to me that Batchelor's careful parsing of the First Discourse and his take on the Four Noble Truths has much to offer all Buddhists, even traditionalists.


 * Sbelknap (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess you've got a point; see Buddhadasa, and Pratītyasamutpāda. Though Sri Lankese Theravada Buddhism has also been influenced by western, c.q. Protestant thought. Regarding Batchelor and the four truths: I''m reading it now, following your comment; interesting. Batchelor writes:
 * The centrality of insight is a later development; see Bronkhorst (1993), The two traditions of meditation, among others. Not only that; also concentration-meditation may be a later influence from non-Buddhist traditions! See also Bronkhorst (1993), and the eight limb of the eightfold path: samadhi is not dhyana. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a rich scholarship on colonial influences on Buddhism, which (in my view) was largely responsible for the increased emphasis on naturalism in Buddhist practice. That is, naturalism was certainly an ancient thread in Buddhist philosophy but the *emphasis* on naturalism and empiricism was a response to colonialism and attempts to convert Asian people to Christianity. Also, there were Buddhists who studied in the West, and were influenced by their experience to find naturalistic and empiric threads in traditional Buddhism. This is evident in late 19th century Sri Lanka, Burma, and Japan. I note that nowhere in this wikipedia article is there discussion of these colonial and post-colonial influences on the course of development of Buddhist philosophy, though the bones of this concept are certainly present. See, for example, this source, which lists many other sources. Sbelknap (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the wikipedia article on Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. I was unfamiliar with his experience. Quite interesting! Sbelknap (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Islam was also an important influence on Buddhism. Certainly the slaughter of Buddhist monks, sacking of Buddhist monasteries, loss of ancient Buddhist texts, and conversion of Indian Buddhists to Islam had an "effect." Yet, this emphasis on extirpation of Buddhism by Islam is a gross over-simplification of how Islam influenced Buddhism. The Buddhist encounters with the Rashidun Caliphate and the later Umayyad expansion in Al Hind also caused Bikkhus to reconsider and emphasize those elements of Buddhism that stood in opposition to Islam (and other world views). This tended to de-emphasize the mystical and emphasize the rational aspects of Buddhist practice. Folk Buddhism was re-absorbed into Hinduism, most Indian Buddhist communities became Muslim, and rationalist elements of Buddhist practice that were formerly limited to the monastery became more prominent in the sangha of the Buddhist communities nearby that survived the Turks. The Muslim destruction of Buddhist culture in India is simply not the whole story. This experience with Muslim marauders had an influence on Buddhist philosophy on Buddhist practice in communities that survived in China, Tibet, and Indochina. Sbelknap (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Islam was also an important influence on Buddhism. Certainly the slaughter of Buddhist monks, sacking of Buddhist monasteries, loss of ancient Buddhist texts, and conversion of Indian Buddhists to Islam had an "effect." Yet, this emphasis on extirpation of Buddhism by Islam is a gross over-simplification of how Islam influenced Buddhism. The Buddhist encounters with the Rashidun Caliphate and the later Umayyad expansion in Al Hind also caused Bikkhus to reconsider and emphasize those elements of Buddhism that stood in opposition to Islam (and other world views). This tended to de-emphasize the mystical and emphasize the rational aspects of Buddhist practice. Folk Buddhism was re-absorbed into Hinduism, most Indian Buddhist communities became Muslim, and rationalist elements of Buddhist practice that were formerly limited to the monastery became more prominent in the sangha of the Buddhist communities nearby that survived the Turks. The Muslim destruction of Buddhist culture in India is simply not the whole story. This experience with Muslim marauders had an influence on Buddhist philosophy on Buddhist practice in communities that survived in China, Tibet, and Indochina. Sbelknap (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In CE1193, Bhaktiar Khilji led a Muslim army that sacked and set fire to the thousand-year old Mahayana Buddhist University at Nalanda. This Muslim army beheaded the monks; the original texts of the libraries at Nalanda were lost, although some texts were preserved in Tibetan or Chinese translation. This article is oddly ahistorical; it features a picture of the ruins of the University at Nalanda, but no mention is made of the destruction of Nalanda by Muslim invaders. There is a similar lack of historical context throughout this article. The article could be improved by including brief mention of the events that influenced the rise and fall of various schools of Buddhist thought, with appropriate links to other wikipedia articles. Sbelknap (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

info with citation added to the caption of the illustration of the ruins of Nalanda University. Sbelknap (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sbelknap edits
several of your edits to the lead seem problematic to me:

Direct knowledge and the Ariyapariyesana Sutta I 160-7, changed

into

while direct knowledge and philosophical inquiry, changed

into

edit summary:

We don't interpret primary sources; we present secondary and tertiary sources. The awakening-account of the Buddha from MN 26, and the relation between dhyana and insight ('direct knowledge') has been thoroughly analyzed by scholars like Bareau, Schmithausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst, Gombrich, Anderson and Wynne, and the scholarly agreement is that this 'direct knowledge' is a later addition, when insight gained a prominent place in Buddhist discourse. See Buddhist philosophy; see also Four Noble Truths for a detailed explanation; see note 21 for a list of sources. See also Robert M. Sharf (1995), Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience (pdf can be found on the web), for a lack of reliance on personal experience and 'direct knowledge' in the Buddhist traditions. Further, Sideris (2007, p.6) does not mention "direct knowledge"; he mentions "the combined practice of philosophical reasoning and meditation."

This edit changed

into

with the following edit-summary:

What Skirbekk & Gilje (p.25) write, is that "the new teaching aims at the individual's liberation or salvation. The Buddhs describes this goal as nirvana", freedom "from everything that binds them to this world, including philosophical and relgious doctrines." Follows a description of the four truths, apparently quoted from the sutras. The source actually does not support that the Wiki-text says; but it even less supports "freedom from craving for relief from dukkha", which is an awkward formulation: Buddhists try not to strive anymore for release from dukkha? The formulation is also not in accord with other sources; attaining the "deathless" (amata), ending rebirth, seeing nature, etc. The Wiki-article only says:

There's no source given for the description of the second truth; I trust it is Sideris (2007) p.21. The Wiki-article states that if you let go of craving and remove ignorance through knowledge, dukkha ceases; it does not speak about freedom from craving for relief from dukkha. But, you probably mant to write what you wrote in your edit-summary: the craving for relief from dukkha. But then, what's the difference with freedom from dukkha? As far as I can see, the Buddha was not concerned with the craving for relief, but with the means to attain relief. Compare the simile of the arrow: are you first going to find out who shot the arrow etc., or are you going to do something about the arrow?

I can recommend the list of literature given in note 21, mentioned above; Vetter (1988), Bronkhorst (1993), Gombrich (1997), Anderson (1999) and Wynne (2007) are excellent introductions. They can all be found on the internet. Print, and read with a pencil to scribble notes in the margins; it's not the lightest literature, but it's deeply rewarding. Amnd take your time; I've been reading and rereading those books for quite a couple of years now, and I', still learning. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This monolithic statement describing the results of one person's original research seems to have significantly informed this wikipedia article on Buddhist Philosophy. However, this statement (and the article itself) seems to be an idiosyncratic and obsolete reading of the current state of scholarship on early buddhist philosophy. We ought not base wikipedia edits on a wikipedia editor's original research. Please see WP:NOR. I certainly agree that we ought to only sparingly use primary sources (e.g., the Pali Canon text). There are many problems with this wikipedia article. It is far away from the scholarship now available. Lets take this one step at a time, and perhaps we can significantly improve this article. Sbelknap (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I take your comment "original research" as a WP:PERSONALATTACK. It's a refusal to answer the concerns raised above, and a gross refusal to take into account relevant scholarly literature, and the consensus regarding the interpretation of MN26 and related texts. Labeling my concerns regarding your WP:OR as original reaserch is certainly not helpfull. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see: WP:SYNTH. Some of the statements in the article do not appear to be directly linked to their supporting citations, but instead rely on analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of information from multiple sources. Such analysis, interpretation, and synthesis constitutes original research. Also, there is a large body of high-quality scholarship available that is not cited in this article. I expect that you would agree that this is a low-quality article that can be greatly improved. Perhaps progress could be made by focusing on the current text of the article.Sbelknap (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Nalanda
The Buddhist Philosophy article omits discussion of how interaction with other cultures affected the development of Buddhist Philosophy. Many of the articles about Buddhism omit or de-emphasize the importance of these cultural interactions. Looking through the history of the edits, there have been attempts to include the effect of Islam on Buddhism, but these are usually removed. It is also the case that many revisionist accounts of these interactions occur, such as this one: https://tricycle.org/magazine/monks-met-muslims/ Why do you think this is? Sbelknap (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an article about philosophy, not the history of Buddhist institutions like Nalanda and the muslim invasion of india. The description on the image was removed because it added nothing to the article regarding buddhist philosophy, so it is off topic. If you have some content regarding how buddhist philosophy reacted to islam and the invasions of India, then provide some content with proper sources. But as it stood, that sentence describing the image of Nalanda was off topic as it had nothing to do with buddhist philosophy.Javierfv1212 16:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Muslim conquest of Bengal by Bakhtiyar Khalji in the early 13th century eventually resulted in the near-eradication of Buddhism from India, which certainly had a profound effect on the course of Buddhist Philosophy. If the inclusion of a picture of the ruins of Nalanda is relevant to an article on Buddhist Philosophy, then certainly the cause of the destruction of Nalanda is relevant. If you thought the caption was too lurid, that seems like a reasonable point, but that was more due to the small space available. We could have a sentence or two with a more nuanced discussion in the main text, based on articles such as this one. Would you be open to a compromise that mentions in the picture caption the destruction by Bakhtiyar Khalji and the Turks but omits the more lurid details?Sbelknap (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It's not exactly about the lurid details, its that its historically inaccurate because the decline of Buddhism in India happened due to numerous factors, only one of which was the various invasions, but another factor was, for example, the influence of Brahmanism and the loss of support from Indian kings and the Brahamanization of Buddhists (see for example, Bronkhost "Buddhism in the shadow of Brahamanism"). If Muslim invasions were the only cause of the decline of Buddhism, it would not have also declined in South India, but it declined there also. So because of this, it is inaccurate to pin the blame on a single cause (as any good Buddhist would understand, since all things are dependently originated and depend on numerous factors!) Also the decline of Buddhism in India doesn't mean that Buddhist ideas disappeared, they continued in Tibet and in China, so Buddhist philosophy did not stop being done, it only stopped being done in India. For these reasons, it doesn't make sense to put such a simplistic sentence, which blames a single cause for a very complex event (decline of Buddhism in India) in an article about which the topic is only tangentially related. Such discussion should be left for other articles, such as Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent.Javierfv1212 16:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Javierfv1212, please consider to move or copy this discussion to talk:Buddhist philosophy. Other editors may be interested in this discussion. JimRenge (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I also wondered about this sentence about Nalanda, and I think that Javier is basically correct in his assessment: Buddhism declined in India due to multiple reasons, and Islam was not the first, or most outstanding, cause. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap, feel free to add neutral, reliably sourced content about Muslim invasions to Decline of Buddhism in India or Nalanda. This is not the appropriate article for this information. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This buddhist philosophy article is oddly ahistorical. The development of Buddhist philosophy was profoundly affected by engagement with Western and Islamic cultures. I provided a list of references, many of which extensively discuss the influence of cultural engagement with the West and with Islam on Buddhist philosophy. This article in wikipedia could be improved by including discussion of how interactions with external cultures influenced the development of Buddhist philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Identifying secondary and tertiary sources for Buddhist philosophy article
It would be useful to identify sources for future edits for this article. I've just added a statement with citation of article about the scope of Pratītyasamutpāda in early Buddhism. Sbelknap (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The author of this article, Eviatar Shulman, also wrote a book, which perhaps other editors would find interesting: Eviatar Shulman. "Polyvalent Philosophy and Soteriology in Early Buddhism." Philosophy East and West 67, no. 3 (2017): 864-886. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed October 19, 2018).
 * Another good source is Bhikku Bodhi's translation of discourses from the Pali Canon, with commentary by the author. Thus, this citation is both a primary source (about the text of the discourses in the Pali Canon) and a secondary source (the commentary of the author on these discourses): Bhikku Bodhi. In the Buddha's words: An anthology of discourses from the Pali Canon. Simon and Schuster, 2005.
 * Carol Anderson wrote a condensed version of her previous book. This latest book is quite accessible: Anderson, Carol. "Basic Buddhism: A Beginner's Guide." (2016).
 * This article on the influence of Abhidarma on Mahayana is quite illuminating: Bronkhorst, Johannes. "Abhidharma in early Mahāyāna." Setting Out on the Great Way. Essays on Early Mahāyāna Buddhism (2018): 119-140.
 * This book chapter on mysticism in early Buddhism is worth reading: Gombrich, Richard. "Religious experience in early Buddhism?." In Religion: Empirical Studies, pp. 167-192. Routledge, 2017.
 * This book is excellent. If one were going to read one book on Buddhist Philosophy, this would be a good choice: Westerhoff, Jan. The Golden Age of Indian Buddhist Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2018.
 * The main flaw in this wikipedia article on Buddhist philosophy is that it gives short shrift to the scholarship on Secular Buddhism, where there has been much activity in recent years. One of the three guiding principles of wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view NPOV. This wikipedia article fails spectacularly when it comes to Secular Buddhism. I believe that Buddhists of all traditions would find the provocative and stimulating work of Stephen Batchelor to reward careful reading. This book is a good place to start: Batchelor, Stephen. Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an uncertain world. Yale University Press, 2017.
 * For those who want to grasp the gist of Stephen Batchelor's provocative views, there is no better source then this article: Batchelor, Stephen. "A secular Buddhism." Journal of Global Buddhism 13 (2012): 87-107.
 * This book is older, (and may be out of print), but its excellent: Murti, Tirupattur Ramaseshayyer Venkatachala. The central philosophy of Buddhism: a study of the Madhyamika system. Routledge, 2013.
 * This book has an interesting perspective: Verdu, Alfonso. The philosophy of Buddhism: A “totalistic” synthesis. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
 * This book features careful scholarship but still readable: Gombrich, Richard Francis. What the Buddha Thought (Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies Monographs). Equinox Publishing, 2009.
 * Reading this book is tough sledding, but it had enormous influence on those applying philological analyses to early Buddhist texts: Norman, Kenneth Roy. Buddhist Forum Volume V: Philological Approach to Buddhism. Routledge, 2005.
 * As a counter to "over-rationalization" of Buddhism, this is worth reading. After all, Buddhism entails practice, including meditation: Cho, Sungtaek. "The rationalist tendency in modern Buddhist scholarship: A revaluation." Philosophy East and West (2002): 426-440.
 * Although an older source, this book is remarkable for the clarity of its exposition: Conze, Edward. Buddhist thought in India: Three phases of Buddhist philosophy. Vol. 4. Routledge, 2013.Sbelknap (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent recent analysis on early buddhist philosophy: Shulman, Eviatar. Rethinking the buddha: early buddhist philosophy as meditative perception. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Sbelknap (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?
I believe this article should tackle that question. The title "Buddhist philosophy" doesn't establish a frame of reference or context. It leaves one wondering whether the article is suggesting that Buddhism is only a philosophy and not a religion. Could one write about Christian philosophy or Muslim philosophy? Probably so. Would that make those entities any less of a religion? I don't suppose so. Does it matter what you call it? Yes, I believe it does, certainly in a legal context. In the United States, religions are afforded protection against discrimination, and so forth. If Buddhism were not a religion then its adherents wouldn't enjoy those protections. But in fact the law in America does recognize Buddhism as a religion. Which brings into question, what constitutes "religion" in the eyes of the law. In the case of Buddhism, it isn't the worship of God or even attention given to metaphysical questions that makes it a religion, because Buddhism doesn't address those issues. To draw a comparison, take Darwinism, for example. Darwinism doesn't acknowledge the existence of God, but it does attempt to answer perhaps the greatest existential question there is: How did we get here? And yet the courts, so far, haven't ruled Darwinism to be a religion. Is there a difference, philosophically or otherwise, between Buddhism and Darwinism? If you substitute the term "existential belief system" for the word "religion," it would seem that the former of those two terms would apply to Darwinism more than to Buddhism. And yet Buddhism is regarded by the courts to be a religion and Darwinism is not. 2600:8801:B011:300:21EF:F79:B23B:E5DE (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC) James.


 * We have articles such as Christian philosophy. This issue of religion or philosophy is not relevant here. Teishin (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * in Christian philosophy:
 * "Fundamentally, Christian philosophical ideals are to make religious convictions rationally evident through natural reason. "
 * "There is criticism of Christian philosophy because the Christian religion is hegemonic at this time and centralizes the elaboration of all values. The coexistence of philosophy and religion is questioned, as philosophy itself is critical and religion founded on revelation and established dogmas. "
 * Can we say that Buddhism (believing supernatural things as seen in Buddhist scriptures) is a religion, but Buddhist philosophy (concerning phenomenology, ethics, epistemology, logic) is not if metaphysics and atheism are not considered as religions(assuming that Buddhist philosophical ideals are to make religious convictions rationally evident through natural reason)?
 * It looks that some of current content (supernatural things, such as, Rebirth, karma, Nirvana) might not make religious convictions rationally evident through natural reason in a way that is used in metaphysics, and not qualified as being called as philosophy.
 * --Gluo88 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Difference between Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy
The coexistence of philosophy and religion is questioned, as philosophy itself is critical and religion founded on revelation and established dogmas. However, there were questioning and writings with philosophical characteristics in Buddhist scriptures. In Buddhist philosophy the propositions need to be demonstrated in a natural way and he uses reflections conditioned by experience - with the use of reason. The philosophical starting point of Buddhist philosophy is logic, not excluding Buddhist theology. Although there is a relationship between theological doctrines and philosophical reflection in the philosophy of any religion (including Buddhist philosophy), its reflections are strictly rational. On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation, the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain.

The above has been deleted as "05:23, 25 March 2021‎ Joshua Jonathan talk contribs‎ 116,301 bytes −2,234‎  →‎Philosophical orientation: essay-like interpolation". How may the above section be improved? May be the above section become a separate section under the title of "Difference between Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy "?

Buddhist_philosophy is similar to Christian_philosophy in natural & rational reason, see discussion in Christian_philosophy & Christian_philosophy --Gluo88 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In contrast to academia, our role as wikipedia editors is limited to summarizing what high quality secondary (mainstream) sources write about a topic. Per WP:OR we are not allowed to produce "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." JimRenge (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that the current way of using citations are giving the impression of "analysis or synthesis of published material". Thanks. --Gluo88 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Round Two
Deleted a sentence saying the Buddha began from the Upanishadic position on the unity of the atman and Brahman, and the desirability of escape from samsara, because (1) Early Buddhism does not reject the ultimate desirability of samsara, and (2) as I learned it, the Buddha's teachers were likelier Samkhyans then advaitins, (3) I'm not at all sure that the Upanishads are what the Buddha was rejecting, since they were largely being formulated around the same time, as I recall, and wouldn't be totally canonical yet. This is not to say that the Buddha doesn't reject them, of course, but that's covered under saying he rejects metaphysical being.

I'm moving the pratitya-samutpada section into metaphysics and phenomenology where it belongs; causation is not a problem of logic in Indian philosophy, it is a problem of metaphysics, and, in Buddhism, a problem of psychology or phenomenology.&#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330; 21:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
I thought the deleted paragraph had some value in its original form. I didn't find it to be particularly trite. Also, I think "non-theistic" is better than "atheistic". "Atheism", as people often use it and as W'pedia defines it, seems to rule out a "middle way" balancing act. In conclusion, please allow me to say that I think the paragraph's last sentence preeemptively expresses Kukku's concerns about a tendentious definition of religion. That's all, thank you. - Nat Krause 04:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I am happier with non-theistic than with atheistic; however, I do object to having a pragraph that's so problematic that it has to conclude with a disclaimer that it may be moot before we ever get to what the article is actually about. I suggest that that paragraph be moved somewhere less obtrusive in the body of the article. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 04:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I reworded the paragraph and put back in the fact that many; including some prominent Buddhists describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, this is a matter of fact not POV. Here are some sources:


 * The prominent British Buddhist Christmas Humphreys (also a prominent judge) in "Buddhism"(1954). C.H. was President of the Buddhist Society, London, from it's foundation in 1924 for 30 years. On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".


 * "The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".
 * --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Good historical point about the view of early scholars studying Buddhism who lived and worked primarily within theistic cultures. However, (1) I have found that some Buddhists in fact do include theistic and polytheistic beliefs, in spite of many Buddhist writings suggesting this is inappropriate, and (2) the term "atheistic" tends to be confusing in cultures in which religion is equated with belief in God. The result is often the follow-up explanation that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. That's consistent with my own view but I don't think it accurately describes how the majority of practioners view it. Maybe description of beliefs isn't the primary goal here, but if not the article will probably end up being assertive of a particular view and not Buddhism as it is actually thought about and practiced.::

Link

 * A view on Buddhism

Someone added this link to the page, and while it doesn't seem like a horrible site on a first glance, it does seem like a personal one, and perhaps not exactly NPOV, etc. Can folks take a look at it and convey reflections? -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 22:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quote

 * My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience...
 * My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship.
 * My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.
 * Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.
 * – The Buddha

I removed this quote from the beginning of this article because (a) it's unattributed (we need chapter and verse, not just "The Buddha", (b) it's not appropriate to use it as an epigram, (c) I'm not 100% sure it's pertinent to the article, and (d) if it is to be included, it should get textual context to make clear what it's doing in the article, and this should take place in a section discussing, I don't know, arguments against taking Buddhism as a philosophy. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 17:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text duplicated
It is pretty clear that the text got duplicated between edit times 20:08, 19 Oct 2004 and 23:59, 20 Oct 2004. I got the diffs down to a few words. Editors may wish to verify that their favorite changes are back in the text. I was clued in to the problem by duplicated categories at the bottom. Looks fixed now. Ancheta Wis 00:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)