Talk:Development of Karma in Buddhism

Modernist perspective?
I find it rather implausible that there is consensus in the scholarly community that karma has "been of minor importance in early Buddhism". It seems to me this article is forwarding a certain perspective on Buddhism. The article reflects a strong "Pali Text Society mentality", presuming a universal, pure and undefiled Buddhism existed before the "local Asian primitives" started "distorting" Buddhism. Such a modernist perspective has presently been refuted by most of recent scholarship in Buddhist studies and related subjects. I propose that the article be edited to allow for a higher diversity of opinions.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Such a modernist perspective has presently been refuted by most of recent scholarship in Buddhist studies and related subjects." Please cite your sources for this statement. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Many of the westernized middle-class groups that emerged in Southeast Asia as a result of European colonial reforms first encountered their own Buddhist traditions through the mediating lenses of European textbooks, literature, and translations of Buddhist sacred texts. This reflects an important factor in understanding the way in which Buddhism develops and is presented in the modern era, namely the role of “BUDDHIST STUDIES” as a Western academic enterprise and the enormous authority accorded to Western scholars and texts in representing Buddhism during the colonial era (King; Lopez). Western interest in understanding Asian civilizations precipitated a “discovery” and translation of Buddhist sacred texts into modern European languages. Western scholars, however, generally replicated a series of basic Christian assumptions in their approach to Buddhism (Almond; King). There was a strong tendency to emphasize Buddhist sacred texts as the key feature in determining the nature of Buddhism as a religious tradition. This approach tended to ignore Buddhist traditions as changing historical phenomena and also underplayed the role of ritual practices and local networks and beliefs in the preservation and renewal of Buddhist forms of life. Buddhist sacred literature has traditionally been revered in Asian societies, but this reverence rarely led to a depreciation of local practices and beliefs that were not found in the ancient canonical literature. Buddhism as a living tradition tended to be either ignored or denigrated by Orientalist scholars as a corruption of the original teachings.


 * See also Lopez. . Similar discussions can be found in scholarly literature under the topics "karmic" vs. "nibbanic Buddhism", "protestant Buddhism", etc. These discussions usually categorize practices in Buddhism aiming at improving one's karma as part of "karmic" or folk Buddhism, as opposed to a pristine and unadulterated "nibbanic" Buddhism. My point is that the very existence of this article Development of Karma in Buddhism is informed by an outdated modernist understanding. It could be improved by adding a critique of modernist Buddhist ideas.

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please quote correctly. The lead says: "The concept may have been of minor importance in early Buddhism." Schmithausen is not a Buddhist modernist, but one of the most respected western scholars on Buddhism.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I admit I shouldn't have left may out. Still, my point is that the article doesn't reflect a comprehensive perspective on the subject. That should be tagged or fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)