Talk:View (Buddhism)

Encyclopedia
The writing of this article seems rather inscrutable. I think it needs to be clarified. Ommmmm. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
In response to request for comments at Talk:Buddhism, I'd just point out that there's no scholarly consensus on what the historical Buddha actually taught, so any statemments that he taught such & such violate NPOV. Peter jackson (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am repeating what scholars have said. Generally, they write that way. Mitsube (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the statement should be clarified to say "so and so wrote that". Are there sources that say "there's no scholarly consensus on what the historical Buddha actually taught"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gombrich in Buddhist Forum, vol 1, p5: "... I had to prepare a paper ... without being clear what my fellow-participants would assume ... "earliest Buddhism" to be ... many scholars have been prepared to argue either that we no longer have the Buddha's authentic teachings or that we have only a very few, the rest of the purported teachings being garbled or distorted by the later tradition. ... On reading the papers of my colleagues, I realized that, like me, they all (except Professor Aramaki?) assumed that the main body of soteriological teachings found in the Pāli Canon does go back to the Buddha himself."

Peter jackson (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bronkhorst in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 21.1, p4: "This is not to say that it is easy to identify the views of the Buddha in the early texts. The many different opinions that have been expressed during the last century or so on the original teaching of the Buddha should make us extremely cautious ..."

Peter jackson (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Gómez in Macmillan Encyclopedia of religion, vol 2 p354: "No Western scholar today would claim to know the exact details of the founder's biography, or for that matter the exact content of his teaching."

Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Collins in Journal of the Pali Text Society, vol XV, p89: "We have no evidence of any kind which can be securely dated before Aśoka; to describe, speculatively, pre-Aśokan Buddhism, we must make inferences from his inscriptions, from the texts (whose extant form is due to a later period) and perhaps also from the material remains of later times."

Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cousins in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Hammalawa Saddhatissa (ed Dhammapala et al), p56: "... I shall treat the earliest stratum of Pali literature as consisting of the Vinaya texts (excluding the Parivāra), the first four Nikāyas and the Sutta-Nipāta. It is, of course, obvious that there is some historical stratification within these works. However, I do not accept that there are adequate criteria available for a convincing analysis into different periods. Nor is sufficient historical information available to determine the likely time-scale for such periods."

&c. See User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism. Peter jackson (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards the statements in this article, they are sourced. If you find a source that disagrees then we can include both with attribution. Mitsube (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section is missing
Hi Peter and Mitsube. That is not the issue. The problem is that things needs to be presented in a way that is easy to understand for the readers. This article jups in the middle of it and starts talking about things without explaing them first. Why not start with a lead?

Lead section: (quote)
Provide an accessible overview The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article. The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1]

The lead should be a summary of the important aspects of the article.

Warrington (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking to each other?

Warrington (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would like changes, you can make them. Please try to keep all the information. Mitsube (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunatelly I am not that kwnolegable in this topic that I can make those changes, but as I was trying to quote the Wikipedia guidlines, it is required that an article should have a lead section. I don’t want to put a tag on the artricle, Wikify, I am trying instead to explain what and how it has to be done. It is much more helpful.

Warrington (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

?
Wynne, Origin of Buddhist Meditation, Routledge, p1: "The biggest problem in Buddhist Studies is that nobody knows what the Buddha taught."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hirakawa, History of Indian Buddhism, vol 1, English trans U Hawai'i Press, p39: "Scholars have been unable to distinguish the teachings of the Buddha from those of his immediate disciples."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

de Jong in Wisdom, Compassion and the Search for Understanding (ed Silk), U Hawai'i Press, p174: "We will never be able to know the content of the teachings of the Buddha himself."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lopez, Buddhism in Practice, Princeton UP, page 4: "The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Manné in Journal of the Pali Text Society, vol XXI, p19: "It seems a good idea to say that there is no evidence that could prove that the Buddha ever spoke a word among all those attributed to him by any text whatever ... What we can do is examine the texts on their individual merits and make judgements on the plausibility of their contexts."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Hirakata, Japan, page 57: "in the Buddhist texts there is no word that can be traced with unquestionable authority to Gotama Śākyamuni as a historical personage"

Schmithausen in Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, p201: "... the Suttas are to be treated as anonymous literature (the extent to which they contain elements which can safely be ascribed to the Buddha himself being still undecided)."


 * That's fine, but the statements in the article are sourced. Please see WP:V. Mitsube (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're sourced, but I've just supplied a dozen or so sources contradicting them. When RSs contradict each other, they're magically transmuted from facts into POVs. That seems to be policy. Peter jackson (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no contradiction. You have not found any mention of the material in this article. Mitsube (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's quibbling. The 12 sources cited above all clearly say there's no consensus on what the Buddha taught. In particular, therefore, there's no consensus on the particular statements in the article. To apply the sort of ultraliteral reading you seem to be trying to do would result in quite bizarre results. For example, in this particular case, the article on the Buddha could quite properly say that there is no consensus on what he taught, while lots of more specialized articles might make all sorts of unqualified assertions that he taught such & such. Thus the articles would blatantly contradict each other, but your interpretation of WP policy would say that's fine. Personally, I don't mind. The more obvious bias & contradiction there is in WP, the less seriously anyone's going to take it, & the more likely it is to be forced to introduce an effective system of enforcement of content policy.


 * Similarly, anyone could write an article on a minority theory, & insist on treating it as fact until some reputable scholar takes the trouble to publish a refutation.


 * My understanding of verifiability policy is that it means that any reasonably intelligent reader can see that the source cited does indeed support what's said in the article. The application of general statements to particular examples seems to me to be a clear example of that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am coming from WT:NOR. I don't agree that the "application of general statements to particular examples" is never original research; it depends on the case. I am not sure I understand what the dispute is about since this discussion is a bit disorganised and it's not even clear what the intended edits to the article would be. So I'll just say two things in case they are relevant: --Hans Adler (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a scholar says that no Buddhist text can be attributed to the Buddha, this clearly means: "I looked at all potential writings by the Buddha, and none of them can be attributed to him." In this case it's not original research to specialise this statement to a text that this scholar must surely have considered. An example of original research would be to specialise this statement to a specific Buddhist text that only came into the focus of researchers after the statement was made.
 * If a scholar says that not a single word in a Buddhist text can be attributed to the Buddha, this is a much weaker statement. It is conceivable that the scholar means: "While many texts surely go back to the Buddha, they have been edited and/or translated. As a result, while the sense and probably some literal passages have been preserved, it is impossible to say for a specific passage that it is original." Several of Peter jackson's quotations above seem to say something like this. Because of the sheer number of words involved (the scholar cannot possibly have carefully examined every single one of them), even saying that no word in a specific text can be attributed to the Buddha borders on original research. Saying that an entire text cannot be attributed is a stronger claim that cannot be supported by such a scholarly statement at all.

I think main problem here is twofold. First, Peter is simply attempting synthesis. The sources he cites say nothing about the topic, which is what a View is in Buddhism. Secondly, this is the wrong page for the additions he suggests. Buddhism and the Buddha are themselves separate topics, which would be the appropriate venues for what Peter is citing. Let's be clear: unless the source specifically mentions that, "There is no evidence that the Buddhist concept known as View was actually taught by Buddha," every thing else is just synthesis. It is really is that simple. Angryapathy (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed Peter's concern here by changing things to "The Buddha of the early texts". Mitsube (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would appear from what the above visitors are saying that you didn't need to. If I understand them rightly, they're saying that interpreting statements in reliable sources as contradicting each other, so that they're converted into POVs, is OR unless it's really blatant, explicit, verbally correspondent. This seems to imply, for example, that Four Noble Truths should say they're


 * 1) the basic/central/essential/fundamental/main teachings of Buddhism
 * 2) (in relation to the 2 main divisions of Buddhism)
 * 3) in Theravada, the advanced teaching for those who're ready
 * 4) in Mahayana, a preliminary teaching for people not ready for the Mahayana teachings
 * 5) little known in the Far East

All these statements can be found in RSs, & I don't know of any others that explicitly contradict them. Similarly, a lot of the work we've done trying to improve the Buddhism article might be disqualified as OR. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting to the point
There seems to be a great deal of quibbling here over whether we actually know which of the Buddha's sayings can be attributed to him or to his followers. There is also the suggestion that this article "starts in the middle".

Both points seem to be easy to resolve in this way. It is a minor consideration whether a given quote originated with the Buddha or one of his followers for the purposes here; what is important is whether the notion clearly is consistent with the central ideas that we associate with Buddhism and that we derive benefit from. The Buddhist concern with views is that they represent an attachment to an idea, a mental concept. This is important because it clarifies that we can become attached not just to physical objects or to people, (money, sex, gambling etc) but can get stuck on views...making much of the discussion here ironic. Any attachment to anything--according to Buddhism--is a problem for the individual: an obstacle to enlightenment. That is, all views, opinions, preferences, indicate that we have attached a greater value to one 'view' than its opposing view and that represents a problem, particularly of seeing.

This, to my mind, is a useful clarification of Buddhist thought and entirely consistent with other teachings. Note that attachment to any idea, whether it is true or not, is an attachment, so the qualification "..especially if it is not true.." (somewhere in the article) is redundant.

--174.7.10.39 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It occurred to me later that this use of the word 'view' could be confused with the different use of the same word in the form of 'right view' (the Eightfold Path). The latter meaning is 'view' in the sense of perspective or orientation. This is a different idea.

--174.7.56.10 (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on View (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://web.archive.org/web/20121813211000/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/../../../../tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html

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) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture
Why do we have a random picture of a landscape in this article? It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at all. This isn't a magazine, we don't need "symbolic" pictures with contrived captions. I'll be removing said picture now. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)