Talk:Buddhism

Deforked

Would an administrator please take out the "content from wikipedia" warning? It's no longer true. Shanya Almafeta 09:43, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Western lay terms

All,

I'm thinking of explicating Buddhism further, in Western lay terms. I don't want to pollute the the intro, but I think it would benefit from revisions. How to proceed? Revisions? Forks?

Also, is there a better way to plan/collaborate than this "Edits" wiki?

Thanks in advance,

Lee Rodgers 10:58, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Lee, that's an interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure that I know what "Western lay terms" will entail. I'm curious to see what you come up with.—Nat Krause 01:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Introduction

I made some changes to the intro. The phrase "kshatriya or nobleman of the Brahmin class" seemed a bit odd, since "kṣatriya" and "brāhman" are normally mutually exclusive. I decided that the entire mention of caste is unnecessary in the opening sentence, especially since Andrew Skilton argues that caste may not have been firmly established among the Budda's people. I also removed the mention of the Buddha's age at the time of enlightenment, since this is also irrelevant to the history of Buddhism and it is not a matter of historical fact, either.—Nat Krause 22:19, 12 November 2007 (CST)

Sally forth, Nat. The entire article is a bit of a horror, so whatever help we can lend it would be a grace. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 11:19, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Expansion of Siddhartha Gautama, Eightfold Path, Four Noble Truths

I added stubs for the above three topics, and moved and expanded upon the biographical content on Siddhartha Gautama currently on this page into the stub on the same topic. Simon Overduin 09:38, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Per the CZ:Naming conventions policy, the page Siddhartha Gautama has been redirected to a new page, Buddha. --Michael J. Formica 13:00, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Reworking article

Hello all-- I was going to start stubbing some of the other Buddhist (and religion) topics, until I reread this article. It needs a lot of work! I am going to start overhauling and fleshing out this article; if there are any claims I remove or rephrase that folks would prefer I left in, let me know and we can work something out. Thanks, Brian P. Long 10:06, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Reversion to the "original context of Buddhism" section

I reverted some edits made by Suva Shrestha to the "original context of Buddhism" section. These edits were based on a faulty premise, that "Islam and Hinduism were the two religions widespread in South Asia" during the early phase of Buddhism. Buddhism was established roughly ca. 500 - 400 BCE, while Islam was established nearly a thousand years later.—Nat Krause 23:39, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

Structure

I think the 1st thing we need to do is decide on a structure for the article. Possibilities:

1. historical: this seems to be the most popular among scholars; maybe we should follow it for just that reason, as this is supposed to be a scholarly encyclopaedia; advantage is that it puts the present state of Buddhism in context; disadvantage is that it's longer, covering past as well as present;
2. by schools: Olson, The Different Paths of Buddhism, does this;
3. topical: Lopez, (The Story of) Buddhism, does this; his arrangement is interpretative, representing a particular point of view, eg including Pure Land in the chapter on enlightenment; a different topical arrangement is what we've been trying on Wikipedia recently; frankly, quite a mess
4. hybrid: some books do this, but I suspect it wouldn't work too well in a short account
5. any others?

Peter Jackson 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, as a reader, I would first want to know about Buddhism today, what it is, the beliefs, practices, rituals, "denominations" or "sects", etc, with a hint of history. Subsequent paragraphs could then explain history and the splintering off of sects through the ages. Just my opinion, I won't be working on the article at all except reading for typos later. David E. Volk 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No True Scotsman fallacy

The part about 'Real Buddhism' strikes me as a big No True Scotsman fallacy, where anyone who is not fully tolerant is defined out of being Buddhist. The article says, for instance, that no wars have ever been fought in the name of Buddhism. I can't think up a counter-example to this statement, but other religious groups could quite easily argue the same thing by adding the 'real' prefix. Real Christians have never started a war in the name of Christianity - depending on the value of real. I've removed it. Feel free to restore it, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing a footnote appended. --Tom Morris 20:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)