Info-dump

@BaiulyQz: you added again diff info to the intro of the worldview section, with a number of references at the end without pagenumbers. This info hardly suffices as an intro to this section, and the references can't be verified without pagenumbers. The statement believing that consciousness continues after death is contentious, and needs very good sourcing. Likewise or worse, ((tq|within one of the six realms of existence, or afterlife within intermediate [[Spirit world (Spiritualism)|spirit worlds]] is untenable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, (sorry for the revert, I was to fast, your talk section was not here yet (when I saw/reverted you) but the content and references is already taken from around the article, specifically from the Lead, and shortened/summarized in the overview of 'worldview', where these summarized information was still missing. The respective references mention these content several times. I simply reused these content and references from pre-existing paragraphs within the article. I do not understand what the problem is with this shortened information paragraph, when the same content is found through the article, but without a summary for following content. I did simply reuse existing content in a shortened and explainable form, which was yet missing. If there are contentious parts, please correct or remove them instead of the whole summary, which is, in my eyes, necessarily here.BaiulyQz (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"Spirit world" most definitely is not in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:Regarding the points you mentioned, they are sourced in this paper: "This article explores Buddhist approaches to death and ideas about what comes after. It reviews the concepts of samsara, karma, and nirvana. It also looks at more particular instances of afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos."[1]. Spirit world does refer to this state, but we can of course use another word or the exact wording. The other sentence was taken from within the anatta article. "While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence."[2][3][4] I.e. the not existing of self is not true, or a misleading wording pattern, there I want to make readers aware. We may include these references too, but the previous ones mentioned that already. I do not understand the exact reasoning. Could you please elaborate. Regarding the six realms, it is taken from this article too. It also has an own section here [1], eg. Six Paths. BaiulyQz (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you help to improve my previous paragraph and its citation style, so we can include it? Perhaps like that:

[1] Buddhism encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and spiritual practices that are largely based on the Buddha's teachings and their resulting interpreted philosophies.[5][6] [2] Buddhist teaching generally views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness continues after death, although specific views vary widely across Buddhist cultures and societies.[7][8][9][10] [3] It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives.[11] [4] The goal of Buddhism is to overcome the unease (duḥkha) caused by desire (taṇhā) and ignorance (avidyā) of reality's true nature, including impermanence (anitya) and non-self (anātman).[12][13][14] [5] By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."[15][16]

References

  1. ^ https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/philosophy-facpubs/7/
  2. ^ Gombrich 2009, p. 69–70.
  3. ^ Wynne 2009, p. 59–63, 76–77.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Selves was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Robinson, Richard H.; Johnson, Willard L.; DeGraff, Geoffrey; Bhikkhu, Thanissaro (2005). Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. ISBN 978-0-534-55858-1.
  6. ^ Laumakis, Stephen J. (2008-02-21). An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46966-1.
  7. ^ https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/socialinclusion/interculturalguide/buddhism/care-dying.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20Buddhist%20teaching%20views%20life,of%20life%2C%20death%20and%20rebirth.
  8. ^ Robinson, Richard H.; Johnson, Willard L.; DeGraff, Geoffrey; Bhikkhu, Thanissaro (2005). Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. ISBN 978-0-534-55858-1.
  9. ^ Williams (1989), pp. 275ff.
  10. ^ Robinson & Johnson (1997), p. xx.
  11. ^ Prude, M. Alyson (2021-01-01). "Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism". Buddhism: The Basics, part of Religion: Bloomsbury Religion in North America (BRINA). doi:10.5040/9781350971066.009.
  12. ^ Gethin (1998), pp. 27–28, 73–74.
  13. ^ Harvey (2013), p. 99.
  14. ^ Powers (2007), pp. 392–393, 415.
  15. ^ Donner, Susan E. (April 2010). "Self or No Self: Views from Self Psychology and Buddhism in a Postmodern Context". Smith College Studies in Social Work. 80 (2): 215–227. doi:10.1080/00377317.2010.486361. S2CID 143672653. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
  16. ^ Prude, M. Alyson (2021-01-01). "Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism". Buddhism: The Basics, part of Religion: Bloomsbury Religion in North America (BRINA). doi:10.5040/9781350971066.009.

What do you think about this summary? :) BaiulyQz (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the first three lines of the first subsection, on the four noble truths, give a sufficient intro. Your summary is not a summary of this section, but an ecxuse to make a couple of highly dubious statements.
ad [1]: that's a good line for the lead, but non-informative for this section;
ad [2]: "continuum": not in the article; "consciousness continues after death": unnuanced; the article states it better;
ad [3]: unclear and unnuanced;
ad [4]: that's something for an intro - but already stated in the first lines of the first section;
ad [5]: augh...
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Mmhhh, I am sorry, but I can't understand your accusation of "dubious" statements, when everything is referenced and further links/articles about the respective views exist too, next to parts taken from this article:
ad [1]: you say "non-infomrmative in this section" Okay, if you think so;
ad [2]: you say "the article states it better", well I know that, the goal of the paragraph is to create a short summary about the worldview/belief system. The word continuum (and its alliteration: consciousness continues after death) is from: [2] Quote: "Generally, Buddhist teaching views life and death as a continuum, believing that consciousness (the spirit) continues after death and may be reborn. Death can be an opportunity for liberation from the cycle of life, death and rebirth.";
ad [3]: Cited this reference: [3] Quote: "...afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.";
ad [4]: As I said, the goal is to make a short summary of the article, I know that it is already mentioned in more precise form elsewhere.;
ad [5]: huh? By archiving enlightenment (i.e. becoming a Buddha/Bodhisattva) it can result in a Pure Land (Nirvana). Free from the cycle of samsara and any forms of duḥkha. The disputes regarding the definition of self/non-attachement is also explained here: Anattā. It is not mentioned in the article precisely yet. See also: Buddhahood.

-

I do not understand your point. It should be a summary about the article, the worldview of Buddhism, not only the below section. Do you mean a summary is simply not necessary? Do you mean a summary must be placed elsewhere? Do you disagree with certain wording? Do you have suggestions for re-wording?
I do not insist on including the summary, I just thought, and still think, that it would be useful to make a short compact summary about the general worldview (taking into account the various different views within Buddhism, and its interpretations of the teachings).

-

Anyway thank you for your response. Maybe you could again clarify the points raised. Perhaps I made mistakes in my understanding, so please enlighten me. :) BaiulyQz (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • ad [1]: an intro for a section should be more specific, summarizing the section;
  • ad [2]: HSE Ireland is not WP:RS on this topic;
  • ad [3]:
- you quoted a summary of a book, M. Alyson Prude, Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism; did you read the book itself?
- your quote:

[It also looks at more particular instances of] afterlife beliefs, such as the possibilities for rebirth in the desire realms, paradisiacal Pure Lands, and the intermediate state between lives described in Tibetan texts about the bardos.

- your line:

It is generally believed that aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn in the desire realms (Six Paths) or individual existence in an intermediate state between lives.

- No mention of "generally believed"; no mention of "aspects (or traits) of one's consciousness may be reborn; no mention of "individual existence." And obviously, the Bardos are not a 'general belief', but a specific Tibetan belief.
  • ad [5]: You wrote:

By attaining enlightenment (Buddhahood), one can free himself from being bound to the earthly or desire realms and exist beyond these, in the "paradisical Pure land", an individual abode of a buddha or bodhisattva."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Donner, Susan E. (April 2010). "Self or No Self: Views from Self Psychology and Buddhism in a Postmodern Context". Smith College Studies in Social Work. 80 (2): 215–227. doi:10.1080/00377317.2010.486361. S2CID 143672653. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
  2. ^ Prude, M. Alyson (2021-01-01). "Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism". Buddhism: The Basics, part of Religion: Bloomsbury Religion in North America (BRINA). doi:10.5040/9781350971066.009.
- The article does say:

Samsara ends if a person attains nirvana, the "blowing out" of the afflictions through insight into impermanence and "non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Buswell & Gimello (1992), pp. 7–8, 83–84.
  2. ^ Choong (1999), pp. 28–29, Quote: "Seeing (passati) the nature of things as impermanent leads to the removal of the view of self, and so to the realisation of nirvana.".
  3. ^ Rahula (2014), pp. 51–58.
That's a really odd line, ((tq|non-self enlightened silent existence" in the Pure land." It's not in Buswell & Gimello, nor in Choong. And it's definitely not what Rahula, a Theravadin, would say. Not surprisingly, it was added by ypu diff, with disregard of the sources.
Altogether, if you want to add an intro to the section on worldview, then summarize it, but do not add WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. And, as I worte before, I don't it needs more intro then it has now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your explanations and arguments. I see and understand. I will refrain from including my wording/interpretation of the respective references. I still think the article should go deeper into the varying views, as it presents it, although correctly, too one-sided. I mean it does not really mention that there are varying views/interpretations/arguments respectively to the points (anatta, samsara, non-self, what is reborn/enlightened, Pure Land, nirvana, etc.). But as I said, if you think the article is good in this state, I will have no problem either. Thank you again! Regards, BaiulyQz (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the conversation but I did want to add that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we don't need to go into super granular levels of detail on a broad-topic article like this one. Broad strokes are better, especially because the broad stroke statements are generally true of all of Buddhism, and when you start getting too detailed is when you have to qualify what specific school of Buddhism you're referring to, because what one school teaches differs (sometimes greatly) from what another teaches. When you start having to qualify what school the statement is true of is when you're getting out of topic of the general concept of Buddhism, and said content would be better served on the specific school's article or on the article for a specific concept (if it were proper to mention it anywhere). - Aoidh (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

proportion of buddhists needs updating

For example, Buddhists now form 2.4% of religious affiliations in Australia/ https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia#:~:text=Religious%20affiliation%20in%202021,-In%202021%2C%20more&text=Christianity%20(43.9%25),Hinduism%20(2.7%25) Sdrol1 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The percentage of Buddhists in Australia, 2.4% per census, is already mentioned in Australia, Religion in Australia and Buddhism in Australia. JimRenge (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Long

Way to long to digest 84.203.42.136 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We are aware, hence the template on the page. If you have any ideas as to how to make it shorter feel free to propose it here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've skimmed the article a few times and I think the best way to trim down the article would be to take all the subsections that have a "Main article" link (and which are therefore just summaries of that article) and cut them down by about half. Obviously "half" is an arbitrary value and each section should have enough text to be able to represent a good summary, but just as an example Buddhism#Vegetarianism and animal ethics could easily be trimmed down and still hit all the major points, especially when there's a main article link at the top of the section for readers who want a bit more information, in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style. I just didn't want to start cutting this article (roughly) in half without discussing it first, but I guess this is as good a prompt as any to share that idea. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that's a pretty good idea. Maybe some of the subsections could be combined since it looks like there are a ton of sub-sections in this article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've made a few edits trimming down some sections, but before I do any more I want to wait a while and see if anyone has objections or suggestions. It's just under 300,000 bytes now, and I think that it could reasonably be trimmed down to under 200,000 while still maintaining the important information (but of course it should be stressed that content shouldn't be cut just to make the article's size a smaller number arbitrarily, but should be trimmed per Wikipedia:Summary style). - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
So when this discussion was opened the page had 110 kB of readable prose size, which is now down to 78 kB so the readable prose is ~30% smaller than it was. I think it could still use a little more trimming in some sections, but is the prose still so long that it needs Template:Very long? - Aoidh (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the Template:Very long is no longer needed, I removed it. Feel free to revert me. I had no time to check details of the trimming. JimRenge (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Authors of books vs experience

If you want to know about Buddhism, ask the Dalai Lama. He will be happy to explain the subtle points which baffle scholars. Since none of the Dalai Lama's books appear in the references, nor anyone with a Geshe degree, this article is speculative at best, bordering on fiction. Authoritative it is not. Hpfeil (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Please restore the original article. An annonymous user recently edited the article and posted misleading information on the main page. He edited that Buddhism is a "Nepali religion" and that it originated in "Lumbini". This is totally wrong according the factual evidence. Buddha was born in Nepal but he first began teaching in Sarnath, India. Buddhism reached Nepal via Indian missionaries from king Ashoka. Buddhism did NOT exist until Buddha was 35 years old, when he gave his first lecture in Sarnath. This "annonymous" person is likely a Chinese person, whose government sponsors such revisionism. This single edit cannot change what has been accepted by scholars for centuries. This person did not even change the source. Please see [4]. It is the exact same as the previous version. He is not using any evidence at all. He is being academically dishonest. Please, Please take this message seriously and make the appropriate change immediately. I trust the Wikipedia members to remain honest and to act accordingly. StanleyRS (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Buddhism and other religions" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Buddhism and other religions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Buddhism and other religions until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Dharmachakra symbol

Dharmachakra, the wheel of samsara depicts the circular nature of sansara. Therefore it should be like the cart wheel not like the ship steering wheel. Harshana.nadeeshan (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice. I guess the eight spokes refer to the eight truths, but I think you have a good point here. Also because it refers to an exemplary Indo-European token. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you're right.
. It's not referring to samsara, though; rather to escape from samsara. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling one self a Buddha

Well, Buddhist call themselves Buddha's followers or in Pali Language as Buddha Sravaka - listeners of Buddha. The reason is if anyone wants to be a Buddhist, then he/she should follow Buddha's guidance in lay life and practice toward liberation from the concept of self. So their lifestyles also will have to change accordingly. Those who decided to embrace monkhood are called Buddha Putra — Son of Buddha. Ask if more info is needed. Good luck.

Via Quora LWCV amd SD M 2600:1700:1D00:9390:B075:54FF:FEC8:DE60 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Geography in this article is wrong

@Joshua Jonathan: @Kautilya3: Hi. It says it originated in present day North India but the region where Buddha lived and thought his entire life - Bihar state - is not even part of North India according to North India article map...Why not simply add Ancient India? It makes more sense.

It is also important to note that Sramanas came from all parts of ancient India (even according to greek sources : Śramaṇa#Porphyry_(233–305) :- "All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians." ).

For example ;- notable Sramana like Makkhali Gosala was from Thirupattur (in modern day Tamil Nadu state).117.198.115.210 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Partly correct. Buddhism arose in the Ganges plain, which is definitely quite northern, compared to South India. It originated in the urbanizing regions; that's relevant, because those developments are related; South India is irrelevant in this respect. Is there any other suitable geographical term? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Ancient India is appropriate term here since scholars use that. It does not make sense to add Northern India when linked article leaves out Bihar -core region important for development of Buddhism, Jainism. In core region specific reference to - Bihar-Eastern Uttar Pradesh - scholars use "Lower Gangetic plains" or "North-Eastern" for example see concept in studies like Greater Magadha. 117.198.115.210 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Also see geography of Bihar state in main article, it is listed as Eastern Indian state. Refer to this page also History of Buddhism, which is better worded, so Ancient India makes more sense. 117.198.115.210 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
"Ancient India" is too vague; it suggests an origin in a venerable time long ago, and it includes all of India, while Buddhism originated in a specific area. And North Eastern India does not refer to the Gangetic plain either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"Awakening" as a "mental event"

@SmoovOpr8r: you added the following text to the lead diff:

Buddhism primarily concerns the cultivation of the sotereological mental state named 'Awakening', commonly referred to as 'enlightenment', 'Nirvana', or 'Liberation', which is a unique, cognitive event broadly characterized as delineating the culmination of sati, also known as mindfulness.[1] 'Awakening' generally designates the onset of a permanent, elucidating metawareness of one's mental contents that is accompanied by the Anattā insight.[2] The central thesis of Buddhism is Siddhartha Gautama's diagnosis that the vast majority of humanity has not yet Awakened, and that this collective condition is the root cause of suffering. Awakening is the perscribed antidote to this suffering.[3][4] The Buddha, which translates as 'the Awakened one', is eponymously named after this mental state, and the religion is eponymously named after this namesake.[5]

References

  1. ^ Goldstein, J. (2013). Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening. Boulder, CO: Sounds True.
  2. ^ Culdasa. (2011). The mind illuminated: A complete meditation guide integrating Buddhist wisdom and modern psychology. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.
  3. ^ Keown, D. (2000). Buddhism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
  4. ^ Wright, R. (2017). Why Buddhism is true: the science and philosophy of meditation and enlightenment. First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition.
  5. ^ Cohen, R. (2006). Beyond enlightenment: Buddhism, religion, modernity. Routledge.

As a starter: this is not a summary of the article, but extensive new content, which should not be in the lead in this way. But the text itself has also some shortcomings:

  • 'Cultivation of the mental state called awakening': the term "mental state" is nowhere mentioned in the body of the article, let alone explained; nor is it a common term in Buddhist studies.
  • "Awakening" is a verb; a mental state should be referred to with a noun, such as moksha or samyak-sam-bodhi.
  • "The culmination of sati" is an sich correct, but culminating in what? The sentence is not incorrect, but as it is phrased now it's very unclear, and mainly reflecting a Theravada/Vipassana perspective (as may be expected from Goldstein, a vipassana-teacher);

"Awakening" is not a goal in itself, as some trophy to be gained; it's a reference to the release from excessive clinging and craving; this release is called awakening. As an additional note: summarizing the Buddhist worldview seems simple, but is a hell of a job; few editors, even those highly knowledgeable about the topic, have dared to burn their hands on it in this overview-article... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

More