body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former featured articleBuddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Regarding the recent discovery of the Buddha statue in Egypt[edit]

Joshua Jonathan Hi Joshua. Good to see you again after a long time. I would like to add information related to the recent discovery of a Buddha statue along with a Sanskrit inscription and a few Indian coins in Egypt. I have noticed that you undid my addition about that. Would you mind adding that info as per Wikipedia regulations? Buddhism spreading to such farther areas in the known world is worthy to mention on the page. You may do so as per your wish. Take care.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're referring to this addition to the lead, where it definitely does not belong. I think it's WP:UNDUE for the body of the article also; though it's about a Buddha-statue, it points to trade connections between the Roman Empire and Egypt, not necessarily to the spread of Buddhism to the Roman Empire. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan and Bsskchaitanya: See article Berenike Buddha. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र:Hi Pataliputra. Happy to see an article on Berenike Buddha. Keep your good work. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism of Current Buddhism Page Introduction[edit]

Concerns these additions and their subsequent removal.

I have several criticisms of this page's introduction. Firstly, it doesn't even mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama'. It also makes no mention of the mental state of 'Awakening'. It also fails to even briefly discuss the central thesis of Buddhism: Four Noble Truths. It also fails to mention that 'Buddha' means 'the Awakened one', like other, less-salient, pages do, such as 'Outline of Buddhism'. Visitors that are new to Buddhism seeking a concise introduction at the page as it is now, will be, at best, left with a vague impression of Buddhism's characteristic tenets that instead downplays and disparages the psychological/phenomenological aspect of Buddhism that is quintessential to it. This is an encyclopedic disservice; this is what I was trying to correct before my edits were reverted.

Furthermore, by comparison to other major world religion pages, which all offer a brief explication of the central thesis of each respective religion and a brief background of their respective founders' role in the religion, this Buddhist page is inadequate. For example, the Christianity page explicitly states the religion's central thesis: that Jesus Christ is the messiah as prophesied in its antecedent religion, Judaism. The Islam page explains the religion's central tenets: Islam is the main and final Abrahamic religion, Muhammad is the main and final Abrahamic prophet, the Quran is its main and final canonical text, and that God (Allah) is one and incomparable.

My suggestions are:
1. Mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama' in the first paragraph.
2. Include a concise explication of Buddhism's central thesis (Four Noble Truths) circa the second paragraph in a manner that is informative to a general reader without prior background in Buddhism.
3. Include a concise mention of the identity of the Buddha in Buddhism as 'the Awakened one'. This should include a concise mention of how the cognitive event of 'Awakening' is characterized and its fundamental characterizations (e.g. irreversibility, uniqueness, singularity (occurring once), mindfulness proficiency, Anattā insight etc.)
4. Include that 'The Buddha', which translates as 'the Awakened one', is eponymously named after this mental state, and the religion is eponymously named after this namesake. (This is akin to how it is explained that Hindu is an exonym on its page)

Thoughts? SmoovOpr8r (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ad 1: the Buddha is mentioned in the first paragraph;
ad 2: the four noble truths are probably not original to the Buddha's teachings, but a later formulation;
ad 4: "tatagatha" may have been the original designation for the Buddha's "mental state," not "(the) Buddha."
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a typo in the numbering of my suggestion list. Allow me to clarify what I am proposing:
1. It is of significant historical value to mention the name 'Siddhartha Gautama' in the first paragraph. For example, the first sentence could read "attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, better known as 'the Buddha'"
2. The Four Noble Truths certainly were a part of the Buddha's teachings: the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which is the Buddha's first sermon after his Awakening, describes the Four Noble Truths. Furthermore, the truths deliberate the central thesis of Buddhism and ought to be explicated in the introduction.
3. The details that characterize the mental state / mental event of 'Awakened' / 'Awakening' into coherency should be mentioned (e.g. irreversibility, uniqueness, singularity (occurring once), mindfulness proficiency, Anattā insight etc.). This state/event is quintessential to Buddhism, and currently, is not even mentioned in the introduction.
4. The title 'the Buddha' which means 'the Awakened one', characterizes the Buddha by the mental event (or interchangeably, mental state) of Awakening. The "Buddhism" religion is eponymously named after this namesake. This is deserving mention in the introduction. SmoovOpr8r (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Adding "Siddharta Gautama" is possible, of course;
2. Nope; see Four Noble Truths;
3. Awakening as a "mental state," and it's characteristics, are not in the lead because they are not as such in the article. The 'definition' you added relies strongly on a Theravada/mindfulness-perspective, and is limited/one-sided;
4. See 3; and as stated before, tatagatha may have been the original designation. NB: the Etymology-section is incomplete and insufficient, but it does state that Indian Buddhists referred to themselves as Sakyan-s or Sakyabhiksu; so, a question then is: when did the term "Buddhism" come to be used, and by who? And note also that the term "awakening," derived from bodhi but referring to multiple terms, is not as straightforward as you suggest. So, before we can even consider such additions in the lead, they should first be explained in the body of the article, with good sources and in a balanced way.
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"ad 2: the four noble truths are probably not original to the Buddha's teachings, but a later formulation;"
is it possible to add this to the intro, after the sentence that mentions the eightfold path?
id do it myself rq, but cant 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023[edit]

buddhism is a religion origineted from nepal 2404:7C00:4A:207C:F6F9:649D:33FD:FB0C (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dharmavinaya?[edit]

The first line of the lead section says that Buddhism is called Buddha Dharma or Dharmavinaya in Sanskrit. I have never heard of Dharmavinaya and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is there any source to support such a name? Æo (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Buswell, Robert Jr; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2013). Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691157863, p. 253: "Dharmavinaya is one of the terms (along with BUDDHADHARMA) within the tradition that is closest to what in the West is called Buddhism." JimRenge (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. As one of the various names of Buddhism in Sanskrit, yet not the main current one, I think it should be discussed in the "etymology" section with the Buswell & Lopez source but removed from the lead. Æo (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for telling us about this story of Ashoka but it was bad when it is a religion for a man to marry many wives 41.116.152.233 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JimRenge @Æo I agree that as Dharmavinaya is not mentioned elsewhere it should be removed from the lead and discussed in the etymology section. W9793 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further reading[edit]

I have moved over 50 works into "Further reading" as they are not being used as citations. The section is now huge. For guidance on what, if anything, should be included see Wikipedia:Further reading. Someone familiar with the subject should give it an extensive prune. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rebirth in buddism[edit]

Hi friends i spoke to many teravada buddists and they claimed that Lord Buddha never asserted existence of god and rebirth. All he said is to believe once own experience. But this article is misleading. It talks lot about rebirh. Can some one refer me to right source of info and also pls correct this wiki page pls. RamaPandita (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RamaPandita: see here and here. Personally, I also think that Buddhism works perfectly fine (or even better) without the concept of rebirth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding "pls correct this wiki page pls": it's a complicated, but valid request; while scholars conclude that the belief in rebirth has been part of Buddhism early, it has less support in western Buddhism. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Philosophy" in the lede[edit]

The lede heavily implies that Buddhism can be considered a religion or a philosophical tradition. This is a relatively-new addition for the page, only added in 2021 with the justification that many religious and philosophical scholars see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy or "way of life".

Buddhism is, of course, both; as are all religions. But in the context of Buddhism there is a significant push to secularizing it to make it more palatable for Westerners.[1][2][3][4] Though Buddhism causes problems for very narrow definitions of religion based around what Durkheim and others called the "theistic conception", it is nonetheless a religion and among living Buddhists in, for example, Sri Lanka, it is parallel to Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam.[5][6] This push is related directly to orientalism in the Indian subcontinent and what Obeyesekere calls "Protestant presuppositions":

From Olcott's catechism grew the tradition of Buddhist ambivalence (if not outright hostility) toward the concept of religion, but his catechism had a religious origin in Olcott's own liberal Protestant Christian background. He took his challenge to be one of purifying Buddhism by returning to the fundamental teaching of the founder as recorded in its authoritative scriptures. The teaching he found in these texts had much in common with the liberal Protestantism of the late nineteenth century. It was opposed to "superstitious" practices, suspicious of miracle sand the supernatural, and respectful of the canons of reason.[7]

The source given for the claim that Buddhism can be a religion "or" a philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does not deny that Buddhism is a religion or propose it is something else, and only gives consideration of the historical Buddha as a philosopher (which the author admits is "controversial".)[8]

Second, lead follows body. There is no discussion of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not anywhere in the body. It is purely these two minor asides (in the lead and the etymology section) that seem to be there only to placate a very small number of Western Buddhist-adjacent people who are uncomfortable with the word "religion."

Lastly, while it might be interesting in an introductory religious studies class to discuss what makes Buddhism is a religion, or where philosophy ends and religion begins; it will only confuse new readers who want to know the basics about Buddhism. That is to say, it is an Indian religion with millions of adherents across Asia and the rest of the world. "It's not a religion, mannnn, it's a philosophy" drones notwithstanding.

References

  1. ^ Brazier, Dharmavidya David; Brazier, Dharmavidya David (2015-05-30). "It Needs Saying: Buddhism is a Religion". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  2. ^ Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. Jr.; Buswell, Robert E. (2014-05-29). "Buddhism: Philosophy or Religion?". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  3. ^ Brazier, David (2014-12-17). Buddhism Is a Religion. Malvern, England: Woodsmoke Press. ISBN 0-9931317-0-0.
  4. ^ Cush, Denise; Robinson, Catherine (2020-11-20). "'Buddhism Is Not a Religion, But Paganism Is': The Applicability of the Concept of 'Religion' to Dharmic and Nature-Based Traditions, and the Implications for Religious Education". Religion and Education. BRILL. p. 66–84. doi:10.1163/9789004446397_006. ISBN 978-90-04-44639-7.
  5. ^ Southwold, Martin (1978). "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion". Man. [Wiley, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland]. 13 (3): 362–379. ISSN 0025-1496. JSTOR 2801935. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  6. ^ Herbrechtsmeier, William (1993). "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion: One More Time". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 32 (1): 1. doi:10.2307/1386910.
  7. ^ Eckel, Malcolm David (1994). "The Ghost at the Table: On the Study of Buddhism and the Study of Religion". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. LXII (4): 1085–1110. doi:10.1093/jaarel/LXII.4.1085. ISSN 0002-7189.
  8. ^ Siderits, Mark (2011-02-17). "Buddha". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2024-02-07.

Tryin to make a change :-/ 03:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have been several discussions before on calling Buddhism a religion; numerous editors prefer to call it a philosophy. We've used a compromise here, calling it both, just like Hinduidm is called 'a religion or dharma. "Religion" is indeed a western term; as you admit, there are widespread objections againt this term, within and outside Buddhism. You also note that the term "philosophy" is also used in the etymology-section, not only in the lead. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Numerous editors do not trump WP:RSs. The "widespread objections" occur almost entirely outside of good-quality sources ("it's not a religion, mannn, it's a way of life") and undue weight should not be given here. Also, I explicitly noted that it is also used in the etymology section (I noted two minor asides in the lead and the etymology section). If you have an objection based on policy and not nameless editors who "prefer" to call it a philosophy, please state so here. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the lede at Hinduism implies that "Indian religion" is interchangeable with "dharma" (which is somewhat accurate, one of the papers I referenced here notes āgama as the most accurate translation of "religion"). This is not the case for the Buddhism page, where the philosophical tradition is considered in opposition to religion. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Buddhism, religion and philosophy"; nice compromise. But James Steward agrees with you; it seems to me that you could write a nice, concise piece of text to explain the idea of "Buddhism is not a religion," for example in a yet-to-create Definitions-section. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories