Talk:Buddhism/Changes to Lead Paragraph

Changes to Lead Paragraph

I see that some nameless individual has changed the opening sentences of the "Buddhism" article. In my view, it is now unacceptable. The changer says that "for most people Buddhism is a teaching rather than a religion ...", etc., etc. How does he/she know? The anonymous editor then goes on to give his/her own special definition of what a religion MUST be. Again - who says? I would suggest that we revert the opening to what it was before these changes were made. What was there before was perfectly accurate. Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that what's been put in here is unacceptable, but I'm not too happy with what was there before. Buddhism is certainly a religion, not necessarily in any defined sense, but simply by the conventional use of words, but is it a philosophy? Some forms of Buddhism could reasonably be described as philosophies, but is Buddhism as a whole a philosophy? Incidentally the date is wrong as well. See my proposed rewrite of the rewrite,& see what you think. Peter jackson 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Peter. You make a good point. I myself do tend to sympathise with what you say - that Buddhism is not in itself "a philosophy" (although it contains philosophy). I'll try to look at your re-writes a little later .... Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Further point. Most Buddhists don't speak English, & there's no reason to suppose their own languages have a distinction corresponding to this alleged one. Eg in Ceylon the educational establishment, thinking in English, ordered that textbooks for 6-year-olds should say that Buddhism is not a religion. Unfortunately for the poor things, ism & religion are the same in Sinhalese.

However, there is a valid issue here, which I'll say something abouty in the rewrite. I suppose there should be an article about this, unless it's already satisfactorily covered in one on definitions of religion. Various views to be mentioned:

• not a religion but a way of life: pointless as followers of all the other major religions have said the same about theirs
• 2 religions: Theravada & Mahayana
• Mahayana is a religion but Theravada isn't
• ...

Peter jackson 08:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the new changes are unacceptable -- to have the article deviate in the second sentence to unfounded speculation on what "most" believe, and then in the third sentence to a definition of "religion", is ludicrous. Peter, I'm not sure where to find the rewrite you refer to -- I haven't been following this page closely of late, sorry. Considering the prominence of the first paragraph, could we fix this immediately without waiting for a total rewrite?

I might suggest something like,

Buddhism is a religion founded around the 6th century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama ("the Buddha"), and is considered by some to be a philosophy or simply a set of teachings. It is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

In a more ambitious attempt I would try to cover some of the religious/philosophy ground, e.g.,

Buddhism is a religion founded around the 6th century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama ("the Buddha"). It is atypical among religions for not recognizing an omnipotent creator God, and for this reason is sometimes considered a philosophy or simply a set of teachings. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

That brings up a different set of issues, however, and I would stress that my immediate goal is to fix the intro paragraph. Could we do that soon? Thanks. bikeable (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Bikeable. I think your two versions are both very good. Personally, I prefer your second option. I agree that the Intro to this article needs to be altered fairly swiftly, as what is there now is (in my view) totally ludicrous and utterly unacceptable! Best wishes to you. From Tony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMPNS (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree both with Bikeable and with Tony. However, we can go one step further and define religion as is defined in WP: a religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. It says nothing about a supreme or supernatural being. Certainly Buddhism conforms to such a definition. In that way we cover the current ludicrosity as well. regards Peter morrell 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, Peter! Thanks very much for what you have written. I completely agree with you that a religion does not necessarily have to insist on the existence of an Absolute Creator God. There are lots of other elements - of which you have pertinently listed a goodly number - which make up a religion. Thank you again for your input. All the best. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, BUT gulp! I didn't write all that! your praise should go not to me but to the WP article Religion which is where I got that short piece from. cheers Peter morrell 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for the great info from the Religion article. I think that would be appropriate at some point in this article in a discussion of whether Buddhism is a "religion" or not -- but it seems to me to be too much detail for the first (brief) paragraph. Unless you can suggest a way to incorporate it? Again, we can always revise later, I just want the first paragraph to be less ridiculous than it is now! bikeable (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK is this any better: Buddhism is a religion founded around the 6th century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama ("the Buddha"). Unlike theistic religions, such as Islam, Judaism, etc, Buddhism does not recognize an omnipotent creator God, and for this reason is sometimes considered a mere philosophy or a set of teachings. However, Buddhism conforms to the WP definition of [Religion]]: "a set of common beliefs and practices held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law." Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. thanks Peter morrell 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for all your efforts. I think your latest version is good, but needs a few modifications. Firstly, it is not best style to say "such as .... etc.", because "such as" already implies an etcetera! So I would say something like: " unlike theistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Buddhism does not....". Secondly, it may irritate some readers if you describe philosophy as "mere"! It tends to demote it (although I personally am happy with your saying that Buddhism "is not a mere philosophy" - because I personally believe that philosophy tends to be more cerebral and ideational than practical - but that's just my take on the matter!). Perhaps we could say: "... and for this reason is sometimes viewed as a philosophy and a set of teachings for right living." However, I am mindful of Peter J's query as to whether Buddhism as a whole really is "a" philosophy. I tend to share Peter J's doubt that Buddhism actually is a philosophy. So perhaps we could say: "... for this reason Buddhism is regarded by some more as philosophy than religion, or as a set of prescriptions for right living." What do you think? My personal view is that we should not, in any case, push the philosophy line too much, as I don't think Buddhism en bloc is in fact a philosophy. It is a set of religious and spiritual teachings for the attainment of a supra-rational, transcendental goal (Nirvana and Awakening). Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what you and the others think. Warm wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, then please go ahead and modify it just as you please. I would actually add one more point: the core beliefs of Buddhism are: karma, rebirth, non-harming, non-violence, mental purification, ethical conduct, nirvana, suffering, causes of suffering, noble 8-fold path, meditation, mindfulness...you can add more if you wish. The key point is to list the beliefs that ALL Buddhists share and accept and leave out those only found in some schools. what do you think? thanks Peter morrell 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to you, too, Peter! Yes, I agree with you. Your addition of key shared teachings would be useful in the introduction. I also agree that we should not place here doctrines that only belong to certain strata of Buddhist teaching. Such can come later in the main entry (e.g. under "Mahayana"). Let's see what other editors think and also what Peter J. comes up with (I haven't been able to find PJ's revised version yet - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place!). Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for commonalities to identify in the first paragraph, might a good place for ideas be in this article: Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna ? Just a thought. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Larry, but that is sadly just about as hopelessly long-winded and detailed as the current article! Its content will need greatly condensing down in order to be of service. I forgot above to include anatta [non-self] as a basic concept. Hopefully we can now agree how to change the intro to something better? thanks Peter morrell 06:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed rewrite is at User:Gimme_danger/Buddhism rewrite. Therte's no need to wait for it: you can import it any time you want.

Since the proposed versions above don't seem to have noticed, I will repeat here that the majority of scholars believe Buddhism was founded in the 5th century, though some still go for the 6th.

It's not strictly correct to say that Buddhism doesn't believe in a creator, as one text (the Karandavyuha I think) says that Avalokitesvara created the world, the gods & the Buddhas.

I disagree with including "core" or "shared" teachings in the summary. What Buddhists consider most important is not necessarily what they share. The latter is roughly speaking Theravada, but Mahayana doesn't consider this most important. See also Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, intro, rejecting the idea of an unchanging essense of Budhism as contrary to Buddhist ideas! Peter jackson 09:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, dear Larry and Peter, for the info. You are always most helpful. I'll look at both pages later as my time permits (am very busy this weekend!). Funnily enough, I do actually agree with Peter J. that it is not strictly true to say of ALL Buddhism that there is no sense of a Creator there - since (quite apart from the enormous Buddha Lands, of course), as Peter points out, the Karandavyuha Sutra does have the idea of all things emanating from one Buddha. This idea is not confined to that text, either: a number of Tantras express a similar notion, most notably the "Kunjed Gyalpo" - although lots of Buddhists try to wriggle out of it and claim that such teachings are no more than "radically subjective idealism" (which strikes me as a bizarre interpretation, since it would amount to solipsism: all that exists is I, I, I and nothing else ...!). So maybe we can incorporate mention of Peter J's point in the Intro - perhaps something like: "Buddhism is generally viewd as a religion without an Absolute Creator God, although a number of Mahayana and Tantric texts do indicate the emanation of the universe and all beings from a single Buddha (variously conceived)." What do you think? Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

...a bizarre interpretation, since it would amount to solipsism...

Tony, as far as I know, the standard statement on this is that such things could be described as beyond conceptual, i.e. dualistic understanding. To an enlightened being such interpretation appears obvious, but not to us. Victor Klimov 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reservations about "rejection of a Creator God," on Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna, the primary terminology used is:

"We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God"

and

"Whether Theravāda or Mahāyāna, we do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a god at his will."

That is, "created and ruled" seems to be a key phrasing. Are there reservations about this? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo dear Larry. That's excellent! The point you make is really significant, I believe. I think it would be good to mention this aspect of the Buddha's not "ruling" the universe, like some cosmic monarch or the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God. Shall we see what the others feel? Warm wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure even this is strictly correct. The Vimalakirti says the Buddha created the appearance of the world, which for all practical purposes is the world as skilful means. This woulkd seem to suggest continuing control.

However, on this and the other points we've been discussing, we sometimes forget what we're here for. We're not supposed to be deciding for ourselves what's true. We're supposed to be finding out & recording expert opinion. Peter jackson 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the words, "We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God," are attributed to Buddhist scholar and Northwestern University Professor of History and Religions Walpola Rahula. I realize though that the above was published by the World Buddhist Sangha Council whose bias might be suspect by some, perhaps.

Here's the view of Peter Harvey published by Cambridge University Press in his An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and practices (1990/2007), under the heading, "The questions of a creator God and the origin of human life":

"Buddhism sees no need for a creator of the world, as it postulates no ultimate beginning to the world, and regards it as sustained by natural laws. Moreover, if there were a creator of the world, he would be regarded as responsible for the suffering which is found throughout it (Jat.V.238).... There is thus no theological problem of evil in Buddhism, namely the problem of how an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God could create a world in which evil and suffering exists." (pp. 36-37)

Harvey (pp. 36-37) additionally notes:

The nearest thing to God in the early texts is the Great Brahmā of our world-system, who was seen by some Brahmins as having created the world. While the Buddha regarded him as a long-lived glorious being, he still saw him as mistaken in his belief that he was an all-powerful creator...." (p. 36)

Harvey (pp. 36-37) sites suttas in the Digha Nikaya (1.18 and 1.215-23) as examples of Buddhism's dismissiveness of Brahma's creator-like self-claims. Harvey further notes that the "nearest thing to a creation story in Buddhism" is found in the Aggañña Sutta (D.III.80-98), having to do with "radiant gods" reborn at the time of the world's evolution from "an expanse of water in complete darkness" to "a crust of 'savoury earth'."

Elsewhere, Harvey states that the Mahayana Lotus Sutra (finalized around 200 AD, according to Harvey) develops the existing view of the historical Buddha's transcendence stating that, after his earthly Nirvana, he will live on eons longer before his final Nirvana; in this world, he is teaching on Vultures' Peak where some virtuous disciples can still see him preaching. Harvey adds:

"While he [the historical Buddha] is [thus] seen as enlightened for a hugely long length of time, however, the idea is still expressed that he became a Buddha by practising the Bodhisattva-path, starting out as an ordinary being. He is, then, neither a recently enlightened human who has passed into Nirvāṇa, nor an eternal monotheistic God-type figure. As a Buddha, he does not exist forever, and is only 'eternal' in that he knows, and has become identical with, that which lies beyond time." (p. 125)

As an interesting tangent to this discussion, Harvey also mentions that due to Indonesia's 1965 enactment of anti-Communism laws outlawing "all organizations that doubted or denied the existence of God," indigenous Theravadins identified either Nibbana or a regional "primaeval Buddha" as their "God" (p. 297).

Given WP's ideal of using material from scholars published by university presses, etc., I thought this might be of help.

PeterJ, if you have found scripture (e.g., Karandavyuha, Vimalakirti) that seems to throw into question or provide a valid alternate perspective to or valid elaboration regarding some of Rahula's and Harvey's statements then perhaps could your thoughtful observations be recorded somehow in an endnote? Or, sincerely, is there a better way to try to more wholely assemble pertinent facts beyond those represented by scholars within WP's guidelines?

With metta,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the aforementioned thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Citations, PeterJ referred to "the best authorities to start with" as being Harvey (Cambridge) and Gethin (Oxford). As I've stated before, I learned a lot from PeterJ during this exchange and, out of deference to his logic and knowledge, I looked up "God" in the index of Rupert Gethin's The Foundations of Buddhism (1998, published by Oxford University Press). I think the most applicable statement by Gethin is this:

"I am not concerned here to pronounce on a question that is sometimes asked of Buddhism: is it a religion? Obviously it depends on how one defines 'religion'. What is certain, however, is that Buddhism does not involve belief in a creator God who has control over human destiny, nor does it seek to define itself by reference to a creed...." (p. 65)

Frankly, while I have not taken time to closely read what all I've typed in above (due to multiplexing tasks here :-) ), I get the impression that Harvey and Gethin are not outright denying the existence of a Creator God in all Buddhist denominations; they are instead stating that a Creator God is irrelevant to the Buddhist path of awakening. Is this take right? Is the phraseology worth inserting into the existing and/or future article?

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this discussion also seems to be going on a long time. Is the introduction changed yet? Concerning Creator God-idea in Buddhism:

Although the various schools of Early Buddhism deny the existence of a Creator God, a few later traditions (such as...) have introduced this concept into their teachings.

This way, all current traditions are served truthfully, and readers will not be confused, thinking Buddhism has no position on this. Greetings, Sacca 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A question here perhaps is whether it's necessary to point out that universal statements about Buddhism are almost certainly false in their literal sense. Another is whether we should be emphasizing what Buddhism is not, letting Christianity set the agenda. Peter jackson 11:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sacca! I think it was PeterM who most recently changed the intro to rid it of the problem that Tony first identified at the top of this thread. At this time, it appears that the issue of a Creator God is simply not mentioned (at least in the intro). I think your suggestion has definite merit, FWIW.

PeterJ, as always, you provide very sophisticated, subtle and long-range questions. I appreciate what you write about not "letting Christianity set the agenda." My intuition is that, while there is definite appeal to let Buddhism simply speak for itself, I feel a strong desire to try to address the worldview of presumed users of WP, just to facilitate their understanding of this article's information, their integration of it into their existing cognitive schema. It seems to me, based on my own exchanges as well as the writings of other (e.g., see Harvey above), that most Westerners come quickly upon the question of Buddhism and God. My personal impression is that this often has to do with the concern that, if Buddhism upholds a God different than the Abrahamic God, then people experience a significant obstacle -- in regards to their issues of loyalty, family tradition, personal commitments, etc. -- to further exploring Buddhism. In my obviously limited experience, when people see that (most?) Buddhism does not require belief in an alternate Supreme Creator Deity, then they feel much more comfortable exploring meditation and issues of such as karma, etc. Of course, if Buddhism did posit an alternate Creator God, then it would also be important to share this, to not be deceptive, to not break the fourth precept.... I think in a similar vein Harvey (1990/2007, p. 300) attributes "modernist" Buddhism's increasing popularity ("vogue") over the last couple of decades among "sections of the middle classes in American, Britain and Germany" in part because: "Like Christianity, Buddhism had a noble ethical system, but it appeared to be a religion of self-help, not dependent on God or priests."

Thus, to communicate to our presumed readers, I think addressing Buddhism & God early on is of definite value.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo dear Larry. I must say - I very much agree with you! I think many, many Western readers will very swiftly want to know what the position of Buddhism is on the God question. So I myself do back your and Sacca's proposals on this one. At the same time, I can fully understand where Peter is coming from. But all in all, I'm for mentioning the dreaded "God" word very early on in the piece, in the way that Sacca has suggested. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that Wikipedia is not intended as a platform for Buddhist propaganda so some of the above arguments are inappropriate. Peter jackson 10:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, "People experience a significant obstacle ... to further exploring Buddhism ... when people see that ... Buddhism does not require belief ... then they feel much more comfortable exploring meditation ..." Peter jackson 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. FWIW (perhaps stating the obvious?), that part was not meant to be persuasive (that is, one of the "above arguments"). I can better understand now why you justifiably used the word "propaganda" though. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the apparent misunderstanding, it would be better if I try to break down what I was intending to write about:

1. I think it is important to include information important to WP readers in this article
2. I think the issue of the Buddhism's relationship to a Creator God is of high (though perhaps latent) importance to a significant number of WP readers
3. I inserted a personal reflection to spontaneously, intuitively postulate a possible reason for such an interest (which I think, PeterJ, you are concerned might be perceived as propaganda): people's possible concern about conflict with their personal Abrahamic faith. Perhaps ironically, in retrospect, I think the above Harvey quote I used puts forth a different hypothesis: people's search for a meaningful spirituality in an age of philosophic materialism/agnosticism. Regardless, this is inconsequential to the decision at hand; it is simply arm-chair psychologizing about the perceived high interest in this matter.

Sorry for any confusion. And, if I may ask, what are others' perspectives on the first two points (the "arguments," if you will)? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)