Talk:Buddhism and the body

This article was nominated for deletion on 2009-03-22. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion review on 2009-03-28. The result of the discussion was history-only restore.

Differences between Therevada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism

The differences between Therevada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism and Tantric (aka Vajrayana) Buddhism are completely ignored. Most of the article seems to focus only Therevada Buddhist views. For instance, sex as being a dirty and bad thing, is absent in Tantric Buddhism. This absence of differentiation between the different schools of buddhism, while there is so much differentiation on this matter, is something that should be solved by at least naming the particular schools to which the different views mentioned in this article belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurensjean (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relocation

Following the close of the AfD for the previous version of this article, I moved the re-drafted version that I created in my user space here. There are some additional citations that should be added, but I think it at least provides a basis for a focused expansion of the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this recreation depends too much upon the deleted content. Reinstating it without the history may be a violation of our GFDL. I'm going to ask another admin for a second opinion before nominating for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material. Aleta ^Sing 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the closer to reconsider his close as there was really no consensus and it seems apparent that Clay Collier's opinion that the article should be deleted was not correctly recorded since he has now recreated it. If the closer does not wish to reverse his action, I will then take this to WP:DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material. Aleta ^Sing 14:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Section

Just what are these "many" religious traditions that think body & mind are entirely separate? For example, the (Roman Catholic) Council of Vienne says that the soul is the form of the body, following Aristotle. In modern parlance the body is the hardware, the soul is the software. Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was paraphrased from the 'Perspectives on the Body' article in MacMillan. The author was intending to limit to Indian traditions, so the 'many' should perhaps be qualified or removed, but the draft of the new version was a bit of a rush job. The original quote is:

Although known to distinguish physical processes from psychic processes for the purpose of analysis, Buddhists do not ascribe to the notion (articulated by other religious traditions originating in India) that within every person there exists an eternal nonphysical self that may be said to “have” or “occupy” a body.

I'd also maintain that the popular understanding in the West of the relationship between spirit and body rarely follows Aristotle, but I have no reference for that ;) --Clay Collier (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give the specific citation please? Mitsube (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this opening needs to be re-worded. Many religions describe the inter-relationship between mind, body, and spirit in very complex ways. The main difference that Buddhism brings is in the perspective on the "self" itself.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Clay or anyone else wants to do more research for this article, Coakley, Religion and the Body, Cambridge University Press, has 2 Buddhism chapters, by Collins & Williams. Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

I should have thought to post this here earlier: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material. Aleta ^Sing 18:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]