Talk:Creator in Buddhism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Buddhism and the God idea is a more appropriate term

creator in buddhism is a misleading term because it is too specific. its a title that does not cover all ideas regarding faith and the divine. its perfectly possible for a religion to consider the universe a source of enlightnment and to have faith in aspects of the universe (pantheistic elements). buddhism rejects the idea the universe was created by a god in a specififc point in time or that there is a supreme creator being, but it can not be denied that buddhism has clear pantheistic elements (specially mahayana buddhism) since buddhism divinizes certain aspects of the universe and consider that the natural laws of the universe are the ultimate source of enligthnment. however , perhaps god in buddhism is also an innapropriate term because it may possibly give the idea that there is an equivalent concept to the abrahmic god in buddhism. but there is not. these are different religions with very different concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Move protected indefinitely to stop the move warring. Contentious page moves require a requested move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

there is actually nothing contentious. what is happening is a bunch of editors forcing their POV in the article. the very own title of the article became misleading and over-specific. and they discarded tons of sources (including academical ones and interviews with the dalai lama) in order to make the article suit to their perspectives. these guys are making the article into a stub and forcing POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds pretty contentious to me. Airplaneman ✈ 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

the new article IS indeed contentious, but the old was not. the old article contained many different views and interpretations. its the new article that became horrible and is based on pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite clear that this new editor is inserting multiple citations to sources from a single publisher ( here) which itself plainly identifies as "one person's web site" Then edit-warring to keep them. Clearly disruptive editing. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

that is incorrect, montana. the former article had MULTIPLE suorces. the new article is completely limited and consists of POV.

Keeping up the disruption against consensus will unfortunately land you a block; please try and discuss these large changes. It's clear that most people here don't agree for valid reasons. Airplaneman ✈ 00:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

He is almost certainly the IP in the above sections. So it has been discussed before.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The reason I reverted the article page move was because it limits the scope of the article in several ways, and is not reflective of the content. Firstly, "the God idea" is a wording only found in the source you cited. It's not an academic concept within Buddhism in any form, nor is it a WP:COMMONNAME by any means. Second, "God" capitalized in that way as opposed to "a god" usually refers to the deity of a monotheistic religion such as Christianity. That kind of title suggests that the scope of the article is solely limited to the idea of a monotheistic deity in relation to Buddhism, and that's not what the article is about. - Aoidh (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What about "buddhism and theist theories" or "buddhism and theism"?. since the term "theism" also covers ideas such as naturalistic pantheism and transtheism, i think its a more general idea than the terms "god" and "creator", which tend to be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think contemporary Buddhists teachers are better than academic sources?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This editor is WP:NOTHERE to improve the article and it is not worth our time to engage with him or her, the issue is that the sources being added are, basically, self-published sites and fail WP:RS. I see nothing from reputable Buddhism scholars, I suspect a lot of copy and pasting. This is not behavior that improves the article Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw the former article had A TON of sources, including academic sources from jstor. there is no such copy-pasting as you claim. Stop inventing things. the former article had citations from the dalai lama. how is that inventing facts? the formed article had 88 different sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any academic sources from jstor. Secondly, why do you think the Dalai Lama is better than academic sources? Lastly, will you ever learn to sign your posts?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

are you claiming these 88 different sources (including ACADEMIC western and asian sources from recognizable books) are all invalid? doesnt seem very intelectually honest in my opinion. and the dalai lama is obviously better than western academics, as he is a leader of a whole denomination. victoria, im starting recently as an editor and i dont know the importance of signing or how i do that. the ideal would be to look these 88 sources and see which sources are valid and which are not,.

You don't cite 88 different sources. You just repeatedly cite the same junk "sources" 88 times. And whats worse, you are deleting actual academic sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My take is that the material is all coming in from a commercial source (a person teaching classes). I see no RS material being added, and, as stated, it's the same junk sources. If this editor wanted to actually help, they would cite directly to JSTOR, provide proof of the legitimacy of each author and so on. As it sits, I think we are just looking at an attempt to insert a bunch of backlinks that are being used to improve the core website's search engine ranking (a link to WP does that...). Definitely inappropriate. Time to stop this. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

These were the sources form the past article. are ALL of them invalid? wouldnt be wiser to look into EACH of them separatedly to see which are valid and which are not? instead what i see is editors choosing which sorces should be in the artivle based on personal opinion and confirmation bias. the past artivle was great because it whowed all the multitude of different opinions that there are concerning pantheist and transtheistic metaphysics within different buddhist schools. these were the 88 different sources, and no they are not "junk sources", most of them are based on books, some by buddhist authorities , some by academics.

1. Thera, Nyanaponika. "Buddhism and the God-idea". The Vision of the Dhamma. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. "In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."

2.Jump up ^ Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts and Practices in South and Southeast Asia by Anne M. Blackburn (editor), Jeffrey Samuels (editor). Pariyatti Publishing: 2003 ISBN 1-928706-19-3 pg 129

3.Jump up ^ Bhikku Bodhi (2007). "III.1, III.2, III.5". In Access To Insight. The All Embracing Net of Views: Brahmajala Sutta. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

4.Jump up ^ Thanissaro Bhikku (1997). "Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable". AN 4.77 (in translated from Pali into English). Access To Insight. "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

5.Jump up ^ Thanissaro Bhikku (1998). "Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya" (in translated from Pali into English). Access To Insight. "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata."

6.Jump up ^ Thanissaro Bhikku (2004). "Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile" (in translated from Pali into English). Access To Insight. "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress."

7.Jump up ^ Thanissaro Bhikku (2004). "Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha" (in translated from Pali into English). Access To Insight. "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

8.Jump up ^ Dorothy Figen (1988). "Is Buddhism a Religion?". Beginning Insight Meditation and other essays. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. pp. Bodhi Leaves. "So to these young Christians I can say, "Believe in Christ if you wish, but remember, Jesus never claimed divinity either." Yes, believe in a unitary God, too, if you wish, but cease your imploring, pleading for personal dispensations, health, wealth, relief from suffering. Study the Eightfold Path. Seek the insights and enlightenment that come through meditative learnings. And find out how to achieve for yourself what prayer and solicitation of forces beyond you are unable to accomplish."

9.Jump up ^ Wallace, B. Alan Ph.D. (November 1999). "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" (PDF). National Conference of the American Academy of Religion lectures. Boston, MA. p. 8. Retrieved 2014-07-22.

10.Jump up ^ Nyanaponika Thera (1994). Buddhism and the God-idea. The Vision of the Dhamma. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. "Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."

11.Jump up ^ Mahasi Sayadaw,Thoughts on the Dhamma, The Wheel Publication No. 298/300, Kandy BPS, 1983, "...when Buddha-dhamma is being disseminated, there should be only one basis of teaching relating to the Middle Way or the Eightfold Path: the practice of morality, concentration, and acquisition of profound knowledge, and the Four Noble Truths."

12.Jump up ^ Buddhists consider an enlightened person, the Dhamma and the community of monks as noble. See Three Jewels.

13.Jump up ^ Thera, Nyanaponika (1994). Devotion in Buddhism. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka. "It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Buddha disparaged a reverential and devotional attitude of mind when it is the natural outflow of a true understanding and a deep admiration of what is great and noble."

14.Jump up ^ Bhikku, Thanissaro. "The Meaning of the Buddha's Awakening". Access to Insight. Retrieved 2010-06-05.

15.Jump up ^ Donald K. Swearer (2004). Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11435-4.

16.Jump up ^ Hong, Xiong (1997). Hymn to Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. Taipei: Vastplain. ISBN 978-957-9460-89-7.

17.Jump up ^ Lama Thubten Yeshe; Geshe Lhundub Sopa (June 2003). Robina Courtin, ed. Becoming the Compassion Buddha: Tantric Mahamudra for Everyday Life. Wisdom Publications. pp. 89–110. ISBN 978-0-86171-343-1.

18.Jump up ^ John T Bullitt (2005). "The Thirty-one planes of Existence". Access To Insight. Retrieved 2010-05-26. "The suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily dark, grim, and painful hell realms to the most sublime, refined, and exquisitely blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is impermanent; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to both their past kamma and their kamma at the moment of death. When the kammic force that propelled them to that realm is finally exhausted, they pass away, taking rebirth once again elsewhere according to their kamma. And so the wearisome cycle continues."

19.Jump up ^ Susan Elbaum Jootla (1997). "II. The Buddha Teaches Deities". In Access To Insight. Teacher of the Devas. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. "Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods." "His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings." "A second deva concerned with liberation spoke a verse which is partly praise of the Buddha and partly a request for teaching. Using various similes from the animal world, this god showed his admiration and reverence for the Exalted One.", "A discourse called Sakka's Questions (DN 21) took place after he had been a serious disciple of the Buddha for some time. The sutta records a long audience he had with the Blessed One which culminated in his attainment of stream-entry. Their conversation is an excellent example of the Buddha as "teacher of devas," and shows all beings how to work for Nibbana."

20.Jump up ^ Bhikku, Thanissaro (1997). Kevaddha Sutta. Access To Insight. "When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be... That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart."

21.Jump up ^ http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/Visual_Dharma/yidams.html

22.Jump up ^ http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html (dalai lama interview)

23.Jump up ^ Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha, RoutledgeCurzon, London, 2005, p. 89

24.Jump up ^ Hattori, Sho-on (2001). A Raft from the Other Shore : Honen and the Way of Pure Land Buddhism. Jodo Shu Press. pp. 25–27. ISBN 4-88363-329-2.

25.^ Jump up to: a b Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 9

26.Jump up ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 5-6, 8

27.Jump up ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 9-10

28.Jump up ^ Dīgha Nikāya 27.9

29.Jump up ^ See Walsh, Maurice. 1995. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, “Aggañña Sutta: On Knowledge of Beginnings,” p. 409.

30.Jump up ^ Samyutta Nikaya (SN 22.87) See footnote #3

31.^ Jump up to: a b Sir Charles Elliot. "Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch".

32.Jump up ^ Mahasamaya Sutta, DN 20

33.Jump up ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pg 10 34.Jump up ^ Cook, Francis, Three Texts on Consciousness Only., Numata Center, Berkeley, 1999, pp. 20-21.

35.Jump up ^ Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research (January 1999). Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun. 仏教伝道協会. pp. 20–22. ISBN 978-1-886439-04-7.

36.Jump up ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 12

37.Jump up ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 14

38.Jump up ^ Professor C. D. Sebastian, Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism: An Analytical Study of the Ratnagotravibhago-mahayanaottaratantra-sastram, Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 238, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 2005, pp. 64-66.

39.Jump up ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov., 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf pp. 2-3

40.Jump up ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture given at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov. 1999, p. 8.

41.Jump up ^ Guang Xing, The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, pp.1 and 85

42.Jump up ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., November 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf p. 1, accessed 14 August 2009

43.Jump up ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7

44.Jump up ^ Dolpopa in Mountain Doctrine: Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix, ed. and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins, Ithaca, N.Y. 2006, p. 84

45.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Hopkins, Mountain Doctrine, New York, 2006, p. 126

46.Jump up ^ Jeffrey Hopkins, Mountain Doctrine, New York, 2006, p. 135

47.Jump up ^ A. K. Chatterjee, The Yogacara Idealism, Motilal, Delhi, 1975, pp. 133-134

48.Jump up ^ Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford University Press: 2001. ISBN 0-19-514672-7[1]

49.^ Jump up to: a b Dan Lusthaus, What is and isn't Yogacara. [2].

50.Jump up ^ Alex Wayman, A Defense of Yogacara Buddhism. Philosophy East and West, Volume 46, Number 4, October 1996, pages 447- 476. "Of course, the Yogacara put its trust in the subjective search for truth by way of a samadhi. This rendered the external world not less real, but less valuable as the way of finding truth. The tide of misinformation on this, or on any other topic of Indian lore comes about because authors frequently read just a few verses or paragraphs of a text, then go to secondary sources, or to treatises by rivals, and presume to speak authoritatively. Only after doing genuine research on such a topic can one begin to answer the question: why were those texts and why do the moderns write the way they do?"

51.Jump up ^ Sokei-an 1993, pp. 142, 146.

52.Jump up ^ Sokei-an 1993, p. 41.

53.Jump up ^ Shaku Soyen 1906, pp. 25-26, 32.

54.Jump up ^ Uchiyama 2013, p. 87.

55.Jump up ^ Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist metaphysics: the making of a philosophical tradition. Routledge, 2005 , page 196.

56.Jump up ^ Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and Gradual Methods of Dzogchen Practice in the Longchen Nyingtig, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55

57.Jump up ^ Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55

58.Jump up ^ Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection, Wisdom, Boston, 2004, p. 55

59.Jump up ^ James H. Sanford, 'Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu' in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. by Richard K. Payne, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2006, p. 176

60.Jump up ^ The Supreme Source, p. 157

61.Jump up ^ Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 40

62.Jump up ^ Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 12

63.Jump up ^ John Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, Sophia Perennis Publications, California, 2009, pp. 16 - 17

64.Jump up ^ John Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 21

65.Jump up ^ Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 22

66.Jump up ^ John Paraskevopoulos, The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 43

67.Jump up ^ John Paraskevopoulos, The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 81

68.Jump up ^ Kannakatthala Sutta, (MN-90)

69.Jump up ^ Pali Tripitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Samaññaphala Sutta

70.Jump up ^ " bBuddhism and the God-idea" by Nyanaponika Thera[3]

71.Jump up ^ Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1)

72.Jump up ^ M. Walshe: The Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 407: "On Knowledge of Beginnings", Somerville, MASS, 1995.

73.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 82.

74.Jump up ^ Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988, page 85: [4].

75.Jump up ^ David J. Kalupahana, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1991, page 61: [5]

76.Jump up ^ Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 81.

77.Jump up ^ Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, pages 82-83.

78.Jump up ^ Brahmana, Metteyya. Book Review: What the Buddha Thought, by Richard Gombrich [6]

79.^ Jump up to: a b Gethin, Rupert. "Cosmology and meditation: from the Agganna Sutta to the Mahayana" in Williams, Paul. Buddhism, Vol. II. Routledge 2004. ISBN 0-415-33228-1 pgs 104, 126 [7]

80.Jump up ^ David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, page 111.

81.Jump up ^ David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, pages 111-112.

82.Jump up ^ Smith, Huston (1991) [1958]. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-250811-3. Retrieved 2008-09-12.

83.Jump up ^ Life Isn't just suffering, Thanissaro Bhikku

84.Jump up ^ "Parinibbana Sutta (SN 6.15)".

85.Jump up ^ Kalu Rinpoche, Kyabje (1997). Luminous Mind. Boston: Wisdom Publications. pp. 20–21. ISBN 0-86171-118-1.

86.Jump up ^ Johnson, Peter (2001). "The Ten Titles of the Buddha". Retrieved 2008-09-12.

87.Jump up ^ Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, 'Buddha and Christ as Mediators of the Transcendent', in Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue, ed. by Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, SCM Press, Norfolk, 2005, p. 152

88.Jump up ^ Gyatso, Tenzin; Chodron, Thubten (2014). Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions. Wisdom Publications. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-61429-127-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

These are not 88 different sources. You are merely repeating the same self-published and primary sources over and over again.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

OR issues

@Ashtekaros: There are serious WP:OR issues with your effort in this article, as well. After a few random checks on the 88 sources you have identified above, and this version you have been trying to reinstate and edit warring over, I urge you to reconsider your stance.

For example, your version claims Acintita Sutta ([4] in your list above) and Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta ([5] above) is adequate reference for "....and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering". It isn't. Acintita Sutta is stating that there are four unconjecturables, it makes no comment on dukkha, nor is it denying or affirming or discussing creator/god in Buddhism. Same is the issue with Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta. As another example, your version claims Kannakatthala Sutta ([68] in your list above) supports your huge paragraph. It doesn't. Your version implies and reaches numerous new conclusions, not found in Kannakatthala Sutta source, and therefore it is OR.

Most of your sources are non-WP:RS and commercial sources, as @Montanabw notes above. On article title, I support "Creator in Buddhism", since we already have Deva (Buddhism). Just a link will suffice. The current article version is much better than your version. @Victoria Grayson: please consider adding a bit more summary from Richard Hayes ([25] to [37] in the list above, [4] to [6] in the current version). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the new version is better because it reduces the whole idea to "creator" , when pantheist and transtheist ideas not necessarly involve a creator, if the universe is a product of karma and elightnment it does not need a creator, but it does not mean buddhism supports materialism. The fact is that "buddhism and theism" , "god in buddhism", or even "buddhism and the god idea" are better titles becuse they are less specific and involve all the ideas contained in such metaphysics. also notice that i have not claimed that ALL sources are valid , but some are and reducing the article in such a drastic way is obviously confirmation bias. the iedeal would be tp screen each source individually and to see which are valid and which are not, removing the invalid ones and changing the past article. That means the ideal would be to go back to the former article, to edit and reduce its size, deleting all the invalid sources and correcting its mistakes. but to start a whole new article (almost a stub) with the discussion being reduced to "creator" would be confirmation bias. notice also that i dont see why interviews with the dalai lama like in the source ( http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html) are invalid since he cites buddhist sources and is a leader of a whole buddhist school.

in resume, im all for deleting what needs to be deleted, and correcting what needs to be corrected in the forme r article, but to discard all sources as invalid because some are, is obviously disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ashtekaros: The problem with dharmakara.net and many websites is that they lack evidence of peer review or editorial oversight, raising non-WP:RS concerns. Any website can allege they are posting an interview, but is it authentic, error free, verified, complete? WP:SPS and wishful blogs based on fringe translations of WP:PRIMARY is a serious problem in Buddhism, and Indian religions-related topics, and these are not appropriate sources for a good quality, reliable encyclopedic articles. Please do not edit war with mass reverts. Please heed to what @NeilN, @Airplaneman and @Montanabw suggest above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we are in WP:DFTT]] Territory here. There is a clear consensus on this article and further discussion is apt to be fruitless. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Airplaneman SO, according to your logic the dalai lama is a lesser authority than a western academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some material restored, please discuss

I have restored about a third of the material in a previous version of this page relevant to a creator God. Only that material that had proper published sources, not websites (accesstoinsight, dharmakara.net, etc) or original research has been restored. Also this material is only that which is focused on the idea of a creator God - whether personal or as an impersonal "source" or "ground" of creation (as in some Mahayana schools).

This comes to about a third of the deleted material from the previous version. I agree that a lot of that material was too unfocused on the topic and either unsourced or badly sourced. However, this page as a stub was basically useless and provided very little information on the topic of the article. If any headway was going to made in developing this article, some of that material which was well sourced had to be brought back. Javierfv1212 (talk)

The Problem with the present article

The main problem with the present article is that it gives the impression buddhism is materialistic and does not believe the universe has moral laws (dharma), holiness or a source of elightenment and moral order. The idea of the divine is not restricted to a creator, the "primordial buddha"(vairocana), tathagata, trikaya, dharmadhatu, dharmakaya... all of these idea are not about a personal creator, but they are highly spiritual ideas that are part of a transtheistic theology, buddhism believes in impersonal sacred laws. some of the ideas that correspond to "god" are present in such ideas. thats why the article should be called "buddhism and the god idea" or "god in buddhism", creator in buddhism restricts too much the article . it would be better edit the old article and change/edit all content that is incorrect. this article is very poor because it does not adress all of the trainstheistic ideas buddhism has of the divine. it gives the impression buddhism is materialist. the article should be more in-depth and deal of all of the ideas regarding spirituality , holiness and the divine, it should not restrict itself to creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtekaros (talk • contribs) 23:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Excessive complexity of article content

Hi @Javierfv1212, you've recently added a significant amount of content to this article, which is great, but as I've read through the material in order to proofread it, it has occurred to me that much of the newly added content is excessively arcane for the casual reader, which may make the article difficult to read overall. What are your thoughts on this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on what can be changed? Javier F.V. 11:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You've added a lot of content, and my feeling is that most of it isn't helpful to the average reader. Could some of it be pared down, and the more technical details removed? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212, please take the time to respond to my concerns. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Please take the time to be more detailed about exactly what you want, what you don't find useful and why. I find a lot of what I added quite useful. So I'd like you to actually give me reasons for your claim. Javier F.V. 12:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Javierfv1212, there is no need to be sarcastic. I'm trying to approach this topic with you in a civil manner, but if you are not willing to engage in a similar vein, we will not make much progress.

Here are a few examples of what I'm referring to as excessively abstract content within the article:

• "unconditioned ultimate realities (e.g., Buddha-nature)"
• "Various authors, such as F. Sueki, Douglas Duckworth, and Fabio Rambelli have described Mahayana Buddhist views using the term "pantheism". Similarly, Geoffrey Samuel has compared Tibetan Buddhist Buddhology with panentheism. Douglas Duckworth draws on positive Indian Mahayana conceptions of Buddha-nature (such as those found in the Ratnagotravibhāga), which he explains as a "positive foundation" and "a pure essence residing in temporarily obscured sentient beings". Duckworth compares various Mahayana interpretations of Buddha-nature (Tibetan and East Asian) with pantheism, which holds that "every existing entity is, in some sense, divine" and which "undoes the duality between the divine and the world". In a similar fashion, Eva K. Neumaier compares the positive Buddha-nature teachings found in Mahayana which point to a matrix or source of all reality with the theology of Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), who described God as quidditas (suchness, essence) and the world as a manifestation of God."
• "Buddha-created worlds are termed "buddha-fields" (or "pure lands"), which are considered to be realms that are more conducive to the spiritual path. The creation of a Buddha-field is a key part of the activity of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism. According to Cabezón, some Mahayana sources even hint that all worlds might be pure lands created by the Buddhas (an immanentist doctrine that is more widely defended in tantric traditions like Mahamudra and Dzogchen)."

I hope you can see the gist of what I mean. I think much of this abstract content should be pared from the article, as it makes it difficult to read to all but the most technical readers. Please let me know your thoughts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern and will see how I can edit this to make it easier to understand. However, much of the terminology here is either: standard Buddhist terminology (buddha-nature, pure lands) or standard theological terminology (like the common term 'pantheism'). Also, even if some terms are obscure (e.g. quidditas) to some readers, most of these have their own wiki pages, so people can go into them and read them. I mean, I'm not sure what people would expect of a page that deals with theology, its going to be a bit more complicated than other pages, no? Like, if you compare it with other wiki pages on theological topics (e.g. Christian theology), they also include obscure terminology as well that deal with obscure theological topics. So, while I agree editing is needed, I am not sure I think the content needs to be removed.Javier F.V.

@Javierfv1212, thank you for responding. While I understand that theological content will by default lean toward the abstruse, what I'm wondering is if it is necessary to include so much technical detail on this topic here, a page that is meant to be an overview of ideas on creation in Buddhism rather than an in-depth treatise on the subject. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess this is just a difference of opinion here. Certainly I will work to make the prose less technical sounding. Give me some time and I will edit the page. Javier F.V. 15:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and no rush :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I made some changes, let me know what you think! Javier F.V. 16:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Javierfv1212, thanks for the effort. I know you won't like hearing this, but I still find the content dense and riddled with passages that are far too abstruse for most readers. Do you mind if I make some edits based on my judgment, and you can respond accordingly? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind, go ahead Javier F.V. 11:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, in the end, I didn't remove very much content from the article, so either you did the bulk of the pruning, or I was overreacting. Either way, thank you for your agreeableness :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)