Talk:Navayana

"materialist" Buddhism

Article calls navayana:

a proposed name for materialist Buddhism, both Buddhism in the West and the Dalit Buddhist movement

Are either of these materialist? I can't speak much for the Dalit Buddhist movement, but I think Buddhism in the West is much more varied than that. Some Western Buddhists would see themselves as materialists, but many would not. And I think Western Buddhism and Dalit Buddhism are coming from very different places, motivated by very different concerns, yet this article just wants to identify them.

I think the idea of "navayana" is the claim to be a new vehicle, as opposed to Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana/etc. Some Dalit Buddhists claim this, some Western Buddhists claim this, but I don't think most Western Buddhists claim this, just some (don't know enough about Dalit Buddhism to comment). And even if people from both groups like the word, that doesn't mean they mean the same things by it, as this article suggests. --SJK (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Propose deletion of this secularism-inclined article in that case since Dalit or Western Buddhists will have to call themselves Buddhas to officiate and create this new vehicle, which simply creates a newer schism or a questionable mental disorder that requires another subject matter expert. 175.156.61.105 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed your tags. The article is not a hoax. It is sourced. It is not illegitimate nor is it sectarian. A new branch of Buddhism certainly doesn't "create a questionable mental disorder" so please be more civil and be aware that "I don't like it" isn't valid deletion criteria. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thank you ‎Ms Sarah Welch, your edits improved the content, style, sourcing and neutrality of this article considerably. I have rated the article C but it is possibly already B class. JimRenge (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping about this the other day, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So, how do karma and anatta relate to each other? What is Ambedkar's view of liberation? Anyway, interesting read. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

‎Ms Sarah Welch, please consider to nominate this article for wp:dyk. My prose size counter refuses to count the old version but I assume the expansion may be fivefold. JimRenge (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Tempting idea. We are getting close to DYK requirements, but not there yet. Before expansion: 1448 B (228 words) Now: 6938 B (1079 words). These stats exclude references, exact quotes from sources etc., as DYK rules appropriately do not allow us to count them. It would qualify for DYK if we get past 5x expansion requirement, that is 1448x5 (228x5) = 7240 (1140). There is another section we can and should add, one about actual practices and rituals by Navayana followers. That alone would bridge this article across the 5x guideline. Plus any other due summary from reliable sources. I will read a few more sources, then meditate on them a bit before adding some more summary pre-DYK nom. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JJ: Interesting questions indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JJ: I just read a short answer to your second question. He believed "The nirwana toward which the Buddha´s teaching lead is not some other-worldly nirvana but a "kingdom of righteousness on earth" in which people are freed from poverty and social discrimination and empowered to create themselves happy lives." Keown, Prebish, Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Ambedkar BR MSW: I am not sure if "practices and rituals by Navayana followers" would better fit into this article or Dalit buddhist Movement. JimRenge (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JimRenge: I was thinking of something along this in the Theravada article. But you have a good point. A possible expansion could summarize Ambedkar's / Navayana's view that the foundational Buddhist doctrines on kamma, rebirth, dhamma wheel, jhana etc, which Ambedkar believed were all Buddhist superstitions that Buddhist monks of various traditions inserted later and thus massively corrupted the Buddhist texts. We can answer JJ's question such as per your reply on re-defined nibbana in Ambedkar's Marxist interpretation of Buddha-related canonical texts and historic literature (though Ambedkar was hostile to communism). I am wondering if we should include a summary of Gandhi's response to Ambedkar that "poverty, insults and social discrimination against someone because he or she is born in a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, Jain, Sikh, etc family was as wrong and bad as poverty, insults and social discrimination against a Harijan/Dalit". May be, may be not. The other thing we should consider mentioning, citing reliable sources, that in Navayana it is Ambedkar who is considered the Maitreya, the Bodhisattva; their shrines have his icons with a halo, his arrival and enlightenment is believed to be prophesied, he is revered, etc; Also perhaps, a note that some state this might be better called Ambedkarism, not a Buddhist sect, for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I asssume Ambedkars belief that karma and rebirth are just superstitions may also answer JJ´s first question: there is no need for Ambedkar to explain the relationship between anatta and karma. The worship of Ambedkar may be part of additions and re-interpretations of Ambedkars Navayana concept after his death. JimRenge (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

JimRenge: We are well past the 5x, and the DYK check bot confirms it is eligible. We have till August 19 to nominate. Let us let the article rest for a day or two for any comments/ revisions /additions, re-read it again, then DYK nom. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Did Ambedkar really reject the essential doctrines of Buddhism?

Hi guys, I just read this article about Navayana and I don't agree with it. There are some misrepresentations here. The article reads that Ambedkar rejected the essential concepts of Buddhism such as Four Noble Truths, Rebirth, Karma and Anatta which is totally wrong. I cannot clear all those misrepresentations in one attempt but I will make several attempts to clear them one by one. Let's start with the Four Noble Truths first. The article reads that Ambedkar found Four Noble Truths to be pessimistic and believed that it was inserted into Buddhism by wrong headed monks. This is false, as we see that Ambedkar has highlighted and discussed this issue of pessimism charged against the Four Noble Truths in his book, The Buddha and his Dhamma. In the Introduction section, he creates a curiosity in the minds of a reader to find out whether these Four Noble Truths are pessimistic or not, therefore confusing the reader whether these were the part of Buddhism or NOT. However, he accepted the Four Noble Truths and has rejected that they are pessimistic. I quote him from his own book :

"Is Buddhism Pessimistic?

• 1. The Buddha's Dhamma has been accused of creating pessimism.
• 2. The accusation arises from the first Aryan Truth, which says that there is Dukkha (sorrow-misery) in the world.
• 3. It is rather surprising that a reference to Dukkha should give cause to [=for] such an accusation.
• 4. Karl Marx also said that there is exploitation in the world, and the rich are being made richer and the poor are being made poorer.
• 5. And yet nobody has said that Karl Marx's doctrine is pessimism.
• 6. Why then should a different attitude be shown to the Buddha's doctrine?'
• 7. It may be because the Buddha is reported to have said in his first sermon, 'birth is sorrowful, old age is sorrowful, death is sorrowful', that a deeper pessimistic colouring has been given to his Dhamma.
• 8. But those who know rhetoric know that this is an artifice of exaggeration, and that it is practised by skilled literary hands to produce effect.
• 9. That 'birth is sorrowful' is an exaggeration by the Buddha can be proved by reference to a sermon of his in which he has preached that birth as a human being is a very precious thing.
• 10. Again, if the Buddha had merely referred to Dukkha, such an accusation could be sustainable.
• 11. But the Buddha's second Aryan Truth emphasises that this Dukkha must be removed. In order to emphasise the duty of removal of Dukkha, he spoke of the existence of Dukkha.
• 12. To the removal of Dukkha, the Buddha attached great importance. It is because he found that Kapila merely stated that there was Dukkha, and said nothing more about it, that he felt dissatisfied and left the Ashram of Muni Alara Kalam.
• 13. How can this Dhamma be called pessimistic?
• 14. Surely a teacher who is anxious to remove Dukkha cannot be charged with pessimism.'

In his next quotation, from Chapter, The Buddha's First Sermon he classifies that not understanding the Four Noble Truths is avijja (Ignorance) and elaborates Eight-fold Path.

• "And Avijja means the failure to understand the Four Noble Truths, of the existence of suffering and the removal of suffering." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellar (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

User: Ms Sarah Welch, what do you think about this since you were the one who inserted such content? Hellar (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Hellar, per Wikipedia policy (especially WP:RS and WP:OR) you need reliable, secondary sources to confirm what you are saying, and then you should feel free to edit the article summarizing from such sources. Quoting Ambedkar himself is insufficient, since this is a primary source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hellar: Allow me to ignore your personal wisdom / prejudice / opinion, other than noting that you are free to believe in whatever you wish and that you are mistaken in many ways. For reasons as to why your personal forum-y views must be ignored on this talk page, please see WP:FORUM and WP:TALK guidelines. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is an encyclopedic NPOV summary of WP:RS. Blogs and websites and other questionable sources are not WP:RS, as anyone can say whatever they wish and correctly or incorrectly interpret whatever they want. What is currently in this article is based on multiple scholarly sources, some authored by those who have spent a lot of time in Buddhism/ Hinduism/ Jainism/ Asia-related scholarship. As Farang Rak Tham states, you need to start with WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me for replying very late. User: Ms Sarah Welch, its funny that you treat the primary source as a content belonging to the blog. Yes, ofcourse, I need to be familiar with Wikipedian guidelines. But that doesn't mean that you should misrepresent Navayana through your biased and prejudiced Hindu mindset. And what is the credibility of those authors who have been proclaiming that Ambedkar rejected 4 Noble Truths, Rebirth, Heaven, Hell, Gods etc. It's clearly written in Ambedkar's book and he doesn't reject them. Although I do accept that my source can be primary but if Ambedkar is really mentioning these concepts in his book and not denying them then who the hell are you or anyone else to add such nonsense? Waiting for your reply. Thanks Hellar (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who has written this article, or whether they have "asia related scholarship" but the beliefs cited as Ambedkar's are just simply and demonstrably false. The article gets it source from some encyclopedia, although you can get Ambedkar's views from ... his own book. The Buddha and His Dhamma, written by Dr. Ambedkar himself, disproves most of these points on the page. For example, this page states that Ambedkar thought Annatta(no soul) and Karma/Rebirth are contradictory. But here is what he himself wrote in Book 6 Part III of the book: (Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/06_03.html) § 5. Critics of the Theory of Soul and Rebirth

   1. The Blessed Lord preached that there was no Soul. The Blessed Lord also affirmed that there was rebirth.
   2. There were not wanting people who criticised the Lord for preaching what they regarded as two such contradictory doctrines.
   3. 'How can there be rebirth if there is no Soul?' they asked.
   4. There is no contradiction. There can be rebirth even though there is no Soul.
   5. There is a mango stone. The stone gives rise to a mango tree. The mango tree produces mangoes.
   6. Here is rebirth of a mango.
   7. But there is no Soul.
   8. So there can be rebirth although there is no Soul. 

This wikipedia page is blatantly lying about Ambedkar's beliefs. And I hope Ambedkar's own book is a reliable enough source for Wikipedia editors about Ambedkar's beliefs. Bali (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I found out where these outright lies come from, and traced it to the introduction of the Buddha and His Dhamma, where Dr. Ambedkar refers to these positions as wrong, and clearly mentions that the purpose of the book is to debunk these myths. The introduction page can be read here: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/00_intro.html The rest of the book is based on the outright rejection of the myths on the introduction, and this page had falsely represented these values as Ambedkar's beliefs. This is an embarassing, outright shameful misrepresentation of Ambedkar's beliefs. I corrected that section immediately and cited his own book, quoting it as much as I can. Adding to the section is obviously welcome, but I request anyone who does to rely on Ambedkar's beliefs and reading his texts carefully. Bali (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes someone please correct it this is very wrong and misleading Marathisach (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources being misrepresented..

..after having read the comment section here of you guys, I looked up to the sources and found the sources to be misrepresenting ambedkar's version of buddhism. The sources do not say the same what the article has stated. My god ! Alas ! this is just like an insertion of personal views (of the editor) and nobody checked it out what the sources were actually saying. wow Karishma1509 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I may cite the actual content which can be accessed from libgen and may show it in next few edits.. Karishma1509 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Marxist Buddhism

Having perused this article, it seems that this modern derivation is a hybrid of Marxism and Buddhism. It makes sense, given the founder's Western education at a time when Marxism was very fashionable. I think this is a theme that should be developed in the article, if the RS permit it. Also, I think this topic has more in common with New Religious Movements than with Buddhism proper. Xcalibur (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)