Template talk:Buddhism topics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buddhism topics template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Buddhism topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this template. You may wish to ask factual questions about Buddhism topics at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

"Key concepts" is too large

The key concepts section is too large. I'm going to go through it and pick out some of the terms which only apply to specific sects (i.e. satori and kensho in Zen, Bardo in Tibetan Buddhism, etc..). ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cut some stuff down, but more needs to be done. It's a bit messy. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

everything is too large. We either synthetise this template or divided it in various "sub-index".--Esteban.barahona (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry C. "Hank" Johnson Jr. (born October 2, 1954) is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives,

RZA is a rapper with the Wu Tang Clan who stated he took on various forms of buddhism as stated in the Wu Tang Manual.

MCA aka Adam Yauch, founding member of hip hop trio the Beastie Boys.

jennifer lopez

Kate Bosworth

Orlando Bloom

russell simmons

Leonard Cohen

Maxi Jazz

Naomi Watts

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Leonard Cohen

Naomi Watts

Wayne Shorter

Steve Jobs

Penelope Cruz

Herbie Hancock

Fabien Barthez

Charles R. Johnson

could you add these guys to the list of converts to buddhism please?

do you need me to find the referencs or not?Jigglyfidders (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete "Anarchism" from philosophy subsection

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist anarchism which has resulted in a merger to Gary Snyder, "Anarchism" in this template should probably be removed as opposed to directing readers to Snyder's page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamma vs Dharma

Human3015 On templates like this one, we provide the basic links without redirect. It is a reference chart, not a political statement. If you have an issue with the use of Sanskrit for dharma, take it up at the talk:Dharma. Ogress _smash! 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: Currently there is no separate article on Buddhist Dhamma thats why that page redirect to Dharma. Moreover there is no such rule that "we provide the basic links without redirect". --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I'm unclear on the reason or advantage to creating a redirect on a navigation box "because it's Pali". Yes, but what about the vast majority of publications that use dharma? At least pipe the link if you're going to be inexplicably insistent on this for some reason. Ogress _smash! 17:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: We can get sources for both terms, but when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism. "Dharma" is general term for concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and some other sects. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: Yeah no, we should absolutely not prise Pali, why would we do that? I'm not sure why dhamma specially identifies Buddhism, as Jainism is noted for its preference for the use of Prakrit and uses the word dhamma all the time. In addition, the Pali and Jain terms are often identical: terms like anagarika and jina and buddha are used by both, as is the phrase "teratana" (Three Jewels) and many, many other terms.

Also, the earliest Buddhist schools used Sanskrit and Prakrits; some of our oldest texts are in Gandhari Prakrit and others are in Sanskrit; the Prakrit Pali doesn't appear until very late in the historical record. The earliest Buddhists in Sri Lanka were not Theravada, or at least a majority non-Theravada; the Dharmaguptaka school that exists in China received its upasampada lineage for women from Sri Lanka, and there was a large contingent of Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhists and inscriptions in both Elu and Sanskrit appear in the buildings of the oldest sects there, which were wiped out by governmental fiat in the middle ages.

In addition, Sanskrit appears as the scholarly form for the majority of Buddhists. So there's zero reason to prioritise Pali in particular.

Also, some of the general Buddhism pages are in Pali, like the words for monks and nuns, bhikkhu and bhikkhuni, and others are in Sanskrit, like śrāmaṇera and śrāmaṇerī. So I still don't understand your position that somehow the Pali form is special. At all. But at least pipe it if you are going insist on this. Ogress _smash! 18:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: this is prayer in Buddhism. You can get "n" number of sources for this basic prayer which shows three pillars of Buddhism mainly "Buddha", "Dhamma" and "Sangha". Section in template mentioning these three pillars. So we should write "Dhamma". It is not template of Hinduism. Though in modern world concept of "Dhamma" and "Dharma" is interchangeble, but as I said, here we should write according to Buddhist perspective. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a non-discussion. You can find an infinite number of sources for "dhamma", but it boils down to your personal preference. Why does this discussion, an dthis kind of arguments, sound so familiair? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Human3015: I feel like maybe you are undereducated in Buddhism, because that's a Theravada refuge-taking from a website about a Theravada temple. When I recited it along with worshippers in about a dozen countries in East Asia, do you know what recited? Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Dharmaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Sanghaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. That's Sanskrit, because that's what Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism use. Your attempt to divide the world into Hindu v. Buddhist v. Jain by sorting some groups into Sanskrit and others in Pali is both your personal opinion and totally not supported by the sources. For example, here is the extremely highly-regarded Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism: uses dharma throughout, uses dhamma a limited number of times in reference to specifically Theravada names and places. Your argument that Wikipedia should decide to change the usage of the field because dhamma is Pali is nonsensical.

@Joshua Jonathan: I don't understand his argument, but I just asked he at least pipe this nonsense. Redirects in templates is just plain bad form and I didn't want to argue, but then he started in with this "Wikipedia should set policy to separate Buddhism from other faiths". We don't set scholarly policy. Ogress _smash! 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015 writes "when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism." Is this a serious comment, let alone "argument"? "Dhamma" is only being used in Theravada; the term "dharma" is abundantly being used in Buddhist literature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will not mind if you people talk in more civil manner, so there are many schools, comment of Ogress shows he is "preferring" word of his choice. If you think that "Dhamma" is exclusively used in Thervada then I think it do needs separate article than just redirect.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 19:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template already has article Dhamma vicaya, why this article is here then, when you people are going to move this article to Dharma vicaya? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, why would you assume I am a man? My name is Ogress. Second, I'm not preferring anything, I'm using the Wikipedia-decided page name. Did you miss the part where I originally said, "whatever, just pipe it so it's not a redirect"? However, I'm not well pleased with your decision that one form is preferential to use always, a position I am strongly opposed to. I make an effort to Palicise pages about the Theravada tradition, piping links as appropriate. I work on many Theravada pages and I use the Theravada terms there. But this is a navigation tool, not an article, and our article is located at dharma. Your insistence on making it a redirect is predicated on a terrible premise and I'm going to call you out for that terrible idea. The premise is so terrible you have even piqued the interest of another editor. It's completely against the principles of Wikipedia, I don't understand how you can miss that.

Third, now you are being unfair and painting yourself as some kind of martyr falling on your sword of dhamma. Don't be ridiculous and dramatic, we're not arguing anything vaguely similar to what you are heroically taking a stand about. Ogress _smash! 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: "Wikipedia decided page" Dharma is not Buddhism specific, it involves mention of all related religions, if it would have been special page on Buddhist concept of Dhamma then your claim was worth. If Dhamma is used in Thervada and you are rejecting it then on which basis we are accepting term "Dharma" used by other sects? And it would be better if we discuss "contribution" and not "contributor", if you continue to be "Ogressive" then there is no use of our discussion. I have to seek for WP:DRN. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015 (talk · contribs) You can't come at me with rhetoric about how Wikipedia needs to use dhamma over dharma because we need to separate the Hindus from the Buddhists and not expect to get a reply. The only thing I said to you that could be construed as a personal comment was that you misgendered me and that you are being overly dramatic by asking when we are going to move a page from the Pali form. You obviously chose to ignore where I pointed out Wikipedia pages are sometimes Pali and sometimes Sanskrit and gave examples, you chose to ignore my multiple comments stating "whatever, just pipe it so it's not a redirect", you are making a tremendous and excited fuss at being called out for bad Wikipedia practices.

I'll try again: your alleged scholarship is beyond shoddy on this topic and you are making an argument that is against Wikipedia premises: "when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism." That is what you wrote. Ogress _smash! 20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: How I will know your gender? You are not delclared your gender on your user page. Or is it even necessary to discuss these gender issues here? What makes difference if you or me is girl or boy? I usually refer everyone with "he/him" unless user has "girlish name" or gender is declared on userpage. And "Ogress" boyish name. But why we are discussing it?? If in any case you belongs to certain sect of "Buddhism" then it may not good to discuss this issue with you, because you will not accept any other stand. (like in India-Pakistan debates, both parties don't change their untill they get blocked or topic banned). So it will be better to ask opinion from apparently non-Buddhist editors, and WP:DRN will be nice board for that. And please Ogress, don't use words "martyr" etc for me, I'm not fighting for any philosophy, I am non-Buddhist, non-religious. Don't start categorizing me. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Ogress. An ogress is a female ogre. If my name was Yakshini or She-Devil, would you just call me "he" anyway? Ogress _smash! 20:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just found the meaning of Ogress. And other names you mentioned are female names. Anyway, I just want to say you one thing, many users have experience with you that you have very aggressive and owner kind approach in debate. Here also you used words like 'Nonsense' 'ridiculous' etc. Many times our username do makes impact on our behaviour, like meaning of your username is "Human eating monster". Your words will not make any impact on me because now I'm enough experienced and I am dealing with many kinds of editors with such aggressive behaviour and I'm used to it, I can handle such situations. But when you use such words or such attitude for new users then it will just discourage them, I have seen you are talking in such language with new users too. New users thinks that these old users are employees of Wikipedia or admins and our contribution is not welcomed on Wikipedia. At least while dealing with new editors, if they have done any good faith edit, you should revert it if it don't fits in our policies but in polite way. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure tone policing will get you everywhere when you are arguing contrary to Wikipedia's very standards. You repeatedly ignore my actual words and then accuse me of things I have specifically written the opposite about. "[M]any users have experience with you that you have very aggressive and owner kind approach in debate". Oh really? Go on. Have you got secret meetings then to discuss the depredations of the Ogress, who stated you should perhaps pipe the Pali word you insist must be used because of some unreasonable reason? After all, I certainly accused you of being biased. Wait, no; that was you: "If in any case you belongs to certain sect of 'Buddhism' then it may not good to discuss this issue with you, because you will not accept any other stand."

As a final note in this ridiculous saga, my name is Ogress after Hariti, a baby-eating ogress who the Buddha taught compassion. So yes, my name means "monstrous woman". Ogress _smash! 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's repeat the arguments by Human3015:

"when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism."
"If you think that "Dhamma" is exclusively used in Thervada then I think it do needs separate article than just redirect."

My comments:

Why should Pali be preferred?
Why should there be a separate article on the Buddhist usage of the term "dharma"?

Regarding preferred titles and names:

WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent" Especially "Naturalness" applies here: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."
WP:COMMONNAME: "some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
Google:

Google Web: dharma 39.100.000, dhamma 1.370.000
Google Books: dharma 27.000, dhamma 3.340
Google Web: dharma Buddhism 1.150.000, dhamma Buddhism 850.000
Google Books: dharma Buddhism 6.350, dhamma Buddhism 2.550

Ergo: dharma. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: for the close relations between Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, read, among many, Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to restate that 1. we vary between Pali and Sanskrit in general Buddhism article titles already; bhikkhu and bhikkhuni are two prominent examples of Pali titles for crucial Buddhist terminology. Pali titles are always used for Theravada-only or Theravada-majority subjects (and Sanskrit for Mahayana/Vajrayana ones) such as the Dhammayuttika Nikaya or the names of the suttas of the Pāli Canon. Dharma is not one of the ones in Pali. Ogress _smash! 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question was only that why you are preferring "Mahayana" version over "Thervada" or "Hinyana".? Is there any consensus exists for that? But I don't want to be in this debate as of now, maybe sometime later, I want to work on other issues. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment demonstrates you have not read anything I've written. If you aren't going to read what I write, stop talking to me. Ogress _smash! 17:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the whole discussion, but I just want to say that, as a Theravadin myself, I am OK with the use of "Dharma" when it is used in the context of Buddhism in general. I don't see why there should be heated arguments about this. Just use Dharma. Or one can write both at the same time, e.g. "Dharma/Dhamma". There are many Pali words that are used universally in Buddhism in preference to Sanskrit ones, e.g. dukkha, tanha, anatta, etc. and most Mahayanists are OK with that. So, just put "Dharma". eu.stefan (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only just in general, but also specifically on Wikipedia: anatta, dukkha, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni are some of the most prominent terms in Buddhist discourse and they are the main article. And in contrast, śrāmaṇera, śrāmaṇerī, dharma and others are in Sanskrit. And most are not distinguishable, like vinaya. Ogress _smash! 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eu.stefan: Question is not only what should be written, it is also about rationale given by these people. They are calling term Dhamma as "nonsense", "ridiculus" and other hand they calling themself expert in Buddhism. Any neutral Buddhist expert will not use such words for any Buddhist concept or term. It only shows they just hate this term "Dhamma" and they just don't like it. But as article name is "Dharma" then template should also mention "Dharma". I should have piped that "nonsense Dhamma" as earlier suggested by Ogress. But anyway, I'm in favour of creating separate article on Thervada Dhamma because I do think that "nonsense" things deserves separate articles and should not redirected to sensible things. I don't know when I will create that article but I will request my antagonists to keep on checking my contribution and make sure to mark it for deletion. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015, your behaviour is ridiculous, etc., not the words in question. I am completely certain that no one here thinks the terminology is ridiculous. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Pandatshang: What is this and this.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015, the term "Dhamma" is not nonsense; this discussion is. Please avoir tendentious editing, and have a look again at the Google-statistics. Also read WP:FORK. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the replies Human3015 is citing is supposed to prove, aside from the fact that I initially told him that his arguments were incoherent and he should at least pipe the link so as to avoid redirects. This has zero to do with "I just don't like it"; the person who doesn't like it is you. At least three other editors have pointed out we use both Pali and Sanskrit forms on Wikipedia for common-use terminology and Dharma is one of the ones that - due to WP:COMMONNAME - appears in the Sanskrit form. When I can work out what you are saying it is to accuse me of anti-Theravada bias, which is, as you observe I have said, a ridiculous accusation. Ogress _smash! 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understood, we can leave this matter now, I should have understand that article name is "Dharma" so template should also have "Dharma". Anyway, only concern here is the kind of discussion we had, specially it was having personal attacks, accusations, off-topic discussions etc. Before this discussion started Ogress and Jonathan were my Wikifriends and we generally had good relations on Wikipedia. But anyway, I will only suggest that we can forget whatever accusations or personal attacks we made on each other and we can continue to edit Wikipedia in nice atmosphere without keeping any bad faith. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]