Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buddhism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWLArchives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 92 days 
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBuddhism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.
WikiProject iconNepal Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSri Lanka Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia: Bihar Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconChina Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAtheism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.


To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Additional info (sources & quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes Additional info (sources & quotes) on the topic of Buddhism and religion can be found at Buddhism and religion sources

Do you think it is fair to call buddism an Indian religion?

edit

Why do we mark buddism as an Indian religion? Unlike Judaism, for example, anybody can convert into buddism regardless of their nationality, so it's definitely not a national religion. Christianity, for example, was created in the Roman empire on the land of the modern Palestine ond Israel, but we donot call it Roman or Palestinian religion, so I think it's unfair to mark Buddism as an Indian religion only because of its origins Кокушев Сергей (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's simply the convention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do in fact refer to the Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 13:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well since it orginated in INDIA , we should mark it as a Indian religion . 103.181.40.101 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's originated from nepal. Siddharth Gautam Buddha was from Nepal. 113.199.247.27 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not an Indian religion. Period! 174.93.233.113 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with that we can't mark Buddhism as a Indian Religion. I think it's needed to be changed. IDB.S (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Too bad. It's an Indian religion. wound theology 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vrddhi form

edit

To Zoozoor... I thought the vrddhi form (bauddha) referred to the followers of the buddha. (So the followers of the "buddha" would be the "bauddhas," just as the followers of the "jina" would be the "jainas.") Are you sure "bauddha dharma" fits here? Mark Froelich (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zoozoor: I would like some more information on this as well. wound theology 06:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I was basing my usage on the Hindi form, where they use both Bauddha and Buddha.
However, according to the example of Jainism, the faith is referred to as "Jain Dharma", as in the dharma of Jains, so i assume that this would be similar for the dharma of Buddhists ("Bauddha Dharma").
Honestly, I'm not sure which one fits best in Sanskrit. Zoozoor (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, if you're not sure about it, I'd suggest we'd change it back to "Buddha Dharma." Even though the term is obviously derived from Sanskrit, I wonder if it might be considered an English term now. "Buddha" and "dharma" are both terms found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nevertheless, I'm open to other opinions. I would cite hits on the two versions ("buddha dharma" vs. "bauddha dharma") in Google, but interpreting Google results can be tricky. (Google isn't always right.) Cheers! Mark Froelich (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you be open to mentioning "Bauddha Dharma" in the explanatory footnote? Zoozoor (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be averse to it. But I couldn't write the footnote, as I'm unfamiliar with the term. Mark Froelich (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, the changes are complete. We will stick with Buddha Dharma, and I've placed my alternative in explanatory footnote "b." I will seek a good source to back it up.
If that works for everyone, then I declare this Resolved.
Thank you, Mark Froelich and Wound Theology, for bringing us to a consensus. Let me know if any further changes are needed. Zoozoor (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Origins in India vs. Indian subcontinent

edit

@Wound theology: Greetings! Regarding this revert - your edit summary was a bit unclear. Are you objecting to not attributing the origins of Buddhism to what is now the Republic of India, or to the phrasing "Indian subcontinent" as opposed to something like "South Asia"? From what I can tell from the article, the geography of origin seems to span modern boundaries? -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buddhism is an Indian religion (that is the term, after all) and revising it to "religion of the Indian subcontinent" is less accurate as most Buddhists today live outside of it. wound theology 00:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: The article Indian religions defines that term as "the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent". I was attempting to refer to the origin only, as I think the original statement was. I was just trying to clarify "Indian" shouldn't be interpreted as referring to the modern Republic of India, which would be even more inaccurate for present-day demographics. Sounds like that's not clear, so maybe we should just say exactly what we mean: "religion originating in the Indian subcontinent"? -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
No one calls them "religions originating in the Indian subcontinent," though. They call them Indian religions. wound theology 06:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: Who exactly are "they"? Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and either avoids or explains jargon and confusing or ambiguous terminology. We could write something like "a religion originating on the Indian subcontinent, known by __ as one of the Indian religions" or "commonly known as" or whatnot. Or "is an Indian religion (having originated on the Indian subcontinent)" or similar. -- Beland (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: Having received no reply from you, I put in the last-proposed phrasing above, but I see you've reverted it with the edit summary "superfluous". Perhaps this clarification is unnecessary for subject-matter experts, but for a general audience seems important because the phrase "Indian religion" is ambiguous. As evidenced by complaints about its inaccuracy, many readers interpret "Indian" to refer to the Republic of India (which it does not) or interpret it to mean that Buddhism is mostly practiced in India (which it is not). -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
A lack of reply is not a certificate of nihil obstat. The current wording reflects the long-standing consensus, wait for more input from other editors before adding in contentious edits. wound theology 08:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: Could you point me to the previous discussion or edits which decided against clarifying the meaning of "Indian religion" so I know who to consult for their opinion? Or alternatively, could you explain your position? I'm in the dark about where we differ; do you doubt that some readers are interpreting this phrase differently than the definition in Indian religions? -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
People who complain about Buddhism being called an "Indian religion" are not confused as to what that term means -- they're participating in nationalist internet arguments about whether or not the Buddha was born in Nepal or India. Scholarly consensus is that he was born in modern-day Nepal but taught primarily in India. Buddhism is an Indian religion, originating in India (whether understood as the subcontinent as a whole or as the territory of the modern-day Republic of India). People will continue to argue about whether the Buddha was Indian or Nepali regardless. wound theology 01:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition.
Yes, people are being nationalistic, but is the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? The Buddha's life seems to have both spanned India and Nepal. It seems unclear that there is a specific day or year in which it's obvious that the religion was created, and thus it's difficult to know where the Buddha was at that time and thus where to ascribe "credit". Given how long ago it was and the available sources, it seems many of the geographic and chronological details are uncertain or disputed. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition. These people should take up their misgivings with the scholarly literature, not us. Reply
The disconnect that generates complaints about geography of practice is that readers don't know that Wikipedia is using the term "Indian religion" in a specific academic sense that refers to origin, rather than one of several possible other interpretations. I'll add your proposed explanatory footnote. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: I couldn't find anything in the article that verifies the claim "The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic". Did I miss something or did you have a citation for that? Shakya seems to be the right link target; Sakya describes a school of Buddhism, not a republic. -- Beland (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sakya is the Pali form of Shakya. Yes, the target is wrong. It is well-attested that Reply
@Wound theology: OK, can you give a citation for whatever it is that you think is an accurate statement? Secondary sources are preferred, because religious texts aren't necessarily historically accurate, and obviously don't know anything about modern geography. -- Beland (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Joshua Jonathan has removed the incorrect claim and attached some references to that explanatory footnote. Though the quotes from the references seem to verify the use of the term "Indian religion" and not the geography of modern countries where early teaching happened. -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The lede should follow the body, and the fact that Buddhism originated where it did is discussed elsewhere on the page. There's no need for references. wound theology 06:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Wound theology: I did a search of the article and did not find any mention of "Vulture Peak" or "Magadha". The section on the life of the Buddha only mentions the tradition that he attained enlightenment at Bodh Gaya; I don't see anything about the geography of teaching. I do see mention of the Shakya Republic as birthplace, but unless I missed something (maybe this information was removed at some point?) we would still need something added to the article to verify the claim "first preached in Magadha". -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term Indian religion is linked, so readers can easily find an explaanation. And it is indeed a common term; not sure if a direct explanation is necessary. But we've done without a direct explanation for ages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a college-educated American, I took a world religions class in high school, I have a dozen books on religion on my desk, and I wasn't familiar with this term. It might be more well known among people who study Eastern religions or who live in Asia, but for a general audience, I don't think most English Wikipedia readers are going to know the technical meaning. Longevity doesn't seem to be a guarantee of optimality, given that the term has been the subject of complaints. -- Beland (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

“Regading” typo in intro

edit

I cannot fix this because the article has been locked 86.31.1.85 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done, thanks JimRenge (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books are an unreliable source.

edit

The authors of cited books have no experience with Buddhism. If you want to know about Buddhism, ask the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of the Sovereign Nation Tibet. He is the foremost living authority on Buddhism. He objects to the epithet religion, rather referring to Buddhism as a Mind Science. The book authors parrot incorrect notions from before airplanes made trips to Tibet possible. Now that the communist infestation of the once-proud nation China invaded and occupied the sovereign nation Tibet, committing daily genocide with impunity, forcing the Dalai Lama into exile, he has traveled to the US to give teachings memorized by Lineage Lamas and handed down via rote memorization for millennia, His talks and teachings have become accessible. DalaiLama.com contains videos of many of those talks (in English) and teachings (memorized in Tibetan) which repudiate most of the written books, especially those written before 1970. This article quotes none of the Dalai Lama's books. It is therefore incorrect, misleading, and blatantly false. Throw out this article and start over by reading and citing the Dalai Lama's books and public talks. That will go a long way to counteract the lies and falsehoods perpetrated by His sworn enemies, the Chinese Communists, who sends agents to kill him, and the ignorance displayed in the article's citations. Hpfeil (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reply

Bu

edit

Buddhism is not Indian religion it's a Nepali Buddhist religion. 113.199.247.27 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we get an image for the lead?

edit

Since the articles for Christianity and Islam have images in the lead sections, can we also get one for this article? Moodgenerator (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just threw one on, used the Kamakura Daibutsu as it is one of the most famous Buddhist images globally and most representative of the major lay practice. wound theology 07:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

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

Hi, requesting registered wiki editors to adjust the introduction of Buddhism. It is not a Indian religion, which is a oversimplification. The religion is followed in China, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand and more. It would be better characterize as a global religion or Asian religion or perhaps strike it all together. The origins date back centuries and matter fact buddhist scholars argue the origins of buddhism between Nepal and India.

In short, the summary is misinformed and hoping to see a correction. Tenpuzzles (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the term used by reliable sources as cited in Buddhism#cite_note-7. I think discussion and examination of reliable sources supporting such a change would be beneficial before changing this, if you could provide sources for this. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply