Talk:Buddhism

Welcome to Talk:Buddhism.

Loving-kindness to you and yours!

Earlier parts of this discussion have been moved to Talk:Buddhism/Archive, Talk:Buddhism/Archive2, Talk:Buddhism/Archive3, Talk:Buddhism/Archive4, and Talk:Buddhism/Archive5, Talk:Buddhism/Abolitionism, Talk:Buddhism/Archive6 (discussions ending earlier than June 1, 2005).

Open Tasks

Please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism

Request for help on interfaith dialogue

I need help from Buddhists in an attempt to speak of a common ground among believers. Are there any Buddhists here who could either help me or direct me to a group where I might find knowledgeable and mature Buddhists willing to help me for a while explore the feasibility of a universalist Wiki type project on core universal truths such as possibly eternity, sacrificial love, and soul? Tom - Talk 06:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't really know any Buddhist groups, but I'm curious about your project...could you say more about it? Particularly, what do you mean by "common ground" or "universal truths"; is your project syncretic or echumenical, or what? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Orkut has a number of useful communities for such an effort, although one would probably need to "fish" for a while. Its main "Buddhism" community is quite good indeed. Luis Dantas

There's an interesting dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm at the [BSWA]'s site, entitled "Which yana? Hahayana!", where Ajahn Brahm explores the differences between various Buddhist traditions, and shows that for all their differences, all the core things - the practices, what people experience themselves - remain the same; that all the traditions of Buddhism have way more common ground than differences. If I remember correctly he also draws parellels between the life of a Buddhist monk and that of the Franciscan friars. All their dhamma talks are under the Creative Commons license, so you might find it rather useful. Sciamachy 20:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

These pages seem to be attracting persistent vandalism recently. Has anybody taken the time to report the IDs of the vandals to the Wiki people ? I believe they have an Ongoing Vandalism page. One can also ask to have the atrticle "locked", usually for a month and thus hide the additions of these idiotic people. In fact, the various sections in Wiki Help relating to vandalism make interesting reading.--Stephen Hodge 01:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply to this when it was initially posted. I'm not too familiar with the details of Wiki Help counter-vandalism, but I can tell you about standard Wikipedia procedure. Normally, the page would only be locked in cases where it was undergoing unusually aggressive waves of vandalist attacks that show no signs of getting under control. This article doesn't really have that problem; instead, we have frequent random acts of petty vandalism. This is the kind of thing that we can and should correct manually. Fortunately, the more high-profile an article is, the more editors are keeping an eye on it, in addition to vandals. Usually, when someone vandalizes the article, it's fixed within a few minutes, so there is little danger of someone coming to Wikipedia and seeing the vandalized version.

The trade-off, of course, is that, if we lock the article, we lose the entire Wiki element by which anyone can edit it. - Nat Krause 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism a religion?

Hi! I've been talking with some budhists, and they tend to be skeptical about calling Budhism a "religion". Moreover, calling Budha the "g-d of the budhists" is considered by many as utter ignorance. What is the view of the active editors of this page? --Pinnecco 14:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting question! Although many Buddhists deny it, I think, on balance, it is fair to call Buddhism a religion (at least in part, and certainly in its Mahayana version), since its founder (or re-discoverer), the Buddha, made claims about reality which are usually categorised as being of a religious nature. For instance, he taught that death is not the end of consciousness, but that the individual consciousness travels "upwards" (into happier, heavenly realms of existence) if the being has been virtuous during his/her lifetime and "downwards" (into more suffering modes, including hell) if the being has been more selfish and cruel. Then there is the idea of reincarnation or rebirth: beings are caught up in an almost endless cycle of life, death, rebirth, life, death, rebirth, with the suffering or happiness experienced each time being in significant measure influenced by that person's karma (a very religious concept, I would have thought). Most of all, there is the notion of Nirvana - a transcendent realm or state of ineffable Reality which is eternal, blissful and beyond all adequate human conception. In the Mahayana, there is additionally the idea that the Buddha is present in all places, at all times - a very "religious"-sounding notion, it seems to me - and that faith in the Buddha, coupled with good works (or without them, in some interpretations), can lead one after one's death into a Buddhist Paradise (a "Buddha-Field"), from where one will definitely attain Nirvana. These are just some of the features of Buddhism which make of it a religion. Of course, that does not mean that Buddhism is not also a lot of other things at the same time. But seeing Buddhism as a religion (especially in its Mahayana manifestation) should not be a cause for shock, horror and scandal (although one never knows!). Almost overwhelmingly, the Buddha is not viewed as "God" by Buddhists - but there are aspects of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism that come very close to (if not enter into) a panentheistic or "theos-en-panist" ("God in all") vision of the ultimate "Adibuddha" (see the Wiki entry, God in Buddhism). All good wishes to you. - Tony. TonyMPNS 16:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guys, Buddhism (Hinduism and all the other Indian traditions for that matter) is NOT a religion. If we call Christianity, Judaism and Islam a religion, then we cannot use the term for Buddhism, since it is categorically and fundamentally different!!! A "religion" asserts that there is meaning in the cosmos, that God put it there, that God has a purpose and that everything, including humans, are part of this divine plan. This is what makes something into a religion (not a holy book, churches or anything else). Now, Buddhism does no such thing. Buddhism is "a way" of teaching somebody the right insight, the right attitude to live a happy live. Doctrines are NOT important in Buddhism because it is an insight taught by experience and since all humans are different from eachother, every individual's experience is different. Thus, some traditions are more apt to teach the insight to a individual, that particular tradition works better for that particular individual. One tradition may claim their way is better than the other, but some "doctrine" is not specific for some tradition. "There are different ways to Enlightment." While religion claims there is only ONE way to Salvation and that's that particular religion. Intolerance and true faith are two faces of the same coin. For more information on the subject and on the creation of Buddhism, Hinduism and such as "religious entities" please see: Almond, Philip C. The British Discovery of Buddhism and Balagangadhara, SN. The Heathen in His Blindness. They very convincingly argue my point: if we call christianity, Judaism and Islam religion, then Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism and the other Indian traditions are kind of manuals to living happily. And one cannot make a manual to guide someone's experiences, without describing to some degree the world and the surroundings. That is why it seems that Buddhism is making claims about reality and the cosmos like religion does. Buddha is saying: hey, to live happily you can follow my way if you want to. He is not a God that put meaning in the cosmos, created the cosmos and the cosmos and human life do not embody his divine plan or such. He is an "example" that people can follow, not a god. It all became mispresented when the missionaries started going to India and they were convinced there would be a "false religion" (because Christianity is the only true one in their eyes). They started mapping so called religions and created the entities "Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism etc." Just read the two books I mentioned for further reference. It's too long to explain otherwise. The lesson we learn here once again is that Western society dominates the world and that their descriptions, their classification schemes, their terms are being used for the rest of the world. The missionaries described what they saw in India but failed to understand what they described. [13:32h, June 28 2005] Dries.

Buddhism is most certainly a religion by any reasonable definition. It is not, however, based on belief on any gods, although there are some practice deities mixed in some schools. The Buddha is most certainly NOT a god. He said so himself, even. Dries is confusing ABRAHAMIC religions with religions in a general sense, which would make most traditional religions somehow not "true" religions - including Shamanism, Confucionism, Jainism, and IMHO Shinto. I also disagree on Buddhism "having no Doctrine". Luis Dantas 28 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

EXACTLY my point: they are no "true religions". Did it ever occur to you that there are cultures out there that have no religion? That's the problem: people think every culture MUST have a religion. It's a Christian idea: that religion is universal. But people think denying a people their religion is somehow equivalent to denying them of being cultured, of having a "culture", is equivalent to degrading them, because "only civilized people have religion". I gave you my hypothesis of what religion is and then I clearly showed that Buddhism etc. differed from this. Hence, it is not "a religion" (but that's OK). What is your definition of religion then? Because if it doesn't necessarily envolve gods, then I'm very curious about it... Our problem we have here, my dear Dantas, is that our starting point for our discussion is fundamentally different. You are basing your arguments on "Buddhist texts". I'm saying there's no need to do that, because there aren't such things like that. Why? Because they were discovered, referred to as Buddhist texts and then translated and interpreted by WESTERNERS in the 18th and 19th century. These Christian Westerners had the prefixed idea in them that there HAD to be (heathen-) religion amongst the Indians, that such religion had its origin in sacred texts (just like Christianity, Judaism and such). They gathered some texts that were old and of which they heard the Indians speak of and, most importantly, they then translated and interpreted these texts as if they were religious ones. By the supremacy of the Western culture over time there grew the acceptance of "Buddhism", "Hinduism",... as religions, even in India. For reference what these traditions really are, look at my previous posts. You see we are arguing on different levels? You are basing your arguments with the prefixed idea that there must be religion in India and that it's prescribed in holy texts. But I'm saying a culture doesn't necessarily have to have religion (which isn't degrading or condescending in any way!), and that those so called religious texts are no reasonable basis for arguing that Buddhism is a religion, because they were translated and interpreted (and some of them even created!!!) by people who thought they had religion on their hands. If you have the stomach for it and are interested, then read the book I recommended. It will give you a whole new, fundamentally different perspective on the whole case. If you don't feel like reading all of it, then just read Chapter 2,3,4 and 9. By reading those chapters you'll get the general sense of it. Afterwards we can continue our argument (if you still hold a different opinion). Otherwise there's no point in us arguing further since our pre-existing beliefs on which we base our arguments are too different. You're looking at Buddhism on a "micro-level" (internally; problem is that those internal aspects are today very much defined by what Christians wrote and said about it centuries ago) and I'm looking at it on a "macro-level".[User: Dries 13 July 2005 19:47h]

Actually, Dries, it seems to me that your stance is way more Christian-centric than mine. It implies that non-Abrahamic religions are not "proper" somehow. I will read that book if I can, but it is unlikely to be THAT convincing. Luis Dantas 02:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There might be similarities, but what you are doing is undermining the term religion. You say: A, B and C are religions because they have these specific characteristics. Then you say: although these things right here (let's call them X, Y and Z) don't have the above characteristics (that make A, B and C into religions), they still are religions. Do you see the paradox?

I most certainly do not, at least when it comes to this case. Luis Dantas

All I'm saying is that you can't use the term religion for Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. if you simultaneously use it for Christianity and such. You undermine the meaning of the word if you do so. It seems to me like you use an awfully broad concept of the term.

Then again, I find your own concept of the term awfully narrow and biased towards Abrahamic faiths, to the point of uselessness. Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

By doing so, you eliminate all meaning from it. Further, you run the risk of classifying many things that have absolutely nothing to do with religion, as a "religion".

Such as? Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I just took a class on "Buddhism" at my university by an Indian professor. He taught us the above by means of the book he wrote (see the reference to Balagangadhara in my previous post). He said the West started this farce of calling Buddhism and all a "religion" and what's even more sad is that most of the Indians themselves are continuing this farce even today. He also taught us though, that, from the viewpoint, the religious background (cfr. Reformation) and understanding of the world of the missionaries who started the farce, it is perfectly understandable that they did so. Religions can't see "otherness", can't see different things that they are different in a "different" way, but can only recognize false variations of themselves.

That is a POV that IMHO has been greatly abused. It is quite true that most non-Abrahamic religions are very different in many significative ways from Abrahamic ones, but they are still and very much religions by any reasonable definition of the word. Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Pretty interesting class it was. Throughout his book he told about Roman times, the Reformation period, Enlightment period, what the missionaries' expectations were before going to India, how the missionaries' frame of mind was fitted onto Indian culture, how both sides misinterpreted each other etc. By doing so he explained HOW the situation today came to be. And to tell you, it is indeed perfectly understandable from both the Western ánd the Indian viewpoint. It is an unfortunate collusion of misunderstandings and accidents. I can really recommend the book. [30 June 2005 10:41h] Dries.

Missionaries noticed some 'facts' and that these facts are accounted for by religion. This unity, or conceptual gestalt, is not due to the nature of what there exists in the east, but due to the nature of christian religions; that religion is cultural universal is a claim of christian theology. Thanks to secularization of theology, this theological claim that religion is a cultural universal has become pretheoritical, or unexamined trivium. Of course, one can put forward, as many have done, an argument saying that there are religions besides the empirical ones that christianity, islam, judaism are. But what is needed to counter Balagangadhara's hypothesis is this: in the words of Philosopher of Science Larry Laudan, confirmatory instances, but not positive instances; that is, I can always put forward an argument to the effect that P explains a, b, and c, where a, b, and c are positive instances. If P predicts 'novel' facts, such novel facts are confirmatory instances. No matter how loud one claims, as seen in humanties, a hypothesis with testable consequences is necessary, but not an argument which just explains the selected facts!

Buddhism should not be called a religion because it is not revealed. Only revealed religions are religions. Revealed religions only include Judaism, Christianity and Islam in choronological order. Rest all including Hinduism, Budhhism, Sikhism etc are called philosophies given by some man some ages ago! PassionInfinity 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If only revealed religion (i.e. religions that are law-giving, that provides revelations handed down by a god or gods) are religions, then why use the prefix revealed at all? Religion is, in one of its many definition, a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. --Andkaha^(talk) 08:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is a religion. Sometimes I think that some western buddhists regard their religion as special or even superior to say Islam, Judaism and Christianity. "No, we´re not like them...!" Someone was saying "religion" implies a revelation (!) well, the Buddha presented some revelations to the people, one of them being the Noble Truths. Philosophers do not know work with such ideas as karma, it´s absurd to say buddhism is a philosophy, because it has a set of fixed ideas and philosophy doesn´t. --213.190.195.100 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Anyway this is the opinion of a Buddhist scholar, Donald S. Lopez, Carl W. Belser Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan:

• Buddhism is a religion, in the sense that it presents an entire worldview with which to confront the issues of life and death. It is not only a worldview but also a form of practice. Hence, although there are many philosophical schools within Buddhism, it is best to consider Buddhism a religion.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/32/story_3272_4.html

Well as a set of beliefs, Buddhism may be called a religion but not revealed religion. Prefix is necessary because dictionary does not define the word religion as a revealed one. Revealed religions only include Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. PassionInfinity 04:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Other principles

Somebody has made a point that the statement about action's effects can't come until the next life is confusing. Not only so but i think it's completely wrong to say that buddhism assumes that. If i am to hold out the apple and let it go, the effect of that will be apple falling down... now not in the next life. Granted some karma can only manifest itself much later, but to say that any effect must be in the different cycle of existance is quite rediculous. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Proposal concerning era designations

A proposal has been made concerning the appropriate uses of BCE/CE and BC/AD era designations. As this is one of the most prominent Wikipedia articles to use the BCE/CE style, I thought you guys should know about it so that you could offer feedback. Kaldari 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Women attaining Buddha-hood?

Hi, I have a quick question I was wondering if someone could shed some light on for me. In the article it states that "Anyone can free themselves from suffering as Gautama did, regardless of age, gender, or caste." Now, as far as women attaining enlightenment, from what I understand there is a small section in The Lotus Sutra that discusses this possibility, but I was wondering if there were other sources that talk about this as well?

Thanks! Airosche 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha agrees to ordain women because—despite the serious problems that this document claims the Buddha said it would cause—he agrees that a woman's capacity for enlightenment is equal to a man's. Some other Buddhist traditions, I believe, especially in Confucian East Asia, had the idea that women can become Buddhas or can enter the Pure Land only if they are first reborn as men. It also appears to be generally assumed that all Supreme Buddhas are male at the time of their final enlightenment. Consider that some Buddhist texts list quite a number of (seemingly arbitrary) characteristics that all Buddhas supposedly have, e.g. they are tall, they are born in India, etc., etc. Apparently, one of these characteristics is that they are male. - Nat Krause 08:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism origins

Guys, the Encyclopedia Britannica and most other textbooks on Buddhism agree that Buddhism originated in Nepal. Not only that, they have found a monument erected by Asoka stating "Here is the birthplace of the Buddha" in Nepal. kennethtennyson

I just checked Britannica Online and its Concise Encyclopedia Article on Buddhism says "Religion and philosophy founded in northeastern India [...]". According to Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990), the Buddha was born in a small republic which was located across the Naplese-Indian border. He was enlightened in India and he was teaching the Dharma in the region of the Ganges basin in north eastern India (probably also in Nepal). If Buddhism came into being as he got born, then yes, the origin of Buddhism might very well be Nepal. One could also argue that Buddhism originated at the moment of his enlightenment, at the moment when he decided to start teaching, or at the first cermon (all in current India). Andkaha 11:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

May be we need to change it to China for Buddhism origins, because

1. During the time of Buddha there was no India, Nepal, Afghanistan etc. but some small kingdoms.
2. People during the time of Buddha from Afghanistan in the west to Indonesia in the east and from Tibet in the north to the Lanka (now Sri Lanka) in the south did not thought Buddhism as a separate religion, neither do all of them now. I do have many friends in India who are Buddhist but also go to Hindu temples. Dalai Lama when he visit any new place, he also visit local Hindu temples that are important. Now same is true in Sri Lanka also, where people see less difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

But I do not know whether Kenneth has something else in his mind, as I have noticed from his changes and he also mentioned he had some bad arguments with some Indians. Also see him not LOGGED on.

His edits are kennethtennyson (talk · contribs), 66.52.59.70 (talk · contribs), 24.69.255.205 (t c), 68.14.62.73 (t c), 136.142.21.236 (t c)

-Bijee 23:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Don't lie Bijee

Buddy, don't put odd IP addresses to my name. Secondly, I'm not the only person on this encyclopedia having issues with Indian nationals "rewriting" history and deciding that they invented one thing or another or that a certain history just doesn't suit their tastes. See the whole Taj Mahal debate that has been raging on whether or not it is a Vedic temple. I actually do research on Asian history and I along with my colleagues have run into so many supposed "scholars" from India in the last few years trying to rewrite history that it has had us fed up. We even had one "scholar" trying to convince us that the East India Company was actually from India and not Britain and another one who blamed Muslim fanatics for killing Gandhi. I'm not sure if it's due to the last decade of BJP / Hindutva rule rewriting the whole education system of India or just plain ignorance in a 3rd world country with a few hundred million English speaking people. I've never suggested that China was the birthplace of Buddhism, by the way. My contention is that the older version of Britannica that I have along with most recent editions of books write Nepal as the Birthplace of Buddhism because it is the place the Buddha grew up in and lived most of his life. You can split hairs and put India if you wish because he became enlightened there, but regardless the vast majority of Nepalese and Tibetans along with a lot of historians believe that Buddhism began in Nepal not India. Kennethtennyson 07:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are out of line. Please support your facts by properly referencing your sources. Leave personal attacks out of it. Andkaha 10:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

In Sixth century, if there was "NO INDIA", only smaller kingdoms, then you must also know that there was also no Greece, No Italy, no Rome, no China, no Nepal, no Iraq, no Israel, no America, no nothing but only "small kindoms" at that time! Nepal (Lumbini) was the birthplace of Buddha, but the Karmabhumi or land of action of Buddha was India. Also, in a cultural sense, India could be used. The birthplace of Gautam Buddha maybe specified as Lumbini (Kapilvastu) in Nepal, no problem! And as far as self proclaimed nouveau scholars of India are concerned, all passionate with Hindutva, they have no place in Wikipedia. It is a place of neutral point of view and no outpourings of a Hindu heart. Cygnus_hansa 22:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Input sought on Jesus

Would anyone please care to comment on the importance or rôle of Jesus in Buddhism? Please see the discussion at Talk:Jesus#Poll:_Religions_Jesus_is_important_in. A complete review of various Buddhist views of Jesus would be appreciated. Thanks. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Images

Temple_of_
tooth.jpg

I've been meaning to post a message here on this subject for quite some time—sorry for the delay. I had an exchange of e-mails a while back with a user who added two of the images which currently grace the article (specifically Image:Temple of tooth.jpg and Image:Sri lanka aukana buddha statue.jpg). I initially removed them for copyright issues, which were then settled; he wrote me to argue that they deserved to be in the article because there the other images are unfairly biased towards East Asian sources. I don't know if this is a good reason to exclude or include them, but I figured we should give more thought to what images to include or not include.

Image:Sri_lanka_aukana
_buddha_statue.jpg

Until quite recently, Wikipedia almost never had to make choices about which images to include in larger articles, because there were very few images available to use (the lead image for this article was chosen simply because it was the first picture added, although I've grown rather attached to it). Fortunately, the number of choices has increased dramatically over the last year. This necessitates that we make some decisions about what to include and what not to.

To assist in this, I've made some notes on what types of images we currently have (as of January 18, 2005):

Buddhism currently contains 13 images:

• 1 Buddha statue, East Asian (lead image)
• 1 Buddha statue, from a Chinese-built temple in the United States
• 1 Buddha statue, Sri Lankan (Image:Sri_lanka_aukana_buddha_statue.jpg)
• 1 Buddha statue, Central Asian
• 1 carving of multiple Buddhas/bodhisattvas, East Asian
• 1 temple, Sri Lankan (Temple_of_tooth.jpg)
• 1 temple interior, from a Chinese-built temple in the United States
• 1 ancient Buddha foot sculpture, Central Asian
• 2 images of monks, Tibetan
• 1 image of monks, Burmese
• 1 painting of monks, including an East Asian and a Central Asian
• 1 Buddhist flag, designed in Sri Lanka

Overall, by type, that's:

• 4 Buddha statues (including one mentioned above)
• 1 carving of Buddhas/bodhisattvas
• 2 temple images (including one mentioned above)
• 4 images of monks (3 photographs and 1 painting)
• 1 ancient aniconic carving
• 1 symbol

And by regional style:

• 4 out of 13, East Asian (all Chinese, in fact; half of which are located in the U.S.)
• 3 out of 13 Central Asian
• 2 out of 13 Sri Lankan (both of which are the images mentioned above;), not including the flag
• 2 out of 13 Tibetan
• 1 out of 13 Southeast Asian
• 1 flag, designed in Sri Lanka, used internationally

Okay, so what do we notice

For one thing, in terms of subject matter, the current images contain no bodhisattvas (except for possibly in the Chinese carving), such as Maitreya or Guan Yin. I'm not sure how many different Buddhas are shown (Shakyamuni, Amitabha, Vairocana, et al). There are few images of temples, and, if we removed the Temple of the Tooth image, there would be no temple exteriors. No stupas. No diagrams or maps (although I don't know of any that would useful off the top of my head). There are currently no photographs of Buddhists other than monks (we used to have one of Thai people praying; not sure what happened to it).

There is a certain amount of geographic imbalance. Without the two Sri Lankan images, we have 4 out of 11 Chinese images (including the two Chinese-American ones, which are from Hsi Lai Temple), which is a lot. We don't even have any images from Japan or Korea. Sans Sri Lankan pictures, we only have one image from any of the Theravada countries, and that of child monks. Still, I'm not sure the two Sri Lankan images are the best solution here: the Temple of the Tooth picture isn't very striking ... we could probably find a better one from a different Theravada country. And the Aukana Buddha image, unless I'm missing some kind of historical interest, doesn't show a lot of specifically Theravada flavor to distinguish it from the three other Buddha images we have.

Bhutanese Wheel of Life

There is room for at least 1, possibly 2, maybe more images to be added without crowding (although I think the Aukana Buddha image is already crowded where it is, so I should say without further crowding). I think it would be a good idea, if possible, to leave an empty spot to encourage future editors to add one. I'm also interested in perhaps taking the advice someone gave on this talk page some time ago to use one or more images from the German version of this article—I have my eye on Image:Wheel life 01.jpg (seen at right), or some other mandala, which would add some colour and variety. It would be nice to add at least temple exterior shot, preferably more than that, because temple architecture varies from place to place more than Buddha statues do.

What this means is that we don't have a lot of room left over to work with. We're going to have to think in terms of evaluating the quality of new images and the ones already in the article, and possibly dropping some current ones in favor of those that fit improve the article more (dropped images don't have to disappear from Wikipedia, they can often go to other articles; I made Image:Temple of tooth.jpg the lead image on Temple of the Tooth a while back). I would suggest that we should perhaps discuss new image additions on talk beforehand and/or get comfortable seeing our changes changed by other editors. - Nat Krause 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Greeks and Buddhism?

I was wondering, does anyone know if there's any evidence for any influence of Buddhism on Greek thought? I was reading up on the Indo-Greek empire, and their emperor Demetrius apparently converted to Buddhism and was a friend of the defeated Mauryan empire. Was there much flow of people and ideas between the Indo-Greeks, the Bactrian Greeks, the Seleucids and the Hellenic Greeks, or were they fairly isolated against each other, bearing in mind the fairly large differences between the relatively close-together Sparta and Athens?

Basically my line of inquiry was sparked by something Ajahn Brahm said in a dharma talk about Origen, one of the early Christians and an apparent teacher of reincarnation, having been taught by Ammonius Saccas, and how eastern peoples and (according to him) ancient Greeks put their surnames first, and that Saccas Ammonius was in fact Sakyamuni, i.e. the Buddha. Interesting conjecture, or is there any evidence other than the coincidence in names?

Sciamachy 14:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well...Origen was born in 182 AD/CE. Siddhartha Gautama is

traditionally stated to have lived between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE, with some Buddhist legends stating that he was born on April 8, 1029 BCE, and died on February 15, 949 BCE. Some scholars date him later, to the mid 5th century BC.

So I'd characterize that as wild speculation. --goethean ॐ 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a book or thesis written alleging influence of Eastern thought on Plotinus. I actually wrote a paper on it in college. But the book no longer appears in my alma mater's library collection, so I have no information about it. If I find the paper, I'll post the information here. --goethean ॐ 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Kālakārāma sutra "gains a high degree of historical importance owing to the tradition handed down by the commentaries and chonicles* that it was preached by the venerable Mahārakkhita Thera to convert the country of the Yonakas during the great missionary movement which took place in the reign of the Emperor Asoka. If the identification of the Yonakas with Greeks is correct, the choice of this deeply philosophical discourse for such a significant occasion, could not have been a mere coincidence...Tradition has it that the impact of the discourse on the Yonakas was considerable, for thirty-seven thousand people attained to the Fruits of the Path on hearing it...", from The Magic of the Mind (subtitle) An Exposition of the Kālakārāma Sutta, Bhikku Ñānananda, BPS, Sri Lanka, 1974, p1, * cited is Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, I, 573 f. I think this page is copied from that, and it has some links to give you a reason to believe or not; anyway, claim is they were Hellenic, not exactly Athenians, but I suppose there could have been traffic between Athens and Ságala. So I would characterize this version as speculation, but not necessarily wild. "Evidence"? Not much. Claim (easily verified?) is Asoka left some inscriptions that included names of Hellenic rulers. Another claim relating to somewhat later period was that Milinda's culture could have been go-between. Still, "tried to influence" does not equal "did influence". Some cites, I don't know how reliable, on this page. And Google "Ramanand Vidya Bhawan" with the word "Greek", though I can't vouch for that one either. Finally, yet another claim worth chasing down is that Greek community in or around India contained Buddhist converts who were the origin of Buddhist iconography; sorry, no cite (someone I trust told me this); but if Hellenic culture indeed influenced Buddhism, the reverse could be true. --Munge 06:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Killing

"To refrain from harming living creatures (killing)."

Killing isn't harming creatures, not in the slightest so I removed the definition. It depends how and why you kill, ie:

Motives for killing creatures: Kill to eat, cull to protect native wildlife, or kill for sport. Methods of killing creatures: Slow and painfull, or bullet to the head.

--Avochelm 12:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "(killing)" should definitely be left in there. One often sees the first precept expressed as "To refrain from killing", "To refrain from taking life", or as "To refrain from causing pain or fear of pain" (or positively as "To practice loving-kindness towards all living/sentient beings").

To remove "(killing)" would suddenly make it seem perfectly alright for e.g. a Buddhist lay person to make a living as a butcher, something that the Buddha spoke out against.

If someone culls to protects native wildlife, or kills a being even in a fast and "humane" way, can you definitely say that you cause no pain or fear of pain in the being?

Andkaha 14:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I find the claim that killing creatures isn't harmful to them to be ridiculous, but I still agree with removing the parenthetical (killing). The fact that harming includes killing is so obvious that it is redundant for us to say it. - Nat Krause 16:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• In terms of the Buddha's injunctions in the various agamas and Mahayana sutras, killing is certainly not allowed, whether it be for food (most definitely not - and in the Mahayana sutras, vegetarianism is enjoined upon the Buddhist follower!), for medicine, for punishment, or even for some seemingly altruistic motive. Killing represents the ultimate physical harm that can be perpetrated against another living being. Each being is valued within Buddha-Dharma as an individual person, as someone possessed of the Buddhic Principle ("Buddha-dhatu"), so that even arguments of "sacrificing" one being (say, an animal) for the sake of another being (say, a human) is totally and utterly counter to the Buddha's ethic of "ahimsa" (non-harming) and universal kindliness. I share Nat's view that it doesn't really make sense (either common sense or Buddhist sense!) to say that killing someone does not harm that person (although I know what the writer means). However, I would personally prefer to see something added, such as "(especially killing)", just to emphasise the horror with which Buddhism looks upon the taking of sentient life. In fact, it has always been my understanding that the first precept actually specifies that one will undertake to refrain from "the taking of life/ the destruction of life". - Tony TonyMPNS 17:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• In Thich Nhat Hanh's [Plum Village] Tradition, the Five Precepts have been reworded to be more relevant to the 21st Century and the First Mindfulness Training (as the Precepts are called) is stated as:

"Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants and minerals. Iam determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life."

Here Thây has even extended the precept to plants and minerals! How does one live if one can't even kill a plant?! How do you walk down the street without by chance stepping on an ant or other small insect? How do you even wash you hands without killing hundreds of millions of microbes? And what does it mean to protect the life of a mineral?

The answer is you can't, but, here intention is the key. When we walk down the dirt mountain paths at Deer Park Monastery we know that it is not possible to do so without stepping on some of our multi-legged friends. Therefore, we walk in mindfulness so as to minimize the damage that we do. we are mindful not to step on ant hills or on the larger, easy to see creatures who may cross my path. In the morning we say a gatta wherein we express the hope that we do not accidentally kill any insects that day and if we should we pray that they do not suffer too much and will have a better rebirth. Intention is the key. When we wash our hands and thus kill masses of bacteria, we are intentionally killing, but doing so in order to prevent the worse offense of spreading disease to other creatures. In first of the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings of Thây's Order of Interbeing, we are reminded that we must not be fanatical about our beliefs, even Buddhist ones.

We, as modern humans, can refrain from killing animals for our food and clothing, therefore we should.

Protecting the lives of plants and minerals in this training refers to refraining from their wanton destruction. Yes, we eat vegetables and use minerals, but we do so mindfully, without waste or wanton destruction. Ms Code 3

I agree that "(killing)" seems a bit redundant, as killing usually involves harming that which is killed. It's the usually that bothers me. Are not the specific injunctions against killing referring to killing as the ultimate in harming? If that is the case, then what is/are the Buddhist position(s) on compassionate killing? There are circumstances when it may be a kindness to kill a living thing. If so, then not-killing, in some cases, may be an instance of harming. In other words, it seems that "To refrain from taking life", and "To refrain from causing pain" are potentially contradictory. This contradiction can be resolved by expressing the precept as simply "to refrain from harming." Psora 17:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The traditional injunction is to refrain from killing. Vinaya goes into the types of being and the relative damage done due to killing - so e.g. killing an arhat is about as bad as it gets, with killing parasites way down the list. Harming is a different issue and is used as a more general principle, rather than a rule. The root Bodhisattva vows warn against not killing when one would do better to kill - there are Jataka tales of the Buddha-to-be killing a terrorist so as to save a ship filled with people. Buddhism does not have a set of absolute commandments - vows are understood to be relative to context - and are stated as rules-of-thumb for avoiding negative karmic consequences that would lead to low rebirth. As I recall, the five vows of a lay Buddhist are to prevent low rebirth, and to ensure that future rebirths may happen as a Buddhist once more. (20040302 21:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC))

External Link : The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know

• The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know...

Does anybody else think the external link above would be helpful? I have posted it to this article, but it was removed by Hottentot. Please give an opinion. I personally, believe that the link is extremely relavent to the article.--FT in Leeds 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the end of this discussion page (where usually new topics should go). I hope that's ok...

Well, my take on this is that

1. the heading you're using is not that of the text in the BBC article,
2. the text in the BBC article is highly flammable and politcal, and
3. the Buddhism Wikipedia article is, IMHO, not the place to promote propaganda or to report on current events.

Although I feel that the subject is important, I simply do not feel it is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Others may disagree. A link to [1] or [2] might possibly be appropriate instead (but in the Tibetan Buddhism article, if not already present). Andkaha 20:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

This article appears (appropriately) under Gedhun Choekyi Nyima

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

einstein quote

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.
Albert Einstein

I added this up at top - my reason is that I feel it says something to non-buddhists about how Buddhism differs from other religions. It is from someone who is highly respected as a historical scientist, and it leads well into the overall exposition of Buddhism. Remove it if it sticks in your craw! (20040302)

I do think that it would possibly be better suited in a "Quotes" section at the end, if it really should be in the article at all. --Andkaha^(talk) 13:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I know.. I thought about that too... It's just that it is quite a nice introductory soundbite. The current article is very very long, after all. Have we looked at breaking it down into smaller articles with links recently? (20040302)

It's a decent quote, but I'm not sure it's quite accurate. Also, its current location in the lead section is jarring. A Quotes section would probably be the right place for this. I'd rather see a quote from Buddhism in the lead, for example from Nagarjuna or one of the sutras, though it may be hard to find one that's properly concise without being generally incomprehensible. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with this. I think it should be reverted or moved. Einstein may have been famous in his field; but he's not a noted authority on Buddhism, and his observations shouldn't appear in the lead section. Anyway, I think the quote is in itself unclear in its meaning. --MrDemeanour 15:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The point was that he isn't a noted authority on Buddhism, but never mind. :-)

Fair enough I'll scrap it. Was only an idea. (20040302)

Incidentally, I have thought of breaking this article into smaller pieces, and/or moving some content into other existing articles, but I haven't made any serious moves in that direction yet. I think there is a fair amount of text that should be moved to History of Buddhism. - Nat Krause 14:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes; seems to me that you have proposed this before. I'm neither in favour nor against, at the moment; I shall watch the talk. Perhaps you should try it, and see what the reaction is. My guess is that if you do it well, the reaction will appear, but will be muted. I may be able to help; but stuff is happening here, so I can't make promises about anything just now. --MrDemeanour 15:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I am completely up for it - you want to create a couple of pages for your proposal, Nat? This article is getting .. bigger. (20040302 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC))

Well, I don't remember proposing this before, and, in any event, I don't have time to work on it now. I don't think this article is in immediate need of anything other than a good overall edit, so I'm going to backburner the pruning and splitting idea for the moment. - Nat Krause 03:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Input sought

Can information please be added to Women as theological figures? (Please include information on other non-European religions if available).

Jackiespeel 16:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pavarana

The 18th of october is the holy day of pavarana this year....

Links

I added a link to "thebigview.com" as I think it's a good introduction to the topic. Or at least I tried to...

Anatta

I must say I completely disagree with the section on anatta. I was surprised to see that this wasn't a hot topic of discussion. First it should have the tetra lemma stated. Second and much more important, the Buddha teached in three "levels" or the three turns of the wheel of Dharma: the four noble truths, emptiness and Buddha nature. Just as emptiness cannot be directly experienced without a very good experience of the four noble truths, teachings on Buddha nature (Vajrayana and sutras on Buddha nature) cannot be correctly understood and experienced without direct knowledge of emptiness (not necessarily COMPLETE direct knowledge of emptiness because then it woudn't be necessary any teachings on Buddha nature). Teachings on Buddha nature without the background of emptiness praticaly becomes hinduism. The main teaching that distinguishes Buddhism from other religions is emptiness. The idea of atman is precisely the idea of Buddha nature when seen without the background of emptiness. This said, things like "there does truly exist an eternal, unchanging, blissful Buddha-essence in all sentient beings, which is the uncreated and deathless Buddha-nature ("Buddha-dhatu") or "True Self"" lead to false view when a person doesn't have direct knowledge of emptiness. Buddha nature trancends existence/non existence, permanence/impermanence, etc., hence the tetra lemma: "neither existent nor non existent nor both nor neither". Conceptual mind is not fit for understanding Buddha nature and therefore the mencioned paradox: "The paradox is that as soon as the Buddhist practitioner tries to grasp at this inner Buddha potency and cling to it as though it were his or her ego writ large, it proves elusive". Therefore the text on anatta should be changed either by completely eliminating the statements on Buddha nature or by giving the correct context in which these teachings appear which is the three turns of the wheel of Dharma and the tetralemma. (sign your work with ~~~~)

The difficulty with what you suggest is that your views as stated are limited by the school you are familiar with - your approach to understanding Buddhism appears to be chinese mahayana. The development of Annata as a concept in Buddhism includes the development of the concept of Atman from a Buddhist standpoint also. I encourage you to speak - but try to find a position that meets the requirements of NPOV (20040302 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

Curiously, the tradition I'm less familiar with is the chinese :). But I think that what I say is accepted by all schools. Why? I saw the timeline of buddhism and in 1966 there was a Council attended by leading monks, from many countries and sects, Mahayana as well as Theravada. One of the teachings that was accepted unanimously was that "All conditioned things (sa.mskaara) are impermanent (anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma)". The important part here is "unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma)". This includes Buddha nature. This means that the teachings that state that there truly exists a Buddha nature, permanent, etc., are either contradictory with anatma or can only be correctly understood by a person with some direct knowledge of emptiness (and thus should be carefuly presented, if at all, to someone who doesn't have direct knowledge of emptiness). Since I believe the teachings are not contradictory, only the second can be true. (ModusPonens, sign your work with ~~~~)

This is all very interesting - but as you know, what you believe does not make it so. Not all Buddhists agree with the 1966 declarations; moreover, schools of Buddhism have been around for well over 2,000 years, and many original and creative interpretations have been present. What you are asking us to agree is that there is some single true way of seeing the teachings of Buddha, and any other interpretation must be false. By declaring your belief that the teachings are not contradictory, you have taken upon yourself the responsibility of explaining how the sutras that assert the self, those that deny it, and those who tell us not to even think about these things are not contradictory. Atisha came up with an elegant, powerful and very Buddhist solution - that indeed the teachings are contradictory, because they are written with different audiences in mind: The Dharma is plural, because the needs and requirements of individuals are also plural. If you cannot accept the fact that for many Buddhists, there was a third turning of the wheel (the Yogacarya teachings of the Tathatgathagharba), then it sounds like you are clinging onto some form of foundationalism - some essentialist platform of what is and what is not Dharma, which is objectively (therefore essentially) true. You and I agree that all phenomena are without "self" - but, if we accept Candrakirti's view of "self" to be synonymous with "essence", or "intrinsic being" (the second turning of the wheel), then we come to the conclusion that nothing stands outside the context in which it is presented - including Dharma. Therefore, under the aegis of Atisha's exposition, we can understand and acknowledge the development of the doctrines of Tathatgathagharba as being necessary for those individuals who are unable to understand the first or second turning of the wheel of Dharma. Of course, any attempt to place different doctrines (Buddhist or not) onto some scale of truthfulness admits to the objective existence of an objective scale, and so we cannot state that one turning of the wheel is 'better' or 'more truthful' than another; we can only state whether or not we find some particular approach useful to ourselves. For me, I find the works of Tsongkhapa, Candrakirti and Nagarjuna to be elegant, balanced, timeless, and complete - but who am I to state that this is the 'one true path' of Buddhism? And certainly no convocation of monks or practitioners can do any better. (20040302 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

• I think it is very important - as suggested above, very wisely, by "2004" - always to be open to the fact that Buddha-Dharma is a vast complex of interconnected teachings and expositions of Reality from different perspectives, and that one should not automatically assume that such-and-such "is" Buddhism and that a variant emphasis provided by the sutras is not Buddhism or is in some way inferior to "real" Buddhism. Of course this is looking at the matter from a Mahayanist standpoint. One person's Buddhism may be another person's nihilism, and that person's Buddhism may be the former person's Hinduism! And we must never forget that only a fully Awakend Buddha truly knows what Reality (including Emptiness) is anyway! On a factual point, however, it is not correct to state (not that you have!) that the tathagatagarbha teachings are presented by the Buddha in the major tathagatagarbha sutras as a sop or concession to those who are spiritually backward and cannot quite understand or get their heads around non-Self and Emptiness. Quite the reverse. Leaving aside the quesiton of whether Emptiness can be conceptually "undestood" at all (the prajnaparamita sutras indicate that it is fundamentally beyond conceptualisation in any case), the doctrine of the tathagatagarbha/ Buddha-dhatu is given by the Buddha as a culminational revelation or ultimate teaching (an "uttarottara" pronouncement) of Dharma for those who have understood the implicit meaning of the earlier communications on non-Self and Emptiness correctly and are now ready for further progress into Great Nirvana. Whether one believes this to be objective fact or not is another matter, of course. But the tendency (marked amongst those who are not strongly familiar with the primary tathagatagarbha sutras themselves - notably the Nirvana Sutra, the Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa, the Srimala Sutra, the Tathagatagarbha Sutra) to relegate those Buddhists who follow TG doctrine to the status of people who have somehow failed to "understand" Emptiness is an unjust stance and not borne out or supported by the major TG sutras themselves. I must stress that I am not saying that any of the interlocutors in this section of "Talk-Buddhism" are guilty of definitely accusing other Buddhists of not being adequate Buddhists! Not at all! I hope we can all agree that tolerance of others' "Buddhism" (as long as such Buddhism has a sutric base supporting it) - rather than apodeictically declaring what IS Buddhism and what is NOT - is highly desirable. I think the exchanges above are good and valuable, in that the participants are trying to respect each other's vision of Dharma, while keeping open minds to the fact that none of us un-Awakened people (well, myself at least!) can fully KNOW Dharma until we attain total Bodhi. All good wishes to you. From: Tony. TonyMPNS 10:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you understand my position - I do not consider the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine to be a 'sop', indeed I see it as a valid method for liberation. However, I am especially not promoting it as a better or more complete or more advancing technique than others, for the reasons given above. However, within the arena of the Madhyamaka-Prasangikas, as I have understood it, there is no space for philosophy - it is an anti-philosophical stance; this does not mean that MP do not have tenets, or arguments - just that they use the language of their opponents (including their own self-grasping!) to demonstrate the lack of inherent existence. As the lack of inherent existence is the absence of something, there are many different ways of pointing that out, but none of those ways can assert something which is essentially there. Obviously I am aware that such views belong to a small group of Buddhists, but these views are necessarily plural - they do not allow for any degree of supremacism regarding truth or fact. (20040302)

Addendum to tony: when you say "only a fully Awakend Buddha truly knows what Reality (including Emptiness)" - generally there are many who assert that actually, Aryas are able to directly unmistakenly perceive Emptiness because it is a hidden truth, though only a Buddha is able to perceive deeply hidden truths, such as the subtle complexities of causality. It is because emptiness is not deeply hidden that there is a fourth noble truth at all. Otherwise, Buddhism would require faith in doctrine or tradition: An appeal to greater authority as found in other religions. Buddha tells us that we can find out the Dharma for ourselves, via the merely 'hidden' truth of emptiness, by exercising ourselves in the three higher trainings of Sila/Samatha/Vipassana (20040302 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

• Hallo 2004! Thanks for your interesting reply. It is good to see that you are so open-minded and tolerant of other avenues to Truth. Not everyone displays such liberality of attitude! Although you and I probably come from diametrically opposed approaches to Dharma (yourself from Madhyamaka-Prasangika, myself from Buddha-dhatu/Tathagatagarbha), we shall hopefully arrive at the same goal!

On the question of faith in doctrine and the authority of the Buddha: there is in certain areas of Mahayana Buddha-Dharma actually this element of recognition of the Buddha's supreme authority, coupled with devotion to, and faith in, the Buddha's pronouncements. In fact, certain major sutras (such as the Lotus Sutra and the Mahaparinirvana Sutra) insist that reverence of those texts themselves, actual veneration and worship of them - and of the Buddha from whom they issue - are important elements on the Path towards full Awakening. We must also remember the "Happy Land" (sukhavati) sutras and the influential traditions which grew from them. But of course there are whole swathes of Buddhist teaching and practice which take a different line. Again, there are so many different directions from which one can head towards Bodhi that I think the key thing (as you suggested earlier - and with which I TOTALLY agree) is to follow the Way(s) of Buddha which speaks most appealingly to oneself and follow that Path, as long as it proves efficacious: after all, all authentically Dharmic roads lead to ..... Nirvana! Best wishes to you. From - Tony. TonyMPNS 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you- of course there are sutras that indicate worship and devotion, as you mention; and of course, I have no problem with that. What I find to be a common problematic is when someone restricts their readership to a specific set of sutras, and then asserts some unqualified remarks about what Buddhism says; you and I know that not only are there many thousands of sutras, but also there are even more traditions that interpret those sutras in distinct ways. Buddhism has always been a highly literate tradition - (as I recall, Korean Buddhists invented the printing press). Regardless, it is as great an honour to meet someone who appreciates open-ended pluralism. Best wishes to you also! Take care (20040302 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

• Thanks, 20040302, for your kind words! Much appreciated. I sure do agree with you that one should try to read as many sutras as possible, so that one is not familiar solely with one Dharmic branch alone, as it were. That is my own way: to read the big famous sutras (e.g. Lotus, Lankavatara, Avatamsaka, Nirvana), many of the lengthy and shorter "prajnaparamita" sutras, the Pure Land sutras, the All-Creating King Sutra - not to mention all the marvellous foundational suttas - I try to immerse myself in all of them (even though I am a devotee of TG Buddhism)! Keep up your openness, 2004! That's so valuable in any kind of religion or philosophy, I believe. Warm regards from London. - Tony. TonyMPNS 22:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Devaloka

Hello Buddhists! Could you help us here? Check also the talk page. Thank you! Subramanian ^talk 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Numbering of "The Cause of Suffering"

I am about to change the numbering in the "The Cause of Suffering" section to fit better with the other sections. Please say if you have any violent objections to this. --Whiteheadj 20:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cause of suffering

No objections, but who the HELL had earlier written "suffering, or penis-sucking jara marana" instead of "suffering, or jara marana"? Cygnus_hansa 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek influence

While we have an entire article on Greco-Buddhism, the article scantily mentions this concept, only referring to it in an image caption. Since Greek culture would have probably influenced it somewhat, or played a role (to what extent I do not know, perhaps introducing Greek philosophical ideas of democracy and egalitarianism to India or something)...or at least its art, it should at least be mentioned on the side? -- Natalinasmpf 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)