Talk:Buddhism

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

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)

That's simply the convention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We do in fact refer to the Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 13:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

It's originated from nepal. Siddharth Gautam Buddha was from Nepal. 113.199.247.27 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not an Indian religion. Period! 174.93.233.113 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Too bad. It's an Indian religion. wound theology◈ 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Vrddhi form

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)

@Zoozoor: I would like some more information on this as well. wound theology◈ 06:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Would you be open to mentioning "Bauddha Dharma" in the explanatory footnote? Zoozoor (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Origins in India vs. Indian subcontinent

@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)

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)

@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)

No one calls them "religions originating in the Indian subcontinent," though. They call them Indian religions. wound theology◈ 06:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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. [I]s the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? No one is making this claim. The Buddha was born in modern-day Nepal and preached mainly in the modern-day Republic of India. Both Nepal and (the Republic of) India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are on the Indian subcontinent. The Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain spanning both modern-day India and Nepal in an era long before modern nationalism, and indeed ancient India was a loose collection of different polities connected more by economics and long-ranging social networks rather than a national or ethnic identity. If you insist on adding (what I consider to be) superfluous information already explained in the text, then I would not object to an explanatory note with something like: The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain, spanning both modern-day India and Nepal. wound theology◈ 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Sakya is the Pali form of Shakya. Yes, the target is wrong. It is well-attested that Shakyamuni Buddha was born and lived first in the Shakya Republic. I say "founded his order" but that's not entirely accurate -- Vulture Peak was in Magadha and this is where he is traditionally held to have first preached. However he began his ascetic journey in the Shakya Republic according to the sutras (or suttas, more likely in this case.) If not the Sakya Republic, then Magadha; the Buddha was born in the S[h]akya Republic spanning India and Nepal and first preached in Magadha or what have you. wound theology◈ 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

“Regading” typo in intro

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

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

Books are an unreliable source.

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)

The authors of cited books have no experience with Buddhism doesn't appear to be accurate by any means. What you're describing is Tibetan Buddhism, which is a specific form of Buddhism, and this article covers Buddhism as a whole, not just Tibetan Buddhism. - Aoidh (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Bu

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

Can we get an image for the lead?

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)

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)

Lead section image does not represent all of Buddhism as it has sects that do not believe in such idols and their worship. It only represents a section and is not representative of all followers and a general perception of the religion. Other Wikipedia articles of Dharmic religions like Hinduism and Jainism also don't use lead image for this reason and images were removed from the lead of those articles as per talk discussions. So, I think it would be better to not use a lead image for this article. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

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)

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)

 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)

No image for Lead section

Lead section image does not represent all of Buddhism as it has sects that do not believe in such idols and their worship. It only represents a section and is not representative of all followers and a general perception of the religion. Other Wikipedia articles of Dharmic religions like Hinduism and Jainism also don't use lead image for this reason and images were removed from the lead of those articles as per talk discussions. So, I think it would be better to not use a lead image for this article.

Thoughts? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)