Talk:Buddhism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:31, 4 February 2006

Latest revision as of 07:27, 10 October 2025

Line 1:

{{farcSkip to talk}}

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{featured}}

{{not a forum}}

{{mainpage date|April 6|2004}}

{{British English}}

{{Article history|currentstatus=FFA

|action1=FAC

|action1date=21:49, 24 Mar 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buddhism/archive1

|action1result=promoted

|action1oldid=2906968

|action2=FAR

Welcome to '''Talk:Buddhism.'''

|action2date=03:28, 11 April 2006

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Buddhism

|action2result=demoted

|action2oldid=47899386

|action3=GAN

Loving-kindness to you and yours!

|action3date=03:52, 24 July 2006

|action3result=not listed

|action3oldid=65326526

|maindate=April 6, 2004

}}

{|

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=

|-

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top}}

| rowspan="4" | '''Archives''':

{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=top}}

| [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive|1]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive2|2]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive3|3]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive4|4]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive5|5]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive6|6]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive7|7]] [[Talk:Buddhism/Archive8|8]]

{{WikiProject Japan|importance=top}}

|-

{{WikiProject Nepal|importance=top}}

| [[Talk:Buddhism/Abolitionism|Abolitionism]]

{{WikiProject Sri Lanka|importance=top}}

|-

{{WikiProject India|importance=top|bihar=yes|bihar-importance=top}}

| [[Talk:Buddhism/Religion status|Religion status]]

{{WikiProject China|importance=top}}

|-

{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=high}}

| [[Talk:Buddhism/Vegetarianism|Vegetarianism]]

}}

|-

{{To do|small=no}}

|}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 16

|minthreadsleft = 7

|algo = old(92d)

|archive = Talk:Buddhism/Archive %(counter)d

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Buddhism/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Buddhism/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0|o

}}

{{tmbox | text = Additional info (sources & quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at [[User:Joshua Jonathan/Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes|Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes]]}}

{{tmbox | text = Additional info (sources & quotes) on the topic of Buddhism and religion can be found at [[User:Dorje108/Buddhism and religion sources|Buddhism and religion sources]]}}

{{Annual readership}}

==Open TasksTypo ==

The beginning of the third paragraph of the third section - "Various details about the Buddha'a background" [[User:Ryebreadmoon|Ryebreadmoon]] ([[User talk:Ryebreadmoon|talk]]) 12:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

{{buddhismOpenTask}}

:Thanks [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 12:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:There are millions of asian in USA and 6%-7% of total population are asian.But why the authors are putting the number of american Buddhists only 1 percentage,this is greatly bias or underestimation of american Buddhist population by the Wikimedia authors. Besides,one third asian americans which means 2 percent of USA population feel close or connected to Buddhism and there are white-european american Buddhist converts too.'''American Buddhist population must be nearly 10 million and this would be accurate figure of Buddhist population in USA.Buddhism is the second largest religion in America and total Buddhist population in America is bigger than Jews and Muslims because there are millions of East-asian american in USA. 103.137.161.69 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)''' [[Special:Contributions/103.137.161.69|103.137.161.69]] ([[User talk:103.137.161.69|talk]]) 17:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Talk:Buddhism/GA1}}

:You keep posting this same text, multiple times, on multiple pages, and never provide any [[WP:Reliable sources]] - You have previously been blocked for unsourced changes and disruptive editing - please stop. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see also [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism]]

== Buddhism is the third largest religion, not fourth largest. ==

==Proposal for Revision==

This article is getting unreadable. As I see it, main problem is mahayana-theravada disambiguation. This inter-sectorial debate doesn't belong in this page. It should be dealt in separate article. I intend to copyedit this article by moving all T v.s. M debate to the bottom. [[User:Yoji Hajime|Yoji Hajime]]

In Europe many people are irreligious but the pew researchers are counting them as christains,on the other hand in East Asia many people are irreligious but the pew researchers are not counting them as buddhists. This is greatly bias on the number of Buddhists by Christain researchers. For example,In Russia they estimates Christians 58 million but pew researchers counting the number 110 million.On the other hand In Japan pew researchers estimates 71 million buddhists but counting them buddhists as 46 million.Not only in Russia but there is also wildly exagrated figure for christains in France,Germany,Sweden, uk,Spain etc. [[Special:Contributions/103.109.59.32|103.109.59.32]] ([[User talk:103.109.59.32|talk]]) 14:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I highly agree. This ground has been re-trod so many times. While there is a lot of in-depth research being added it is all very one sided, of a highly esoteric nature, and un-referenced. I've found it interesting that under sub-headings, where one expects to find general information on Buddhism one finds one-sided sectarian interpretation that masquerades as general buddhist knowledge, whilst leaving out the actual general information.

:Please post data here without starting duplicate threads. And if you do, please post citations, possibly direct links. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:I think if one puts information on the main-page it should have some sort of footnote referencing documentation of some authority. If one can only provide one side of the story, and if the full story belongs on the main-page, then the addition should be proposed in the talk page where it can be further developed.

::here is a link[[Buddhism in China|China]] [[Special:Contributions/103.109.59.32|103.109.59.32]] ([[User talk:103.109.59.32|talk]]) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::Here are many links with many countries total Buddhist population:[[Buddhism in China]],[[Buddhism in Japan]],[[Buddhism in Thailand]],[[Buddhism in Myanmar]],[[Buddhism in Cambodia]],etc... [[Special:Contributions/103.137.161.69|103.137.161.69]] ([[User talk:103.137.161.69|talk]]) 03:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::There are millions of asian in USA and 6%-7% of total population are asian.But why the authors are putting the number of american Buddhists only 1 percentage,this is greatly bias or underestimation of american Buddhist population by the Wikimedia authors. Besides,one third asian americans which means 2 percent of USA population feel close or connected to Buddhism and there are white-european american Buddhist converts too.'''American Buddhist population must be nearly 10 million and this would be accurate figure of Buddhist population in USA.Buddhism is the second largest religion in America and total Buddhist population in America is bigger than Jews and Muslims because there are millions of East-asian american in USA. 103.137.161.69 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)''' [[Special:Contributions/103.137.161.69|103.137.161.69]] ([[User talk:103.137.161.69|talk]]) 17:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You keep posting this same text, multiple times, on multiple pages, and never provide any [[WP:Reliable sources]] - You have previously been blocked for unsourced changes and disruptive editing - please stop. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the edits Yoji, [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::::If you don’t believe than see this article:Buddhism in Japan [[Buddhism in Japan]].In that article the author said that there are 71 million Buddhists in Japan which is 67 percent of total population of Japan. On the other hand,another article:Buddhism by country [[Buddhism by country]]the author estimated and counting that there only 46 million Buddhists in Japan.This is a mistake.Would you please update and fix that problem??Then i will stop editing. [[Special:Contributions/103.137.161.69|103.137.161.69]] ([[User talk:103.137.161.69|talk]]) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

== Buddhism is only a religion? ==

I've finished the shrinking. Within "Buddhist Practice" section, "mind" sub section have to be expanded. I also felt that

:8 "Relations with other Eastern faiths"

:9 "Buddhism in the modern world"

:10 "Buddhism and the West"

can be moved somewhere else entirely. Whether we should limit this page for history and basic theology or to include more worldly topic (such as Buddhism in the West), I wasn't so sure so I left as it is. I also think that "Buddhist religious philosophy and branches" can be changed to "Buddhist Schools" or something like that. This should be about general explanation of Theravada/Mahayana/Vijryana Buddhism [[User:Yoji Hajime|Yoji Hajime]]

A decade ago, there was a widespread belief--reflected in Wikipedia articles--that Buddhism contained two rather different streams: the earliest--Hinayana--and original stream consisted of a philosophy (not a religion) and was followed by people who believed the Buddha to have been human. The second religious--movement emerged several centuries after the death of the Buddha and might reasonably be referred to as a religion.

I also stated previously that I would move all the edit to the bottom but I actually deleted it because there was so much to cut and if I put them in the bottom, it would have been unmanageable. I'm very sorry for people who spent a lot of effort writing. Please do not think that I consider the writing unworthy. It just that this page should be for people who aren't Buddhist so the page should be kept as simple as possible. More specialised topics should be discussed in separate article where more detailed exposition can be made. Please recover the deleted section, copy edited to appropriate article then create relevant wiki links. Thank you. [[User:Yoji Hajime|Yoji Hajime]]

This first movement--or at least its non-religious nature--appears to have gone unrecognized in this article. Unlike Britannica, which continues at least to describe Buddhism as a religion and a philosophy, Wikipedia seems to bundle all of Buddhism under the heading of religion.

I created wiki link for every section. I think it is better if people go there first anddeveloped more comprehensive and balanced view in these sub-articles. This page should be a collection of intros for these sub articles. [[User:Yoji Hajime|Yoji Hajime]]

A critically important idea at the core of this question is whether divine assistance is ''required'' for achieving nirvana. Hinayana seems to assume that it is not; Mahayana seemed to open the door, and offer the idea that at least the inspiration of a divine being might help.

== Recent Demolition of Buddhism Article Totally Unacceptable ==

A description of both options would seem to be the more accurate NPOV.

The recent massive deletions of major portions of the Buddhism article strike me as wholly extreme and unjustified, as well as biasing the article far too much in a "Theravada" direction. The best Wikipedia editorial policy is surely that of judicious pruning, modification and amendment - not savage "slash and burn". Such a cavalier removal of whole swathes of information is not only unwarranted (unless there are masses of factual inaccuracies or total irrelevancies) but also intrinsically unfair to previous editors who have doubtless contributed many hours of effort to the provision of information that could well be of interest to Wikipedia readers and which is not always easily found elsewhere. Moreover, some of those editors - I know - are genuine experts in the field, with decades of scholarship behind them and numerous publications to their name. To (almost unilaterally) delete their work is not only insensitive in the extreme but also fundamentally undemocratic and rather unbalanced. If such savage deletions go unchecked and unchallenged, I fear that serious scholars of Buddhism - and other contributors too - will simply withdraw from the Wikipedia project and not wish to bother contributing information which could be massively removed in one fell and extremist swoop. And that would surely be to the loss of us all. I propose to restore the article to its form of several days back and to recommend grammatical enhancement and respectful, balanced pruning where necesssary - not wholesale butchery which, quite frankly, is breathtaking in its audacity. Best wishes to all. Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/24.87.154.112|24.87.154.112]] ([[User talk:24.87.154.112|talk]]) 18:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hmmm, the article does need trimming: about 60 lines each for Anatta or Vegetarianism is way too long in a general Wikipedia article on Buddhism. However, to TonyMPNS's point, destroying text is clearly not a solution. Even if it takes more work, excess material should be outlinked to sub-articles (... which by the way already exist for Anatta and Vegetarianism for example). [[User:PHG|PHG]] 07:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:{{Done}}. restored the phrase "philosophical tradition". It had been removed recently without explanation. [[User:Callmehelper|Callmehelper]] ([[User talk:Callmehelper|talk]]) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

* Thanks, PHG, for your very balanced assessment of the situation. I agree with Yoji's idea of trying to slim down some of the elements within the Buddhism entry, but to engage in a truly major jettisoning of masses of material seems deeply unfair and almost reckless to me. I myself (e.g. with Yoji's additions on vegetarianism, with which I profoundly disagreed) never once removed complete contributions from that editor. I have too much respect to do that (although on this one rare occasion today I have reverted the whole Buddhism article to an earlier form, as the deletions struck me as so extraordinarily sweeping and one-sided). I think one should balance one's own understanding with that of others by simply adding a corrective line (as one sees it) or even paragraph here and there, while trying one's best to preserve what the previous editor has written. If we effectively censor whole areas of information (although I am sure that was not Yoji's intention), we do a disservice to the fundamentally democratic enterprise that Wikipedia is: it depends on mutual respect and toleration of variant viewpoints (except, of course, in the case of actual factual inaccuracies). So I tend to share your own apparent attitude,PHG, which is to try to reduce excess verbiage but not to throw out the baby with the bath water! All the very best to you. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 08:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::While the consensus has been to keep "philosophical tradition" in the lede -- regrettably, as it is either redundant (what religion is not also a philosophical tradition?) or misleading -- the IP editor's account of Buddhism is incredibly inaccurate. This is exactly why the old orientalist idea that [[Hinayana]] (a pejorative term, by the way) was somehow rationalist or "not a religion" is long-superseded. Furthermore, the incredibly offensive idea that Buddhism as it is actually practiced only {{tq|emerged several centuries after the death of the Buddha}} is, well, incredibly offensive and also just dead wrong. Some of the oldest sub-layers of Early Buddhist texts are supernatural or "Mahayanish", and the Chinese [[Āgama (Buddhism)|Agamas]] are some of the oldest Buddhist texts we have evidence for.

::In the future, I would really recommend critically analyzing this topic. It is the opposite of a [[WP:NPOV]] that is only shared by a small group of [[Secular Buddhism|"secular"]] Buddhists, and it is not supported by academic sources. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 05:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

== Critique of Buddhism is weak & in poor taste ==

* Hallo again dear PHG. I've just seen your new reversion of the whole Buddhism entry and think it is very fair-minded and completely acceptable. I think we can all (as time allows) try to rectify the grammar here and there, maybe tighten up on some of the phraseology and general verbosity (of which I am as guilty as anyone!), but essentially try to keep all this interesting information in situ. One of the glories of Wikipedia is that it does provide a forum for information which one does not always find in more conventional encyclopaedias. I think we should treasure that feature of Wiki. Once again - thanks for your own very reasonable contribution to the discussion. Cheers! Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 08:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Critique of Buddhism is a very weak argument & should be removed. The author speaks of Japanese “Buddhist Communities” as somehow apart from the Japanese population as a whole. There are in excess of 70,000 Buddhist Temples spread across Japan, not including Shinto. It is impossible to differentiate typical Japanese from Japanese Buddhists in this context. Thus the argument is purely undignified fluff which tarnishes the Buddhist traditions in other Asian countries, while allowing Japanese pseudo-feminists to blame perceived shortcomings in Japanese attitudes toward women on the fictitious minority “Japanese Buddhist Communities”. [[Special:Contributions/73.231.137.67|73.231.137.67]] ([[User talk:73.231.137.67|talk]]) 04:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

:Hi TonyMPNS. After a few hesitations, the last version before all these major undiscussed changes seems to be the one by Antandrus. I've reverted to that. Regards [[User:PHG|PHG]] 08:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:[[WP:NOTFORUM]]. We reflect what sources say, even if we personally disagree and find them weak. If you think it is unbalanced, you can find responses to those sources and give a fuller discussion of the critique. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 05:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

* Hi once more, PHG. I think what you have done is absolutely fine. I can see no problems with that in principle at all. Thank you again for being so very balanced and equitable in your approach to this whole debate. Warm wishes. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 08:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== Jain criticism ==

* My suggestion was to move deleted potion of the article to sub-article. I specifically asked for people to "recover" deleted article. Have you looked at the sub-articles? Most of them are shorter than the section here. Is this site an extended version of Britanica? Should every article be begin-all and end-all article. The current article is just too large while at the same time being too weak because subarticles are either non-existent, too short or not wiki linked properly.[[User:Yoji Hajime|Yoji Hajime]]

{{yo|Pawapuri Winds}} there is a separate page for [[:Criticism of Buddhism]], as indicated by the hatnote at the otherwise empty section. Most editors would have understood the hint; not you. ''If'' we formulate criticism, then not from primary sources, as you did, and not such a long text. And, when reverted with the correct explanation [[:WP:UNDUE]], you don't undo the revert by caĺling it "vandalism," especially not when you've bedb warned about this just one day before. Either change your attitude and learn how how Wikipedia works, or face the exit which you are moving to. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 20:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

* PHG, please go easy. I respect Hajime intent here. A lot of good edits are getting lost in this revert war. If anyone has time, please go through and pick out the best of them. The article now reads poorly yet again. One particular loss (that was discussed here) is Random Task's new opening sentence which was a major improvement on what was there. Another edit that was also in fact discussed here was the rereferencing of population statistics. Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:By this logic, there is a separate page for [[criticism of Jainism]], still you added biased and incorrect information on [[Mahavira]] page. I am open to concise the criticism and they are not totally primary sources. [[User:Pawapuri Winds|Pawapuri Winds]] ([[User talk:Pawapuri Winds|talk]]) 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

:* Thanks for the props Metta Bubble. [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:While this seems like an overspilled content dispute, I don't actually see the problem with the added Jain criticism. @[[User:Pawapuri Winds|Pawapuri Winds]], could you perhaps summarize the content? I particularly dislike when there's an empty section on a page that simply links to another. [[User:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">wound theology</span>]][[User talk:Wound theology|<span style="background:black; color:red; padding:2px;">◈</span>]] 12:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Pawapuri Winds}}, your edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism&diff=prev&oldid=1315085165] with 3 repetitions) added content based on inappropriate sources from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyse them. "... articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ([[WP:BESTSOURCES]]) The content you added appeared to violate [[WP:UNDUE]]: ".. avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Even if your content could be verified with reliable, independent, secondary sources: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. " (per [[WP:ONUS]]). Edit warring is unconstructive, we should follow the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]].(please see [[WP:WAR]]) [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 18:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC) suppl. link [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 12:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

* TonyMPNS, I can understand that you're defensive about a lot of the material that was removed because I checked the history and saw that you submitted a lot of it. I didn't make the extensive edits but I agree with them in large part for the following reasons:

:::@[[User:Pawapuri Winds|Pawapuri Winds]] if you believe the source is clear and strong, I think it should be added for neutrality. Currently, the article seems one-sided and non-neutral, giving the impression of promoting only Buddhist views. This is not a private website; Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and should represent all reliable perspectives.

:* Much of the material is esoteric, even to those educated in Buddhism and especially to beginners.

:::As you mentioned in your edit summary: ''"Buddhist accounts pushing Buddhist propaganda and advertising Buddhist vandals as 'outstanding editors.' Regardless, please have a civil discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring. I am all open to listen to your points."''

:* It doesn't read well, the grammar is horrible, and the style is horrible.

:::I would also like to hear from those who have been opposing the addition of other perspectives. I believe that including only Buddhist views is not balanced. Adding reliable sources from other religions and different scholars would help ensure neutrality, which is crucial for a fair and accurate representation of the topic. ~~ [[User:Starry Pine|Starry Pine]] ([[User talk:Starry Pine|talk]]) 14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

:* There is practically zero cross referencing with other articles especially in light of the fact that there are tons of other articles.

::::"This is not a private website; Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and should represent all reliable perspectives." - nice copying of the warnings you receive. It's not good to encourage other editors to ignore Wiki-policies, nor to ignore [[WP:GOODFAITH]]. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 15:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

:* There are no footnotes to scholarly works to verify many of the esoteric bits (including your own).

::::The sources I cited address key limitations of this philosophy, especially the doctrine of radical momentariness. It is was logical in nature rather than being Jainism vs Buddhism. Still the accounts labeled me "Jainism promoter" , wrongly called my sources primary even though they are secondary; just because the Buddhist accounts felt it was '''''poor in taste''''', with one being an administrator! No wonder why people have extreme opinions about this platform. [[User:Pawapuri Winds|Pawapuri Winds]] ([[User talk:Pawapuri Winds|talk]]) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

:* There are no footnotes to the writings of monastics.

:* Arguably, it implicitly presents Mahayana doctrine as authoratative for all Buddhists without pointing out the Theravada position on such statements as: ''The Buddha's Mahayana doctrines contain a set of "ultimate" (nitartha) teachings on the immanence of a hidden, deep-seated reality within all sentient beings which is linked to the eternality of the Buddha and Nirvana.'' Theravada would argue that the Mahayana doctrines are not ''of the Buddha''.

:::::The material is of interest and may be added at [[Buddhism and Jainism]] if good secondary sources can be found for citation (i.e., other published scholarship discussing these philosophical works, for reliability and notability, not only citing translations of the works themselves, as per [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources]]) — but here on the main Buddhism page, such detail is not needed, as there should be, at most, a brief overview/summary of relationships between Buddhists and Jains. -[[User:Avantiputra7|Avantiputra7]] ([[User talk:Avantiputra7|talk]]) 07:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

:I still think what was removed was good material. I just think it needs to go into the related articles. Unless you disagree I'll be re-editing and adding the grammar fixes, readability corrections, cross-references, footnote additions, and minor topical changes I made (like removing esoteric topics from the introduction section). [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Religion infobox for Buddhism ==

* Ok, to cover this ground for the millionth time since this page was started; do we want to bring up the Mahayana vs. Theravada debates in the main page or does that belong in the subsections? Can we all agree that the main page is not the place for trying to put forth our own tradition as 'better' or more 'authorative' than any other? Maybe a Theravada_Mahayana_Differences page would be better suited to such discussion. I personally believe that if you have to write ''This applies to Mahayana only'' (''or Theravada'') then it doesn't belong in this article. Which, I'm sorry to say, "Buddha Nature" kind of falls under. [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose adding a "Religion Infobox" for Buddhism, with basic information about this religion, similar to the one that already exists for other religions such as Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam, etc. One of these could also be added for other major religions such as Hinduism and Taoism. [[User:Lulasaurius|Lulasaurius]] ([[User talk:Lulasaurius|talk]]) 18:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

*Thanks, RandomTask, for your comments. I'll try to respond to your main points (unfortunately I'm short of time at present):

:It has no additional value. At Hinduism it is rejected so far, as it invites simplifications and pov-warriors. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 20:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

1) I don't believe that Mahayana Buddhist teachings should be shunted off to various side-line articles within Wiki, away from the main "Buddhism" entry (although they can, of course, receive more detailed coverage in entries focussing specifically on those doctrines). It may come as a shock to some, but Theravada is not the entirety of "Buddhism": it is a highly important branch of Buddhism, as is Mahayana. The general article on Buddhism should strive to be balanced in its presentation of the ideas of these two extremely influential streams of Buddhism.

::I see it as a cover letter with information highlighted for the reader, much like the "Infobox" for country or animal species information, so I think it's natural for each religion to have one. Furthermore, almost all wiki websites in other major languages about religions ​​include an "Infobox religion". [[User:Lulasaurius|Lulasaurius]] ([[User talk:Lulasaurius|talk]]) 03:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Animal species infoboxes are relevant, for the Latin names. That's straightforward info. Religions are complicated; s9mething like "Founded at" is a simplification, and thereby misleading. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 04:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

2) My grammar is not "horrible": the problem is that what was originally perfectly acceptable grammar (as manifested in my original contributions to Wikipedia) subsequently underwent mutilation at the hands of others whose mother tongue is evidently not English. The result of such changes gives the impression that I (and others) preside over a woefully inadequate command of the English language. If you don't like my style - that is, of course, another matter. You are quite at liberty to dislike the manner in which I express myself. Others may find it OK.

::::You could leave ambiguous boxes blank and only include the clear ones, such as Classification, Scripture, Theology, Region, Liturgical Language, Founder, Founded Place (Judea, Hejaz, Magadha, etc.), and Number of Followers. The image would be the most important sacred place in that religion, such as the Holy Sepulchre in Christianity, Mecca in Islam, and the Golden Palace in Sikhism. [[User:Lulasaurius|Lulasaurius]] ([[User talk:Lulasaurius|talk]]) 04:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

3) I don't quote named monastics in my contributions - you are right; I prefer to quote the "Buddha" himself, and I nearly always mention the Mahayana sutras from which I am extracting the quotes or outlining the doctrines. In this connection, I might also say that I said in my contribution to the opening sentences of the "Buddhism" article that for Theravadins, the Mahayana sutras are poetic fictions, not stemming from the Buddha himself at all. I don't see why one needs, after that, to keep attaching a little health-warning to mention of Mahayana doctrines, indicating that "these are rejected by the Theravada". I don't mind doing that each time, if people think it is really necessary - but it strikes me as potentially tedious for the reader to be told each time that a (specified Mahayana) doctrine is deemed by the Theravadins "not to be of the Buddha" or to be counter to Dhamma. Surely, once we have established at the beginning of the article that the Mahayana sutras are viewed as bogus by the Theravadins, that should suffice?

4) Most importantly, perhaps: should Wikipedia remain stuck in an understanding of Buddhism that is actually decades out of date? For example, it is simply not factually accurate to make such statements as (I give from memory a pertinent example here): "Buddhism denies all and any Self, Soul, eternal essence (svabhava) ...". Buddhism in total does not do so. The majority of Buddhist teachings, it is true, have been interpreted by most scholars in that way, but there are important strands of doctrinal assertion (and not to be dismissed as "esoteric" - as though that label somehow removed all legitimacy from them) which articulate a more "cataphatic" vision of the Dharma. I think Wikipedia should be proud to be in the vanguard of the latest research into Buddhism - and not rehearsing views that were deemed correct 100 years ago, but which subsequent investigation has revealed to be decidedly narrow, partisan or partial. Fairness, accuracy and balance should be the watchwords in all of this.

So let us strive to present a fair general portrait of Buddhism in the main Buddhism article and not skew it unfairly towards a Mahayana or Theravada viewpoint. All the best. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPSN]], Thanks for the replies!

:w/rt 1) I also agree that Theravada doctrine isn't entirely of the Buddha (my personal predilection is to take the Abhidharma with a grain-of-salt if it contradicts or muddles the suttas). I'm not a Buddhist scholar so I don't have the research to back up my belief that anything other than the Suttas and the Vinaya are commentaries and not direct teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana doesn't need to be side-lined into sub-articles but deviations from Introductory Buddhism very well may. While it is certainly fair for each side to take their pot-shots at the other side due to the legacy of the dissention I am personally against any such divisive statements in the main article.

:w/rt 2) Exactly my point, which I highlight in my proposal below. The article "''reads like a scholar's paper, randomly edited by a seventh grader''". Your style is exceptional and elegant at times and perfectly fine as long as it is accessible. I personally find exegesis and extensive parenthetical remarks to be more excursive than beneficial or clarifying, hence my recent focus on cross-reference linking.

:w/rt 3) I simply mention monastics as a reference source because they've been a source of commentative authority for thousands of years. Many are quite learned and provide a perspective on doctrine and practice that can provide a good balance in relation to the research of exo-Buddhist scholars (though many scholars are Buddhist). My personal feeling is that monastics know what is important. Like you've aluded to before; Theravada views much of Mahayana as apocrypha, though often efficacious. I don't favor a single disclaimer after which contentious statements are presented as universal facts because I don't particularily feel that it is an honest or clear way to present the information, though it is certainly valid (and often favored) from a literary perspective.

:w/rt 4) I believe Wikipedia has never intended to be the testing ground for emerging research into any subject though it provides us with a quick method to witness emerging research as it happens. Others may have a differing opinion of course.

:*I apologize if my orthodoxy is offensive.

:Much metta, [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

* Thank you, RandomTask, for your replies to my own points: I enjoyed reading what you had to say. On the question of my adding a caveat (e.g. when discussing the Buddha-dhatu doctrine) that such-and-such a teaching is not recognised as the Buddha's genuine dhamma by Theravada - I don't mind adding that at all. I just feared that the reader might get a bit bored with such repetitive comments. But I am all for fairness, accuracy and balance, as I said above. I'll try to add any necessary clarifying points (to the effect that such-and-such a doctrine is not accepted by Theravada Buddhism) in the days that follow (although I'm having terrible problems with my ISP at present, which makes it difficult for me to be on-line for long!). Best wishes. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:* Thanks for being thoughtful TonyMPNS. Hrm, I think you've demonstrated, with your recent edits, that a qualifier following every Mahayana statement is certainly overkill. I intend no offense, but I guess my big problem is my knee-jerk orthodox reaction to the term "the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine". I'm not so sure that statement is NPOV in light of strong Theravada disagreement, similarily continually qualifying Mahayana as, heretical revisionism following a single disclaimer that some believe the Mahayana teachings as authentic would certainly not be NPOV. I guess I don't feel "poetic fiction" expresses the weight of Theravada dissent to the claim of the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine. Would it be non-NPOV to mention in a single place that Mahayanists view the Mahayana doctrine as later revealed, authentic teachings of the Buddha, and then simply refer them as the Mahayana doctrine? I'll definitely concede to the opinion of the community with-regard to how this subject should be addressed, but I'd like some convincing. Metta, [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 20:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

* Hallo again, RandomTask. Thanks for your interesting comments. I can understand why, as a Theravadin, you feel very cautious about statements such as "the Buddha's Mahayana doctrine". I respect other people's deeply held religious convictions. I can understand how you feel in such areas of discourse. So I am not totally averse to changing my phrase to "the Mahayana Buddha's doctrine" (where "Buddha" could be viewed as a literary construct or literary character within the Mahayana sutras). But in all honesty, I don't really see why I should have to make all these constant concessions. I think that you also have to recognise that for myself, as a ''tathagatagarbha'' Mahayanist (and for Mahayana Buddhists in general), it is uncomfortable to read masses of material in Wiki's "Buddhism" articles with which I (or we) profoundly disagree and which I personally believe to be a distortion of the Buddha's Dharma. But I leave it largely untouched - out of respect for others' beliefs and viewpoints, and in acknowledgement of the fact that ultimately I myself don't know what the Truth is - although I have very strong beliefs and intuitions. The fact is, none of us knows at all for sure (unless we are Awakened - which I most certainly am not!) whether ANY of the Pali suttas or Mahayana sutras accurately reflect the precise teachings of "the Buddha" (did he even exist??? Or at least in the form in which he is presented in the Pali suttas and Mahayana sutras, etc. - flying through the air, penetrating through rocks, working all kinds of miracles, able to live for an aeon or more....!)That is by no means certain - if one wants to be totally "scholarly" about it. So while I am prepared to use phrases such as, "the Buddha of the e.g. ''Mahaparinirvana Sutra'' or ''Tathagatagarbha Sutra'' states" or "the Mahayana Buddha states", I don't think I need to give further ground beyond that.

As for simply saying, "according to Mahayana doctrine": I hesitate to use that formula, since it is far too general, too all-encompasing, as it were, and not "Buddha"-specific enough for me. I am always at pains in my writings on Buddhism to present what the Mahayana "'''BUDDHA'''" says - rather than what the various and variant Mahayanist commentators (monastics and laypersons) put forward as their interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. They can be amazingly divergent! Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify my personal position. Best wishes to you. Again, I know how you feel as a "faithful" Buddhist (if you don't take that word in a negative sense) when you encounter statements on Dhamma / Dharma with which you deeply and most sincerely disagree! From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:* Heya TonyMPNS, thanks again for the reply. I can understand that you're getting frustrated with me. I suggest you put off editing either the Buddha-Nature subsection or the disclaimers until we come to some sort of agreement. I don't want you to have to do any more work than necessary. I feel that were you to qualify too heavily it'd simply contribute to the readability issues. I'll address further soon. And '''yes''' I take Saddha very seriously, it is why I continue to practie. [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

* Hallo once more, RandomTask. Thank you for your pleasant comments. I'm glad to learn that we do at least agree on one big thing: the importance of Faith in Buddhism. Lots of people will argue with us on that one, though: for some Buddhists, speaking about "faith" in the context of Buddhism is almost a taboo! But you and I can happily agree that saddha is actually a very important element of the whole Buddhist venture. All the best to you. Yours, Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction Revisited (Proposal for edits) ==

In light of the fact that all of the bothersomely tiresome edits I made (cross-referencing, prose, grammar, fact checking, foot-notes, etc) were removed in this latest edit war I'm proposing the following Introduction changes be re-instated. If you don't like them then DEFEND the current content because what we have sucks and reads like a scholar's paper, randomly edited by a seventh grader. It uses way too many words to say what I've tried to sum up below:

:'''Buddhism''' is a [[religion]] and [[philosophy]] based on the [[Buddhadharma#In_Buddhism|teachings]] of the [[Buddha]], [[Gautama Buddha|Siddh&#257;rtha Gautama]], who lived in what is now the border region of [[Northern India]] and [[Nepal]] between [[563 BC|563]] and [[483 BC|483 BCE]]. Buddhism spread throughout the ancient [[India|Indian]] sub-continent in the [[Timeline of Buddhism#Before_Common_Era| five centuries]] following his death. It continued to spread into [[Central Asia|Central]], [[Southeast Asia|Southeast]], and [[East Asia]] over the next [[Timeline of Buddhism#Common_Era|two millennia]].

:With approximately [[Buddhism_by_country|708]] million followers, Buddhism is a [[major world religions|major world religion]] whose adherents are called '''[[Buddhists]]'''. Buddhist denominations are [[History_of_Buddhist_schools|historically categorised]] into two parent traditions, '''[[Mahayana]]''' and '''[[Theravada]]''', divided on the [[Buddhist_polemics|efficacy of doctrine and practice]]. The '''[[Vajrayana]]''' tradition is often extricated from Mahayana categorization on the basis of its [[Tantra|tantric]] and linguistic heritage.

:The [[Theravada]] traditions recognize the sole authority of the ([[Pali Canon]]/[[Tripitaka]]) on matters of doctrine, which is comprised of the [[Vinaya Pitaka]], the [[Sutta Pitaka]], and the [[Abhidhamma]]. The name ''"Theravada"'', lit, ''"School of the Elders"'' pays homage to the [[History_of_Buddhism#3rd_Buddhist_council_.28c.250_BCE.29|Pre-Mahayana]] orthodox Buddhist doctrine that forms the school's doctrinal body.

:The [[Mahayana]] traditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the [[Tripitaka]] but also recognize the more esoteric teachings of the [[Mahayana sutras|Mahayana Sutras]] as well as modifications to the [[Vinaya Pitaka]] arguing that adherents with different spiritual attainments require different teachings and differing strictures on behavior. The name ''"Mahayana"'', lit, ''"the Greater Vehicle"'' is styled on the breadth and self-reverent quality of the Mahayana doctrine and motivation, the [[Bodhisattva]] ideal.

:The aim of Buddhist practice is to attain the realization of true reality ([[nirvana]]) by escaping the cycle of [[Wheel of Life|rebirth]] ([[samsara]]) (Pāli, Sanskrit), and preventing the cultivation of unwholesome [[Karma#Buddhism|Karma]]. To achieve this, one should purify and train the mind and act morally.

I can see some contentious points, like "''self-reverant''", but I think the sentence frames the context of 'self-reverent' well. Personally I don't like "''Hinayana''" having any place in the introduction at all and this has been discussed on countless archived talk pages so I've removed it. If it simply refers to a part of Mahayana doctrine then it can reside in the Mahayana page. The discussion on Hinayana in regards to Theravada is well laid out in the Hinayana page and it doesn't provide any needed substance to the main page. Personally I think the 'aims' are stale. How about something a little bit less scholarly and more realistic? I wouldn't mind talking about the idealistic doctrinal aims (nirvana), those of the common lay-person (freedom from suffering), and cultural aims (historically Buddhist people), and the aims based on Tradition. This alone relegates the aims to at least its own subsection if not its own page.

Metta, [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) edited 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear "Randomtalk",

I have been silently following the recent discussions concerning changes to the Buddhism page, but now I would like to make a few comments.

First, I regard Yoji Hajime's interventions as totally insensitive. The idea of a 24 hour deadline to respond to his demands is quite arrogant and unreasonable – not everybody checks Wikipedia every day of the week. I also have reservations about unilateral editorial changes made by somebody who repeatedly cannot even spell "Buddha" correctly nor write Engiish to the standard of an educated native-speaker.

Having said that, I do agree there is some merit to the Buddhism article being carefully edited, with some material being placed under sub-division links. But, again, I suggest it is the responsibility of the person making the changes to take care of this, rather than unceremoniously dumping the material and expecting the original contributore to retrieve it for themselves. Parts of recent versions of the main Buddhism article are rather poorly written (grammar, spelling AND content) and presented. Some months ago, this artcle became a Wikipedia Featured Article, but obviously some people have no idea when to leave well alone. Democracy does not mean anarchy ! Many pointless or even stupid sentence or phrases have been added throughout with no though to the overall article. For example, where "Buddha" is given in devanagari script, what was the point of somebody mentioning Hindi ? Or what is the sense of adding a sentence about Buddhism being an Arya-Dharma and one of the surviving sramana traditions ? That is just in the first few lines.

As to some of your own comments in response to Dr Page:

I tend to agree with Dr Page's views: I think that Mahayana doctrines ahould be given fair coverage and that to add a caveat that these doctrines are often not accepted by Theravada is unnecessary. See below for some of my reasons. You also say that you mention "monastics as a reference source because they've been a source of commentative authority for thousands of years". I am not sure what exactly you mean by this, but surely "thousands of years" is hyperbole. Which monastics would you have in mind. Historical commentators or living people ? If living, then Theravada or Mahayana. If either, which branch – there are many differences of opinion. Monastics may be authorative, but only for their own communities.

You also say, "I believe Wikipedia has never intended to be the testing ground for emerging research into any subject though it provides us with a quick method to witness emerging research as it happens." I agree that Wikipedia might not be the most appropriate forum for emerging research but it is my impression, looking at these discussion pages, that often contributors are not aware of recent shifts in understanding. What might seem as "emerging research" to some may well be old-hat in other circles. How many contributors here have access to the specialist academic journals for Buddhism where this material often intially surfaces ?

Two paragraphs of the Introduction have problems:

:Buddhist denominations are historically categorised into two parent traditions, Mahayana and Theravada, divided on the efficacy of doctrine and practice. The Vajrayana tradition is often extricated from Mahayana categorization on the basis of its tantric and linguistic heritage.

The first statement is false unless one makes it clear that one is speaking about *present-day* denominations. Also I am not sure what is implied by "historically categorised". By who ? As for Vajrayana, "extricated" seems a rather odd word to use. Surely, "distinguished" would be more apt. And what is the distinctive Vajrayna "linguistic heritage* supposed to be ?

:The Mahayana traditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the Tripitaka, but also recognize the the more esoteric teachings of the Mahayana Sutras as well as modifications to the Vinaya Pitaka arguing that adherents with different spiritual attainments require different teachings and differing strictures on behavior.

Mahayana trditions recognize the doctrinal foundation of the Agamas (Sutra-pitaka) and the Vinaya. All Abhidharma works are sectarian in nature. Why are the teachings of the Mahayana Sutras labelled "esoteric". There is nothing especially esoteric about them , any more than the sutras of the Agamas. Also, virtually all Mahayana teachings are adumbrated somewhere or other in the Agamas. The statement that follows on is also dubious. Historically speaking, the Mahayana followers make no modifications to the Vinaya – in fact, most of them, to judge from Mahayana sutras, were very keen and critical adherents of the Vinaya. In the present-day, gain no modifications have been made to the Vinaya: it is either accepted, as in Chinese and Tibetan forms of Mahayana or ignored, as in Japan. This statement about different spiritual statements is more appropriate to Vajrayana.

--[[User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:* Thanks for the comments Stephen. My intention with my proposal is to simplify what is currently in place with something less confusing. I certainly agree with your assessment that it is the responsibility of the 'dumper' to move the data to the appropriate sub-articles. Indeed my own changes were dumped in the massive revert and I had to add them back in myself.

::* In reference to ''esoteric'', this word is currently used twice in the introduction in reference to the Mahayana doctrine by a self-proclaimed scholar of Buddhism.

::* In reference to 'historically categorised' I've provided an in-line link to the buddhism history page. Strictly speaking, there was no ''Buddhism'' until recently, there was simply BuddhaDharma, with many schools unaware of the others, if I remember correctly.

::* With regard to the ''Vajrayana'' linguistic heritage, I added it in deference to its presently confusing inclusion in the Introduction though I admit I feel its inclusion may be unnecessary.

::* With regard to ''extricated'', ''distinguished'' is synonymous and probably more accessible.

::* The clarification of the doctrinal foundation of the Agamas and Vinaya is appreciated... Mahayana doctrine is outside of my league, and I admit it. I was simply attempting to make sense of what is presently on the main page. By-the-way, ''[[Agamas]]'' currently links to a page on lizards.

::* In regards to the supposed Vinaya modifications, once again, I defer to the currently standing main-page.

::* From my own personal profession, I wouldn't expect trade magazine journalists to be more adept at thorough commentary on matters of computer science though they're certainly professional researchers. In the same respect I feel that some monastics are certainly very qualified to comment on their own trade though their perspective may be subjective. Certainly, by referencing any commentary such as the Abhidharma, we're referencing the commentary of monastics.

::* As far as references, I'd like to see footnotes to anything!

::* About ''hyperbole'', Am I mistaken that the Pali Canon (as one example) had been preserved by monastics as an oral tradition for thousands of years?

::So your comments are clearly critical of the current main-page as well as my proposed additions. Do you see anything you like in my proposal? [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]] 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Random,

Thanks for your courteous reply. Yes, I understand that your intention is to simplify the current Introduction. Those parts of your amendment which I did not address present no problems to me. Provided any amended version is discussed by interested parties, written in clear and balanced manner with adequate cross-referencing via links to subsidiary articles, I think the Wikipedia readership will be well-served. It might also be useful to peek at the Wiki entries for the other world religions to see if anything might be usefully adopted from them in terms of layout and presentation.

:*You write "I certainly agree with your assessment that it is the responsibility of the 'dumper' to move the data to the appropriate sub-articles". In fact, this kind of ill-mannered behaviour is little short of vandalism, in my view. As Dr Page mentioned, some people may have spent hours writing these pieces, so it is rather insulting and cavalier to just dump them.

:*Regarding esoteric, nevertheless this word is inappropriate for use with Mahayana as a whole. It could perhaps be used with respect to Vajrayana if my OED definition can be relied upon.

:*Regarding the reference to 'historically categorised', it should be made clear that present-day Buddhist denominations are under discussion. The historical situation is far more complex. You say, "with many schools unaware of the others": this is partially true for Buddhism in pre-modern times after the extinction of Buddhism in India, but Indian Buddhists were well aware of each other's existence.

:*Regarding the Vajrayana linguistic heritage, could I suggest something like: "The Vajrayana tradition is often distinguished from Mahayana on the basis of its tantric doctrines and practices" ?

:*Pedantry: "extricated, distinguished is synonymous". OED: "Distinguish -- inter alia, treat as different, differentiate", "Extricate – free from or disentangle from a constraint or difficulty". Not exactly synonyms.

:*Regarding Agamas and lizards. The Agama entry is probably accessible via the singular.

:*You say, "I feel that some monastics are certainly very qualified to comment on their own trade though their perspective may be subjective". The last clause here is important to bear in mind. But again, are we thinking of living or historical monastics.

:*You say, "I'd like to see footnotes to anything!". Indeed, but I notice that footnotes and references are demanded selectively. Some people seem to get away with most curious statements without being challenged – Yoji Hajime's recent but deleted claims about a hundred thousand plus Mahayana sutras, and his claims about the status of meat consumption with Buddhism.

:*You write "About hyperbole, am I mistaken that the Pali Canon (as one example) had been preserved by monastics as an oral tradition for thousands of years?" The quick answer to that is probably yes. To describe what is actually just "two thousand and a bit years" as "thousands of years" qualifies as hyperbole, in my opinion. This also seems a good place to mention something else that troubles me, prompted in part by all the business about providing caveats to Mahayana doctrines. There seems to be a very subtle, unspoken assumption that Theravada is somehow the original and authentic Buddhism against which everything else should be measured. This is not the case, despite Theravadin conceits to the contrary. Leading scholars (eg Lance Cousins, President of the Pali Text Society) mostly agree that there are no demonstrable historical links between the early Sthaviravadins who broke away from the Mahasanghikas and the later Theravadins. This was well-known to doxologists in ancient India who understood Theravada to be an outlying group derived from the Mahashisakas. Too many people equate the Pali Canon with Theravada. Grateful though we may be to the monks of the Theravada tradition for preserving it, it is just a historical accident that this particular canon has been preserved. Moreover, detailed text critical work on this canon also demonstrates that much of it does not date back to the time of the Buddha. In other words, it is no more the ipsissima verba of the Buddha than are Mahayana sutras, despite the pious traditional beliefs of Theravadins. It is just that the contents of the Pali Canon were composed a few centuries before the Mahayana sutras were. If you have difficulties with this, I can elaborate.

My comments are critical of the general state of the current main-page, but not of your proposed additions in general which seem quite reasonable. Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, but regretably too often articles here initially attract unncessary additions and changes that are little better that graffitti.

--[[User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, friends.

I'm completely new to wiki-posting and wiki-etiquette, so I'm sorry to be stepping on toes here, but...

I came here to crib the introduction for some on-line friends who want to know about the very basic basics of Buddhism, and what do I find?

An article rife with theological/philoshophical references I can't hope to follow, but the basics (karma, cycle of death & rebirth, four noble truths, eight-fold path) buried deep down below the TOC. And when I tried to read the stuff on Mahayana vs. Theravada, I finished up more confused than when I started (and I was pretty well confused when I started :)

I copy-pasted some chunks of prose to rewrite into something I can use to show my friends, and thought I might offer some version of that as a new introduction to the article. But this discussion reads like a set of particularly nasty letters-to-the-editor of some high-nosed academic journal, and that's not a game I choose to play.

I'm posting mostly to pose you this question:

Do you collectively want the Wikipedia Buddhism page, especially the introduction, to be a forum for expressing fine points of scholarly difference and (to borrow a term :) Talmudic disputation; or could it be a place for explaining a few of the very basic basics of Buddhism, for those who don't know anything about it but would like to learn a little bit?

In (what I hope is) the spirit of loving-kindness,

- Gorfram

:The lead definitely needs work. The re-write by [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]], along with changes suggested by [[User:Stephen Hodge|Stephen Hodge]] would be a step in the right direction, IMO. Let's proceed with that. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the section entitled "Buddhism after Buddha" should be re-named. There is no end to Buddha; So how could there be a Buddhism after Buddha? Buddha is the enlightenment within all of us. There might be a time when the lips of men no longer speak his name and their minds no longer ponder him, but even this whould not end Buddha. Let us not forget. [[User:Fistagonfive|Fistagonfive]] 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:How about "Buddhism after the Parinirvana of the Shakyumni Buddha"? [[User:Csbodine|Csbodine]] 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I (Yoji Hajime) am back. From now on, I will be FWBOarticle. Using my real name is causing some trobule. Anyway, is it me or has the introduction of the main page become bigger? Plus, the opening statement of the introduction appear to be a pragiarism of encycropedia britainica, which says Buddhism is a "religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha Gautama (or Gotama), who lived as early as the 6th century BC." There appear to be some objections regarding the way I went about my first edit and this appear to cause some confusion as to how the wikipedia edit and discussion should go. So I clarify few points.

: 1. There is no such thing as 24 hours waiting rule for the first edit in wikipedia. There is 24 hour waiting rule after the same change is made two time in a row. I waited for 24 hours so that i can read any suggestion I might find it to be useful. And none turned up. If someone is offended for my non existent violation, then the problem is purely on misunderstanding of wikipeida edit policy. "One of the assumptions of Wikipedia is that continual editing by multiple users will result in a continual increase in the quality of an article" provided that the right editorial context exist. If someone doesn't checks Wikipedia every day of the week, fine. Just don't complain if someone do and make edit. This place is all better for it. As of my Engrish, feel flee to edit my Engrish, though I usually copy edit. (^_^) If someone can edit my grammer, it is wikipedia edit policy at work. I thank you. If someone think that only "qualified" person should edit, then please try to revive [[Nupedia]].

: 2. It appear that some people are now too polite to make "unilateral" edit and are now presenting possible version of edit here. This is pointless. The discussion/talk page is NOT an edit page. Before, the front page was unreadable, now the talk page is becoming unreadable. If you think you can improve the front article, do so and explain your edit in talk page. This "proposal" section is pointless.

: 3. I admit that I went wrong way by making edit in one single shot. I still stand by my opinion that esotric (not refering to tantric) debate of buddhisms should be deleted out. But I should have done it section by section, making my case for each edit. It went well when I split "Buddhist Principle" section (which was a third of the page) into two. Because I was going to do the same for each section, I thought I will save time but it cause offense to some people and this I apologise. From now on, I will make specific edit/delete to each sentence/paragraph/section. If I can, i will transfer deleted part to other wiki link but please understand that I don't have obligation to do such transfer. The fact remain that the front page article is a bit of embarrasement to the previous featured status. This article is looking like a webpage wrtten by someone who doesn't know how to utilise link. If you don't like my cut, then please suggest the other part which can be cut. [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

==Featured Article Removal Candidate==

I have [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates |nominated]] this article to be removed from the featured article status on the basis that it is in clear violation of section 5 of [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article |feature article criteria]]. I will not edit this article until this matter is settled. Anyone who wish to rescue the article before the judgement, please feel free to do so. ;P [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

: This is not constructive. Please discuss appropriate changes here, or propose a replacement introduction at [[Talk:Buddhism/Lead workshop]]. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::ahh, hello [[Eequor]]. Don't know why you keep switching the display of your username. You reverted my edit solely on the basis of the featured status of this article and then did not make any suggestion in this talk page as to what to do with this (sorry) state of the article. Your revert is the main reason I decided to give up and go to the removal nomination process. Also please read "size" section of [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]. At 72kb, the article is well past my subjective judgement. I also believe that losing the featured status would galvanise people here to restore the article to the former glory. [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

::: I don't know why my signature would be changing...

::: We should have a strong preference for the status quo in the case of featured articles. It's up to you to suggest and promote discussion of the large changes you think should be made; as seen [[#Recent Demolition of Buddhism Article Totally Unacceptable|above]], there is little support for your approach so far. Both [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] and myself have suggested ways of establishing consensus for changing the article, which will not be difficult if nothing objectionable is proposed.

::: Making changes occur is not the purpose of [[WP:FARC]]. Listing ''[[Buddhism]]'' on that page is obviously provocative and also inconsiderate of editors whose time may be limited. As I implied there, this is a disruptive way of making a point. Better would have been to make a [[Wikipedia:request for comment|request for comment]], though I doubt that would attract anyone more qualified to fix the problems than the regular editors here.

::: I think we can agree that some changes should be made, but without proper discussion we can't know where the consensus lies. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Your argument is not in line with wikipedia editorial policy. [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured article]] page states that "we are always working to improve them even further, so [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold in updating]] articles". It is preferable to edit first then justify such edit in talk page so the continous editorial process vitalise wikipedia. Idea that my edit is inconsiderate to "editors whose time may be limited" is anathema to wikipedia. Plus, I no longer enage in debate over M/T disambiguation which cause "Demolition" objection. My current focus is now exclusively on the featured article criteria, which appear to have many support. So why do I get complained for using legitimate wikipedia process whatever the outcome turn out to be?[[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

::::: Normally I agree that editors should '''[[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]]''', but we should be wary of potential [[regression to mean]]. In particular, it isn't clear to me that this article has much room for improvement.

::::: I'm not saying you're being inconsiderate in editing here, though you seem to be acting a bit ahead of the discussion. I was referring to your featured article removal nomination; it may be that the regular editors are currently rather occupied and not available for discussion. Demanding they help fix things ''now'' is inconsiderate. Presumably they would be interested in discussing improvements when they return. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::How could I be not offended when you deliberately imply that I'm not a "regular editor". What is it? Is there some 12 months waiting period I'm not aware of. Did I ever call anyone of undeserving to be a wikipedian (or regular editor) who ought to know his/her place. Did I ever make significant edit without making explantion? And why me going to nomination process which has "zero" implication to editorial process be "inconsiderate". Is it that "regular editors" (no doubt many of them buddhists) are so attached to the status that I'm being a party pooper? The reputation of Buddhism is not about the featured status. Still this M/T disamiguation is certainly a turn off for me. My case is very specific. This article is in clear violation of section 5 of featured article criteria. Please make constructive argument about why exception should be made. Burden of justification is on you not I. [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

::::::: Er, I mean, there's a group of other editors who comment regularly on this page, and aside from [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] they don't seem to be around. I didn't mean any offense; of course everyone's welcome to edit. <tt>^_^;;</tt>

::::::: I don't see the length as a problem myself; in my opinion, probably all the material the article covers should be covered here. Most of the sections have separate articles for their topics, but they're all important enough to be summarized. Maybe some details only need to be in the other articles, but I don't see anything in particular that definitely should be moved. Besides, the 32k page length guideline was picked mainly because some old browsers can't edit pages that size. With section editing, there shouldn't be that problem. The page takes a bit longer to load over a modem than some other pages, but I don't mind the extra time.

::::::: Regarding sects, I identify as [[Mahayana]], but I think I don't share all the views of the Mahayanists who edit here; in some respects I'm more [[Theravadin]]. I think it's important to explain the differences between the two, particularly in what they consider [[canon]]. In most of the article, those details seem concise enough. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

==Revision==

* Thanks for getting into the real issue. 32k is no longer about old browser. Had it been the case, size criteria would have been removed long time ago. Size criteria is now about [[Wikipedia:Summary style| readability]]. At 72kb, this article is unreadable, period. So tell me. how can one justify a page which most people can't or won't read? [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

:* I don't think it's unreadable, either, though I'd prefer [[User:RandomTask|RandomTask]]'s introduction. This is a detailed subject that should have a large article, and by encyclopedic standards it's actually rather short &mdash; we have 9000 words, while Britannica has 47,000. [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105944?query=buddhism&ct=eb] What do you think should be trimmed? [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::Have you read the link I provided. Readability is about average adult attention span of 20min. This readability criteria has nothing to do with content, style or English. Not even a Shakespear can make this article readable for ordinary people. They will give up before reaching the middle and move on. Secondly, Britanica is not wiki based so it is forced to be be-all and end-all entry, which most people won't or can't read. Why do we have to reduced ourself to inferior restriction of paper based encyropedia? In wikipedia, it's not about one article, it's about the totality of portal. I actually think the total words for entire buddhist portal should be few times more than 47,000 while each page should be 4000. I say it again. What is the justififcation of an article which people won't read? Or do you still insist that the article is "readable". Then please make reference which state that adult attention span is 50min (72kb) instead of 20min (32kb). [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

::: Well, I'm optimistic. <tt>^^;</tt>

::: I think it's rather sad if most people don't have the attention span to read an article of this size. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

* Hallo everyone. Yes, some of us have not been able to give as much time to Wikipedia recently as we would like. In my own case, I am having problems with my Internet connection, and these problems may not be resolved for a couple of weeks or more. This is very frustrating, of course!

: I tend to agree with the previous contributor's remarks: I think that the present Buddhism article is not SO bad at all, but needs to be tidied up here and there (slimmed down a little - but not with wholesale chopping-out of major sections). As always, I think we should strive to be fair to both "branches" of Buddhism - Theravada and Mahayana - in the overall shape of the Buddhist article. I don't think there should be an automatic, default "Theravada" stance, or an automatic, default "Mahayana" presentation. I think we must strive to be fair and balanced to both sides in our general presentation of this amazingly rich and varied complex of teachings and practices called "Buddhism". So I would say: whatever alterations people make to the "Buddhism" entry, they should make them on the basis of a) factual accuracy, b) balance and fairness to the various main Buddhist traditions, and c) stylistic elegance / grammatical accuracy. That's my little contribution for today! Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:: I think that is playing down the issues a little. Perhaps it was too loose a focus on balance and fairness in the first place that caused the article to get out of control. Don't get me wrong, I'm refering to the improving wording of your suggestion rather than changing the goals, which are admirable. A more specific wording could be to say people should edit on the basis of excluding sectarian principles and practices as much as possible from the body of the article and including them in an appropriate section instead, hence keeping the article balanced and fair. Does that seem reasonable? Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

* Hallo Eequor and Metta Bubble. Thank you very much for your comments, which are always helpful. As you will have seen already, I tend to agree with you, Eequor, that not too much should be removed from the Buddhism article - it should mainly be tidied up a bit (and slightly reduced in size) rather than massively changed, don't you feel? Metta Bubble, thanks for your ideas. I understand what you mean; the only problem is that in a sense all (or most) of Buddhism could be called a rich tapestry of "sectarian principles and practices" (whether vihara Theravadin, Forest Monk Theravadin, Pure Land, Zen, Dzogchen, Tathagatagarbha, etc.), so one could end up excluding virtually everything from the main article! Don't you think that the main thing to avoid is excessive verbiage and inaccuracy, as well as too narrow a focus on one or other of the schools/sects? I take your point about giving more detail of certain ideas in linked articles (as Yoji has elsewhere suggested). I think that is fair, as long as one does not completely remove from the main article important basic information about the different concepts, stances and practices within Buddhism - so that the attempt at balance and fairness is indeed maintained. Metta Bubble and Eequor, do you think that we should initially concentrate on slightly pruning the text as it stands, section by section where necessary, and then later discuss the precise contents of the article? I cannot myself really see anything in the main article (in terms of section headings) which I think should not be there at all. I suspect, Eequor, that you share my feeling on this one, right? But I'm not sure how you might feel about this, Metta Bubble? Forgive me if I cannot do much Wiki work in the coming two or three weeks, since I am having to use Pay-By-the-Minute Dial-Up to access the Internet at present - and it's costing me a fortune (until I can resolve my ISP problems!). Best wishes to you both and to all. From Tony. [[User:TonyMPNS|TonyMPNS]] 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:*I'm not really sure what you want Tony. You don't really have time and you don't really feel inclined to change the article. Nonetheless, I think you're mistaken about sectarianism. To write a fairly non-sectarian encyclopedic account of Buddhism has in fact already been done. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism&oldid=3087164 featured article] version from 2004 manages to get through well over half way before it mentions anything specific about different schools. Mentioning the rich tapestry of Buddhism sounds very pretty and appealing, and weaving in threads of organic prose is a beautiful thing, but in practice it comes this article has come out more like spaghetti. And we mention controversy between Theravada and Mahayana as the first order of business. That's patently absurd for a reader who may have never encountered Buddhism before. The rest of the article switches between Theravadin and Mahayana so much that you almost need two highlighters to discern what's what. With all due respect to everyone's hard work, let's look at what was working about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism&oldid=3087164 2004 version] and start to work towards what it does so well while keeping the important maturing the article has seen in the last two years. Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:* I largely agree with Tony. I think the various sects are probably best addressed on other pages, but there should be some mention here that Mahayana and Theravada disagree on some things. Perhaps we could have a ''[[Differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism]]'' page to explain the situation more fully. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 20:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

* Hallo Metta Bubble. Thanks for your reply. I think I can best answer your own points by saying: I have had a look at the 2004 version of the article which you recommend, and, while it is certainly neat and tidy (that's for sure), it is clearly biased towards a more Theravadin understanding of Buddhism in its general presentation of the religion, as well as containing factual errors (not that the latest version of the article does not suffer from that defect as well). For example, the 2004 version states that it was the god, Indra, who pleaded with the Buddha to teach Dharma - whereas in fact it was Brahma-Sahampati; it says that the Buddha did not claim any divine status for himself, whereas in a number of Mahayana sutras he calls himself "the god of gods - the god above the gods" and even tells of how he assumes the form of Isvara ("God"), Vishnu, etc. and is being worshipped by the devotees of those gods without the devotees' realising that the recipient of their devotion is in fact the Buddha; the article also says that no higher beings are worshipped: from the Mahayana point of view, this is factually incorrect, since Mahayana Buddhists are strongly encouraged to worship and revere the Buddhas (who by definition are the highest of high beings) and the great Bodhisattvas; there is nothing in the 2004 version about the very important Mahayana (sutrically based) doctrine of the Buddha-dhatu/ Tathagata-garbha, which is central to much Mahayana Buddhism in China and Japan .... I could go on.

What some of us have been trying to do over the past couple of years is introduce a just and equitable counter-balance of Mahayana notions which had previously tended to be sidelined or implicitly treated as secondary or less expressive of "genuine" Buddhism. If the addition of Mahayana Buddhist ideas to the article has resulted in a kind of spaghetti tangle (and I know what you mean here - I tend to agree with you), then I think the best thing to do is to tidy things up (e.g. perhaps having a major divide within the main article as between "Theravada Buddhism" and "Mahayana Buddhism"). I don't see how one can accurately write about this religion/philosophy without making explicit to the reader pretty early on that it exists in at least two rather different forms (Theravada and Mahayana) and to give both versions of Buddhism fair and equal coverage. I see nothing wrong with that - indeed it strikes me as highly honest, fair and desirable. I would be interested to hear what others think about all of this? As for my time limitation - I tried to explain that this is not through lack of interest on my part, but through technical problems with my Internet connection. Best wishes to you. From Tony. 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:I can point where we are heading. Do you think it will stop with Mahayana disambiguation? What would stop someone saying "hey this has Tantric/Zen/PureLand/Tantien/Nichren bias. I demand "a just and equitable counter-balance" of my Tantric/Zen/Pureland/Tantien/Nichiren notions", which is soon followed by "Hey, this Nichren disambiguation is actually Nichren Shu disambiguation. I want "a just and equitable counter-balance" of my Nichiren Soshu notions". Communism sound all well and good. The reality is hell. Don't go that road. [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

:: I'm not sure that's likely to happen. Are there specific parts you think the different branches of Mahayana would disagree on? [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:::It has already happened. Look at the vegetarian section. It started from disambiguation between Theravada and Mahayana then soon developed into disambiguation among Chinese/Tibetan/Japanese disambiguation. I could have gone further by providing the different justification of non vegetarianism among Japanese sects. Most buddhist sects have different take or application of core buddhist doctrine. When some topic become an "issue", it will bloat. It is much better to explain the core idea while leaving the sectorial different to separate section. And you really should face the fact that only few will read 72kb size article. Only way to remain fair under size restriction is to isolate the issues.

:I have a suggestion for general rule of thumb for disambiguation along MettaBubble's line. If anyone feel that any statement of doctrine is Theravada biased, instead of adding Mahayan version of such statement along with (perceived) Theravada version, the orginal statement should be altered for more neutral wording. If it is not possible to do so, then the statement should be relegated to section which specifically deal with difference among Buddhist denomination. Or the issue should be discussed in sister page. That means one cannot "add" Mahayana or Theravada statement. This page remain denomiation free zone except "Buddhist denomiation" and "Buddhist Scriptures" section. If we stick to this rule, then we might find the common element of buddhism (life of buddah, 4 truth, 8 path). [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]

:: Here here! I support. I gather yoji does also. And from what I can see that also concurs with Eequor that we have a special section for disambiguation. Tony, thanks for your work balancing the Mahayana perspective into the article. Now I believe for the process to come full cricle we should look at removing that style again. Overall the structure will end up more like the 2004 article but the content will be more straightened out. Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 10:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Creation Of Wikibuddhist. ==

* I think us Buddhists need a wiki site. I mean, we have a site for orthodox Christians, which has less followers than Buddhism! [[User:Pure inuyasha|Pure inuyasha]] 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:: Is the Christian site run by Wikimedia? Where is it? [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page

http://www.wikichristian.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

either it's made my mediawiki or it's a complete copy.

: Ah, I see. These seem to be independent sites. It wouldn't be especially difficult to start a Buddhist wiki; all that would be needed are some good servers. There's the problem that a separate wiki might divide the available effort, though. Even here there's so much more that should be done, and [[WikiProject:Buddhism]] hasn't enough members to finish quickly. [[User:Eequor|&#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]]</span>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">&#5200;</font>] 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If people are willing to commit the time and effort I think it'd be a wonderful idea.