Talk:Buddhism

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.

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.

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.

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

24.87.154.112 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done. restored the phrase "philosophical tradition". It had been removed recently without explanation. Callmehelper (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2025 (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old orientalist idea that Hinayana (a pejorative term, by the way) was somehow rationalist or "not a religion" is long-superseded.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 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 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" Buddhists, and it is not supported by academic sources. wound theology◈ 05:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that was my original post, and I believe here we can see evidence of an effort on the part of some--presumably religious--believers to re-cast Buddhism as a religion. The evidence throughout Early Buddhism is that this is a distortion of the facts. Yes, it is probable that the Buddha's audience among the poor were not only religious and inclined to think of the Buddha in those terms. However, the Buddha's teachings to the sangha were repeatedly very clear: that he (the Buddha) was no more than a pointer of the way and that the individual was the only one who could walk the course; he demurred when asked to discuss any quasi-religious topics; the Four Noble Truths--his summary of his teachings--contain no reference to anything religious. The only reasonable conclusion is that Buddhism is and was a philosophy (psychology is better) and a religion. ~2026-57681-5 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an anachronistic and untenable position when taking into account the fact that there was no distinction between 'philosophy' and 'religion' in the 5th century BCE, let alone psychology. It is also a misunderstanding of the acinteyya and the role they play in Buddhism. Not to mention how historically ass-backwards it is to claim that religious [b]elievers are trying to re-cast Buddhism as a religion. Buddhism was re-cast as a philosophy in the 19th and 20th century by those who wanted to distance themselves from the religion as actually practiced by Asian people.

Certainly you have high-quality academic sources to back up your claim that the Buddha's teachings to the sangha were repeatedly very clear? The Early Buddhist texts all contain 'religious' material (rebirth, talk of gods and other spiritual beings, supernatural feats and powers, and so on.) wound theology◈ 08:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

My vote is for the most neutral point of view, that Buddhism is both a religion and a philosophy (philosophy, in this context, is understood to be the general sense, of a 'non-religious set of beliefs and practices'). I'm afraid that nothing you have provided so far convinces me otherwise. ~2026-57681-5 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not a neutral point of view, because such a point of view presupposes that there is in fact a 'Buddhist philosophy' that is 'non-religious' and can be separated from 'religious' Buddhism in a way that cannot be done for Christianity or Islam -- which is, of course, emphatically false.

It is fine if you aren't convinced by scholarly sources, but unfortunately you have not provided any counterargument other than baseless unsourced claims putting words in the Buddha's mouth, since my clear request for high-quality academic sources to back up your claim has gone unheeded. wound theology◈ 07:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:29, 4 October 2025 (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. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

While this seems like an overspilled content dispute, I don't actually see the problem with the added Jain criticism. @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. wound theology◈ 12:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pawapuri Winds:, your edits ( 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) JimRenge (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC) suppl. link JimRenge (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@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.

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."

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. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Unsatisfactoriness" is not the 'literal translation' of "dukkha." While "unsatisfactoriness" is also usefull, context is required; that's why the lead says 'liyerally translated'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

'Suffering' and 'unease' are not literal translations either, in that case; duḥkha (दुःख) is constructed as an antonym of sukhá (सु॒ख). Sukhá has a wider semantic range than 'ease' in both Sanskrit and Pali, 'satisfactory' is one of those meanings -- perhaps originally meaning "having a proper axe-eye". wound theology◈ 12:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, 'standing unstable'. The multivalent meaning of the term "dukkha" is explained in the article; the contested edits rely too much on this one bikkhu. I'll explain it in detail later. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I added another reference, and have more on hand. The 'unsatisfactoriness' as a better translation than 'suffering' is common, especially among Pali scholars, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist -- particularly because the notion that duḥkha in the sense that Buddhist texts use it is 'pain' or 'suffering' is a remnant of 19th century orientalism -- the root of one of the main misconceptions that Westerners have about Buddhism. It is an "inexact" translation per Harvey (Harvey, Peter (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4.). Bhikkhu Anālayo prefers to translate it as "pain" when used in the narrow sense, but as "unsatisfactory" in the sense used, e.g., in the Noble Truths (Anālayo, Bhikkhu. "Craving and dukkha." Insight Journal 45 (2019): 35-42.) Cone, too, notes two broad senses of the word, of which "unsatisfactoriness" is one. (Cone, Margaret. A dictionary of Pali. Pali Text Society, 2001.) wound theology◈ 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections against the term "unsatisfactoriness" (though that translation is unsatisfactory as well), but I object against the pushing of one single source, and the removal of references. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Latest revert diff:

• removed a hatnote-link at the top; why?
• replaced Lit. translation 'suffering, unease' with 'unease', 'unsatisfactoriness').[Source: P. D. Premasiri, Ideas of the Good in Buddhist Philosophy, in: A Companion to World Philosophies; the term "dukkha" and it's nuances is explained in the article, including "painfull" and "unsatisfactory"; why take one interpretation, ignore the literal meaning, and introduce a new source which is not used in the body? WP:LEAD summarizes the article; that's not the case here;
• replaced (emphasis mine)

He regarded this path as a Middle Way between extremes such as [[asceticism]] and sensual indulgence.{{sfnp|Bronkhorst|2011|pp=233–237}}{{sfnp|Schuhmacher |Woener|1991|p=143}}

with

He regarded this path as a [[Middle Way]] between extremes of [[Sassatavada|eternalism]] and [[nihilism]].<ref name="m054">{{cite web | last=Jackson | first=Roger R. | title=In Search of a Postmodern Middle | publisher=Routledge | date=2013-12-16 | doi=10.4324/9781315028002-14 | url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315028002-14/search-postmodern-middle-roger-jackson | access-date=2025-10-26 | page=215–246}}</ref>{{sfn|Anōmadassi Thero|2018|pp=19, 29}}

• Why was this replaced? Why ignore "such as," instead of adding this info?
• Anōmadassi Thero is introduced here; who is Anōmadassi Thero? Seems as primay as can be;

• changed

The Four Noble Truths, or the truths of the Noble Ones, express the basic orientation of Buddhism:

into (emphasis mine)

The Four Noble Truths, or the truths of the Noble Ones, '''encompass all the teachings of the Buddha or all of the wholesome activities'''.{{sfn|Anōmadassi Thero|2019|pp=18-19, 66-67}} It express the basic orientation of Buddhism:

• "encompass all the teachings of the Buddha": this screws-up the fine nuance of "express the basic orientation of Buddhism." See Four noble truths for an extensive explanation of the development of the four truths; the addition is one-sided and inaccurate; the source, Anōmadassi Thero, is a primary source and not a scholarly source, and cannot be used for broad-sweeping statements;

• Changing

But there is a way to [[moksha|liberation]] from this endless cycle{{sfnp|Warder|2000|pp=45–46}} to the state of [[nirvana]], namely following the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].

into

But there is a way to [[moksha|liberation]] from this endless cycle{{sfnp|Warder|2000|pp=45–46}} by eradicating [[Avidyā (Buddhism)|avijjā]] and [[taṇhā]] known as [[nirvana]],{{sfn|Anōmadassi Thero|2018|p=7}} namely following the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].{{sfn|Anōmadassi Thero|2018|p=28}}

• Apart from the awkward grammatical errors, there's no need for this expansion, as the four truths are explained in more details just a few lines further;
• Again Anōmadassi Thero; see above.

All this needs more than the misleading and baffling edit-summary diff Adding links. (WP:SUMMARY) Explain more in the main pages.. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As above, 'suffering' is neither a literal translation of duḥkha nor is it particularly accurate for specialized Buddhist usage. Since you objected that 'unsatisfactoriness' is not a literal translation, I removed that label from it. Again, the sense of 'pain' or 'suffering' is a remnant of 19th century orientalism -- the reason that Nietzsche believed that Buddhism was a sort of life-denying nihilism. It is misleading to present it as such.

For the Middle Way, I believe it is more accurate to describe it as primarily between eternalism and nihilism, rather than asceticism and sensual indulgence -- especially since the unqualified 'asceticism' can very well be used to describe basic pratimokṣa vows which prevent one from, for example, playing games or listening to music. However, I am a Mahayana practitioner, and this could very well be my own bias.

As for Anōmadassi Thero -- he's a bhikkhu, yes, but as such he is more than qualified to describe Buddhist doctrine. I do not believe that notion the FNTs encompass all the teachings of the Buddha is inaccurate or one-sided from the perspective of mainstream Buddhist doctrine, but again, Mahayana, so there are plenty of things I have been taught that encompass all the teachings of the Buddha. Perhaps there is reasoning why this should not be presented as objective fact.

In any case, I'm not super attached to current form of these edits in particular (I didn't see the hatnote removal, for example, no idea what that is about) but I saw changing duḥkha to unsatisfactoriness and the MW between eternalism and nihilism as improvements, with no strong objection to the use of Anōmadassi Thero as a source for Buddhist doctrine. wound theology◈ 17:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; I'll take a further look later (using a mobile phone now...). Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan: let me try to flesh out some of my recent edits to the lead and my lingering concerns:

1. "Development" seems needlessly vague and so confusing. Can we at least day personal development?
2. If 'awakening' is hard to define, do we really just want to leave that word with no description or definition? Could we at least say "awakening, a technical term in Buddhism" or "what the Buddha called 'awakening'"?
3. The problem with saying that the Middle Way aims for a midpoint between asceticism and indulgence is that the very sentence calls the Buddha an ascetic. How do we resolve this contradiction?

Thanks for reading. Wolfdog (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wolfdog thank you for opening a thread.

• ad 1: bhavana has a broad meaning; cultivation [of the 'heart'-mind]' would also be possible. 'Personal development' has specific meanings in the west, which are not implied here.
• ad 2: 'awakening', bodhi, is linked to Enlightenment in Buddhism, where the term is fully explained. That's what hyperlinks are good for. "A technical term in Buddhism" is not usefull; do we know what 'awakening' means if we add this statement? "What the Buddha called 'awakening'" is questionable; the story of his 'awakening' seems to be a later development, with a huge inconsistency: he discovered the way to liberation, namely the eightfold path; yet, this insight on itself was liberating! So, instead of going down this road to liberation, discovering the path sufficed, and the path didn't have to be followed.
• ad 3: good point! We'll have to take a look into the sources, primary and/or secondary, to see what others have stated. I've changed "wandering ascetic" into "sramana," with a hyperlink.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the chat. I appreciate your thoughts on 3. You totally lost me on 2. I guess with 1 and possibly 3, a general trend I notice on WP is that more expert editors on a certain topic assume too much from hyperlinks but when a newcomer clicks on it, it leads to just another page where editors have covered a complex topic in hyperlinks, under the same assumption, thus leading to a kind of infinite loop where the newcomer cannot ever wrap their head around anything. (Although I certainly love links...) I prefer the strategy that each page begin with a clear readable lead section that doesn't entirely HINGE on piping to be understood to a newbie. Wolfdog (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)