Talk:Buddhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBuddhism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Further reading[edit]

I have moved over 50 works into "Further reading" as they are not being used as citations. The section is now huge. For guidance on what, if anything, should be included see Wikipedia:Further reading. Someone familiar with the subject should give it an extensive prune. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirth in buddism[edit]

Hi friends i spoke to many teravada buddists and they claimed that Lord Buddha never asserted existence of god and rebirth. All he said is to believe once own experience. But this article is misleading. It talks lot about rebirh. Can some one refer me to right source of info and also pls correct this wiki page pls. RamaPandita (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RamaPandita: see here and here. Personally, I also think that Buddhism works perfectly fine (or even better) without the concept of rebirth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "pls correct this wiki page pls": it's a complicated, but valid request; while scholars conclude that the belief in rebirth has been part of Buddhism early, it has less support in western Buddhism. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues here. Theravada is not an authority on Buddhism, it is only an authority on Theravada. Moreover, the Theravada teachers do not all agree about everything - and this includes rebirth. Moreover rebirth itself is not a simple concept. There is the 'outer/physical' rebirth where the consciousness arises in a new body some time after physical death, but then there is the 'inner/psychological' rebirth, which is the moment of consciousness arising from the prior one. Both of these are considered as relevant and important in varying schools of Buddhism. As for rebirth itself, it is a necessary consequence of Buddhist Karmaphala (and I believe there is no school of Buddhism which rejects Karmaphala - Buddha says that actions always have consequences). The point is that if we accept this, then there is a concordance between mental actions having mental consequences. If mental consequences are an inevitability of mental actions, then there cannot be a cessation of mental activity. One of the distinctions between the Theravada and other traditions is that the cessation of mental activity is parinirvana (Ie, enlightenment is a true death of consciousness) - whereas the Mahayana assert that nirvana/parinirvana is the cessation of *only* contaminated consciousness. This specific difference legitimises the Mahayana project: While the Theravada hold the view that a Bodhisattva 'remains (unenlightened) in samsara until one can turn the wheel of Dharma' (therefore holding back from final enlightenment), the Mahayana recognise that the Bodhisattva engages in continual enlightening activity endlessly (sustaining a Nirmanakaya until all beings have been liberated from Samsara).
Moreover, a lot of the concepts of rebirth are easily misconstrued. For example, look at the corryvreckan whirlpool. This whirlpool manifests on each high tide. Is it the same whirlpool? While the energy and circumstances that form it remain, the whirlpool will arise in future high tides. This is a good allegory for Buddhist rebirth - there is no 'soul' or 'seed' that passes from one whirlpool to the next - merely the conditions for its arising. If the circumstances and conditions for a future RamaPandita-like whirlpool of consciousness and emotions remains after the current RamaPandita dies, then such a being will arise. Rebirth does not need to be established beyond modern scientific enquiry. This is why Buddhist rebirth differs from any form of Metempsychosis that requires a migration of the mind as a continuum. Of course we find such things in Buddhist texts, such as the Bardo in Tibetan Traditions - but it's not a necessary requirement for rebirth or karma. If we think that we must make a choice between scientific scepticism and rebirth, we have either mistaken scientific scepticism or we have mistaken rebirth. (20040302 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
In buddhism , rebirth is possible because Buddha himself sees the life as a energy which flows through our humanly body and we know that "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed , so it changes forms " , Maybe somewhere in the world the enlightenment of buddha is still present and which will come out to world when it finds a means 117.202.29.20 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophy" in the lede[edit]

The lede heavily implies that Buddhism can be considered a religion or a philosophical tradition. This is a relatively-new addition for the page, only added in 2021 with the justification that many religious and philosophical scholars see Buddhism as both a religion and a philosophy or "way of life".

Buddhism is, of course, both; as are all religions. But in the context of Buddhism there is a significant push to secularizing it to make it more palatable for Westerners.[1][2][3][4] Though Buddhism causes problems for very narrow definitions of religion based around what Durkheim and others called the "theistic conception", it is nonetheless a religion and among living Buddhists in, for example, Sri Lanka, it is parallel to Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam.[5][6] This push is related directly to orientalism in the Indian subcontinent and what Obeyesekere calls "Protestant presuppositions":

From Olcott's catechism grew the tradition of Buddhist ambivalence (if not outright hostility) toward the concept of religion, but his catechism had a religious origin in Olcott's own liberal Protestant Christian background. He took his challenge to be one of purifying Buddhism by returning to the fundamental teaching of the founder as recorded in its authoritative scriptures. The teaching he found in these texts had much in common with the liberal Protestantism of the late nineteenth century. It was opposed to "superstitious" practices, suspicious of miracle sand the supernatural, and respectful of the canons of reason.[7]

The source given for the claim that Buddhism can be a religion "or" a philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which does not deny that Buddhism is a religion or propose it is something else, and only gives consideration of the historical Buddha as a philosopher (which the author admits is "controversial".)[8]

Second, lead follows body. There is no discussion of whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not anywhere in the body. It is purely these two minor asides (in the lead and the etymology section) that seem to be there only to placate a very small number of Western Buddhist-adjacent people who are uncomfortable with the word "religion."

Lastly, while it might be interesting in an introductory religious studies class to discuss what makes Buddhism is a religion, or where philosophy ends and religion begins; it will only confuse new readers who want to know the basics about Buddhism. That is to say, it is an Indian religion with millions of adherents across Asia and the rest of the world. "It's not a religion, mannnn, it's a philosophy" drones notwithstanding.

References

  1. ^ Brazier, Dharmavidya David; Brazier, Dharmavidya David (2015-05-30). "It Needs Saying: Buddhism is a Religion". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  2. ^ Buswell, Robert E.; Lopez, Donald S. Jr.; Buswell, Robert E. (2014-05-29). "Buddhism: Philosophy or Religion?". Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  3. ^ Brazier, David (2014-12-17). Buddhism Is a Religion. Malvern, England: Woodsmoke Press. ISBN 0-9931317-0-0.
  4. ^ Cush, Denise; Robinson, Catherine (2020-11-20). "'Buddhism Is Not a Religion, But Paganism Is': The Applicability of the Concept of 'Religion' to Dharmic and Nature-Based Traditions, and the Implications for Religious Education". Religion and Education. BRILL. p. 66–84. doi:10.1163/9789004446397_006. ISBN 978-90-04-44639-7.
  5. ^ Southwold, Martin (1978). "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion". Man. 13 (3). [Wiley, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland]: 362–379. ISSN 0025-1496. JSTOR 2801935. Retrieved 2024-02-07.
  6. ^ Herbrechtsmeier, William (1993). "Buddhism and the Definition of Religion: One More Time". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 32 (1): 1. doi:10.2307/1386910.
  7. ^ Eckel, Malcolm David (1994). "The Ghost at the Table: On the Study of Buddhism and the Study of Religion". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. LXII (4): 1085–1110. doi:10.1093/jaarel/LXII.4.1085. ISSN 0002-7189.
  8. ^ Siderits, Mark (2011-02-17). "Buddha". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2024-02-07.

Tryin to make a change :-/ 03:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several discussions before on calling Buddhism a religion; numerous editors prefer to call it a philosophy. We've used a compromise here, calling it both, just like Hinduidm is called 'a religion or dharma. "Religion" is indeed a western term; as you admit, there are widespread objections againt this term, within and outside Buddhism. You also note that the term "philosophy" is also used in the etymology-section, not only in the lead. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors do not trump WP:RSs. The "widespread objections" occur almost entirely outside of good-quality sources ("it's not a religion, mannn, it's a way of life") and undue weight should not be given here. Also, I explicitly noted that it is also used in the etymology section (I noted two minor asides in the lead and the etymology section). If you have an objection based on policy and not nameless editors who "prefer" to call it a philosophy, please state so here. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lede at Hinduism implies that "Indian religion" is interchangeable with "dharma" (which is somewhat accurate, one of the papers I referenced here notes āgama as the most accurate translation of "religion"). This is not the case for the Buddhism page, where the philosophical tradition is considered in opposition to religion. Tryin to make a change :-/ 08:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Buddhism, religion and philosophy"; nice compromise. But James Steward agrees with you; it seems to me that you could write a nice, concise piece of text to explain the idea of "Buddhism is not a religion," for example in a yet-to-create Definitions-section. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aight bet Tryin to make a change :-/ 09:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the use of the word philosophy in the lede has been in the article before, for example from November 2009 to July 2012 and from June 2015 to March 2016 where it was replaced by dharma, presumably for similar reasoning that Alan Watts described wherein Buddhism does not fit neatly into either Western ideas of philosophy or religion. It's not a philosophy the same way it's not a religion, but using the English language philosophy is as valid a descriptor as religion and as much as it is neither, it is also both. Just as the religion descriptor is relevant for the lede, so to is the philosophy descriptor relevant for the lede of a summary style article, where the details can be elaborated on in the article proper. The lede including the philosophical descriptor also reflects the article itself which describes it as such in various places throughout the article to varying degrees. Especially for this article, religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive terms so the article's lack of refutation of the religion descriptor does not imply a challenge of the philosophy descriptor. - Aoidh (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like what Aoidh says here. A challenge that Buddhism has had is that, because it is (mostly) atheistic, many theists would deny that it is a religion. Plenty of anglocentric dictionaries consider faith in a God (or Gods) as being a necessary differentiator for what makes a religion a religion. I would argue that (cf. Lord Buddha's many arguments against 'views') that Buddhism is, pretty much, an anti-philosophy - but I guess that's not going to help anyone here. For me, the question of religion is - does Buddhism require faith in anything? This, IMHO, can be answered definitively: A fundamental 'credo' of Buddhism is that there is such a state called 'awakening', which (for most Buddhist traditions) is available to us through the Threefold Training. (20040302 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
A better question is: what sort of "philosophy" has monastics, prayer, soteriology, sacrality, holidays, rituals, an afterlife, et al? Also, note that Right View is a major step on the Noble Eightfold Path. wound theology 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That question has the same answer as "what sort of religion doesn't have a God?" which is a question I've heard many times, and both presuppose that only things that meet our expectation of what an X is can be called X, when those expectations are not defining aspects of X, be that religion, philosophy, or many other things. Whether or not Buddhism being described as a philosophy is considered Right View (or in the case of what is currently in the article, a "philosophical tradition") may or may not be relevant to the person asking themselves that, but for better or worse Wikipedia uses reliable sources and due weight to determine such things. - Aoidh (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The theistic conception of religion is something Durkheim et al were tackling more than a century ago. There is no scholar of religious studies who would argue Buddhism is not a religion because it does not have a God. In fact, regarding reliable sources and due weight, I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition," whether exclusively such or in addition to being a major world religion in some sense. The only article that allegedly does this is the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which of course does nothing of the sort -- it concerns an overview of the historical Buddha within a Western philosophical framework ("The Buddha will here be treated as a philosopher.") There are a significant number of sources (which I've elucidated in the "Classification" section) which do the opposite, including several which talk about this problem in detail (describing Western attitudes towards religion and philosophy and Buddhism in particular.) The three sources which Aoidh (talk · contribs) provided, save the one by Tricycle which simply problematizes the binary between philosophy and religion, are essentially an Alan Watts quote (a notoriously bad source for Buddhist views and a scholar not taken seriously in Buddhist or religious studies circles) and a single Dzogchen teacher. Regarding the latter, Brazier discusses the modes in which Asian Buddhist teachers engage Westerners -- they know their American and European students view "religion" as a dirty word and are hesitant to use it as upāya. Again, actual Buddhists in Asia have no problem with this, and for example in Sri Lanka it is considered parallel to Islam or Christianity as an āgama or (religious) teaching.
Christianity and Islam, which are also major philosophical traditions (the former of which having far more secular export than Buddhism), are of course not described as such in the lede. It is only Buddhism, where a prominent (and damaging) history of orientalism and Western intrigue have made certain interested parties reluctant to identify with a "religion." As Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) said, the "philosophical tradition" adage is a compromise here, calling it both to placate numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. wound theology 08:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a single source in the article which prefers to call Buddhism a "philosophical tradition" I'm not aware of anyone on this talk page (I certainly haven't) that has suggested that it is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion. As I said above these descriptors are not mutually exclusive either in the article or in reliable sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "actual Buddhists" but that seems like a No true Scotsman argument, and more importantly how the lede is written is not dictated solely by adherents to Buddhism whether they are "actual Buddhists" or not. - Aoidh (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "actual Buddhists" I mean the vast majority of Buddhists around the world, who are overwhelming in Asia. Western Buddhists make up a tiny minority of Buddhists altogether, and secular Buddhists are a tiny minority of those. Focusing on the views of Alan Watts or Western-facing teachers regarding Buddhism's relationship to religiosity, or viewing them equally with the views of 99% of living Buddhists in Buddhist countries, is giving undue weight. Also, a strange number of commentators who make this argument are "meditation teachers" or somesuch who do not identify as Buddhist for reasons related to their aversion to religion -- Alan Watts being one. If Buddhism is a psychology and not a religion, there is no need to call oneself a Buddhist. In that case, per their own admission, they are not actual Buddhists.
Regarding whether or not Buddhism is a philosophical tradition rather than a religion: the idea that Buddhism as a "philosophical tradition" can be separated from Buddhism as a "religion" is heavily implied by the lede (originally, when I started this discussion, it actually read "religion or philosophical tradition".) Religion already encompasses philosophy, the addition is thus redundant and adds nothing (it certainly does not contribute to a summary style): it serves only as a concession to numerous editors [who] prefer to call it a philosophy. Again, Christianity and Judaism are never described as "philosophical traditions" -- either in addition to, or as an alternative to, being a religion -- because that would be redundant or incorrect, respectively. The "Buddhism, religion or philosophy?" debate is well-documented in scholarly literature; the current lede exists, primarily, as an acknowledgement of both sides despite one being far more accurate than the other and the latter being a rhetorical strategy to make a Western projection of "rational" Buddhism palatable to people who are uncomfortable with religion. This isn't "just" my opinion, but elaborated in the academic sources I initially gave.
My most recent revision to the lede added "dharma or āgama" as alternatives for "Indian religion", with the latter coming first since the former are probably unfamiliar terms. These are both endonyms, encompassing the entire denotation of "Buddhism" religious and philosophical, and it is the solution given on the Hinduism page, where it is described as an Indian religion or dharma. wound theology 09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely contribute to these threads nowadays, due to a sense that the participants appear to have forgotten that wikipedia is a collaborative, rather than a competitive, endeavour. It is well established that Buddhism has been called both 'religion' and 'philosophy' - one does not have to step far to find that. To say that Buddhism *is* this or *is* that, and claim that its identity is wrapped up in such labels is, frankly, precisely not what Buddhism, is about.. The entire argument about what Buddhism "is", I believe misses the central point of Lord Buddha's teaching on annata. Moreover, the lede could easily be adjusted to a manner that allows all the above signatories to be content, merely by restating the sentence to "...is known as...". There are good reasons why many non-Buddhists prefer to consider Buddhism to be a philosophy - for instance, so that they can consider engaging in mindfulness, and other Buddhist meditations without feeling that they are betraying their faith. Lord Buddha's encouragement of critical thinking again is a quality very rarely expressed in other religions, unless we want to consider science to be a religion. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this page, the only 'leap of faith' necessary to be a Buddhist is that there is such a state of enlightenment that is worth the endeavour. Even this is not, strictly, a credo - but merely a sound basis for engagement. Again, for what it's worth, I not consider the vagaries of Western academic publishing to be either a sole, or even (sometimes) suitable criteria for reliable sources. Much of these works are not peer reviewed in any sensible manner, and again, very few are peer reviewed by the well-established Buddhist academic communities of Asia and the far east, -such as the monastic universities of Drepung, Sera, or Ganden, for example, or other similar institutions of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan. I would argue that most reliable sources aren't even in English, and many translations themselves have not been adequately peer reviewed. (20040302 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

That's simply the convention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do in fact refer to the Roman Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 13:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it orginated in INDIA , we should mark it as a Indian religion . 103.181.40.101 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an Indian religion. Period! 174.93.233.113 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexei Michael (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alexei Michael (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2024[edit]

Buddhism was started from Nepal and it has nothing to do with india , it later came to India after 20 years when the previous time Nepal i.e. Bihar where Buddha went to teach some life values and medical sciences. Buddhism has a lot to do with Nepal and Tibet and there are people who follow ancient Buddhist rituals but in India even who follows those rituals are either Nepali origin people or Tibet origin people and some Bhutan origin people. Making such false claim on our sacred deity i.e Buddha makes our heart sad Buddha's child (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vrddhi form[edit]

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

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

Origins in India vs. Indian subcontinent[edit]

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

Buddhism is an Indian religion (that is the term, after all) and revising it to "religion of the Indian subcontinent" is less accurate as most Buddhists today live outside of it. wound theology 00:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: The article Indian religions defines that term as "the religions that originated in the Indian subcontinent". I was attempting to refer to the origin only, as I think the original statement was. I was just trying to clarify "Indian" shouldn't be interpreted as referring to the modern Republic of India, which would be even more inaccurate for present-day demographics. Sounds like that's not clear, so maybe we should just say exactly what we mean: "religion originating in the Indian subcontinent"? -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one calls them "religions originating in the Indian subcontinent," though. They call them Indian religions. wound theology 06:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: Who exactly are "they"? Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and either avoids or explains jargon and confusing or ambiguous terminology. We could write something like "a religion originating on the Indian subcontinent, known by __ as one of the Indian religions" or "commonly known as" or whatnot. Or "is an Indian religion (having originated on the Indian subcontinent)" or similar. -- Beland (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: Having received no reply from you, I put in the last-proposed phrasing above, but I see you've reverted it with the edit summary "superfluous". Perhaps this clarification is unnecessary for subject-matter experts, but for a general audience seems important because the phrase "Indian religion" is ambiguous. As evidenced by complaints about its inaccuracy, many readers interpret "Indian" to refer to the Republic of India (which it does not) or interpret it to mean that Buddhism is mostly practiced in India (which it is not). -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of reply is not a certificate of nihil obstat. The current wording reflects the long-standing consensus, wait for more input from other editors before adding in contentious edits. wound theology 08:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: Could you point me to the previous discussion or edits which decided against clarifying the meaning of "Indian religion" so I know who to consult for their opinion? Or alternatively, could you explain your position? I'm in the dark about where we differ; do you doubt that some readers are interpreting this phrase differently than the definition in Indian religions? -- Beland (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who complain about Buddhism being called an "Indian religion" are not confused as to what that term means -- they're participating in nationalist internet arguments about whether or not the Buddha was born in Nepal or India. Scholarly consensus is that he was born in modern-day Nepal but taught primarily in India. Buddhism is an Indian religion, originating in India (whether understood as the subcontinent as a whole or as the territory of the modern-day Republic of India). People will continue to argue about whether the Buddha was Indian or Nepali regardless. wound theology 01:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition.
Yes, people are being nationalistic, but is the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? The Buddha's life seems to have both spanned India and Nepal. It seems unclear that there is a specific day or year in which it's obvious that the religion was created, and thus it's difficult to know where the Buddha was at that time and thus where to ascribe "credit". Given how long ago it was and the available sources, it seems many of the geographic and chronological details are uncertain or disputed. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have also been complaints have been that it should not be called an Indian religion because it's mostly not practiced in India, by either definition. These people should take up their misgivings with the scholarly literature, not us. [I]s the claim that the religion originated only on the territory of the Republic of India supported by sources in the article? No one is making this claim. The Buddha was born in modern-day Nepal and preached mainly in the modern-day Republic of India. Both Nepal and (the Republic of) India, as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh, are on the Indian subcontinent. The Buddha was born in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain spanning both modern-day India and Nepal in an era long before modern nationalism, and indeed ancient India was a loose collection of different polities connected more by economics and long-ranging social networks rather than a national or ethnic identity. If you insist on adding (what I consider to be) superfluous information already explained in the text, then I would not object to an explanatory note with something like: The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic on the Indo-Gangetic plain, spanning both modern-day India and Nepal. wound theology 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disconnect that generates complaints about geography of practice is that readers don't know that Wikipedia is using the term "Indian religion" in a specific academic sense that refers to origin, rather than one of several possible other interpretations. I'll add your proposed explanatory footnote. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: I couldn't find anything in the article that verifies the claim "The Buddha founded his order in the Sakya Republic". Did I miss something or did you have a citation for that? Shakya seems to be the right link target; Sakya describes a school of Buddhism, not a republic. -- Beland (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sakya is the Pali form of Shakya. Yes, the target is wrong. It is well-attested that Shakyamuni Buddha was born and lived first in the Shakya Republic. I say "founded his order" but that's not entirely accurate -- Vulture Peak was in Magadha and this is where he is traditionally held to have first preached. However he began his ascetic journey in the Shakya Republic according to the sutras (or suttas, more likely in this case.) If not the Sakya Republic, then Magadha; the Buddha was born in the S[h]akya Republic spanning India and Nepal and first preached in Magadha or what have you. wound theology 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wound theology: OK, can you give a citation for whatever it is that you think is an accurate statement? Secondary sources are preferred, because religious texts aren't necessarily historically accurate, and obviously don't know anything about modern geography. -- Beland (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan has removed the incorrect claim and attached some references to that explanatory footnote. Though the quotes from the references seem to verify the use of the term "Indian religion" and not the geography of modern countries where early teaching happened. -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should follow the body, and the fact that Buddhism originated where it did is discussed elsewhere on the page. There's no need for references. wound theology 06:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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