Talk:Humanistic Buddhism

Caring for the Dead?

I don't get it. I don't know anything about caring for the dead in Buddhism. As far as I know, all Buddhists care for the living, not the dead. So, why is this sentence in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.102.129 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are funeral rites in Tibetan Buddhism, such as dedication of merits. The same is true of Jodo Shinshu and, I assume, many other schools. Luis Dantas (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've updated: During Taixu's time, and earlier, Chinese Buddhism was tending more and more to becoming a bunch of funeral rites and the like. After the funeral itself, there are more rites on subsequent days, etc. and the funerary urn is kept in a pagoda, etc. etc. Please see my updates in the article page itself.  :) Huifeng (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

In many contexts, "Engaged Buddhism" is used as an analogous term to "Humanistic Buddhism." Both are valid translations of the Chinese 人間佛教. Caorongjin (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose the merge. 'Engaged Buddhism' is the much more standard term in discussions of this movement in Buddhism in English-language scholarship. I'm not sure that it and Humanistic Buddhism are the same thing; Thich Nhat Hanh is the major figure associated with Engaged Buddhism, which is focused more on the idea of applying Buddhist principles in the service of social causes than with making Buddhism more compatible with humanism. At the very least, we should get a better indication of what the relationship between the two traditions is a little unclear to me. It seems that perhaps the same term in Chinese is being used for two different movements. --Clay Collier (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look for instance at http://buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/~mb/publications/bingenheimer.yinshunRenjianFojiao.pdf, a digitized version of a publication from Taiwan, Bingenheimer discusses how "Engaged Buddhism" is a term that comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's translation of 人間佛教 (renjian fojiao). The basis for his work is that of Yinshun, perhaps the second major figure of Chinese Humanistic Buddhism (next to Taixu). Recognizing this and the tendency for people to use both terms analogously (correctly or not) would imply, at minimum, that Engaged Buddhism is part of the trajectory of Humanistic Buddhism. Caorongjin (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just ammended the section in Humanistic Buddhism to discuss the relationship with Engaged Buddhism. Hope that clarifies things. Caorongjin (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a good solution. Thanks. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Though the term "Engaged Buddhism" seems much more common amongst Westerners, considering that several large Chinese (Taiwanese) groups use the English term "Humanistic Buddhism", and they do have a fair body of literature, in English, we can't just overlook "Humanistic Buddhism". Besides, there are some differences between the two, as well. Huifeng (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make changes to the article

I have 4 points (and requests to the originator of the article to consider): /1/ This article is about Buddhism and its global humanistic aspects, and not about promoting certain individuals. Referring to a ceratin activist once or twice is acceptable but to make the article based on one side makes its value weaker and incomplete. /2/ I was about to delete the "SIX CHARACTERISTICS" but I leave it to the originator to do something about it. Again - the mentioned "6 charactyeristics" are produced by just one view, and which is inconsistent. The first characteristic about Humanism says it is based on Humanism! This is circular reasoning. These characteristics also lack the most important factor of NON-VIOLENCE as characteristic to Buddhism and to Humanism. After all just the foundation of BODHISATTVA and altruism is sufficient and contains all aspects. /3/ Why do we speak about Buddhist Humanism? It is because all people are equal in having the potential for Buddhahood, the Buddha nature and which was not mentioned at all. /4/ When we are speaking about Humanism it means we are referring to the whole world. To distinguish "IN TAIWAN" as a major title means that the Humanistic movement did not develope in other places. It is possible to refer to Taiwan but if I want to add and refer to Japan, China, USA, France etc... this will make the article full of titles about all countries. Please keep it short. I suggest replacing "IN TAIWAN" by "WORLD WIDE".

Thank you for your work but please let's work together to make the article solid and deeper in contents. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren Buddhism?

I am very curious about the recent appearance of a new section on Humanism in Nichiren Buddhism and related Japanese groups. As far as I know, the general notion of "humanistic Buddhism" 人間佛教 is one of Chinese origins. Could someone please verify that Nichiren et al do in fact use this basic term - as opposed to simply being "humanistic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huifeng (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there! Thank you for your querie about the Humanistic teachings of Nichiren Buddhism. Let me start by saying that the title "Humanistic Buddhism" is rather sematically weak: because there are no 2 types of Buddhism: one Humanistic and another non-Humanistic. I think we should alter the title into "Buddhist Humanism". If you trace the word Humanism you'll find various views: Christian Humanism, secular Humanism...etc... and adding the term "Buddhist Humanism" is appropriate.

• Secondly, the term Humanistic Buddhism or Buddhist Humanism, whether in China or Japan or the USA, is based on the Buddha's teachings - in particular the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. (The article mentions this clearly). The Lotus Sutra - of course - is not a private property of a certain temple or nation (Chinese, Japanese etc...) Buddhism of the Lotus Sutra is a universal teaching for all Humanity.

Historically, it was TienTai of China who placed the Lotus Sutra as the highest of the Buddha's teachings. Later it was introduced to Japan and the Tendai Sect emerged upholding the Lotus teachings, which was the ground for Nichiren, who appeared in 1222, to declare his teachings based solely on the Lotus Sutra. Currently, a 12 millions Samgha Nichiren Buddhist group (the Soka Gakkai International) is actively working for: "Spreading Buddhist Humanism in the Community" :http://www.sgi.org/about-us/members-stories/spreading-buddhist-humanism-in-the-community.html

• Nichiren Buddhism focuses on the Lotus Sutra: “Buddhist humanism: It is a philosophical perspective that reflects the core spirit of the Lotus Sutra”

Buddhist Humanism: http://www.daisakuikeda.org/main/philos/buddhist/buddh-05.html

• I think it is more accurate and more professional to refer to Buddhism as either Theravada or Mahayana. In China or Japan, you have Buddhist schools which are either Theravada or Mahayana. There is no such thing as "Chinese" Buddhism and "Japanese" Buddhism. Using the term Chinese or Japanese Buddhism is plainly wrong. For example Zen has branches and temples in both Japan & China. It remains Zen. No need here for confusing "passport" added to Buddhism. Nichiren Buddhism is found all over the world but mostly parcticed in Japan, this does not make it Japanese, but correctly: a Mahayana school based on the Lotus Sutra. It is even not logical to speak about Humanism and Humanity and in the same time restrict Buddhism to artificial national descriptions of Chinese and Japanese terms.

• Wikipedia articles must be impartial and must bring various views. Humanistic values of Buddhism cannot be patented to this temple or that priest only. All respect worthy people working to spread Buddhist Humanism must be acknowledged. I am doing research to include the participation of various Mahayana schools in the teachings of Humanism of the Buddha teachings which are for all Humanity. Thank you for your input and let's cooperate to improve the article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title or adding a new article?

If you take a look at the right handside of the article, you'll see a column with various titles referring to :Christian Humanism, Jewish Humanism but no article for "Buddhist Humanism". I will start an article on "Buddhist Humanism", or we can change the title of the current article. The current title " Humanistic Buddhism" is inaccurate. Millions of people follow other schools of Buddhism, not necessarily a Taiwanese Buddhism, and they are Bodhisattvas whose teachings are firmly based on Buddhist Humanism and the Lotus Sutra. The article must refelct this truth. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am waiting for opinions and cooperations to make the article better and encompassing to all schools of Buddhism. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello SafwanZabalawi, While you do raise a good point that it is well worth having an entry for a broad range of "Buddhism Humanism", it is still a fact that the specific phrase "Humanistic Buddhism" is in fact used by a number of Buddhist groups. It is these groups that are the original focus on this entry, I believe. On one hand you seem to wish to make the article encompass "all schools of Buddhism", which of course would defeat the entire purpose, would it not? We would just be replicating the general "Buddhism" entry. On the other hand, you are also trying to both claim that all Buddhism is simply Buddhism, but that somehow "the term Humanistic Buddhism or Buddhist Humanism, ... is based on the Buddha's teachings - in particular the teachings of the Lotus Sutra", which is clearly already a sectarian position itself. The Chinese forms of "Humanistic Buddhism" (a term they themselves use) are not at all particularly focused on the Lotus Sutra. I won't go into some of your other claims, but simply suggest that you do a little more study of some other traditions, eg. the claim that "Zen" in China and Japan are the same. In the end, I think it fine to have some content from Nichiren Buddhism in this entry, but please don't hijack it. Huifeng (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation. The term Humanistic Buddhism is only a translation into English of the principle of Humanism in Buddhism. I don't believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to make advertisment of the beliefs of some groups. Buddhist Humanism is the general subject and it would include the concept of "Humanistic Buddhism" which is not based on the Lotus Sutra. All groups of Buddhism have the requal right to present their teachings regarding Humanism of their teachings. Humanism is not a patent to my group or yours, isn't it. It owuld be hijacking and patenting the concept if we do not include all views. I think I will start an article of BUDDHIST HUMANISM and everygroup is welcome to share and cooperate. If we have a dispute I think it is best to consult with Wikipedia editors. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the title to Buddhist Humanism

The current version of this article has a wrong title. In Wikipedia - as in all professional references -one starts from the general category first - to the specific subject. The “general category” here is HUMANISM (see Religious HUMANISM, Christian HUMANISM, Jewish HUMANISM, Secular HUMANISM) The term Buddhist HUMANISM is missing. I am suggesting a change in the title to “Buddhist Humanism” to align with the general classification practiced by Wikipedia.

As the article mentions, the term “Humanistic Buddhism” – was used by Taixu but who “he may not have been the inventor of this term”. Some Chinese and Taiwanese temples adopted this specific term, but many other schools of Buddhism use the terminology of Buddhist Humanism, which is general. Of course, the term Humanistic Buddhism can be mentioned as a branch of Buddhist Humanism as advocated and practiced in Taiwan. The article specifically mentions Taiwan (or temples of a specific school from China). This is what the writer of the article mentioned: It was in Taiwan that the term "Humanistic Buddhism" became the most commonly used term, particularly amongst the religious leaders who originally hailed from China.

As was stated in the article, the term Humanistic Buddhism was brought to “Taiwan in the wake of the Republican's defeat during the civil war against the Chinese Communist Party”. It is clear that the term is very specific and local and does not represent the general teachings of Buddhist Humanism which are based on 2000 years old Sutras.

Buddhist Humanism is a Mahayana teaching based on the Buddha’s preaching of the universal Buddha nature inherent in all people. The concept of Humanism in Buddhism goes far earlier than Taixu who died in 1947 or other masters. The article acknowledges the Lotus Sutra as a Mahayana source of Buddhist Humanism, but the Sutra goes 2000 years before the mentioned Taiwanese leaders. Buddhist reformers used the words "Buddhism for all people" and " all human beings" etc... hundereds of years ago and they should be acknolwledged.

Buddhist Humanism is taught in ALL Mahayana schools including Tibetan, Nichiren, Zen etc… and in fact, ALL Buddhism is based on Humanism because it focuses on the Human Being (not on external god). If we start from this truth, we can construct a Wiki-article where the Taiwanese part can be preserved as a specific manifestation of the teaching (of Buddhist Humanism). Otherwise the article now is like an advertisement. Additionally it contains controversial statements and it lacks citations. I invite all interested editors to cooperate in editing the article starting from the change of the title. We may also ask Wikipedia editors for advise.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, rather than "changing the title", why not just make a new topic on "Buddhism Humanism"? The Chinese groups mentioned specifically use the term "Humanistic Buddhism" (yes, even in English), and they are the mainstream force of Buddhism in Taiwan and China, too. Thus, "Humanistic Buddhism" could be a sub-category of "Buddhism Humanism", but there is no need to demand a name change from the former to the latter. Huifeng (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for your reply. Actually I got - coincidentlly, if anything is coincidental in Buddhism - with a Wikipedia page on Secular Humanism, and there was mention of Buddhist Humanism. To realize a page on the subject requires some time, and I welcome your contribution also in the future. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: Existing practice is mixed: we have Christian humanism and Humanistic Judaism. The entry in Template:Humanism is now "Buddhist humanism" (linking to Humanistic Buddhism). If we change the title or create a new section in this article without a title change, I recommend lower case "humanism", e.. either Buddhist humanism or Humanistic Buddhism#Buddhist humanism. Jojalozzo 01:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am in the process of initiating a Wikipage on Buddhist H/humanism. Not an easy task! Because various schools of Buddhism have similar - if not identical - teachings on the subject, I think it would be best to seek the common ground (rather than putting each school's name and repeating almost the same data on and on). References and citations will relate to variety of schools within Mahayana (and few Threvada schools), as well as to the current page on Humanistic Buddhism. "Humanistic Buddhism" is sort of a Trade Mark name of a certain school, and - as Huifeng mentioned above - it is a mainstream in Taiwan and China in particular. Perhaps it is preferred to leave the current page of "Humanistic Buddhism" as it is now, as related to that particular school. I think that the (general) coming up page can be - as you mentioned - in lower case "h" instead of "H". I think I'll be able to submit the new page in 2 days to come.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New Wikipage: Buddhist humanism

A new page is on the screen: Buddhist humanism, which covers the foundations of the subject of humanism in Buddhist schools in general, with comparison with secular and other-religious perspectives on humanism. The school of Humanistic Buddhism is mentioned in that article starting from the introduction and also mentioned in the sections on "articles, books and references".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have linked this article to that, in "See Also". I have to admit my first reaction was that the pages should be merged - but I think I can see that they are different in scope. If I understood the difference better I would add a hatnote to each article. Could you perhaps explain for a layman the difference? Thanks. Mcewan (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrt "humanistic" or "human-realm" as translations for the concept(s) championed by Yinshun and Taixu...

See the rendering by Bhikkhu Bodhi here and a publication by Bodhi Monastery (founded by Jenshun, who had been a disciple of Yinshun) here, etc.

(PS: In my opinion a few of the talkpage sections above seem to illustrate why a more careful translation of the concept covered in this article in its lede is important: namely, this article should really be more about a specific movement within Buddhism more so than the crossroads between humanism and Buddhism in a general sense. Just my two cents.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article is more of specific movement within Buddhism. Simply: it was a movement initiated by concerned monks (in Taiwan?) to re-awaken people to their Bodhisattva altruistic nature, and these respected monks gave a fresh name to practice in Humanistic terms of Buddhism (dailylife issues, compassion...etc... rather than isolation in retreats). The article says "Humanistic Buddhism claims to encompass all of the Buddhist teachings[citation needed]from the time of Gautama Buddha to the present. Its goal is to live the bodhisattva way," - so clearly it is about reviving the Bodhisattva practice, (and Bodhisattva spirit is shared among all Buddhist schools, especially Mahayana). So Humanistic Buddhism as a movement presents nothing new at all in the sense of doctrines or Buddhist sutras sinsce Shakyamuni - it is just a movement to awaken people within and outside of some local temples.

However, we live in a world with many other religions who are also offering focus on the Humanity factor shared among all people. Christianity , Judaism, Isla,, Hinduism, Atheists, etc... all speak about compassion, dailylife and humanity. It is also important to present the Buddhist doctrines of Humanism, the Buddhist Humanism - as the driving force behind all schools, and how it translates the Bodhisttva practice in modern terms of Global Citizenship, Wisdom to encompass opposing views and lead people to non-Violence etc...SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a new article with a neutral name encompassing all discussions of humanism in Buddhism?

Is this article is too narrowly focused on a certain group that uses a specific title for its teachings that could be easily confused with a common form of descriptive phrasing in English. To the extent that it is exclusively about that group and based on primary sources, it is not notable, though I haven't examined that.
It seems that what might be needed is an article with a title such as "Humanism (Buddhism)" or the like, though I'm not familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions in such cases. Meanwhile, this article may suffice. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:35, 14:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest the section on SGI I guess should go its promotional to my mind. Even the Nichiren Buddhism section is a bit blurred. Over all though I think the article is trying a bit too hard to press a Western philosophical concept into something it is not.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll address your last point first, because that is the most interesting. I think that as far as there can be seen to exist an overlap between Western philosophy and Eastern thought, Buddhism embodies a disposition toward religion that does encompass a fair amount of overlapping dimensions with "humanism". It's only natural that Buddhists would eventually articulate something along these lines, and it is also not surprising that it came from Zen, first, which has contributed to the development of philosophers such as Nishida Kitaro in Japan, and I suppose one should mention Dogen, too, a pre-philosophy Japanese thinker and sect founder who had basically been a peer of Nichiren at Mount Hiei.

Regarding SG, didn't someone finally introduce a secondary source that mentions "Buddhist Humanism" recently? But I fully agree that vacuously promotional material does not belong in the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with the section that SGI attaches the label “Humanism” to itself. That’s all the included references do. Even some Nichiren Shu clerics use the term, but not in such an advertising mode. Maybe the issue should be forwarded to a project page on Buddhism. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of the sources for that section are primary sources. I just replaced a SYNTH passage with a quote, though I agree that it is used like a label, and the quote is fairly uninteresting. I don't know if it is useful or not.

The only mention in a secondary source I see is this. The sources posted by Margin on the SG talk page only mentions humanism [1].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though it is said Dr. Jaqueline stone was at one point affiliated to a Nichiren school I find her the most objective when it comes to the nuts and bolts of Nichiren “theology”. If I have time I can have a look at the matter. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

unreliable sources

This page is tagged as potentially having unreliable sources. I have removed some, but others have added them back. Dead links are not useful. Personal essays are not useful. We need to find reliable, scholarly sources and remove OR. Ogress _smash! 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to explain how University of Idaho's journals are not reliable. There aren't dead links anymore, so they are useful now. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rupert Loup: That article is an apologia, completely rhetorical:

In this essay I will argue that both Confucian and Buddhist humanists can offer sage advise to Euro-American humanists, whose emphasis on the individual has sometimes undermined social stability and traditional values. We will also see that both Confucian and Buddhist humanism presents a balanced view of heart-mind, which unfortunately has been upset by an overemphasis on the intellect in European philosophy. I will also show these Asians joined Greek humanists in affirming a virtue ethics rather than a rule-based ethics. Furthermore, the fact that Buddhism includes animals in the moral community allows contemporary humanists to avoid the mistake of becoming overly anthropocentric and exclusive in their thinking. Finally, I will propose that the Soka Gakkei is the most promising and constructive Buddhist humanism in the world today. (emphasis mine)

How is that a scholarly source? He's also got special doctorate awards from SG all over his CV. Ogress _smash! 02:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC

It seems that the article as it stands (looking at its history) was in many ways redesigned to promote the views of one religious group. Any thoughts?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Article is about specific one religion so article will obviously talk about it. Like in articles like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity they will write views of one religious group. If you want to add criticism to it then you can add it from reliable sources after gaining consensus of the community. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 How is it about "specific one religion"? There's five separate New Religious Movements on it: SGI, Fo Guang Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Chung Tai Shan, and Tzu Chi. Even if you roll the last into "Four Mountains NRMs", there's still Taixu-derived and SG, which are wildly disparate in history, theology, and practice. Ogress _smash! 02:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 It's kind of a grab-bag, actually. I'm not clear if the two groups share views or they just both use the same catchphrase to describe unrelated beliefs. Ogress _smash! 02:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, if there are different schools within it then we can add it to article, I mean this article is not edit protected or no one is stopping us from adding some relevant and sourced material. If there is question that does other schools really belongs to class of "Humanistic Buddhism" then we can sort it out by discussion. But if there are reliable sources that other schools also belongs to this category then I think no one should have problem regarding adding that to article. --Human3015 knock knock • 03:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It matters if they are not connected and it's just coincidental naming. Like, what exactly does SGI and the Chinese NRMs have in common? Is this actually notable for both groups? I see more of an argument for 4M because Taixu discussed at length his buddhological theories, SGI seems glommed on here. Ogress _smash! 03:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait for some more comments. Or you (Ogress) and Catflap08 can improve article accordingly. Buddhism has vast number of schools/sects and I'm aware about very limited schools (mostly major traditional schools), I have to study for newer schools. But if you both are confident regarding other schools then you please go ahead. --Human3015 knock knock • 04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know an SGI adherent once wanted to create an article called “Buddhist Humanism” as he/she one did not get his/her views into this article. At that point SGI was hardly even mentioned in the article. That person went off to create a new article which basically reflected a somewhat obscure SGI philosophy and got deleted. I come back to this article and its SGI all over the place … I would call for other editors to have a look at the article’s history – maybe a good idea to set it back to an older (general) version. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL NOTE: Catflap08, this is not really the manner in which RfC's are meant to be formatted or approached; they are meant to present a straight-forward, unambiguous question, ideally one which proposes a specific course of action (or multiple competing approaches) which the summoned third-opinion editors can endorse, reject, or modify in order to form a practical consensus on how to move forward on contested content. Furthermore, the wording of the RfC should be neutral, presenting both (or all) of the conflicting views in a non-prejudicial manner. I think you really need to read the WP:RFC guidelines and WP:Writing requests for comment, because this is not the first time I have been summoned by a bot to one of your RfC's, only to discover that battleground mentalities have begun to set in and this is certainly at least partly due to how you approach these situations. Presenting a one-sided assessment of the situation and then simply asking "any thoughts" is about the most certain way to unleash bedlam on a talk page, and I noted this to you last time. Anyway, that procedural point made, I will review the content issue here in more detail and give my impressions below shortly. In the meantime, you might consider reformatting the question here and opening a new subsection below this note with a more specific question or proposed solution. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Snow An RfC is a REQUEST for comment nothing more and nothing less and yes I did read the guidelines … as one wants others to comment, to comment on a subject that will most likely not reach an agreement by those currently editing. You may have not read the history of the chain events as an article by a slightly different name was deleted … basically on grounds of POV and poor sourcing. And yes we have bumped into each other from time to time and yet I have to ask you again to get yourself informed on the whole issue. This article is now full of sources that once were decided not to be made part of this article as the article's (at least originally) subject is related to an entirely different Buddhist school. So if I understand you correctly it seems okay to rewrite an article thereby completely brushing under the carpet what the article was originally about just because another article failed on grounds of notability? Is that so? I shall remember that next time I create an article and its being deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To make it even more understandable. Once an, let’s say, Soka Gakkai-friendly editor tried to pack in some humanism concepts into this article. An article which relates to a completely different Buddhist school. It was agreed that this article is the wrong place for that. The editor then went of creating an article on “Buddhist Humanism” which got deleted. As far as I know at least once the deletion of “Buddhist Humanism” was challenged which again was turned down. Now I see the article yet again full of Soka Gakkai stuff and you are seriously asking me to rephrase when reading the talk page would actually make quite clear what I am trying to highlight??--Catflap08 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In the above post I intend no commentary on the content matter being debated. As was the case to varying degrees on some other occasions, I may very well find that you have the right of things with regard to the content and the policy issues governing the root disagreement here, and I may be agreeing with you (on that level) as soon as I investigate those issues. My advice above exclusively concerns the consensus-building process, which consistently seems to be your achilles heel as an editor when it comes to these kinds of content disputes (and you do have a battleground mentality on these topics that has more than once necessitated administrative involvement). On some previous occasions I've felt that you've had quite the right notion with regard to what ought to be done with the article and on still others I thought you weren't completely wrong and had a part of the solution, but the problem is that you often launch your discussions in such a partisan way that people become entrenched from the outset and working towards consensus on the best approach to the issue becomes vastly more complicated than it ought to be. RfC's need to present both (or all) sides of an issue, not just yours. And ideally they should query the respondents on a straight-forward choice of approaches, once the different perspectives have been made. For that matter, an RfC shouldn't be launched until at least some discussion on the recent issues has taken place and come to a logger-heads, which does not seem to be the case here, unless the conversation took place elsewhere (and it shouldn't).

Regardless, once undertaking an RfC under any conditions, representing those other viewpoints isn't just good for civility and calm during the process of deliberation, it also typically improves the reception of your perspective, because people see you are not dismissing other viewpoints out of hand. The alternative -- formatting the RfC as you have to reflect your viewpoint on the general state of the article, giving practically no detail or context, and then asking everyone to comment broadly without any framing question -- can only invite divisiveness and is not really the manner in which RfC's are meant to be approached. All that being said, I may very well end up agreeing with you on the content matter; we'll see shortly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soka Gakkai and Buddhist Humanism

I fail to understand how this section explains anything. "Another aspect of manifesting the teaching of Humanistic Buddhism is the interfaith dialogue and the study of the common tenets of non-violence." This is a null sentence: it literally means nothing. It needs to be deleted.

"Soka Gakkai International teaches that 'the Lotus Sutra that leads all people to Buddhahood, and we ordinary human beings are in no way different or separate from one another.[4] and viewed the Buddha as a role model for all humanity: 'The purpose of the appearance in this world of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, lies in his behaviour as a human being'". What on Earth does this have to do with humanism? This is literally basic Buddhism. It is not related, and should be deleted.

In fact, the only thing that keeps me from deleting the entire section is that Ikeda says the word "Buddhist humanism" in his quote. However, his quote seems to absolutely have nothing to do with a specific category of thought that could be labeled "humanism". It's just standard-fare East Asian Buddhist themes.

In fact, this article has reasonably good sourcing in regards to the descendants of one specific Chinese Buddhist and the entire Nichiren section appears to be jammed in. It does not belong and I don't see sufficient notability at all.

@Snow Rise: Maybe you can comment on this? Ogress _smash! 21:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that both statements are of dubious value here, though from my view the primary problem is that they are simply not encyclopedic in tone. The first, while I understand what the author was trying to get at (i.e. "Humanistic Buddhism encourages interfaith exchange and devotion to peaceful exploration of understanding generally", if I read it correctly), but as it presently reads, it is so syntactically and semantically broken so as to border on gobbledygook; certainly it doesn't pass muster as a clear and unambiguously informative encyclopedic statement. As for the second statement, not only do I have a hard time understanding the distinction here between standard contemporary Buddhism and the "humanistic" variety that you note, it is also clearly non-neutral, and written from the perspective of an adherent, not someone looking to describe it encyclopedically, through the lens of secondary sources. However, I'm going to reserve comment as to whether the Nicheren section as a whole is appropriate until I have looked at the source in more detail. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, yes -- I see the problem now. All but one of the sources in this section are primary, self-published, and fail our WP:Reliable source standards on numerous other levels. The last one isn't even a genuine citation, reading only "WND1", with no further context. Only Gandhi and Mahayana Buddhism is a valid source, and even then it is primary and not ideal for the statement being put forward, which, though vaguely expressed, could be seen as a contentious statement, and therefore needs a stronger and secondary source. Lacking such a source, this statement could be deleted. Lacking any kind of source all of the rest of the section could be deleted as well. But I think, whoever that authors/advocates are for this section (I'm unclear on that point, not having looked at the edit history in detail yet), it wouldn't hurt to give them a chance to better source and contextualize the section before we get to removing it. But it certainly is not presently consistent with our standards for WP:Verifiability or WP:Neutrality as it stands now. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

One big WP:SYNTH case

I came here after posting my own RfC and noticing this one. As a complete illiterate in Buddhsim, I see here lots of buzzwording and word play. First of all it caught my eye that "humanistic buddhism" normally would not mean the same as "buddhist humanism". In a common discourse, the first would mean something like "a sect of Buddhism which boasts its himanism", or "a tendency the modern buddhism acquires as compared with the Buddhism of the savages of our dark past", while the second one would mean "the amount of humanism is buddhism as a whole" or "the concept of 'humanism' in buddhism". Of course I understand words usually are not what they mean, especially when translated from the language of very different culture. THerefore the first thing is to agree as to the definitions. And I have to sadly say that the article sucks in this respect. Starting from the lede, which is basically devoid of information.

It occurs to me now that is for this article, I am a wikipedia READER rather than WRITER. So, are you interested in the opinion of the target audience of the article, ie., of these who want to read it and learn something useful? (Obviously the smartass readers who already know all do not count, right? They must be writers, not readers, right?) If you want my opinion, I can give more of it. I am even up to an advice or two, if allowed. -M.Altenmann >t 05:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do provide your opinion. I am sure wikipedia welcome new editor to help them to improve the article.Kelvintjy (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambig away the mix and match?

P.S. if it turns out (tl;dr) that this article tries to speak about all four definitions I listed at the same time plus what a little birdie chirps on a diamond hill, then I would suggest you to consider a disambiguation option: write several articles (or sections in proper "parent articles"), eg.

Humanistic buddhism or buddhist humanism may refer to:

• renmin baobab in the school of Kissyo Asso
• Il buddismo humano con penis elevatto of Fascia Everesta Alpina
• etc

-M.Altenmann >t 06:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fo Guang Shan Monastery 13.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)