From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

One element of Buddhism is it is completely non-sectarianistic, so I took the liberty of switching "In order to attain nirvana, one must follow the eightfold path" to something more appropriate to their practice of tolerance, they also acknowledge that nirvana does not need come from any doctrine or specific guide - Buddhism is simply a spirit guide. not an answer to life.

And it is not a "religion" in the strict sense of the word.AlanE 23:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I would agree Alan. Especially as practiced in America, Buddhism has always seemed to be more of a philosophy than a religion, but still allows people to claim a religious or 'spiritual' affiliation. Learn together 01:53, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Technically, Buddhism is often referred to as "non-theistic" - the Buddha refused to say whether there was a God because he said it would lead to unproductive speculation. Also, the practice of Buddhism ultimately relies on one's own experience as a source of knowledge, even though there are many guidelines. The Buddha would often say something to the effect of "Don't take my word for it... see for yourself what works."


Possible connection to Christianity

There are many who have explored the idea that the LORD Jesus Christ may have been exposed to buddhist ideas in his youth, during the years not mentioned in the bible. With the exception of reincarnation, many of Christ's teachings are very similar to those of the Buddha. --Proposed edit by User:Mijolner

Yes, there has been some speculation in this regard for quite some time. But such speculation is outside the scope of this project.Samwell 21:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Religious Intolerance

Is there a source for the part about other religions not being tolerated? I think claims should be backed up with some specific references. Otherwise it comes off as being subjective.

Accurate Quote From Reference, but...

This line:

Japan is an "odd" case, as surveys of adherence are conducted rather differently. Firstly it is debatable at what point various Japanese beliefs shift from being traditions to being religions. This is indicated by the fact that "85% of Japanese claim Buddhism as their preferred religion", yet "75% percent claim to practice and believe in no religion" -a more accurate estimate may be 20%.

is an accurate quote from the cited source, but it seems to me that the solution to this apparant contradiction is actually given in the article:

Buddhism is...often viewed as a philosophy more than a religion because gods are not necessary or primary in Buddhist thought. Much of modern Buddhism is atheistic or agnostic in practice.

This means it is entirely possible there is quite a few people who practice Buddhism in Japan, but do not view it as a religion, thus giving these apparantly contradictory results. That being the case, should that line remain in the article? Urushnor 15:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)



Do you have any historical examples of conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism? Actual conflicts fought would probably be a worthwhile addition. I've removed the talk of resisting Chinese occupation in Tibet as that is modern, but you can move it in a different area where it belongs. Also, what period of time are you talking about where Cambodia becomes a Democracy? I am curious.

Thanks Learn together 20:45, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

In Cambodia, there was much persecution by Hindi of Buddhists initially. Very uncomfortable between them. The battle of Li Opa (not sure of English spelling) was one such. Cambodia is not really democracy, but that is what was said with awarding of sambech. Please put that last back, thank you.

Liberal values?

To: Satori08. Seriously? it's an article on religion. Buddhism was around with those values LONG before Liberalism came along. You don't have to Politicize everything. I'll give you 3 days to tell me why that addition is relevant before I remove it. ShawnJ 23:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' should be applied to a non-dualistic view of the universe. Buddhism is not a political ideology. Furthermore, since when can pacifism be blindly labelled 'liberal'?

Proposed Changes

There's some good stuff in here, but I think this article could use a fairly major overhaul. Here's how I'm thinking we might organize it:

1. Introduction: A short essay giving a condensed version of the rest of the article; this part should probably be written last.

2. Core Concepts: Samsara and nirvana, Four Noble Truths + Eightfold Path, nature of reality and wheel of rebirth, causation.

3. Life of the Buddha: Pretty self-explanatory. This might go before or be merged with 2.

4. The Mahayana split: Key Mahayana concepts: Lotus Sutra, many universes, bodhisattva path, merit. We might discuss Pure Land and Zen/Chan here.

It's a pretty complex subject and this might not be the best way of doing it, but I think it's good to have a template. JStone 11:06, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools