Religion Wiki
This page uses content from the English Wikipedia. The original article was at Template talk:Buddhism. The list of authors can be seen in the page history.

Navayāna (Dalit Buddhist movement) added to "Branches" section?

In regards to today's addition of Navayāna to the "Branches" section of this template, can someone help me understand in what way Navayana is or is not comparable to Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Or is this a new variation on the above #needs more Japan discussion? I ask without reverting because I really know very little about Navayana and the editor (User:Koavf, aka, Justin Anthony Knapp) who inserted this information appears both very sincere and thoughtful. (I'll post to Justin's talk page momentarily.) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Navayana Larry, I added that group, as it appears they fall outside of those other three traditions (and, of course, the two early Buddhist branches.) Since the neo-Buddhist movement was founded by Ambedkar and is uniquely Indian, it is its own movement within the larger culture of Buddhism. I chose the "Navayāna" name even though it is a neologism for conformity with the names used for the other branches. I suppose it is not comparable to those other traditions due to its size and relatively sort history. Thanks for directing me to this discussion; I'd be happy to read others' thoughts. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[[Bhumi (Buddhism)|Bhumi]]s was recently added to this template. I reverted this edit because I mistakenly perceived that this new text overwrote links to Meditation and Laity. I now see that my perception was incorrect: the Bhumi article did not replace the latter two articles but instead was inserted before them and they were placed on a new line.

However, I'm disinclined to self-revert (something I've done in the past) because I still concerned about:

  1. Universality: Bhumi appears to me to be too sectarian (perhaps Vajrayana Buddhism specific?) for the "Practices and Attainments" section
  2. Hierarchical significance: Bhumi appears to me to be a relatively secondary topic for this template (e.g., one that perhaps could be intellectually subsumed under the notion of "meditation," e.g., as presumably Dhyana is).
  3. Related expansions of template: Related to the second concern, if we allow Bhumi to be added, what would prevent the adding of topics such as Dhyana, Samadhi, Samatha, Threefold Training, etc., which would cause the expansion of this template contrary to previously expressed views?

Nonetheless, I'd be interested in others' views on this. Thanks for any additional feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regions vs. Countries

This seems to be a recurring problem. Regions or Countries? On 24 March 2008, in the "Regions" section of this template, "East Asia" was replaced with "China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam". On 26 March 2008, "Mongolia" was added. Prior to all this, the following countries were already enumerated in this section: "India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Bhutan".

Do we want regions or countries? Since the tide has seemed to turn for the moment in the favor of the latter, I changed "Southeast Asia" to Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, etc., and renamed the section "Countries." And then to minimize overt POV, I alphabetized. (FWIW, I decided to finally intervene today because I noticed that the addition of Mongolia expanded the template's width so that the header was uncentered....)

I am completely open to completely reverting to regions (go ahead, do it now if you like, as far as I'm concerned), but I think a hybrid regions/countries section is problemmatic. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tibet, China"

A new anon user recently changed "Tibet" to "Tibet, China" and changed "Countries" to "Countries/Regions." I changed "Tibet, China" back to "Tibet" for three reasons:
  1. By changing "Countries" to "Countries/Regions," "Tibet" is now covered without reference to China
  2. Probably due to my ignorance (so correct me if I error) but "Tibet, China" sounds to me somewhat neologistic, vs., e.g., "Tibet Autonomous Region of China"
  3. "Tibet, China" expanded the width of this template which (as indicated a number of times on this talk page) we've been trying hard to maintain or reduce
So, as it stands, the section title is now "Countries/Regions" and "Tibet" is "Tibet." Any objections? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


On 26 March 2008, on-going WP Buddhism contributor User:Koavf added Navayāna to this template. The last time he did this was on 24 Jan. 2008; which long-time WP Buddhism contributor User:Sacca reverted on 28 Jan. 2008 with the Edit Summary of:

somebody keps putting back the dalits who are theravadins

Is there consensus on this matter? Thanks. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Boy, my memory is feeble. This matter was initially broached above, with Justin's thoughtful response. If anyone is inclined to delete his addition again, can they please also add a persuasive reason for doing so on this talk page. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the rationale for including Navayāna as one of the major streams of Buddhism. Navayāna has been associated as a movement based on Theravadin Buddhism [1].
The Wikipedia article on the Dalit Buddhist movement contains this, entirely apt, quote from Gail Omvedt:
The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?
It is an open question. Surely not one that we should attempt to decide through our template on Buddhism. I would like to return to the traditional three streams of Buddhism until we can find an authoritative source that suggests that this is a fourth stream. Otherwise, we are going to be in for all kinds of original research claiming that various "Buddhisms" are unique (and potentially the fifth, sixth... nth "yanas"). Sunray (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we don't add Navayāna because it's not well known. Maybe a link of "new buddhist movements" or "buddhism in the west" can be added. If we add Navayāna we should add also Pacchimayāna (western buddhism) and any other yāna that we can think of... not that they won't have there "time"... but that time is not now.--Esteban.barahona (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "Navayana" has been used by a few different people, not just in reference to the Dalit Buddhist movement. See for example, [2], or [3]. I think, the term is used by anyone who feels that certain recently evolved forms of Buddhism cannot be fit into the traditional Theravada - Mahayana - Vajrayana typology. The problem I see, is that these three traditional ideas represent coherent viewpoints, or collections of ideas around some unifying themes. Whereas, its not clear (not yet at least) what exactly different forms of "navayana" have in common with each other, other than mere newness, or eclecticism, or the absorption of modern Western ideas or culture. I still think its useful to be aware of this term, and the questions it poses (indeed, we have an article called navayana). But, at this stage in the history of Buddhism, I don't think we can put it on the same level as the three traditional yanas. Come back in a few more decades, or centuries, and maybe we will be adding it to the template then :). --SJK (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Dharma Wheel.svg BuddhismSymbolWhite.PNG Lotus-buddha.svg

Those are the images that has being used in this template AFAIK. I'm biased to use the yellow dharma wheel because I collaborated in its making, but I like the 3 images. IMO, we should prefer Dharma Wheels (which ever) because it's the official Buddhist symbol. Also, I suggest we use them scaled, the yellow one for bigger display, the white one for medium and the lotus for small... because there "nominal size" follows that same order (of size).--Esteban.barahona (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Esteban — thanks for creating the new Dharma wheel – as you know, I think it looks great and is a welcome additon to this template. Also, thanks for taking this issue to this talk page. (I added a similar, less considerate, item below before seeing what you wrote here — I'll delete my entry after saving this.)
My take on these three images is as follows:
  • the golden dharma wheel (that you created) is highly visible, nicely detailed and has a color scheme consistent with the rest of the template
  • the white dharma wheel is hard to see — if I did not know what it replaced, I'm not sure I would have known what it was supposed to be at a smaller scale — and, to the best of my limited knowledge, I don't think an all-white dharma wheel has any particular meaning within Buddhism (if it does, please let me know & thanks for the education)
  • the Buddha sitting in a lotus is nice and creative, but it is fairly "original" (non-traditional) and, frankly, it's had a nice long run
So, I vote for propagating the new golden wheel (created by yourself).
Lastly, when the all-white wheel was inserted, the editor deleted significant code related to terse-mode, essentially increasing the size of the tersed template inexplicably, working against the whole point of a tersed template. So, I've reinserted that code.
Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but it was a collaboration (I made a derivative with colors and changed the shape) ^_^ I also think that the lotus-buddha is original, but is not an "officially representative of Buddhism".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad my "original" Buddha In Lotus had a nice run. Thank you for replacing the previously existing Dharmachakra with a cooler, more modern (and SVG) version. All my blessings! Thedonut (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thedonut - thanks again to you for sharing your inspired creativity with us all. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you, it is an original lothus+buddha image :)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Color Scheme

A few changes can be made to use less borders and standarize in colors by using only hexadecimal colors (no "solid yellow") and putting them on the Color scheme section. I added the hexadecimal code for the colors. Is it possible to change the hyperlinks colors to one of this (black and burgundy?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to change a wikilink's color is to use the <font> tag plus a wikipipe within the wikilink tag. Thus, for example, this:
[[Buddhism|<font color=red>Buddhism</font>]]
looks like:
whereas, without the <font> tag and wikipipe, it would simply look like:
One thing to keep in mind though is that, by changing a wikilink's normal color, readers might not realize that they can clink on it and be linked to a relevant article.
FWIW, if I may, while I'm happy to help (as time allows), I do not endorse the most recent changes you've made to the template's borders, etc., mainly because by increasing the font size you've widened the template width — and for a number of articles the template is already too wide. Also, frankly, I'm attached to the old color scheme and borders — I believe they were richer overall; but, since I put them in place, I'll assume I'm too close to the matter to speak objectively. Perhaps, as with U.S. politics, it is time for a change ;-)
Be well. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, having lived with the new scheme for a while, I can say now that I like it. It seems to me, based on the overall changes you've made, it appears as if a major impetus was to increase the font size but, once doing so, it become desireable to restore the previous overall template width and length by eliminating a border, eliminating the lower picture, etc. Whether or not this was the progression of your edits, I can understand and support the trade off.
My one lingering concern is that by eliminating the inner yellow border, an aspect of traditional Tibetan monastic robe colors was eliminated. This makes the saffron/orange (Theravada monastic's robe color) even more prominent. While I am myself a Theravadin practitioner, I'd like this template's color scheme to be as inclusive and widely representative as possible. So, I'd welcome ideas on how to achieve such from a color-scheme viewpoint. Relatedly, something that has been a problem well before the recent changes, the representation of non-Tibetan Mahayana colors (e.g., black, brown?) is marginal at best.
Kudos & caveats. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Esteban (and any others following this thread) -
I like your recent change of the "Buddhism" and "Portal..." links to what we're calling burgundy. Seeing this, I've taken a liking to your suggestion above that we color other wikilinked words a different color (e.g., burgundy for subject headers [e.g., "History"] and black for subject items [e.g., "Timeline," "Buddhist councils"]). Anyone object?
Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I see the very pretty Template:Islam already does this :-) - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the link-color tip! The changes where mostly for design, specifically: simplify. Now that we agree on a color scheme, we can use only this colors. About links: almost all the text inside the template is a link. Throughout the Net, personalizing web-link colors have being favoured instead of an (arguable) "increased accesibility". FWIW, I relate Budhism to yellow and orange (and it's already used extensively in {{MahayanaBuddhism}}--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, just to be clear, the colors I used to create the {{MahayanaBuddhsim}} template back in May 2007 were based on a request by User:TonyMPNS, as can be seen at User_talk:TonyMPNS#Template:MahayanaBuddhism and User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/Archive_2#Mahayana_Template, in part to symbolize the "Sutra of the Golden Light." Thus, the yellow and gold of {{MahayanaBuddhism}} are not meant to be universal Buddhist colors but emblematic of Mahayana ideals.

The colors for this template, {{Buddhism}}, were actually first put into place by User: (To set the record straight, I misspoke above when I wrote that I had "put in place" these colors, though I've done some significant work on this template.) As indicated in a December 2006 discussion at Template_talk:Buddhism/Archive_001#Template_colors, the motivation for these colors was to represent the colors of monastic garbs. Personally, I think it is valuable to maintain this color scheme — rationally, externally, empirically based — to avoid changes to this template due to an editor's idiosyncractic aesthetic (because such can lead to a lot of changes and reversions and argumentation). But my time on WP is winding up, at least for the short term, so I'm less inclined to revert now and more inclined to toss out ponderous, pendantic, ineffective blather on talk pages. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

color of links

Burgundy (and likewise black) are very confusing colors for links – they’re easily confused with red links and text.
While I appreciate the elegance and thought of this color scheme, might I propose that it stick to changing the background and not changing the link colors? Link color (Wikipedia:Link color) is very important for usability – changing them, either to unfamiliar ones or, worse, so that “active links” look the same color as usual “dead links” is very, very confusing.
As a further issue, note that using <font> tags means that links don’t change in color once visited, further confusing readers.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
fair enough. I disagree with the "all links should be 4 colors and 4 colors only", but honestly it only applies on a website-wide way. If in a website all links have 4 custom colors it doesn't matter, but if in all the website all links are the "classic four" it should be mantained for consistency. That means, we can use any colors for links, as long as it's consistent across the same website. I will change this links when I come up with a new design for the color scheme (probably a bit less than 1 week). Thanks for being so kind in arguing your position (...being kind is not that usual).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that on a given website it’s not really necessary to stick to The Official Web Colors, and for instance on [4] (my personal webpage), I use a rather different color scheme – but website wide should be consistent.
No rush on changes (I can see that you’re in the middle of working on various pages) – I was just surprised when it looked like all the Buddhism pages had become redlinks!
Thanks, and hope to run into you again.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the color scheme in the simpler version of the template. "black" and "burgundy" have much less prominence, but to "make it fair to all schools" I changed the "very soft yellow" to Mahayana-only... meaning that Mahayana is also focused on "laity". This 2 colors are now "secondary" because other colors already represent the respective schools. If all consider this changes "fair to all schools" then I can proceed to change the color scheme on the bigger template.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


I don't know if using black or burgundry for borders... black is given less "relevance" if it is not used in borders, but burgundry borders look nicer.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

merge "history" with "major figures"?

so that "major figures" becomes "lists of buddhists" (as it's linked) and the links within this former section a list of "historical figures".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Intuitively, I'm inclined to keep it the way it currently is. I've not responded before because I was hoping that by letting this percolate for a few days I'd be able to more rationally articulate this intuition, but it ain't happening. So, I'll try to do so while recognizing that such lacks logical persuasion.
For me, there's a difference between "major figures" and "history." A "major figures" section to me seems to pull out of history those figures who have an often iconic resonance with newcomers to a tradition, whether or not their historic contributions in the long run is actually seminal. As a clear example of this, in the simple Buddhism version of this template (simple:Template:Buddhism), the Dalai Lama is mentioned; while, over the last 2500 years his contribution is perhaps comparatively uncertain, he nonetheless is a prominent contemporary figure who most Westerners know and who is clearly identified with Buddhism. (Perhaps on the "really simple" Buddhism template we can include Richard Gere? ;-) ) On the other hand, "history" to me implies "events," the turning points that had lasting contributions but are often affectively neutral — such as the Buddhist Councils. These to me are for the person with a more sustained interest and a desire for appreciating matters of greater complexity in terms of details and, perhaps especially, interpretation.
Not persuasive? I know. At the moment though, it's what I've got. So, if you're really still motivated to combine the sections, you can of course go ahead and see if anyone reverts. (I won't.) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
actually... I agree.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

terse version

the "view full index" link doesn't work, it stays as "terse". (it's on the template page)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Esteban –
If one clicks on the tersed template on Template:Buddhism, yes, it does nothing. But, if one clicks on it in an article that actually transcludes the tersed template — such as, Apadāna or Theragatha — then clicking on this field will link one to Template:Buddhism. This is what was intended. Perhaps something different should be done?
Thanks for all your hard work in bringing your commendable vision here to fruition. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
hmm, I thought the point was that if clicked it will make the template bigger (on the same page)... but I don't know how to program that behaviour.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your point. I think in retrospect (and, if it's not obvious, my memory is feeble and often in error), I contemplated doing it the way you suggested and after tinkering unsuccessfully with the <th> and collapsible features, I gave up and simply implemented it as it currently is. If this for some reason becomes a high priority, I can try to make time to investigate further, but I'm thinking the current implementation is sufficiently useful and our time might be better used elsewhere. De accuerdo? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That will be the prefered behaviour. I can investigate it too, but currently the main article of Buddhism is under a major rewrite and it will be nice to help it reclaim "featured article" status. I guess that's the priority now.. and it's "de acuerdo" (spanish) or "d'accordo" (italian) :P
Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, and I was confusing it with (what I recall to be) French: d'accord. Thanks for correcting me though, I very much appreciate it. Good luck with the rewrite. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork "terse version"

It's too complicated to mantain a "terse" version, it makes the template much bigger (in KB) and I think it's messing up the design (the borders are different; top and bottom are bigger than left and right... although in code they're the same). At first they can be synched; or one can be the much smaller version of the "default one"... I see more advantages than disadvantages. Also, there's overlaps with "Buddhism2" (now moved to Buddhism-Horizontal) and the terse version of this template.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a simplified (in code) version of this template. So we can use the -simple template for short articles and the -complete template for larger articles.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahayana sutras

...was thinking of Mahayana texts... yeah, I guess that link should not stay (if we're only refering to "top-level" articles)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

regions and countries

can we leave just the title... this section can grow to about 100+ countries (eventually), and it's already on the "full index": Template:Buddhism topics

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that only the main regions were mentioned here. Now that has changed and it has become too long. We should indeed make it shorter somehow. Greetings, Sacca 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
but how "chose the regions"? Why not leave just the "regions" and "countries" title?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


BUDDHISM STARED IN 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather unpleasant edits

Hey guys, not much of an editor here, but there was some rather off-putting vandalism here that I reverted earlier tonight, not sure if you guys have any specific policies for reporting stuff like that, but it seemed like the kind of inflamatory stuff where revert first, questions later would be a proper approach. Just thought I'd mention it.

Oops, sorry, bad syntax and I forgot to sign. -- (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)