Talk:Faith in Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relation to other articles

The article is now inserted into Refugee (Buddhism) article as a major section. The previous version of the article was lost because it was not placed in Buddhist theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NB: this article is within the purview of Dharmic Traditions and not just Buddhism.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a note about this on the Hinduism WikiProject. Hopefully, someone can fix this. [3] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Terms like 'buddhadharma' and 'buddhavaccana' while certainly well attested and appropriate in some fora are not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. Try to stick to terminology that is accessible to *all* readers and which facilitates the easy finding of information (which is, presumably, the purpose of writing such an article in the first place). For the latter reason in particular, I'd put forth that the article should be renamed to Sraddha (Buddhism) with Sraddha (Buddhadharma) a redirect, if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

cryptic Yamamoto citations

There are a number of citations to a work by Yamamoto, but it is not clear what work they refer to. Finally, this work is cited:

The Words of St. Rennyo: Complete Translations of the Rennyoshonin-Goichidaiki-Kikigaki and the Anjinketsujosho, tr. and annotated by Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Tokyo, 1968, p.158

but it is not clear if that applies to the previous citations or is a new one. (It looks like a new one from the content of the text.) Moonsell (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Found the reference after all, in the " Literature" section at the end. Moonsell (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Faith (śraddha) in Hinduism

Not sure what this last section is doing in this article, however poetic. It doesn't seem to relate to the rest coherently. Moonsell (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Blind Faith

The Kālāma Sutta never mentions faith, let alone blind faith.

In fact if you look closely at the Canon faith (saddhā) almost always arises upon hearing a dhamma discourse, and never from experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.1.194 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is true, the whole section on the Kalama Sutta in this article should be entirely removed and is nothing more than a lie. Also the Kalama Sutta exclusively refers to non-Buddhist disciples. The Kalamas were a group of people who were not Buddhist disciples.

Although they entirely agree with everything the Buddha says, and at the end they become his disciples, without any alteration in their stated beliefs or in the instructions give them. You too must read the text more carefully and set aside your pre-conceived ideas about what it is saying. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed whole swathes of information on faith in Buddhism - referenced and cited information, at that - and replaced it with a much shorter article. This kind of behaviour is outrageous and is utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia: people may have spent days or weeks collecting and collating data and references for an article, and then to have it all expunged in one fell swoop constitutes nothing short of an act of vandalism. DISCUSS before making such huge changes! Please restore the removed information, while keeping the additions, by all means. Best wishes - Suddha (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"utterly unacceptable"? But completely predictable. Just change it back if you don't like it. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading the section on "faith is not blind" only reinforces the fact that what is being described is precisely blind faith in all kinds of supernatural entities and forces. This whole article is evangelistic and very far from representing a neutral point of view. It is in fact Buddhists writing about their beliefs from within their own belief framework, and it is full of Buddhist jargon. Any non-Buddhist reading this would find it incomprehensible. Scrap it and start again I say. All those "days and weeks" have produced a totally substandard and highly biased account of Buddhist Faith, which contains the kind of circular logic that we Buddhists seem to revel in. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Aveccappasāda

The name of this aticle, or this section, should be changed to śraddhā in Buddhism, because it does not deal with faith more broadly. What about the word aveccappasāda? Jayarava 09:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talk • contribs)

Neutral Point of View

This article looks as though is has been written by Buddhists for Buddhists, in the sort of self congratulatory and superior way that we Buddhists think of ourselves. It's quite embarrassing. I think this is especially obvious in the section entitled "Faith is Not Blind". Clearly faith as described here is blind, and the self deception of the authors is staggering.

The statement "faith in the reliability of the Buddha as a truly awakened spiritual friend and faith, conviction and confidence in the three jewels (triratna)." is something only a Buddhist would accept, especially the "truly awakened" part. "Truly Awakened" clearly is an article of faith for Buddhists. Again how can a statement like "Faith as understood in this sutra is belief in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Buddha's own eternality." be anything but blind faith? Eternality is an article of faith. A third example is the phrase "the essence of ultimate truth". That Buddhism provides believers with access to "ultimate truth" is an article of faith. The authors cannot even see that they are operating within worldview which is founded on blind acceptance in these articles of faith. So the article lacks any sense of objectivity about the nature of these views. The point of view is relentlessly Buddhist of a particularly fundamentalist type.

The quotes are all very interesting and probably useful, but they do not tell the story that the religious Buddhist thinks they tell (some of the texts are patently misunderstood, but that is original research on my part). The texts are full of magical thinking, and supernatural entities and forces. This is no different from any other kind of religious faith. There is no discussion of how this looks from the outside, or any consideration that this is just what Buddhists believe. Perhaps because another article of faith we Buddhists cling to is that our belief system is based on Reality and Truth. Buddhists understand Buddhism to be the ultimate truth about the universe, and that anyone who does not agree is delusional.

This whole articles needs looking over by someone who is not a Buddhist to see if it is comprehensible in a framework that does not accept the Buddhist articles of faith. I suspect it is not, and therefore it is not acceptable in Wikipedia terms. At the very least it should repeatedly use phrases like "Buddhists believe that...".

Jayarava 10:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talk • contribs)

I could not agree with you more! It is so amusing to me that Buddhists think they do not have blind faith when so many things in the Doctrine (such as trans-reincarnational karmic effects, or eternal Nirvana, or the power of preaching and teaching the Lotus Sutra to help liberate one from ongoing suffering) require as much blind faith for one lifetime (or more) as teachings of any other religion. Take the figure of the Buddha, for example: how do we know that he could see all the lives, past and present, of all beings? Simply because he said so? Is not believing this an example of 'blind faith'? Personally I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with faith: so much in spiritual matters does require it as a working hypothesis at least. Anyhow, I think you are right when you say that the article should more frequently state, '(Some) Buddhists believe that ...'. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we re-evaluate the issue of NPOV? Since the last posts on this talk section, the article has been considerably reworked. Particularly, it would be great if not the article as a whole would get this label but rather particular sections, which can then be worked on in particular. --Kathedra87 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is faith even a good word to use?

I don't think it is. This article grafts a Christian understanding of faith onto a very different tradition. Lumping everything under the same category as though Christian theology can provide the universal categorical template for all other traditions is wildly misleading, reductive, and, frankly, colonialist (though I imagine all of this is unintentional - it's our inherited intellectual/ideological habit).

For instance, the Tibetan word that is often translated as "faith", དད་པ་ (dad pa), really means something much closer to "devotion", and refers most commonly to the confidence a student has in their lama, not a faith in particular tenets of Buddhism. I'd guess that our contemporary use of "faith" comes out of a protestant understanding of the word, which simply does not apply to Buddhism (or any other tradition, I'd wager).

We might be tempted to impose our understanding of faith, as in when we say that "Buddhists have faith in the truth of reincarnation", etc., but I don't think that this is an accurate way of understanding the tradition. Do we say that we have faith that the world is round? No, we say that we know it. How do we know it? For most of us, we accept it based on tradition and authority (i.e. most people believe that the world is round, but have no firsthand experience to prove it other than their confidence in what others have said).

We should think of the Buddhist confidence in reincarnation, karma, etc. in the same way: they are facts to them, not articles of faith. Faith implies that there is some room for doubt, but the Buddhist (except Western converts) aren't going to doubt these facts anymore than we doubt gravity.

This is not to say that articles should be written from the faith perspective, but that they should represent their subject matter as accurately as possible.

In my opinion, this whole article should be axed and Buddhism should not be included under the faith article that redirects here.

Joechip123 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• You make some good points. The Sanskrit word 'sraddha' and its cognate form in Pali do, however, denote 'faith' or 'belief', and it is quite clear that followers of the Buddha were expected to have faith in the accuracy of his transcendental knowledge and visionary doctrines (the Awakening experience, after all, was a visionary one of a paranormal nature). This stress on belief or faith in the truth of the Dharma and the Buddha as its flawless propagator is especially marked in the Mahayana. Most people, for example, have not experienced Nirvana or Parinirvana, so it remains an article of faith that such a deep and blissful state/realm that is described as 'inconceivable' (acintya) actually exists. No, this entry on Faith in Buddhism should not be deleted,in my opinion (not least as it counters the widespread erroneous view that Buddhism is wholly rational and logical, which it certainly is not); but perhaps a section could be added expressing the ideas you have advanced. Best wishes to you. Suddha (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

straddha - Advaita Vedanta

It should be noted that straddha is a fundamental criteria for students of orthodox Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta (literally, the end of the Vedas). (Advaita: uh dwite tuh, in Sanskrit, generally, the vacara, V, is pronounced as a W when it follows a consonant). Its meaning is much deeper than simple open mindedness. It is the capacity to look upon the teachings, consisting mainly of the Upanishads, very small sections found at the end of each of the four Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, and commentaries by Sri Shankara, as sacred. For students who are believers in "God," e.g., for Christians the sanctity given would be the same as is given to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. For "non-believers," the sanctity could be the same as is given to the belief that every act has an effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasananda (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The "goad"

In the section about the Kasibharadvaja Sutta, there is an explanation of the word "goad", which seems quite obscure to me. Why would one interpret the goad from the point of view of Vajrayana and Tantra, when the term is taken from a Theravada scripture. To me, the sentence "mindfulness [is] my goad" simply means that a person uses mindfulness to control the stream of consciousness like an elephant trainer uses a goad to control an elephant. Moreover, the explanation which is quite far fetched has no reference. The section should be rewritten. --Kathedra87 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the explanation, but linked to the WP article elephant goad, which gives some explanation about the iconography. -Kathedra87 (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the "explanation" is unsourced and appears to give undue weight to Vajrayana in this context. JimRenge (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a "Faith in early Buddhism" (alternative: "Faith in Theravada Buddhism") section as a first step to improve the structure of the article. The Kalama sutta section might need another title because it contains only one sentence about the Kalama sutta. JimRenge (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will clean up and rewrite the "Faith in Early Buddhism", but it will take some while and several steps, since it is a big mess. -Kathedra87 (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Section Ānanda and Vakkali: superfluous?

I think that the section on Ananda and Vakkali is rather unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. The section does not give any insight into the qualities / properties of Saddha. The word faith is not even mentioned in the quotes. Additionally, the paragraph on Vakkali goes off into a tangent on the Dharmakaya doctrine. I suggest that this section should be removed. --Kathedra87 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove it. JimRenge (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Kathedra87 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Archiving talk page?

A lot of the sections and statements on this talk page refer to older versions of the article which are no longer valid. I suggest we set up an auto archiving to clean up the talk page and only keep relevant posts. --Kathedra87 (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OK JimRenge (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

The article as it is cannot be made neutral. It stem from the article on Buddhism. Please see the talk page BuddhismDgdcw (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which part of the Buddhism talk page are you referring to? Please add a link to the relevant section. --Kathedra87 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dgdcw: Sure it could be made neutral but that would necesssitate re-writing the article using academic studies that deal with Faith in Buddhism as sources rather than a host of quotes selected from Buddhist sutras - which are primary sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I will just contribute my comment.

If the Wikipedia is supposed to be a critical work, the article on faith in the Buddha is not at all critical, it is to my impression which I want it to be critical I mean my impression, the article is all about trusting in the Buddha or whomever the Buddhists are taking to be their teacher and model, but never so far as I can extract from the article, into why on 'critical grounds' the followers and admirers of the Buddha have to follow his teachings: when as far as I can extract from the article, there are no 'critical grounds' at all for taking him seriously as a worthy teacher and model for a genuinely good way for mankind to live and to die.

And what would be a critical ground to take the teachings of the Buddha as to enact in one's life the practice of his teachings? What about that owing to his teachings his followers have become more healthy and live longer and die with calmness and acceptance.

The Buddha according to my stock reading died from eating without knowing of course that he was ingesting rotten meat (or poison mushroom?); forgive me, that is not any indication of his having arrived at any kind of enlightenment by which enlightenment he should have known better how to discern rotten meat from sound meat, and that eating rotten meat can kill him -- unless of course he wanted to die anyway, because he wanted already to go into what, nothingness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.130.89 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources and Quotations

There must be plenty of good academic studies and articles dealing with Faith in Buddhism which could be used as reliable, neutral sources for an article on this topic - and there should be no need to rely on so many lengthy quotations from primary sources like Buddhist sutras. The way the article currently stands, much of it amounts to either original research or assembling quotations to promote a particular point of view. When a bunch of quotes are put together like this there is no way a reader can tell if they are representative or selective. You need to quote books and articles by academics who have surveyed the whole primary literature weighing their content, and maybe conducted proper studies amongst various groups of Buddhists, in order to say in a verifiable way what knowledgeable people say the position of faith in Buddhism is. This is a good example of why good, solid, peer-reviewed secondary sources are important in encyclopaedic articles. Otherwise how does a reader know that the editor didn't just trawl through the primary sources to assemble a bunch of quotes that support his own views on the subject? Chris Fynn (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the first version of this article, Faith in Buddhism old, was largely copied from Nirvana Sutra net. JimRenge (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Faith in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229225510/http://www.tashicholing.org:80/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081229225510/http://www.tashicholing.org:80/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm to http://www.tashicholing.org/gyatrul_rinpoche_bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Content only supported by primary sources

The following content I have not been able to find mentioned in secondary reliable sources about the subject. Feel free to reintegrate it in the article if you have secondary sources supporting or mentioning the content.

In the Pubbakoṭṭhaka Sutta, Buddha questions his disciple Sariputta to which Sariputta answers, "Herein, O Lord, I do not follow the Exalted One out of faith. Those by whom this is unknown, unseen, uncognized, unrealized and unexperienced by wisdom, they will herein follow others out of faith." In other words, in blind faith there is no knowledge or conviction, and one can have blind faith in anyone and such blind faith never leads to wisdom and true conviction. Only the actual experience of regular practice can lead to true faith and conviction born out of realization. "But those by whom this is known, seen, cognized, realized and experienced by wisdom, they have no uncertainty, no doubt about it that these five faculties, if cultivated and regularly practiced, lead to the Deathless, are bound for the Deathless, end in the Deathless."

==== Avatamsaka Sūtra ====

Main article: Avataṃsaka Sūtra

An enthusiastic paean to faith can be found in the massive Avataṃsaka Sūtra, where, to the delight of all the Buddhas, the bodhisattva Samantabhadra proclaims the following verses in a great eulogy of bodhisattvas' faith:

Deep faith, belief, and resolution always pure,
They [bodhisattvas] honour and respect all Buddhas ...

Deeply believing in the Buddha and the Buddha's teaching,
They also believe in the Way traversed by buddhas-to-be,
And believe in unexcelled great enlightenment:
Thereby do enlightening beings [bodhisattvas] first rouse their will.

Faith is the basis of the Path, the mother of virtues,
Nourishing and growing all good ways,
Cutting away the net of doubt, freeing from the torrent of passion,
Revealing the unsurpassed road of ultimate peace.

When faith is undefiled, the mind is pure;
Obliterating pride, it is the root of reverence,
And the foremost wealth in the treasury of religion ...

Faith is generous ...
Faith can joyfully enter the Buddha's teaching;
Faith can increase knowledge and virtue;
Faith can ensure arrival at enlightenment ...
Faith can go beyond the pathways of demons,
And reveal the unsurpassed road of liberation.

Faith is the unspoiled seed of virtue,
Faith can grow the seed of enlightenment.
Faith can increase supreme knowledge,
Faith can reveal all Buddhas ...
Faith is most powerful, very difficult to have;
It's like in all worlds having
the wondrous wish-fulfilling pearl.

==== Buddha nature literature ====

In the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Buddha is portrayed giving a foundational position to faith. He states:

We say that unsurpassed awakening [bodhi] has faith as its cause. The causes of awakening are innumerable, but if stated as faith, this covers everything.

Faith as understood in this sūtra is belief in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Buddha's own eternal nature. More specifically, it is belief in such doctrines as the law of karma, in the reality and eternity of the Three Jewels (i.e. the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha), and in the efficacy of the Buddhist path. The Buddha comments:

All that is said in these Mahayana sūtras is the truths of the Way [marga] ... As I have already stated, if one believes in the Way, such a Way of faith is the root of faith. This assists the Way of Awakening ... The Way begins with the root of faith....

The Buddha further notes that a person possessed of faith is superior to one lacking in it:

There are two kinds of men: one who has faith, and the other who has not. O Bodhisattva! Know that he with faith is one who is good, and that he who has no faith is one who is not good.

Faith in the Buddha is seen as a positive virtue as it leads to more attentive absorption in Dharma, which in turn strengthens faith still further. The Buddha remarks:

Faith arises out of listening to Dharma, and this listening is [itself] grounded in faith.

Through such faith, along with other spiritual practices, the Buddhist aspirant is enabled to attain Nirvana, according to this text. Faith is the first step for the bodhisattva to tread along that path to Nirvana. It is viewed as a basic requirement, and crucially entails the understanding that the "real" Buddha is not a being of flesh and blood who can bleed and who dies, or whose Truth (Dharma) perishes with his physical body. The true Buddha and his Dharma are utterly deathless and eternal, so the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra insists. This the bodhisattva is urged to believe:

First, he [i.e. the Bodhisattva] is perfect in faith. How is faith perfect? This is believing deeply that the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are Eternal, that all Buddhas of the ten directions [= everywhere] make use of expedients [effectively to convey Dharma to the different types of being], and that beings and icchantikas [= the most spiritually depraved of persons] all possess the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-Principle, Buddha-nature ]. It is not believing that the Tathagata is subject to birth, old age, illness, and death, that he has undergone austerities, and that Devadatta [= Buddha's cousin] really caused blood to flow from the Buddha's body, that the Tathagata ultimately enters Nirvana [= finally dies], and that authentic Dharma dies out. This is where we speak of the Bodhisattva's being perfect in faith.

Yet faith in the Buddha should not be blind. The Mahāyāna not infrequently links faith with discernment and spiritual penetrative insight (prajñā) into reality. The following words of the Buddha indicate the need for a balance:

If a person does not possess faith and insight [prajñā], such a person increases his ignorance. If a person possesses insight, but not faith, such a person will increase [his or her] distorted views. ... A person who has no faith will say, out of an angry mind: "There cannot be any Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha!"

The Nirvāṇa Sūtra is not alone in according a foundational position to faith. The Sutra of Non-Decrease, Non-Increase (Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa) tells of how the essence of ultimate truth, the Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha), can be perceived by means of faith. This matter of the Buddha nature lies beyond the reach of the foolish, of the ordinary person, unless that person possess faith, which will gain him or her entry into the realm of the Buddha nature:

No sravakas [the elementary students of the Buddha] or pratyekabuddhas ["private" Buddhas, who usually avoid people and generally do not teach] are able to know, see or investigate this matter with their insight. How much less able to do so are foolish ordinary people, except when they directly realise it by faith!

Faith is thus presented as a powerful means for Buddhist practitioners to penetrate through to, and realize deep spiritual truths for themselves.

Takasaki in his translation and study of the Sanskrit Ratnagotravibhāga(with protracted consideration of the Tibetan and Chinese traditions) renders an embedded extract of a sūtra of Shakyamuni unidentified in the text that conveys the importance of faith in relation to what is known in the tradition as the "revolution of the basis" (Sanskrit: āśrayaparivṛtti) of "buddha-dhatu" (buddha-nature) to the Dharmakāya (a Buddhist nomenclature of the ultimate truth):

O Śāriputra, the ultimate truth is really approachable only by faith [in the Tathāgata]. O Śāriputra, the ultimate Truth is a synonym of the mass of living beings (sattva-dhātu). The mass of living beings is, O Śāriputra, nothing but a synonym of the Matrix of the Tathāgata (tathāgatagarbha). The Matrix of the Tathāgata is, Śāriputra, nothing but a synonym of the Absolute Body (dharmakāya).

==== Prajñāpāramitā sūtras ====

Main article: Prajñāpāramitā

It is not only in the Buddha nature literature that faith is lauded. In the Prajñāpāramitā (perfection of wisdom) Sūtras, too, faith is extolled. In the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras faith is usually brought in connection with trust and belief in the sūtra which is at that moment being expounded. Thus in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra on How Benevolent Kings May Protect Their Countries, the Buddha declares that even if living beings were to give away the most precious substances known to humanity in a huge act of generosity, still "their merit would not be such as that of the production of one single thought of serene faith in this sūtra". This and other prajñāpāramitā sūtras explain that such persons who naturally engender faith in these texts are those who have worshipped and revered countless Buddhas in past incarnations. Faith comes naturally to them. Moreover, faith in, and reverence towards such sūtras is tantamount to faith and reverence directed towards all Buddhas. The Buddha asserts in the 18,000-Line Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

If anyone, when this deep perfection of wisdom is being preached, feels respect, affection, and serene faith for it, then he feels respect, affection and serene faith also for the Buddhas and Lords of the past, future, and present.

In the Contemplation of Amitayus Sūtra, the Buddha is depicted to list the types of beings who gain birth in this pure land – and they are all characterized by faith:

Those born in the Western Land are of nine grades. Those who attain birth on the highest level of the highest grade are sentient beings who resolve to be born in that land, awaken the three kinds of faith and so are born there. What are the three? They are, first, the sincere faith, second, the deep faith; and third, the faith that seeks birth there by transferring one's merit. Those who have these three kinds of faith will certainly be born there.

However, even in these faith-oriented sūtras of "Pure Land" Dharma, faith is often linked with understanding. It is not totally blind faith. The Buddha of the Smaller Pure Land Sūtra speaks of faith allied with understanding as a prerequisite for the attainment of supreme awakening (bodhi), when hearing this text. Thus:

Furthermore ... if there is a good son or good daughter, whether having already heard this, or shall hear it, or who is now hearing it – once hearing this sūtra, profoundly is there born an understanding faith. Once there is born an understanding faith, a certainty about the accumulations of merit residing in the ten directions with the Buddha World-Honoured Ones, whose number is like the sands of ten River Ganges, and they practice as instructed, all will be firmly in the supremely unexcelled Bodhi.

Rennyo gave utterance to the view that practicing the Way of Dharma, being embraced by Amitabha Buddha, and embracing Amitabha Buddha in faith are one-and-the same. Buddha-Mind and one's own individual mind are ultimately inseparable. He said:

When wood is kindled by fire, fire does not leave it. The wood is likened to the mind of one who practices the Way; the fire is likened to the Light of Embracement of Amita. Shone upon and protected by the spiritual light, there can be no Buddha-Mind other than one's own and no mind of one's own other than the Buddha-Mind. This is called "Namuamidabutsu" ["Homage to Amita Buddha"].

The teacher Linji Yixuan said that if a person were to adopt perfect self-confidence (faith in themselves) they would attain enlightenment in an instant. In the teaching known as The Three Pillars of Zen, the monk Haku'un Yasutani said something along the same lines. He explained that in shikantaza (sitting meditation) one should sit naturally but be overwhelmed by his faith in his Buddha-nature and the efficacy of the meditation process. After weeks, months or years of training the meditator would have a moment of enlightenment characterized by mania and an inability to sleep for several days. This would, however, subside and the individual will be able to return to everyday life, changed for the better.

The Buddha tells his audience in the Lotus Sūtra:

If any living beings who seek after the Buddha-way either see or hear this Law-Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus Sūtra], and after hearing it believe and discern, receive and keep it, you may know that they are near perfect enlightenment.

The same sūtra asserts that the Dharma as a whole is difficult to grasp with mere words, and that ultimately only those bodhisattvas (those aiming to become a Buddha) who believe with firm faith can penetrate its nature. The Buddha says:

This Law [Dharma] is inexpressible,
It is beyond the realm of terms;
Among all the other living beings
None can apprehend it
Except the bodhisattvas

Who are firm in the power of faith.

According to the Nyingma school of Choying Tobden Dorje, the ennobling positive six forms of faith are:

1. Yearning faith stimulating renunciation of rebirth desire to attain awakening freedom. Arising from disillusionment from life’s suffering.
2. Devoted faith leading to a dedication to supreme ideals. Arising from disillusionment from evil companion’s behavior.
3. Respectful faith in body, speech, and mind with outstanding conscientiousness. Arising from disillusionment from life’s appearances.
4. Lucid faith that uplifts the mind's positive qualities. Arising from contact with those who represent supreme ideals.
5. Trusting (confidence) faith that ends doubts concerning the teaching’s base, path, and result. Arising from hearing of karma.
6. Certainty in faith toward the doctrine, leading to the application, reflecting, and meditating upon it. Arising from all forms of hearing and reflection.

In the Nyingma vast expanse heart essence preliminaries, teacher Patrul Rinpoche has faith as the first step opening the refuge gateway. It is also the first of the seven noble signs of wealth (faith with the six perfections). Lasting and stable faith are important and there are three main kinds: vivid faith, eager faith, and confident faith. A forth to be aimed for is irreversible faith when it becomes integral to the person and is refuge's cause, like a house's foundation serving the jewels in Dharma. While lacking faith is one of the six stains in which the antidotes are the kinds of faith. Faith is a jewel that comes before all else blossoming in the heart’s center. It is the outer support power essence and Dharma’s root.

Gyatrul (b. 1924), in a commentary on the work of Chagmé (Wylie: Kar-ma Chags-med, fl. 17th century), states:

By the power of faith, we are able to eliminate the two types of obscurations. Through the power of faith both ontological and phenomenological knowledge arises. It is also by the power of faith that both the common and uncommon siddhis arise.

The Vajra Garland Explanatory Tantra (Wylie: bShad-rgyud rdo-re phreng-ba) evokes the metaphor of the snowlioness and her salvific milk of Dharma, hailed as a panacea in Traditional Tibetan medicine:

Just as the milk of a lioness

Is not to be placed in an earthen container,

So is the Mahāyogatantra

Not to be given to those who are not suitable vessels.

Gyatrul (b. 1924), in a commentary to this verse cited by Chagmé (Wylie: Kar-ma chags-med, fl. 17th century), conveys the importance of faith as a qualification of disciples who "listen" to the Dharma:

This injunction pertains to teaching Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna, and to Atiyoga in particular. Those without faith who are completely involved in the eight mundane concerns are not suitable vessels, and they should not be taught these kinds of Dharma.

In the Tantrayana tradition, lack of faith (āśraddhya) is defined as a mental factor that is characterized by a lack of trust, and lack of interest in, or desire for, wholesome things. Āśraddhya is identified as one of the twenty secondary unwholesome factors within the Mahāyāna Abhidharma teachings.

Many factors may instill faith, among these, four crucial circumstances are: 1) an authentic spiritual master attendance, 2) wholesome friends, 3) the three jewels and 4) reflection on existence's round of misery, according to Jigme Lingpa.

Furthermore, in the Pāli commentaries faith is defined as: faith in the working of the law of karma (Pali: kammasaddhā) faith in the consequences of actions (Pali: vipākasaddhā) faith in the individual ownership of actions (Pali: kammassakatāsaddhā), and; faith in the reality of the enlightenment of the Buddha (Pali: tathāgatabodhisaddhā).[1]Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Other primary sources

• Cleary, Thomas (1993). The Flower Ornament Scripture : A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sūtra, Boulder: Shambhala, ISBN 0-87773-940-4
• Conze, Edward, tr. (1975). The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom, Berkeley: University of California Press
• Conze, Edward, tr. (1973). Perfect Wisdom: The Short Prajnaparamita Texts, Luzac, London
• Inagaki Hisao, trans., Stewart, Harold (2003). The Three Pure Land Sutras, 2nd ed., Berkeley, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. ISBN 1-886439-18-4
• Katō Bunno, Tamura Yoshirō, Miyasaka Kōjirō, tr. (1975), The Threefold Lotus Sutra : The Sutra of Innumerable Meanings; The Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Law; The Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue. New York & Tōkyō: Weatherhill & Kōsei Publishing
• Müller, F. Max, trans (1894). Buddhist Mahâyâna texts Vol.2, Oxford, Clarendon Press. (The Vagrakkedikâ, the larger Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra, the smaller Pragñâ-pâramitâ-hridaya-sûtra)
• Yamamoto, Kosho (tr.), Page, Tony (ed.) (1999–2000).The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in 12 volumes. London: Nirvana Publications

Isolated content bearing on faith in Buddhism, moved from article Buddhist devotion

The reverence and devotion towards the Buddha Nature lies at the foundation of ethics in some Buddhist schools, notably in the Chinese school of Sanlun. Sanlun teaches to be aware that all living beings possess Buddha Nature and are interrelated, calling this awareness Wuxin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farang Rak Tham (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Section Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingma tradition) too much written from insider's perspective

The section Tibetan Buddhism that has been added back in is much too technical for an encyclopedic article. Examples of technical terms and people that need explanation or context:

• "vast expanse heart essence preliminaries"?
• "refuge gateway"?
• "three main kinds: vivid faith, eager faith, and confident faith."
• "It is the outer support power essence and Dharma’s root."
• " jewels in Dharma"
• "hearing of karma"
• "all forms of hearing and reflection"
• who is "Gyatrul"?
• "two types of obscurations"
• "siddhis"
• who is "Jigme Lingpa"?

It may be much easier to write an encyclopedic section about faith in Tibetan Buddhism by using scholarly sources independent from Buddhism, which have been written from an outsider's perspective and provide historical context. Such sources can be found by searching Google Scholar or Google Books. Many of these sources are based on traditional scriptures and Tibetan authors as primary sources, but they write about those from an independent outsider's perspective.

As it stands now, the text is difficult to make sense by a person not initiated in the subject. Please rewrite as appropriate.

Ms Sarah Welch, what is the current consensus as to sources that are not independent of the religion? Technically speaking, are these called secondary sources?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ping you too, ZuluPapa5.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Those are indeed complex technical terms. Jan Ergardt's Faith and Knowledge in Early Buddhism published by Brill is a good RS (its Introduction chapter is a good overview), which we should consider for this article. Andy Rotman's Thus Have I Seen: Visualizing Faith in Early Indian Buddhism published by Oxford University Press is another good scholarly RS (the Introduction + first two chapters). Some of ZuluPapa5's restored sources seem WP:Primary, which are okay to use with care and restrain; additionally we need secondary and tertiary sources. Additional sources to consider for faith in Tibetan Buddhism section: 1 (Sekido's notes on Sraddha, adhimukti, prasada and bhatti), 2 (pp. 108-110), 3 (pp. 297-300), 4. @Joshua Jonathan:, @JimRenge: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: You restored a "citation req" tagged text: please do not restore content without adding a reliable source that directly supports the content. Let us also avoid a quote farm-filled article, that the average reader cannot understand. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Farang Rak Tham´s and Ms Sarah Welch´s comments. I think we should avoid to present the topic from an insider's perspective. Texts from within a religious tradition need independent secondary sources that critically analyze them. JimRenge (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much too technical terms, but the amount of knowledge ZuluPapa5 has of these sources and traditions. While it's good to share our knowledge, it's also good to present it in a summary way: "in der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister" (a measure which I myself cannot always satisfy...). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, is there any particular reason why you have not used any scholarly sources to clarify the section you have added back in?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and yes, there are scholarly sources and are most certainly reliable, inside and out, due weighted. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't quite understand.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, I am giving you another seven days to clear up the content which is not supported by secondary sources, reliable scholarly publishers or content which is too technical to read. Failing to do so, I will move all of this content to the Dhamma Wiki article on faith, where is seems more appropriate. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, you attribute it how you like. The sources are secondary to each other from highly reliable lineage master scholars and that's your tech POV that is pushing into a section that is mainly the history of pushing out faith's essence, then that what is. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't really make sense of what you are saying. For my perspective on whether Buddhist teachers are allowed as secondary sources for Buddhist doctrine, see User:Farang Rak Tham#Can Buddhist teachers be used as sources in Wikipedia?. I believe this is a correct summary of Wikipedia policy. See also WP:PRIMARY:"Further examples of primary sources include (...) original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier writings (lost or otherwise)". See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion.

Although I also respect many great Buddhist teachers, I don't think an encyclopedia will be much improved by adding a series of technical terms taken directly from their Dharma books. We need an outsider's perspective that summarizes the teachings of such masters, because Wikipedia is for the uninitiated. If you believe I missed faith's essence, then please point me to secondary sources that really analyze Buddhist teaching and explain it for "Dummies" in a better way, as I am ready to improve the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Faith in Buddhism/Archive 1#Primary Sources and Quotations.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

My point is we need both the outsiders and the insiders perspective to have NPOV, rather than push the outsiders view onto sources and this content, attribute it how you like. A few adjectives applied to faith from accomplished masters is hardly technical, particularly when they have added value to this article which is about faith. I have no interest in seeing the content pushed in conflict to some other site, there is a place for it here is Wikipedia. So, let's make it work here in Wikipedia. This technical issue is strawman POV that replaces adjective elaboration with a different proposition. We can have attributions with a few reasonable adjectives of our own. Better yet, where is the source that calls this content technical or is it original to you? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your language, but I can't understand much of what you are talking about. If you have doubts about the tag which says the section about Vajrayana is too technical, I have given a list of terms above which are unclear to outsiders. They still are. According to WP:TECHNICAL, "Articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience". And to be honest, even if you were to write for insiders, they would also have a hard time making sense of the language used. The English is just not that good.

I am certain you have very good intentions in adding this content to the article, to improve Wikipedia and to give Buddhism a place in it. But you need to work on your English language a little more, to communicate better, both in Articles and Talk pages.

I do not believe there is a POV problem here. The section Vajrayana that is tagged is not biased, it is just not referring to sources that are appropriate for Wikipedia, and it is not written in an understandable way.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Show me the source that calls these sources unreliable, then it may contribute to the article as well. The sources are the most appropriate for the section as they give it immense credibility, because of all that could be translated, these are the ones we are fortunate to have in English. Mostly from Tibetan scholars who have many years experience in this subject. Rejoicing. To water it down with some PhD analysis would be a wonderful find, but will take great bounds of good faith. POV is an issue, you made it when you accepted that outside and inside are of separated quality. The reality is these are highly qualified varayayan (Tibetan Buddhism) POV sources at this point in the fork. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

They are not strictly speaking unreliable, but some of them are primary sources, and even if you attribute them inline, you still need to prove they are relevant enough to the overall topic. For example, in an article which is already larger than is strictly allowed on Wikipedia, you dedicate a large section to Tibetan Buddhism, and then mostly focus on Nyingma. This is the reason why we need secondary or tertiary sources to prove that the texts we are summarizing from are the most relevant about the topic. For example, an encyclopedia article talking about faith in Buddhism will typically dedicate most of its content to Pure Land Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra, and perhaps compare this with early Buddhist scriptures to show the development that has taken place. You will not normally read much on the meaning of faith in Vajrayana Buddhism, let alone the specific tradition of Nyingma Tibetan Buddhism. So adding in all the content you have added, you should try to back this content's relevance up with secondary or tertiary sources, as can be found on Google Scholar, for example. if you cannot find anything there, you should remove the primary source content per WP:UNDUE.

Please don't make this a problem of Western scholar versus Asian Buddhist master, because it is not and it has never been. Many Buddhism Studies Or Asian Studies scholars are practicing Buddhists, and such scholars are both Asian and Western.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

From below, these are notable because they have been selected for translation. The translator is like a secondary author. [ZuluPapa5]

You need sources apart from the translations that confirm that these texts are important in the development or definition of the concept of faith in Buddhism. You have not yet provided these. Furthermore, you need to define and explain teachings that you are referring to, per WP:TECHNICAL, rather than just list technical terms. And when you are going to explain these terms, you again need secondary sources apart from the translation that explain and interpret these technical terms. That is why citing traditional texts is not sufficient. If traditional texts and terms could only be interpreted in one single way, we would not have many different Buddhist traditions today. And in proving you explaining them in the right way, you need secondary sources. You have already cited from Powers and Kapstein, which are acceptable secondary sources. Now you need to find more of those, which deal with faith and the texts which you regard as relevant.-Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want additional sources then you need immense patient and faith. I've addressed your technical issues for now. This section is progressing with your feedback. The translators introductions to these sources have why these are significant, but that content would make a bloated summary here in this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Prasada in Tibetan Buddhism?

ZuluPapa5, I am currently reading Powers' Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, in which he writes a great deal about faith. On this page, he speaks about a Tibetan term praśrabdhi. Can you confirm me whether this is the same term as Sanskrit prasāda which is already mentioned in the article? It would help me to understand what he is saying. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this Prasrabhi can help, first I've seen it. It has Abhidharma roots. Doesn't look like the same as prasāda. I looked into Powers and seemed like he was expressing ideas about Buddhist faith that are not particularity unique to Tibetan Buddhism. He quotes a Tibetan that talks about 3 kinds of faith, but they were different from the 3 most common in the Nyingma tradition (vivid, eager and confident), so I may add that in a note. Powers should be added to the article, but was considering beyond the Vajrayana section. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, i got the words mixed up. And you have already added Powers to the article, supporting the three types of faith you mentioned just now. It seems to be a valid source, and so does Kapstein's works, though it would have been better if the books you are citing from are from scholarly publishers, rather than popular. Apart from Powers and Kapstein, you are citing from ancient texts or Buddhist practice manuals, which are very worthwhile books to read, but you cannot directly quote from them without secondary sources to help analyze them. Such secondary sources will also prove that the content is notable for the topic concerned.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Templates from Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism section

I would like to remove the templates from the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism section. I've address the technical concerns brought up with additional content, notes and wikilinks. Ultimately, the Buddha is the primary source here in articles about dharma faith, making all else secondary. The current sources are mostly specially selected translations by authors who have critically analysed the sources to provided notable translated content. The originating authors have primarily based their works on Suttra, Tantra and the Abhidharma as preceding sources, making there work removed from and encompassing from the primary sources. The rediscovered termas have been attributed to Guru Rinpoche and been verified by others. In addition, some of the sources are commentaries on works that have been recorded from lineage masters that maintain a directly link to previous masters studies within the school. Other sources are compendiums of dharma within the Nyingma Tradition which in effect are like tertiary sources. There are sources written by adherents which appear to be people with faith but outside the lineage master dharma tradition. The sources here serve Wikipedia articles' purpose by giving the critical points for the section. We can take down the templates. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that you are working to improve the section, but you can't fix it without changing the sources. A secondary source is a source that takes an analytical distance of the subject matter; a translation or a book about Buddhist practice does not take such distance, and is therefore unlikely to be neutral and reflective enough for an encyclopedia source.

The article is still very technical, although in fairness, some terms are explained in the notes. But this is not sufficient to make the text readable. On a more personal note, you might want to try and have an uniniated person read what you are writing, and talk it over before posting. Or else, try and ping the other editors on this talk page for a second opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So let's be specific, where are you seeing original research, or difficulty so that it may be corrected, else these sources are adequate for what has been contributed here. Blanket statements about the sources aren't helping us take those templates down. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Beside the problem with primary religious sources, the Nyingma section relies "excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." [4] JimRenge (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi ZuluPapa5. I'm afraid I agree with Farang Rak Tham that your writing is too technical and too detailed; I also agree with JimRenge that there is an overreliance on primary sources. Basically, you've collected together some sayings from five different teachers on faith; that may be instructive when studying on your own, or within a Buddhist group. 'Writing by citing' is a tendency I've seen with more Tibetan-inspired Wiki-Buddhists; it resembles the Tibetan style of scholarly writing. It may be he norm within a (western) Tibetan context, but it's not how we write a (western-style) encyclopedia. It's not very informative for an encyclopedia. An ancyclopedia has to provide context and an overview; these are lacking here.

I think it's fine when you know the texts of a specific tradition from within, but in order to communicate the teachings to other people you'll have to accommodate your style to your audience. After all, that's also what the Buddha did, didn't he? Reading through that section, it could also be summarized. For those who develop on the Buddhist path, I'm sure they're able to find more advanced info and sources, just like you did. This is what I condense from this subsection (compare Rebecca Novick, Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism, on Faith):

According to the Nyingma tradition, faith has various functions on the Buddhist path. It is a virtuous aspect, which helps the practitioner towards the goal of full Buddhahood.

According to Patrul Rinpoche, faith precedes refuge to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This faith develops from vivid faith, to eager faith, and confident faith, into irreversible faith, when it becomes integral to the person, and is the cause of taking refuge. Lacking faith is one of the six stains, conduct to avoid when listening to teachings.

According to Jigme Lingpa, many factors may instill faith. Four crucial factors are an authentic spiritual master attendance, wholesome friends, the three jewels and reflection on existence's round of misery.

Notes

References

References

References

What's lacking is an overview of the role of faith in Tibetan Buddhism, as described by scholars from without the Tibetan tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:JimRenge is there specific content your concerned about in this section or maybe just that's some form of prejudice fear? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The content you added reads like a religious text, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. The amount of text about the Nyingma tradition appears to be out of proportion. Please see WP:NPOV for more info. I see no support for your addition. JimRenge (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources for faith in Tibetan Buddhism

• Powers, John (2007). Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (PDF) (2nd ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications. p. 298-299. ISBN 1-55939-835-3.
• Rebecca Novick, Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism, section on Faith: mentions Clear Faith, Aspiring Faith, Confident Faith, Irreversible Faith. Same as vivid faith, eager faith, confident faith, irreversible faith?
• B. Alan Wallace,Steven Wilhelm, Tibetan Buddhism from the Ground Up: A Practical Approach for Modern Life, section on Faith (p.145 ff)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Faith in Buddhism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ebook.umaha.ac.id/E-BOOK%20OF%20RELIGIOUS%20STAUDIES/ENCYCLOPEDIAS%20_%20DICTIONARY/RELEGIONS%20OF%20THE%20WORLD,%20A%20COMPREHENSIF%20ENCYCLOPEDIA.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/A%20Companion%20to%20Buddhist%20Philosophy_Emmanuel.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Spread%20of%20Buddhism_HDO_Vol.16_2007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/the%20buddhist%20world%20of%20southeast%20asia_swearer.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%2012.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-pure-land/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ebook.umaha.ac.id/E-BOOK%20OF%20RELIGIOUS%20STAUDIES/ENCYCLOPEDIAS%20_%20DICTIONARY/RELEGIONS%20OF%20THE%20WORLD,%20A%20COMPREHENSIF%20ENCYCLOPEDIA.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedias.biz/dw/Encyclopedia%20of%20Millennialism%20and%20Millennial%20Movements.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedias.biz/dw/Encyclopedia%20of%20Millennialism%20and%20Millennial%20Movements.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%206.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/A%20Companion%20to%20Buddhist%20Philosophy_Emmanuel.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/A%20Companion%20to%20Buddhist%20Philosophy_Emmanuel.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318133404/http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/History%20of%20Indian%20Buddhism_Lamotte.pdf to http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/History%20of%20Indian%20Buddhism_Lamotte.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedias.biz/dw/Encyclopedia%20of%20Millennialism%20and%20Millennial%20Movements.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/A%20Companion%20to%20Buddhist%20Philosophy_Emmanuel.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%207.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%202.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.politicalavenue.com/PDF/ENCYCLOPEDIAS/The%20Gale%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Religion%202nd%20Ed%20Vol.%205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)