Talk:Householder (Buddhism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Householder (Buddhism), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Householder (gahapati) vs. Lay Follower (upasaka)
When I initially created this article, I assumed that "householder" (gahapati) included "lay follower" (upasaka). While this might make sense from contemporary Western standards, I'm concerned that I'm imposing my own assumptions onto the Pali text. Thus, I'm going to try to revise my own edits in this article so that only references to "gahapati" in the Pali text are mentioned here and that those identified as "upasaka" will be moved to the appropriate article. If someone more educated on this topic knows better, please let me know! Also, I hope those familiar with non-Pali Buddhist texts would feel comfortable adding appropriate material here as well. Thanks! LarryR 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I know it will impact on your article, but "householder" is too weak for gahapati. These gahapatis were not mere householders, but leading citizens in their communties -- one is tempted to think of medieval English burghers. If you want to talk about householders in contrast to bhikkhus, then you should refer to gaha.t.thas. This distinction, often elided, is dealt with in the PED under gahapati. Also, Jan Nattier in her book on the Upali-pariprccha (A Few Good Men) has a useful discussion on this.--Stephen Hodge 07:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- An after-thought: I think that all gahapatis were male, but possibly gaha.t.thas would have included women -- though I am not sure about this as a matter of canonical usage.--Stephen Hodge 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey Stephen — You're teaching me something excellent all the time. Thanks once again for the terrific education! I'll try to reconcile the article as you suggest (though it might have to wait a weekend or two or three) and, obviously, I'll need to return to the Tipitaka for more ideas! (Not that I need much motivation for that :-) ) Seriously, I'm grateful for your taking the time to educate me on something that is so dear to me. Any time you find it beneficial to correct or otherwise guide me, please do so! Thanks so much once again! LarryR 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- 4:00 a.m., baby stirred, so I made an initial stab at including PED-related material on the distinction between gahattha and gahapati. (My sifting through the on-line PED is somewhat akin to a two-year-old turning on a buzz saw. Beware the carnage.) My better half has offered to pick up a copy of the Nattier text you mentioned from the local divinity school, so hopefully I'll be able to write more intelligibly then. I also hope to include mention of some of the suttas that explicitly address gahattha-s, sometime in the future. Frankly, I feel a wee dishonest attributing the additions to the PED -- much rather have noted something like "Personal communication with Stephen Hodge, 2 October 2006" -- but I don't think the WikiLords would like such. Thanks so much again for all your help. Please feel free to edit any of my tripe as you see fit. Also, if you feel I've missed the point by trying to maintain inclusion of gahapati-related material, please let me know that as well. Best wishes, LarryR 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lay Buddhist practices by school
I just added the "Lay Buddhist practices by school" table to this article. I thought that, for the moment, it is better than the current "LayBuddhistPractices" template that I had previously included because, much to my chagrin, I realized recently that the template is very Theravada-centric. So, this newly inserted table is meant to be more balanced, more inclusive of the three most popular schools in the English-speaking world (listed in terms of their chronological development): Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
However, I realize that the table has a blank or two, a couple of wishy-washy words (such as "regularly"), a need for citations, and possibly some errors. I'd appreciate if other editors would be able to correct these errors and add additional information and/or practices. (For instance, is there a place for the "Four Immeasurables" in the table and is there a better way to represent non-Zen Mahayana practices, and what is the Vajrayana version of metta practice [though perhaps that's captured with Chant-mantra and Meditation-tantra?]?) Please accept my apologies for any such errors or omissions; I mean no disservice to any other.
Relatedly, if someone sees an error or omission but is too intimidated by the rather elaborate HTML used to create the table, please let me know what you would like changed (either on this Talk page or on my User Talk page) and I'll be happy to make the change for you.
Hope you find this table of benefit/interest. Thanks ahead of time for any appropriate amendments. With metta,
LarryR(Talk) 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
