Talk:List of Buddhists

Kublai was a Buddhist?

If so, why does it not say that on the Kublai page? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. If I remember rightly, he was a pupil of the Sakyapa teacher Phagpa, but that would have to be checked. Peter jackson (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationality listing of Buddhist thinkers

As it stands now, it appears the list is grouping people "by nationality, except in cases where the vast majority of their influence was felt elsewhere." I think that makes sense. If someone is only famous for translating texts into Chinese, he should be under the "China" section.~Sylvain 11/10/05

Moved Shoko Asahara

11/09/04 * Moved Shoko Asahara to 'recent and contemporary teachers/other traditions' (argumentation is below). User:ExitControl

14/09/04 I suggest adding Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche to 'recent and contemporary/tibetan'. A notable figure, Dzogchen lama. ExitControl

The list of Buddhist Zen masters should not be removed form wilkipedia its a great research list I use it in school. It gives me great leads .--

7/8/03 I've added a bunch of names here to give a better coverage. However it will take time to fill in all the gaps. I have put a request for contributions about teachers of the past on the Buddha-L listserv and hopefully people will come up with stuff! If it works out I'll do the same for Buddhists of the present. Celebrities are of no interest to me whatsoever so. Michael

• inconclusive discussion of alphabetical listing versus category listing

• Martin and Hotlorp agree that disclaimer is unnecessary

Is this list of Celebrity Buddhists factually correct?? Some of those individuals don't seem to be very Buddhist

On the one hand, this is a loaded question - almost like asking if Torquemada and Jim Jones were true Christians. On the other, I have to agree with you that there is room for doubt here. According to http://www.caic.org.au/eastern/soka/soka.htm at least, Noriega is (or at least was at some point) affiliated with the controversial Soka Gakkai International movement. SGI is in itself a thorny subject, but IMO the short version is that they aren't Buddhists at all, although they make it a point to ensure otherwise. Tojo is of course a fairly traditional 1940s Japanese, and was a high ranked helper of the Emperor, who was at the time revered as the direct descendant of Amaterasu (a Shinto deity, not at all a Buddhist one). To this day about 90-95% of Japanese people are Shintoists and about 60%-65% of those are _also_ Buddhists in some way. Most (obviously not all) Buddhist schools place a strong emphasis on avoiding violence, so my best (and not very well researched) guess is that Tojo was a "pure" Shintoist. I may be wrong. The founder of the Aum movement has recently been convicted for his crimes, but he is apparently sincere. I don't want to argue whether he is "not a true Buddhist" or instead a troubled, disturbed one. Luis Dantas 01:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this in general. I'm going to remove a few of the celebrities that I don't think are Buddhists (although they may be perfectly nice people nonetheless). I wouldn't say that SGI not Buddhist, so you can worry about that side youreself. Removing: George Harrison (a Krishna Consciousness guy until his death, unless I'm mistaken), David Beckham (his wikipedia entry doesn't say anything about Buddhism at least), and Shoko Asahara (does he claim to be a Buddhist?). I'm leaving Tojo: Brian Victoria says he talked a lot about Buddhism after he was imprisoned. Please correct any mistakes. There are a lot of other people that we maybe could remove: Penelope Cruz, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Oliver Stone, DiCaprio, Sting -- I'm not saying any of these people aren't Buddhists, just that I've never heard it before, their wikipedia entries don't mention it, and by itself this list doesn't seem reliable. Steven Seagal ... well, if Pema Norbu says he's a tulku, I guess far be it from me to remove him from the list. - NYK 08:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally, but I am beginning to wonder if there is a point to these lists. There is just no fair way of claiming people to be buddhist or not just like that. Anyway, Shoko Asahara did indeed claim to be following (and preaching) the "true" teachings of the Buddha - see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/aum.htm for instance. I will grant that his cult is not exactly "pure" Buddhism. According to this interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/94/story_9434_1.html) George Harrison indeed can't fairly be called a Buddhist. There was once an incident involving David Beckham and a Buddhist temple, but it doesn't look like evidence of he being a Buddhist himself IMHO (http://www.dharmalife.com/issue15/signs_of_life.html). Penelope Cruz has been on record claiming sympathy for Buddhism, but clearly not adherence to it. I am less sure about Brad Pitt, but his fan group on Usenet seems to claim that he is a baptist, albeit one who expressed sympathy for Buddhism. Keanu Reeves, however, seems to be indeed a Buddhist (http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/keanureeves.html at least claims so). Oliver Stone is also a Buddhist according to http://unbound.intrasun.tcnj.edu/archives/lifestyle/old/buddha.html . The Usenet fan group on Leonardo DiCaprio seems to suggest that he has no clear religion, despite some misunderstandings about an incident with a Buddhist monk in Thailand. http://www.grammy.com/features/2004/0205_sting.aspx makes it hard to believe that Sting is a Buddhist. BTW, rest assured - I will keep worrying about SGI, albeit certainly not because of this article. Luis Dantas 02:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[[It is interesting to note that Soka Gakkai was a strong opponent of AUM Shinrikyo, though currently I cannot provide any links to justify this. AUM accused SGI in connection to Freemasonry and attempts to destroy AUM. As to the issue of whether AUM is Buddhist and whether its founder Shoko Asahara can be therefore listed as one of 'celebrity Buddhists', I can say the following: AUM is the only organization who translated the FULL Pali Canon, which is a collection of original sermons taught by Buddha himself, into modern Japanese. This says a lot IMO, as not only the Pali Canon was not yet fully translated even into English, but no other Japanese Buddhist denomination has anything besided the Chinese translations of SOME sutras (which are obviously hard to understand as they are written in ancient Chinese). SGI, be it Bugghist or not (I see no point in arguing over that), is just this kind of organization - its teaching are based over just 1 sutra, in Chinese (they sing that sutra during religious ceremonious, to my knowledge). AUM's teaching, on the other side, is based on full Pali Canon, fully translated. It is a little-known fact, most commenters speak of AUM 'preaching a mixture of' <something>, so I thought my contribution would be of some value. Note: I advise to include the late Ven. Ananda Maitreya, a great Theravadin meditator and scientist from Sri-Lanka, though he is little-known outside that country.

It would seem to me that this article should be about a historical or conventional concept of what a "Buddhist" is, rather than a functional concept of who is really a Buddhist, because the latter is totally impractical, at least in this context. As I've argued below, I think that it should preferably exclude groups with unusual teachings claiming to be Buddhist unless they have been around for a long time, in which they have established their teaching, right or wrong, as not so unusual after all.

The fact that Aum Shinrikyo translated the Pali Canon is interesting but doesn't establish anything. Robert of Ketton translated the Quran, but that didn't make him a Christian. I'll bet there have been Baha'is who translated Christian and Hindu holy books (probably Buddhist texts, too), and I'll bet Cao Dai people translated Victor Hugo, too. That's normal behavior for any syncretic religion. There seems to be a lot of different information floating around about what Asahara taught. What you wrote is at odds with what the wikipedia article Aum Shinrikyo says, but I see that you have posted a note there criticizing its accuracy. Were I more interested in arguing about this, I would want to see some sources, but as it happens I am not so interested. I'll keep Asahara in, until someone else wants to argue this further. However, I will move him back to "infamous Buddhists", where he should feel more at home. - Nat Krause 07:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would say that normal behaviour of a syncretic religion is not to translate anything much, translating the full Pali Canon is an unusual behaviour. And if the group really studied these sutras and claims to be founding its docrtine on them, that makes us assume it is Buddhist, but would't like to debate this much. I would still argue for removing Asahara from the 'infamous Buddhists list'. He just doesn't belong there, he is not Tojo who is a buddhist by birth, Asahara founded his own religion. Maybe he is infamous, but he is at different level than Tojo or Noriega, namely a 'teachers' category. ExitControl

Well, if Shoko Asahara does not belong under "infamous Buddhists" then nobody does, which is maybe the case. As you say below, infamous just means that someone is famous and they have a bad reputation, which is assuredly true of Asahara. - Nat Krause 10:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest removing the 'infamous' category. Almost every second Japanese or Thai embezzler or murderer fits into this category (infamous and Buddhist), so we could keep adding them, but would it make sense? We could invent the 'infamous Buddhist teachers' category, though. But I still believe it is acceptable to add him to 'contemporary figures/other traditions'. He is a notable figure.

---

April 9 2004: How on earth does Manuel Noriega fit in on this page? Is this a joke? Shantavira

Luis Dantas 12:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) It may well be an exageration, but it is no joke. Much has been made of pictures of Daisaku Ikeda with Noriega - SGI is often criticized for associating with him, although it doesn't really mean much IMO. And as I said, http://www.caic.org.au/eastern/soka/soka.htm at least claims that Noriega was once a SGI member. I have no clue whether that is true. Would you happen to have more info, Shantavira? BTW, thanks for the help with the Rebirth article.

Probably that's because you could become SGI member and won't ever realize that? :-)ExitControl

---

Luis, thank you for your comments. I quite certainly do not take them personally. Actually, I msyelf wonder the same thing. I guess the point is the people should be listed should be in some sense notable -- that is, Joe Muskeyvote who doesn't know much about Buddhism sees the list and goes, "Oliver Stone is a Buddhist? Who'd've thunk it?" That is, the "celebrities" portion of the list should be primarily be of interest to people who are interested in celebrities, rather than to people who are interested in Buddhism. My concern is just that we will make the list a joke, and misleading to boot, if we clutter it up with a bunch of celebrities who are really actually not Buddhist. Better to have a list with 0 or close to 0 famous people and give people the accurate impression that Buddhism is not really about celebrity. In attempt to make an end-run around the detestable prospect of having to judge the glitterati's "True Buddhosity", I propose the following rough standards. 1) Does the person claim to be a Buddhist? Or, perhaps, do they claim some strong sympathy with Buddhism, especially in contrast to various other religions? If so, they're in! Except 2) Unless they are a member of some sort of unusual sect that distances itself from what most Buddhists believe or practice. And even then, maybe they should be included anyway. I would give a little bit of preference here to groups that have been around for a while and "stood the test of time". These are my grounds for excluding Shoko Asahara.

Pretty much agree with you, but Asahara fits the criteria. He 1) Claims to be Buddhist, claims strong sympathy for Buddhism and backed this sympathy with investments 2) Does not distance itself from most Buddhists believe and practice, it is rather some Buddhists distanced themselves since 1995 for political reasons (speaking about Tibetan Buddhist officials here) 3) Stood the test of time: 20 years may not seem like a lot, but he founded religion that still lives; while Richard Gere didn't establish any and I am not sure twenty years passed since his conversion. If you want, I can produce quotes of Buddhist patriarchs praising Asahara and if you are very interested it is even probably possible to get some on video (though this may take time and I don't guarantee results). So I suggest reinstalling Asahara under 'modern teachers' section or something like thatExitControl

1) Asahara certainly claims to be a Buddhist, that much is certain. 2) Aum Shinrikyo, based on my limited knowledge of it, appears to be a heterodox group, if only because of their embrace of distinctly Hindu elements such as the worship of some god named Shiva, to say nothing of the more dramatic claims about their beliefs made in the popular press. This is not to say that some high-profile Buddhist teachers did not sometimes associate with Shoko Asahara in the past.

3) I agree that 20 years does not seem like a lot, especially when compared to the 2500 year history of Buddhism, and especially since Aum has been in a sharp decline since approximately 1995. The fact that Richard Gere did not establish his own religion, I would think, argues for rather than against him being a Buddhist. - Nat Krause 10:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, let's see what we have. 1) Claims to be Buddhist, great. 2) See the Aum Shinrikyo talk for more info on Shiva I wrote for you, briefly: Lord Shiva=Adi-Buddha, so no problems here. Let us leave the dramatic claims of popular press to people not familiar with the subject. So far - very Buddhist 3) Richard Gere is Buddhist follower, not teacher, true. But I merely meant to establish that Shoko Asahara is Buddhist first, no less than Richard Gere. Then, as he also teaches Buddhism, we need to put him to this category - "teachers". As he established his own school/religion, I suggest 'contemporary'. ExitControl

I'm hoping these suggestions will coincide with common sense. I don't think we need to go above or below the received opinion for this article. - Nat Krause 04:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Have added a number of key Buddhist figues of the past, and several contemporaries in the last two weeks.

Acmuller if you read this and decide you want to break this page up, then you much provide links to the news pages - both backwards and forwards, and you need to check other pages that link here and make sure that they link to the news pages as well.

The question is what purpose would it serve to break this page up? Why have three lists of Buddhists? Is there a precedent in Wiki for doing this?

Mahaabaala 09:53, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, the "list of contemporary Buddhist teachers" page that acmuller started is now considerably more complete than the corresponding section on this page (although it has no links to it). What do you think is the best solution? Should the contemporary teachers page be merged back into this page? - NYK 08:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would keep it. You can't mix Ole Nidal and Milarepa in single list, the scope of personalities and their impact to the is too different ExitControl

Actually, the merge was executed a while ago. Milarepa and Nydahl are in different lists, but on the same page. - Nat Krause 10:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay, I merged in the list from "Zen teacher" (having merged in "list of contemporary ..." a while back). There were a few names that I left off simply because they didn't sound familiar, so I wasn't sure if they were bona fide notables. If anyone wants to check the discrepancies and add in anyone you think is appropriate, be my guest.

Also, not that it's important, but should we maybe move Steven Seagal to "infamous Buddhists"? I have a perverse (?) desire to flesh out that section. I keep thinking there's got to be some Mongol kings or somesuch we can include there. But I suppose to be infamous one must first be famous, and I don't think Genghis or Kublai Khans were Buddhist. - Nat Krause 08:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Who is this Phil Jackson, added today? It's a very common name. Add d.o.b? Shantavira 17:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't tell if you're joking or not. Probably not, because you are apparently British, and I wouldn't be surprised if Phil Jackson were only famous in America (also I'll wager Phil Jackson is a more common name in Britain). In the U.S., Phil Jackson is a famous basketball coach. I was a little surprised that he didn't already have a Wikipedia entry, but it looks like somebody wrote up a stub for him a few days ago anyway. He is well known to have dabbled in Buddhism (and is commonly referred to by his nickname, "The Zen Master"), but I always had the vague impression that he never really claimed to be a Buddhist. However, a couple minutes' research on Google indicates that I might be wrong about this, and, as I've argued at perhaps unnecessary length above, I think self-description should be the main criteria for inclusion in this list. - Nat Krause 06:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Should we continue to have an infamous buddhists list or should we stick with Political figures known to be buddhists as the anonymous user has made it? If the latter, we shall have to move Aung San Suu Kyi, Jerry Brown, and Phoolan Devi there, and have them cheek-to-jowl with Manuel Noriega. - Nat Krause 13:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I would vote for the change. What is infamous after all? Famous people with bad reputation. But what unites them is relations to politics. ExitControl

---

Well, after thinking about for a while, I decided to nix the "infamous Buddhists" list. I kind of liked the idea of keeping it, because I hoped it would promote humility by admitting that not everyone who claims to be a Buddhist is the nicest guy in the world. But I concluded that it is un-Buddhist for us to single a few people out without their permission as examples of how not to be. So, I moved a few things around, created a few new sections, and integrated the infamous ones into those. I made a section for "teachers of controversial Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced groups", which currently hosts Shoko Asahara. I can think of at least two other people who belong on this list, but for political reasons, I choose to refrain from mentioning their names at this time. - Nat Krause 09:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm taking responsibility for adding the Ajahn Brahm link under Theravadan teachers. I discuss why on the talk to the page. In my opinion there should probably be links to Ajahn Tate and Ajahn Maha Boowa who've had an enormous impact on Buddhism - actually they transformed Buddhism in Thailand and beyond - as prominent leaders of the Forest Tradition who are very widely regarded to be arahats (saints). And I'm surprised that Ajahn Sumedho hasn't been added. Whilst I may go on to add the former two, I'm going to refrain from the adding the latter as it's not so farmiliar with the situation in Europe. Solasaurus 08:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I added Susan Blackmore today. See http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/whoami.htm and http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Zen/intro.htm for why. Yes, I know she claims not to be a buddhist in there, but the actual contect suggests otherwise. Luis Dantas 21:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re Daisaky Ikeda

NatKrause: also, I think for most people Daisaku Ikeda is pretty non-controversially a Buddhist teacher -- dispute on talk, please

He is a founder (and honorary president) of Soka Gakkai International, "a controversial Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced group". I am not disputing whether Daisaku Ikeda is Buddhist teacher (this is interestic matter in itself, as there are different opinions), and whether SGI is a Buddhist religious group. Emphasis is on "controversial". Ikeda founded SGI, which was involved in various controversial matters and himself resigned over scandallous accusations. For more info on SGI controversies, please google for Soka Gakkai Victims Association. I therefore moved Ikeda back to "controversial Buddhists". NatKrause, I think Ikeda qualifies by reputation. If you meant controversies related to whether a particular religious leader teaches Buddhism and not something else, let's discuss further. I think the problem is with the name of this category. ExitControl

Daisaku Ikeda is definitely controversial. That SGI teaches or practices Buddhism is by no means a consensus, much on the contrary. Both buddhists and SGI members are all too aware that the teachings of, say, Tibetan Buddhism, Jodo Shinshu, Zen and Theravada are far closer to each other than either to Daisaku Ikeda's - it is actually a point of pride for SGI. We just went through this on a brazilian Soto Zen list I participate. Luis Dantas 08:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Does the opening sentence "A number of noted individuals have been Buddhists" convey anything useful? It almost suggests Buddhism is so small that it is remarkable that it should attract "noted individuals" Shantavira 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity Buddhists

RE: Adding Jennifer Lopez. My source comes from http://www.zenunbound.com/celebbuds.html but in the future concerning other (alleged) Celebrity Buddhists I will make a note of it on this page and cite my sources here as I add to the list. Is that fair enough? Also, I added some other that were removed. Any names I added came from the same source (as mentioned above). Here's a quote from that webpage.

Adam Yauch organized a concert for Tibet and for someone in his profession (a rapper) his religion is deliciously interesting. Gere, Seagal, Anderson, and Cohen each allow Buddhism to be a big part of their persona.

Keanu Reeves is increasingly becoming known for being Buddhist. Kate Bosworth has taken an interest in Buddhism, but probably has a rather high %withBud because she is Orlando Bloom's girlfriend. Stipe is known to be Buddhist, but (to my knowledge) it's not visibly a part of his music nor does he involve himself frequently in Buddhist-organization fundraisers.

Mark Wahlberg very recently became Buddhist, a result of his involvement with "I Heart Huckabees." Uma Thurman certainly is Buddhist. (She's Robert Thurman's daughter, for crying out loud.) But her celebrity seems very apart from her Buddhism activities. She has taken many parts in very bloody films; she's no softy, that's for sure.

Tina Turner is strangely, oddly cited as a Buddhist leader -- but, in fact, this is pretty much solely because of the film of her life, "What's Love Got to Do with It?," and, perhaps, telling something of the specifics of her practice during a segment of "60 Minutes." The core of her celebrity -- her music -- and her religious life are not closely intertwined. And news reports to the contrary, she is not a Buddhist leader, though many may have converted to Buddhism after seeing the popular film of her life, starring Angela Bassett.

Orlando Bloom is enormously popular, but not for being Buddhist. Jennifer Lopez is spectacularly popular, but only recently took up an interest in Buddhism after starring in a movie recently with Richard Gere. Patti Smith is someone who doesn't tie Buddhism in with her career.

The Zen Unbound article was interesting, but I don't think it is the best source. The Jennifer Lopez thing was reported, as far as I can tell, on only one occasion, although it was picked up in a number of news outlets. I would support her inclusion on the list if there is any kind of additional confirmation, i.e. from an interview or something. Also, I don't find, "Uma Thurman certainly is Buddhist. (She's Robert Thurman's daughter, for crying out loud)" very compelling—the last time I checked, I couldn't find any other sources online indicating that she was a Buddhist, regardless of who her father is. - Nat Krause 05:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

here's a reference regarding Uma; it seems her case is pretty ambiguous. http://www.ffrf.org/day/?day=29&month=4 Sylvain1972 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Philip Glass is a Buddhist and works with Tricycle magazine.

I find the notion of Courtney Love as a practising buddhist very amusing.She should be de-listed as 90% of her comments are drug influenced.

Celebrity Buddhist master citation list

In order to facilitate some kind of rational standards for inclusion or exclusion, I have decided to make a list of sources demonstrating why we believe that a given celebrity is or is not fairly described as a Buddhist. Other editors, please contribute:

In:

• Ernestine Anderson, [1], [2]
• Laurie Anderson [3], [www.cc.gatech.edu/~jimmyd/laurie-anderson/work/interviews/cage.html]
• Roberto Baggio - [4], [5]
• Fabien Barthez [6], [7]
• Orlando Bloom - [8], [9]
• Jackie Chan - [10] <--- can't find any other sources
• Leslie Cheung - [11]
• Leonard Cohen, [12]
• Michael Everson - [13]
• Richard Gere [14]
• Philip Glass [15]
• Ron Glass [16]
• Herbie Hancock [17] [18]
• Goldie Hawn [19]
• Jet Li [20]
• George Lucas - iffy, but I left him on the grounds of his self-description as a "Buddhist Methodist" [21]
• Anita Mui - [22]
• Keanu Reeves - [23], [24]
• Steven Seagal [25]
• Patti Smith, singer [26], [27]
• Michael Stipe - [28]
• Oliver Stone - [29]
• Tina Turner [30] [31]
• Alice Walker [32],[33]
• Naomi Watts [34] "I have some belief but I am not a strict Buddhist or anything yet."
  • She says she's not a strict Buddhist or anything. Is this a citation in favour of her being a Buddhist? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tiger Woods [35]
• Faye Wong - [36], and she recorded an album of Buddhist chants
• Gillian Anderson [37], [38], [39]

To be checked:

• Mark Copani
• Penélope Cruz
• Patrick Duffy
• William Clay Ford, Jr.
• Allen Ginsberg
• Kirk Hammett
• bell hooks
• Christmas Humphreys
• William Hung
• Phil Jackson
• Maxi Jazz
• Charles Johnson
• Andy Houts
• Andy Lau
• Joanna Lumley, actress
• Melissa Mathison, screenwriter (Kundun, E.T.)
• Gustav Meyrink
• John Milius
• Meshell Ndegeocello, singer
• Kathleen Dee-Anne Norris
• Wayne Shorter
• Sesshu Toyo
• Teresa Teng
• Watazumi Doso, Roshi
• Ruby Wax, television presenter
• Adam Yauch (MCA of the Beastie Boys)
• Sally Yeh

Suggested, but not currently in:

• Kate Bosworth This link indicates she is "dabbling". [40]
• Jennifer Lopez
• Brad Pitt
• Kurt Cobain

Not in:

• George Harrison - [41]
• Uma Thurman - 1995 Cosmo interview indicates that she doesn't consider herself Buddhist. This needs better sources than "her father is a Buddhist and she was raised Buddhist".

Thoughts about the direction of this page

I was doing some thinking a while ago about what to do with the list of celebrities on this page (as seen here. I've never really felt very comfortable with it—it always seemed like there was a lot of room for misinformation and exaggeration. This has been demonstrated by the steady stream of questionable additions to the list: the insistence on including Uma Thurman, for example. Basically, what I've decided is that the list so far has not really been attempting to meet encyclopedic standards for referencing, but it should. Odd as it may seem, our "celebrity Buddhists" list really is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia—Wikipedia:Cite sources does apply. Therefore, sooner or later, we should provide reputable, encyclopedia-quality sources for each of the names listed, proving that that person is a Buddhist, or else remove them. I'll do this myself eventually, although I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. I've already gotten started by removing some names that seemed particularly questionable. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to this end, I have gone through and removed every name from the list of celebrities and policitians if that person's Wikipedia article doesn't mention Buddhism—which was most of them. I also removed a few names where Buddhism was mentioned, if I thought the claim seemed iffy. Few of people have citations showing them to be public Buddhists, and I'll best almost none of them have encyclopaedia quality citations. Therefore, they can be removed from a list like this without really needing any further explanation. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Will it be a solution if we open up a new section for the questionable Buddhists, or half-Buddhists, or Buddhist influenced, or Buddhist inspired, or Buddhist related, or those with some believe in Buddhism but not totally or strictly devoted to Buddhism? Accommodate them... You know, rather than having people inserting people like Uma Thurman and other over and over again (they will never stop)... - anonymous

No, I don't really see that as a solution. "Celebrities who are or claim to be Buddhists" is marginally an encyclopaedic topic, but "celebrities who might be or kind of are Buddhists" just plain isn't. Instead, I urge the editors of this page to revert with extreme prejudice any further additions to the list that don't have credible sources cited. Note: citations should appear in the main article, not on the talk page, contrary to the system I was trying to implement earlier. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The cat needs to be weeded. Kasreyn 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just hope that moderate Buddhists and those that don't meet your expectations of discipline are not discriminated against. The celebrity list shouldn't exclude individuals that choose not to preach excessively about their personal beliefs in public. Usedbook 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Lovewisdom

I have returned Johnny Lovewisdom to the list. Per the afterword to his book, available at [42] he was a Buddhist. Mdbrownmsw 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No list specifically for Scholars of Buddhist Studies

I have yet to find a list on Wikipedia specifically devoted to academics who study Buddhism. The list here "Buddhist scholars and authors" seems both monastic teachers with people who study Buddhism from an academic standpoint but who are not themselves Buddhist. I think this part of the list needs to be reorganized to give academic scholars of Buddhism their own section.

Furthermore, I wonder about the use of the "Buddhist Authors" section (which I've just changed the "Buddhist Scholars and Authors" section to, after having made a specific section for academic scholars). What about people who are both teacher and authors? Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, is listed under modern Theravada teachers, and yet he is an author as well. I suggest that "Buddhist authors" only be for authors who are not also monastics. Lotus 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lotus. Does not make much sense to me; being a monastic has no relation to being an author, scholar or teacher? However, naming the category authors and scholars does make sense to me. rudy 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page should include a list of Buddhist Studies scholars, because not all such scholars are Buddhists.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Likewise, they shouldn't be included in category Buddhists. Peter jackson 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the note that said "(whether or not Buddhist)" and Richard Gombrich, who, according to an interview with him, is not a Buddhist. The list of scholars will have to be pruned for those who cannot be shown to be Buddhists.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The heading says "Modern Scholars in Buddhist Studies", not "Buddhist Scholars in Buddhist Studies". The real question (to me, anyway)is the usefulness of a Buddhist scholars list to the readers of Wikipedia, not whether the scholar calls him/herself a Buddhist. I think a list of modern scholars who have written extensively on Buddhism is very useful for readers who wish to do further research in Buddhism, especially for those who are new to the field. Where else can readers get a list of modern scholars in Buddhism? I do think that, however, that there does need to be some criteria for assessing the "scholar". I suggest 1) the writer is associated with a recognized institute of learning; 2) the importance of the writer's work (somewhat subjective but if the scholar is referenced in other scholars' work, that is a sign of importance in the scholarly field) and 3) the writer has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I think it would be a shame to not list scholars just because we cannot prove they are "Buddhists". It is far more important to think of the service such a list can provide for readers rather than a somewhat arbitrary standard about who is a Buddhist and who isn't. For example, I notice that Victor Sogen Hori is missing from this list. The flyleaf of Zen Sand points out that he was ordained as a Zen monk, spent 13 years in Japanese monasteries and is now a professor of religious studies at McGill University. But if one cannot find a link on the web that states this, he would be eliminated from the list. Are the Cleary brothers Buddhists? Yet they have done much for Western Buddhism. What of acknowledged scholars such as John McRae, Steven Heine, Peter Gregory, Robert Buswell Jr., Robert Gimello, Carl Bielfefeldt and, well, I could go on. Shouldn't our readers know about these? Would a list such as this be useful for readers who want to research modern scholarly writing on Buddhism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinman10 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The heading does say "'Modern Scholars in Buddhist Studies', not 'Buddhist Scholars in Buddhist Studies'", but the title of the page is "List of Buddhists". Also, I am certainly not opposed to having a list of Buddhist scholars on Wikipedia. I'm not sure it should be on this page, though. It seems to me that your suggestion would basically transform this page into, "List of people who had an important impact on Buddhism". Maybe that's a more useful thing to have a page about; I'm not sure.

Also, please note that there is no requirement that sources provided should be web links. Printed sources are often preferred, actually.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Historicity

I presume this list is only supposed to cover historically real persons, not mythical ones like Vimalakirti. I'm not sure any of those mentioned under Indo-Greeks actually existed. Peter jackson 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I completely agree with Violetriga that we should hold entries in the "celebrity" and other similar sections of this article to normal standards of citation. However, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply these rules to sections that are specifically about Buddhist teachers. These are people who would not be notable in the first place if they were not Buddhists. For instance, this edit has removed the current Dalai Lama from the list. Isn't this like requesting a source that the Pope is Catholic?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, particularly for the current Dalai Lama, and am all for them being readded. The problem is that it is too easy to include a name on a list such as this and we should always try to reference entries especially those of living people. For each of those people that I removed a source should be rather easy to find - if it's not then we should question their notability. violet/riga (t) 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a reasonable case. As a start in this direction, I have re-added the current Dalai Lama, with a citation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bimbisara

What do we do about him? The Buddhist scriptures say he was a Buddhist, but the Jain scriptures say he was a Jain. I suspect he was a politician. Peter jackson (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

ive rewritten the lede, added a dynamic list tag, some hidden text as a guide to adding names. i will now trim out nonnotable names per standard requirements for lists like this. feel free to add back any names that have references indicating notability and evidence for buddhist belief or practice. im sorry about having to remove the historic names in the first section, but WP cannot be used as a general research tool. the documentation must be here, not elsewhere. also, i would direct attention to List of Buddhist writers, orphaned and sad. It either needs to be expanded, and linked from here, or merged back into this article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "im sorry about having to remove the historic names in the first section, but WP cannot be used as a general research tool. the documentation must be here, not elsewhere." Also you removed some important ones with articles that the wikipedia search function gives when you put in the names, so please check this next time. Thanks Mitsube (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry that i had to remove names that are likely to be notable (who would add spurious names here of all places), but that dont have references, unlike some names on other lists that will never be notable. I have observed list articles that were used to help in researching or looking up peoples favorite subjects, where they had never actually indicated notability for many of the names added. the person maintaining the articles actually wrote that, and didnt seem to understand the purpose of list articles. and im sorry i didnt do searches for names. I could have done that. If you think i was too bold with some of these changes, please revert(i see you have barnstars for work with buddhism from an editor i respect). i wont remove any redlinks you think may garner articles. i did check some names that mentioned being students of another teacher, but that student wasnt mentioned in their teachers article, so i removed them. but, i could have been more thorough and made more of an effort with some of the names, even though the original editor should have done that as well. i hope my intent is clearer now. thanks for feedback.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that overall your changes were good. I was unsure about removing some of the names from the first section because I am somewhat familiar with many of the ones you removed and they could in theory have articles about them. I will leave it as it is unless I write articles about them, which I probably won't. Also asking you to search for each name may have been asking too much for so many names. Good work! Mitsube (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Organising criteria for Buddhist Teachers

This section [43] which lists contemporary teachers currently includes only ordained teachers, who are mostly from S.E. Asia. It includes no teachers from the United States that teach within that tradition though not under monastic vows, such as those associated with the Insight Meditation Society (Jack Kornfield, Gil Frondsal or Leigh Brasington). To facilitate their inclusion some sub-categories may be required of either lineages/traditions/hybrid traditions or by nationality (as in the Zen list). Boaby (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Jobs?

Should we not add Steve Jobs to the list of American Buddhists? His wiki page lists clearly (and evidence shows) that he was a a Buddhist?

Oh, yes, I'd meant to do that and got distracted. Yworo (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the list not containing the ancient rulers of South India?. Many great kings of Chera kingdom were Budhists. They used the title of "Aathan" to their names (example "NedumcheraLaathan"). Aathan is the modified form of Word "Aarhathan" in Budhsism. Many of the ancient south Indian literary works and medicinal scripts were written by Budhists. Most of the great temples in central Kerala built by Budhist kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harilal Engoor (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction between title and first paragraph?

Excuse me for bikeshedding, but why wouldn't the proper title be "List of notable buddhists" when the first paragraph of the article says that it "is a list of notable buddhists"? 193.11.138.88 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Indian Buddhists?

I'd like to add a section for Indian Buddhists; this could include, for example, the Mahasiddhas like Naropa, Tilopa, Kankala, Mekhala, etc. What are your thoughts and suggestions about this? Best, AD64 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope article unclear

I feel the scope of the article is becoming unclear. Are we adding fictional characters to this list as well now? Proposal: only real-life confirmed Buddhists on this list.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Buddhists. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218115040/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-2-2005_pg4_12 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-2-2005_pg4_12

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Buddhists. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68ebEgmP4?url=http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/10/28/what-kind-of-buddhist-was-steve-jobs-really/ to http://blogs.plos.org/neurotribes/2011/10/28/what-kind-of-buddhist-was-steve-jobs-really/

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Buddhists

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Buddhists's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

• From Wang Jianlin: "Atletico Madrid: China's Wang Jianlin buys 20% stake". BBC. 21 January 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
• From The Simpsons: "The Simpsons get postage stamps". BBC News Online. April 1, 2009. Archived from the original on April 2, 2009. Retrieved April 1, 2009.
• From Roswell (TV series): "'Roswell High' on BBC". Retrieved on September 1, 2008.
• From History of Buddhism in India: "BBC – Religions – Hinduism: History of Hinduism". Archived from the original on 5 August 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2015.
• From Steven Seagal: "Steven Seagal sued for sexual assault". BBC. April 14, 2010. Retrieved November 6, 2010.
• From Eight precepts: "Religions – Buddhism: Theravada Buddhism". BBC. 2 October 2002. Archived from the original on 30 November 2018.
• From Thích Nhất Hạnh: "Religion & Ethics – Thich Nhat Hanh". BBC. 4 April 2006. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 16 June 2013.
• From Rula Lenska: "Meet the Big Brother celebrities". BBC News. 6 January 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
• From Buddhism in Myanmar: "Who are Burma's political prisoners?". BBC News. 13 November 2010. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
• From Trevor Morgan (EastEnders): "EastEnders violence 'went too far'". BBC News. 30 May 2002. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
• From Liberal Democratic Party (Japan): "'Major win' for Japan opposition". BBC News. 30 August 2009. Retrieved 31 August 2009.
• From Five precepts: "Religions - Buddhism: Abortion". BBC. Archived from the original on 24 August 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)