Talk:Neo-Buddhism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neo-Buddhism redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Neo-Buddhism =/= Navayana[edit]

@JimRenge:, @Joshua Jonathan: Started this article because the term Neo-Buddhism long pre-dates Navayana and Ambedkar. Please review and revise, when you have some time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch , what is the difference between Neo-Buddhism and Buddhist modernism? JimRenge (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars use those terms interchangeably (1:page 25, 2:pages 139-140, etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JimRenge: . I wonder if they be merged? I am leaning towards not, but am open to suggestions. FWIW, one refers to movements such as Navayana, the other a process / phenomenon. Similar to Modernism in the Catholic Church, Neo-Celtic Christianity, The New Church, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Neo-Hasidism, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, perhaps they should be merged, @Joshua Jonathan: what do you think? We can take our time, check the sources and discuss. According to Baumann, the term neo-Buddhist is problematic because it is sometimes applied to deny their identity as authentic Buddhists argueing that the followers of the Dalit Buddhist movement are pseudo-Buddhists [1], p.106, note 21. Also [2], [3], [4].I had similar associations with this term even before I read the Baumann paper. JimRenge (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Suppl. Sources JimRenge (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait for JJ's reflection and comments, and any one else watching this page. If we do merge, the redirect of Neo-Buddhism should be to Buddhist modernism, per sources above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"New Buddhism," "Neo-Buddhism": yes, that sounds the same. But, see New Religions in Global Perspective p.266: parallels, which implies that it is not exactly the same. But this source only speaks about Sri Lanka and India. And The Work of Kings p.25 explicitly equates the terms. Merge! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I finished quick reading some parts James Coleman's book, The New Buddhism (Oxford Univ Press). A good source it is. I am now reading David Brazier's The New Buddhism (Palgrave Macmillan). Two very different approaches to Neo-Buddhism. Worth a read before we decide whether to merge or not. I can probably email you some excerpts if you don't have access to these. I am leaning towards merge too FWIW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]