"
 The beliefs of a man who has been dead for over 2000 years and whose teachings are attested to by a variety of variant traditions spread over an entire continent are never just 'obvious', and I am certainly not attempting to limit who can edit the article.  If there are scholarly sources that state that early Buddhism included a belief in Brahman as it is currently understood by Hindus, then attribute the statement to the source and indicate where it originates.  Furthermore, the place where that line is added (""So then..."") still makes no logical sense.  In a paragraph where what is being discussed is the use of the same word to hold different meanings by the Buddhist and Hindu tradition, presenting ""so the historical Buddha believed in this Hindu concept"" as a conclusion- particularly without citation- is an absolute non sequitur.  Further, you are still not understanding my point regarding altering cited text.  It seems (though I don't have access to the source) that we have one source that is saying that there is a consensus regarding the dating of the Bhagavad Gita.  If that consensus does not exist among scholars, than surely there must be an academic source that states outright that such a consensus does not exist.  If you wish to alter the statement that provides dating for the BG, you need to provide a source which demonstrates that the previous content is incorrect or under dispute.  We simply need to be clear about attributing- both in terms of sources, and in terms of who holds these particular beliefs- the ideas in this article, rather than adding sweeping statements that claim to present the 'true' teachings of Buddha.  None of us have the 'true' teachings of Buddha- what we have are traditions that have been passed down and interpreted over the years.  Each tradition has its own opinion on what the true situation is.  Wikipedia's role- and ours as editors- is not to decide which one is correct, but to present objectively the views of the different sides.   "