Talk:Buddhism/Archive 11

message: Also; today is the day when everybody (meaning new and anonymous users) can come back and make edits to the article again. This is the main cause for the troubles of this article. Can we extend the ban for new users with another week please, so we can make some more progress on the article first?Greetings, Sacca 14:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to extend ban on new users

message: I just edited the section on Karma. Please take a look at my changes. I really think it was a prime example of how some contributors simply forgot about readability. Even to me as someone whith a Buddhist background it was nearly unintelligable at first reading with all those Pali and Sanskrit words all over the place and the respective translations given in parentheses only.
I think it's fine giving the original expressions; in some rare cases, like Karma, Samsara etc, it might be advisable to use the original word primarily, but most of the time, we should stick to the english (approximate) translation as readability and understandability for the non-buddhist reader has to be be our prime objective!
I haven't scanned the whole article yet in that respect, but i am pretty sure there are other sections that need a similar treatment. The 8fold path e.g. seems to be one of those candidates... Maybe some of you would like to contribute to this effort? Andi 3ö (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  keep readability in mind! (help needed) 

message: In the Samsara section on this page "it's" is used instead of "its." Could someone please change that? 
... Buddhists strive to end this cycle of suffering and involuntary rebirths by eradicating it's causes and conditions through the application of the path the Buddha has laid out.
:Sure! /Ninly (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor correction: samsara 

message: what can be much more simple:
meditate more... with a bit of arupa-dhyaanas if you can't let go so much intelectualism.
however, the fourth dhyaana (as samyak samaadhi, plus the rest of the noble path) is enough for attaining Nirvaana.
I simply cann't help with the main article if it is over 100 KB. Esteban Barahona (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recomendation to those that keep making longer... 

message: This section has a Reflist template that does not yield any entries.  It is the  template.  Since this section appears empty to readers, it ought to be deleted.  It is done.   .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Notes section 

message: Actually the year of Buddha's birth should be 624 BCE. According to Buddhist calendar maintained in major Theravada countries, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka, which started at the year of Buddha Parinibanna, Buddha's death at the age of eighty, it's now ( AD 2009 ) 2552-3. So by simple calculation it should be 624 BCE and Parinibana in 544 BCE. Wikikyaw (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, modern scholars have argued that this chronology is too early. Chinese sources traditionally give the date of the parinirvana as 949 BCE, but I think it's better to stick with current critical scholarship.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Tibetan tradition has another date again (838?). Most specialist scholars now date his death around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: around 2500 after today, probably...--Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand that remark. Peter jackson (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Buddha's birth. 

message: Due to the fact that it is the right time, I have created a page entitled Original Teachings of the Buddha. I have been meaning to create this page for a while and it is not long ago I remember raising a topic of discussion on here about "Buddhism and the original teachings". It has now also been mentioned again and since the Buddhism page is now getting very big I think that this topic can do with its own page, with a link from the main Buddhism article created once the article has become sufficiently well referenced and developed. The discussion on dhamma and discipline has also largely been about this issue and there is much that can be said in a separate article. The central benefit will be so that a clear diffferentiation can be made between the vague term 'Buddhism' which encompasses various tradtions, scriptures, practices and beliefs, and what we can ascertain to have been the original teachings that gave rise to all of these tradtitions. Of course that is the subject of academic enquiry and discussion, but I know there are many good sources posted on this topic already so hopefully the page can be developed into a good resource.
KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe you can revert your statement about "what the Buddha called his teachings" on the main Buddhism page. It is not well sourced and clearly controversial. So far, no one has actually agreed that it should be there as it stands. You can discuss this on your new article, and let the Buddhism article be as it was.--Modernyoo (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article called  Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga which gives the views of some sholars. I'll also point out here, as this is where we're discussing the matter at present, that there's no such thing as the Gandhari Canon, & there's no surviving Sanskrit Canon. Peter jackson (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Another thing: there was never "the" Sanskrit canon (ie of the Agamas). The parent sects of the 18 Schools, at the very least, had their own recensions.  Thus, from ms evidence etc, there is known to have been a Sarvastivadin canon, a Mula-Sarvastivadin canon, a Mahasanghika canon (originally in a Pakrit, but later Sanskritized), a Sammitiya canon, and probably a few other other sub-sect variant canons. This problem is mentioned by Vasubandhu in his auto-commentary of the Abhidarma-kosha where the non-acceptance of common canon of authoritative sutras is discussed, for example, in the case of the section on the Intermediate State.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Teachings of the Buddha