Talk:Lotus Sutra

message: According to the Japanese dictionaries I checked, hokekyō is preferred to hokkekyō, and I changed the article accordingly.
:Indeed, you are right. I just checked about 10 国語 dictionaries, and they all give hokkekyō as a secondary reading. Thanks for the correction. Jim_Lockhart 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese readings 

message: Okay disclaimer: I am a member of soka gakkai, a form of nichiren buddhism, so hope I'm being objective with respect to other buddhism's point of view: but just wanted to say: in the paragraph: 
"The Lotus Sutra also often alludes to a special teaching that supersedes everything else that the Buddha has taught, but the Sutra never actually says what that teaching is. This is said to be in keeping with the general Mahayana Buddhist view that the highest teaching cannot be expressed in words. This same point is also often cited by critics of Lotus Sutra."
In certainly all the Nichiren and probably in some form in tendai sects, this highest teaching *can* be said in words and it's Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - and I'd link that to the page on this, because although you might not think this is the highest teaching, the fact is nichiren buddhists believe this, and it's an important thing to put down in the article. The wikipedia nam-myoho-renge-kyo page doesn't actually say much about this so another place to get references for this are the background articles to these goshos: http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_EssenceJuryoChapter.htm http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_SelectionTime.htm and the opening of the eyes http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/OpeningEyesPart1.htm - where he goes in depth into the chapter and what exactly is hidden there.
The links here link in turn to a translation of the gosho zenshu - Nichiren's letters and treatises. --skoria at gmail.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo could be somewhat translated as 'The Devotion of oneself to the Mystic Law of Lotus Sutra', thus this mantra could not be considered the teaching itself. On the Nichiren's writings, he states that repeating this mantra will expose the person to the mystic law. I'm not discussing the belief of each one, just trying to be objective based on facts and words. Although I would not place that the teaching can be said in words as a fact, I would point out what skoria wrote in a section like 'Interpretations', once I think is valid to show how each school of Buddhism can interpret the same Sutra. Best Regards.  -- Clke2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clke2009 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nam myoho renge kyo 

message: Currently the article reads "Therefore, it is probably not included in the more ancient Āgamas of Mahayana Buddhism, nor in the Sutta Pitaka of the Theravada Buddhists". Could somebody clarify: is the Sutra or is it not thus included? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Included in the more ancient Āgamas or not? 

message: Oh dear, here we go again with clever Mr Mitsube. It has been accepted for quite a number of years now that almost ALL the early Chinese translations show signs of under-lying Prakrit -- see Coblin's work on Han Dynasty phonology, for example. The methodology is rather abstruse, so I fear it might be beyond your intellectual capabilities, but I can outline it for you if you want. As for the Lotus Sutra in particular, get hold of the work by Prof Seishi Karashima (he is the leading expert in this area) and his group.  You might like to download his two lexicons on the Chinese terminology of early Lotus Sutra translations in Chinese from IRIABS and go through themcarefully yourself.  Oh, I forgot ~ you can't read Chinese or Sanskrit.  What a pity !-- अनाम गुमनाम 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop insulting me. You are welcome to add sourced content. Mitsube (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should perhaps look to your own insulting attitude to other contributors.  Then they might treat you with a bit of respect.  Your comments that it is extremely unlikely that Chinese translations might reflect their underlying sources has been questioned for decades ~ I believe Shackleton Bailey was mentioned this possibility back in 1946 in his article BSOAS on Gandhari. Believe me, there is nothing odd about this suggestion.  First, this can be determined by the forms in which Indic names are transcribed into Chinese that reflect Prakrit phonology.  Secondly, this can be determined when early Chinese translations have unexpected variants, such as in Dharmaraksa's translation of the Lotus Sutra which can only be explained by an underlying Prakrit. For example, there is a flower called the "sapta-parni" which literally means "seven-petalled", but it can be found translated into Chinese as "one hundred-petalled".  So how does this come about ?  Simple, because Prakrit for "seven" is "satta" and "sata" is the word for one hundred. One further refines this by the knowledge that some Prakrits such as Gandhari simplify geminated consonants, so in Gandhari the words for "seven" and "one hundred" are both indistinguishably "sata".  But this is all explained in the article I mentioned as a reference.  Take the trouble to  find it on in the internet, read it and stop your insulting attitude to other people when their knowledge obviously exceeds yours.  And that last is intended as a statement of fact.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give the quote from your source that supports the statement you added. Mitsube (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the whole article. Shall I post that ?  OK, no problem. Do you know who Daniel Boucher is ?  He takes it for granted that the reader knows that Prakrit underlies the majority of the early Chinese translations.  Why are you so incredibly stubborn ?  READ THE ARTICLE YOURSELF and you will see what I am talking about.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So please give the quote here. Mitsube (talk)
Hello, Mitsube is very capable to edit material in this text. Anam however keeps deleting sourced material and trying to put a bias in various articles.Greetings, Sacca 08:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: User Sacca:  You seem a bit delusional ~ what do you mean I keep deleting sourced material.  I deleted ONE passage recently in another article and explained my reasons.  Try and get your facts right or are you a glove puppet type of Mitsube clone ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: What are "in-line citations", please ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Traces of Prakrit in Chinese Translations

message: Hey, the headline could apply to more things than one, but please above all else could we possibly get a source on the supposed date of origin assigned to the supposed Sanskrit original?
How could this have possibly sat at the top of this article without being challenged or deleted?  You can't just assign a century to a text with no source and no rationale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.197.169 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of a source, citation, or NPOV for...? 

message: This image was just added as a thumbnail. Is it related to the contents of the Lotus Sutra? It looks more like a child being born from a lotus, per the Sukhavativyuha Sutra, rather than the Lotus Sutra... Any info would be appreciated. Tengu800 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Born by Transformation from Lotus Flowers, is one of the four forms of birth. A footnote in Nichiren's writings by SGI says: 
"'Born by transformation [from Lotus Flowers]' refers to one of the four forms of birth. Due to their karma, beings so born are said, upon the end of their previous lifetime, to appear suddenly in this fashion without the help of parents or other intermediary agency." 
I think this is how beings are supposedly born in a Pure Land. - Steve (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: [...]  "if [they are born] in the presence of a buddha, they will be born spontaneously in a lotus flower.” pp. 181-182 (also p. 285) in: The Lotus Sūtra translated by Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama (2009)  JimRenge (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Buddha emerging from lotus 

message: There should be a section on the Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra. Was it discovered in Nepal? Komitsuki (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Several manuscripts and MS-fragments have been found (Nepal, Gilgit, central asia, Tibet). Please see: Jamieson, R.C. (2002).  Introduction to the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts, Journal of Oriental Studies 12 (6): 165–173.
(last of the external links in the LS-article) and  Jonathan A. Silk, The Place of the Lotus Sutra in Indian Buddhism
Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra 

message: Text reads about the Kumārajīva translation:
>> The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma, in eight volumes and twenty eight chapters
But according to the front page of the Taisho T262 (http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T09n0262) it has seven scrolls. Something is wrong here.
Also, I don't see any numbered references or links to primary Chinese sources in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexamies (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese versions seem mixed up 

message: I recently added, specifically by name, the Three Vehicles in Ch. 3 summary: A Parable "The Buddha teaches a parable in which a father uses the promise of various toy carts to get his children out of a burning house, once they are outside, he gives them all one large cart to travel in instead. This symbolizes how the Buddha uses the Three Vehicles: Arhatship, Pratyekabuddhahood and Samyaksambuddhahood,..."  I found this naming to be necessary, because the linked "Three Vehicles" leads to en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Yana_%28Buddhism%29#The_three_carts_of_expedient_means:_the_parable_of_the_burning_house 
which only names the Three Vehicles somewhat tangentially towards the end. If someone can provide a more comprehensive or informative link please do.Tumacama (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Chapter 3 and the 3 vehicles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lotus Sutra. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2403&context=opendissertations
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8551/2458
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2862
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/DogenStudies/The_Lotus_Sutra_as_a_Source.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/orc/Publications/BPPB/pdf/BPPB-10.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://iop.or.jp/Documents/0111/silk.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/orc/pdf/ARIRIAB-02.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is such a wonderful and balanced article.  Thanks to all of the editors.
I am currently reading Tanabe's The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture. Shioiri Ryodo's chapter in it emphasizes how much content in the Lotus Sutra is centered on its own propagation/transmission.  I think this should be mentioned in the WP article, not sure where. Any thoughts?
BrandenburgG (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a sentence in one of the "propagation chapters"; I assume outline/ch 10 might be a good candidate. A more detailed presentation might fit into a "Practice" section. JimRenge (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please review and comment.BrandenburgG (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fits nicely into ch 10, thanks for keeping it compact! I have moved the note to the notes section.  JimRenge (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propagation/transmission 

message: I went ahead and posted my proposed addition.  I am very open to comments on this new section and would happily engage with fellow editors to improve it. BrandenburgG (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the proposal draft that was here.  It was posted into the article in toto already so no need for it to take up real estate here.  Also the citations were taking so much space at the bottom of the Talk page.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernist Scholarship and Internationalization 

message: I slightly expanded this section with a couple of sources about the influence of the LS on Japanese Buddhist poetry.  I'd like to expand this section to include sources from all the art genres, perhaps a paragraph for each genre.  Help appreciated!BrandenburgG (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a few sources.  A lot more work to do here.  Although it's not clear yet, I envision an introductory paragraph followed by separate paragraphs for LS influence on literature, physical arts, and performing arts. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the idea that Borobodur was inspired by the Lotus Sutra may be a WP:Fringe theory (please see Julie Gifford, Buddhist Practice and Visual Culture: The Visual Rhetoric of Borobudur, pp. 23 ff). We better focus on examples that are clearly related to the LS.  JimRenge (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, @JimRenge. I went ahead and created the sub-sub-sub heading structure I proposed above.  There are entries so far in art, poetry, and folklore. I (and hopefully other editors) can over time further populate these headings. I also want to add a heading for "Theater and music."  I learned from Dykstra that Noh theater adopted at least one of the  "Miraculous tales of the Lotus sutra from ancient Japan" as a theme. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Dykstra mentions the noh drama "Ama". Abe Ryuchi has published a detailed description: Ryuchi, Abe (2015), Revisiting the Dragon Princess: Her Role in Medieval Engi Stories and Their Implications in Reading the Lotus Sutra, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42 (1), 45-50.  JimRenge (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much, @JimRenge.  The Abe article is FANTASTIC. It answers so many of the questions I have had.  I'm not quite finished with it yet and today's a busy day.  I plan on finishing it and incorporating into article.  Also, I think I need to expand the lead of this subsection to include, as Abe mentions, " textual, performative, and visual genres, and Buddhist scriptural materials." In terms of art this should include frontpieces and text illustrations.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LS and the Arts 

message: @JimRenge, I think you might've been too hasty to remove the source from this publisher. It's a house based in India but it seems to be reputable...and not a self-publishing outfit. (http://www.gyanbooks.com/index.php?p=aboutus&l=0).
The scholar also appears to be creditable. (http://www.icsin.org/faculty/show/14)
Let's reconsider!
BrandenburgG (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources/Books_that_plagiarize_Wikipedia, "Books published by Gyan Publishing / Isha Books / Kalpaz are not WP:RS in general. (...) Their books (...)  are known to have plagiarized content from Wikipedia". We should avoid sources "that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."(WP:QUESTIONABLE]) JimRenge (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Thank you!BrandenburgG (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gyan Publishers 

message: I would love to see a section on the contemporary significance of the LS.  I suggest that we look toward recent scholarship on this matter.  There is the Daniel Lopez book from a few years ago.  Also articles (sample) published by the Institute for Oriental Philosophy.  RKK sponsors annual academic international LS seminars.  I am sure there must be many more sources.
Any thoughts?
BrandenburgG (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary significance of the LS 

message: Perhaps mistranslated? "...1-9 and 17 were probably created in the 1st century BCE" In fact all sutras were transmitted by Shakyamuni Buddha around 500BC. At the conference after Buddha's death, all sutras were recited from memory. First written down in Pali, with Sanskrit translations coming later. Perhaps the Sanskrit translation of the Lotus Sutra was discovered 400 years after it was first written down? The sutras were handed down through generations in monasteries where monks memorized them and recited them to new students for them to memorize. I don't know when Sanskrit translations were first written down, but they were "created" in the 4th or 5th century BCE. Suggest changing 'created' to discovered. This is common knowledge, ask the Dalai Lama, not "scholars".
Hpfeil (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Composed' might be better than created- the commitment to writing is estimated to be in that era, but oral precursors could be older. Sourced scholarly opinion published in a WP:Reliable Source is the basis Wikipedia works from. If there are Buddhist traditions about the origins of the Lotus Sutra that have been published, those can be noted as well. I don't know of any account of the first councils that specifies the Lotus Sutra being recited- dating the Lotus Sutra based on the estimated date of the early councils would violate WP:NPOV. Scholar base their views on the dating of the text on archaeological, literary, and linguistic evidence and that's what the current dates are based on. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual history/Formation misleading 

message: I have read the lotus sutra and vimalakirti sutra vary carefully ! And the great vehicle description of the buddha is not deferent from the description of the supreme God .
First the buddha is depicted as the father of all so as the supreme God.
Second this world is sakyamuni Buddha's world and in other sutras like amitabha sutra it is written that amitabha bodhisattva ( before buddhahood ) vowed to have a wonderful world ( buddha land ) so the the world is conditioned by amitabha and also the supreme God is the creator of the "God land"
Third the Buddh'sa enlightenment was before beginningless time and also will be after endingless time , so did buddha and God lived together before the conditioning of everything ? Or is the buddha the very supreme God .
Forth it is known that it is impossible to study s.God and also the Buddha 
Sixth there is one buddha( dharmakaya form ) and also one God ( devine form ) 197.156.118.178 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the deference between buddha and  the supreme God 

message: I was hoping to find near the top the language or languages this was originally written in. But I didn't see that at the top. And I didn't see it as a skimmed page after page after page. Shouldn't this information be at the top? Looking up the word sutras, we find out that there are Hindu and Buddhist versions etc. And also there is at least one other language base, Chinese. And of course there is Japanese. The original language of this, and the oldest source of that, are crucial pieces of information. As is the topic of provenance. Confusing the topic is the chant that goes with it in some religion, that is based on two or three different languages (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). If the information is in the article, especially the language part, should it be moved to the top, near the introduction? Misty MH (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language or Languages? 

message: Why does this professor’s name appear 14 times in this article? Matt90266 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donald Lopez