Talk:Nagarjuna

message: that used to be here, was removed, put back removed -- I'm not gleaning from the page history why it was taken out. Anyone? Zero sharp 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the article was vandalised by User:64.4.97.40 a couple weeks ago and nobody noticed. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of nagarjuna

message: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Madhyamaka+Yogacara&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
--222.67.212.250 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A red link is created based on the following.... 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=%E9%BE%99%E6%A0%91%E8%8F%A9%E8%90%A8%E8%8D%AF%E6%96%B9&hl=zh-CN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=
--222.64.22.251 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about his works on medicine.... 

message: There are no such discoveries. I have argued that in light of what evidence there is, that Nagarjuna probably was a kind of adviser for Yajna Sri Satkarni. But that argument started with an examination of the likelihood that he wrote the Ratnavali for a Satavahana king. IF this is true, then the archaeological evidence from Amaravati indicates it would have had to have been Yajna Sri. Mine was a best evidence approach, but when doing history of this time period there are no smoking guns. I would hate the gentle reader to think that anyone has found a rock at Amaravati with Nagarjuna's personal grafitti on it saying "Nagarjuna and Yajna Sri, BFF." Joseph Walser 15:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph, thank you for the information. I have started to soften the wording in this section of the article text. Tengu800 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeological discoveries at Amarāvatī confirm the fact that Nāgārjuna maintained a friendship ... 

message: ... self-explanatory  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.118.208 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: notes to the translations of his works read like an advertisement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nagarjuna. 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/20130329025311/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article claimed: According to Frank John Ninivaggi, Nāgārjuna was also a practitioner of Ayurveda. First described in the Sanskrit medical treatise Sushruta Samhita, of which he was the compiler of the redaction, many of his conceptualisations, such as his descriptions of the circulatory system and blood tissue (described as rakta dhātu) and his pioneering work on the therapeutic value of specially treated minerals knowns as bhasmas, which earned him the title of the "father of iatrochemistry".Frank John Ninivaggi Ayurveda: A Comprehensive Guide to Traditional Indian Medicine for the West, page 23. (Praeger/Greenwood Press, 2008). .
I do not see any of these claims in the article to Ayurveda, nor is there anything that establishes Frank John Ninivaggi as an expert or his views as an accepted opinion in science. Hence, WP:REDFLAG-- Zz (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit was added by Butterplantforest whose sole purpose seemed to be to add "Frank John Ninivaggi" to lots of articles. , , , . 65.28.236.17 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayurveda 

message: The article puts forward here a dubious theory without discussion, namely, that Nagarjuna's thought was influenced by the skepticism of Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus, which in turn was a mere borrowing from earlier Indian ascetic philosophy. This is not a consensus view. Wikipedia is a place to describe the debate, not take a side. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little skepticism about Pyrrho, please 

message: Calling a man born more than 1500 years before Kant a neo-Kantian seems wrong, perhaps proto-Kantian would be a more appropriate terminology. 2601:602:87F:9C3D:E9FA:8644:751C:8F15 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism