Talk:Tripiṭaka

message: A time of writing / publication would be handy. Jachin 01:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really possible to assign such a date to the Tripitaka as a whole.  The Pali Canon was first written down in Sri Lanka about 100 years after the life of the Buddhja (making it around 400-300 BCE, depending on the date you like); some of the texts in the sutta pitaka and the Vinaya may date to the time of the Buddha.  The Pali Abhidhamma was still being added to during the reign of Ashoka Maurya.  Some Mahayana texts were composed in China but given a-historical Sanskrit pedigrees.  Some Tibetan texts came directly from the Indian scholastic tradition; others were composed in Tibet.  There should be some additional detail thrown in about the various dates, but there's still a lot of discussion over dating; for instance, the fact that a text appears in a written form later than another text doesn't necesarily mean that the text that was written down later was a new composition or something- a particular oral tradition may have just made the jump to writing later on.  The various versions of the Tripitika have been in publication in several different languages and a dozen more scripts pretty much continuously for the last 2000 years. --Clay Collier 03:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first half of the second sentence is wrong: the Pali canon was written down in the last century BC.The second half is correct, but the next is understated: additions were almost certainly being made to the Kathavatthu up to the time of writing down, if not later. I think material about dating is better placed in more specialized articles. Tripitaka is really an artificial concept, a word for a variety of things which are better dealt with separately. This should be almost a disambiguation article. Peter jackson 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted text

message: The article seems to be excessivly long, I am not sure if that is just me, but if at all possible, it would be nice to get a Simple English version.
Why is there a picture of this "Rahul" guy on here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.130.174.69 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple anyone? 

message: The article gives links to the 3 pitakas. The article on Vinaya Pitaka details the various fairly similar vinayas. The article on Abhidharma Pitaka details the various quite different abhidharmas. The article on Sutra Pitaka has been deleted & replaced by a disambig, pointing to Sutta Pitaka & Buddhist texts. The latter has no section heading for SP. Is there any sense to all this? Peter jackson (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I strongly disapprove of the use of the exotic character in the title. On many computers this shows as an oblong or blank, which looks ridiculous. Peter jackson (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... best to leave the diacritics for the body of the text. There's also a category Pāli which is virtually inaccessible by HotCat so I suspect it's being massively underused. Dakinijones (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: just get decent unicode support. Who doesn't use unicode anyway?! I suggest you upgrade to Firefox, Safari or Opera. You know you're suggesting to standarize on ASCII text? When all wikipedias (that I participate in) are standarizing on unicode?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Mahayana's text is not the orginal, historical tipitaka. The original tipitaka are the words of the Buddha and not the words of any monk. I see it would be best to seperate the Mahayana varaition of the tipitaka and the historical tipitaka  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek666 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds rather like what I was suggesting in the way of disambiguation above. Note, however, that no independent historian would agree with your idea of "the orginal, historical tipitaka". It's a matter of degree. The Pali canon is mostly earlier than the Mahayana scriptures, but most of it dates from after the Buddha's death. It isn't actually important whether he actually said something: the Pali Canon itself says whatever is well said is the word of the Buddha. Of course that leaves it to be decided what actually is well said, which is what Theravada & Mahayana disagree about. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahayana? 

message: I notice in the page's history that back in March 2010, a vandal replaced a large section of the page with an irrelevant line in this edit, but when another editor removed the inappropriate line in this edit he or she didn't also restore the text the vandal had deleted.  Was this intentional?  Given that there was no edit summary, it seems not; it appears that the person who reversed the vandalism didn't notice that the vandal had also deleted some legitimate content.  I was going to restore the deleted content (and leave a note here explaining my actions in case I was wrong and it was deleted for a reason), but it's been long enough that the page has changed a lot in the meantime and I'm not sure how much of the deleted content still may be worth restoring and how much has now been rendered redundant.  So... I figured I'd just point out the matter here and leave it to someone more knowledgeable about the subject matter to decide what to do about it. ----Smeazel (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That section probably was lost accidentally. This section is, for the most part, more accurately covered in the new version. However, I did see one referenced bit of information that was helpful, so I made a change to the article to include that. Thanks for catching this. Tengu800 23:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section mistakenly deleted? 

message: The RfC by Dorje108 states that:
"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
Robert Walker (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?

message: In this article the word piṭaka , either alone or as part of the words tipiṭaka (Pāli) or tripiṭaka (Sanskrit) appears 58 times as piṭaka and 16 times as pitaka, written with a t instead of a ṭ.
t and ṭ are different consonants of the Pāli and Sanskrit alphabet. Unfortunately there is no equivalent in the latin alphabet for the the retroflex consonants so when  Pāli or Sanskrit are written using the latin alphabet diacritics must be used. In the case of retroflex consonants a dot is placed under the corresponding dental consonant. This is very unfortunate indeed because in many places of the Internet and even printed books I find words written with and without the dot inconsistently.
When Sanskrit or Pāli are written in Devanagari, Thai, Khmer, Sinhala, etc., completely different letters are used for both consonants.
I understand that a proper font is needed to render characters like ṭ, but once you decide to use the ṭ I don't see any reason to be inconsistent.
I'd rather comment on this here before editing the article.
83.165.98.43 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: piṭaka and pitaka

message: Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?
Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here:  RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
I've posted here since it is closely connected to questions about how to interpret the four noble truths in Buddhist Texts. So editors of this article may have a valuable perspective on the debate.
Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for [[Four Noble Truths]]