Talk:Mahayana

message: The origins section was pretty problematic, so I've taken it on to make some changes there especially. It was giving way too much weight to the Mahasamghika origin hypothesis, which is definitely one theory out there, but has with time become less important. I've been using Drewes' two recent papers especially, and also Walser's Nagarjuna in context. I also merged the section on earliest Mahayana sutras with it, because it was just repeating a lot of the same information (Mahasamgika origins, Lokaksema corpus). Other theories that I've added to the section include Schopen's cult of the book theory and Drewes dharmabhanaka theory as well as making more explicit the "forest hypothesis" theory. This is still a work in progress at the moment. Javierfv1212 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins section 

message: It seems there are certain users that want to add Devanagari script renditions of terms in numerous articles about Buddhism on Wikipedia. There seems to be no good reason for this, other than perhaps nationalistic or revsionist ones. 
Devanagari does not come from the time of the Buddha or from the time of Ashoka (from which date the first Buddhist related inscriptions), as the wki article says it reached regular use by the 7th century CE.
None of the major Buddhist canons (Tibetan, Chinese, Pali) are recorded in Devanagari, they use Chinese, Tibetan script and various South Asian scripts like Sinhala or Burmese. None of the major publications of these canons use Devanagari. Even the Sanskrit Buddhist texts are mostly not published in Devanagari, but use IAST instead. None of the main scholarly publications on Sanskritic Buddhism use Devanagari either, they all use IAST (for example: 
Siderits and Katsura 's "Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika").
It makes absolutely no sense to put Devanagari in Buddhist articles. For these reasons, I am removing any instance of these that I see. Javierfv1212 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: No reason for using Devanagari in Buddhist articles

message: When buddhism moves through a culture it transforms normally with its folk religion. To say that Buddhism comes from India and that is it  is a gross injustice to the nature of the philosophy it's self. Change, impermanence is the way.  We will need to move the position of some of the country's successions after China  I did not have time. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geo dissemination of Buddhism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Mahayana Buddhism is East Asian, and from historical records we can conclude that Mahayana primarily developed from and in China, and then spread to the rest of the sinosphere. Surely it can not be said that Mahayana is Indian?
From what I can see this wiki also doesn’t state in the history that it originated in ancient India. Yet clearly in all Mahayana traditions it clearly states that it traces its origins to China. 
Please elaborate. Hayashihouyi (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it originally Indian? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Dasheng and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Dasheng until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dasheng" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]