Talk:Buddhism/Archive 3

message: This section should not be in this article whatsoever.
We can have a separate link, or alternatively, use the Buddhism by country as a way of devolving links to different centres, activities and organisations. We can use the portal, but this article is far too large to carry what in many cases is an advertisement. (20040302 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (and below) 

message: Looking over all the work which has gone before, I'd like to make a proposal.
The introduction is rediculously bloated.  Chop it down to cover the some very basic points.  I'd start with
#Buddhism is a religion and philosophy.
#Buddhism was founded by Sidhartha Gautama, who also came to be referred to as the Buddha Shakyamuni or Gautama Buddha.
#Adherents of Buddhism, called Buddhists, are concerned with finding an end for the suffering they perceive as being inherent to existance.
Next, a section for History, from the founding to the present time, with the briefest mention, of course, of the Buddha being someone who found a way to the end of suffering.
Next, a section for Sects can outline Theravada and Mahayana, Vajrayana, and sects.
Okay, that's my start.  There no doubt needs to be more, but it'd be nice to hammer out an outline, then put information into it.  Other sections that exist, many aren't really appropriate.  A section, at the top, about the Buddha, contains information more appropriate to an article about the Buddha.  Here, what is important is hammering out enough about the Buddha to say who he is in the history section.  Controversies surrounding the Buddha Lands, Buddha Bodies, Buddha Nature, (and the denial of such concepts) will start to roll out quite intelligibly in the section for Sects.  Other sections may also be needed, but not one on the Buddha, given that there's an article or two for that already.  Also, it'd be good to totally get rid of the sections which already have articles of their own.  The contained concepts can be mentioned, and will come up as they are discussed in other sections (it'll start in the two subsections I've already suggested, I'm certain of it!) anyway.  Given that they HAVE their own articles, they do not need sections to themselves within this article.  Perhaps a section on Related Concepts can list them with links to the articles, if that seems a good idea.
Before I stop, I want to stress that my foremost point is that I think that an outline, hammered out here, would be very, very useful.  And I mean just an outline of sections which it seems good to include.  What I've included is my suggestion for the start of this outline, plus reasons why I think the sections I've suggested are a good starting place, and why other sections seem to be NOT a good idea to me.  Discussion on this level just seems a decent first step at wading through this to me.  It's nice to meet you; I hope for ensuing discussion to be useful.--Beginnermind 05:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BM, seems like a reasonable start. Do you anticipate any objections? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal, March 14 2006 

message: I created the Ram Bomjan, the Buddha boy article. Could someone take a look and possibly expand? - Ganeshk (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has existed for a long time at Ram Bahadur Bomjon. I think it's been redundantly created at alternate spellings at least once before, too. Sorry for the inconvenience! Incidentally, you can help by thinking of other spellings and making sure redirects exist. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ram Bomjan

message: What's up with the formating in the Origins section? It doesn't wrap, so you have to scroll horizontally. I've tried to debug it but I'm not that au fait with the Wikipedia formatting codes. Sciamachy 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Rycanada 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting problem

message: The Mahayana vs Theravada stuff mixed in really makes this article confusing and I'd rather get an understanding of Buddhism in a more general sense before getting confused about what tradition appeals or doesn't appeal to me philosophically.  I think it should be a sub-section and lead to other articles. Rycanada 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, and several editors have been saying it for some time now. It is perhaps best to not mix in the Mahayana versus Theravada stuff at all. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think that defining the schism to start with would keep the article whole.  The problem is that different sects don't know that other sects look at things THEY consider "core Buddhism" to be an offshoot.  And even "offshoot" is often the wrong word.  "What's a Buddha, what's that mean" and "what's a Buddhist?" are questions answered differently in different sects, and very markedly differently depending on Therevada and Mahayana.  So, what's Buddhism depends on who you ask.  The point of agreement is simply that a man looking for a way to end the suffering he saw in the world found something worth the effort to find for ourselves.  At least, that's what I think, beyond different ways of saying the same thing.  So, start with that and, beyond that, complete the answer to "What's Buddhism?" with "It's Theravada and Mahayana, and here's what those are each about.  Arhan on the one side, and Bodhisattva on the other."  Then each side can also define their own "ideal" instead of arguing with the other.  Then further define other sects only later, briefly, because those are usually in agreement with the Mahayana ... mood.
Basically, instead of mixing it all in, it'd be nice to have a clear-cut seperation, and it'd be just asking for total meltdown again to make the article a unified whole, given that Buddhism ISN'T.  I think, but that's one opinion.--Beginnermind 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. I think it would be enlightening what people would suddenly choose to agree upon if that were the starting point, instead of the current mess. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've altered the first paragraph slightly to make it flow better and include this division... let's see where it goes from here. Rycanada 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am not a buddhist, but... 

message: Three marks, 4 truth and 8 path are doctrine while triple gem, 5 precepts (and the rest of vinaya), reincarnation, vegetarianism are teaching derived from these doctrine. It is like difference between key policies (NPOV, What Wikipedia is Not, Copyleft) and the rest of policies. To treat all of these as somewhat equal make presentation difficult and confusing especially for people who are not buddhist. FWBOarticle
:FWBy, what's your source on the Pali and Sanskrit terms you added for the 8fold path? What's up with the capitalised letters in the middle of words? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The doctrines and teachings of Buddhism 

message: Klimov: "I do not feel sure that the sutra belongs to the Mahayana tradition." I'm not sure what you mean by that. There are two possible interpretations, depending on whether you consider Vajrayana to be part of Mahayana or not. The sutra in question is certainly either a Mahayana text or a Vajrayana text, because Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. If it is specific to Vajrayana, that makes it even less authoritative as a reference for Buddhism in general.
Beyond on that, I don't think I will have any further comment on this issue. The question of how Buddhism understands reality is too complicated and nuanced for me to be able to readily explain it in an NPOV fashion. I'm not going to interfere one way or the other with attempts to do so. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mañjuśri is not known by name in Nikaya Buddhism. Thanks, Nat. I was not aware of that.--Klimov 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Mahayana source?

message: Doesn't it make more sense to talk about the history of Buddhism after introducing the three main sects? Ig0774 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, Three main division of buddhism makes no sense unless you talk about history. Buddhism in Pali, Tibettan, Chinese develop separately after Buddhism in India disappear. Vapour
Theravada part of history is still a stub. There are schism which prompt one school to commit  Pali cannon in writing. Then Sri Lankan Buddhism split into three. The most influencial one around 5th century incoporated Mahayana.  Then at about 9th to 10th century, the current theravada school become the state religion uniting different schools and subsequently eliminating the original schism, which, in turn, lead to 11th century Theravada Renaissance.  As far as I can see there are one single history of Buddhism upto 11-12th century centred around India. IMO, clear distinction of three yana happen when buddhism was adopted to different culture outside of india.  Vapour 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: "Schopenhauer could be considered to be a Buddha, because he found enlightenment and taught the same ideas that are contained in the Eastern religion.". I believe this is an original research/opinion. I shift this section to Buddhist philosophy article. Vapour
:Good move, though I might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether. Ig0774 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we have information about a noteworthy coincidence between an Eastern religion and a Western philosophy, and User Ig0774 "might have chosen to delete that particular section altogether." Lestrade 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respectfully suggest you (re-)read the section. It is speculative and quite poorly written. That is why I would have deleted it (you might notice I haven't). The overlap, insofar as there is overlap, is quite interesting, but the presentation of it needs to be a lot better. This little observation probably belongs on Arthur Schopenhauer or Buddhism in Germany or the like, but not a general page on Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy (since Schopenhauer cannot be described as, and never described himself, either a Buddhist or a Buddhist philosopher and Schopenhauer's thought did not have any impact on Buddhist philosophy). Ig0774 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part of that statement that's tricky to be sure about is "noteworthy". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to have been noteworthy for Schopenhauer certainly, which in turn seems to have influenced some of Nietzsche's swipes at Buddhism, and there is a fair amount of scholarship on the question of the parallels between Schopenhauerian pessimism and the Four Noble Truths. On the other hand, the parallel is pretty inconsequential to most Buddhists, as far as I know. Ig0774 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Philosophy-Arthur Schopenhauer 

message: I have visited the page for this article on a few occasions since November last year. My intention was to improve the Buddhism article in the Spanish Wikipedia. However, I immediately decided against translating any sections of this article since I found it, quite frankly, completely unreadable then, and I opted instead for writing for the Spanish site based on my own research outside the English Wikipedia. I am very pleased that the English article seems to be definitively improving hanow. I was amazed a few months ago by the blindness of some wikipedians in this talk page who could just not see or did not want to accept how user un-friendly this article had became, how confusing, how long and how ridden by sectarianism and the minute examination of matters as inappropriate for a generalist article such as vegetarianism... or reincarnations of Hindu gods... etc. It was not an appropiate article for the average reader of wikipedia with little prior knowledge of Buddhism. If you forget your reader... then you might just as well forget everything else!
I am wondering now if the documents and statements mentioned in this new article I have just created here:
*Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana
could help so that we never ever again get to the chaotic writing and the appalling not-see-the-forest-for-the-trees style of the article during the recent past. I believe that this type of ecumenical statements that concentrate in the commonalities of all "buddhisms" could help an awful lot as a framework of reference in the future, to maintain the quality of the article, and help decide on the relative importance of different topics.
Regards,
--Sandrog 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. What do you think of the article now? I think most editors agreed that it needed to be changed. As for "Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana", I think it can be useful. However, we should remember that Walpola cites these as common points of Theravada and Mahayana, but not necessarily as the most important points. So, they don't provide an obvious way of knowing what is the forest and what the trees. Also, it's not clear whether or not Walpola intends to include Vajrayana under his Basic Points. If not, they are deficient for describing Buddhism as a whole. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana, I am pretty sure that there are very few Buddhists who would disagree with the initial nine point formula, however, the expanded formula is quite possibly contentious. Eg: One of the central theses of the 9 point formula, is point 8, which clearly indicates a clear and mutually acceptable recognition of the distinction between the goals of the Mahayana and the Nikaya/Sravakayana. However, This distinction is blurred in the expanded formula, when the paragragh continues: But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths ... etc., which is not necessarily something that is agreed upon, without considerable interpretation. The interpretation from the Sandhinirmocana-sutra begs the question: If they are the same Path, then why differentiate them at all? There is a distinct difference of doctrine regarding the capability of a Samyaksam-Buddha to continue to actively teach after Parinirvana - the Mahayana doctrines state that a Buddha continues to actively teach until the end of Samsara (of all beings), whereas IIRC, Theravada/Nikaya/Sravakayana doctrines state that a Buddha actively teaches only during his lifetime, and not after Parinirvana. It is in light of this distinction that the Nikaya traditions state that Nirvana is the final goal, and the nirvana of the three types of Buddha is the same. (20040302 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist Ecumenical Statements

message: *What do I think of the article now? I thought it was clear that I find it readable now. The article does seem a lot more focused now. It also seems more appropriate for the general readership that Wikipedia and generalist articles are aimed at.
*What's important? Importance is of course subjective and relative, not absolute. But to decide what is important we must first establish various criteria beforehand to be able to make such judgement in the first place. What I propose is nothing more than one criterion. To me, if there are any characteristics that all Buddhist schools have in common, and yet at the very same time they are not shared by any other religions, then those characteristics would be something which would certainly define Buddhism since it would distinguish and differentiate all forms of Buddhism from other religions, making it unique. That to me sounds at least like one very “important” criterion to use. What do you think?
*Vajrayana included? Well...
**The WBSC, which approved the document, has members from Nepal and Mongolia, which are mainly Vajrayana countries.
**Vajrayana is sometimes included by some authors as just part of Mahayana, and the article for Vajrayana in Wikipedia defines it as:  an extension of Mahayana Buddhism consisting not of philosophical differences, but rather the adoption of additional techniques. And since the list of Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana is mainly concerned with philosophical issues, we could then assume that it would include the Vajrayana as well.
--Sandrog 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana, I am pretty sure that there are very few Buddhists who would disagree with the initial nine point formula, however, the expanded formula is quite possibly contentious. Eg: One of the central theses of the 9 point formula, is point 8, which clearly indicates a clear and mutually acceptable recognition of the distinction between the goals of the Mahayana and the Nikaya/Sravakayana. However, This distinction is blurred in the expanded formula, when the paragragh continues: But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths ... etc., which is not necessarily something that is agreed upon, without considerable interpretation. The interpretation from the Sandhinirmocana-sutra begs the question: If they are the same Path, then why differentiate them at all? There is a distinct difference of doctrine regarding the capability of a Samyaksam-Buddha to continue to actively teach after Parinirvana - the Mahayana doctrines state that a Buddha continues to actively teach until the end of Samsara (of all beings), whereas IIRC, Theravada/Nikaya/Sravakayana doctrines state that a Buddha actively teaches only during his lifetime, and not after Parinirvana. It is in light of this distinction that the Nikaya traditions state that Nirvana is the final goal, and the nirvana of the three types of Buddha is the same. (20040302 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response:

message: Trying to a get a concensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic).  Your input is appreciated.  It's for naming and transliteration formating of vedic related articles.  Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism and manys things that overlap or are similar or have the same origin.  This would probably help for coordination. --Dangerous-Boy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic)]] 

message: ::"It is also believed that Buddha used Magadhi or the Ardha-Magadhi dialect, which is very smiilar to the literary language of the Jains dialect. However, Buddha "admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn Ardha-Magadhi in order to understand his doctrine" . "
The Theosophical Society is not a reliable source on Buddhism.  To the best of my knowledge, it is not part of either tradition or scholarship that the Buddha ever used Ardhamagadhi -- which is a Prakrit that postdates the Buddha by centuries.RandomCritic 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Buddha did say that his followers were not forced to learn the same language as himself.  I think that the paragarph may be shortened into "The Buddha admonished his leading Arhats not to compel his followers to learn the language that the Buddha himself spoke in order to understand his doctrine".  I've been looking for a Pali Canon reference to this, but I can't find it.  I'm sure it's in a Sutta wich also mentions Devadatta, but I just can't find it... --- Andkaha(talk) 16:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: This section is horribly put together and appears to be based on a book that tries to approximate Buddhism to a form of Hindu philosophy.  I deleted some outstanding errors (Sautrantikas as Theravadins?!  Shunyata as a substance?!!) but I imagine there are even more errors there and the whole thing needs to be rewritten - or deleted. RandomCritic 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First problem: I have never heard of "Bāhyānumeyavāda" and "Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda", and can find no reference to them outside of Wikipedia and its translations and mirrors.  I can't say definitively that these terms are never found in Buddhist scholarship, but normally when you want to refer to the Sautrantikas or Vaibhashikas, you say "Sautrāntrikas" and "Vaibhāṣikas".  I have seen Śūnyavāda; I'm less sure about Vijñānavāda; but there seems little point in introducing these names when they are not often used and more common terms are at hand. RandomCritic 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual Worldview 

message: In his lifetime, Gautama Buddha had not answered several philosophical questions. On issues like whether the world is eternal or non-eternal, finite or infinite, unity or separation of the body and the soul, complete inexistence of a person after nirvana and then death, nature of the Supreme Truth, etc, the Buddha had remained silent. Commentators explain that such questions distract from practical activity for realizing enlightenment.
Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist yogi and teacher Tilopa discouraged any intellectual activity in his 6 words of advice.
Buddhist missionaries often faced philosophical questions from other religions whose answers they themselves did not know. For those, who have attachment to intellectualism, Buddhist scholars developed an enormous amount of intellectual theories, philosophies and worldview concepts. See e.g. Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophy and Reality in Buddhism.
Based on various interpretations of Buddha's teachings four major schools of philosophy were formed.  
*Śūnyavāda of the Mādhyamikas: this is a Mahayana school, popularized by Nagarjuna and Ashvaghosha. 
*Vijñānavāda of the Yogācāras: this is another Mahayana school, propounded by Asanga and Vasubandhu. According to them, only the consciousness (Vijñāna) is true, and all objects of this world external to the mind are false. They believe in an absolute, permanent consciousness (similar to a soul) called Ālaya Vijñāna. This branch became famous in China, Tibet, Japan and Mongolia.
*Bāhyānumeyavāda of the Sautrāntrikas: this is a school which believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects—but believes that the external objects can only be perceived indirectly through inference by our mind (Indirect Realism).
*Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda of the Vaibhāṣikas: this is another school—based on an ancient Buddhist conference in Kashmir, which also believes in the existence of both consciousness and material objects (as composed of atoms). They believe that external objects are known through direct perception (Direct Realism).
::First problem: I have never heard of "Bāhyānumeyavāda" and "Bāhya-Pratyakṣavāda", and can find no reference to them outside of Wikipedia and its translations and mirrors.  I can't say definitively that these terms are never found in Buddhist scholarship, but normally when you want to refer to the Sautrantikas or Vaibhashikas, you say "Sautrāntrikas" and "Vaibhāṣikas".  I have seen Śūnyavāda; I'm less sure about Vijñānavāda; but there seems little point in introducing these names when they are not often used and more common terms are at hand. RandomCritic 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectualism and Buddhist worldview

message: I finally got through the typographical update of the article.  I doubt I missed more than a few words, other than a couple of modern Indian geographical names (Girnar, Sarnath) whose spelling I'm not sure of.  Of course, there's the matter of the content, which is a whole different matter... too much of the article is centered around divisions between "Theravada", "Mahayana", and "Vajrayana".  These in part reflect some realities in both the present state of Buddhism as well as its history, but to a great extent they are imposed on a less tractable Buddhist reality by western scholarship.  I have seen maybe a half-dozen or more Buddhist schemas for classifying Buddhism, and they are, of course, all different, but not less useful or applicable for all that.  The classification used here is, of course, the one that doesn't have a parallel in Buddhist tradition. :)
The most awkward thing about this classification is that it implies that Vajrayana Buddhism differs from Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that Mahayana differs from Theravada: i.e., that Vajrayana is either "non-Mahayana" (which is false) or "super-Mahayana" (which is POV).  Unless we use Mahayana in an entirely notional way, Vajrayana is better treated as a subgroup (or rather, a constellation of practices) within Mahayana.  Historically it might just be considered "very late Mahayana".  Culturally, we can speak of the contrasts between Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism and CJKV Buddhism, but this only coincides with the supposed Mahayana-Vajrayana split insofar as Vajrayana practices are more emphasized in Tibetan Buddhism.  But they are not uncommon in CJKV Buddhism either.RandomCritic 11:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finished

message: Hello, I am in the process of uploading quite a large number of pictures which I made when I was in Laos recently. All of them are pictures of wallpaintings in monasteries. Now I am uploading various scenes of the life of the Buddha, so that they may be used here on the Wikipedia. Please have a look at "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_Life_of_Gautama_Buddha" - and see if maybe you know a nice place for some of these pictures on Wikipedia. I still have quite a number of pictures which I didn't upload yet,  so in a week or a few days the selection will be bigger.
Other pictures which I have but am not yet uploading are some paintings about lives of disciples like Ananda and Mogallana. Also I have _a lot_ of pictures of Buddhist Hell-paintings, anybody interested? I'll upload them in due time...
Greetings, --Sacca 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddha's Life at Wikimedia Commons ;) 

message: Is it be possible for a Buddhist to both 1) be a strong atheist and, 2) believe in "supernatural processes"? If so, I think this can be used to illustrate the clause "strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general" in the Strong atheism article. Shawnc 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In order this question, we must have sufficient definitions. Wikipedia defines strong atheism as "the philosophical position that no deity exists." However, we must still know what definition of deity and what definition of supernatural you would like us to use. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitions of such things often seem problematic. Buddhism came up on the atheism newsgroup's discussion on strong atheism. The suggested idea was that Buddhists tend not to believe in omnipotent gods but believe in things which may be considered supernatural by others.  In any case, several posters have disagreed with the aforementioned clause in the strong atheism article.  Shawnc 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would seem odd to me for a Buddhist to express a particularly strong aetheism, even if Buddhism and individual Buddhists are generally atheist; I would say that they would be unlikely to take a particularly hard line on an issue like this.  Futhermore, most of the "supernatural processes" in Buddhist scriptures occur alongside numerous gods, so it would seem unlikely to me that one would endorse the first and deny the second.  I would personally not consider Buddhists to be a very likely example of the assertion you quote.  bikeable (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong atheism 

message: Vapour writes: "As of 'influential and doctrinally striking', it doesn't matter whether I or you or anyone else consider to be so. Problem is a lack of POV attribution." I think that, in practice, it does matter very much. I know that, in theory, every little piece of information in Wikipedia should be thoroughly cited. However, we know that, at current, very few of them are. Consequently, it makes a big difference in what order we go about demanding citations for them. A good practice is to begin by going after "facts" which are questionable (as well as those which are false, if you deign not to remove them in the first place). Also, I think you are taking the rule against peacock terms too strictly; it's not a very well-written policy, but I think it should be understood to proscribe unnecessary dressing-up of the subject in question, in ways that provide no useful information. For instance, one outght not to write of Otto von Bismarck: "Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian politician who held positions XYZ, ABC, DEF, and achieved XYZ, 什么什么什么, etc. ad infinitem. Otto von Bismarck was an important man," because the fact that he was important is quite clear from the foregoing. To say that the Nirvana Sutra's message on atman is controversial is not at all the same, because it is telling us something important about the relationship between that sutra and modern Buddhist thinking. Now, one might dispute that the relevant sections of the Nirvana Sutra are controversial by arguing that they are, in fact, close to the mainstream of Mahayana; however, this would seem to imply that we should give them a more prominent place in the article, which I don't think is what you seem to be aiming for—
:::Its necessary to point out this profane Strawman fallacy as listed below from Vapour:
:::::He (Attasarana) is not so found of anicca, anatta or dukkha either. What Attasarana is doing in anatta article is basically a POV vandalism. He appear to have no regard to NPOV. User: Vapour
On the contrary, I support all 662 occurrences of anatta in Sutta; all of which are contextually adjective referring to a list of 22 nouns as being either anatta/dukkha/anicca. The usage of anatta by Gotama supports the Atman, the Soul in referring to all empirical and consubstantial phenomena as being other than the soul. 
::::At no time has Gotama made the proclamation to the effect that “Bhikkhu, natthattati’!” (followers, there is no Soul!). As for the “NPOV” claim leveled, this is a baseless claim without substantiation. Countless passages from sutta, regardless of translator, illuminate the fact that 22 nouns ARE ANATTA, nothing more can be said from doctrine. Its necessary to point out that from countless sources such as “Buddhist Sects in India” by Dutta, and others, that Theravada did not exist until the late 3rd or early 4th centuries A.D. (C.E.). As such, while “old” by our standards, is in fact very very late and secular non-original and heretical perspective upon Buddhist doctrine. 
::Can there be any doubt what anatta refers to?
::::[SN 3.196]  At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?”
“Just this, form, Radha is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul.”
:::Might I make note that ALL Pali Theravada scholars admit to countless points of doctrine in the Nikayas which do not accord with the view of Theravada orthodoxy, the Abhidhamma, and Buddhaghosa. Such doctrines as “antarabhava” (in-between-existence; i.e. after death, but before reincarnation) is admitted by the Theravada to be prevalent in the Nikayas but utterly denied by the Theravada view, as Bhikkhu Bodhi himself admits, wherein Bhikkhu Bodhi admits “This [SN 4.400] goes against Theravada view” 
[SN 4.400] At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth
(anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness. 
As for pathetic "Hindu" insults, might I remind such profane commentators remember that no such term as Hinduism existed at the time of Gotama.
::"Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]
::"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path I follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which I have discovered"  SN 2.106
::[SN 5.5] “The Aryan  Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”  
::"I HAVE NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana
::"I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka  
– User Attasarana, Pali translator, Author, webmaster attan.com
:::No one here has made any insults regarding Hinduism. You seem to have imagined this.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influential and doctrinally striking

message: No offence to the other editors but Buddhism is not a religion, it is an atheistic philosophy. Buddha was profoundly athiestic after experimenting with local Hindu faiths and then formed Buddhim: which is athiestic.
So could we please change the description to athiestic philosophy? User:Green01 4:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (and we've discussed this before).  Just because it doesn't have a "God" (whether or not it has "gods") doesn't mean it's not a religion.  The American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed) gives several definitions for "religion", including "3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader".  In fact, I would guess that that definition was written with Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism in mind.  bikeable (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have a Buddhism talk history wiki. (20040302 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: This sub-section currently opens: "The Mahāyāna as a distinct movement began around the 1st century BCE in the area around the Kuṣāṇa Empire (now an area within Pakistan)".   Though this is a popular conventional view, and it is likely that some elements of Mahayana did indeed originate there, there is also evidence from the Mahayana sutras themselves that major components of Mahayana originated with the Shatavahana Empire south of the Vindhya range, straddling the Deccan from present-day Gujerat across to the area around Amaravati.   For example, a well-known passage in the Prajna-paramita sutras talks of Mahayana orginating in the South and then moving northwards.   The Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra has the Buddha say that the Mahayana sutras and bodhisattvas will be most numerous and abundant in the South and "that is why I always praise the South".   I propose to amend that opening sentence to reflect this situation.--Stephen Hodge 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. However I seem to recall that User:PHG tends to believe that the entire Mahayana movement stems from Hellenic influence, and Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards this due to the amount of work he has spent promoting these ideas. Eg: This inscription represents one of the first known mention of the Buddha as a deity, using the Indian bhakti word Bhagavat ("Lord", "All-embracing personal deity"), suggesting the emergence of Mahayana doctrines in Buddhism.  and The Mahayana movement probably began around the 1st century BCE in northwestern India, at the time and place of these interactions. According to most scholars, the main sutras of Mahayana were written after 100 BCE, when sectarian conflicts arose among Nikaya Buddhist sects regarding the humanity or super-humanity of the Buddha and questions of metaphysical essentialism, on which Greek thought may have had some influence: "It may have been a Greek-influenced and Greek-carried form of Buddhism that passed north and east along the Silk Road" (McEvilly, "The shape of ancient thought"). (taken from PHG in Greco-Buddhism ) as well as similar contributions in Mahayana.  PHG appears to be strongly influenced by the syncretist McEvilley. (20040302 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the first sentence of this section along the lines suggested by me above.  Looking at the remainder of this paragraph, there are further infelicities which I would like to change.  I'll do this incrementally to allow time for discussion if so desired.--Stephen Hodge 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism (Northern Tradition)

message: 201.19.108.253 inserted a paragraph into the "Gautama the Buddha" section:
He somehow managed to stay away from the group where his father was, and started to meditate over what was around himself. One fact called his attention: a bird eating a worm. He thought that if there hadn't been anyone ploughing, the worm wouldn't have been exposed and then eaten by the bird. He reflected upon that and realized how deeply actions could influence upon alien lives. Also, this poignant memory helped to set on Siddartha's mind bewilderment over the conundrum of "suffering". Why was it that one being should go through pain during its existence?
Is there some source for this? Since it was inserted without an edit comment by an anonymous user, and since it is without citation, I have reverted that edit. --- Andkaha(talk) 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird & worm 

message: Okay, well, I hope this turns out to have a happier results than the last time I tried something similar. I'm hoping that some editors of this page might turn their attentions to the newly-created Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu article. I haven't gone over the whole thing yet, but it looks as if it might have some POV-fork-ish elements to it. Could definitely stand to have some more sets of eyes on it (this article is not written by or associated with Attasarana, but it does seem to have lifted some text from his version of the Brahman article). I'll work on it a bit later. One might also want to take a bit of a look at Brahmin influence on other religions, by the same author.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please have a look at [[Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu]] 

message: I think any easy part to cut down the size problem is the culture section, Buddhist Food, etc. I don't think this needs to be in the main article.--St0ne 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size

message: As it stands now, there's a little dharma wheel at the very top of the article.  It appears to be introduced by the  tag, since there's no explicit image link, but I am not sophisticated enough to track down how that works.  it seems quite odd to have it floating there, and it appears a number of times in the portal sidebar, so I think it's unnecessary.  anyone know how to remove it?  bikeable (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dharma wheel