Talk:List of sutras

message: Arvindn writes: "It is one thing to say that it is factually/historically incorrect, and quite another to say that no one expresses it. "
:The raises the question, which seems to come up again and again: what is it that the Wikipedia is trying to be? Is it a collection of all the views that have been expressed on a subject, or is it trying to be an authorative source of information about a subject? Because there does seem to be a difference, and I've struck this problem at least once before. mahābāla 17:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought its pretty obvious that its the former. That's the whole essence of NPOV, stated there (and in a lot of other places) with great clarity. There being no such thing as absolute objectivity, it is impossible for wikipedia or anyone else to achieve the latter. -- Arvindn 11:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: what do we write about?

message: If combining both Hindu and Buddhist sutras on one page is mildly offensive to one side or the other, we could split the page into List of Buddhist sutras and List of Hindu sutras and cross-link them with See Also entries.  That satisfies my original interest in helping the uninitiated reader understand roughly how many noteworthy sutras are out there.  Is it 3?  30?  300?  etc.  Will people sleep better at night if we do this?  technopilgrim 18:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I have to repeat - this category is a non-category. A list of sutras doesn't make sense. I don't see any value at all in enumerating sutras - the fact that there are 50 million, or 5 makes absolutely no difference to understanding the traditions from which they come. I had thought that you were wanting to draw attention to the contents of the sutras, which was why I added to the list. This whole thing seems pretty pointless now - I think I'll run along and do other things. mahābāla 10:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I won't argue about Buddhist sutras, but I have no problem with List of Hindu sutras, and so the splitting is fine by me. -- Arvindn 11:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that anyone finds combining different kinds of sutras together offensive, exactly, but I agree with Mahābāla that it is not a very meaningful category.  On the other hand, there's no particular harm in having a list based on a somewhat irrelevant category.  I would propose to have a separate "Hindu sutras" page and a page for "Buddhist sutras and texts", which could include vinaya, tantras, and canonical or quasi-canonical commentaries (abhidhamma, shastras, etc.).  However, there is no reason that we can't have that page and this one to boot.  No size limit to Wikipedia. - NYK 13:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: two pages

message: Does the kama sutra belong here? it seems like it should be listed, but then again, i know nothing about the topic. is it like not a real sutra or something? Bonus Onus 23:34, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
There are hundreds of sutras including kama sutra that are real. These include Heart sutra, lotus sutra and Filial Piety Sutra to name but three of them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.40.158 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kama Sutra