Talk:Mahayana sutras

message: I'm thinking of redirecting this page to Buddhist Texts : Mahayana texts section.
Anyone object?
:You don't sign your posts? Vandalism? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: i reorganized the first parts. the introductory part now is very short. I do not see any reason, why the debate about the origin of the texts should be included already in the introductory section. Therefore i moved it to "histoticity and origins" where it belongs. Also, the content of the Lotus Sutra is not important for the introduction...its age might as well be. 
Maybe the introductory section has to be redone.
The most basic facts about the Mahayana Sutras imho are:
1. they are buddhist scriptures
2. mahayana buddhists base their faith/philosophy on them 
3. their approximate date of origin
all else can be subject of debate... 
84.44.215.59 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intorduction and Reorganisation of first parts

message: The latest edit (02:05) by Stephen is acceptable to me, it seems we have reached a solution on this subject. Maybe I will add some more details (sources) later. greetings, Sacca 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it.  I was just getting the Katyushkas ready :)--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edit

message: Recent edits to this article seem to have to take a decided anti-Mahayana position, which seems inappropriate. My impression (which is, of course, non-expert), is that modern scholarship contains a continuum of opinions about the relative validity of the Pali and Mahayana literatures, ranging from "the Pali literature is definitely much older and may well be a much more authentic record of what the original Buddhism taught" to "the Pali literature is only slightly older than the Mahayana literature, and they may well have arisen in similar fashions". Unless my impression is quite wrong, Wikipedia should reflect this range of opinions.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Sacca, relax. In fact, there are no texts "written by Gautama Buddha". All Dharma teaching are only used, tested by many generations of Buddhists (in various languages, nations and cultures) transmission from master to student. Text is only like a tool or finger directing on target. And only textual analysis of sutras and a few suppositions (about teachings of "early buddhism") is not a good reason to write in wikipedia that Mahayana Buddhism is based on "non-original texts". Buddhism is not a cult of a mumified library, after 25 centuries we can say it's a living transmission using many methods (texts also). Grets. Tadeusz Dudkowski 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article as it now stands is a near-polemic, definitely not NPOV, citing only one rather polemical source (Warder). I will pitch in with clean-up shortly. Sylvain1972 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Andrew Skilton and Robert Gethin are two scholars whose work can be incorporated into this article, which at this point reflects Warder's biases entirely.Sylvain1972 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we establish the consensus of experts regarding this subject? Does Sacca have some particular degree of expertise that entitles him to state what scholars believe? This is a bit ironic considering that, above, we find a thread in which Stephen Hodge, a bona fide Buddhist scholar and translator, explains a contrasting opinion.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I am concerned that such reliance is being placed on quotations from AK Warder in various articles concerning Mahayana. As a Theravadin, he is hardly an expert on Mahayana -- fair enough, but why so much reliance on him ??  But apart from that, his work is rather out of date and hardly represents current thinking on Mahayana-related matters. The Indian edition of his book was first published in 1970, so one can assume that it was written in the 1960s -- a lot has changed since then in Buddhist studies.  
I suspect that the intention in relying so much on Warder is mischief-making in order to denigrate and undermine Mahayana articles.  If this imbalance is not redressed, perhaps it is time for concerned parties to subject Theravada articles to a full range of unsympathic Mahayana quotes.  We could begin by dropping the politically correct pretense that Theravada should not be designated as Hinayana from a Mahayana perspective -- which it indubitably is ! --Stephen Hodge 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AK Warder

message: :Which book on early Buddhism uses Mahayana Sutras? None. Books on early Buddhism or 'Buddha's Buddhism' just can't do that, the Mahayana Sutras don't have that credibility. Even the Japanese scholars agree on this, even though they have been raised in a Mahayana country.
:I just remember (for myself) that what I'm trying to do (make many scholarly references in articles concerning Buddhist history) is never going to be a popular thing amongst the Wikipedia editors with Mahayana preferences, and even among many Theravadins. This would be very unlikely. I don't get many 'cheers!', but that's ok. I think this information is important, and it is nice to delve into the subject. 
:For your info, I have used 5 different books on the subject. Warder is only one of them, you can look in the notes yourself, I presume? I might not have used all 5 books in every article I edited, though... He speaks clearly, formulates his words very well, so his quotes don't have to be long, but contain a lot of clear info. It's actually the third edition from 1999.
:Stephen, on a personal note, previously I actually thought you were just a scholar, but it seems different. I hope that while reading or translating these mahayanic sutras you didn't start believing their claims for historical authenticity? But I guess this might happen even to the best of men. Greetings, Sacca 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources on Buddha's teachings

message: One scholar is the basis of attacking the Mahayana?  I have read Mahayana sutras and the Tipitika and I fully agree with Theravada Scholar W. Rahula:
--------------------------------
I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental teachings.
- Both accept Shakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
- The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
- The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
- The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
- Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
- Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anattá and Síla, Samádhi, Paññá without any difference.
These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question.
(Theravada - Mahayana Buddhism
By Ven. Dr. W. Rahula)
-------------------------------
Dragons and gods? They are found in the Tipitika. 
Buddha lineages? Buddha says he comes from the Buddha lineage right in the Tipitika.
Buddha is called "dhamma sami" (dhamma swami) amatadatta (giver of immortality), brahma Bhuto, dhamma bhuto, etc...right in the Tipitika.
Buddha calls himself the father in the itivuttaka.
So please don't tell mahayanist Buddhists that their scriptures are  too theistic, these scriptures have a basis for the most part in the early tipitika.  Buddhism is about contemplative gnosis, it isn't about blind faith.
--149.4.108.27 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AK WARDER?

message: It's especially important in religious matters to get this right. WP mustn't take sides. It's not just a matter of factual accuracy; we have to look carefully at selection & presentation. It's no good just popping in the odd scholarly quotation you happen to came across.
Eg, on the topic of self-contradiction mentioned above (I haven't looked at the article here). Williams (Mahayana Buddhism, page 2 I think) mentions contradictions in Mahayana literature, but he also mentions on the same page that Mahayana often uses a pragmatic concept of truth, ie true means useful. As there's no reason why contradictory things shouldn't be useful, this cancels the negative tone & provides balance.
I think it's balanced to say the Pali Canon is mostly earlier than the Mahayana scriptures. Likewise, one could say that the Buddha's teachings evolved into the Pali Canon & other early teachings, & these in turn evolved into Mahayana. But it's not for WP to say, imply or suggest that any particular Buddhist text or school is or is not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings.
What's necessary if we want to go beyond such simple statements is a careful collation of what scholars have to say about these stages of evolution. For the 1st stage, the relation between the Buddha's original teachings & the Pali Canon & other early sources, I've already set up a subpage as noted above. We need something similar for the relations between the early schools & Mahayana. However, that would be more complicated:
* the Buddha is not around to answer back, so the 1st phase is simply a matter of the relation between the Pali Canon & other early sources on the 1 hand & scholars' theories of the Buddha's teachings on the other; however, for the 2nd phase we should consider not only what scholars say about the relations between diferent forms of Buddhism but also what the schools themselves have said about each other & about the relations between them
* Mahayana is very varied, so in addition to general consideration of the relations between Mahayana & early traditions we also need to do separate comparisons for particular forms & aspects
Peter jackson 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: So Anam, what do you think is the solution then, do you have an idea to make the information that you labeled as 'unbalanced', more balanced in your eyes? Rephrasing? Shorter formulation? Different presentation? Add another viewpoint? Go ahead and try please. But it shouldn't be deleted, because that would be very unbalanced and dictatorial, I think. Greetings, Sacca 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: inserts

message: I've deleted these for now as they imply that the 3rd list of sutras aren't Indian, Central Asian or Chinese, when in fact most of them are Indian. Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List subheadings 

message: This article is of low quality. The reason being is basically verbosely documented above. There is a lot of one sided "what the Buddha said is best". Which is great, but present the opposite as well. Non-Buddhist readers are not going to benefit from the one-sided presentation. This is an article about Mahayana Buddhism, not a flame war about which one is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josher565 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is sourced and informative. Mitsube (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs shortening and personal viewpoints removed 

message: Actually the book is quite well respected and included on the reading lists of a number of university Buddhism courses, such as at the University of East Anglis UK. It is also found in most university libraries so it is probably not too unreleiable.   Moreover, the book does not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines on reliability. Please read the Wikipedia guidlines carefully before vandalizing material.  OK, it's not an academic book per se, but that is not a sine qua non for citation according to the rules.  And as it happens, Tharpa Books were peer reviewed when the book in question was published.  The point is, Sangharakshita actually read the sutra in question, whereas the unreferenced author of the Williams' article obviously has not.  This makes Sangharakshita more reliable, if you are actually interested in veracity rather than point-scoring.
:The entire principle of wikipedia is reliable sourcing. Verifiability, not truth. Hopefully you will understand what this means. Mitsube (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. See the next topic.-- अनाम गुमनाम 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eternal Legacy

message: The newly added quote from Skilton is excellent as it well summarizes current thinking on Mahayana textual origins ~ in contrast to the out-dated stuff by Warder.    Indeed, the passage quoted could have been written by any one of the present-day scholasr who specialize in early Mahayana texts, such as Harrison, Silk, Nattier, Boucher and a number of others.  It is high time something like this was inserted which is academically neutral instead of jaundiced ridicule disguised as scholarship. We must make sure that this addition stays !  -- अनाम गुमनाम 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a problem with this quote. I think it does not contradict Warder in any way. The only issue seems to be the sentence "Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahāyāna sutras". But this is actually a very mild statement. Obviously, these sutras are religiously authoritative for many people. Western scholars agree that these sutras are not the words of the Buddha, and are later compositions. Arguing that they should therefore not be religiously authoritative is an argument to take place within the Buddhist community, and is not a question Western scholarship would take up. Mitsube (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholars' Opinions

message: Moonsell went through the article and did some good work correcting spelling and wording etc. But he also added many pali and Sanskrit symbols througout the text.
I think mahayana shoudl be written in this article without the sanksrit symbols, and believe that is wikipedia policy. What do others think?
Greetings, Sacca 11:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean diacritics. I think we should include them--that is what the other major encyclopedias do (The Encyclopedia of Religion, the Encylopedia of Buddhism (Macmillan), Britannica). It is pretty standard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say WP policy is entirely clear on the matter, but see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), which says: "For Sanskrit and Pali, IAST is preferred" (this includes the diacritics). That is technically a "proposed" policy, I guess, but has seen a lot of work. I believe there's another relevant naming conventions article, but I can't remember which one right now. /ninly(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but... by now Mahayana has become part of English vocabulary, without the diacritics. Same for Theravada (Theravāda). And the search-function of wikipedia won't work well with diacritics. Greetings, Sacca 08:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Sutras is another strange one actually. Nobody would spell this with the sanskrit diacritics in english language. also see Sutta Piṭaka with a dot under the t. Its too much... Greetings, Sacca 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It should probably be undone. Mitsube (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it actually interferes with search functionality. If someone takes the trouble to add the diacritics, which are still the convention in more scholarly writing (and this is an encylopedia), I don't see any reason to undo it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, for raising this issue, Sacca. It's hard to draw the line with diacritics. Is a word sufficiently anglicised in common usage for them to be superfluous? I believe this is the case with "samsara" and "nirvana". I don't know about "Mahayana" but tend to err on the side of caution. As for "sutra", where it is part of the name it should get diacritics but otherwise not. I appreciate that is hair-splitting, but it seems the only clear and simple position to me. As for dropping diacritics for everything, the problem there is diacritics give the only standardised form that is indisputable. Moonsell (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pali/Sankrit symbols.

message: The final section of the article, "Authentication" has just one sentence: "In 1995, Donald Lopez published a paper which addresses the issue of its orality, as opposed to its authority.", plus a reference: "Lopez, Donald S. (1995). "Authority and Orality in the Mahyna". Numen 42 (1): 21–47 (27). http://dx.doi.org/10.1163%2F1568527952598800."
Can anyone understand this enough to clean it up? What does "its" refer to? Otherwise, may I suggest we just delete the section. Moonsell (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Authentication

message: Can anyone editing this Mahayana page verify with me on Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra status. Whether it one of the Great Sutra from Mahayana? I'm now contributing to wiki page on Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra (English). If not I will remove the first line. Again I want to plead anyone who verse and expert in this Dharani to contribute more resources eg picture, references and etc rather than left this Great Dharani empty on wiki page. For the sake of all beings, please render your assistance. Starkliew (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra. It belongs to a loose category of sutras whose subjects are a particular dharani and its applications. The Usnisa Vijaya Dharani is especially for helping beings in the realm of hungry ghosts (Skt. preta). The dharani traditionally popular in the East Asian Buddhism and has a reputation as a powerful method with supernatural effects. So far the page you are working on looks a bit rough, and I may come by sometime and fix it up if I can. Best regards. Tengu800 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra, one of many Sutra of Mahayana?

message: @User:Ronggy, I have asked you to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issues, and suggesting approaches to fixing it if you know how, but I have received no reply.
An editor who places a template message to indicate a problem should explain his/her rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. Please explain why this article needs to be rewritten (why it does not conform with wikipedia quality criteria, policies and guidelines). Text examples written like a personal reflection or opinion essay and examples which may not represent a worldwide view of the subject might help editors to adress the problems. I have removed the template messages for now. Please reach for a consensus before you reintroduce these templates. Thank you  JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Template messages (essay, globalize, rewrite)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mahayana sutras. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_ThreePureLandSutras_2003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahayana sutras. 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/20131019072030/http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf to http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf
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) 10:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified