Talk:Madhyamaka

message: As I see it, East Asian Madhyamaka developed from a lineage that accepts Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, whereas the Himalayan tradition accepts a longer Indian lineage with the additional contributions made by Buddhapalita and Candrakirti (as well as Bhavaviveka and Shantarakshita).  Within the Himalayan tradition, there are several subdivisions - the largest of which follow the various schools, and then many minor divisions, right down to collegiate differences within the Gelugpa (who in general accept Tsongkhapa and, combined, have probably written more scholarly texts on Madhyamaka than every other Madhyamaka school, in all history, ever).  Most recent western scholarship (Garfield, Napper, Hopkins, Huntington, and others) have, after investigation, tended to adopt one or another of the Gelugpa collegiate interpretations of Madhyamaka due to the attractive, intensely rational, and thorough approaches that they offer.  
Therefore, and especially for recent scholarly texts (ie, post-Tibetan diaspora along with the adoption of the Tibetan language and studies into Western universities) it is hard to avoid the strong scholarly bias (and huge corpus) towards the Gelugpa in this article. It's important to remember that although it is a majority opinion, it is only one of many views regarding the Madhyamaka.  D. Seyfort Ruegg says (, p2) : "Over the past half-century the doctrine of the Madhyamaka school, and in particular that of Nāgārjuna has been variously described as nihilism, monism, irrationalism, misology, agnosticism, scepticism, criticism, dialectic, mysticism, acosmism, absolutism, relativism, nominalism, and linguistic analysis with therapeutic value". Likewise Daye says (, 1971 p77) "It seems fair to say that the different labels, approaches, and descriptions of Nāgārjuna writings found in the history of modern scholarship reflect alsmost as much about the viewpoints of the scholars involved as do they reflect the content of Nāgārjuna's concepts."
Bearing that in mind, how best can we establish a list of WP:RS?  (20040302 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to put in also a section on "Understanding in western scholarship", in which the various (mis)understandings in western scholarship can be mentioned. But my understanding depends on only a few sources (though academic). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madhyamaka Traditions / WP:RS 

message: This seems to be a chinese rendition of the land of Nagas. I am not convinced that we should get too chinese in our interpretation here! (20040302 (talk))
:Hi 20040302. Do you mean that "Dragon World" is the wrong translation of "Naga"? I got it from a book on Indian Buddhism, but I'll change it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tengu800 already did. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, translators in China equated the Indian naga with the Chinese dragon, so they always translated "naga" as "dragon". Both nagas and dragons are a type of large serpent with spiritual powers, and they play similar roles in their respective cultures. But when covering Indian sources, it is more accurate to keep the term as the Sanskrit "naga", to avoid confusion with other types of dragons. Neither is wrong, but "naga" is more accurate in Indian Buddhist contexts. Tengu800 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon World 

message: For the die-hards among us, Mulamadhyamakakarika verse 3 and 6, Sanskrit, Tibetan + Stephen Batchelor translation, Tsondru translations. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: I've added info on the history of Madhyamaka, and on the various interpretations of svabhava. The sections on Tsonghkhapa and modern scholarship leave room for additions, a task for which other Wikipedians are probably more knowledgeable than I am. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Various points of view

message: I've removed some wiki-links from the sources-section, since Tsongkhapa is already wiki-linked in the main body of text, and Paul Williams does not match with the reference, which only uses the last name. It also seems, to me, that the sources-list is not the place for Wiki-links. But I'm not sure about that. Also, the "jre tsong Kha Pa" does not link to the source itself, but I don't know why... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki-links in sources-section

message: How about inserting a section of the etymology of Madhyamaka similar to what was done on the Yogacara page?
user:pema donzang 17:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I doubt if Arena is a reliable source. See also Talk:Śūnyatā#Leonardo Vittorio:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo Vittorio Arena 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Madhyamaka. 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://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9558&context=opendissertations
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 07:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Madhyamaka. 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/20150518074106/http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/ to http://thenonbuddhist.com/2014/01/12/tsongkhapa-in-praise-of-relativity-the-essence-of-eloquence/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202094809/http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/The%20notion%20of%20Ditthi.pdf to http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/The%20notion%20of%20Ditthi.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) 04:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @User:Javierfv1212 This is way too much for a single edit. Note that the edit includes deleting a significant amount of content, too; so the amount of new material is probably well in excess of 37,000 characters. Naturally, with such a large edit, it is impossible to do justice to the change in a normal edit summary.
Please break the edit down into a series of simple changes that can each be adequately described in an edit summary, so that reviewers can see what it is that you are doing. Broadly speaking, I think that means that each diff can be reviewed on a single screen (i.e. without scrolling); and that a reviewer can get an overview of what changes you are making simply by reading your edit summaries. 
Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I will make several smaller changes instead. Thanks for the heads up! 
Javierfv1212, I appreciate your recent edit. It looks easily reviewable, so thank you. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 36,962 characters 

message: According to MOS:DOCTCAPS it would appear that madhyamaka should not be capitalized. Teishin (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:DOCTCAPS