Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

message: This article needs to be merged with Nirvana Sutra.--Carl 13:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Ok, so I just put up 4 flags on this article.  Sorry for dumping those, but I do have good reasons for them.  First, I do want to apologize to TonyMPNS.  It's aparent from the history that Tony has put a lot of time and thought into this article, and from his profile, I gather that he is also a real expert on the topic.  Tony has provided this article with far more depth than a casual editor like myself could.  That said, this article needs some work in a bad way.
Why prioritize this?
1)  It's an article about a book of religious scripture.  That means it has to be really tight.  Cause it's religion... ya know.  Right now it's really hard to read, there's a lot of clutter, and most of all there's huge parenthetical citations everywhere instead of proper Chicago-footnotes which would free up some whitespace.
2)  I gather from his profile and his tone that Tony is a Buddhist.  Cool, that's fine by me.  But parts of this article definitely make value judgments and religious 'Truth' statements.  Hey, everyone gets excited about their religion.  However, that kind of subtle opinion-shaping really doesn't belong in a religious article.  (eg.  "...It is striking for its teachings on the eternal, unchanging, blissful, pure, inviolate and deathless "Self"" --Overview)
3)  Similar to point 2, there's a whole lot of peacock language in this (eg. "voluptuous" is the first word used to describe the text in the overview).  There's also some wierd placement of quotations which makes it seem like the article is peacock-izing, when really it's just some sources.  So helping to condense the quotations and citations should help with some of this.
4)  Here's the big reason I wanted to put some effort and thought into this:  Most of the article was written by an expert in the field, who loves what he does and also participates in it as a worshipper.  Half of the references are to books that Dr. Tony helped write.  I didn't add a flag for self-reference though, because it seems like this is a case where he should be referencing himself, and for all I know there isn't much else out there on the topic.
But that's the problem:  I don't know anything about this topic.  However, I do know a non-objective, poorly formatted opinion essay when I see one.  I asked for an expert on this topic because it seems like Tony is too close to this article (I would be too after working on it since 2005!).  I'd like to get someone else to review this, but it has to be someone who can separate the value-judgements from general accademic practice, and who can also say whether there need to be more sources, whether some of this are original research, or whether other opinions need to be represented in the article.
Anyway, I've said my piece.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuniformbobo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points all.  It's difficult to write religious articles without injecting one's own views and passions into it, so although I too am a Buddhist, I feel it's important to stress neutral language and good writing in such articles.  Unfortunately, obtaining second-views may be difficult as the Sutra is both huge (so few have read the whole thing), and translations are hard to come by.  Anyone who has studied it is a rare person indeed.  Still, it's impact on East Asian Buddhism is strong, so I really hope someone else will come along to help balance things out.  --Ph0kin (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Cuniformbobo. The text on the description of the story of the Sutra itself can be condensed a lot. I added some info on the general characteristic of the text to the introduction, with the references of course. Greetings, Sacca 14:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert-talk 

message: this doesn;t help!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.82.44 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs merging 

message: I think the way No-Self/True-Self or the 'Selfhood' of the Buddha is mentioned here is very unskillfull. This is a central and delicate idea in Buddhism - the pointing out of the true reality of sentient beings - necessary to realize in order to attain awakening! This nature is beyond mundane concepts of existence/non-existence (see the four negations) and is described as 'poisonous' when not correctly 'digested' in this sutra! There is always the danger of grasping for concepts of nihilism or eternalism. The True-Self mentioned here is not really different to the No-Self of earlier sutras, it is only opposing extreme nihilistic interpretations of No-Self. Nirvana is not nothingness - it is the true nature, what beings really are, or it couldn't be final. The true reality of beings as opposed to the merely imputed reality can be called their True-Self, but it has to be distinguished clearly from other doctrines of a 'True-Self' that are just examples of that eternalism the Buddha has critisized.
One must have *seen* Buddha-dhatu in order to really understand 'True-Self'! I think that clearly rules out intellectual ideas of a 'Self' found in other religions/philosophies.
Rainer Dickermann
218.248.65.66 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible confusion about No-Self/True-Self 

message: Why give Chinese & Japanese but not Tibetan? Peter jackson 11:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: Is your translation, Tony, a revision of the 3-volume one by Japanese published many years ago? If not, it's realy biased of you to mention only your own. Articles on texts should list all translations, as I've tried to do in Dhammapada. Peter jackson 11:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: The "facts" that are attributed by Williams are inaccurate:
1.  "Although the Nirvana Sutra, mentions some of the well-known episodes in the final months of the life of the Buddha"
This is not true, as I have mentioned previously.  The events, such as they are, in the Nirvana-sutra are depicted as taking place on the last morning of the Buddha's life.  That's what the text says in the first paragraph.  If you think there are other events from the final months of the Buddha's life, please cite them.
2.  "The sutra uses these narratives merely as a convenient springboard for the expression of standard Mahayana ideals"
This is also untrue.  Apart from the fact that there are no "narratives" in this text, the whole point of the sutra is that it does NOT express "standard" Mahayana ideals.  Please cite some examples.
3.  "Both in style and in content, the Nirvana Sutra displays a disregard for historic particulars and a fascination with the supernatural and the ideals which characterize Mahayana writings in general"
This is also inaccurate.  There is no special "fascination" with the supernatural in this text, nor does it have a noteworthy fascination with typical Mahayana ideals.  Cite me some examples if you think there are.
I also find that the Williams' source cited -- by User Mitsube ? -- is in fact a multi-volume collection of papers edited by Williams.  I suggest that the volume number concerned, the author (if other than Williams) and the title of the paper quoted also be cited.
My clarification of the reason why scholars do not use the Nirvana Sutra is entirely valid and assists readers understand the issue.  That bit will go back.
-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability, not truth. Mitsube (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Facts

message: I'll leave your deletion for the time being, but I think we owe it to the unsuspecting reader to know that Williams, quoted several times here, is not known as a scholar who has published papers or books on this text.  He is therefore not a very reliable source since he is relying on unspecified secondary sources.  If you want a citation about this, I'll attach a bibliography of published works by Williams and by the other scholars when I restore my edit.  Then readers can make up their own minds about the worth of his comments. I am sure you can have no objections to that. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Williams not a specialist scholar

message: I have removed this segment (below) [with material arising from the original assertion] originally inserted by User Sacca because the reference given is spurious.  The reference given is "Buddhism ~ Critical Concepts in Religious Studies" is actually the title of an 8 volume collection of papers by various scholars, edited by Paul Williams.  The reference given here to p190 is not very helpful as it neither specifes the volume nor gives the actual name of the paper and its author.  However, today I was able to check the page 190 in each of the 8 volumes and can find nothing remotely resembling the content of this segment.  Unless there has been a genuine mistake, I believe User Sacca (Pāli sacca = "truth" !!) has tried to concoct a fake reference to push his/her usual anti-Mahayana line.  I shall now be gradually checking all other references to Williams' Critical Concepts supplied by User Sacca to see if there is a pattern here of deception.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the Nirvana Sutra, mentions some of the well-known episodes in the final months of the life of the Buddha, the sutra uses these narratives merely as a convenient springboard for the expression of standard Mahayana idealsBuddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Paul Williams, Published by Taylor & Francis, 2005. page 190. Both in style and in content, the Nirvana Sutra displays a disregard for historic particulars and a fascination with the supernatural and the ideals which characterize Mahayana writings in general. Though not a specialist on this text"Most of my work has been on Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy, a school of Buddhism which developed in India probably initially during the first century C.E. and had a wide influence on Buddhist thought throughout India, Tibet and East Asia. In particular this tradition was often taken in Tibet as the final philosophical position of Buddhism, and it has been studied as such by Tibetans to the present day. I have also worked on the Tibetan assimilation and scholastic extension of Madhyamaka ideas, notably the complex understanding developed by a sub-school known as Prasangika Madhyamaka. More recently I have become particularly interested in medieval Western philosophical and mystical theology." Retrieved 29/03/09 at 00:31 from Paul Williams' Home Page at Bristol University  http://www.bristol.ac.uk/thrs/contact/pw.html., Paul Williams opines that as Mahayana sutra, it is of rather late date (after the second century CE).
Regarding "Scholars specializing in this text believe that the compilation of the core portion (corresponding to the Faxian and Tibetan translations) must have occurred at a relatively early date", who says that second century CE is relatively early? Even for Mahayana sutras, it is not. Mitsube (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

text: According, among others, to Masahiro Shimoda and Wang Fengwei, working independently, there were three earlier, but now lost, translations of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra, attributed by Dao Zhu, Seng You and Fei Fangchang in their catalogues to Zhi Qian (222 onwards), Dharmabhadra (An Faxian) [precise dates not known, but active between Zhi Qian and Dharmarakṣa], Dharmarakṣa (266 onwards) respectively.  It is also generally accepted that there was a time-lag of 100+ years for a text to have made its way from India to China ~ eg the Lotus Sutra was first translated by Dharmarakṣa c270CE, but is thought to have been composed in India at least prior to the 1st century CE ~ Sheishi Karashima (the foremost Japanese scholar on the Lotus Sutra) thinks it is even earlier.  So we have a focal date of around 120 CE for the availability of the core portion of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra ~ but, of course, it could possibly be even earlier in origin.  According to the periodization of Mahayana proposed by Hirakawa and others, c120CE is well within the Early Mahayana period.  [See Florin Deleanu, "A Preliminary Study on Meditation & the Beginnings of Mahayana Buddhism", ARIRIAB 3, March 2000, pp65-113, esp p66 ~ "We need to clarify our historical and textual background.  "Early Mahayana" refers to the period between 1st century BCE and the 5th century CE.  Following Shizutani and Nakamura, I also use the term proto-Mahayana, roughly covering the age between 100 BCE and 100 CE, to describe the transitional and incipient stage of the movement". I would say that 5th century CE is a bit late for "early", but even the 2nd century is well-within the accepted use of "Early Mahayana".  You need to read more ~ Google Books is probably not the best source of information for current scholarship.-- अनाम गुमनाम 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored it, see talkage of Mahayana Sutras also for more info. Anam Gumnam didn;t check the reference well or not at all??? Greetings, Sacca 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine ~ but please avoid this kind of confusion by giving a proper reference ~ see Mahayana Sutras Tak page for more.-- अनाम गुमनाम 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake reference ?

message: It appear that Tony Page (or his associates) is promoting his book and his Tathagatagarbha Buddhism. This appear to be in violation of Wikipedia Guideline "Conflict of interest". I also can't find some of the book cited so even if such book exist (in another language, may be), it has no verifiability. Another thing I remember is that Stephen Hodge and TonyPage are acquaintance. Has the issue of Self Promotion being discussed here. Vapour (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest

message: * It is unclear what "Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op.cit." is referencing. The scripture itself or a commentary on it?
* "Chen 1993 p103-5" No title is given. Maybe typo of author (Wang) or date (2004)
* "Chen" No date or title. Two "Chen"s previously cited.
a_morris (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's - well, not exactly hopeless, but anyone who likes to puzzle might have have some good fun on those references... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. a_morris (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert January 2012 

message: Hi again. I also made a remark on this one:
 Even 10th-level Bodhisattvas (i.e. the very highest level of Bodhisattva) are not able clearly to perceive the Buddha-dhatu, and they further fail to see with clarity that the immutable, unfabricated Dhatu dwells indestructibly within all beings [15]:
Is that last superscript/reference () really right? I mean, if you take a look at the section, you'll find it appearing exactly like that. I'd fix that if I knew where one is trying to refer with that =P Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>===Mahaparinirvana===</nowiki> 

message: Quote:
:"It is important to note that both in the Nirvana Sutra and in the other central tathagatagarbha sutras, the idea of the 'Garbha' is rarely, if ever, glossed as a growing, immature 'embryo', but is envisioned as the already complete Buddha Element deep inside the being."
Sally King gives an explanation (copied from Buddha-nature):
:"The term tathāgatagarbha may mean either "embryonic tathāgata", the incipient Buddha, or "womb of the tathāgata". The first meaning is the cause of the Tathāgata, while the second is the "fruit" of Tathāgata.(King 1991 p.4)
:The Chinese translated the term tathāgata as "womb", rendering it as ru-lai-zag(King 1991 p.4), ru-lai meaning "tathagata", and zag meaning "storehouse".(King 1991 p.48)"
Looks to me like that the importance of "the already complete Buddha Element" is a personal interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At second thought: Zimmerman also speaks about tathagatagarbha as probably meaning "containing a tathagata". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The already complete Buddha Element" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. 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.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbj/06/chbj0605.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/On_the_Eschatology_of_the_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_and_Related_Matters.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/The_Textual_Transmisssion_of_the_MPNS.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2696
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8578/2485
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications/jjrs/pdf/539.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 09:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified