Talk:Tibetan Buddhist canon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

I've moved this section to Talk so we can find an appropriate place for it. Obviously, it does not belong in the Organization of Sutric texts. Anyone have an suggestions? S.N. Hillbrand 14:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important Indian Scholars[edit]

In Indian scholars Nagarjuna and Asanga known in the Tibetan tradition as the Two Supremes, reflecting their paramount importance. They are often referenced together with the so-called Six Scholarly Ornaments, Aryadeva, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Gunaprabha and Sakyaprabha. Occasionally substitutions are made in the formulation of the six. Sometimes it is said there are Seventeen Great Panditas, as follows:


I've tried to reintegrate the information, which I think is successful now. Thoughts? ~GZ 11/7/05
Hi GZ, thanks for your contributions to this article. Please try to be careful when doing wholesale reverts on texts, however. You have modified capitalization to be inconsistent through out the article. I have modified the Important Indian scholars section to try to be more clear (grammar and structure). However, I am unfamiliar with the idea of Seventeen Paditas, please correct me if you find this structure misleading.
Thanks for the changes, I agree the structure is more clear now. There was no problem with the grammar, however. I've refined your language a little. I have a degree in English and I've worked as an editor professionally, so I'm competent in this regard. Concerning the Seventeen Panditas, I drew the information from here: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/id70.html and http://www.vkr.org/Stupa.cfm. Concerning the appellation "great" as applied to Jamgon Kongtrul and Ju Mipham, this does not represent POV as it is understood on Wikipedia. There is a general consensus in the Tibet world regarding their historical importance and the quality of their scholarship, even among those who do not share their particular views. By way of example, referring to "Alexander the Great" does not constitute an endorsement of his legacy, it just represents an acknowledgement of the regard in which he has been conventionally held. I have also standarized the capitalization, which was not at all uniform on your latest version. ~GZ 11/8/05
The grammar mod I was referring to was located in the first sentence under Important Indian scholars. You can still see it at the top of this page. None of us are beyond reproach but I will always attempt to be polite when making changes. As to capitalization, thank you for noting the inconsistencies in the headings. You will find wp's header capitalization rules at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings). I will modify the article to this standard. Lastly, I greatly disagree that you can refer to scholars as "great" and remain NPOV. Your example is of an appellation similar to "The Great Wall of China," as such it denotes the most important holder of the common name. This is in contrast to the adjective form you use in the article that conveys meaning respecting the scholars' abilities. S.N. Hillbrand 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. I am not entire comfortable with the focus on individuals of importance to Tibetan Buddhism. That information may find a more suitable home at Tibetan Buddhism. I will ask them to take a look at it. I think this page may be more useful if it focuses on texts. So, essentially, inverting the lists. S.N. Hillbrand 04:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the sentence above was hastily assembled and ungrammatical, my apologies. Regarding the appellation "great", I disagree with you, but there are easy ways to resolve this so there is no point belaboring the matter any further. Regarding the presence of the Indian scholars, it's hard for me to understand your objection. You don't think the authors of the Tibetan Buddhist canon should be listed on the Tibetan Buddhist canon page? These are not just "individuals important to Buddhism" - there are many, many of those who have been excluded. These are the people who created the canon that the article is about.~GZ 11/9/05

Delisted GA[edit]

It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it also needs some more historical information, this is almost completely lacking. f.e.: when and by whom were the scriptures written? And where? What were previous collections like?

I imagine many were written in the last period of Nalanda University.Greetings, Sacca 08:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"foundational"[edit]

In the phrase, In addition to foundational texts from Early Buddhist (mostly Sarvastivada) and Mahayana texts, I've changed foundational to sutrayana, which seems to be the intent here. The reason is foundational is prone to misunderstanding that makes the whose phrase nonsensical. The word has become accepted as one valid translation of hinayana and used to avoid derogatory connotations of the latter.

Moonsell (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Translations[edit]

I've added the above heading to the article, not because I can do it but in the hope that someone can. I've added a Todo list to this talk page too and hope others will find it useful.

Moonsell (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had optimistically added these headings at the end of the article: "The Translations" "History of translation in Tibet" "Translation methodology" "Standardisation of terminology".

I've deleted them. Perhaps a separate article on this one day... For the time being, the article is so good without this stuff, please accept my apologies for marring it with this stubbing for so long. Moonsell (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireelevant material[edit]

The following sections don't seem to be about the Canon, so I have moved them here. Perhaps they deserve their own pages. Tibetologist (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Indian scholars[edit]

Two Supremes[edit]

Six Scholarly Ornaments[edit]


Seventeen Great Panditas[edit]

References are sometimes made to the Seventeen Great Panditas. This formulation groups the eight listed above with the following nine scholars.

Five traditional topics of study[edit]

All four schools of Tibetan Buddhism generally follow a similar curriculum, using the same Indian root texts and commentaries. The further Tibetan commentaries they use differ by school, although since the 19th century appearance of the widely renowned scholars Jamgon Kongtrul and Ju Mipham, Kagyupas and Nyingmapas use many of the same Tibetan commentaries as well. Different schools, however, place emphasis and concentrate attention on different areas.

The exoteric study of Buddhism is generally organized into "Five Topics," listed as follows with the primary Indian source texts for each:

  1. Abhidharma (Higher Knowledge, Tib. wylie: mdzod)
    • Compendium of Higher Knowledge (Abhidharma Samuccaya) by Asanga
    • Treasury of Higher Knowledge (Abhidharma Kosha) by Vasubandhu
  2. Prajna Paramita (Perfection of Wisdom, Tib. wylie: phar-phyin)
    • Ornament of Clear Realization (Abhisamaya Alankara) by Maitreya as related to Asanga
    • The Way of the Bodhisattva (Bodhicharyavatara, Tib. wylie: sPyod-‘jug) by Shantideva
  3. Madhyamaka (Middle Way, Tib. wylie: dbu-ma)
    • Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (Mulamadhyamakakarika, Tib. wylie: rTsa dbu-ma) by Nagarjuna
    • Four Hundred Verses on the Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas (Catuhsataka) by Aryadeva
    • Introduction to the Middle Way (Madhyamakavatara,’’ Tib. wylie: ‘’dBu-ma-la ‘Jug-pa) by Chandrakirti
    • Ornament of the Middle Way (Madhyamakalamkara) by Shantarakshita
    • The Way of the Bodhisattva (Bodhicharyavatara, Tib. wylie: sPyod-‘jug) by Shantideva
  4. Pramana (Logic, Means of Knowing, Tib. wylie: tshad-ma)
    • Treatise on Valid Cognition (Pramanavarttika) by Dharmakirti
    • Compendium on Valid Cognition (Pramanasamuccaya) by Dignaga
  5. Vinaya (Monastic discipline, Tib. wylie: 'dul-ba)
    • The Root of the Vinaya (Dülwa Do Tsawa, 'dul-ba mdo rtsa-ba) by Gunaprabha


It is not irrelevant. It is 1) the main authors of the canon and 2) the main outlines used for the material in the canon. Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sakya.org/News%20Letters/Sakya%20Newsletter%20Summer%202007.pdf
  2. ^ Kalu Rinpoche, Luminous Mind: The Way of the Buddha. Wisdom Publications,1997. p. 285 http://books.google.com/books?id=eWVgoVByVhcC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=%22two+supremes%22+nagarjuna&source=web&ots=g3PMaucUAA&sig=a97JqzX4462vDLLm8gI6nrNvwKA
  3. ^ Tashi Deleg! The Padma Samye Ling Bulletin, Enlightened Masters: Arya Asanga

Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism[edit]

The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tibetan_Buddhist_canon&oldid=1209448842"