Jump to content

Talk:Mahayana/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Jana > jnana > yana

Karashima is the leading philologist dealing with early versions of the Lotus Sutra. I suggest his hypothesis should not be deleted as "extremely speculative". There is actually a lot of textual evidence in the Lotus Sutra manuscript tradition and in other sutras corroborating his view. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that before deleting valid material. Additionally, Karashima's hypothesis seems to be noted favourably by other scholars in that area.-- अनाम गुमनाम 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please properly cite your sources when making such an addition. Yworo (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then it should be easy to get a proper reference to corroborate that evidence. The reference given just says that the words yana and jnana were phonetically similar in an earlier prakrit form. How that implies that the forms were originally with the meaning "jnana" is beyond me, and nothing substantiating that is given whatsoever. Additional information is needed to actually bring the material beyond the level of "one scholar assumed that one thing came from another because the two words were phonetically similar at an earlier stage." That is what is given in the reference, and that reasoning is certainly dubious. Again, I am not saying that more evidence is not available, but rather that the evidence given does not really support anything more than speculation and hypothesis. Tengu800 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll get the reference as soon as I can ~ I'm a bit busy at present so it'll take a couple of days. Karashima's reasoning from the evidence is quite sound -- there is also a difference between speculation and hypothesis. Basically one notes that in manuscript and translation tradition of the Lotus Sutra and other early Mahayana sutras there are variants which read either "jnana" or "yana" at the same place in the text. It is now known that some early Mahayana sutras passd through the medium of Gandhari Prakrit, so to account for the variants one may assume a Prakrit form to account for both forms. There are many other traces of such a Prakrit which can be discerned in the early Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras. So, phonetically, an underlying "jana" form is quite plausible, but, due to its ambivalence, this was transcribed into BHS or translated as either "jnana" or "yana" ~ in other words, some redactors understood the term to mean "mahajnana" and not "mahayana". Karashima suggests that where "Mahayana" is now found in certain MSS and translations the context suggests that the reading "mahajnana" is preferable. This is just standard text critical work.-- अनाम गुमनाम 15:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. I've restored the older form with the reference and all of that. As long as there someone with access to the article who can improve the section/refs a bit in the future, it will be fine. Tengu800 (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mahayana" in other languages

At the beginning of the article, in hidden text, someone has put: "!--Please do not insert other languages as the term Mahayana derives from Sanskrit and not any other languages. --" That does not seem to be a valid reason for not putting equivalent terms from other languages. We don't do that in other articles. What do others think? Moonsell (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the object is to avoid having an unwieldy surfeit of translations right at the start of the article. A lot of Wikipedia articles have exactly that problem—for instance, bodhisattva begins, "a bodhisattva (Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व, IAST: bodhisattva; Bengali: বোধিসত্ত্ব, Bodhishotto, Tibetan: བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་, Wylie: byang chub sems dpa; Burmese: ဗောဓိသတ် Bawdithat; Indonesian: Bodhisatwa; Vietnamese: Bồ Tát; Pali: बोधिसत्त, bodhisatta; [โพธิสัตว์, phothisat] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Japanese: 菩薩, bosatsu; simplified Chinese: 菩萨; traditional Chinese: 菩薩; pinyin: púsà)". I don't know what the best way to handle this is, although not including Indonesian equivalents of Buddhist terms might be a start.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I also despise the huge lists of terms for every Asian language that a Buddhist sutra was ever translated into. The various terms really can actually helpful in rare instances... However, for Mahayana and pan-Buddhist discourse, Sanskrit is basically the de facto common language, and I think most of us like that and consider it to be an elegant and authentic language for those Buddhist names and terms that originally come from India. If given the choice of telling others to "not touch" and keep just the Sanskrit, or just have a huge messy list, I think most of us would prefer just the Sanskrit. Mahayana is made up of a large variety of languages and cultures that each have their own traditions, and this is okay, until we need to write an encyclopedia article. Then it just becomes a big mess unless we rely on scholarly works and look at articles with a careful and critical eye. Sanskrit is a part of this common approach to consistency as well. Just my two jiao. Tengu800 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is something of a disaster when twelve equivalent terms clog up the first two sentences of the article, as Tengu mentions. But I think the information could be useful and appropriate in small dedicated section - possibly in the section dealing with the term itself, the etymology and so on.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Much of what we know about Mahayana Buddhism comes from Chinese transliterations and practices. It's ironic that so little emphasis in this article is given to the Sinicization of Mahayana and its further propagation to Japan and Korea. Talk about hidden agendas and biases. Sanskrit might be the original language, but you don't see Christian terms written in Aramaic. It's usually in Latin. --Naus (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Accumulations and Bhumi levels

Are the Two Accumulations part of regular Mahayana? I know the bhumi levels are, which are not mentioned in the Mahayana entry at all. Thigle (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two accumulations of merit and wisdom are part of regular Mahayana doctrine. However, often the paramitas are portrayed as the basic means of developing merit and wisdom, so the two accumulations are almost a part of the subject of the paramitas, as a way of distinguishing conventional and transcendent attainments from their practice. In the Mahayana sutras, merit and wisdom are usually not classified as the "two accumulations," and are simply referred to as merit and wisdom, respectively. I believe the term "Two Accumulations" is mostly found in Tibetan Buddhism, but the idea it represents is common to all of Mahayana Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bodhisattva and postponing Nirvana

In at least two places on the current Mahayana page, there is the simple assertion that a bodhisattva postpones his or her own Nirvana in order to lead all other sentient beings to Nirvana. There are even some places that mention this presumed goal without mentioning Bodhi for either the bodhisattva or the sentient beings. This is a strange twisting of the ideal of selflessness, and a misrepresentation of the basic concept of a bodhisattva.

We should first begin by remembering that the basic story in the Jataka Tales, is that of Shakyamuni Buddha when he was a bodhisattva, practicing the paramitas, the groundwork for enlightenment and the basic task of a bodhisattva. Going into the earliest known Mahayana literature, the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra has the first known Mahayana definition of bodhisattva:

"Because he has enlightenment as his aim, a bodhisattva-mahasattva is so called."

Referencing a basic Buddhist dictionary, there is another definition of the bodhisattva that begins with his role in Mahayana Buddhism, and reinforcing the basic idea that a bodhisattva is one on the path to enlightenment. However, this is amended with "for the sake of all beings." (Damien Keown / A Dictionary of Buddhism / p. 38)

"Bodhisattva: The embodiment of the spiritual ideal of Mahayana Buddhism, in contrast to the earlier Arhat ideal advocated by the Hinayana. Bodhisattva literally means 'enlightenment being' but the correct Sanskrit derivation may be 'bodhi-sakta' meaning 'a being who is orientated towards enlightenment.' The ideal is inspired by the lengthy career of the Buddha before he became enlightened, as described in the Jatakas. A bodhisattva begins his career by generating the aspiration (pranidhana) to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all beings, often in the form of a vow, which according to many Mahayana texts is often accompanied by a prediction of success (vyakarana) by a buddha."

In fact, there are a number of slightly differing ideas about bodhisattvas, sentient beings, and Nirvana in the Mahayana sutras. To make matters more complex, Mahayana sutras often adopt "skillful means" of truths that seem to be incomprehensible at a superficial level, and defy analysis in many ways. Paul Williams has criticized the understanding that a bodhisattva simply postponed Nirvana, and categorizes it with "textbook lore" on Buddhism, proliferated by early Buddhist studies. He also specifically asks a respected Tibetan Buddhist monk and scholar about this matter. The response he gets is essentially the same as what I have seen in other forms of Mahayana Buddhism as well. (Paul Williams / Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations / pp. 58-60)

"It is frequently said in textbooks that the compassion of the bodhisattva is so great that he postpones nirvana, or turns back from nirvana, in order to place all other sentient beings in nirvana first. Such a teaching, however, appears prima facie to be incoherent, and contains a claim that somehow a buddha must be deficient in compassion when compared to a bodhisattva. [...] Moreoever if sentient beings are infinite, a widely-held view in the Mahayana, then the bodhisattva is setting himself an impossible task, and no bodhisattva could ever attain buddhahood. I asked the late Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, a former head abbot of Drepung Monastery and one of the most learned scholars, about this while he was on a visit to Britain. I explained that it was widely asserted in books available in the West that the bodhisattva does not become enlightened until he has helped all other sentient beings to enlightenment. The eminent Lama seemed to find this most amusing since, as he put it, all those who become bodhisattvas would not become enlightened, while those who had not become bodhisattvas would. He stated quite categorically that the final view is that this is not how bodhisattvas behave. In Tibetan practice the merit from virtuous deeds is always directed towards obtaining full buddhahood in order to be able to help beings most effectively. There is never any mention of really postponing or turning back from buddhahood. Otherwise any bodhisattva who did become a buddha would be presumably either deficient in compassion or have broken his vow. [...] According to Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, if a text states or implies that a bodhisattva postpones nirvana, it is not to be taken literally. It does not embody the final truth. It may be that it embodies a form of exhortatory writing -- the bodhisattva adopts a position of complete renunciation. In renouncing even buddhahood, the bodhisattva precisely attains buddhahood. [...] My purpose is simply to suggest sensitivity to the initial incoherence and textual uncertainty concerning the bodhisattva's claimed postponement of nirvana, an assertion which appears to have become part of the lore of textbooks on Buddhism."

In contrast to the notions of postponement, sentient beings, and Nirvana, the basic idea of a bodhisattva practicing the paramitas, and finally attaining Anuttara Samyaksambodhi, is basically constant across Mahayana Buddhist literature. Furthermore, this simplest definition goes back to the Jataka Tales, which verifies a basic understanding through time, traditions, and philosophical expressions. Since the path to Bodhi is first and foremost in basic definitions of "bodhisattva", the term should be primarily defined in terms of this. With regard to postponing Nirvana, any matter such as this should be in its own appropriate already-existing section in the Mahayana page, or be moved to the Bodhisattva page. Tengu800 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that a Bodhisattva postpones Buddhahood is a Western fallacy that keeps being perpetuated. It is not correct. Ask anyone knowledgeable about buddhism, scholars or teachers. In fact a Buddha is STILL a bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is ANYONE who expresses the compassion to help infinite sentient beings, even you or I. Of course there is a distinction between Bodhisattvas such as us and those on the "grounds" or bhumi levels. Actually a bodhisattva tries to achieve Buddhahood as FAST as possible. Thats the whole point of Vajrayana practice. Thigle (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased article skewed towards controversial origins of Mahayana, rather than actual practice and traditions

Much of what we know about Mahayana Buddhism comes from Chinese transliterations and practices. It's ironic that so little emphasis in this article is given to the Sinicization of Mahayana and its further propagation to Japan and Korea. Talk about hidden agendas and biases by some of the authors of this article. The whole article reads like one or two overly zealous pan-Buddhist scholars' original research. Sanskrit might have been the original language, but you don't see specific Christian terms written in Aramaic. It's usually in Latin or translated into English.

It's frankly offensive to see the Infinite Life Sutra (無量壽經) translated in this article into Sanskrit as the "Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra" when this sutra is absolutely obscure in India and Southeast Asia. It is instead the primary text of Pure Land Buddhism practiced in China, Japan and Korea.

How many people practice Mahayana Buddhism using the non-Sinicized terms? Less than 1% of total Mahayana practitioners? --Naus (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, there are other traditions of Mahayana outside of East Asia, and these include (1) Tibetan Buddhism, (2) Nepalese Buddhism, (3) the historical Buddhism of India, and (4) the historical Buddhism of Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Besides this point, the standard practice when translating sutras is to translate names and special terms back to Sanskrit if they are known. This is not only the method used by academics and buddhologists, but also by translators from East Asian traditions. As a reference for this, you can look to the translations of Charles Luk, who was the first major translator into English from the Chinese Buddhist tradition. You can also look to the Numata Center's translations, which represent probably the most significant effort to translate the Chinese Buddhist canon into English, to date. These translations all use Sanskrit terms, because that was the original language, and the de facto standard for Mahayana Buddhism. Far from being an insult, Chinese Buddhism has always taken pride in the Indian origins of its own tradition of Buddhism. By emphasizing the Chinese-ness of Mahayana Buddhism, you would make it seem as though there was not some 1000 years of Mahayana Buddhism in India, during which these sutras developed, were brought to China, and were then translated.
As for the Longer Sukhavativyuha, it was definitely not obscure in India, and its pure land teachings became very popular in Northwest India and Central Asia. This was the original "Pure Land Buddhism." Its popularity within Mahayana Buddhism can be told from its references in other sutras, and the popularity of Amitabha in Mahayana countries as far away as Indonesia. If you say that the Sukhavativyuha should not be referenced by its original name, then what name should it have? Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Vietnamese? And which version of the name, from which translation? Many sutras were translated as many as six times, and may have six different names in Chinese. By selecting any East Asian language, the article would then be skewed toward one tradition. Sanskrit is used precisely because it is (1) accurate as the original language, and (2) neutral to any one tradition. Tengu800 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious errors

How is yogacara early mahayana, but its ancestor Madhyamaka, late Mahayana?

Something is really messed up here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#Late_Mah.C4.81y.C4.81na_BuddhismThigle (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article text states: "During the period of late Mahāyāna Buddhism, four major types of thought developed: Mādhyamaka, Yogācāra, Buddha Nature (Tathāgatagarbha), and Buddhist Logic as the last and most recent. In India, the two main philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna were the Mādhyamaka and the later Yogācāra." I don't see anything here about Madhyamaka being later than Yogacara...? Tengu800 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the next two sectionsThigle (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
In these next two sections, I don't see any reference at all to Madhyamaka. Tengu800 02:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

the missing dot

Is there a good reason to specify that two of the as are long (ā) but not that the n is cerebral (ṇ), i.e., to write Mahāyāna rather than Mahāyāṇa? In some environments an n is predictably cerebral (after another cerebral consonant or a non-low vowel; probably others that I've forgotten), and so the dot can be considered redundant – but this isn't such a case, is it? —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference for motivation behind buddha-nature doctrine

We had a broken reference link in the Buddha nature section, The reference is currently No. 46 in the list: "King, Sallie B. The Doctrine of Buddha-Nature is impeccably Buddhist."

I have tracked down a version of the article on scribd and replaced the link and page numbers in the citation (now at http://www.scribd.com/doc/33827209/Sallie-B-King-The-Doctrine-of-Buddha-Nature-is-Impeccably-Buddhist). However, I'd like to ask, regarding this passage:

The language used by [Madhyamaka] is primarily negative, and the Buddha nature genre of sūtras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and on the mysterious reality of nirvana using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism.

Does anyone have further historical reference material to back up the claim of motivation here? "can be seen as" is a bit weaselly, and I'm not entirely convinced by this paper alone that this was a historical motivation. Thanks! /ninly(talk) 04:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication that these were reactions to Madhyamaka specifically in any way whatsoever. It is even debatable whether there was even such a group as "Madhyamaka," at the time that the original Tathgatagarbha sutras were composed. In Yin Shun's book, Way to Buddhahood, he instead cites non-Buddhists and "some Hinayana practitioners" who are afraid of anatman, as some of the reasons why the Tathagatagarbha sutras were spoken. He cites the Lankavatara Sutra for this passage...
"The Tathagatagarbha that I teach differs from the Self taught by non-Buddhists. Great Wisdom Bodhisattva! Sometimes, terms such as emptiness, formlessness, wishlessness, suchness, reality, the nature of things, the Dharma body, Nirvana, being without inherent nature, neither production nor extinction, fundamental stillness, the inherent nature of Nirvana, and so forth, are used to describe the Tathagatagarbha. In order to put an end to ignorant peoples' fear of the nonexistence of the self, the Tathagata, worthy of worship and perfectly enlightened, expounds the doctrine of Tathagatagarbha which is separate from the state of erroneous imagination of nothingness. [...] With regard to the Dharma, which is without inherent nature and which is separate from all features of false erroneous imagination, I spoke of either the Tathagatagarbha or the nonexistence of the self, with various wise and skillful means."
Here the Tathagatagarbha and Anatman are regarded as two expressions for ultimately the same thing, with the Buddha expounding either according to the situation (skillful means). That is to say, that Anatman is the negative expression, whereas Tathagatagarbha is the positive expression. Tengu800 22:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If one takes the internal evidence of the tathagatagarbha sutras (and the Lankavatara Sutra, incidentally, is not regarded generally as belonging to the specific category of tathagatagarbha/buddha-nature sutras), then the reason for the promulgation of the original tathagatagarbha doctrine was rather the other way around: the Buddha in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (which Mahayana views chronologically as the final sutric statement of the Buddha on the tathagatagarbha and indeed on the Dharma - post-dating any statements in the Lanka about the TG) states that the monks to whom the Buddha taught the Self or Buddha-nature doctrine were those who were thoroughly schooled in non-Self teachings but who had become extreme in their view of non-Self and were now afraid of the Self! The Angulimaliya Sutra is similarly excoriating of those monks and Bodhisattvas who only apply 'non-Self' and 'dependent origination' to everything, and fail to see that there is something higher and transcendental to all that: the Self or Buddha nature. People who are not specialists in the Buddha-nature / tathagatagarbha doctrine are sadly frequently ignorant of these facts. What the 'historical' reasons for the doctrine's emergence may have been is of course uncertain. There is only really speculation. What were the 'historical' reasons for Buddhism after all? Who knows if the story of Prince Siddhartha's seeing three signs of samsara's suffering-filled nature was historically true at all? But that is taking us too far afield! Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Lankavatara uses both Tathagatagarbha and Yogacara elements, but there is no simple rule for what is "canonical" Tathagatagarbha. It may just be that later Tathagatagarbha sutras tended to employ aspects of the Yogacara system. I agree with most of what you say, in that the Tathagatagarbha doctrines seem more or less aimed at an already Buddhist audience. However, as you say, the historical reasons are somewhat a matter of speculation. Although a comprehensive study that looked at many specific passages could make the motivations clearer, it is difficult to claim anything as fact for such a subject. As to the original point, though, I don't think there is any clear evidence that the Tathagatagarbha doctrines were in any way a reaction to Madhyamaka teachings, which is what the original source seems to be claiming. As usual, the best approach is to tread carefully when writing article material, and to attribute views to their respective sources. Tengu800 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello Tengu. I like what you say and agree with much of it. Just one point: the main tathagatagarbha sutras (such as the Tibetan and Faxian Nirvana Sutra, the Tathagatagarbha Sutra, the Srimala Sutra, and even the Angulimaliya Sutra) were probably set down in writing before the Lankavatara Sutra; certainly they display no interest in Yogacara or Vijnanavada. These key TG sutras do seem to be trying to correct what they perceived as an overly negative understanding of Emptiness. To say specifically that they were attacking Madhyamaka is perhaps more difficult, as the word Madyhamaka is used positively by different schools, even by Dolpopa of the Jonang! Whatever the historical reasons for the appearance of the TG sutras, it is undeniable that they represent a fresh look at the Dharma, in language that is often rather startling in its cataphatic emphases. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ācariyavāda name

The opening paragraph for this article now includes a supposed synonym of "Acariyavada." The two sources for this are a book by Bibhuti Baruah, and a website of unknown authorship (probably does not qualify as WP:RS). In any case, when looking up the first source in this book by Bibhuti Baruah, it is clear that nowhere is Mahayana specifically referred to as Acariyavada. In fact, the passage in question does not even make any conclusions about what the term even means. The mystery seems to be that in certain Sri Lankan chronicles, the term Acariyavada is used for other sects of Buddhism. However, these other sects would have been numerous (i.e. Early Buddhist schools), and there is nothing that seems to link the term to Mahayana at all. In addition, the term is a very uncommon one that is not widely used as a synonym for Mahayana. If there are no reliable sources for this association, then the term should be removed from the opening paragraph of the article. Tengu800 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the lead

Hello there. In response to your reversion and accusations the following should be noted. Firstly, the explanation of Mahayana which you have reverted a second time is not from a Theravada perspective and does not represent Theravada polemics. It is a view held by leading Mahayana scholars including the Dalai Lama himself. I say this as a published author in the field who has been invited by the International Association for the History of Relgions (the most prestigious academic body of its kind) to address many of the world's leading scholars. I say this not to boast but just to let you know that I do not have an agenda. What you have removed is neither Original Research nor a 'synthesis of published material that advances a position'. In fact I would say that most of the sources which promote the interpretive structure I use comes not from Theravada but Mahayana sources. In fact, to be honest, I cannot think of a single Theravada author who I have heard promote such a point of view. Therefore I would be grateful if you would to explain to me in what way the text you have removed is 'not accurate to the actual historical information available' and in what way it 'represents a biased viewpoint'. Many thanks 81.106.127.14 (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to summarize: (1) Mahayana sutras were overwhelmingly not written in Sanskrit. It is widely acknowledged that they were typically written in a prakrit, and then Sanskrit formalisms were applied gradually over the centuries (except to gathas, which retain a more archaic form since they are verse). Pali is even one prakrit language that has been sanskritized to some extent. (2) The claim that Mahayana Buddhists accepted the Pali Canon is largely unfounded, since Mahayana Buddhists in India were no doubt overwhelmingly unfamiliar with the "Pali Canon", which refers to the collection of texts used in Sri Lanka (no clear history of this collection in India, nor any history of the Pali language in India). The Agamas that were used by the other schools contained some sectarian differences by means of which scholars can now determined which sects they belonged to. Therefore, they cannot be identified with the Pali Canon. (3) The material added seems to put everything in terms of individual liberation such as that of the arhat -- either attaining it, or helping others attain it. This does not give a full or accurate summary of the Mahayana views on enlightenment and buddhahood. (4) According to many Mahayana sutras, arhats have only attained an incomplete nirvana, yet the material you have added ascribes to arhats nirvana without qualifications. In fact, there are several different types of nirvana recognized by Mahayana teachings: incomplete nirvana, complete nirvana, and the non-abiding nirvana. Of these, the arhats are often ascribed the incomplete nirvana. (5) The use of Pali terms being applied to Mahayana subject matter does not inspire confidence, since Mahayana never used Pali that we know of. Now, aside from these issues regarding the accuracy of the information, there are several major problems with the addition. (1) There are no references given, so the material is subject to removal if it is controversial. (2) The added material modifies cited material already in the article, which indicates a process of synthesis. (3) The views added seem to be the views of an individual editor rather than modern scholarship on the matter. Best regards. Tengu800 02:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that giving references is to be prefered. Being a "published scholar" using sources, it shouldn't be very difficult to give references to these sources. The fact that you mention being a "published scholar [...] the most prestigious [...] many of the world's leading scholars" is indeed boasting, yet contraproductive, there's no way to check if this is correct, except for the edit-behaviour you show. Which covers a broad range of topics, but has also been reverted before [1] [2] - by me, because of a lack of sources and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mahayana and the Early Buddhist schools

Just for clarification, there is quite a bit of evidence indicating that some members of the early Buddhist schools (nikayas) did follow Mahayana teachings. Sometimes Mahayana and "Hinayana" monks would share monasteries and even teachers. However, there is evidence of conflict at other times, and the situation was not always simple or uniform. We do know that at Nalanda, both were respected as valid paths. There are also examples of individual monks that we know of who were members of early Buddhist schools and who followed Mahayana teachings as well. Tengu800 03:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, Tengu, you are right. One of the very earliest historically verifiable sects of Buddhist monks was the Mahasanghikas, who are thought to have transmitted the Nirvana Sutra (amongst other things). The fact is that the earliest Mahayana sutras (such as some of the Prajnaparamita scriptures) were set down in writing at around the same time that the Pali texts were committed to writing too. This foolish old notion that Mahayana is tout court some very new, rootless invention of a perverse bunch of much later Buddhists really should have ceased to have any purchase amongst educated Buddhists long ago! Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dharmadhatu Not Self of Buddha

As of 4/9/2013, the Buddha Nature section has "this Buddha essence (Buddha-dhātu, co-terminous with the Dharmakāya or self[citation needed] of Buddha)" This is saying "the Dharmakāya or self[citation needed] of Buddha)"

Since the article's subheading is Buddha Nature, and not a topic of "self", I find relavant the definition of "dharma-kaya" from the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism (Oxford University Press 2003). I recognize the "abilities" of dharmakaya to be the abilities of buddha nature, as described in Buddha Nature, by Thrangu Rinpoche, so the reference to "Dharmakāya" should stay. The Oxford-definition includes the following:

"... under the influence of tantric thought, the dharma-kaya is considered to be equivalent to the mind of the Buddha."

We should change this part of the article to read,

"the Dharmakāya or mind of Buddha" (source: Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism "dharma-kaya" (Oxford University Press 2003)).)

Tenzin Sangpo 174.126.176.170 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should rewrite/re-order this section, and start it with a definition of "Buddha-nature". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Basic tathagatagarbha doctrine 101: the Buddha Nature (Buddha-dhatu) is equated in major sutras which first promulgated this entire notion of Buddha-dhatu/ tathagatagarbha with the Dharmakaya and Atman (Self) of the Buddha. The Dharmakaya in such scriptures is basically the equivalent of the Atman of Buddha (it is stated in the Nirvana Sutra to be the Buddha-dhatu, which in turn is explicated as the Self which is Buddha): the unbegotten, deathless essence of the Buddha present (in concealed form) in all beings. So it is completely correct to use the word 'Self' when speaking of the Buddha Nature or Dharmakaya, as these are functional equivalents in the relevant major TG scriptures. Of course Buddha-Mind is also correct. People tend to hesitate over the word 'Self' in a Buddhist context, merely because they are not in general familiar with the ten tathagatagarbha sutras which enunciate such a cataphatic Atman doctrine. Best wishes to you. Suddha (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Supposed origins in the Northwest

Recently some material was added to the lede claiming that Mahayana Buddhism originated in what is now Pakistan (i.e. the kingdom of Gandhara). While it is certain that Mahayana Buddhism flourished at some times in this region, there is no evidence that it originated there. In fact, scholars are unable to agree on exactly which texts are oldest, and some say that even the "oldest" extant texts that we have are "medieval" in a sense because they treat Mahayana as something completely established. Similarly, the estimates of the first century BCE, so often repeated since Edward Conze made that estimate, are based on nothing except taking the first translation dates into Chinese, and adding on a few hundred years for good measure. Since the situation is so unclear, we should avoid taking estimates and claims in a self-published book as fact. Scholarship has not arrived on any consensus on the matter, and no scholars of Mahayana Buddhism would be so presumptuous as to claim that Mahayana is known to have originated in Gandhara. Tengu800 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Origins of Mahayana

Tengu, you are clearly wrong. Warder states: "the Mahāyāna originated in the south of India and almost certainly in the Āndhra country."VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is one scholar's view, and there is no consensus at all on this matter among scholars. Warder also gives basically no evidence, and so it's just his personal conjecture. Guang Xing basically echoes this in saying "some scholars" -- not all scholars, and certainly not a majority. We have to be careful about using sources, because for matters like this there is no widespread agreement on the matter. Tengu800 00:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
a) There is actually widespread agreement that Mahayana originated in Andhra. b) Its laughable that you say Warder doesn't provide evidence. There are 27 mentions of Andhra in his book. c) Xing says "several scholars", not "some scholars".VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there is not widespread agreement about this matter. I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff. As I've said before, Warder does not provide clear evidence for a southern origin at all. If you can claim otherwise, then please present the information. I've already read through the "evidence" in the book myself, which is basically non-existent. Yes, Guang Xing says several scholars, which demonstrates a rather weak position rather than a majority or a consensus on the matter. In fact, practically all early Mahayana manuscripts and translations came from Gandhara and were written in the Gandhari language. Some scholars believe that Mahayana originated in Gandhara. Others still believe that it was a non-sectarian development that sprang up in multiple locations. Tengu800 01:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You cannot use your personal opinions to dismiss highly reliable sources. See Wikipedia policy WP:VNT, which states editors "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You are not a scholar Tengu800.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Generalizing Xing's view on the origins of the Prajnaparamita to "Scholars believe that Mahayana was developed by the Mahāsāṃghika" is not a correct representation of this source; nor is the generalization of Warder's view to the view of scholars in general. I'm sure both of you can give more sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I found that the references previously in the lead, claiming that Mahayana originated in southern India, were entirely copied from this same article. In other words, it was just duplicate material, but less faithfully represented. When using sources, it's important to use them in a critical manner, or to otherwise give them context, rather than presenting the views as Wikipedia's own. Currently the article gives too much weight to southern India as the place of origin, whereas all available archaeological evidence points more to the Gandhara region. Sadly, it is difficult and tedious to adjust articles when they have already grown large and unbalanced! Tengu800 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of notes and lack of references

I really don't see why some of the things with notes aren't just references, and in addition, some strong statements are made on the basis of a single reference. For example:

These earliest Mahāyāna texts often depict strict adherence to the path of a bodhisattva, and engagement in the ascetic ideal of a monastic life in the wilderness, akin to the ideas expressed in the Rhinoceros Sūtra.[note 3] The old views of Mahāyāna as a separate lay-inspired and devotional sect are now largely dismissed as misguided and wrong on all counts.[note 4]

Having read the "notes" attached, they should really just be references, unless someone can enlighten me why they're notes - notes should expand on a point that, if added directly, would otherwise divert the point given or take too much exposition, not as a verbatim chunk of reference text that is almost exactly the same as the text inserted. Using phrases like "largely dismissed" shouldn't be used for something with a single reference, even if the reference says it. If it's so largely dismissed it should be easy to find several references to back it up, especially if the initial reference also has references. I'll be back in a week or so to change these things unless someone gives a good reason not to.Yb2 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on this question regarding the best exposition of the four noble truths, a central teaching in modern Buddhism.

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahayana. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I added two links to two published papers about Mahayana and the Bodhisattva Ideal:

Kt66 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahayana. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Other main existing branches of Buddhism?

The article mentions that "Mahāyāna is one of two (or three, under some classifications) main existing branches of Buddhism". What are the other two main existing branches of Buddhism? Vajrayana seems to be one of them, according to this article, although I'm not sure; then there is one more. I think it should be made clear in the lead of the article what these other two main branches are. —Kri (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The other is Therevada. I think that this should be noted in the first sentence, in parentheses as: (the other being Therevada). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.72.231 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Origins section

The origins section was pretty problematic, so I've taken it on to make some changes there especially. It was giving way too much weight to the Mahasamghika origin hypothesis, which is definitely one theory out there, but has with time become less important. I've been using Drewes' two recent papers especially, and also Walser's Nagarjuna in context. I also merged the section on earliest Mahayana sutras with it, because it was just repeating a lot of the same information (Mahasamgika origins, Lokaksema corpus). Other theories that I've added to the section include Schopen's cult of the book theory and Drewes dharmabhanaka theory as well as making more explicit the "forest hypothesis" theory. This is still a work in progress at the moment. Javierfv1212 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


No reason for using Devanagari in Buddhist articles

It seems there are certain users that want to add Devanagari script renditions of terms in numerous articles about Buddhism on Wikipedia. There seems to be no good reason for this, other than perhaps nationalistic or revsionist ones.

Devanagari does not come from the time of the Buddha or from the time of Ashoka (from which date the first Buddhist related inscriptions), as the wki article says it reached regular use by the 7th century CE.

None of the major Buddhist canons (Tibetan, Chinese, Pali) are recorded in Devanagari, they use Chinese, Tibetan script and various South Asian scripts like Sinhala or Burmese. None of the major publications of these canons use Devanagari. Even the Sanskrit Buddhist texts are mostly not published in Devanagari, but use IAST instead. None of the main scholarly publications on Sanskritic Buddhism use Devanagari either, they all use IAST (for example: Siderits and Katsura 's "Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika").

It makes absolutely no sense to put Devanagari in Buddhist articles. For these reasons, I am removing any instance of these that I see. Javierfv1212 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahayana/Archive_2&oldid=1254770749"