Talk:Post-canonical Buddhist texts

Move to Buddhist Apocrypha

I propose to move this article to Buddhist Apocrypha. The proposed title appears to be more common (Google scholar: 13900 hits) than apocryphal Buddhist sutra (Google scholar: 2.440 hits) and it is a broader term that allows the inclusion of all buddhist apocryphal texts. JimRenge (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Buddhist apocrypha → Post-canonical Buddhist texts – The latest edit Special:PermanentLink/766494466 by SOHAN18 brought home to me the problems with this article's title. Although I am not an expert with regard to Mahayana Buddhism, in modern Theravada studies terms like apocrypha are hardly used anymore, scholars preferring post-canonical or vernacular instead, depending on the types of texts. Apocrypha implies a lack of authenticity, and might therefore go against WP:NEUTRAL. What is an authentic work and what not was usually a matter of debate in most of Buddhist history, and I doubt whether there ever were any works vehemently and unanimously opposed as was the case with the Roman Christian Church, from which the term apocrypha originates. Authenticity in Buddhism has usually been something which comes in many shades. Propose move as specified. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. Apocrypha is a Roman Catholic term and doesn't even apply to Protestant Christianity, so applying to a radically different religion is nonsensical. This is a case of someone making up their own term. We should clearly use a neutrally descriptive title here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-canonical or Apocrypha ? By the way who do we base this on -- The Sangha of the school practicing the text or potentially non Buddhist scholastic opinion?

I find the original statement the first sentence :In Buddhist studies, particularly East Asian Buddhist studies, post-canonical Buddhist texts or Buddhist apocrypha designate texts that are not accepted as canonical by the various traditions of Buddhism as perplexing. After all some non-Mahayana Buddhist would consider every Mahayana sutra as post-canonical (i.e. post Gautama Buddha); and some Mahayana may regard certain Theraveda Sutras as apocrypha as well, etc., Also if we are basing this on the basis on canonical sutras and sastras, all the sutras you've mentioned in this category are in fact included in the Taisho Tripitaka (canon). According to traditional Buddhism, a Buddhist is someone who takes refuge in the Triratna (i.e. The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha ---ie Monks and Nuns). The only authority who can truly decide are the aforementioned three groups. Scholastic opinion is invalid unless it is agreed upon by the Sangha. Perhaps instead of calling this post-canonical Buddhist texts, the title can be changed to List of Buddhist Apocrypha based on the Opinions of University Academia. Many of the citations are in Chinese. I can read them but some of the links are dead links. If you truly read Chinese, you will know many of these sutras and sastras have articles under the Chinese language Wikipedia. They seem to have a different opinion as to their apocryphal status. Strictly speaking non-English sources are invalid unless you can provide a tranlation of them.Hanbud (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hanbud, the term Buddhist apocrypha is used by scholars to refer to opinions of historical Buddhist communities. Of course it is not the opinion of scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The term Buddhist apocrypha is used by scholars to refer to opinions of historical Buddhist communities. Really? Have you actually read any of the footnoted items? Many of the arguments taken by some scholars take advantage of the misfortunes of Indian Buddhism (i.e. it basically disappeared ca. 1200 CE and the vast majority of textual evidence with it). As such there is an incomplete Sanskrit source to verify the historicality and veracity of some of these Mahayana translations. The Chinese translations of the Buddhavacana were the first non-indic translation and some editing or expansion in explanation was necessary to convey the meaning of the sutra to the Chinese and Sino-sphere (e.g. Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Tangut, Uighur, etc.,) audience; i.e. literal word for word translation of Indic Buddhist sutras would yield unintelligible texts for the Sino-sphere practitioners; and had that been done, Buddhism would never have reached anywhere near its current popularity. As an aside, certain Mahayana sutras also suspect included sutras such as the The Vimalakirti Sutra and The Avatamsaka Sutra. However despite the suspicions (especially regarding Avatamsaka Sutra) as only certain chapters were reference in the surviving indic commentarial literature, nowadays Sanskrit manuscripts of both sutras have been found in Tibet. What if someone had included these sutras in a list such as yours in so-called encyclopedic wikipedia? What would have the effect on people interested in these sutras which are immensely popular in Mahayana Buddhism? Furthermore,we even find similar types of editing taking place in Theraveda suttas passed down by Pali schools of Buddhism. How do we know? Because there are quotations of suttas in past centuries for which the current sutta lack the quoted text. Should we call in to question those sutta's validity? By a curious happenstance, the Pali Theraveda schools take great pride that the Chinese Agamas preserve much of the Pali Suttas. For without the Chinese Agamas as preserved in the Chinese Tripitaka, the historicality of the Pali schools would be called into question and subjected to endless scholastic debate.Hanbud (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Chinese sources can be used on the English Wikipedia, as long as they are reliable sources per WP:RS.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I do not think that Buddhist practitioners should take Wikipedia policies as offensive, since an encyclopedia is per definition a summary of scholarly writing, not a stage for Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist teachers are often quoted by scholars as primary sources anyway. Besides, Buddhist teachers have their own edifying role to play in society, as a teacher in an educative or religious setting, which has a different aim and purpose than an encyclopedia, and at that, often a more noble aim.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If only Chinese language readers can read the footnotes, then it is not verifiable by the majority of English language users of English language Wikipedia. Furthermore some of the Chinese language footnotes are not applicable to the footnoted item. It seems the person who added those footnotes isn't fully fluent in Chinese. For example what is the purpose of the Dunhuang text footnotes? Do you mean to suggest that all Dunhuang text are Buddhist apocrypha? The footnote leads to Dharma Drum Mountain (Buddhist) site for Taisho Volume 85. If you can read Chinese, you can tell me what Taisho Volume 85 includes and does not include. Some of the footnoted items are personal blogs --- hardly an authoritative source --- why don't you get a footnote from a large Buddhist temple or National Buddhist organization?Hanbud (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Post Canonical Buddhist Texts is inherently a religious topic. In order to enforce Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", etc., a list of Sutras or Sastras is not conducive to this Neutral Point of View. Some of the sutras mentioned as post-canonical' are considered by the majority of Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Mahayana Buddhism as foundational texts. The apocryphal status attributed by these University Academics are at best disparaged minority opinions that have not affected actual practice at all. For example the Heart Sutra is considered as a foundational text in Mahayana Buddhism. It is in morning recitation books that Mahayana monks and nuns use on a daily basis in today's Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (including PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Chinese Diaspora). The Heart Sutra is also recited on a daily basis in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. Likewise the Shurangama Mantra (part of the Shurangama Sutra) is recited as the first text in the morning recitation by monks and nuns throughout the Chinese Buddhist world and also in Korea. The Ullambana Sutra is the foundational text of a major Buddhist holiday in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao and Singapore and the Chinese Diaspora. Based on the information you have provided here, you have led people potentially intereted in these orthrodox Buddhist topics astray.Hanbud (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Post Canonical Buddhist Texts doesn't only include text from East Asia. It can theoretically included the Kangyur, the Pali Suttas, etc., If you want to mention historical Buddhist opinion, the Abhidharma can be included as well. Why is it not? Most practicing Buddhists are aware of Anantarika-karma and the tale of Mahadeva. Hanbud (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 7 Under Folk Sutras actually refers to Extra-canonical Buddhist Texts. Although there are some "folk religion sutras" in the list there, there is also a translation from Tibetan of Santidevas's Bodhicaryavatara （a more complete version) that differs from Taisho Tripitaka version. Is this footnote relevant to Post-canonical Buddhist text?Hanbud (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see now what you are trying to say, Hanbud, and have tagged the page now. However, it is important to know that the word post-canonical in English language does not have any negative connotations. With regard to apocrypha, this is a word that is much more problematic, which is why the page has recently been renamed. When the word apocrypha is mentioned in the article, it should be clearly attributed inline as an opinion, rather than a fact.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now removed all content only supported by primary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Hanbud, please explain your removal of sourced content here and here. Content supported by reliable sources should normally only be removed after consensus on the talk page. See also WP:RS and WP:OR.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has been resolved in the above section.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)