Talk:Three Ages of Buddhism

Chinese writing

Well excuse me folks, I have a little trouble discerning exactly what this article is all about. My problem is that I do not read Chinese. I was under the distinct impression that this English encyclopedia was to be written mainly in English and those who want the Chinese version can click the appropriate link on the left. The Chinese is of no use at all to me and most people. By the time I learned the language sufficiently to read the sources my interest in those sources would have been long gone. But, I'm not picking on anyone such as the Chinese. I've seen the same problem with Hungarian, Hebrew and some of the Indic languages. An effective technique for names is to put the English transliteration in parentheses after the name. The sources here, however, are not just names. No matter how important you consider them to be, they are of no use to most of us. I grant you Chinese is being taught now in many schools. As far as the English-speaking population is concerned it is still a rare and exotic language and we still refer to the writing as a paradigm of something totally incomprehensible. Please replace the all-Chinese sources with ones the rest of us can read. Thank you.Dave (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Following a merger-propsal from november 2011, I've copied Mappō to this page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OR, POV and other issues

The article mixed two related, but different concepts together, which sources like Nattier doesn't. One concept is the decline or corruption of dharma; the other is to divide the periods into three. The former can divide the periods into two or three, and this article is about tree periods. Nattier's work actually explores the relationship between these two. Equating these two are WP:OR.

Your point is inaccurate as there is a term in East Asian Buddhism which can be translated as the Three Times or Three Ages (三時). According to Ding Fubao's edition of Great Dictionary on Buddhism (佛學大辭典) - a secondary definition of the term refers precisely to the three ages of buddhism as described in this article.Hanbud (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The other issue is it doesn't present a balanced, overall view of how different schools/traditions of Buddhism view this subject. e.g. Theravada doesn't divide the periods into three, and there is nothing in the Pali Canon that divides into three periods. The only source on division into periods is Buddhaghosa's commentary on Vinaya etc. Though there are similarities of his division to division into three periods, someone from Theravada tradition really doesn't think in terms of three periods. However, the article would mislead readers to think most, if not all, Buddhist traditions think in terms of three periods.

Buddhaghosa lived in the 5th century CE; his commentary shows at very least during his time period, Theravada Buddhist believed in the decline of Buddhism within a five thousand year framework. This is an encyclopedic article on the Three Ages of Buddhism. Modern opinions by various Mahayana teachers do not necessarily see the inevitable decline of the Dharma; some Mahayana teachers see if we live according to Buddha's teachings, the decline can be postpone. Likewise modern Theravada teachers may also feel similarly for whatever reasons. Still the article exists, and if you can present a footnoted item stating your belief that such and such a Theravada teacher does not believe the decline of Buddhism is inevitable, you are welcome to do so. But nevertheless it should not dominate the whole article as it is a subsidiary item of interestHanbud (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also there is no lack of English sources on this subject. Citing Chinese sources when English sources are readily available doesn't help readers who can't read Chinese.

Overall, the article as it stands seems to be written by people w/o background and training in Buddhist studies. It lacks appropriate structure, and I think substantial revision is in order. -- Happyseeu (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

See my comments re: your accessment versus Ding Fubao's edition of the Great Dictionary on Buddhism, itself an expansion and translation of a standard Japanese dictionary on Buddhism. Hence your remarks about WP:OR is incorrect. Therefore I am going to remove the neutrality banner on the article page.Hanbud (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do contributors to Wikipedia Buddhist articles must have background / training in Buddhist studies? Some of the conclusions coming from so-call Buddhist studies people create articles on Buddhist topics that become unrecognizable by Buddhist practitioners and Sangha members. Is this Wikipedia's intention? Where does Buddhist Studies Buddhism exists - outside of a few thousand academics worldwide compared with the hundreds of millions or even more Buddhist practitioners? Are you trying to say Buddhist Studies people have the right to redefine Buddhism for all the Buddhist practitioners? I hope you understand why I am asking you this question with regard to your statement.Hanbud (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This article conflicts with the five five-hundred-year periods as mentioned in the Great Collection Sutra

I am not sure how the authors of this article justify talking about the three ages of buddhism (citing recent secondary literature (Hattori, Shōon (2000). A Raft from the Other Shore: Honen and the Way of Pure Land Buddhism. Jodo Shu Press. ISBN 978-4-88363-329-6) when this is in direct contradiction with the Great Collection Sutra complied by Dharmaraksha (385-433) and others.

I am not a Buddhist scholar, but it only took me 5 minutes of research to discover this contradiction.

I believe that the ages as prophesied by Shakyamuni Buddha himself ought to be mentioned and reasons ought to be given, why Hattori draws different conclusions.

Hskoppek (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)