Talk:Mahayana sutras

[Untitled]

I'm thinking of redirecting this page to Buddhist Texts : Mahayana texts section. Anyone object?

You don't sign your posts? Vandalism? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Intorduction and Reorganisation of first parts

i reorganized the first parts. the introductory part now is very short. I do not see any reason, why the debate about the origin of the texts should be included already in the introductory section. Therefore i moved it to "histoticity and origins" where it belongs. Also, the content of the Lotus Sutra is not important for the introduction...its age might as well be.

Maybe the introductory section has to be redone.

The most basic facts about the Mahayana Sutras imho are: 1. they are buddhist scriptures 2. mahayana buddhists base their faith/philosophy on them 3. their approximate date of origin

all else can be subject of debate... 84.44.215.59 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Historicity and orgins

I have made some cuts to this article. The purported connection between the Mahayana sutras and the Fourth Council of Kanishka is quite spurious. I really don't know who started this myth, but it is wrong. Other features of this article are also dubious. The Mahayana legend of the Naga guardianship of the sutras is not universal. Much could be done to improve this article in order to refect modern scholarship on the origins of Mahayana sutras. There is also a subtle POV slant towards the Theravada view -- the implication is that the Theravada view of its canon is the touchstone for authenticity. In fact, the Theravadin canon is equally open to question.--Stephen Hodge 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See my reply at talk:Buddha - God or Man greetings, Sacca 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, the reason why I cut the linkage between the Kanishka Council and Mahayana is because it is extremely dubious: no reputable modern scholar accepts this. Can you come up with some non-POV proof ? The Kanishka Council was a purely Sarvastivadin affair. So I intend to revert to my previous edit. The orgin of Mahayana sutras is extremely complex and should not be dealt with in this simplistic outmoded manner -- in fact, they were probably first composed in the Deccan area, not in Kashmir and that region. If you have specialized in the origins of Mahayana sutras, I would like to hear your findings.

As I mentioned in talk:Buddha - God or Man, there is no non-POV proof that the Pali canon is very much older than Mahayana sutras - a little older, I would concede, but not more than 150 years. They are both as authentic or inauthentic as each other in terms of content.

I mentioned the Anguttara-nikaya. Compare the contents with the Ekottara-nikaya presrved in the Chinese canon. It's immediately obvious that there is a huge amount of new material included in the AN.

Do you recognize that the Pali Canon was decided to be closed at the third council? And that there existed a second and first council at approximately the same time as they are commonly believed to have taken place? Or do you maybe believe this did actually never take place, and the whole scripture was invented in the first cenury BC? greetings, Sacca 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From Buddha - god or man talkpage

Dear Sacca, concerning the Mahayana sutras, you say: "to me they are just later writings, put into the mouth of the Buddha to give them more authority. This is just the historical background-information. So, I like to always make the historical status of a text clear, and I think the historicity of texts does matter". But the same applies to large numbers of the suttas in the Pali canon or the other Agamas -- for example, more than half of the Anguttara-nikaya is clearly of late composition. The Pali canon is highly stratified, both in terms of text and ideas, which indicates that it had a long history of development. It is also noteworthy that the Pali canon was first put into writing around 29BCE, a similar date to the early Mahayana sutras. Apart from some prior epigraphic mentions and quotes, there is actually no evidence for the existence of the Pali canon earlier than the manuscript tradition that is supposed to start around 29BCE. It is likely that very little of the Pali canon (suttas and vinaya) as we have it now represents the actual words of the Buddha. In other words, the suttas in the Pali canon too are later compositions, put in the mouth of the Buddha to give them more authority -- most were probably composed around the time of Asoka and later . Then only difference between the suttas in the Pali canon and the Mahayana sutras is that the composition of the Pali suttas was done a bit earlier than the Mahayana sutras. As user Tony says, one's choice of authoritative sutras all comes down to a matter of faith --Stephen Hodge 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not true. The agamas are of a different lineage than the Pali Canon, and are very similar to it. This provided the proof that science required, that those scriptures, which come from different monastic traditions (in geographically seperated locations), have a common source in time and place, one much older than the Mahayana Sutras. Because of this, the date at which the Pali Canon has been written down is not of much consequence. These scriptures existed long before they were written down: in the monastic tradition (of human beings) they were transmitted from generation to generation. A method which was also used for (parts of) the Hindu Vedas. That this method worked is proven by the Agamas, for which the same method was used before they were written down, and which are very similar in content to the Pali Canon (excepting the Abhidhamma of course)

Further: the Mahayana scriptures were composed in the first century AD. The fact that some of them incorporated ideas which can be traced back to the 1st century BC does not change the date of composition of those sutras. This should be accuratedly reflected in the article.

Also Mahayana Buddhism recognizes the teachings of the Pali Canon and the Agamas as older: see for example the theory of the three turnings, which puts the 'Hinayana' as the first turning. Both the Agamas and the Pali Canon come from the early buddhist schools, and in fact they derive from different early schools. It is interesting to see the history of those schools: they did not make arguments about the Sutta-pitaka or the Vinaya-Pitaks, but strictly about Abhidhamma(pitaka). This again indicates that the first two pitakas were very similar amongst those early schools, and that the Abhidhammas, as a later development, differed, which gave rise to arguments.

Consequently I will put most of what you deleted on the Mahayana Sutras back. Please feel free to go to Anguttara Nikaya and put in any data you honestly believe is true. greetings, Sacca 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, The likelihood that parts of the agamas and the nikayas derive from a common source is well-known, though it should be noted that the written evidence for the Agamas is also very late. However, you have no evidence of dating apart from supposition. You say that "these scriptures existed long before they were writing down". How would set about proving this ? Strictly speaking, one could say that this is merely POV, since it cannot be established by any means. See, for example:

"We know, and have known for some time, that the Pali canon as we have it - and it is generally conceded to be our oldest source - cannot be taken back further than the last quarter of the first century BCE, the date of the Alu-vihara redaction, the earliest redaction that we can have some knowledge of, and that - for a critical history - it can serve, at the very most only as a source for the Buddhism of this period. But we also know that even this is problematic since as Malalasekera has pointed out '...how far the Tipitaka and its commentary reduced to writing at Alu-vihara resembled them as they have come down to us now, no one can say.' In fact, it is not until the time of the commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala, and others - that is to say the fifth to sixth centuries C.E. - that we can know anything definite about the actual contents of this canon. We also know that there is no evidence to indicate that a canon existed prior to the Alu-vihara redaction. Although Ashoka in his Bhabra Edict specifically enjoined both monks and laymen to recite certain texts, which he named, he nowhere in his records gives any indication that he knew of a canon, or the classification of texts into nikayas." Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (p23-4), Gregory Schopen (Univ of Hawai'i 1997)

The precise dating of Mahayana sutras is not the problem: it is the failure to recognize that the Nikayas / Agamas are likely for the large part to have been composed over a period of several centuries after the Buddha died. Theravadins don't like to hear this, but to put it rather crudely, most of the Pali suttas are as fake as the Mahayana sutras -- they were just faked a bit befoe the Mahayana ones.

You claim an authentic oral tradition for the Pali canon with no evidence apart from inference based on presupposition. One could easily apply the same logic to the Mahayana sutras, with the same level of proof.

You say, "Mahayana Buddhism recognizes the teachings of the Pali Canon and the Agamas as older". No, it doesn't in any meaningful way. The account of the three turnings relates to sutras expounded in the Buddha's own lifetime.

You say, "It is interesting to see the history of those schools: they did not make arguments about the Sutta-pitaka or the Vinaya-Pitakas". This is wrong -- not a lot of literature survives from these schools, but they certainly did argue about the interpretation of Sutra and Vinaya topics. It was also well-known that different schools had some sutras in the Agamas which others did not, Vasubandhu mentions this problem in his Abhidharmakosa-bhasya.--Stephen Hodge 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Until now, your 'evidence' just concerns the fact that it is not written down until that time. Current scholars have long since moved on to the scripture itself, and focuses on the language used as a method of dating, and comparisons between the agamas and the pali canon. Using this, dating can be done and has been done, and I am familiar with the results. The results of this largely are responsible for the authority that the Pali Canon and the Agamas hold in the scholarly tradition as the most authaurative. The Mahayana suttas do not have this authority, this is a common understanding amongst scholars. The fact is was written down in 30 BC doesn't negate the existence of the older version at all, and this whole issue was abandoned a long time ago. I know nobody who believes the Pitakas were invented in Sri Lanka in 30 BC. Are you the first one, maybe?

And you are right: the arguments only concern interpretations of the actual Sutta-pitaka, often based on the respective Abhidhammas. They are not about variations in the actual Sutta-pitaka, which were very similar or maybe even identical. The existence of suttas which are not present in the other version concerns only a very small number; it doesn't concern the main body of the tenthousands of suttas which are in communion with eachother. Remember, it is not stated they were the same, just very similar, and pointing to a common source, which is both cases is referred to as the First Buddhist Council.

This whole discussion seems like moving back into time, frankly. These things are old and resolved a long time ago. greetings, Sacca 02:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, either I have not expressed myself clearly enough or you have misunderstood my position. I am, of course, well aware of current dating methodologies -- I imagine that you too have read the relevent research by von Hinuber, Sasao, Norman, Pande, Gombrich, Meisig, Kingsbury, Allon. Hence, I too am aware of the dating results that these various scholars have proposed, as well as the methodological drawbacks. I have also done quite a lotof comparative Agama/Nikaya research myself -- I just have spent the last three years comparing most of the SA and SN. However, valuable though all this recent work is, you will note that they all merely propose a relative chronology -- an absolute chronology is probably impossible. Kingsbury's results are easy to understand when one looks at the various chronological distribution graphs he has produced.

So what is my position ? Well. first I do not give the traditional accounts of the Councils much credence. Even the word "council" seems somewhat grandiose. Doubtless, there were some such meetings, but I do not believe that they compiled the Nikayas then as traditionally claimed. The relative chronologies the above scholars and others have proposed, using various methodologies, does not allow for this.

I also think, in company with most scholars, that the Nikayas do not represent the ipsissima verba of the Buddha. In fact, along with others, I think that a number of key Buddhist doctrines do not datwe back to the Buddha himself. I am thinking of the skandhas (cf Kingsbury, Vetter et al) and the 12-fold pacciya-samuppada. Looking at other religious corpora, such as the Christian Gospels or the Confucian Analects, it has been well demonstrated recently that the percentage of actual teachings of the founder is fairly low -- around 20%. This seems to be a fairly universal pheomenon -- and in the case of the Nikayas, I suspect the percentage of authentic "word of Buddha" teachings is even lower.

Hence, if one takes the relative textual chronologies, backed up by ideological chronologies, it would seem that the Nikayas were compiled over a period of several centuries after the Buddha's death. Extrapolating from Kingsbury's data (and taking Agama parallels into account), the bulk of the Nikaya suttas he examined seem to have come into existence about 200 years after the Buddha. This would place us around the Asokan period, which when I think the evidence points for the complilation of the Vinaya as well as the core of the Nikaya collections (cf Frauwallner "Earliest Vinaya").

So the upshot of all this is quite simple. If the bulk of the suttas/sutras do not date from the 1st Council, they must have been compiled later by monks who put those words into the mouth of the Buddha, unless you are suggesting divine revelation. This is exactly the same situation as claimed by people such as yourself for Mahayana sutras. But there is no absolute difference: as I said before, the Nikaya/Agama authors just made their creations a bit earlier than the period Mahayanis began to compose their sutras. Indeed, on might even argue that there is evidence that the Mahayanis were just taking a leaf out of the Nikaya/Agama author's book. Given this situation, one cannot, if one is scientifically honest, say that the Nikayas/Agamas are necessarily more authorative than the Mahayana sutras. I imagine that this is a hard pill for you to swallow, but that is where objectivity and intellectual honesty will lead you, I'm afraid. You can't apply one set of criteria to Mahayana Sutras and not expect to have the same criteria applied to the Nikayas. Does that help make things clearer ? --Stephen Hodge 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit

The latest edit (02:05) by Stephen is acceptable to me, it seems we have reached a solution on this subject. Maybe I will add some more details (sources) later. greetings, Sacca 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I was just getting the Katyushkas ready :)--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits to this article seem to have to take a decided anti-Mahayana position, which seems inappropriate. My impression (which is, of course, non-expert), is that modern scholarship contains a continuum of opinions about the relative validity of the Pali and Mahayana literatures, ranging from "the Pali literature is definitely much older and may well be a much more authentic record of what the original Buddhism taught" to "the Pali literature is only slightly older than the Mahayana literature, and they may well have arisen in similar fashions". Unless my impression is quite wrong, Wikipedia should reflect this range of opinions.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Nat. I totally agree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that Pali Buddhism constitutes the "original teachings" of the Buddha. None whatsoever. Therefore, there should not be any assumption on Wikipedia that Pali Buddhism is the "original, true" teaching of the Buddha and that Mahayana is a concocted, distorted re-write. One has to distinguish between the literary forms (in which the Mahayana sutras are cast) and the content. The literary forms with their hyperboles and various literary devices could be of later provenance, while the doctrinal content could be very ancient and stem from the Buddha himself (as with the Pali doctrines, of course). Streams of teaching from the Buddha could have come through along a Mahayana route, or through an "agama" route. The honest truth is: no one knows for sure what the historical Buddha taught - therefore Pali Buddhism and the Mahayana should not be dismissed as "not from the Buddha" here on Wikipedia. That should be a basic policy of respect and intellectual honesty, in my view. I'm sure you will agree! Best wishes. From Tony TonyMPNS 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello both, Please go and do some research then. I dived into some relevant books (historical books on buddhism in india by scholars) and found these quotes, they reflects the general attitude that exists among scholars. This is about facts, if these are the opinions of scholars, they can be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a publicity page for interest-groups. It is fairly mentioned that Mahayana believes these scriptures to be from the Buddha. And that scholars do not. Another quote which I didn't include (because this page isn't about Pali Canon) was about the Pali Canon, saying that there is no reason to assume these (Pali) scriptures are not from the Buddha, unless you take the extreme agnostic position. For the Mahayana Sutras however, there are a few reasons (AK Warder names 5 but there are more) why scholars take the position that these Mahayana Sutras have not been written by Gautama Buddha. Greetings, Sacca 10:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, relax. In fact, there are no texts "written by Gautama Buddha". All Dharma teaching are only used, tested by many generations of Buddhists (in various languages, nations and cultures) transmission from master to student. Text is only like a tool or finger directing on target. And only textual analysis of sutras and a few suppositions (about teachings of "early buddhism") is not a good reason to write in wikipedia that Mahayana Buddhism is based on "non-original texts". Buddhism is not a cult of a mumified library, after 25 centuries we can say it's a living transmission using many methods (texts also). Grets. Tadeusz Dudkowski 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article as it now stands is a near-polemic, definitely not NPOV, citing only one rather polemical source (Warder). I will pitch in with clean-up shortly. Sylvain1972 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo dear Tadeusz and Sylvain1972. You will not be surprised to hear that I agree with you! I think the article tends too much towards being an attempted "hatchet job" on the Mahayana sutras. It seems that it wants, at all costs, to get people not to take the Mahayana sutras seriously as very possibly containing genuine teachings of the Buddha (as I said earlier, we should distinguish between the later literary forms of the Mahayana sutras and the doctrines - most of which are very much rooted in "early Buddhism"). I think one should not go out of one's way to "rubbish" the authenticity of Buddhist doctrines or the sutras which expound them, when the facts of their provenance are far from certain. I also was struck by Sacca's odd comment that the Mahayana sutras were not written by the Buddha. Nobody claims that they were! But to be fair to Sacca, I think that this was just a verbal slip on Sacca's part, as Sacca knows very well that the Buddha did not write any of the suttas/sutras at all. Anyway, it seems that there is a pretty general view now (from Nat, and a number of others) that this article is too anti-Mahayana in slant and needs to be less polemical in its general tone. Thanks to all. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, yes I am fine. The article is of course not polemic, but based on solid scholastic enterprise. In some Buddhist articles, nobody seems to involve any scholastic works. I have decided I will include scholastic works because it makes these articles more objective, more scientific, less POV. Also one learns quite a bit from it, so that's another reason why I am willing to put in the time and effort to go through these works. I really encourage you to do the same. Greetings, Sacca 05:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Skilton and Robert Gethin are two scholars whose work can be incorporated into this article, which at this point reflects Warder's biases entirely.Sylvain1972 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

How can we establish the consensus of experts regarding this subject? Does Sacca have some particular degree of expertise that entitles him to state what scholars believe? This is a bit ironic considering that, above, we find a thread in which Stephen Hodge, a bona fide Buddhist scholar and translator, explains a contrasting opinion.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nat, you are absolutely right. It is quite obvious to nearly everyone who has commented here that a desire to tarnish the validity of the Mahayana sutras has recently become evident in this article. And Sacca: please stop deleting material which I have added on the "Tathagatagarbha Sutras" section of this entry. I happen to know something about that area of Buddhism (after decades of study of it) - so kindly desist from censoring important information. Thank you. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Properly Referenced

Hi Nat, please don't remove properly referenced statements. That's not a good thing to do, you know. If you don't agree with the contents of the statement, at least you can agree that the statement is properly referenced to a trustworthy scholarly source which has peer-review? And that it is thus a valid addition to the encyclopedia? I bet you, you can! Have nice day, Greetings, Sacca 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All in all, the source you cite makes an interesting and valid point. But, can it really be that you don't see the tendentious nature of what you've written? By titling the section "self-contradictory" you have extracted the most inflammatory possible word from the quotation. I have fixed the header by changing it to "diversity". As a Wikipedia editor, though, you have a responsibility to make sure that your contributions meet Wikipedia's standards, such as NPOV. Why should other editors have to take the time to clean up your work?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nat, I am currently one of a few who actually use scholarly articles. Many people on Buddhism-related articles just change somebody else's phrases into a version they themselves like, without referring to scholarly articles at all. So what results is a more or less politically correct, but possibly wrong, article. That's the situation of quite some sections of the Buddhism article now - but I intend to do something about this, of course. Thanks for pointing out the diversity-tag. That's a really nice way to see it and true, of course.

I do think you're a bit small-hearted here, taking the time to do just one little edit (have you counted my recent edits?), and then complaining about the time it takes? The above comment you wrote (on this talk page here) is about 50 times longer than the edit you made in the article. The effort you put into complaining about the amount of work it took you to make an edit is much more than the actual work you undertook, isn't that a bit strange? But I understand your feeling, I sometimes have the same with the edits some wikipedia-editors do, and I sometimes follow their contributions just to make sure they don't do too much damage. I think the only way to solve this issue is to use scholarly articles as a basis for edits - I am sorry not more people have moved into this mode yet. All the best, Greetings, Sacca 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AK Warder

I am concerned that such reliance is being placed on quotations from AK Warder in various articles concerning Mahayana. As a Theravadin, he is hardly an expert on Mahayana -- fair enough, but why so much reliance on him ?? But apart from that, his work is rather out of date and hardly represents current thinking on Mahayana-related matters. The Indian edition of his book was first published in 1970, so one can assume that it was written in the 1960s -- a lot has changed since then in Buddhist studies.

I suspect that the intention in relying so much on Warder is mischief-making in order to denigrate and undermine Mahayana articles. If this imbalance is not redressed, perhaps it is time for concerned parties to subject Theravada articles to a full range of unsympathic Mahayana quotes. We could begin by dropping the politically correct pretense that Theravada should not be designated as Hinayana from a Mahayana perspective -- which it indubitably is ! --Stephen Hodge 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, i understand your last sentence right. You mean, it should not be mentioned that the term hinayana should better not be used? I would just like to add to the discussion that H.H. the Dalai Lama in his public teachings does not use the term hinayana any more. As i recall, he even explicitly explained in his public Teachings in Zurich, Summer 2005, that the Term Hinayana could be perceived as derogatory and that although from his point of view, it is not meant that way, he will abstain from using this term in the future (btw. belitteling the hinayana teachings/paths would constitute a major downfall (breach) of the boddhisattva vows). Instead he uses the term Shravakayana, or, more precisely, speaks of the Paths of the Shravakas and of the Pratyekabuddhas, who, in cotrast to the followers of the Bodhisattvayana, seek personal liberation only. I currently participate in a 5 year study of Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy at a german gelug dharma center (www.tibet.de). One of our tutors, Christof Spitz, is the german translator of H.H. He also chooses the term Shravakayana whenever possible. In our study texts by Geshe Thubten Ngawang and in classical Mahayana texts, of course, the term Hinayana is widely used. 84.44.215.59 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources on Buddha's teachings

Which book on early Buddhism uses Mahayana Sutras? None. Books on early Buddhism or 'Buddha's Buddhism' just can't do that, the Mahayana Sutras don't have that credibility. Even the Japanese scholars agree on this, even though they have been raised in a Mahayana country.

I just remember (for myself) that what I'm trying to do (make many scholarly references in articles concerning Buddhist history) is never going to be a popular thing amongst the Wikipedia editors with Mahayana preferences, and even among many Theravadins. This would be very unlikely. I don't get many 'cheers!', but that's ok. I think this information is important, and it is nice to delve into the subject.

For your info, I have used 5 different books on the subject. Warder is only one of them, you can look in the notes yourself, I presume? I might not have used all 5 books in every article I edited, though... He speaks clearly, formulates his words very well, so his quotes don't have to be long, but contain a lot of clear info. It's actually the third edition from 1999.

Stephen, on a personal note, previously I actually thought you were just a scholar, but it seems different. I hope that while reading or translating these mahayanic sutras you didn't start believing their claims for historical authenticity? But I guess this might happen even to the best of men. Greetings, Sacca 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism, where I'm trying to collect together scholarly opinions for use in just such endeavours. Please contribute. Peter jackson 11:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AK WARDER?

One scholar is the basis of attacking the Mahayana? I have read Mahayana sutras and the Tipitika and I fully agree with Theravada Scholar W. Rahula:

---

I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental teachings.

- Both accept Shakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anattá and Síla, Samádhi, Paññá without any difference.

These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question. (Theravada - Mahayana Buddhism By Ven. Dr. W. Rahula)

---

Dragons and gods? They are found in the Tipitika. Buddha lineages? Buddha says he comes from the Buddha lineage right in the Tipitika.

Buddha is called "dhamma sami" (dhamma swami) amatadatta (giver of immortality), brahma Bhuto, dhamma bhuto, etc...right in the Tipitika. Buddha calls himself the father in the itivuttaka.

So please don't tell mahayanist Buddhists that their scriptures are too theistic, these scriptures have a basis for the most part in the early tipitika. Buddhism is about contemplative gnosis, it isn't about blind faith. --149.4.108.27 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

It's especially important in religious matters to get this right. WP mustn't take sides. It's not just a matter of factual accuracy; we have to look carefully at selection & presentation. It's no good just popping in the odd scholarly quotation you happen to came across.

Eg, on the topic of self-contradiction mentioned above (I haven't looked at the article here). Williams (Mahayana Buddhism, page 2 I think) mentions contradictions in Mahayana literature, but he also mentions on the same page that Mahayana often uses a pragmatic concept of truth, ie true means useful. As there's no reason why contradictory things shouldn't be useful, this cancels the negative tone & provides balance.

I think it's balanced to say the Pali Canon is mostly earlier than the Mahayana scriptures. Likewise, one could say that the Buddha's teachings evolved into the Pali Canon & other early teachings, & these in turn evolved into Mahayana. But it's not for WP to say, imply or suggest that any particular Buddhist text or school is or is not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings.

What's necessary if we want to go beyond such simple statements is a careful collation of what scholars have to say about these stages of evolution. For the 1st stage, the relation between the Buddha's original teachings & the Pali Canon & other early sources, I've already set up a subpage as noted above. We need something similar for the relations between the early schools & Mahayana. However, that would be more complicated:

• the Buddha is not around to answer back, so the 1st phase is simply a matter of the relation between the Pali Canon & other early sources on the 1 hand & scholars' theories of the Buddha's teachings on the other; however, for the 2nd phase we should consider not only what scholars say about the relations between diferent forms of Buddhism but also what the schools themselves have said about each other & about the relations between them
• Mahayana is very varied, so in addition to general consideration of the relations between Mahayana & early traditions we also need to do separate comparisons for particular forms & aspects

Peter jackson 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example, where I have to take issue with Stephen. The statement that Mahayana regards Theravada as Hinayana, if it were in an article, not just a talk page, would be unbalanced, because Mahayana uses the terms Mahayana & Hinayana in (at least) 2 senses & the statement is not true in the main 1, that they refer to levels of spiritual practice & motivation (citation in Mahayana). Bhavya/Bhavaviveka says in the Tarkajvala that Mahayana is included in the 18 schools, meaning in the context that they recognize & honour the bodhisattva path (JPTS XVIII 173). Aspiration to Buddhahood is frequent in Theravada (op cit 116).

The official Buddhism of Ceylon & Thailand is (largely) derived from Western scholars (citation in Theravada & Pali Canon). I wonder whether the "sectarian" understanding of Mahayana is a similar example of feedback.

On further consideration of what I said above about 2 phases of evolution, I think we can't separate the material that way. Hirakawa claims that Mahayana is partly derived from lay traditions independent of the monastic transmission & going back to early times. This is probably still maintained by many/most Japanese scholars. Inclusion of everything is going to complicate things. Peter jackson 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you include some scholars like AK Warder, too? You've already included schopen so A.K. Warder should be there also. You can find it on Mahayana Sutras. And the reference to De Jong's paper of 1993 or 1997? I didn't see it. But you know it exists since you deleted the information from the main buddhism page. 08:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacca (talk • contribs)

NPOV may be unattainable because "mahayana" is inherently biased, a self-appointed description. Unlike "New Testament" (which has chronology as a minimal justification for referring to Torah as "Old Testament"), there is a doctrinal value judgment made in the very term. See K. A. Lie's 2005 web article "The myth of Hinayana" which argues cogently against the "levels of practice" justification. The etymology of "hina" (especially cognates meaning "insulting") is also relevant. Martindo (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Non sectarianism

The first few paragraphs seem to have been written and rewritten so that it was highly repetitive in favor of a sectarian view regarding the origins of the sutras. This appears to get enough coverage in the middle portions of the text and was a distraction from the actual information about the sutras. It is plain there is much sectarian strife about mahayana and that does not need to be demonstrated here in order for people to understand. I made some severe edits in the first 4 sections, in hopes of simplifying the opening few paragraphs so that it reads more like information and less like divisive jabbing.Egomzez (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed a total of 3 references, heavily misrepresent the last remaining reference, added many vague unreferenced claims, making the article very biased. I reverted it now. Greetings, Sacca 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the revisions implemented by Egomzez. Much too much weight and prominence is given to Warder who is evidently hostile to Mahayana and the other Theravadin specialists. This leads to a unbalanced and denigrating POV which not acceptable. If there is a problem with unreferenced claims, that can be dealt with, but the article seems far less biased than the version favored by user Sacca. Imagine the fuss that would arise if a similarly hostile, Christainizing passage was given such prominence so early in the article on the Qura'an, for example. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it again, the egomzez version is not the version to start working on if you want to change anything. It deletes properly referenced statements by several scholars (Harvey also, f.e.) and misrepresent Warders statement. It deletes valid concerns scholars have and why nobody (except Mahayanists) takes these scriptures to seriously represent the historical Buddha.

Furthermore, it inserts a religious bias by calling Mahayana sutras the second turning of Dharma, a purely mahayana, biased and unscholarly label. Also it tries to make the origins of the Mahayans Sutras vague and more early than anybody thinks, by saying it's somewhere after the 3rd of 4th century BC. But its actually quite specifically the first century AD.

You can try to add some information to the article in an unbiased way, but the egomzez version is very biased and unacceptable. Greetings, Sacca 04:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can start not just deleting scholarly opinion that you don't like, but providing a better referenced background to the historical arising of the Mahayana Sutras? I started doing this now. Greetings, Sacca 04:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

inserts

So Anam, what do you think is the solution then, do you have an idea to make the information that you labeled as 'unbalanced', more balanced in your eyes? Rephrasing? Shorter formulation? Different presentation? Add another viewpoint? Go ahead and try please. But it shouldn't be deleted, because that would be very unbalanced and dictatorial, I think. Greetings, Sacca 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List subheadings

I've deleted these for now as they imply that the 3rd list of sutras aren't Indian, Central Asian or Chinese, when in fact most of them are Indian. Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs shortening and personal viewpoints removed

This article is of low quality. The reason being is basically verbosely documented above. There is a lot of one sided "what the Buddha said is best". Which is great, but present the opposite as well. Non-Buddhist readers are not going to benefit from the one-sided presentation. This is an article about Mahayana Buddhism, not a flame war about which one is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josher565 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This information is sourced and informative. Mitsube (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Historicity section

The paragraph beginning "Scholars have said that ... " seems unnecessary, since it is not comparing like with like. The statement beginning "The Mahayana version of this text", talking of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra is wrong. That Mahayana sutra is not a "version" in any sense at all of the Pali text of a similar name. It does not cover any of the Pali material whatsoever. Again the relative dating of these two texts is quiet irrelevent. Whenever the Pali text was written has not bearing on the Mahayana text. If anything, the Pali text should be compared with the Sarvastivadin Mahaparinirvana-sutra, which does cover the same content as the Pali text. As for dating, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana,as a Mahayana text, is however, relatively early as the proposed dates indicate.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who brought dating into this, claiming that it was a relatively early text, when it is not. Your claim was sourced, but the source did not support it. This is a troubling pattern with you, please stop doing this. Mitsube (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about ? I had nothing whatsoever to do with this part of the article ~ dating questions or otherwise. If I had, why would I be suggesting this paragraph be deleted ??? You must have me confused with somebody else. This tendency to attack people without justification is a troubling pattern with you, please stop doing this.-- अनाम गुमनाम 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not the Mahayana version of the text, but it contains an apocryphal Mahayana version of the events leading up to his death. Mitsube (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More confusion, clever Mr Mitsube. There is NO Mahayana "version" of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra ~ if you think otherwise give me a reference to one, please. If not, please try not to make a fool of yourself with your superficial textual knowledge. The ONLY other surviving texts parallel to the Pali Mahaparinirvana-sutra are the Sarvastivadin version, largely available in Sanskrit and the presumed Dharmagupta version available only in Chinese. Got it yet ? I realize this is probably confusing for you, but the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra itself does not even describe as you suggest "the events leading up to his death" apart from a scene-setter prologue ~ you would know that if you had bothered to look at the text in question for yourself. It merely takes that occasion as a platform for lengthy polemics ~ no mention of "events".-- अनाम गुमनाम 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read my post, I invite you to do so. The MPNS falsely attributes statements to the Buddha regarding vegetarianism in order to persuade Jains to convert, for one thing. Mitsube (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry ~ I always read your posts quite carefully. "Know your enemy" and all that. If there is anything in your post which is unclear, then the fault will lie with the writer. You mention "an apocryphal Mahayana version of the events leading up to his death". As I said there are no "events" per se ~ there is just lots and lots of uneventful polemical discussion. Or do you mean "discussion" by "event" ? Not very clear on your part.

I know the text enjoins non-meating, but how do you actually KNOW that it is false ? How do you KNOW that it was to persuade the Jains to convert ~ do you have a favorite scholarly reference for that ? And before you lecture me, historically it is more likely that the rule about three kinds of acceptable meat were not uttered by the Buddha ~ that rule has all the air of a late addition to suit monks. And don't tell me that the Buddha died from eating pork ~ that one is a really old chestnut.

Anyway, you have been so busy attacking me, you did not reply to me suggestion that the paragraph be deleted. It is irrelevant at that point. Put it in the main article on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra if you want, then we can sort out the wording there. Or better still, since the theme of the paragraph is the superior historicity of the Pali version, why not put it in the Mahaparinibbana-sutta article where it would fit better. Shall I move it or will you ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I said "It is not the Mahayana version of the text." You replied "More confusion, clever Mr Mitsube. There is NO Mahayana "version" of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra ~ if you think otherwise give me a reference to one, please. If not, please try not to make a fool of yourself with your superficial textual knowledge." I did not imply that there was a Mahayana version, which appears to be what you drew from my response.

In English, "it is not THE Mahayana version" and "it is not A Mahayana version" mean two different things. You apparently meant the latter, while any competent native English-apeaker would understand the first statement as I did.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I am not interested in your opinions. Regarding vegetarianism, I was repeating what Stephen Hodge said in the pdf you linked. I assumed you would know that I was referring to that. Mitsube (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As usual, as long as we have to endure your opinions, you may have to do the same. But more importantly, "the pdf you linked" ?? Look at the Page History and you will see that I have not done any such thing ~ it was another user. Or are you slyly suggesting that I, user Anam Gumnam,am some kind of glove puppet (or whatever the Wiki jargon is) ? If so, I think we might fruitfully take this up with the Wiki administration. I can assure you that I am just me and nobody else AND I have not contributed ANY editing to that paragraph, except to delete it for the reasons I stated.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph is relevant because the mention of the Mahaparinibbana-sutta as an important source for the Buddha's life makes sense there, and then pointing out the contrast with the apocryphal Mahayana MPNS is also instructive. Mitsube (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All well and good, but the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra is a peculiar choice to use to make the point as it was of quite marginal importance in India. Besides, the article is about Mahayana scriptures not Pali texts ~ it just seems like another bit of the underhand polemics that has been noted by other editors.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One other thing. You keep sticking the "apocryphal" attribute in front of the title of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-sutra. What do mean by this ? If you mean that it is not accepted within the Pali canon, this is true. But why not just say that ~ otherwise the term takes on a polemical / sectarian viewpoint, because the Pali canon or Theravadin views cannot be taken as a yardstick of authenticity. But the article also states "the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pali Canon was composed, approximately, within a century of the actual death of the Buddha". In which case, the account in the Pali version must also be also apocryphal ~ its authenticity as an accurate and non-mythic account of the Buddha's last days is also rather questionable -- as was, in fact, demonstrated by Andre Bareau in his huge and immensely detailed study of the all the Agama / Nikaya Parinirvana sutras published in the 50s ~ his conclusions that there is little historic fact in ANY of the Parinirvana sutras have been generally accepted by scholars.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Henceforth I will say "entirely fictional" if you would prefer that. Mitsube (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still won't do ~ that kind of terminology is POV. The texts in Pali canon could also be described in the same way since none of them date back to the time of the Buddha. If you like, we can keep this up all day ~ I've got the time, which will be time well spent as it will reduce your editing time elsewhere, I imagine.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are permitted to express POV's on talk pages. Your description of the texts in the Pali Canon as "entirely fictional" does not find substantial support in the academic community. Mitsube (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Anam and Mitsube, It seems to be solved now. This section should not be deleted, it gives important information on which of the two accounts of the Buddha's life is credible according to the scientific community. Their opinion in this matter is quite important and relevant in this section. bye Greetings, Sacca 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Eternal Legacy

Actually the book is quite well respected and included on the reading lists of a number of university Buddhism courses, such as at the University of East Anglis UK. It is also found in most university libraries so it is probably not too unreleiable. Moreover, the book does not contravene the Wikipedia guidelines on reliability. Please read the Wikipedia guidlines carefully before vandalizing material. OK, it's not an academic book per se, but that is not a sine qua non for citation according to the rules. And as it happens, Tharpa Books were peer reviewed when the book in question was published. The point is, Sangharakshita actually read the sutra in question, whereas the unreferenced author of the Williams' article obviously has not. This makes Sangharakshita more reliable, if you are actually interested in veracity rather than point-scoring.

The entire principle of wikipedia is reliable sourcing. Verifiability, not truth. Hopefully you will understand what this means. Mitsube (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. See the next topic.-- अनाम गुमनाम 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake Reference ?

I have removed this segment (below) originally inserted by User Sacca on 09/10/08 because the reference given is spurious. The reference given is "Buddhism ~ Critical Concepts in Religious Studies", 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 absolutely 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 customary 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 of deception here. -- अनाम गुमनाम 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A striking example of the differences between the Mahayana literature and at least some of the Pali/agama literature is seen in a comparison of two different texts with the same title: the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pali Canon (referred to here by its Pali title) and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (referred to by its Sanskrit title):

• The Pali Mahaparinibbana Sutta is biographical; it gives an account of the events surrounding the end of the Buddha's life, of which scholars have said that it displays attention to detail and has been resorted to as the principal source of reference in most standard studies of the Buddha's life.
• The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra takes the events of the last period of the Buddha's life, and uses them as a setting for an extended religious discourse. It displays a disregard for historic particulars and a fascination with the supernatural..

Thanks to User: Anam Gumnam for revealing this. Actually, it has long puzzled me why a respected scholar such as Paul Williams would get things so wrong, as the Nirvana Sutra does not - as Anam Gumnam has elsewhere pointed out - concern itself with events occuring in the final period (as opposed to the last day) of the Buddha's life; nor does the sutra display any marked or particular 'fascination with the supernatural'. So if such claims are not in fact to be found in the work that Williams has edited, that would explain a lot here..... 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suddha (talk • contribs)

Hello,

I will put the section back; user Anam Gumnam has not checked the reference well. Its right on page 190. The articlenumber is 69. I wish him all kinds of success in checking my other references. I am curious what other fake fakes he will find?? http://books.google.com/books?id=8xplr9EpQaAC&pg=PA190&dq=principal+source+of+reference+in+most+standard+studies I might change the name of the reference to refer to the original article. To user Suddha: check the article, its all there, approved by Paul William as he included the article in his collection. Greetings, Sacca 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacca, you were right, it would seem. The article does say what you indicate. I think the article is wrong - but that is another matter ... Suddha (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True Suddha, apreciate your comment, thanks... Greetings, Sacca 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Sacca. If I am wrong and you are right - I will gladly admit as much. Suddha (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So disappointing ! Yes, I thought I had checked all 8 volumes, but taking them down from the library shelves on at a time, I must have missed the crucial volume. But note here several things:

• I had the courtesy to move the problem paasages to the relevent Talk Pages and not just delete them the way Mitsube and Sacca do so readily.
• The problem is partly of your (Sacca's) own making. It is not an adequate reference. But I see your difficulty however. You don't bother to look at books, but just find quotes on the internet (here Google Books). This is not really research, is it ? But from that you would probably not have been aware that "Critical Concepts" is actually EIGHT volumes long. Could you please now supply the full reference, because each of the eight volomes begins its numbering at page 01. I know the volume number, as it happens, but I'll let you do a bit of work now.
• You unfortunately give the impression by this inadequate reference that Paul Williams was the author, but he is just the editor. Liu Ming-Wood (sadly) is the actual author. If you can't work out the Williams' volume number, perhaps you would like to give the reference for the original 80s article ?
• Finally, just because Williams' includes Liu's article does not really mean that Williams "approved" the article. Editors don't work that way.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Anam! I'm sure it must be dispappointing ;-) Why don't you check the crucial volume yourself? It mentions the details of the original article there. Let's see if you can make amends for your mistake? Please let me know the volume number too, it really doesn't matter but I am interested anyway.

bye Greetings, Sacca 08:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacca, you're being totally inconsistent. You often delete references on the vbasis of some minor irregularity of form, but here you are insisting on including one that nobody can find because you haven't given the volume number. Peter jackson (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Scholars' Opinions

The newly added quote from Skilton is excellent as it well summarizes current thinking on Mahayana textual origins ~ in contrast to the out-dated stuff by Warder. Indeed, the passage quoted could have been written by any one of the present-day scholasr who specialize in early Mahayana texts, such as Harrison, Silk, Nattier, Boucher and a number of others. It is high time something like this was inserted which is academically neutral instead of jaundiced ridicule disguised as scholarship. We must make sure that this addition stays ! -- अनाम गुमनाम 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I second Anam Gumnam's views on this. Also, I have removed (just now) the word 'teachings' from the paragraph in question, as the quote given does not in fact mention anything about the teachings; it seems only to speak of historical facts relating to the Buddha's external biography. Suddha (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this quote. I think it does not contradict Warder in any way. The only issue seems to be the sentence "Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahāyāna sutras". But this is actually a very mild statement. Obviously, these sutras are religiously authoritative for many people. Western scholars agree that these sutras are not the words of the Buddha, and are later compositions. Arguing that they should therefore not be religiously authoritative is an argument to take place within the Buddhist community, and is not a question Western scholarship would take up. Mitsube (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pali/Sankrit symbols.

Moonsell went through the article and did some good work correcting spelling and wording etc. But he also added many pali and Sanskrit symbols througout the text.

I think mahayana shoudl be written in this article without the sanksrit symbols, and believe that is wikipedia policy. What do others think?

Greetings, Sacca 11:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean diacritics. I think we should include them--that is what the other major encyclopedias do (The Encyclopedia of Religion, the Encylopedia of Buddhism (Macmillan), Britannica). It is pretty standard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say WP policy is entirely clear on the matter, but see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic), which says: "For Sanskrit and Pali, IAST is preferred" (this includes the diacritics). That is technically a "proposed" policy, I guess, but has seen a lot of work. I believe there's another relevant naming conventions article, but I can't remember which one right now. /ninly_(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but... by now Mahayana has become part of English vocabulary, without the diacritics. Same for Theravada (Theravāda). And the search-function of wikipedia won't work well with diacritics. Greetings, Sacca 08:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sutras is another strange one actually. Nobody would spell this with the sanskrit diacritics in english language. also see Sutta Piṭaka with a dot under the t. Its too much... Greetings, Sacca 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

True. It should probably be undone. Mitsube (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it actually interferes with search functionality. If someone takes the trouble to add the diacritics, which are still the convention in more scholarly writing (and this is an encylopedia), I don't see any reason to undo it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for raising this issue, Sacca. It's hard to draw the line with diacritics. Is a word sufficiently anglicised in common usage for them to be superfluous? I believe this is the case with "samsara" and "nirvana". I don't know about "Mahayana" but tend to err on the side of caution. As for "sutra", where it is part of the name it should get diacritics but otherwise not. I appreciate that is hair-splitting, but it seems the only clear and simple position to me. As for dropping diacritics for everything, the problem there is diacritics give the only standardised form that is indisputable. Moonsell (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Authentication

The final section of the article, "Authentication" has just one sentence: "In 1995, Donald Lopez published a paper which addresses the issue of its orality, as opposed to its authority.", plus a reference: "Lopez, Donald S. (1995). "Authority and Orality in the Mahyna". Numen 42 (1): 21–47 (27). http://dx.doi.org/10.1163%2F1568527952598800."

Can anyone understand this enough to clean it up? What does "its" refer to? Otherwise, may I suggest we just delete the section. Moonsell (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra, one of many Sutra of Mahayana?

Can anyone editing this Mahayana page verify with me on Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra status. Whether it one of the Great Sutra from Mahayana? I'm now contributing to wiki page on Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra (English). If not I will remove the first line. Again I want to plead anyone who verse and expert in this Dharani to contribute more resources eg picture, references and etc rather than left this Great Dharani empty on wiki page. For the sake of all beings, please render your assistance. Starkliew (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Usnisa Vijaya Dharani Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra. It belongs to a loose category of sutras whose subjects are a particular dharani and its applications. The Usnisa Vijaya Dharani is especially for helping beings in the realm of hungry ghosts (Skt. preta). The dharani traditionally popular in the East Asian Buddhism and has a reputation as a powerful method with supernatural effects. So far the page you are working on looks a bit rough, and I may come by sometime and fix it up if I can. Best regards. Tengu800 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Template messages (essay, globalize, rewrite)

@User:Ronggy, I have asked you to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issues, and suggesting approaches to fixing it if you know how, but I have received no reply.

An editor who places a template message to indicate a problem should explain his/her rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. Please explain why this article needs to be rewritten (why it does not conform with wikipedia quality criteria, policies and guidelines). Text examples written like a personal reflection or opinion essay and examples which may not represent a worldwide view of the subject might help editors to adress the problems. I have removed the template messages for now. Please reach for a consensus before you reintroduce these templates. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mahayana sutras. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.bdk.or.jp/pdf/bdk/digitaldl/dBET_ThreePureLandSutras_2003.pdf

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahayana sutras. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019072030/http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf to http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

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) 10:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)