Talk:Tibetan Buddhist canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tibetan Buddhism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Tibetan Buddhist canon and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

A Wikipedian removed Tibetan Buddhist canon from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

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

[edit] Important Indian Scholars

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

• Atisha holder of the “mind training” (Tib. lojong) teachings
• Aryadeva foremost disciple of Nagarjuna, continued the philosophical school of Madhyamika
• Asanga founder of the Yogachara school, widely considered the most important Mahayana philosopher (with Nagarjuna)
• Bhavaviveka early expositor of the Svatantrika Madhyamikha
• Buddhapalita early expositor of the Prasangika Madhyamikha
• Chandrakirti considered the greatest exponent of Prasangika Madhyamika
• Dharmakirti famed logician, author of the Seven Treatises; student of Dignana's student Ishvarasena; said to have debated famed Hindu scholar Shankara
• Dignana famed logician
• Gunaprabha foremost student of Vasubandhu, known for his work the Vinayasutra
• Haribhadra commentator on Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization
• Kamalashila 8th-century author of important texts on meditation
• Nagarjuna founder of the Madhyamika school, widely considered the most important Mahayana philosopher (with Asanga)
• Sakyaprabha prominent expositor of the Vinaya
• Shantarakshita abbot of Nalanda, founder of the Yogachara-Madhyamika who helped Padmasambhava establish Buddhism in Tibet
• Shantideva (8th century Indian) author of the Bodhisattvacaryavatra
• Vasubandhu author of the Abhidharmakosha
• Vimuktisena commentator on Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization

I've tried to reintegrate the information, which I think is successful now. Thoughts? ~GZ 11/7/05

Hi GZ, thanks for your contributions to this article. Please try to be careful when doing wholesale reverts on texts, however. You have modified capitalization to be inconsistent through out the article. I have modified the Important Indian scholars section to try to be more clear (grammar and structure). However, I am unfamiliar with the idea of Seventeen Paditas, please correct me if you find this structure misleading.

Thanks for the changes, I agree the structure is more clear now. There was no problem with the grammar, however. I've refined your language a little. I have a degree in English and I've worked as an editor professionally, so I'm competent in this regard. Concerning the Seventeen Panditas, I drew the information from here: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/id70.html and http://www.vkr.org/Stupa.cfm. Concerning the appellation "great" as applied to Jamgon Kongtrul and Ju Mipham, this does not represent POV as it is understood on Wikipedia. There is a general consensus in the Tibet world regarding their historical importance and the quality of their scholarship, even among those who do not share their particular views. By way of example, referring to "Alexander the Great" does not constitute an endorsement of his legacy, it just represents an acknowledgement of the regard in which he has been conventionally held. I have also standarized the capitalization, which was not at all uniform on your latest version. ~GZ 11/8/05

The grammar mod I was referring to was located in the first sentence under Important Indian scholars. You can still see it at the top of this page. None of us are beyond reproach but I will always attempt to be polite when making changes. As to capitalization, thank you for noting the inconsistencies in the headings. You will find wp's header capitalization rules at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings). I will modify the article to this standard. Lastly, I greatly disagree that you can refer to scholars as "great" and remain NPOV. Your example is of an appellation similar to "The Great Wall of China," as such it denotes the most important holder of the common name. This is in contrast to the adjective form you use in the article that conveys meaning respecting the scholars' abilities. S.N. Hillbrand 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

One other thing. I am not entire comfortable with the focus on individuals of importance to Tibetan Buddhism. That information may find a more suitable home at Tibetan Buddhism. I will ask them to take a look at it. I think this page may be more useful if it focuses on texts. So, essentially, inverting the lists. S.N. Hillbrand 04:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the sentence above was hastily assembled and ungrammatical, my apologies. Regarding the appellation "great", I disagree with you, but there are easy ways to resolve this so there is no point belaboring the matter any further. Regarding the presence of the Indian scholars, it's hard for me to understand your objection. You don't think the authors of the Tibetan Buddhist canon should be listed on the Tibetan Buddhist canon page? These are not just "individuals important to Buddhism" - there are many, many of those who have been excluded. These are the people who created the canon that the article is about.~GZ 11/9/05

[edit] Delisted GA

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