Talk:Lotus Sutra

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

Japanese readings[edit]

According to the Japanese dictionaries I checked, hokekyō is preferred to hokkekyō, and I changed the article accordingly.

Indeed, you are right. I just checked about 10 国語 dictionaries, and they all give hokkekyō as a secondary reading. Thanks for the correction. Jim_Lockhart 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nam myoho renge kyo[edit]

Okay disclaimer: I am a member of soka gakkai, a form of nichiren buddhism, so hope I'm being objective with respect to other buddhism's point of view: but just wanted to say: in the paragraph:

"The Lotus Sutra also often alludes to a special teaching that supersedes everything else that the Buddha has taught, but the Sutra never actually says what that teaching is. This is said to be in keeping with the general Mahayana Buddhist view that the highest teaching cannot be expressed in words. This same point is also often cited by critics of Lotus Sutra."

In certainly all the Nichiren and probably in some form in tendai sects, this highest teaching *can* be said in words and it's Nam Myoho Renge Kyo - and I'd link that to the page on this, because although you might not think this is the highest teaching, the fact is nichiren buddhists believe this, and it's an important thing to put down in the article. The wikipedia nam-myoho-renge-kyo page doesn't actually say much about this so another place to get references for this are the background articles to these goshos: http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_EssenceJuryoChapter.htm http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/bk_SelectionTime.htm and the opening of the eyes http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Nichiren/Gosho/OpeningEyesPart1.htm - where he goes in depth into the chapter and what exactly is hidden there. The links here link in turn to a translation of the gosho zenshu - Nichiren's letters and treatises. --skoria at gmail.


Nam Myoho Renge Kyo could be somewhat translated as 'The Devotion of oneself to the Mystic Law of Lotus Sutra', thus this mantra could not be considered the teaching itself. On the Nichiren's writings, he states that repeating this mantra will expose the person to the mystic law. I'm not discussing the belief of each one, just trying to be objective based on facts and words. Although I would not place that the teaching can be said in words as a fact, I would point out what skoria wrote in a section like 'Interpretations', once I think is valid to show how each school of Buddhism can interpret the same Sutra. Best Regards. -- Clke2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clke2009 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Included in the more ancient Āgamas or not?[edit]

Currently the article reads "Therefore, it is probably not included in the more ancient Āgamas of Mahayana Buddhism, nor in the Sutta Pitaka of the Theravada Buddhists". Could somebody clarify: is the Sutra or is it not thus included? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of Prakrit in Chinese Translations[edit]

Oh dear, here we go again with clever Mr Mitsube. It has been accepted for quite a number of years now that almost ALL the early Chinese translations show signs of under-lying Prakrit -- see Coblin's work on Han Dynasty phonology, for example. The methodology is rather abstruse, so I fear it might be beyond your intellectual capabilities, but I can outline it for you if you want. As for the Lotus Sutra in particular, get hold of the work by Prof Seishi Karashima (he is the leading expert in this area) and his group. You might like to download his two lexicons on the Chinese terminology of early Lotus Sutra translations in Chinese from IRIABS and go through themcarefully yourself. Oh, I forgot ~ you can't read Chinese or Sanskrit. What a pity !-- अनाम गुमनाम 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop insulting me. You are welcome to add sourced content. Mitsube (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should perhaps look to your own insulting attitude to other contributors. Then they might treat you with a bit of respect. Your comments that it is extremely unlikely that Chinese translations might reflect their underlying sources has been questioned for decades ~ I believe Shackleton Bailey was mentioned this possibility back in 1946 in his article BSOAS on Gandhari. Believe me, there is nothing odd about this suggestion. First, this can be determined by the forms in which Indic names are transcribed into Chinese that reflect Prakrit phonology. Secondly, this can be determined when early Chinese translations have unexpected variants, such as in Dharmaraksa's translation of the Lotus Sutra which can only be explained by an underlying Prakrit. For example, there is a flower called the "sapta-parni" which literally means "seven-petalled", but it can be found translated into Chinese as "one hundred-petalled". So how does this come about ? Simple, because Prakrit for "seven" is "satta" and "sata" is the word for one hundred. One further refines this by the knowledge that some Prakrits such as Gandhari simplify geminated consonants, so in Gandhari the words for "seven" and "one hundred" are both indistinguishably "sata". But this is all explained in the article I mentioned as a reference. Take the trouble to find it on in the internet, read it and stop your insulting attitude to other people when their knowledge obviously exceeds yours. And that last is intended as a statement of fact.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give the quote from your source that supports the statement you added. Mitsube (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole article. Shall I post that ? OK, no problem. Do you know who Daniel Boucher is ? He takes it for granted that the reader knows that Prakrit underlies the majority of the early Chinese translations. Why are you so incredibly stubborn ? READ THE ARTICLE YOURSELF and you will see what I am talking about.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So please give the quote here. Mitsube (talk)

Hello, Mitsube is very capable to edit material in this text. Anam however keeps deleting sourced material and trying to put a bias in various articles.Greetings, Sacca 08:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Sacca: You seem a bit delusional ~ what do you mean I keep deleting sourced material. I deleted ONE passage recently in another article and explained my reasons. Try and get your facts right or are you a glove puppet type of Mitsube clone ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give specific in-line citations for your new additions. Mitsube (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What are "in-line citations", please ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a source, citation, or NPOV for...?[edit]

Hey, the headline could apply to more things than one, but please above all else could we possibly get a source on the supposed date of origin assigned to the supposed Sanskrit original?

How could this have possibly sat at the top of this article without being challenged or deleted? You can't just assign a century to a text with no source and no rationale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.197.169 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony of such a statement being left unsigned! Yes please someone provide a cite AND sign any comments here with four tildes please! Tumacama (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Buddha emerging from lotus[edit]

The boy Buddha rising up from lotus. Crimson and gilded wood, Trần-Hồ dynasty, Vietnam, 14th-15th century

This image was just added as a thumbnail. Is it related to the contents of the Lotus Sutra? It looks more like a child being born from a lotus, per the Sukhavativyuha Sutra, rather than the Lotus Sutra... Any info would be appreciated. Tengu800 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born by Transformation from Lotus Flowers, is one of the four forms of birth. A footnote in Nichiren's writings by SGI says:

"'Born by transformation [from Lotus Flowers]' refers to one of the four forms of birth. Due to their karma, beings so born are said, upon the end of their previous lifetime, to appear suddenly in this fashion without the help of parents or other intermediary agency."

I think this is how beings are supposedly born in a Pure Land. - Steve (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[...] "if [they are born] in the presence of a buddha, they will be born spontaneously in a lotus flower.” pp. 181-182 (also p. 285) in: The Lotus Sūtra translated by Tsugunari Kubo and Akira Yuyama (2009) JimRenge (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra[edit]

There should be a section on the Sanskrit version of Lotus Sutra. Was it discovered in Nepal? Komitsuki (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several manuscripts and MS-fragments have been found (Nepal, Gilgit, central asia, Tibet). Please see: Jamieson, R.C. (2002). Introduction to the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts, Journal of Oriental Studies 12 (6): 165–173.

(last of the external links in the LS-article) and Jonathan A. Silk, The Place of the Lotus Sutra in Indian Buddhism Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a record that there is a full Sanskrit manuscript of Lotus Sutra in Nepal. ([1])

The recently published tenth in the series contains an original Sanskrit Lotus Sutra text found in Nepal dating back to 1064 or 1065 CE. This text was one of the sources used in the compilation of the influential Kern-Nanjio edition of the Lotus Sutra from 1908-12, and it is thus a key source for research into the Lotus Sutra. [Soka Gakkai]

Hope this interests anyone. Komitsuki (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lopez the Burnouf translation, the first to appear in the West, was based on Sanskrit documents. BrandenburgG (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese versions seem mixed up[edit]

Text reads about the Kumārajīva translation: >> The Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Dharma, in eight volumes and twenty eight chapters But according to the front page of the Taisho T262 (http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T09n0262) it has seven scrolls. Something is wrong here.

Also, I don't see any numbered references or links to primary Chinese sources in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexamies (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Chapter 3 and the 3 vehicles[edit]

I recently added, specifically by name, the Three Vehicles in Ch. 3 summary: A Parable "The Buddha teaches a parable in which a father uses the promise of various toy carts to get his children out of a burning house, once they are outside, he gives them all one large cart to travel in instead. This symbolizes how the Buddha uses the Three Vehicles: Arhatship, Pratyekabuddhahood and Samyaksambuddhahood,..." I found this naming to be necessary, because the linked "Three Vehicles" leads to en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Yana_%28Buddhism%29#The_three_carts_of_expedient_means:_the_parable_of_the_burning_house which only names the Three Vehicles somewhat tangentially towards the end. If someone can provide a more comprehensive or informative link please do.Tumacama (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yana_%28Buddhism%29#The_three_carts_of_expedient_means:_the_parable_of_the_burning_house

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lotus Sutra. 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 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propagation/transmission[edit]

This is such a wonderful and balanced article. Thanks to all of the editors.

I am currently reading Tanabe's The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture. Shioiri Ryodo's chapter in it emphasizes how much content in the Lotus Sutra is centered on its own propagation/transmission. I think this should be mentioned in the WP article, not sure where. Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a sentence in one of the "propagation chapters"; I assume outline/ch 10 might be a good candidate. A more detailed presentation might fit into a "Practice" section. JimRenge (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please review and comment.BrandenburgG (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fits nicely into ch 10, thanks for keeping it compact! I have moved the note to the notes section. JimRenge (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Poetry[edit]

An enormous treasury of art and poetry was inspired by the LS. Does this merit a subsection (maybe 5.3, under Impact)? The Tanabe source has a lot of comments on this topic. I would be interested in editors' thoughts on this. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, this is in fact missing. JimRenge (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any other thoughts or objections? If not I will start working on this.
BrandenburgG (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a short section on this topic. Please share with me any feedback you may have. There's a lot of sources for this, what I have is just a sample. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BrandenburgG, this section should be expanded. Influence on Asian culture may also include theater, folk tales etc. Perhaps some more notable examples could be included. JimRenge (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point and I will work on it. It's very busy at work so as soon I come up for air.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern commentary[edit]

I would like to suggest that we add a section on modern commentary. Otherwise the article looks like Lotus Sutra commentary and scholarship died centuries ago. In fact tremendous contributions have been made by people such as Burnouf, Niwano, Ikeda, etc. BrandenburgG (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be easy to add text about Burnouf´s contributions in the "Translations into Western languages" section using Yuyama (2000) as a secondary source. I wonder if independent reviews or other secondary sources exist to verify a section on modern sectarian interpretations (Nikkyo Niwano, Daisaku Ikeda, Hsuan Hua and Thich Nhat Hanh). JimRenge (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Let me check around. BrandenburgG (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are modern interpretations I would like to see them. This article is rather obscure and one may conclude from it that the sutra is interesting intellectually, but surely there are modern religions using it? --JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my long MIA...busy season at work. I will try to put something up to start this off.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors, I placed a first draft for this section in my Sandbox. I would appreciate feedback before I place it in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox

Just one more request. I would love to get feedback on my proposed additions to the article. My goal is to post it to the LS article this week but would love to get it vetted first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox#Modern_Scholarship_and_Application BrandenburgG (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your your draft. I will write a comment within the next 24 hours. JimRenge (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1) Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 commentary on the Lotus Sutra, "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West. His translation of the Lotus Sutra, "Le Lotus de la bonne loi" was published posthumously in 1852. Prior to publication, a chapter from the translations was included in the 1844 journal The Dial, a publication of the New England transcendentalists, translated from French to Engish by Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. A second translation was completed by Kern and Nanjo in 1884.

2) Western interest in the Lotus Sutra waned in the latter 19th century as Indo-centric scholars focused on Pali and Sanskrit Hinayana texts. Christian missionaries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, predominantly in China, became interested in Kumārajīva's translation of the Lotus Sutra into Chinese. These scholars attempted to draw parallels between the Old and New Testaments to earlier Hinayana sutras and the Lotus Sutra. Abbreviated and "cristo-centric" translations were published by Richard and Soothill.

3) In the post World War II scholarly interest in Japanese Buddhism and its Chinese origins, as well as archeological research in Dunhuang, inspired renewed focus on the Lotus Sutra from East Asian perspectives. This phenomenon led to the first full translation of Kumarajiva by Leon Hurvitz in 1976. Whereas the Hurvitz work was independent scholarship, other modern translations were sponsored by Buddhist groups: Kato Bunno (1975, Nichiren-shu/Rissho-kosei-kai), Murano Senchu (1974, Nichiren-shu), Burton Watson (1993, Soka Gakkai), and the Buddhist Text Translation Society (Xuanhua).

4) According to Shields "modern(ist) interpretations" of the Lotus Sutra begin with the early 20th century nationalist applications of the Lotus Sutra by Chigaku Tanaka, Nissho Honda, Seno'o, and Nisshō Inoue.

5) After World War II various Buddhist organizations shared their interpretations of the Lotus Sutra through publications, symposia, and exhibits. Etai Yamada, the 253rd head priest of the Tendai denomination conducted ecumenical dialogues with religious leaders around the world based on his interpretation of the Lotus Sutra which culminated in a 1987 summit. He also used the Lotus Sutra to move his sect from a "temple Buddhism" perspective to one based on social engagement. Josei Toda began his reconstruction of the Soka Gakkai after the war with a series of lectures on the Lotus Sutra. Daisaku Ikeda wrote a six-volume dialogue called "The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra.". The Soka Gakkai-affiliated Institute of Oriental Philosophy has sponsored colloquia and exhibitions about the Lotus Sutra.The Risshō Kōsei Kai has held academic conferences about the Lotus Sutra and the collected papers are often published.

1) The first sentence appears to be misleading because "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," is an introduction to the history of Buddhism in India (the LS is part of the content, see https://archive.org/details/MN41423ucmf_0 p. 641). I propose to change the sentence to: "Eugene Burnouf's's 1844 "Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien," marks the start of modern academic scholarship of Buddhism in the West." Nanjo is not named as an author of the English translation by Kern.

Done (in Sandbox)

2) "Hinayana texts": perhaps Nikaya texts is more neutral.

Done

3) ok. (Hurvitz was Professor at a catholic University if I remember correctly. The first edition of the German translation was sponsored by the catholic church/Cardinal Ratzinger!)

4) ok, (I did not have the time to read the source)

5) "and the collected papers are often published." remove, this is not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I would remove the Lokesh Chandra source because this is a highly promotional piece. The whole section appears to be incomplete. We should avoid to give undue weight to Soka Gakkai. I think this part might fit into the "Buddhism in Japan" (or The Lotus Sutra in Japan?) section.

I will tighten up, @JimRenge. I think this paragraph is important, however, or the article lapses into "classical" study of text. SG should not be overemphasized or underestimated. Same is true for RKK and Tendai. I disagree with you about the collected papers of the RKK. The accumulated papers are a treasure of LS research. I will try to find appropriate scholarship to document.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1-4 might fit into the "Translations into Western languages" (or rename: "Western scholarship") section. Several Sources are freely available and need to be supplemented by url´s. Is the Fatherree a PhD thesis? Is it available as a pdf? JimRenge (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @JimRenge for the detailed feedback, I know your plate is very full. I will work on incorporating your suggestions over the weekend. Since this is a major addition to the article I would prefer to vet it one more time on the Talk Page before floating it in the article itself. It seems to me that the Tendai and two Nichiren schools (SG and RKK) are extremely active in pushing the boundaries of the LS in contemporary society. This is highly evident in their promotional materials which I know are primary sources. What I need to find are scholarly sources that state this explicitly. Yes, Fatherree is a dissertation that was once openly available on Google Books but now seems closed--maybe I sabotaged it by clicking on it too many times.BrandenburgG (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @JimRenge for the feedback. Here is the updated proposal for the new section. I would appreciate any comments. Let me keep this in the Talk page for a few days before posting it into the article. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist Scholarship and Internationalization[edit]

I went ahead and posted my proposed addition. I am very open to comments on this new section and would happily engage with fellow editors to improve it. BrandenburgG (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the proposal draft that was here. It was posted into the article in toto already so no need for it to take up real estate here. Also the citations were taking so much space at the bottom of the Talk page.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LS and the Arts[edit]

I slightly expanded this section with a couple of sources about the influence of the LS on Japanese Buddhist poetry. I'd like to expand this section to include sources from all the art genres, perhaps a paragraph for each genre. Help appreciated!BrandenburgG (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few sources. A lot more work to do here. Although it's not clear yet, I envision an introductory paragraph followed by separate paragraphs for LS influence on literature, physical arts, and performing arts. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the idea that Borobodur was inspired by the Lotus Sutra may be a WP:Fringe theory (please see Julie Gifford, Buddhist Practice and Visual Culture: The Visual Rhetoric of Borobudur, pp. 23 ff). We better focus on examples that are clearly related to the LS. JimRenge (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @JimRenge. I went ahead and created the sub-sub-sub heading structure I proposed above. There are entries so far in art, poetry, and folklore. I (and hopefully other editors) can over time further populate these headings. I also want to add a heading for "Theater and music." I learned from Dykstra that Noh theater adopted at least one of the "Miraculous tales of the Lotus sutra from ancient Japan" as a theme. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Dykstra mentions the noh drama "Ama". Abe Ryuchi has published a detailed description: Ryuchi, Abe (2015), Revisiting the Dragon Princess: Her Role in Medieval Engi Stories and Their Implications in Reading the Lotus Sutra, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 42 (1), 45-50. JimRenge (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @JimRenge. The Abe article is FANTASTIC. It answers so many of the questions I have had. I'm not quite finished with it yet and today's a busy day. I plan on finishing it and incorporating into article. Also, I think I need to expand the lead of this subsection to include, as Abe mentions, " textual, performative, and visual genres, and Buddhist scriptural materials." In terms of art this should include frontpieces and text illustrations.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Publishers[edit]

@JimRenge, I think you might've been too hasty to remove the source from this publisher. It's a house based in India but it seems to be reputable...and not a self-publishing outfit. (http://www.gyanbooks.com/index.php?p=aboutus&l=0).

The scholar also appears to be creditable. (http://www.icsin.org/faculty/show/14) Let's reconsider! BrandenburgG (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources/Books_that_plagiarize_Wikipedia, "Books published by Gyan Publishing / Isha Books / Kalpaz are not WP:RS in general. (...) Their books (...) are known to have plagiarized content from Wikipedia". We should avoid sources "that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."(WP:QUESTIONABLE]) JimRenge (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thank you!BrandenburgG (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the opinion of Western scholars quoted?[edit]

At the very onset, it says "According to Paul Williams, "For many East Asian Buddhists since early times the Lotus Sutra contains the final teaching of the Buddha, complete and sufficient for salvation." Why exactly do we need the opinion of a non-Buddhist Western scholar to tell us this? Or is it only true if a foreigner says it but if a native practicing Buddhist says it then it has no weight? It is only valid if a Westerner says so otherwise not.

I am pretty tired of this view point and I am a Westerner but not a Buddhist. I want to hear what the local tradition thinks not some idiotic professor who never practiced the tradition he is commenting on.

Western academics are NOT the last word on the matter. If I want to read idiocy regarding something I am an expert at all I need do is read what some scholar wrote about it.

So I say get more opinions of those in the tradition.49.207.61.24 (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

49.207.61.24 (talk · contribs), I did not contribute to this article, but from what I can gather, at least four Japanese scholars are cited in the article. But feel free to add more scholarly content from Asians.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
49.207.61.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): I will attempt to answer your question "why?" in a general sense (not necessarily specific to Paul Williams):
  • Since this the English-language Wikipedia, most editors are English L1 speakers; English-language texts (often written by Westerners) are the easiest to use and verify.
  • Wikipedia values sources that are independent of the subject matter (see WP:IS). A scholar outside the tradition would likely be more independent than a practitioner of the tradition.
Not all sources have to be independent, but the article should include some. —Theodore Kloba (☎) 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:RNPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan and others, perhaps it is would be good to collect all the discussion that has taken place about the topic of what role primary sources should have in articles on Buddhism (the great scholar vs. teacher debate). I believe that some of these discussions have been taken up all the way to noticeboards and policy proposal discussion pages, and I believe this has led some experienced editors from outside the Buddhist articles community to give their conclusive opinion on it. We could perhaps list those on the Buddhism WikiProject, so that we do not need to start this endless debate again and again, or a least, so that we can refer to the Buddhism Wikiproject.
I have failed to find these discussion, but I am sure they are out there. Could you be of help, Joshua?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, WP:RNPOV. But see Talk:Four Noble Truths, for an endless "discussion" on this topic (the non-ending participant got blocked, in the end). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:RNPOV and the discussion you are referring to. (I was involved at the end, remember? It continued on the Buddhsim Wikiproject page and later went to a noticeboard, after which I didn't follow through.) But there was also a Wikipedia-wide discussion about whether Buddhist teachers are secondary sources. This discussion was eventually dismissed as not producing enough evidence for changing existing policy, but the admin assessing gave a number of reasons for the dismissal, which I think are relevant to link to in discussions like this. The admin was not partisan.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't remember. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, I found it and have listed all of them here.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, yes, that discussion. Thier primary was, I think, to give primacy to insider-sources – that is, the insider-sources of their preference. Sort of pov-pushing, I think, without them being aware of it. But that's my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the issue is being brought up again above, and if you remember, a number of weeks ago, over here as well. It's ubiquitous, and we should do something about it. It is a widespread misunderstanding amongst editors for Buddhism articles. Ping Joshua Jonathan. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only religious articles; look at Indo-Aryan migrationn theory, and the repeated attempts to rewrite history. It's got to do, I suppose, with identity, and the clash with western rationalism. I'm afraid we'll have to discuss this again and again and again. But I like your intention; it's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could write a policy clarification for articles part of the Buddhism WikiProject, and place it on the project.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Jonathan, coming back to this discussion, are you aware of any policy like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles ever been written about Buddhist articles?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan: Then the next question is probably not going to surprise you: would you like to work together to write a page like that?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A MOS:Religion may be a better idea; I see no need to have specific MOS for specific religions. A MOS:Religion would also result in much broader input from wp editors. JimRenge (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a number of Buddhism-specific problems, just like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles deals with Islam-specific problems. But for practical purposes, we could start with MOS:Religion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pffff... What would you like to include there? We've already got WP:RNPOV, which answers the repetitious problems with editors with a pov-problem. An alternative answer to such editors could be: 'reflecting on multiple points of view helps you to get a grip on a topic', as in some doctrinal issues within Tibetan Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not propose to write a new policy proposal, just a page that explains how WP policy applies to articles on Buddhism. I think it can avoid disputes and save time in the long run, Joshua Jonathan and JimRenge.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just give it a try. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, avoiding unnecessary disputes and time sinks is a good argument. JimRenge (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I cannot do this by myself. I have never involved myself with policy before. JimRenge, can you give me a few pointers how to start a policy page? Thanks. I would also like your input on whether you think this section contains any misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the procedure. I recommend to ask this at the Wikipedia:Help desk, I assume you can save time asking the experts. Your second question is complex; I appreciate that you are trying hard to follow wp policies. This talk page is not ideal to discuss the details or a draft. JimRenge (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try my talk page, JimRenge.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary significance of the LS[edit]

I would love to see a section on the contemporary significance of the LS. I suggest that we look toward recent scholarship on this matter. There is the Daniel Lopez book from a few years ago. Also articles (sample) published by the Institute for Oriental Philosophy. RKK sponsors annual academic international LS seminars. I am sure there must be many more sources.

Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Textual history/Formation misleading[edit]

Perhaps mistranslated? "...1-9 and 17 were probably created in the 1st century BCE" In fact all sutras were transmitted by Shakyamuni Buddha around 500BC. At the conference after Buddha's death, all sutras were recited from memory. First written down in Pali, with Sanskrit translations coming later. Perhaps the Sanskrit translation of the Lotus Sutra was discovered 400 years after it was first written down? The sutras were handed down through generations in monasteries where monks memorized them and recited them to new students for them to memorize. I don't know when Sanskrit translations were first written down, but they were "created" in the 4th or 5th century BCE. Suggest changing 'created' to discovered. This is common knowledge, ask the Dalai Lama, not "scholars".

Hpfeil (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Composed' might be better than created- the commitment to writing is estimated to be in that era, but oral precursors could be older. Sourced scholarly opinion published in a WP:Reliable Source is the basis Wikipedia works from. If there are Buddhist traditions about the origins of the Lotus Sutra that have been published, those can be noted as well. I don't know of any account of the first councils that specifies the Lotus Sutra being recited- dating the Lotus Sutra based on the estimated date of the early councils would violate WP:NPOV. Scholar base their views on the dating of the text on archaeological, literary, and linguistic evidence and that's what the current dates are based on. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent improvements[edit]

☸Javierfv1212☸, thank you very much for your recent edits. JimRenge (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I felt this page really needed some re-organizing and some more citations. Still working on it!☸Javierfv1212☸

What is the deference between buddha and the supreme God[edit]

I have read the lotus sutra and vimalakirti sutra vary carefully ! And the great vehicle description of the buddha is not deferent from the description of the supreme God . First the buddha is depicted as the father of all so as the supreme God. Second this world is sakyamuni Buddha's world and in other sutras like amitabha sutra it is written that amitabha bodhisattva ( before buddhahood ) vowed to have a wonderful world ( buddha land ) so the the world is conditioned by amitabha and also the supreme God is the creator of the "God land" Third the Buddh'sa enlightenment was before beginningless time and also will be after endingless time , so did buddha and God lived together before the conditioning of everything ? Or is the buddha the very supreme God . Forth it is known that it is impossible to study s.God and also the Buddha Sixth there is one buddha( dharmakaya form ) and also one God ( devine form ) 197.156.118.178 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language or Languages?[edit]

I was hoping to find near the top the language or languages this was originally written in. But I didn't see that at the top. And I didn't see it as a skimmed page after page after page. Shouldn't this information be at the top? Looking up the word sutras, we find out that there are Hindu and Buddhist versions etc. And also there is at least one other language base, Chinese. And of course there is Japanese. The original language of this, and the oldest source of that, are crucial pieces of information. As is the topic of provenance. Confusing the topic is the chant that goes with it in some religion, that is based on two or three different languages (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo). If the information is in the article, especially the language part, should it be moved to the top, near the introduction? Misty MH (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Lopez[edit]

Why does this professor’s name appear 14 times in this article? Matt90266 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotus_Sutra&oldid=1194489279"