Talk:Chinese Buddhist canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Chinese Buddhist canon, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What, if anything, is meant by the term "canonical"? If we compare the three main branches of present-day Buddhism, we find various rough strata of literature:

  1. Theravada
    1. Pali canon
    2. Commentaries: collected editions published in ceylon, Burma and thailand
    3. Subcommentaries: collected edition published in Burma
    4. Other Pali literature
    5. Vernacular literature
  2. East Asian Buddhism: collected Taisho edition comprising
    1. Indian (& pseudo-Indian) writings ascribed to the Buddha
    2. Indian writings not ascribed to the Buddha
    3. Chinese writings
    4. Japanese writings
  3. Tibetan
    1. Kanjur: Indian writings ascribed to the Buddha
    2. Tenjur: Indian writings not ascribed to the Buddha
    3. Tibetan literature

Books on Buddhism commonly include an appendix on scriptures covering 1.1, 2.1-3 & 3.1-2. Is there any rational objective basis for this selection? Peter jackson 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Canon (fiction). Obviously the only Canon in theravada is the Pali Canon, which does not include commentaries and other later material.
The Tibetan Canon is maintained by various monasteries. Every monastery has its own 'official canon-monk', who is responsible for defining the Canon for that particular monastery. So in Tibet, there are various 'canons'.
I think we can regard the Taisho as a Canon, although its a very late attempt of officially defining it.Greetings, Sacca 07:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


07:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there may be one based on the relative importance that the adherents themselves have tended to give to the texts in question. Also, the above should be clarified to note that not all sutras are precisely the putative words of the Buddha; some are spoken by disciples. It may be the case that all literature in this class purportedly was spoken by somebody during or shortly after the Buddha's lifetime.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are countless Buddhas, couldn't you use the much clearer "Gautama Buddha"?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If you're talking about The Buddha, there's really only one Buddha that's meant by it. He's the original one, the recent one. The other ones are either from very ancient times, or are only recognized by one sect, not by the whole buddhist tradition. There's also the future buddha, of course.Greetings, Sacca 07:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

==Long Term Project==It would be nice if someone has the time, ability and inclination to translate and render phonetically the Chinese titles on this page.Sylvain1972 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! And added more information re the Chinese texts. 121.218.233.180 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Term Project[edit]

It would be nice if someone has the time, ability and inclination to translate and render phonetically the Chinese titles on this page.Sylvain1972 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything seems changed or weird about the above post it is because I had to restore it from the history, having erased it by accident! OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sectarian Canons[edit]

Hi everybody. I wanted to ask about texts which are considered canonical in various branches of Mahayana but were authored by historical figures. For instance there is Hui Neng's "Platform Sutra" and the works of Shinran and Kobo-Daishi.

The reason I'm asking is that I am trying to figure out which of the canonical Mahayana texts are supposed to have come from the Tushita heaven. The only exceptions I can think of are this sort of thing. I thought someone here might have some insight. Thanks! OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much Sino-centric on Buddhist canon[edit]

This is actually inside of Korea today and it was created by Koreans, not Chinese. Why this Buddhist canon have to be called Chinese Buddhist canon? why not Korean Buddhist canon or East Asian Buddhist canon? China today have not contributed to development & modernization of Buddhism. --Korsentry 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting to change the title to "East Asian Buddhist Canon" --Korsentry 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)
Sorry, I don't fully understand you. What was created by Koreans? Bertport (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Bull. Korea didn't exist as a nation state until after Tang, it was conquered numerous times by Chinese and Gourguyeo.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, wheres your source? what was created by monkeys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.167.23 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me korsentry? what does this article have to do with MODERNIZATION of buddhism? last time i checked, buddhist cannon was written hundreds of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.73 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) \

There should "East Asian Buddhist cannon", not Chinese, which is very vague. Korean Buddhist cannons were created by Koreans, not Chinese buddhist monks. The Tripitaka Koreana is NOT a Chinese buddhist cannon, nor has its authorship attributes to ANY CHINESE Buddhist monks or texts!

The Tripitaka Koreana woodblocks were carved by Koreans, but the texts (as I understand it) came primarily from India and China. In any case, no such change is going to take place without reliable sources showing that such usage ("East Asian Canon" or the like) is accepted by scholarship. /ninly(talk) 17:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Part of this confusion here is the two meanings of "Chinese" ~ the people and the language. As a very long-term scholarly user of this corpus, to my mind the "Chinese Canon" refers to the canon written in Chinese ~ compare this with the "Pali Canon" or "Sanskrit Canon, which clearly refer to a language, not a group of people. Thus the Haensa Koryo version is a Korean edition of the Chinese Canon, the Taisho collection is, again, a Japanese edition of the Chinese Canon. 95% of the translations in Chinese contained in these canons were, of course, done by Chinese people (with a few Koreans etc), usually in conjunction with Indic masters.
I suggest that the need to change this to "East Asian Buddhist Canon" is only necessary for those who do not understand the usage here of "Chinese".-- अनाम गुमनाम 02:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: Spelling hint~ some here should note that a "cannon" is a big gun, while a "canon" is a set of texts.
Indeed, "Chinese Buddhist canon" refers to the Chinese language, which the canon was recorded in. In any case, the translation effort was basically between India, Central Asia, and China. This seems like another case of the Koreans claiming they invented everything Chinese.... Tengu800 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)