|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I'm not certain how I'm supposed to respond to the editing, but in case comments are expected.
1) "This sutra" changed to "the book" -- actually the text was probably written on palm leaves at the time and not in a book. Hope people don't think Suzuki's *book* had much to do with it.
2) I'm not certain why "in" was changed to "In" in the middle of a sentence.
3. Does "'Lankavatara Sutra"' mean it's it bold?
4. As far as I know the Suzuki transl. is the *only* transl.
Thanks for your help! I'm new around here.
- Hi step! Changes and edits don't need to be justified as long as they're correct, and/or adding more useful text to the article. Most articles in the wikipedia are edited extensively before they come to a more-or-less 'finished' state, and even then someone might come across them a year later and have something else useful to add. That's one of the greatest merits of the wikipedia... welcome to the project! ~ KJ 03:03, 15 June 2002
- ;;; actually , that's 3 single quotes; bold 18.104.22.168 05:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
D.T. Suzuki translation
I've been told by a professor of Buddhist Studies that Suzuki's translation is terrible. You should definitely check out the other translation, available online at the Buddhist Information of North America website, along with the commentary -- Mrdano 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Suzuki's translation is definitely sub-par. Other translations are preferable. Tengu800 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Translation of title
- Article has been updated. Tengu800 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Hi, please forgive ignorant intrusion. Would be useful to all if date and origins of this Sutra was available in the article -- places it in context with the other writings and oral traditions. Earliest attributions, both putative and actual with dating, language, geographical etc. information if can be added would be deeply appreciated. Kogangmin (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)|
Substituted at 21:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Forgive the loose basis for my question, but it seems to me that, based on my limited knowledge of these philosophies, that the Lanka quite obviously is based on the discussions that arose from them. Is this true? Whether this is true or not, there seems to me such a substantial degree of correspondence between the two philosophies and the Lanka that there should be some reference to these ideas here?