Talk:Chinese Buddhist canon

Buddhism Unassessed

	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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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:

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
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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]