Talk:Buddhist councils

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.

Hmmm ... this page should either be moved to Buddhist councils or the references in the article should be changed to "Buddhist Councils". I'm not sure which. - Nat Kraus e 05:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nat. Yes, I tried to move the page to Buddhist councils once, but it seems it is something only an all-mighty Administrator can do. Regards. PHG 12:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...or I thought so. Actually I just checked "Buddhist councils" on Google, and it seems it turns up "Buddhist Councils" (with block letters) most of the times. Sounds like the text in the article will have to be modified accordingly...PHG 12:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Completed re-edited this section

The information on the section on 2006-06-01 is very flawed in historical aspect. The original author apparently does not have full knowledge of Buddhist council histories.

The new section as of now (2006-06-01 after the edit) is taken from the exerpt at the beginning of the Sixth Great Buddhist Council. What is more authentic than this?

What's wrong ?! Complete Theravadin POV bias and ignorance of modern scholarship on the nature and historicity of First, Second and Third Councils.--Stephen Hodge 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Buddhist Council

The association of Mahayana with the Fourth (Kanishkan) Council is a canard. The Kanishkan Council was an entirely Sarvastivadin affair. The few Mahayana followers in India at the time would not have got look in. Basically the whole section is rubbish ! Ditto the remarks at the top of this page !

please be more specific. greetings, Sacca 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous remark at the head of this section is perfectly correct. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that there were no Mahayanists at all at that time. Mahayana traditionally tends to treat Nagarjuna as its founder, and it would be very odd for a religious movement to claim to be newer than it really is, the opposite of normal practice. I've had a quick look at the various articles on Buddhist Councils, and they seem to lack any attempt to distinguish between legends and historical facts. They should be drastically rewritten. I may get round to this some time but much the same applies to lots of other articles. Peter jackson 13:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)\\[reply]

I don't think that Mahayana generally regards Nagarjuna as its founder—there is the myth in which he received the Mahayana sutras from the nagas, but I don't think that creation story is predominant. Also, I've never heard of any scholars suggesting that Nagarjuna was the first Mahayanist, although it seems that the current view is that Mahayana was quite limited in its level of support before and during his lifetime.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may get back on this one later. What occurs to me from memory: I certainly heard Geshe Thubten Jimpa describing Nagarjuna in this way; Lance Cousins did not disagree whan I made this point to him; my understanding is that the naga story is predominant in the Tibetan tradition; in the Chinese tradition Mahayana teachings were said to have been handed down secretly from teacher to pupil until Nagarjuna; I understand that some early Chinese translations mentioned in later sources do not survive and it has been suggested that some of them may never have existed; some others may be later than alleged; and one must additionally distinguish between Mahayana and its precursors. However, I'm not claiming this is a generally accepted view among scholars. Back on Councils, I'd point out that, according to the 'Dictionary of Comparative Religion', ed SGF Brandon (following '2500 Years of Buddhism', ed PV Bapat), the different Theravada countries have different lists of Councils, the one followed in this article being the Burmese one. I haven't got too much time for this. There seem to be a very large number of interlinked, overlapping, contradictory articles on Buddhism, so I'm focusing on what I know best, the Pali Canon. Peter jackson 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true I think, every country of Theravadin tradition has different numbers of Buddhist Councils, some 'councils' were held later in one country, and the other countries were not involved. But I think up until the fourth council here is agreement among the countries of the Theravadin tradition, it's their common source. After that it starts to differ. But practically these different councils came together again in the 'Sixth Council' in Burma in the 1950's, where a common version of the Pali Canon was agreed upon, and it was called the sixth council there. (The question is, where is this common version now?) Greetings, Sacca 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to do more about the Buddhist Councils articles, a lot of the info in these articles is just popular misconceptions. We can work together on this. Greetings, Sacca 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first known Mahayana texts are translations made into Chinese by the Kushan monk Lokaksema in the Chinese capital of Luoyang, between 178 and 189 CE. Lokaksema's work includes the translation of the Pratyutpanna Sutra, containing the first known mentions of the Buddha Amitabha and his Pure Land, said to be at the origin of Pure Land practice in China, and the first known translations of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, a founding text of Mahayana Buddhism. The fact that translations of highly evolved Mahayana texts at that time (180 CE) were already made as far away as China is usually considered as one of the main indications that Mahayana had already been existing for quite a while. Its inception is usually dated to the 1st century BCE. PHG 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Peter jackson 09:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Sections for 2nd & 3rd Councils

Well done, whoever you are ! These sections are far more balanced and accurate, better reflecting modern scholarship on these two Councils. I have now accordingly removed the "accuracy tags" which I posted previously. All we need to do is to revise the section on the 4th (Kanishkan) Council. Would you also be prepared to similarly revise the main articles for these two Councils ? --Stephen Hodge 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen, we meet again... I have attempted a little on these Councils; this is my first foray into the world of Wiki, so i am a novice at formatting, providing links, citing references, etc. Any help with these is appreciated. I have added a few references at the bottom of the page, but i don't know the proper way to format them. I have made a few changes today, mostly after i read the Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy, so i took out a few of my own ideas. I think any attempt at synthesizing the various accounts is so complex and dubious it is probably best just to summarize the sources. Perhaps there could be a little more information about the various sources, or perhaps this is best done through internal links. I haven't done any research on the fourth (Kanishka) council, though you are obviously correct that there is no connection between this council and the Mahayana. I might, however, do something on the First Council: the account so far is ok, but could do with some improvement and expansion. Sujato.