Talk:Āgama (Buddhism)

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buddhism C‑class High‑importance

	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 articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It seems to me that the whole Jain section is probably somebody else's copyrighted works.Greetings, Sacca 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say the Agamas are included in the East Asian canon, but then link that to Mahayana Sutras, is incorrect, as the Agamas are not Mahayana Sutras. Peter jackson (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to send agama to a disambig which then would go to Agama (Buddhism) and Agama (Hinduism) because the uses of the word seem to be different and the texts are completely different, obviously. Any objections? Mitsube (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jainism. I think that's a good idea. Peter jackson (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a big chunk of stuff detailing the Chinese sources, translators, translation dates, etc. Criticisms? Huifeng (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really criticisms:

Why this particular order? Isn't Taisho order or chronological order of translation.
Warder ascribes Ekottara to Dharmaguptakas (Indian Buddhism).

Peter jackson (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhology section seems problematic: I moved it down from its prominent position. Should we cut it or trim it?

The section on Buddhology seems problematic for three reasons: content, composition, and placement. The material in this section is of secondary importance to the topic at hand. Content: A nit-picking blow-by-blow of a debate over the different texts' position on the possibility of "contemporaneous buddhas" is ancillary to the topic of Agamas (especially since, as it seems, the purported doctrinal differences were not actually significant in the end). It may belong as on the page to show what kinds of scholarly issues are debated by comparing these agamas and nikayas. But it does not belong BEFORE the list of the different agamas themselves! So I moved it to the bottom of the page. Note also that the last two sentences are really random. They seem to reference other issues that have come up in the scholarship of these texts, but they are just kind of stuck there.