Talk:Bhāviveka

Chinese translateion of the name is based on the following....
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bhavaviveka+%E6%B8%85%E8%BE%A8&hl=zh-CN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr= --222.67.212.250 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bhāviveka. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~96154505/Mark_Siderits__Paul_Hoornaert_Madhyamakahrdaya_8-26.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cover text
may I suggest to be cautious with this cover-text:
 * ""Bhāviveka (ca. 500–560 CE) lived at a time of unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy. The Mahayana movement was emerging as a vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force, while the earlier traditions of the eighteen “schools” (nikaya) resisted the authority of the Mahayana and continued to elaborate the fundamental concepts of Buddhist thought. Bhāviveka’s “Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way” (Madhyamakahrdayakārikā) with their commentary, known as “The Flame of Reason” (Tarkajvālā), give a unique and authoritative account of the intellectual differences that stirred the Buddhist community in this creative period."

In the sixth century, Mahayana existed already for centuries. This text is a promotional blurb. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the cover-text is specifically referring to Buddhist logic, which arose in this time and was highly influential. The problem is in the sentence "The Mahayana movement was emerging as a vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Mahayana has roots a couple of centuries before Bhaviveka, but it took time to emerge. Not only Eckel states so, many others. That comment is not merely about logic, or logic as context. See Eckel's introductory discussion in the book. Do you have a particular WP:RS in mind that disputes Eckel?
 * You added "yet the very existence of an independent" with Dreyfus, Georges B.J. & Sara L. McClintock (eds) as source. I don't see it in there, perhaps I missed it. Which page number is that on? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * P.2: "...the Svatantrika-Prasangika distinction is a Tibetan creation that was retroactively applied in an attempt to bring clarity and order to the study of competing Madhyamaka interpretations."
 * P.2: "In India, however [...] the basic basic division [...] was not a disticntion" ff
 * P.3: "As Tibetans like Tsong kha pa were fully aware" ff
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will add that and a bit of the context to clarify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I trimmed and reworded the "he engages early (pre-Shankara) Advaita Vedanta, noticing the resemblance with Mahayana Buddhism" because I am unable to find support for this. If we can find a WP:RS or appropriate page, it would be worth a mention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)