Talk:Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

Response
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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepnwolf (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 June 2002 (UTC)


 * 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


 * added proper reference to DTS translation 67.118.118.196 05:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) . That is the ENGLISH translation, article says he also translated it into Japanese, I don't know anything about that. 67.118.118.196 05:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * ;;; actually, that's 3 single quotes; bold 67.118.118.196 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
Is there an English translation of the title? What does it mean? Bao Pu (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Article has been updated. Tengu800 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Madhyamaka/Yogacara
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?

--166.139.121.6 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, forgive me, there is a reference to Yogacara. But it is a glancing reference and I was expecting more explanation of the common ground between the two (and differences if there are any). --166.139.121.6 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No "Failed verification"
Javierfv1212, sorry I just tried to undo my edit with the Failed verification tag because the website does in fact say this. JimRenge (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. Cheers.Javier F.V.

About Ravana
@Javierfv1212 - fyi, the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism describes Ravana as a yakṣa king; therefore, in Buddhism, he might not be considered a rakshasa. I haven't yet found any other Buddhist sources to confirm this. - Dorje108 (talk)