Talk:Vinaya

Buddhism C‑class Low‑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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

I think value of each rule is matter of POV. No need to push Mahayana POV FWBOarticle 07:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The previous version said that parts of Japan follow the Mulasarvastivada, i.e. Tibetan, tradition. I've never heard of such a thing, though of course there are Tibetan (and Theravada) monks in Japan, mainly at its universities. I've deleted this until someone can provide proper evidence. Peter jackson 10:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I've heard of a Mongolian teacher who says he is the lineage holder and a Rinpoche of a Tibetan Vajrayana tradition (one that made it all the way to remote mountains of Mongolia and survived). I've got nothing we could cite, but wanted to say that it is possible Tibetan tradition exists in Japan, on a similar basis. Deebki 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Tibetan Vajrayana is the dominant religious tradition in Mongolia.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'China Hendrix' nickname?[edit]

The entry at the bottom of the article sounds doubtful. I've added a citation tag to it, and a cursory google search doesn't turn up much of use for 'China Hendrix'.--Anchoress 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge[edit]

We have two articles- Vinaya and Vinaya Pitaka- that are on the same topic, and both of which could use some improvement for such a major topic. I'm neutral on which title they should wind up under- the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism uses Vinaya, but I can see a good argument for Vinaya Pitaka, since the Vinaya is not much discussed outside the context of the division of the canon. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion in one place, which is here. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]