Talk:Pure Land Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are the dates in this article BC or AD? -- Gaurav 01:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
- Hmmmm. Only just realised that years in Wikipedia are AD unless explicitly mentioned 'BC'. Is there any place that policy is formally put out? Tried searching but couldn't get anything .. -- Gaurav 14:01, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Nothing formal, but rather, an accepted rule of English writing. Some article that refers to dynasties that cross-over BC & AD may explicitly state so. BC years will always be stated as such. AD may or may not. The dichotomy alone should be clear. Plus, the context usually helps. --Menchi 03:50, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
Contents |
[edit] Organizing Afterlife Articles
I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence. I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles. Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife. Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Pure Land → Pure Land Buddhism – current article under the lemma describes the buddhist school, but it should describe the concept of the pure land or Sukhavati instead.
[edit] Voting
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support (initiator) --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Ph0kin (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC), I find this confusing as well, even being a Pure Land Buddhist.
[edit] Discussion
English Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of the Pure Land yet, as in de:Sukhavati or ja:浄土. The article should be either at Sukhavati, which is only a disambig at the moment, or here. To make space for the article, the current article, describing the buddhist schools based on the concept, should be moved. --Mkill 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amidism Incorrect?
The article states that the term Amidism is incorrect, but when searching Google the only pages that said that where directly copying from Wikipedia, so I removed that it was incorrect. I also cited the term "Amidism". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking as a Pure Land Buddhist myself, the term is somewhat archaic and outmoded. It's like the term "Mohammedism" which Muslims find offensive. No one at our temple uses it either. I suggest removing it, except where it's cited as a term no longer used.
-
- one shouldn't over-generalize. When I asked a fellow-pupil at school what his religion was, he said Mohammedan. Peter jackson (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

