Talk:Pali Canon

Comments

Hey Peter--

Nice work on this article; I think it's coming along nicely. Despite having done Sanskrit for a few years (and some Pali in there too) I'm really not qualified to comment on the content of this article. I did have a few comments about style and presentation.

1. I think it would be helpful to have a footnote expanding on the "three approaches" in the 'Authorship and Date' section-- just giving the names of some major scholars and works. A statement in the body of the text about which approach-- if any-- prevails would be helpful as well. (There are a few other points where you refer to unnamed scholars; I think it would be helpful to flesh these references out.)

2. There are a few points where you refer to things a bit too allusively for the general reader. I think the 'Canon' section could use some clarification to explain why these different canonical lists are important, or what importance each is accorded. As it is, you just jump in with a list of the different lists of canonical works. Similarly, the 'Role' section is interesting, but is also a bit compressed.

Hope this helps! I look forward to reading more. Brian P. Long 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. OK, I've added a note on the 3 approaches. Is that the sort of thing you're thinking of? I can't actually say for sure which prevails, though I suspect the 3rd, the middle of the road. (Which itself contains a wide variety of detailed views.) Which other references were you saying should be added?
2. I probably can't add much on the canon. Scholars just don't seem to have bothered studying the point much. I've already stretched about as far as I can go without original research (and even that would add only a bit of speculation; it really needs research into some rather obscure sources I haven't got access to). I'll have to think about the Role section. I can no doubt add more detail here if appropriate.

Peter Jackson 10:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)