Talk:Sutra Pitaka

Should this redirect to Sutta Pitaka or to Buddhist texts?

I would argue for the latter. The Sutta Pitaka article is currently exclusively the Pāli Canon, whereas there are a whole lot of sutras that could be placed in the Sutra Pitaka other than just the Pali ones. - Nat Krause 05:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought "Sutta Pitaka" was just a way of saying "Sutra Pitaka" in Pali, and that they referred to the same collection. Is that not the case? Quadell 14:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, kinda. "Sutta Pitaka" is just a way of saying "Sutra Pitaka" in Pāli. But Buddhist wonks don't normally use Pāli unless they are talking specifically about Theravada and the Pāli Canon. There are a lot of other collections of sutras, containing, for instance, Mahayana or Vajrayana sutras, but they are normally referred to in Sanskrit, hence "Sutra Pitaka" (and even that isn't very common from what I've seen). So, I would say that technically "Sutta Pitaka" and "Sutra Pitaka" should refer to the same thing, and it should include any sutra collection. However, since no one ever uses the Pāli unless they are Theravadins or talking about Theravadins, I think it's close enough to assume that Sutta Pitaka refers specifically to the Pāli Canon. - Nat Krause 14:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I made it a disambig. Does this feel right to you? Quadell 15:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a lot better. - Nat Krause 15:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the way this has worked out. The statement that Sutra Pitaka can mean Sutta Pitaka is rather misleading. Rather, Sutra Pitaka is a general term for a number of different Sutra Pitakas, including the Sutta Pitaka. More to the point, though, the link to Buddhist texts is not very helpful. There's no entry for Sutra Pitaka in its tabe of contents, so anyone who tries to look up this term would have to plough through the article hoping to find an explanation. Peter jackson (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now redone this in a more sensible way, the link to Buddhist texts being pretty useless. I still think we need to consider consistency. Why is this a dab, when there are articles on Tripitaka & Abhidharma Pitaka? Peter jackson (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this really be a DAB page?

In trying to fix incoming links to this page as part of the project WP:Disambiguation pages with links, I found so many circular links that it made me dizzy. I can see from the other entries on this talk page that others have also been confused. Should this page really be a DAB page, or would it be better as an article (perhaps short) explaining the term more fully? This DAB page does not seem to help in navigating the subject matter. - Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)