Talk:Vaibhāṣika

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaibhāṣika article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

South Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in May 2015.

Untitled

This is a really terrible account of the Vaibhāṣikas. It needs rewriting from scratch. They were not materialists, if anything by Western terminology they were Realists. They took the stance they did to try to account for the discontinuity caused by the much later ripening of karmas that had long since ceased to exist. We need to get beyond the traditional Tibetan confusion about who they were (which is based on later commentaries on late polemical works) and cite some of their own texts - work by scholars such as Collett Cox ought to be at the forefront of any account as she is the most prominent writer on the subject. Jayarava (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits you could make in this direction would be welcome. The article is now quite small and lacking detail, especially considering the prominent role of the Vaibhasika in Indian Buddhism. Best regards. Tengu800 12:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]