Talk:Diamond Sutra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Diamond Sutra: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Form of the book
In what form does the DS comes? Scroll, codex or what? And on which writing material? Gun Powder Ma 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miscellaneous
Hey, about "cuts like a thunderbolt" part. Wouldn't it be more consistent to say "cuts like a diamond", since the title of the article is "Diamond Sutra"? Also, where's the source for this thing about the British Museum DS not being the oldest block printing? The way we describe it now is confusing. - Nat Krause 03:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the date thing. But "Diamond" is actually a pretty egregious mistranslation that, nonetheless, has enough age behind it that I'm not going to try to challenge it. However, the correct translation of the Sanskrit title is indeed "cuts like a thunderbolt." (Diamaonds are supposed to be "as hard as" thunderbolts, but diamonds weren't used for cutting things in ancient India.) I guess we could spell out the whole naming issue, but I thought that might be too anal for people.कुक्कुरोवाच 19:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This article states that the sutra can be read in 40 minutes, and that it can be chanted in 40 minutes -- the same amount of time. Don't many people read faster than they speak? I'd suspect at least there'd be a significant difference. - Furrykef 01:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I just thought about it and realize that the article probably meant "could be read aloud in forty minutes". That would make it consistent, but redundant. - Furrykef 01:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Obvious, perhaps, but inaccurate. The language clearly implies a statistical average (though perhaps one that is very approximate and has not been carefully calculated), but I would need more than my own reading and chanting abilities to determine an average. - Furrykef 13:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Um...isn't it pointless to try to get a hard number when the Sutra is chanted in lots of different languages? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we could qualify that with "in English"...but I guess it isn't really a point worth too much thought. The article needs a little cleaning up as it is. - Furrykef 19:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pic
I thought it might be interesting to have an image from the British Library copy. I'm not sure it aesthetically fits the page well, though. Feel free to fix it up, I can't seem to figure out how to make it look right. methelfilms 07:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] older print books were found in korea and japan
Dianmond Sutra is not world earliest printed book. In fact, it is a earliest printed book which has a printed date. Japanese has the Sutra printed in AD 770. In 1971, Koreans found a printed book from a stone monument constructed in AD 751. But there is no record of exact printed date in these books.
