Talk:Buddhahood/Archive 1

Unanswered question from before Nov 2004

What does it mean that one of the characteristics of the Buddha is "well gone"?

Suggestions

HOW TO LEARN CHINESE AND BUDDHA AT THE SAME TIME http://www.amtb.org.tw/ 介紹淨空老法師及其宗教理念，提供講經文字、影音檔和雜誌下載。 http://www.amtb.tw/tvchannel/pbc.htm BUDDHA TV PROGRAM

This is an attempt to be helpful. I'm not a Buddhist and have no axe to grid.

I agree that this article is confusing and badly written. It's full of arcane and, to the non-involved, pointless hair splitting.

It strikes me that what's needed is five separate but linked articles:

1. The main features of modern Buddhism 2. Life story of the Buddha 3. What the Buddha actually taught / said 4. How Buddhism has evolved since his death 5. Discussion of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy; the arguments between different forms of and viewpoints on Buddhism; and whether modern Buddhism is true to the Buddha (this can get as nit-picking as anyone wants).

Attempting to make the article more focused on the meaning of Buddha. Added a disambiguation on the top, and also folded in the Three types of Buddha article. (20040302 12:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Perhaps it would also be useful toction on the roots of Siddhartha's journey in the "forest-renouncer" tradition that gave rise to the Upanisads, which are basically Buddhist ideas with a concept of individual souls and adherence to the authority of the Vedas? Please correct me if I'm misremembering this, as it has been about 11 years since I took a class on this. 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please identify postures

Could someone knowledgeable add a section on the indentification and significance of the different postures of the Buddha in statuary, particularlt his hand positions - Buddha descending from heaven, Buddha subduing Mara etc etc? This would serve to enlighten the humble traveller as he tramps through the un-air-conditioned Bangkok Museum. Adam 12:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really knowledgeable, but I tried adding a little something in the hopes that someone else that actually knows what they are talking about will pick up on it and go with it. The prose could probably use some work and almost none of the resources I found listed asanas in a useful manner. So it's pretty slanted towards mudras right now. At least it's something. →Reene^✎ 00:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Articles about images

I recently noticed that we have an article, Buddharupa, about Buddha images, which is more or less orphaned. We also have a long article on Buddhist art, which is mostly historical, and some text about Buddha images on this page, Buddha. I'm open to suggestions as to what is the most optimal way to organize the information across different pages. - Nat Krause 17:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I get home (I am currently in Hanoi) I intend researching and writing a proper article about the iconography of the Buddha, especially his hand positions (see above), and also the different national traditions of depicting the Buddha. If the article Buddharupa is relevant to that I will incorporate it. Adam

bodhisattvas - beings committed to Enlightenment, who vow to

• (from the Nikaya view) postpone their own Nirvana in order to assist others on the path, or
• (from the Mahayana view) secure Awakening/Nirvana for themselves first and thereafter continue to liberate all other beings from suffering for all time.

User:Sunborn reverted this. Let me explain.

The Nikaya doctrine of nirvana-without-remainder means that there is no difference (after death) between a sravaka-buddha and a samyaksam-buddha, and most significantly, there is no ability for any type of buddha to benefit others after death. Therefore, as we are currently in the world of Shakyamuni, the only option for students of Shakyamuni is to achieve sravaka-buddhahood, or if one is to be a Bodhisattva, (like Maitreya), to postpone nirvana until one has manifested as a samyaksam-buddha.

Mahayana buddhism has a distinct doctrine (see eg. Lotus sutra) of nirvana-without-remainder, and so therefore there is a distinction between the sravaka-buddhas who are at peace, therefore not initially engaged in benefitting others (after death), and the samyaksam-buddhas who are actively engaged in benefitting others for all time. For the Mahayana it makes no sense to talk about postponing Nirvana, because they do not assert the same doctrine of nirvana-without-remainder as the Nikaya schools. (20040302 08:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

I must state I know not as much about the bodhisttava of the Mahayana tradition. However, the word in bodhisattva in Theravada, last of the Nikaya schools, means only one thing, "Buddha-to-be". It is used only to reference the Shakyamuni Buddha before he became a Buddha. It is important to know that Buddha also has a limited context. "Buddha" means self-enlightened. This means that there can be no Buddha as long as there is a Buddhism. Sometime in the future, Buddhism will not exist. All things are impermanent, after all. When another self-enlightened being will come and share the Dhamma once again. This is the Buddha-to-be, bodhisttava Maitreya. Therefore there can be no other Buddhas or Bodhisttavas anywhere else unless discussing the far future or distant past. --metta, The Sunborn 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sunborn, thanks for replying. It appears clear that you are somewhat familiar with the term bodhisattva from within the Theravada - though, your etymology is not very good. My point above concerns the ability of a Buddha after parinirvana - which is identified by the Nikaya as being nirvana-without-remainder. Most importantly, within the Nikaya, a Buddha is not able to directly point the way to nirvana after death. This is a major distinction between Nikaya and the Mahayana, who conversely, state that once a (Samyaksam)Buddha arises, s/he continues to directly, actively point the way to nirvana for all time. I do not disagree with you concerning the status or nature of a SamyaksamBuddha. My position was concerned with what happens after that Buddha 'dies' and enters into Parinirvana. The Nikaya/Mahayana views differ, and this is exactly why the Mahayana do not talk about a bodhisattva postponing nirvana, and exactly why the Nikaya do. I am therefore reinserting the distinction into the article.

To make myself redundantly clear: Within Nikaya, Maitreya has chosen to postpone his Nirvana in order to introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists. While, within Mahayana schools, Maitreya will also be the next Buddha manifest in this world and introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists, however, he is not postponing his Nirvana to do so. Moreover, Mahayana argues that although it is true that for this world-system, Maitreya is the next Buddha to manifest, there are an infinite number of world-systems, many of which have currently active Buddhas, or Buddhas-to-be manifesting. This latter point is not relavant to the central point of the change in the article, which is primarily that, based on the Nikaya/Mahayana doctrinal distinction of the meaning of nirvana-without-remainder, we see too distinct views concerning the path of the bodhisattva, with the Nikaya stating that Bodhisattvas postpone their own Nirvana, whereas the Mahayana schools (maybe not the FWBO, but they should speak for themselves on this) stating that Bodhisattvas attempt to reach Nirvana as soon as possible, (just like Nikaya Sravakas do), but with the motive to continue to effortlessly benefit all beings for all time (due to the distinction of ability of a Buddha after death).

If you are still not clear about what I am talking about, please explain to me your understanding (from the Theravada view) of what abilities an arhat has after death, specifically the ability to benefit others through teaching and showing examples. As I understand it, (and I could be wrong), the Theravada view is that an arhat (including Buddha) after death has no ability to directly benefit sentient beings. This one point is in direct contrast to Mahayana doctrine, which states that a SamyaksamBuddha (such as Lord Sakyamuni Buddha) is able to continue to benefit sentient beings through teaching and showing examples for all time. A consequence of the Mahayana school's views is that they assert that Lord Sakyamuni continues to teach right now. If I am mistaken regarding the Theravada view, please forgive me and explain carefully and with detail the view that is held regarding the abilities of such great beings after death. (20040302 02:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC))

Buddhist quotes

Why are there a bunch of Buddhist quotes at the end of this article? Unsourced ones, even? The ones that have sources should move to Wikiquote, presumably. I'll remove them in a bit unless something odd happens. - Nat Krause 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

. Nat, I agree with you about the quotes. Giving quotations in an encyclopaedic article can be very useful and valid, and I think that the inserter of these quotes was potentially doing good work here; but these quotes are way-too numerous and not at all unified or integrated into the main article, and many of the quotes also constitute dubious translations; furthermore, many are not even from or about the Buddha (which is, after all, the subject of this particular entry). There are even alleged quotes "from the Buddha" which I am personally suspicious of (although it may well be that I have simply not yet come across these statements in my own study of the suttas/sutras): for example, "You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection". This sounds pretty un-Buddhist to me. It smacks more of "New Age" syncretism and self-love! But I am open to correction, if I am wrong. It is interesting to note in passing, perhaps, that the common practice of beginning the "Brahma-viharas" (of friendliness, compassion, shared joy, and equanimity) by directing friendliness etc. first of all towards oneself seems not to have its basis in any words from the Buddha (as far as I have been able to ascertain through study of the main suttas/ sutras). But again, I may simply be speaking from a position of ignorance here. Anyway, I do think the quotes should either be reduced to the really relevant ones on the Buddha (or the state of Buddhahood), or else re-directed to other more appropriate areas of "Buddhism" on Wiki, as you suggest. Best wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

There is no citation of his mothers name or virgin birth status, yet this person is cited in the virgin birth listing of Wikipedia. Can someone please extrapolate in the article on his birth, mother and estimated years with a reference or two? Jachin 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure where I should write this info so I am putting it here and if you like it, you can cut and paste it to the main article: Before the birth of the Buddha, his mother, Queen Maya, had a dream that an elephant descended from the heavens and melted into her body. Shortly thereafter she became pregnant. Based on this, there was a short-lived legend that the Buddha was born of immaculate conception, from a virgin. The Buddha insisted that he was just a man, not a god or son of god. It is interesting that many religious leaders have this legend attributed to them to help elevate their status.

On top of that, there is another legend that he was born from his mother Maya Devi's right armpit. Which makes Maya a super-virgin, since her genetallia is now virtually untouched. Beat that, Mary. :P

Most Buddhist do not hold that Buddha was immaculately conceived. Buddha himself would be quite irritated by this notion given that he went to great length to dispell relgious superstition and assert his humanity. There are several stories of him berating students for saying that there was a soul that survived death, etc. (He referred to the student who had given the false teaching on soul as "Oh Stupid One". It would be inappropriate to refer to him as a god as well. This is not really debatable in the Buddhist world - at least among the well educated. DMK

WIKIPEDIA SHOULD TIGHTEN UP ON THEIR VANDALISM POLICIES

LOOK ALOT OF PEOPLE TO THIS DAY STILL THINK BUDDHA WAS CHINESE, OR JAPANESE, OR SOME KINDA OF MONGOLIAN/ASIAN DECENT...AND I AM ADDING THINGS TO THIS PAGE THAT MAKE NO SENSE. BLOCK ME! I AM NOT EDITING YOUR ENTIRE PAGE, I AM JUST SAYING THAT HE LIVED IN INDIA! IS THAT SO WRONG? GOVERNMENT IS THE CAPSTONE ON WHICH WE BUILD CRAYONS THAT FREE THE SLAVES THAT SHALL CONQUER ALL.ARYAN818 02:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of "Buddha", i.e., it includes Shakyamuni, Amitabha, Dipankara, and all other Buddhas. It is not about Siddhartha Gautama specifically, so it's unnecessary to mention his biographical details in the introduction. I wouldn't mind mentioning it later, although it will cause future conflicts with people who say he was Nepalese. - Nat Krause 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

When Gautam Buddha was born, there was no Nepal as it exists today. Calling him Nepalese is like telling that Harappa, currently part of Pakistan, was not a part of India as it existed then, However, I do agree that the article being about the concept of Buddha, reference to the nationality of Gautam Buddha is extraneous. --MissingLinks 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As it happens Harappa wasn't "part of India as it existed then", since we have no reason to believe that concept of "India" existed at the time of the IVC, any more than the concepts of Pakistan or Nepal did. Paul B 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Look,this article is already as confused as it can get. we arent even sure which "Buddha" we are talking of ! WoodElf 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

chinese character for the buddha.

it would be a bright idea if someone were to add the traditional and simplified chinese characters representing the buddha.

That wouldnt make sense because as it is people already think he was of some East Asian country. For god sakes he was a Kashatirya living in India...He was Indian!

It really isn't about what people think. But I do think that it is a frivilous idea to include Chinese characters. Is there a Chinese version of wikipedia? Might be relevant there.

==Amr Ashraf=: It doesn't matter if Buddah is chinese or indian, you concentrate on little things, how can there be 28 previous gods, what if two people reach full enlightment at the same time , POOF!! you have 2 gods??

bitchin' camera, bob.

I added the cleanup template because:

• The introduction is far too long.
• There are too many lists.

Certainly this article can do better. joturner 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 32 marks of the Buddha should be removed. This is meaningless and not important to the study or history of the historical Buddha. This is mentioned in one later sutra (discourse) to help elevate his status among the less educated and is a rarely used or talked about sutra in temples among Buddhists or non-Buddhists, for that matter.

This article is not about "the historical Buddha." There have been and will be many Buddhas. deeptrivia (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is about the historical Buddha. This article is not about the definition of a buddha or enlightened one, but is quite clear that it is about Sidhartha Gotama, the historical Buddha. Read the article first before making suggestions.

[I agree that the part on the 32 marks would be best removed. They come from an out-of-the-way attempt in the Digha Nikaya to give the traditional Indian idea of the '32 marks of a superior being' some ethical content, but they really are a bit of an oddity and little referenced either by Buddhists or non-Buddhists. Their appearance so far up the page gives the impression that they are a prominent part of the idea of Buddhahood. In the meantime, I've added a small explananation at the start.

All the best

Alan]

What drew me to this article was the fact was the fact that it's so excrutiatingly bad. Bad English, bad scholarship. Does it need a clean-up, or will a bulldozer do? Ne'ertheless, there's already an article on Sid Gautama - I checked - so unless you can find another reason for this article to exist, it should go (the bulldozer option). If it's to stay, it should address the concept of Buddhahood - which, at the moment, it doesn't. At the moment, it doesn't do anything. PiCo 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the bulldozer. And I agree the article should be about Buddhahood, with links to the existing material on the historical Buddha.--Alancarter 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Repeated copyrighted-violations by flying-account vandal User:VANDALISM MUST BE STOPPPED, User:ADON, User:CARNASSUS. The copyrighted text is from [1]. Article Sardilli is also complete copyright violation from the same source. Repeated usage of abusive language against Wikipedians. User block requested. PHG 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

On what basis these people branded Buddha as Hindu? As per the available Buddhist texts Buddha born in Sakya Tribe in Lumbini, Nepal he gat enlightment at Bodhgaya, India. 2500 years back Going back to the sixth century B.C., Northern India did not form a single Sovereign State. There were different Tribes ruling separate small Kingdoms. There was no country as such India. Like today we have hundreds of tribes in Africa Continent. Same thing with Siddhartha Gautama. He born in some tribe known Sakya tribe or Sakya Kula that is the only available information about him Who told you that he was Hindu? If everybody is Hindu then do you call Jesus as Hindu? Paigamber as Hindu? Please remove all refernce that Buddha was Hindu! He was not a Hindu Price these Bhangi-Brahmins so-called Hindus keep branding anybody as Hindu.

The Sakya tribe is generally accepted as being of the warrior caste (ksatriya) otherwise, there would have been no reason for Siddhartha to be given the Brahmin clan name Gautama. While Northern India at the time was indeed composed of many distinct kingdoms, the area itself was under Aryan suzerainty, lending greater credence to the view that the Buddha was born into the Hindu religion. I think it wise to remove the dispute. S.N. Hillbrand 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, hasn't he already renounced his caste and prince-hood, and in fact DENOUNCED the caste system?

This is a useless discussion. The word Hindu literally means Indian, and that was the only meaning until the first census was done in India in the 18th/19th century, when a need was felt to coin a term for Indic religions. There were hundreds of different schools of thought clubbed together as Hinduism. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were not included within this term simply because of large number of adherents of these schools of thought. There is no point in discussing whether Buddha was a Hindu, even after his enlightenment. There was no such concept at that time. He never launched a "new religion" either. Of course he spoke against many Vedic practices, but so have hundreds of other "Hindu" sages. Even the Bhagvad Gita speaks at many places of rejecting Vedic rituals. Many Hindu sages have condemned the caste system and even the existence of God. IMHO, all these concepts of defining one relgion as opposed to another comes from a different bunch of religions, and should not be imposed on Eastern religions. deeptrivia (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Originalist distinctions that you make are confusing for the reason that readers unfamiliar with how you define the term Hindu in opposition to its current definition would be unable to correctly parse your usage. I believe the question put by the original poster was whether Shakyamuni was born to a Hindu family and thus raised in the Brahmic orthopraxy. This would indeed be an important question given the Buddha's antinomian proclamations. As to the grouping of religions, this is done primarily on a shared belief and is equally useful in eastern versus western religions. You will always have so

I concur that it is a useless discussion. Anyhow, I disagree that Buddha (Siddhartha) did not launch a new religion. In the same way Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not bunched up into one name despite their close origins, it is vital to recognize the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism. While it is true that the term "Hindu" literally means "Indian", this is only a regional distinction. Muslims living to the east of the Hindu Kush (Indus Valleys) are referred to as "Hindu" by their Muslim bretheren in the Middle-east. What the person who began this discussion meant "Hindu" as the religion "Hinduism", I believe. I hope this clarifies some of the confusion.

Headline text

GO TO THE VANDAL'S WEBSITE me overlap where religions intermingle (Jews for Jesus come to mind) but by and large, macro-belief distinctions are accurate. S.N. Hillbrand 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillbrand, dear, please learn to write simple, concise English. Love hearing your thoughts though. PiCo 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh, of course he was a hindu!!!just not the type we are accustomed to. however ALL people of south asia followed certain festivals and occasions and worshipped the same gods, amny of which now form the hindu pantheon, so duh, naturally buddha was a hindu. just like jesus was a jew.WoodElf 10:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MARKSMAN

Erk! PiCo 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Erk indeed. I edited this to 'the causes of suffering', but it seems to have reverted. Any idea why?--Alancarter 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Theravada Buddhism

I'm writing a comment about the comment below:

"Eternal Buddha - last paragraph" According to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, worldly beings fail to see this eternality of the Buddha and his Truth (Dharma). The Buddha comments there: "I say that those who do not know that the Tathagata [Buddha] is eternal are the foremost of the congenitally blind." This view, it should be noted, is foreign to mainstream Theravada Buddhism.

It is not correct to state that the Theravada Buddhism is foreign to the concept of an eternal Buddha. Theravada recognizes that while the Buddha was alive, he was consider a living Buddha whose turn it is to turn the wheel of dharma. When the Buddha achieve pari-nipparn (death), he becomes eternal in Nirvana. All things (in Samsara) are annica (impermanence). Since Nirvana is not in Samsara, Nirvana therefore is eternal.

fat hotei

i have been trying to find information on the fat buddha statue that i commonly see in cultural shops. i've heard it refered to as buddha, but does not at all resemble siddhartha so i assume it is a different person. i hope im not being too vague in my description, and what i have in mind is recognised. i advise that this person's article has a link when "buddha" is searched, if it doesnt already; or correct me if im mistaken. considering my ignorance - edit this at will

My understanding is that the fat guy is a Chinese god named Hotei. The wikipedia article on him provides some speculation as to how his image became associated with Buddhism. Its interesting to note that the misconception that Hotei is the Buddha seems to only exist in Western countries (specifically the United States).Bodhitha 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it? My experience is that Chinese people in general are not very clear on the distinction between Hotei and the Buddha. Or rather, they think that Hotei is Maitreya (most Chinese temples have a statue of Maitreya in the guise of Hotei) and they think that Maitreya is a Buddha. They probably are aware that Hotei is not Shakyamuni, though. Incidentally, this article used to mention Hotei. See below. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly possible. My anecdotal evidence is that the preception that Gautama Buddha looks like Hotei largely exists in societies without substantial Buddhist populations (especially in western countries). The assignment of the image of Hotei to Maitreya may be the root of this. If I were an anthropologist, this would certainly be something interesting to research! Bodhitha 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The word Buddha only means someone who has attained enlightenment and freedom from the world (samsara). Gautam Buddha is Siddhartha who achieved the state of Buddhahood. Hotei, is therefore, different from Siddhartha. He might be a buddha, I don't know. But he definitely isn't Siddhartha.

I agree with the comments of most people here. I haven't seen Buddha being associated with the fat statue, except for in western cultures. Never in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal or Miyanmar (mainstream followers of Theravada chapter) and very rarely in China or Korea. But then again, how a statue should be made is a matter of personal preference added with social consensus, isn't it? 222.165.181.103 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

the state of this article

It certainly does need to be cleaned up. This I will be happy to do myself when I have time, but this won't be any time within the next two weeks. I'm also going to add the Sanskrit names of the previous Buddhas, which I think might be more common.

I would also like to point out that this edit on October 16, 2005 wiped out an entire section of this article, and it remained wiped out until I restored it today, March 17, 2006. We should be more careful to avoid situations like that in the future. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help with this image

Can somebody certify the copyright or public domain status of this buddha artwork i've uploaded? it's really nice and I don't want it to get deleted, i'm pretty sure the author has been dead for over a hundred years, thkx - Waking

File:Buddha13.jpg

Karma

The article says that: a Buddha is anyone who realizes the Dharma (highest truth) and achieves enlightenment, having amassed sufficient positive karma and an understanding of mind's nature to do so.

This isn't technically true. To attain Buddhahood one needs to move beyond cause and effect. To transcend samsara, one has to move beyond karma. Karma, whether positive or negative, is part of the law of cause and effect, and is therefore nothing to do with enlightenment. Joziboy 27 March 2006, 22:11 (UTC)

Removed from article ("Controversy Regarding Buddha's Lifestyle")

I took this out of the article. It's not really written in a neutral or encyclopedic tone and was worse when it was first added to the article, and is unsourced. Moreoever, it contains logical flaws, some of which have been mentioned by subsequent redactors of the passage. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The removed text: Controversy Regarding Buddha's Lifestyle

A point of contention raised by many non-Buddhists is the seemingly irresponsible life led by the historic Buddha. The Buddha's teaching that one live free from attachment can be taken to imply that one should neglect all earthly responsibility, including the responsibility to look after the welfare of others. Nowhere is this more dramatically portrayed than in Buddha's relationship to his own family. Buddha's reckless abandonment of his wife and child in order to "seek enlightenment" apart from earthly attachments can be seen as a tacit endorsement of giving up one's responsibilities towards one's family. However, it should not be forgotten that Buddha actually left his family before he was Buddha. In addition, numerous suttas expound, in great detail, the importance of one's duties to family and community.

It is written that both Yasodhara(wife) and Rahula(son) became arahats. After expounding dhamma to the first five disciples and some other ascetics in the area, Buddha immediately went towards his former home so he could teach his whole family the Dhamma.

As another point I would like to add that the perception that Prince Siddarthat was irresponsible for abandoning his family is false. Retreating to the woods for a life of piety was a form of retirement in the culture of India approximately 2500 years ago. He did engage this retirement sooner in life than most but as prince he probably knew that his family would be taken care of and his son would be heir. Of course, becoming a diciple of The Buddha meant being able to abandon earthly titles as well as possessions, just as Siddhartha did, to pursue enlightenment.(Antisamsara 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Made some changes

I have to agree that the article is convoluted and difficult to read, especially for folks who are new to Buddhism. So I have made some effort to clean up some of sections I felt were especially confusing. Particularly the "More than one Buddha" section, where I re-wrote the definition of Buddha based on a more neutral and simplistic definition. This definition may be inadequate, so I encourage to review what I wrote and make adjustments.

I cleaned up some of the "Three Types of Buddhas" text to give it a more neutral tone. It definitely leaned a bit much toward a Theravada viewpoint, and also was a bit awkward.

I also cleaned up the section "Eternal Buddha", which awkwardly explained Theravada as opposed to Mahayana. I de-emphasized the differences somewhat, and tried to clarify what Theravada Buddhism is (as opposed to the run-on sentence that was there). Again, this is probably not a great improvement, and I welcome comments or constructive criticism.

Lastly, I suggest that some of the sections be removed outright, or moved to their own pages, as they are overly technical and will likely confuse someone who's curious about Buddhism. In particular, I think these sections should be removed:

1. Teacher of Gods and Men 2. Names of the Buddhas

Thanks! --Ph0kin 23:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I agree about removing the "Teacher of Gods and Men" section .. it seems to ramble on toward an unclear purpose. I think the names of the Buddhas are important to include for reference, although the table I put them in might be the best format. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Nat. I assume you added the Buddha image at the beginning too. I like it.  ;) Also, I like how the different types of Buddhas were collapsed into the opening paragraphs. I think it's more succinct and to the point that way. Nicely done. (If someone else made these changes, kudos to them). As it stands now, I think the list is fine where it is since the article overall isn't so long anymore. I see your point of keeping it as a reference. The only point of contention I still see in the article might be the Eternal Buddha section. It seems like although I cleaned it up a bit, it still detracts a little from the purpose of the article. If there's a way to trim it down somewhat, I think it will all flow better. Also, perhaps we should make a seperate section to explain the 'Fat Buddha' thing? It seems that part isn't emphasized enough. Thanks! --Ph0kin 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shuffled pictures around

Hey all, I noticed some of the pictures looked crowded together, so I moved a couple of them down the page to fill in the whitespace near the list of names. Hope folks find that agreeable. Thanks! --Ph0kin 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Life of Gautama Buddha

I believe this section is somewhat redundant because life of Gautama Buddha is well explained in a separate article. This article should be about what Buddha is, including mahayana idea of Buddha nature. Vapour

Heh, I agree the life of Gautama Buddha shouldn't be in the article. On the other hand, you might note that it wasn't visible in the article until you put it there; see [2] and [3]. As far as merging Buddha-nature into this page, I'm not sure that's a good idea: Buddha-nature is a complicated subject that is substantial enough for its own article. Also, your edits regarding Dharmakaya seem confusing. Is a Hotei statue really a representation of Dharmakaya? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am with Nat on this one. This article needs to be as general as possible since Buddha as a concept is very broad, so I have taken out references to Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya, and have de-emphasized some of the Mahayana-specific statements in the article. Lastly, I removed some of the recently added text to "Buddha statue" section. I did like the re-arranging of some sections, and have kept that in place. Please be mindful of grammar and spelling as there were a number of mistakes left in the article by recent additions. These too were corrected. --Ph0kin 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs to be

If you are going to add or make changes to this article, please bear the following in mind. This article is intended to be a very brief and general overview of what the term 'Buddha' means. It is not intended to be explain Mahayana or Theravada beliefs in depth. Those can be explained by their respective articles instead. The idea is that someone who's new to Buddhism needs to know what a Buddha is, without being bombarded by excessive terminology they are not familiar with. Thank you. --Ph0kin 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Cleanup Tag"

I removed the Cleanup Tag placed on the Buddha page. I think alot of people have made positive contributions, and to me the article looks vastly improved. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to put the tag back on. Otherwise, thank you all for your excellent work. :D --Ph0kin 16:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I think this article is looking very good these days too. I just someone would block that guy from editing (the one who's had to be reverted about a million times recently) Joziboy 25 April 2006, 20:19 (UTC)

First religion of the Buddha

Now, please correct me if I am wrong - but was the Buddha originally of a Jainist religion. That makes more sense, an ascetic life - and many of the principles and symbolism is the same, ahimsa, swastica. They both originated in Bihar, and yes Jainism was around first. It makes sense, no?!!

Benjaminstewart05 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No one really knows for sure. It's reasonable to think that the Buddha might have been a Jain at some point, but there's no specific evidence that points to this. It seems that there were various śramana sects active in northern India at about the same time, among them Jainism and Buddhism; certainly, the Buddha had joined one or more of these during the course of his life. Whether or not this included Jainism is speculative.

Also, if you talk about the original or first religion of the Buddha, that was presumably ancient Hinduism rather than a śramana group. Whether or not ancient Vedic religion is actually the same thing as what we call Hinduism today is a question I don't care to speculate on. (Remember that all phenomena have no self). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddha acually never even met Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, although Mahavira did send a number of his disciples to the Buddha to try to beat him in an argument or discussion. There are significant differences in the fundamental tenets of Jainism when compared to Buddhism. The Jains also always went about naked, while the bhikkhus wore clothing for the sake of decency and a minimum level of protection or comfort. Although Buddha was a samana before (a general term for a wandering monk or ascetic), he wasn't a Jain. His teachers were called Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara, and he doesn't mention any other teachers.--Sacca 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how does one know that the Buddha never met Mahavira? How does one know that he was never a Jain? Just by the fact that it isn't mentioned? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as irrelevant whether one knows or doesn't know these things. What's important is whether assertions can be verified by citation of a reliable source. Anything else is impermissible original research.

In other words, if a reliable source argues that Buddha was a Jain, then you can insert it in the article. Otherwise, it is original research and, as such, does not belong in Wikipedia.

Equally, if another reliable source argues that Buddha was a Jew, then you can insert that in the article alongside the assertion that he was a Jain.

You are not required, however, to give all points of view equal weight.

--Richard 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible inconsistency concerning the terms Enlightenment and Nirvana

It is my belief that a great inconsistency may have been perpetrated concerning the terms Enlightenment and Nirvana. I noticed a few complaints related to this. The definitions of terms such as "Buddha" depend on the correct definitions of these and all terms. The translations of these terms vary. In some cases enlightenment and Nirvana mean the same thing. In some cases though they mean slightly different things. While most buddhist practices accpet that enlightenment is the state of a Buddha, they also believe that a Buddha does not reincarnate for they have escaped Samsara. This would imply Nirvana. In the first paragraph the implication is that they are of the same meaning. I think that the most clarification is needed in the use of these terms. Whereas a great Llama or Venerable Master may die, their reincarnated form is sought after and sometimes discovered as is the case, as we all know, with the Dalai Llama of Tibet. I am not sure if I must cite any of this, much of it has accumulated in the steel trap that is my head, but I will leave this[4] and I am also currently looking at "The Seeker's Glossary of Buddhism"

This definition was taken from said glossary.

Enlightenment: (i)The spiritual condition of a Buddha or Bodhisattva (ii) any being can attain enlightenment and all will one day (iii) The wisdom of The Buddha's enlightenment acquired as the result of cutting off the two hindrances: passions and the illusory conceptions

This could mean, assuming that Nirvana is a state held by only the Buddhas, that a Buddha is in a state of enlightenment "and then some", while a Boddhissatva, who is by definition a being that vows to remain within the snares of Samsara until all beings are enlightened, is also enlightened but only so that they experience spiritual impartiality, as is the case with those who have reached beyond sorrow or joy, but are reincarnated numerous more times. This would imply that enlightenment is a "lesser state" that does not result in release from samsara.

Nirvana: (i) full enlightenment (ii) passing from one mode of existence to another (iii) escape from Samsara with the hope to help all beings through this actless act

This is something that can be copied if anyone wishes, or edited by all. Most of the Buddhist books I have read came to me free of charge from those who wish to push the wheel of Dharma along. The ones that I bought came from similar people though too.

Wikipedia Commons

I uploaded a number of pictures of paintings in Laotian monasteries, which I took on my recent trip to Laos. They can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paintings_of_Life_of_Gautama_Buddha

As the name implies, they're all about scenes in Buddha's life, and could be used in various pages on the Wikipedia. I uploaded quite a number already, but I have still quite a bit more of them to do also. greetings, --Sacca 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let’s remove Names of 28 Buddhas

Is there anyone other than Nat Krause who wants Names of 28 Buddhas filling over 10% of the article? I think the article should be to educate readers who want to know about the Qualities of the current Buddha (see Simple English version quoted below). Therefore I think the More than one Buddha section should go too. Please speak up if you disagree. Thanks. Dhammapal 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I forgot to tell you the other night about the Wikipedia guideline Be bold!.

Sometimes, it's not worth waiting for the silent majority to speak up. It is a matter of discretion, though. If someone reverts your edit, don't insist on your way. That's the time to open up a dialogue and discuss the dispute.

For now, though, I have been bold and just moved the list to List of the 28 Buddhas

I hope this is OK with you, Nat.

--Richard 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't really agree with it. There is already an article about Gautama Buddha (aka Siddhartha Gautama, aka Shakyamuni, aka "the Buddha"), so it would be redundant to make this article about the qualities of the most recent Buddha. Removing the "more than one Buddha" section would obscure the fact that there are, according to all forms of Buddhism that I'm aware of, more than one Buddha. As for the list of 28 Buddhas, I agree that it's inclusion isn't really crucial here. However, this article is not overlong, so I don't see any real reason to move it to a separate article. It is certainly quite germaine to the subject of this one. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think we need to be clear in our terminology here. There has never been a "More than one Buddha" section. There has only been a "Names of the Buddhas" section which consisted only of the list of the 28 Buddhas (and two pictures which got moved with the list).

I do agree that it is important to mention that there has been more than one Buddha. Not everyone understands that. However, that is already explained in the introduction.

I would be OK with keeping the list of the 28 Buddhas if there was some text associated with the list (for example, a description of each of the Buddhas). As it stands, there are only three articles about the Buddhas (or, at least only three of them are linked). Thus, in its current incarnation, the list is just a list and so should be in a "List of... " article. (NB: This assertion is debatable. The list is just long enough to warrant an article unto itself and short enough that it could be kept in this article. It really is a judgment call.)

I would ask someone who is more knowledgeable than I to write prose explaining that there has been more than one Buddha and how a Buddha is recognized. Are there any disputes about whether someone was a Buddha or not? Or are they universally accepted by all Buddhists? How about telling us when and where they lived? Are they all of one kind of Buddhism or are some Theraveda and others Mahayana?

Inquiring minds want to know...

--Richard 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, we definitely should be clearer about the terminology. In point of fact, there did used to be a section called "more than one Buddha", but you're right that there is not one now. I think it was mostly incorporated into the introduction. So, I thought Dhammapal's suggestion was to remove that text from the introduction.

As for the list, I agree that it's a judgment call whether or not it should be included, and that it doesn't really matter very much either way (I tend to err on the side of consolidating into fewer articles). Regarding the acceptance of the list, it's important to realise that none of the names on the list (other than Siddhartha Gautama) are historical persons from a secular perspective; that is, they are mentioned only in Buddhist scriptures. Consequently, they are not very controversial. I believe this is the sort of thing that is accepted by all the schools of Buddhism. Certainly, the last seven names on the list (the ones that I was able to find Sanskrit equivalents for) are common to Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism.

The list does suffer a bit from a lack of information which is specific to non-Theravadins. That is, the average Mahayanist is probably more interested in certain Mahayana-specific Buddhas, such as Amitabha or Yakushi, than in the 27 Buddhas immediately prior to Siddhartha. However, I don't really know enough to organise that information in an orderly way. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I posted here by mistake. I've moved it to: Let’s replace sectarian views about Buddha with consensus. Dhammapal 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia:Buddha - very concise

I prefer the very concise Simple English Wikipedia article: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

I contributed the following two paragraphs: The important thing is that the Buddha was perfectly enlightened. His mind was completely at peace - completely free of any form of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; any form of selfishness or greed or craving or attachment; any form of ill-will, resentment, aversion, hurt feelings, righteous indignation; any form of delusion or ignorance which could lead to doubt and confusion; any form of conceit or any conceiving of a self. His mind was perfectly at peace, abiding in complete knowledge of reality. (Ajahn Jagaro)

If one studies the Buddhist scriptures one will see the Buddha's compassion. He taught the Dhamma to those who wanted to listen, he taught for the sake of their benefit and wellbeing. He wanted to help the listeners and did not want any misfortune to occur to them, no matter who they were. Even shortly before his final passing away he still taught the Dhamma to Subhadda who became the last disciple in the presence of the Buddha himself. This clearly shows his great compassion. (K Sujin) dhammapal 20:56 Sydney 8 April 2006

Let’s replace sectarian views about Buddha with consensus

I think the article should present what all Buddhists have in common, removing sectarian concepts and views and instead using the space to present the Qualities of the Buddha. The Eternal Buddha section is sectarian and should be moved to a separate article of its own. If you disagree please speak up. Thanks. Dhammapal 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that presenting only what "Buddhists have in common" in their notion of "Buddha" is too limiting for such an encyclopaedia entry. Better to be frank about differences of vision where they exist and report them accurately. Actually, there is nothing "sectarian" about speaking of the important notion of an eternal Buddha in the context of a Mahayana understanding of what "Buddha" denotes and connotes. The eternality of the Buddha is an important idea found in numerous Mahayana sutras and indeed the Tantras. It is one of the ways in which Mahayana differs from Theravada - in its vision of the Buddha. It is a teaching solidly based on Mahayana sutras - not on the interpreted opinion of some sect or other. Sutras come first - sects come afterwards. It is necessary to recognise that what the sutras teach (whether the Pali suttas or the Mahayana sutras) can sensibly receive primacy in any presentation of the doctrines of the Buddha - especially on the nature of the Buddha himself. This has nothing to do with some sectarian bias. It is plain Mahayana fact - pure and simple. It is what is widely taught by Mahayana sutras. Moreover, the article balances this view against its rejection by the Theravada (which could itself be called a highly important, though interpretative "sect" or branch of Buddhism - it is NOT total "Buddhism", from a scholarly point of view). Therefore - this section on a Mahayana understanding of what constitutes "Buddha" should be kept. There is no compelling reason, as far as I can see, for removing it. Best wishes from Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO posting lengthy speculative views about the Buddha being eternal in some invisible realm doesn’t help readers to understand the role of a Buddha as a human teacher and is a waste of valuable space in this encyclopedia article. For a start let’s remove the following quote: “The Buddha comments there: "I say that those who do not know that the Tathagata [Buddha] is eternal are the foremost of the congenitally blind." This view, it should be noted, is typically not found in mainstream Theravada Buddhism.” This is implying that Theravadin Buddhists are congenitally blind which is disrespectful. Please speak up if you disagree with the above. Thanks. Dhammapal 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the above is disrespectful or not, but, in any event, it's not Wikipedia's opinion, rather it's a direct quote from the Buddha according to the Nirvana Sutra. It doesn't matter if it's disrespectful, as long as it is an accurate and relevant quote. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know very little about Buddha and Buddhism. I got here in response to an appeal from Dhammapal at the Harmonious Editing Club. My response may not be the one that he would like, though.

If there is a difference of opinion between sects, then both opinions should be documented with a neutral point of view.

It is useful to identify what the beliefs are that are held in common across all sects and equally useful to identify what the points of difference are between the major sects.

Remember that Wikipedia is not about providing a single, indisputable truth about a topic. It is about documenting the truth as different people understand it provided that such can be documented using verifiable reliable sources.

Hope this helps.

--Richard 06:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, on actually reading the article, I realize that the above lecture on Wikipedia policies was probably unnecessary. I think the "Eternal Buddha" section is fine with its short but pithy treatment of Mahayana and Theraveda perspectives on the concept of an "Eternal Buddha". I'd leave it as is and move on to more constructive work on other parts of Wikipedia.

--Richard 07:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, I fully agree with Nat Krause and Richard. We should remember that an encylopaedia is not intended to present only one viewpoint on a particular topic - "our" viewpoint! - , but an array of significant and occasionally clashing viewpoints. But as Nat rightly says, the information and quote regarding the "eternal Buddha" come directly from the alleged words of the Buddha in major Mahayana sutras/Tantras, including the final and influential Mahayana sutra, the Nirvana Sutra. It is odd to say that the purported Buddha is being disrespectful about his own Buddhism!! To dismiss such teaching from the Mahayana Buddha as "speculative" and a "waste of space" is, by contrast, extremely disrespectful to many Mahayana Buddhists and utterly and totally opposed to the ideals of non-partisanship which Wikipedia seeks to uphold. On a personal level, I can fully understand how Dhammapal (as presumably a Theravadin) feels about certain Mahayana teachings, which may seem unacceptable and even "heretical" to Theravada followers. I can understand that 100%. I feel an analogous unease with much Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. But as editors I really do think that those of us who are Buddhists and those who are simply interested in Buddhism on Wikipedia need to learn, once and for all, that major teachings of the Buddha in the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras should not be dismissed by editors as "mere speculation" or "opinion" about Buddhism: they are, instead, foundational, and most later schools and sects of Buddhism spring from them or are heavily influenced by them. Also, the sentence in the article saying that the idea of an eternal Buddha is not accepted by mainstream Theravada Buddhism strikes me not as insulting but, if anything, REJECTING the notion of an "eternal Buddha" and its votaries, and saying that such a teaching is wrong. I think the piece makes clear that there are certain teachings within Mahayana which are totally rejected as false by the Theravada. That is not to say, of course, that the Theravadin view is right and the Mahayana view is wrong, or the reverse. It is simply to present the facts. That is fair and balanced, I would say. Best wishes to everyone, from Tony. TonyMPNS 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is confusing to say that the Buddha is still alive.Dhammapal 11:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Dhammapal. Thanks for your comment above. Yes, I do agree with you that from the Theravada stand-point, it can be seen as confusing, misleading and baffling to say that the Buddha is still alive. From the Mahayana point of view, however, it would be seen as a misunderstanding of deeper layers of Dharma to say that the Buddha (as Dharmakaya) can ever truly die! So I think we have to accept that there are different explanations (by the Nikayan Buddha and the Mahayana Buddha) of what a perfect Buddha actually is. I myself (as a Mahayana Buddhist) side with the teaching of an eternal Buddha; yourself (as perhaps a Theravada Buddhist) will find that unacceptable. We just have to agree to differ in a forum like Wikipedia. We have to acknowledge that there truly are some massive differences of doctrine between Theravada and a number of major Mahayana sutras. The fairest and most scholarly thing to do, it seems to me, is to reflect those different teachings in the various Wiki articles on Buddhism. If we only present consensus, we distort the reality of a plurality of differently nuanced "Buddhisms". In sum: I do feel (along with Richard and Nat, if I am not misrepresenting them) that the "Eternal Buddha" section is informative and does present both sides of the argument and is not unjust to either side in this debate. Perhaps it's best now to throw this open to other people apart from yourself and me and see what they think? Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that restricting this article to the "common" understandings of Buddha and insisting that sectarian differences be relegated to subsidiary articles would amount to creating POV forks which are frowned upon.

You should seek to include all significant points of view. On the other hand, you should not feel required to give much weight, if any, to a theory that Buddha is, in fact, Jesus Christ in another incarnation.

--Richard 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I posted this in the 28 Buddhas section by mistake: I’m back calmer (and less argumentative) from a weekend break from Wikipedia as suggested by Richard. Good points Nat. In future when I quote the Buddha on a mainstream Wikipedia page I will refer them to the Gautama Buddha page. I am very grateful for Taiwanese Buddhists who have printed millions of free Theravada books so I respect their belief in Amitabha Buddha. What I’d like to see in this article is a description of the beautiful qualities that all Buddhas (in all traditions) have in common. Let’s work together to create a new section: Qualities of a Buddha (Rather than Qualities of the Buddha) Here’s a idea to start: “The important thing about Buddhas is that they are perfectly enlightened. Their minds are completely at peace - completely free of any form of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; any form of selfishness or greed or craving or attachment; any form of ill-will, resentment, aversion, hurt feelings, righteous indignation; any form of delusion or ignorance which could lead to doubt and confusion. Their minds are perfectly at peace, abiding in complete knowledge of reality.” Source More on my suggestions for the more than one Buddha section later. Thanks for listening. Dhammapal 12:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Moved by Dhammapal 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Savakabuddha

I'm curious if anyone has any sources for this concept? I don't believe I've ever run into the term 'savakabuddha' in the Pali Canon nor in any of the Theravada works I've encountered. Unless I'm wrong, I'd suggest emoving the pali descriptior and also noting that this is not a concept shared by the Theravada school. Obhaso 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Obhaso, see http://www.tbsa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=1

Also see http://www.mahindarama.com/mbt/pali2.htm#B

There are original Pali sources also. The three types of Buddha is universal to all Buddhist traditions. (20040302)

I am bit sceptical of this, as I guess I should have read close to the whole Sutta-pitaka by now, and don't remember anything like it. I looked on the internet a bit and found this quotaton of Ven. Rahula (for whole text see: [5], where he goes into it:

This Mahayana view is quite in keeping with the Theravada Pali Tripitaka. In the Samyutta-Nikaya the Buddha says that the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) and a bhikkhu (i.e. sravaka, disciple) liberated through wisdom are equal with regard to their Vimutta (liberation), but the Tathagatha is different and distinguished from the liberated bhikkhus in that he (Tathagata) discovers and shows the Path (Magga) that was not known before.

These three states of the Sravaka, the Pratyekabuddha and the Buddha are mentioned in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha, the first book of the Khuddaka-nikaya, one of the five Collections of the Theravada Tripitaka. It says that by practising virtues such as charity, morality, self-restraint, etc., one may attain, among other things, "the Perfection of the Disciple" (Savaka-Parami), "Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha" (Paccekabodhi) and "the Buddha-domain" (Buddhabhumi). They are not called Yanas (vehicles).

In the Theravada tradition these are known as Bodhis, but not Yanas. The Upasaka-janalankara, a Pali treatise dealing with the ethics for the lay Buddhist written in the 12th century by a Thera called Ananda in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhpura, Sri Lanka, says that there are three Bodhis: Savakabodhi (Skt: Sravakabodhi), Paccekabodhi (Skt: Fratyekabodhi) and Sammasambodhi (Skt: Samyaksambodhi). A whole chapter of this book is devoted to the discussion of these three Bodhis in great detail. It says further that when a disciple attains the Bodhi (Enlightenment), he is called Savaka-Buddha (Skt: Sravaka-Buddha).

This teaching is thus a very late commentary (12th century AD), and aimed at ethics for laypeople. This makes it for me not a serious treatise on the subject of Buddhahood. Just one reference in a very late commentary on ethics for laypeople just doesn't do it for me, and should not for anyone who takes the Pali Canon seriously. Better look at what is in the Pali Canon itself (it wasn't 'closed' for nothing in the 3rd century BC!). A search on Accesstoinsight (the main pali canon resource on the internet) gives no results for Savakabuddha. Also pay attention to how Ven. Rahula himself uses the word. He doesn't use the word Savakabuddha himself, just Savaka, which refers to an Arahant and possibly to the anagamis, sotapannas and sakadagamis too. Savakabodhi also isn't equal to Savakabuddha. Bodhi means the awakening, Buddha is the title. One who experiences the Savakabodhi (which just mean he experiences bodhi as a student), is just a savaka, not a savakabuddha. He doesn't receive the title of Buddha, but he does receive the title of Arahant, which is also a title for the Buddha.

Last but not least, a search in an electronic version of the PTS Pali dictionary (the most authorative) gets no results for sāvakabuddha, but 42 for sāvaka. In the PTS dictionary a distinction is further made between the 'normal' savaka (hearer) who is never an Arahant, and the Ariyasavaka, who is an Arahant. For me the discussion is here conluded. Late Theravadin tradition has a mention of Savakabuddha in an obscure commentary (you would have to be a pali scholar to know it) from the 12th century. Original or early Theravadin tradition doesn't know the concept of the Savakabuddha, as does the Mainstream Theravada tradition nowadays. greetings Sacca 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca. I totally share your view that speaking of a "savaka/sravakabuddha" is extremely strange. I have certainly never come across that term in the Mahayana, or, as you rightly point out, in the Pali suttas. I agree that this designation of "savakabuddha" should be dropped, as it seems to be based on almost no hard-core evidence at all. As far as I am aware, the Buddha himself never uses the term, so it seems ill-advised to give it such strong prominence in an article on the Buddha. However, on another point, I do think we should keep the section on the "Eternal Buddha" in the main article - rather than sidelining it to an independent article. It's a major issue in the Mahayana and therefore deserves prominence. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 07:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there are pleny of designations of Sravakabuddha in Mahayana literature. (20040302)

• Hallo 20040302. Nice to hear from you again. I'd be interested for some actual quotes from Mahayana sutras where the Buddha speaks of "sravakabuddhas": usually he speaks of "sravakas and pratyekabuddhas". If you can supply some quotes, I'd be very interested - as I've not yet come across "sravakabuddha" in the Mahayana sutras. All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your positions - and I agree that the specific term - savakabuddha may not be found in the Pali - however there IS evidence in the canon for a distinction between the bodhi of an enlightened savaka and a samyaksam buddha - just as there is plenty of discussion regarding the Pacceka in the canon. It appears that certainly - even if it is more recent (ie for the last 700 years) that the modern Theravada tradition accepts three types of Bodhi - and by extension one can plausibly use the suffix -buddha. I am happy to change the content to indicate 'three types of enlightenment' if you prefer - though in my humble opinion, I would guess that many people would see any referential distinction between three types of bodhi and three types of buddha as being... rather academic. (20040302 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

• Thanks very much, 20040302: I appreciate your reasonableness and spirit of co-operation. I don't know what Sacca might feel about your suggestion, but I myself would be happy with your proposal of dropping the term "savakabuddha" and just speaking of the Awakening/Englightenment of savakas (or savaka-bodhi - whichever you prefer). Thank you again for being willing to compromise. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think this would definately be an improvement. I would say that Theravada recognizes 3 kinds of fully enlightened people: Sammasambuddhas, Paccekabuddhas and Arahants (or Ariyasavakas - noble disciples). It's just that the third catagegory is never referred to as 'Buddha'. I think the essence of the enlightenment of those 3 kinds of people is the same (seeing the 4 noble truths, removal of mental defilements, etc), but the Buddhas have a much greater (or more complete) 'allround-knowing' concerning the world, with many additional spiritual powers, and an additional perfection of character. For an Arahant these are all optional, and even at best less developed than a Buddha's. Anyway, this is just to indicate what I think is the relation in Theravada between the bodhi of a Buddha (be it a Paccekabuddha or a Sammasambuddha), and an Arahant. As I said I agree with you both as far as I can see. greetings, Sacca 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, I am happy with this - however, I am totally opposed to using the term 'Arahant' to refer soly to the Sravakabuddha (whatever we want to call them ) - as the term is synonymous with enlightened one, and is a recognised epiphet of all three types of Buddha. There is plenty of Pali canon evidence to show that the term Arahant is used when referring to Gautama Buddha - famous for being a Sammasambuddha. Also, I vigorously oppose the term Ariyasavakas - which refers to any Sravaka who has achieved the status of Stream-enterer or above. I am amused that the term Savakabuddha is considered mistaken - even though it's usage can be found within the Theravada tradition. So - in conclusion, I agree with the principle that the three types of buddha can be expressed as the three types of bodhi - but I am yet to see a good alternative term to replace Savakabuddha that is specific to Sravakas who have achieved Nirvana and has at least have a provenance more ancient than the 12th Century CE. (20040302 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply on this subject yet. I propose the term Savaka. Please see Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana, it specifically mentions the three enlightened individuals.

Also something on Arahant: isn't the term Arahant not commonly used in both Theravada and Mahayana to refer to the 'Arahattamagga' and 'Arahattaphala' ('path leading to Arahat(ship)' and the 'fruits of Arahant(ship)')? Maybe we can use these words to make clear how Arahant is meant here. Also, isn't the term Arahant also commonly used in the criticisms of Mahayana ('only' an Arahant?). I doubt that they mean Arahant to refer to Buddha here. The word Arahant is also used for Paccekabuddhas and sammasambuddhas, but the specific meaning is usually as a consequence of the Arahattamagga. greetings, Sacca 04:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am against the rewriting of a huge number of articles that talk quite legitimately of the three types of Buddha / three types of Bodhi - merely on the basis that you cannot find a reference to Sravakabuddha (those Sravakas who have achieved Nirvana) that predates the 12thC in Theravada literature. The fact that the term IS used in 12thC literature, - albeit 'marginal' literature - indicates that actually, all traditions do understand three types of Buddha. What I stated above is that if you wish to change these articles, then change them to three types of Bodhi - do NOT change them to 'two types of buddha' - which is misleading, ill-informed, and only accurate in the sense that the term 'Sravakabuddha' is not found before 12thC in Theravada. I am mentioning this before any more editorial is done regarding this issue. (20040302)

Actually this is no problem. We will just have to make clear what are the original teachings of Buddha as in the Pali Canon and Agamas, and make clear that there are only 2 types recognized by him. We can mention that this 12th century Theravadin commentary uses the term savakabuddha for Arahant, as does Mahayana. I am sure something can be arranged. I think that as this article is about Buddha (not Bodhi), this informatiion is relevant. Whether you acccept or reject it, it is verifyable and in itself appropriate content for this article.Greetings, Sacca 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca. I like your new version of the section on the "two types" of Buddha, plus the 12th-century Theravada commentarial reference to "savakabuddha". But I am still unsure as to which Mahayana sutras speak of a "sravakabuddha": User 2004 has not supplied us with that information yet. I am not saying that this term is definitely not used in the Mahayana sutras - but that I have never come across it myself (and I read lots of Mahayana sutras as a matter of course). So I would say: delete the phrase that says the term "savakabuddha" is "found in the Mahayana", until we get sutric evidence that it is. Do you agree? Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Greetings, Sacca 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The term savakabuddha occurs in the Theragatha commentary (PTS edn, vol I, p10). Peter jackson 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Major edit

I have made some big and many small edits in the article. I moved the section on Eternal Buddhas and made it an aticles on its own since it was very detailed. I added the section on Characteristics of Buddhas, and there is a link and mention there of the teaching on Eternal Buddhas. greetings, Sacca 00:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca. Sorry: I missed your message above when I checked Wiki earlier today. I do think we need to keep the "Eternal Buddha" section in its main position within the "Buddha" article as this concept is so very important within Mahayana Buddhism. Indeed, Professor Masahiro Shimoda of Japan (a specialist in Mahayana Buddhism) recently said that it is part of the very basis of the Mahayana. We could prune it a bit, of course: as you rightly say, it is a bit prolix. But I don't think we should shunt it out of the main article altogether: it's too central a notion within Mahayana Buddhism (not least in connection with the highly influential "Lotus Sutra") for it to be sidelined, as it were. Hope you can accept this. In situations like this, I think it best to see what the majority "vote" on the matter is from other editors. Shall we see? Best wishes to you. Yours - Tony. TonyMPNS 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, best wishes to you too. OK, I would be ok with a some more detail on the characteristic of eternality of Buddhas in (some) Mahayana schools, it's just that this one characteristic was dominating the whole article on Buddhas. greetings, Sacca 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the article again and I do think that the characteristic of Eternality can be mentioned together with the other characteristics of the Buddha, and also that sufficient information can be given in 3 lines. The article is pretty to-the-point, except in the Eternal Buddhas-section which is too drawn out.

Also, and more importantly, please do not revert all edits if you don't agree with just one. I think this is quite thoughtless behaviour, I don't suppose you disagree with each and every change I made? If you do, I can understand why you reverted them. But you mention only one objection to only one edit, and then remove everything. This is not the proper bahaviour, and I'm going to move it back.

Also I invite Tony to try to put in the gist of the eternal buddhas in 3 lines. No big drawn-out philosophical discussions of Mahayana <--> Theravada beliefs are needed here, but the core facts can be mentioned. If there's much details on a specific subject it is normal policy to put it in a seperate article, while keeping the core facts in the main article. This happens all over Wikipedia. Not to say that the subject doesn't belong in the main article because it does, but it should be a short, concise and to-the-point version of the whole story. greetings Sacca 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Sacca. Thanks for your comments. Yes, sorry that I reverted the whole of the article and thus removed some of your other alterations - which was not my intention (that was just my technical clumsiness). I still think that there should be a substantial section on "Eternal Buddha" in the main article (not just 3 lines), as this is a very, very important element within Mahayana Buddhism - it is not just an optional add-on: it is crucial to much Mahayana Buddhism. But I'd be interested to see what other editors feel on this one. So for now, I have left your edit as it stands, and just added a few more words about "Eternal Buddha". All the best. Tony. TonyMPNS 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your best wishes :-) I understand it is very important, but to me all aspects of a Buddha are very important, In Theravada (and as I understand in some schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana too), Buddha as a man is also very, very important (OK, on my screen this has currently 4 lines). The point is that after a section develops a lot, it grows beyond what's appropiate detail for the article that it was a section of, and it needs to be put somewhere else - on its own. It also means it's grown up, and it's a big part of how the Wikipedia grows. It also allows the subject to grow even more in detail, since now it's on its own and not under another subject. Don't take the 3 lines to strictly, but it is I feel a good goal to help establish what's the essence of the info on the characteristic of eternality of buddhas - and to be able to put it into one paragraph. greetings, and with appreciation for your kind wishes, Sacca 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddha: God or Man ?

I moved this conversation to Talk:Buddha - God or Man, as that's the proper place for it. But please do go there and read it because I have posted a reply to the conversation as it was here. greetings --Sacca 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contribution by gsklee

I think the contribution by GSKlee on the creator god is ok in some ways, but I'm not sure if everyone agrees on this. If not, the comment should maybe be moved to the Section Nature of the Buddha. Greetings, Sacca 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can pick up a dictionary and see if I am wrong. Perhaps it is your own interpretation on the term "God" has some misunderstandings. -- G.S.K.Lee 14:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what Merriam-Webster says:

1. capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science [skip]
2. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3. a person or thing of supreme value
4. a powerful ruler

I don't the definitions are as simple as you make it seem.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Markings

'32 marks mentioned in the Pali canon' - also the Mahayana - many references in the Lotus Sutra. Rentwa 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Ć

Contradiction in the first paragraph?

Just a quick comment, looking at the first paragraph since the 8/31 edit by 151.198.126.45. It seems directly contradictory to me unless there's some nuance I'm missing.

"In Buddhism, a Buddha (Sanskrit, Pāli) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened), has permanently overcome greed, hate, and ignorance, and has achieved complete liberation from suffering. Enlightenment (or Nirvana (Pali: Nibbana) is the highest form of happiness. It only applies to the first one who has achieved this without prior knowledge of Buddhism. When all knowledge of Buddhism is lost and one becomes enlightened then we have a true Buddha"

Speech should at least somehow be clarified if statements aren't mutually exclusive, but I'd suggest it simply be reverted to exclude second statement because as stated elsewhere, the article isn't specificly regarding Siddhartha Gautama or even Samyaksambuddhas Tiak 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

With a bit of sleuthing, one finds this edit, which introduced the contradictory statement in August. Apparently, this editor disagreed with the first sentence of the article, but, rather than change it, decided to add a new sentence contradicting it. As it stands, the article is giving incorrect information to its readers. I'm sure this is probably the first time that's ever happened on Wikipedia.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up opening paragraph

Hello, based on the fact that the intro paragraphs were too long, I removed an unnecessary paragraph explaining what Nirvana and Dharma were (there are relevant articles elsewhere, and they are off-topic). I also moved the "god" paragraph further down to the Spiritual Realization section since the related topic of the Universal Buddha was covered. The opening paragraph is still a little longer than should be, but should be a more reasonable. --Ph0kin 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

nevertheless it look very segemnted right now. Please see WP:LEAD. frummer 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I add two cents here so, if I may, I'd like to throw out a couple of ways to make the opening possibly both more cogent and also more meaningful to the general WP reader. Overall, I think the current four paragraphs are worthwhile and their general content deserves representation. Most of these suggestions are "nits." All are "for what it's worth."

• Paragraph 1:

1. Pipe "enlightened" to bodhi.
2. Pipe "suffering" to dukkha.
3. Delete the elaborative parenthetical expression, "has permanently overcome greed, hate, and ignorance," because: (a) it likely appears cumbersome to a general WP reader and would dilute the essential aspect of a buddha being awakened/enlightened and liberated; and, (b) while this statement of the kilesas is common to Theravada Buddhism, some Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings identify more than three (for instance, see Tibetan Buddhism's "six poisons").

• Paragraph 2:

1. Delete the elaborative parenthesized expression, "(i.e., awakened to the truth, or Dharma)," because, again I think this elaboration is cumbersome without providing much more information to the general reader
2. Delete "or the Eightfold Path" as the 8-fold Path is included in the 4 Noble Truths (i.e., the 4th Truth).

• Paragraph 3:

1. Delete the sentence, "A common Buddhist belief is that the next Buddha will be one named Maitreya (Pali: Metteyya)" since I don't see this as central to a notion of "a buddha" at all.
2. A quick review of the links to this page indicates that a number of WP editors thought they were linking to an article on the Buddha, not a buddha. And, relatedly, I see until recently that the intro to this article did contain more information on "the Buddha." To meet the expectations of linked articles (and without going through all the linked articles and piping them to Gautama Buddha), I'd like to suggest minimally referencing the Buddha in the opening with the following change to this paragraph:

existing text	modified text
Generally, Buddhists do not consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been the only buddha. The Pali Canon refers to Gautama Buddha at least once as the 28th Buddha (see List of the 28 Buddhas). A common Buddhist belief is that the next Buddha will be one named Maitreya (Pali: Metteyya).	While the Pali canon largely consists of the teachings and life history of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, it also refers to there having been 28 buddhas thusfar.

• Paragraph 4

1. This paragraph appears to attempt to contrast Theravada notions of the arahant with that of a buddha and then contrast it with what it identifies as a Mahayana position. While I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the uncited Mahayana statement, I think the Theravada statement is confusing and not worthy of being placed in the introduction. So, I'd like to suggest the following change:

existing text	modified text
Buddhism teaches that anyone can become awakened and experience nirvana. Theravada Buddhism teaches that one doesn't need to become a Buddha to become awakened and experience nirvana, since an Arahant (Sanskrit: Arhat) also has those qualities, while some Mahayana Buddhist texts (e.g., the Lotus Sutra) imply that all beings will become Buddhas at some point in time.	Some Mahayana Buddhist texts (e.g., the Lotus Sutra) imply that all beings will become Buddhas at some point in time.

Thus, if all of the above suggestions were used, the opening might be reduced to something like:

In Buddhism, a buddha (Sanskrit बुद्ध) is one who has become fully awakened (enlightened) and has achieved complete liberation from suffering.

In the Theravada Pali canon, the term 'buddha' refers to a person who has become enlightened on their own, without a teacher to point out the Truth, in a time when the teaching of the Four Noble Truths does not exist in the world.

While the Pali canon largely consists of the teachings and life history of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, it also refers to there having been 28 buddhas thusfar. Some Mahayana Buddhist texts (for instance, the Lotus Sutra) imply that all beings will become buddhas at some point in time.

Since I have not been a major editor of this article, I'm loathe to delete anyone else's contributions and thus leave this as a mere suggestion on this talk page. Hope some ideas might be deemed worthwhile. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did originally write some of the opening paragraph, but people seemed to have grafted on alot more. Larry, or someone else, please implement the suggestios you've outlined. I think they are a good concise definition of a Buddha. Ph0kin 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ph0kin -

Thank you for your kind vote of confidence. Sorry for not responding sooner but I do not keep this article on my watchlist. Also, I would like to thank you for your general participation on Wikipedia (WP) Buddhism articles: your practice wisdom and sincere efforts are wonderful gifts to our community.

Regarding this specific article, at this time, I personally think it would take way too much effort on my part to attempt to address long term all the concerns I have; thus, I try to ignore this article's frequent changes and current status. For this reason, I will not implement the changes that I suggested above. If you or anyone else is inclined to implement any of them, please do so of course.

I hope you can understand and respect my desire to drastically limit my current involvement in this article. (I believe that restricting my focus to maybe 20 or so WP articles makes me more productive and effective.) I wish you the best and look forward to collaborating with you elsewhere in WP. With metta,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

While the introduction to the article makes it clear that this article is about the general concept of "Buddha" of which Gautama Buddha is the most prominent example, later section seem to talk exclusively about Gautama Buddha (e.g. "the Nature of the Buddha"). This should be fixed.AxelBoldt 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He is just a man

be-interwiki

Please add this to the article: [[be:Буда]] 80.94.234.235 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

otherwise are the same

By comparison, those who awaken due to the teachings of a Buddha are known as arahants, but otherwise are the same.

From the preface of this article.

This senetence is too confusing. "otherwise as same" same to what? It will be better if we rewrite this paragraph.--Shijualex 11:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Better Quality Buddha image

The current Buddha image is poorly lit. I corresponded with Taiwan and there is no copyright on this Buddha image: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_As_A_Lone_Buddhist/

I agree that we could do with a better image. What is the source of the image you link to above?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, Taipei, Taiwan" Dhammapal 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

1.http://www.amtb.org.tw/ 2.http://www.amtb.tw/tvchannel/pbc.htm 3.http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:OuBCwYhSf8IJ:www.wordpedia.com/Forum/get_topic.asp%3FFID%3D19%26TID%3D223%26DIR%3DN+%E6%BB%85%E7%BD%AA%E4%BD%9B%E5%90%8D&cd=1&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=tw

I've pruned the External links section. Be compassionate if i took out something really important, but also help to keep it free from clutter. --Tikiwont 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)