![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
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
The 'Fat Buddha' in Chinese tradition is called 'Bu Dai Hu Shan', it's either of a certain monk in ancient China or of Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be or the next Buddha. It's not Gotama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The historical Buddha at the time of his awakening would probably have still been extremely emaciated, as according to the scriptures he had only stopped his extreme fasting a week ago.
Also, I just changed "Nikaya" Buddhism to "Sravakayana" which is the polite name for Hinayana, of which Theravada is the most well known school. "Nikaya" means either a 'division' of the scriptures or a 'school' amongst the early schools. So "Nikaya" Buddhism could mean either: the Buddhism which relies on the Nikayas/ Agamas or 'sectarian' Buddhism, neither of which is probably exactly what whoever wrote it meant. Bhikkhu Santi 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sravakayana is not a correct term, since the bodhisattva path exists within Theravada.
Can anyone cite an authority for the statement that many Mahayana & Vajrayana Buddhists recognize 3 types of Buddhas? Peter jackson 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In the line regarding Amitabha, it references a "celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism." Does "celestial buddha" here refer to those Buddhas described in the Five Dhyani Buddhas article? If so, can we wikipipe "celestial buddha" to that article (and perhaps a redirect page would be of benefit)? Thanks for any edification! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This Sucks
(............) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.71.246 ( talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the option
* Budha, in Hindu mythology, is the name for the planet Mercury
from the text, as this has nothing to do with Buddha. NikNovi ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just FYI; we would like that renaming be the last one, so we decided to ask more people. — Sebastian 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the current two paragraphs of the accompanying prose article, i bypassed the Rdrs and unlkd the subsequent rdrs to Gautama Buddha, which should always be done in articles. Alert to sensitivities, i neglected two matters:
--
Jerzy•
t
09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to remove them, but aren't these basically self-promotion? -- Michael White T· C 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent anon edit — which appears to have been more mischievous than well-intentioned — replaced "Gautama" with "Siddharta." Given the overall appearance of mischief (or perhaps nonsense? e.g., replacing "Buddhahood" with "Buddhism") and the anon editor's prior vandalism in another article, I reverted this change. Nonetheless, I think the term "Siddharta" should be represented on this page given its high recognition value (e.g., based on my limited experience, I think that most Theravada/vipassana-oriented readers would likely recognize this name instead of "Buddha Gautama," not to mention the Herman Hesse crowd). As an example of how it might be done, here's how the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica does it:
Pertaining to this item, we currently have:
How'd y'all feel about something like:
(I see we have something similar in the prior incarnation of this page here.) I'm concerned that such a line might be considered too verbose for WP:MOSDAB. Thus any other suggestions on how to incorporate "Siddharta"/"Siddhatta"? Any objections from our MOSDAB experts on the suggested change?
Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that there appears to be a consensus that Buddha should be a disambiguation page, that implies that most links to Buddha on other pages are ambiguous, and should be corrected. Editors interested in and knowledgeable about this topic are invited to help correct these links to point to the correct substantive article. For more details, see WP:DPL. -- Russ (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.140.84 ( talk) 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question that I think I know the answer to, but just need some clarification on. In a sentence like "blah blah blah statues of Buddha", would that go to Gautama Buddha, or Buddharupa? I'm thinking the former, but I guess it could be either. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following information about Buddha in Islam has nothing to do with Buddhahood. Its content is from the Qu'ran which is about an Text found in the Sura. It belongs in the religion section as seperate from all religons and own creteria view.-- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If any changes in my opinion would be to change the (Religion) section into (In Buddhism) and for other views an seperate column could be discoverd. However it leads to the same meaning -- PadmaDharma101 ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The first inserted/reverted sentence reads:
The (hidden) references are:
So, it appears to me that the reason that this sentence is pertinent to the word "Buddha" is because it identifies a possible referent in the Qu'ran to the Buddha (or a buddha?). Since this article is about definitions of the word "Buddha" per se — and not about the historical/mythic Buddha or other buddhas — it seems to me that this sentence is inappropriate for this article. It should go in the appropriate article (e.g., possibly Gautama Buddha or Buddhahood). Right? Does this make sense? This dab page is about the word "Buddha" and contains pointers to articles that then provide meanings to this word. The above sentence alludes to the meaning of "Buddha" as Gautama Buddha (or, again, perhaps Buddhahood, still not clear to me from the sentence :-) ). Perhaps in terms of semantic cohesion, it would best fit in Gautama Buddha in world religions? What do y'all think? Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The second inserted/reverted sentence reads:
The (hidden) reference is:
Here this sentence does in fact provide a new instance of the word "Buddha," separate from the existing denotations (of Gautama Buddha, Buddhahood, Buddharupa, etc.). I think the next question becomes whether or not every instantiation of this word is worthy of an entry on this WP dab page. For example, I previously mentioned one prior suggestion, that an entry be identified as a noteworthy instance of the word in another reliable source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, dictionaries from Oxford University Press, etc. Nat mentioned the matter of each entry on this dab page being associated with an individual WP article (e.g., Buddah Records, Buddha Air, etc.). This sentence appears to fail to meet either of these suggested standards. Perhaps if not worthy of an entry in the WP encyclopedia, might it be worth an entry in the Wiktionary ( here)? Does the need for encyclopedic significance make sense? Thanks for your continued civil discourse, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Quran says about Muhammad - He it is who raised Baatha among the illeterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages ....
you perhaps did not read the whole passage and must have a weak knowledge of the Qu'ran because Buddha is of Arabic origin that has its own meaning and terminology. It is Commonly mentioned in many areas of the Qu'ran. -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
References
If this is a dab, as the discussion above seems to imply, then most of this section should not be here. The word "Buddha" can be used in a general sense to mean "anyone who's attained Buddhahood". However, in the context of a dab, the current layout implies that "Buddha" can mean specifically
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The quran says about Muhammad " He it is who raised Ba'atha (Buddha) among the illiterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages and purifies them and teaches them book and wisdom, although they were before in manifest error, - Refers to Gauthama
Buddha also means the one who completed knowledge of righteousness. - In the Quran
and it further says the term Buddha is used throughout the Quran in various areas.
My opinion is that the word Buddha has its own sense and terminology in Arabic. However the first prophecy "aroused and put in action" refers to an Sakya Muni Gautama
Theres another section that compares Muhammad and Gauthama Buddha and leads to the sayn in the Qu'ran " It is he who rose Baatha " etc ... so that probably defines the the sura 62 however Buddha is also used through out the Quran with its own meaning. -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Buddha (Arabic) ---- Would define and solve many issues -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But, as stated above, Buddha isn't an Arabic word. Rather, there's a word in the Qur'an bearing some resemblance to it that some Muslims have interpreted as referring to the Buddha (tho' there's no mention of this idea in the translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall). The proper place for that is in Gautama Buddha in world religions#Islam. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This article should soon be upto Wiki Standards by adding the Defintion of a Buddha and the Basic Prophicies to claim the title 'Buddha' . On top of the page could be the Buddha (DAB) that could lead to the other meanings such as Buddha Airline or other Buddhas. -- Anandveer ( talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just deleted "Pronounced "boo-DEE", as in "Judy"." because it's nonsensical. Judy isn't pronounced "joo-DEE" by anyone as far as I know. Could someone who knows about this sort it out please? Peter jackson ( talk) 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've had no disagreement (or agreement) for over a week, I've gone ahead & deleted most entries. It seems highly unlikely that "Buddha" ever means any of these. It's like having a dab for king & including a list of kings. Pure Land Budhists probably use Buddha to mean Amitabha, & Shingon perhaps for Vairocana, so I've left those for now. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
...but currently Buddhahood is a mess (it may be merged with 2 articles/sections).-- Esteban Barahona ( talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt this go to 'the' buddha's page directly as that is the most notable? There can be a link on the top from to this disambiguation page. Lihaas ( talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently, in combating an apparent vandal's efforts to make "Buddha" a primarily Arab word, a good-willed WP editor changed
to
At the moment, this line reads
I sincerely applaud and deeply appreciate User:Tznkai's repeated efforts to ward off vandals!
If I may though, I think it would be worthwhile inserting two things that have been lost in the current incarnation:
Here are a few well-regarded sources that support the use of either "Enlightened One," "Awakened One" or both:
So, based on the above citations (which I assume would be inappropriate to list on a dab page but are sufficient here?), I'm going to change the current intro line (or at least when I last checked a few minutes ago) to:
Since I'm on wiki-break, I won't get into an edit war over this but offer this information, would like to suggest the edit and accept whatever follows subsequently. Best, 24.136.229.74 ( talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (aka, User:Larry Rosenfeld)
are u kidding this must be a joke so i had this project on buddha my partner didn't show up.....soo yea peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
where do u think the name word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 ( talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a foolish argument if I've ever seen one.
Buddha is essentially a Sanskrit nickname, applying to anyone who is buddh, "awake". This entry should start with that fact. Why can no one see that is the definition of Buddha? Simple enough!
Next: the 'historical' "Buddha" as recognized today was a crown prince from circa mid-6th centruy B.C., Nepal, by the name of Gautama Siddharta. It is pure idiocy what has been done with the man's name, which is simple enough to find almost anywhere! Also note that they followed the custom of putting the surname before the given name.
Gautama was in a way a private family name, for when he became a monk, the Buddha was called "Monk Gautama" (Gautama bhikksu) by the Hindus. His later nickname, Shakyamuni, gives his clan: Shakya, relative of the Mauryas, and -muni is yet another sort of nickname, meaning "sage". Thus the Buddha is also recognized as "the Sage of the Shakya Clan". It is one of His recognized Names.
Buddha is pronounced and probably has always been pronounced as "POOH-tah". Anyone who happens to have an Indian friend can ask about this! It is known from ancient coins that Europeans knew him as something like "BODA" or "BODDA". We can only guess how they pronounced the name, but probably the way the Aryans pronounced it.
This brings us to the simple (?) disambiguation which should be to one side: the Lord Buddha is sort of a patron to anyone who strives to attain, attains or has otherwise reached the same state of consciousness; remember, he's AWAKE. If you want to refer to "Buddhahood" then refer to that-- that is what it means. Then any proper facts can branch from there.
Honestly, you people don't know an encyclopedic entry from an entry wound!
A Buddhist Among Baptists Wishes You Well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
See what I mean? I find a perfectly good page on BUDDHA, but it is the Gautama Buddha page. No Buddhist on earth uses that name, if it was ever used anywhere in history but here!
You sad, sad, people....
The Bad Buddhist Among Baptists
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 April 2009
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – A few years ago at talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 10#Requested move 6 March 2018, it was proposed that Buddha should become a disambiguation page, but noone acted on the proposal. Hence this discussion. The rationale was roughly that there are many well known Buddhas, such as Maitreya and Vairocana (see also List of Buddhas). Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gautama Buddha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus to keep the page at it's current title. (note: the RM at The Buddha has ended with the result of no consensus.) ( closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – As has been discussed at previous move discussion at The Buddha, perhaps most pertinently here, there is a strong community sentiment that "Buddha" without the "the" has a multiplicity of potential meanings beyond that of "The Buddha" - the most prominent being the general sense of "buddha" lower caps, or " buddhahood", that draw into question the primacy of "buddha" alone (in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense) as a term to mean first and foremost "The Buddha". Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
"Practically all..."? Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
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
The 'Fat Buddha' in Chinese tradition is called 'Bu Dai Hu Shan', it's either of a certain monk in ancient China or of Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be or the next Buddha. It's not Gotama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The historical Buddha at the time of his awakening would probably have still been extremely emaciated, as according to the scriptures he had only stopped his extreme fasting a week ago.
Also, I just changed "Nikaya" Buddhism to "Sravakayana" which is the polite name for Hinayana, of which Theravada is the most well known school. "Nikaya" means either a 'division' of the scriptures or a 'school' amongst the early schools. So "Nikaya" Buddhism could mean either: the Buddhism which relies on the Nikayas/ Agamas or 'sectarian' Buddhism, neither of which is probably exactly what whoever wrote it meant. Bhikkhu Santi 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sravakayana is not a correct term, since the bodhisattva path exists within Theravada.
Can anyone cite an authority for the statement that many Mahayana & Vajrayana Buddhists recognize 3 types of Buddhas? Peter jackson 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In the line regarding Amitabha, it references a "celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism." Does "celestial buddha" here refer to those Buddhas described in the Five Dhyani Buddhas article? If so, can we wikipipe "celestial buddha" to that article (and perhaps a redirect page would be of benefit)? Thanks for any edification! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This Sucks
(............) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.71.246 ( talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the option
* Budha, in Hindu mythology, is the name for the planet Mercury
from the text, as this has nothing to do with Buddha. NikNovi ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just FYI; we would like that renaming be the last one, so we decided to ask more people. — Sebastian 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the current two paragraphs of the accompanying prose article, i bypassed the Rdrs and unlkd the subsequent rdrs to Gautama Buddha, which should always be done in articles. Alert to sensitivities, i neglected two matters:
--
Jerzy•
t
09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to remove them, but aren't these basically self-promotion? -- Michael White T· C 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent anon edit — which appears to have been more mischievous than well-intentioned — replaced "Gautama" with "Siddharta." Given the overall appearance of mischief (or perhaps nonsense? e.g., replacing "Buddhahood" with "Buddhism") and the anon editor's prior vandalism in another article, I reverted this change. Nonetheless, I think the term "Siddharta" should be represented on this page given its high recognition value (e.g., based on my limited experience, I think that most Theravada/vipassana-oriented readers would likely recognize this name instead of "Buddha Gautama," not to mention the Herman Hesse crowd). As an example of how it might be done, here's how the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica does it:
Pertaining to this item, we currently have:
How'd y'all feel about something like:
(I see we have something similar in the prior incarnation of this page here.) I'm concerned that such a line might be considered too verbose for WP:MOSDAB. Thus any other suggestions on how to incorporate "Siddharta"/"Siddhatta"? Any objections from our MOSDAB experts on the suggested change?
Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that there appears to be a consensus that Buddha should be a disambiguation page, that implies that most links to Buddha on other pages are ambiguous, and should be corrected. Editors interested in and knowledgeable about this topic are invited to help correct these links to point to the correct substantive article. For more details, see WP:DPL. -- Russ (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.140.84 ( talk) 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question that I think I know the answer to, but just need some clarification on. In a sentence like "blah blah blah statues of Buddha", would that go to Gautama Buddha, or Buddharupa? I'm thinking the former, but I guess it could be either. -- Closedmouth ( talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following information about Buddha in Islam has nothing to do with Buddhahood. Its content is from the Qu'ran which is about an Text found in the Sura. It belongs in the religion section as seperate from all religons and own creteria view.-- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If any changes in my opinion would be to change the (Religion) section into (In Buddhism) and for other views an seperate column could be discoverd. However it leads to the same meaning -- PadmaDharma101 ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The first inserted/reverted sentence reads:
The (hidden) references are:
So, it appears to me that the reason that this sentence is pertinent to the word "Buddha" is because it identifies a possible referent in the Qu'ran to the Buddha (or a buddha?). Since this article is about definitions of the word "Buddha" per se — and not about the historical/mythic Buddha or other buddhas — it seems to me that this sentence is inappropriate for this article. It should go in the appropriate article (e.g., possibly Gautama Buddha or Buddhahood). Right? Does this make sense? This dab page is about the word "Buddha" and contains pointers to articles that then provide meanings to this word. The above sentence alludes to the meaning of "Buddha" as Gautama Buddha (or, again, perhaps Buddhahood, still not clear to me from the sentence :-) ). Perhaps in terms of semantic cohesion, it would best fit in Gautama Buddha in world religions? What do y'all think? Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The second inserted/reverted sentence reads:
The (hidden) reference is:
Here this sentence does in fact provide a new instance of the word "Buddha," separate from the existing denotations (of Gautama Buddha, Buddhahood, Buddharupa, etc.). I think the next question becomes whether or not every instantiation of this word is worthy of an entry on this WP dab page. For example, I previously mentioned one prior suggestion, that an entry be identified as a noteworthy instance of the word in another reliable source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, dictionaries from Oxford University Press, etc. Nat mentioned the matter of each entry on this dab page being associated with an individual WP article (e.g., Buddah Records, Buddha Air, etc.). This sentence appears to fail to meet either of these suggested standards. Perhaps if not worthy of an entry in the WP encyclopedia, might it be worth an entry in the Wiktionary ( here)? Does the need for encyclopedic significance make sense? Thanks for your continued civil discourse, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Quran says about Muhammad - He it is who raised Baatha among the illeterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages ....
you perhaps did not read the whole passage and must have a weak knowledge of the Qu'ran because Buddha is of Arabic origin that has its own meaning and terminology. It is Commonly mentioned in many areas of the Qu'ran. -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
References
If this is a dab, as the discussion above seems to imply, then most of this section should not be here. The word "Buddha" can be used in a general sense to mean "anyone who's attained Buddhahood". However, in the context of a dab, the current layout implies that "Buddha" can mean specifically
Peter jackson ( talk) 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The quran says about Muhammad " He it is who raised Ba'atha (Buddha) among the illiterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages and purifies them and teaches them book and wisdom, although they were before in manifest error, - Refers to Gauthama
Buddha also means the one who completed knowledge of righteousness. - In the Quran
and it further says the term Buddha is used throughout the Quran in various areas.
My opinion is that the word Buddha has its own sense and terminology in Arabic. However the first prophecy "aroused and put in action" refers to an Sakya Muni Gautama
Theres another section that compares Muhammad and Gauthama Buddha and leads to the sayn in the Qu'ran " It is he who rose Baatha " etc ... so that probably defines the the sura 62 however Buddha is also used through out the Quran with its own meaning. -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Buddha (Arabic) ---- Would define and solve many issues -- Mujahideen54 ( talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But, as stated above, Buddha isn't an Arabic word. Rather, there's a word in the Qur'an bearing some resemblance to it that some Muslims have interpreted as referring to the Buddha (tho' there's no mention of this idea in the translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall). The proper place for that is in Gautama Buddha in world religions#Islam. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This article should soon be upto Wiki Standards by adding the Defintion of a Buddha and the Basic Prophicies to claim the title 'Buddha' . On top of the page could be the Buddha (DAB) that could lead to the other meanings such as Buddha Airline or other Buddhas. -- Anandveer ( talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just deleted "Pronounced "boo-DEE", as in "Judy"." because it's nonsensical. Judy isn't pronounced "joo-DEE" by anyone as far as I know. Could someone who knows about this sort it out please? Peter jackson ( talk) 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've had no disagreement (or agreement) for over a week, I've gone ahead & deleted most entries. It seems highly unlikely that "Buddha" ever means any of these. It's like having a dab for king & including a list of kings. Pure Land Budhists probably use Buddha to mean Amitabha, & Shingon perhaps for Vairocana, so I've left those for now. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
...but currently Buddhahood is a mess (it may be merged with 2 articles/sections).-- Esteban Barahona ( talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt this go to 'the' buddha's page directly as that is the most notable? There can be a link on the top from to this disambiguation page. Lihaas ( talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently, in combating an apparent vandal's efforts to make "Buddha" a primarily Arab word, a good-willed WP editor changed
to
At the moment, this line reads
I sincerely applaud and deeply appreciate User:Tznkai's repeated efforts to ward off vandals!
If I may though, I think it would be worthwhile inserting two things that have been lost in the current incarnation:
Here are a few well-regarded sources that support the use of either "Enlightened One," "Awakened One" or both:
So, based on the above citations (which I assume would be inappropriate to list on a dab page but are sufficient here?), I'm going to change the current intro line (or at least when I last checked a few minutes ago) to:
Since I'm on wiki-break, I won't get into an edit war over this but offer this information, would like to suggest the edit and accept whatever follows subsequently. Best, 24.136.229.74 ( talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (aka, User:Larry Rosenfeld)
are u kidding this must be a joke so i had this project on buddha my partner didn't show up.....soo yea peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
where do u think the name word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 ( talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a foolish argument if I've ever seen one.
Buddha is essentially a Sanskrit nickname, applying to anyone who is buddh, "awake". This entry should start with that fact. Why can no one see that is the definition of Buddha? Simple enough!
Next: the 'historical' "Buddha" as recognized today was a crown prince from circa mid-6th centruy B.C., Nepal, by the name of Gautama Siddharta. It is pure idiocy what has been done with the man's name, which is simple enough to find almost anywhere! Also note that they followed the custom of putting the surname before the given name.
Gautama was in a way a private family name, for when he became a monk, the Buddha was called "Monk Gautama" (Gautama bhikksu) by the Hindus. His later nickname, Shakyamuni, gives his clan: Shakya, relative of the Mauryas, and -muni is yet another sort of nickname, meaning "sage". Thus the Buddha is also recognized as "the Sage of the Shakya Clan". It is one of His recognized Names.
Buddha is pronounced and probably has always been pronounced as "POOH-tah". Anyone who happens to have an Indian friend can ask about this! It is known from ancient coins that Europeans knew him as something like "BODA" or "BODDA". We can only guess how they pronounced the name, but probably the way the Aryans pronounced it.
This brings us to the simple (?) disambiguation which should be to one side: the Lord Buddha is sort of a patron to anyone who strives to attain, attains or has otherwise reached the same state of consciousness; remember, he's AWAKE. If you want to refer to "Buddhahood" then refer to that-- that is what it means. Then any proper facts can branch from there.
Honestly, you people don't know an encyclopedic entry from an entry wound!
A Buddhist Among Baptists Wishes You Well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
See what I mean? I find a perfectly good page on BUDDHA, but it is the Gautama Buddha page. No Buddhist on earth uses that name, if it was ever used anywhere in history but here!
You sad, sad, people....
The Bad Buddhist Among Baptists
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 April 2009
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – A few years ago at talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 10#Requested move 6 March 2018, it was proposed that Buddha should become a disambiguation page, but noone acted on the proposal. Hence this discussion. The rationale was roughly that there are many well known Buddhas, such as Maitreya and Vairocana (see also List of Buddhas). Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gautama Buddha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus to keep the page at it's current title. (note: the RM at The Buddha has ended with the result of no consensus.) ( closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – As has been discussed at previous move discussion at The Buddha, perhaps most pertinently here, there is a strong community sentiment that "Buddha" without the "the" has a multiplicity of potential meanings beyond that of "The Buddha" - the most prominent being the general sense of "buddha" lower caps, or " buddhahood", that draw into question the primacy of "buddha" alone (in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense) as a term to mean first and foremost "The Buddha". Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
"Practically all..."? Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)