![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does it mean that one of the characteristics of the Buddha is "well gone"?
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))
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 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 Kraus e 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
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))
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 Kraus e 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)
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.
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
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)
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!
==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??
I added the cleanup template because:
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.
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]
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The term savakabuddha occurs in the Theragatha commentary (PTS edn, vol I, p10). Peter jackson 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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]
- 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
- a person or thing of supreme value
- a powerful ruler
'32 marks mentioned in the Pali canon' - also the Mahayana - many references in the Lotus Sutra. Rentwa 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Ć
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.
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)
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)
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."
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. |
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:
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)
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
Please add this to the article: [[be:Буда]] 80.94.234.235 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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/
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What does it mean that one of the characteristics of the Buddha is "well gone"?
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))
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 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 Kraus e 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
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))
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 Kraus e 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)
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.
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
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)
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!
==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??
I added the cleanup template because:
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.
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]
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The term savakabuddha occurs in the Theragatha commentary (PTS edn, vol I, p10). Peter jackson 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
- 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]
- 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
- a person or thing of supreme value
- a powerful ruler
'32 marks mentioned in the Pali canon' - also the Mahayana - many references in the Lotus Sutra. Rentwa 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Ć
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.
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)
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)
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."
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. |
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:
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)
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
Please add this to the article: [[be:Буда]] 80.94.234.235 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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/
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)