Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In what sense is he the next Buddha for Mahayana? Tibetans regard Nagarjuna as a Buddha, Nyingmas probably Padmasambhava, Soka Gakkai Nichiren, & most schools recognize the possibility of Buddhahood in this life. Peter jackson 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Perhaps this is an issue of confusion between different types of Buddha, i.e. samyaksambuddhas vs. fully enlightened śravaka arhats? Or, it could be an issue of people being able to hold multiple mutually exclusive opinions concurrently.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Maitreya will come when all the teachings of the Buddha have been forgotten, so Maitreya will kind of teach Buddhism 'anew' in his era. In case someone else like Nagarjuna, Milarepa or Tsongkhapa becomes a Buddha in this era, he obviously cannot teach Buddhism 'anew', as it still exists. I suppose there is an official Sanskrit term of this (it may be something like 'wheel-turning Buddha'), but as far as I know, we talk of all of these as samyaksambuddhas, as pratyekabuddhas or sravaka arhats are not really Buddhas, but Arhats instead. rudy 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm hm... Paccekabuddhas not really buddhas? That's funny. Must be some new teaching? Greetings, Sacca 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Paccekabuddha is surealy a Buddha. I'm shocked by reading this talk page :/ Faredoka (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, Nagarjuna and friends are not Buddhas because they just commented on the teachings, and possibly realised them, but they did not discover them. A Paccekabuddha discovers the teachings, but then he doesn't teach others. Arahants, however, frequently teach others, and they realised the teachings, but did not discover them: somebody told them about it... Greetings, Sacca 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the Theravada meanings. Can you cite any Mahayana text that gives them? Can you cite any Mahayana text that calls Pratyekabuddhas Buddhas? Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nat makes an important point about contradictory beliefs. After all, Mahayana often adopts a pragmatic concept of truth (Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p2), & modern Chinese Buddhism regards all doctrinal traditions as equally valid (Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism, Harvard, 1967, p395), so this sort of thing may be perfectly normal in Mahayana. That raises a problem for us. If we say somewhere that Mahayana, or some form, believes such-and-such, without mentioning either the general point or any contradictory beliefs held by the same people, this would seem to be a misrepresentation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Buddhas[edit]

ashley grant —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has got a bit confused, & I'm not sure my edits really sort it out. Let's try to get a few facts straight:

  • according to Theravada tradition, there are explicitly stated to be 3 types of Buddhas (Udana com as cited)
  • normal usage in Theravada, as in Mahayana, is to use it for only 1 of these
  • I don't know whether the Sanskrit term Sravakabuddha actually exists, so I've used only Pali; I must say it seems perverse to be using Sanskrit in an exposition of Theravada doctrine anyway
  • I've deleted some material about perfections as misleading: there's a tradition (All-Embracing Net of Views, page 314 if I remember right) that all must practise the perfections, not just bodhisattas

Peter jackson 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I don't know details of the other traditions, but in Tibetan Buddhism, also these 3 types are known, but the Shravaka and Pratyeka Buddhas are not considered fully enlightened Buddhas, but Arhats instead - I think this is the same in Theravada, but obviously the terminology is confusing as all 3 types are called Buddhas. Also it seems there is a difference made (in general Mahayana) between Buddhas who become enlightened 'by themselves' and teach Buddhism anew as the world has forgotten about it (as wheel-turners), and Buddhas who achieve their full enlightenment while the teachings of a previous Buddhas are still present. In that sense, someone who becomes a Buddha now, is called somewhat different from eg. Maitreya, who will teach Buddhism 'anew'.rudy 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's well known that Mahayana recognizes 3 sorts of attainment, but does it call them buddhas? It uses the term pratyekabuddha, but does it call them buddhas? Does it use the term sravakabuddha at all? If so, does it call them buddhas? Does it ever say anywhere that there are 2 or 3 types of buddhas, or are such statements in our articles merely Wikipedia artefacts? Does Mahayana have a defined distinction between teaching Buddhas (Sakyamuni, Maitreya) & other Buddhas (Nagarjuna &c). Does the statement in some articles that a buddha is defined as one who attains enlightenment untaught have a source, or is it a Wikipedia artefact? All these questions need to be answered by someone who knows about the subject. Peter jackson 11:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, perhaps Nagarjuna can clarify eg. here: http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/arhat.html rudy (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance that doesn't seem to address any of my questions. Peter jackson (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, that work probably isn't by Nagarjuna.

To clarify what I was saying above:

  • Theravada is clear: Buddha usually means Sammasambuddha, but occasionally arahant (3 types)
  • does Mahayana ever use Buddha to mean other than Samyaksambuddha?

Peter jackson (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, others can perhaps comment more knowledgeably about this than myself, but it seems to me that in Tibetan tantric Buddhism, the term "buddha" can be applied fairly broadly because of the concept that religious figures are actually emanations of fully enlightened cosmic beings. Thus, for instance, Avalokiteśvara is not simply a bodhisattva, but a fully enlightened

buddha acting in the guise of a bodhisattva. And, further, the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa, are docetic emanations of Avalokiteśvara, who is a buddha, so the line between those two men and "buddha" is fuzzy at best (and their chief disciples are both emanations of Amitabha, another buddha, etc) . Similar concepts might also appear in tantric and Pure Land-oriented forms of Mahayana (i.e. a very large portion of Mahayana as a whole) outside of Tibet. Still, your basic question remains, and I don't know the answer to it: whether Mahayanists, when they are writing in a context where terms are used fairly precisely and aside from the type of concept I mentioned above, ever use the term "buddha" to mean something other than a samyaksambuddha.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened with the simple proposal to merge? It seems the discussion got sidetracked. In my unenlightened impression, Types of Buddha is indeed largely redundant with the section § Types of Buddha, and I'd support a merge. I'd prefer merging the article into the section for now, because the former is quite small, and it won't hurt this article either, if we add some more text; especially when we move § Depictions of the Buddha in art to Buddhist art, as proposed.
Either way, can we please reach a decision so that we can remove the template on top of the article? — Sebastian 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue - I've pulled the relevant info from the other article and will merge.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Śākyamuni was a Prajñādhika (through more wisdom) Buddha. The next Buddha of this world, Maitreya (Pāli: Metteyya) will be a Vīryādhika (through more effort) Buddha." Does anybody know the reference to this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article based on "Depictions of the Buddha in art" scion?[edit]

Anyone mind if we whack the "Depictions of the Buddha in art" section out of this current article and stick the section's material into a separate article so that the remainder of this current article can focus on "being a buddha," "Buddhahood," etc., as is being discussed above?

If we proceed with such, what should the scion article be called? Buddha (art)? Depictions of the Buddha in art? Buddha in art?

Thanks for your thoughts. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. As for the name, I'm fine with any of them, but I prefer Buddha in art because I'd assume it's most likely what people would enter in the search box. Maybe it would make sense, however, to wait for the results of the already existing merge and renaming proposals. — Sebastian 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I now see that there's a Buddhist art article. Perhaps if the "Depictions of the Buddha in art" section of this article here says anything different from what's in Buddhist art, the different material could be merged into Buddhist art and deleted from this here article? (This has just come up anew for me given the "surge" for renaming/moving this here article to the title Buddhahood -- a soteriological/metaphysical refocusing of content which I think would gain better cohesiveness if the current art-related material were removed.) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving the section § Depictions of the Buddha in art to Buddhist art. In the context of renaming: Since we found out (in Talk:Buddhahood/renaming#Whatlinkshere that most references to "Buddha" - and presumably many links to this article - actually refer to statues or depictions of the Buddha, and since Buddhist art is, at least potentially, a more general topic, I propose to create Buddha in art as a redirect with possibilities. When I run AWB I can then semiautomatically change all such obvious links to that new redirect page. — Sebastian 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just came across Buddharupa -- perhaps this would be the best place for the integration of this material? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just inserted the WP:Merge tags into this and the Buddharupa article. Thanks for any feedback! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A correction, a clarification & a query to Larry's remarks above:

  • it's doubtful whether the 32 marks are brahmanical: the suttas say they are, but no trace has been found in brahmanical literature
  • early Buddhism is ambiguous: the earliest sources mention 8 Buddhas
  • are there 28 or 29 Buddhas in the Pali Canon, counting Metteyya?

Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,
Hope you had a nice New Years. In regards to your "correction," your assessment of "doubtful" appears to be at odds, for instance, with Maurice Walshe (Vice President of the Buddhist Society) and perhaps T.W. Rhys Davids (founded of PTS). For instance, this is from Walshe's "The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya" (1995), p. 610, n. 939:
"RD [Rhys Davids] has a wide-ranging introduction tracing the possible origins of such marks, which clearly must have been important in the minds of influential Brahmins in the time of the Buddha (see, e.g. DN 3) However, later Brahmin tradition has preserved very little about them." [Boldface added.]
I'm not sure the basis for Walshe's statement and took his scholarship at face value. That he says there is "very litte" and you say there is "no trace," I'm not sure how to resolve this. Perhaps you are aware of the basis for Walshe's statement and can show it to be inaccurate?
Gotta go,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No trace refers to a list of 32, or even the number. Obviously, it would be very surprising if no trace of any of them occurred. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the early Buddhism point, if you take it in a broad sense there are more than 28 or 29. Even if you accept the commentary's explanation of extra Buddhas in the Apadana as Paccekabuddhas, other schools have their own (overlapping) lists. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining articles[edit]

Another point from Larry's remarks. He says we would need more people to maintain the article. The fact is that the Buddha article is not being properly maintained as it is. It consists mainly of legends, theories & fundamentalist Theravada propagaganda masquerading as fact. Peter jackson (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit for buddhatta, buddhabhāva, and sammā sambuddha ?[edit]

In response to Sebastian's request (recently archived), I threw together some words so that the word "buddhahood" figured prominently in this article's intro. While doing so, I inserted parenthetical Pali words (buddhatta, buddhabhāva, sammā sambuddha) into the opening sentence. I regret that I don't know the Sanskrit equivalents (though I could make some questionable guesses) and would appreciate it if someone who does know such would insert them beside the Pali. (Or if someone who is more eloquent than myself [oh, come one, this means you] is inclined to rewrite the intro and obviate this request, please do so!) Thanks ahead of time for any help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - Excellent! Thanks so much! - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Buddhism[edit]

It says that Indonesian Buddhism believes in God. Is anyone willing to expand upon this further? (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Buddhas saved all sentient being?[edit]

Have the previous Buddhas saved all sentient beings before they themself pass into Nivarna? if previous Buddhas DID saved all sentient being, then what are u still here editing wikipedia? Ain't u supposed to be in Nirvana?Sawadeekrap (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did it say that they did save everyone? Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva -> "An arhat is liberated from samsara (or the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth), but did not choose, in a previous life, to try and save each and every other living being before passing away into nirvana, and thus is not a fully enlightened Buddha." This statement said that only fully enlightened Buddha will try to save everyone before they pass into Nirvana Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thea t sentence may have been unclear so I clarified it. Bodhisattvas vow to not become Buddhas until everyone is saved, which is why they haven't become Buddhas yet. It didn't say that people who didn't vow to be bodhisattvas and didn't vow to wait for everyone else first, could not become Buddhas. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That only applicable to Shepherd Bodhisattva, ur latest edit is in conlict with the other 2 type of Bodhisattva.
  1. King-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to become buddha as soon as possible and then help sentient beings in full fledge;
  2. Boatman-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to achieve buddhahood along with other sentient beings and
  3. Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category.

Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood" - are you sure? I can't agree with that, IMO it has nothing to do with delaying, but realizing that thinking about others, and working for others is the fastest way to achieve buddahood (of course it doesn't mean this is the best way at all, becouse the best can be only what is possible to do, there is no absolute measure). Probably this misconception about delaying is rooted in christian-based thinking about Mahayana. Any delaying in development is contradict with Buddha's teachings.Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 type of Bodhisattva info is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva, obviously u don't know what u talking about. Sawadeekrap (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, dear Sawadeekrap, obviously I know what I'm talking about. WP is not reference for WP and if you are citing WP read it first "In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is, at least in a sense, one who aspires to become Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings" and - I suppose - any delay in deliverance is logical contradiction with this aspiration. What is your opinion? Moreover also word used by you: "save" has christian roots and has nothing to do with Dharma. Yes, sometimes is used in buddhist context, but it's mistake (like o.e. "meditation deities"). Buddha only points the way, but following this way is task for all sentient beings. With buddhas help of course, but there is a big difference. BTW - error with dealying will be repaired.Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok. May be u right, these "delay to save all sentient beings" statement seem to implied that Boddhisattva is more compassionate than Gautama Buddha & the previous 28 Buddhas, as all the previous Buddhas as achieved Budhhahood and gone to Nirvana without saving ALL sentient beings Sawadeekrap (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is very confusing because different Mahayana sources say different things & i can't find any scholar who has properly studied this & presented the results. the problem seems to stem from the Lotus Sutra, which says in quick succession that a Buddha's lifetime is extremely long & that it's infinite. Problem: which is to be taken literally? The Tibetans (or at least the Gelugpas) take the infinite statement literally, so they see no point delaying enlightenment. Some Chinese authorities, however (Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism, pages 110f) regard a Buddha's life as extremely long but not infinite. They further say that a bodhisattva can do more good for beings in an indefinite period than a Buddha can in such a lifetime (which doesn't necessarily follow from the previous statement) & so a bodhisattva should deliberately refrain from becoming a Buddha for this reason. I suspect there are probably quite a variety of different positions to be found in the literature, but, as I said, i haven't found anyone who's collected the information together. The 3 types of bodhisattva listed above are given in Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism (I can find the page refs if anyone wants). Unfortunately, he doesn't cite a source, tho' the context suggests it may be Zhiyi.
As regards the point about bodhisattvas being more compassionate than Buddhas, the answer would be that the Buddha only appeared to enter nirvana. this is stated in the Lotus Sutra again. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, it is a bit of a confusing topic, especially to address in an encyclopedia article, although this sort of layered teaching is actually very typical of Mahayana teachings. In another example, bodhisattvas are said to practice the paramitas for billions of eons, but in the Lotus Sutra, a young naga maiden achieves enlightenment in a split second. Suffice it to say, the method of learning and interpretation of these texts is not the same as what is common in the Theravada tradition. There are layers, and varying interpretations may be deemed correct for individuals at varying levels of understanding and practice. But without digressing any further, Mahayana scholar Paul Williams asked one of Tibet's top monastic scholars about the subject of bodhisattvas "postponing" their attainment of buddahood:

"It is frequently said in textbooks that the compassion of the bodhisattva is so great that he postpones nirvana, or turns back from nirvana, in order to place all other sentient beings in nirvana first. Such a teaching, however, appears prima facie to be incoherent, and contains a claim that somehow a buddha must be deficient in compassion when compared to a bodhisattva. [...] Moreoever, if sentient beings are infinite, a widely-held view in the Mahayana, then the bodhisattva is setting himself an impossible task, and no bodhisattva could ever attain buddhahood. I asked the late Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, a former head abbot of Drepung Monastery and one of the most learned scholars, about this while he was on a visit to Britain. I explained that it was widely asserted in books available in the West that the bodhisattva does not become enlightened until he has helped all other sentient beings to enlightenment. The eminent Lama seemed to find this most amusing since, as he put it, all those who become bodhisattvas would not become enlightened, while those who had not become bodhisattvas would. He stated quite categorically that the final view is that this is not how bodhisattvas behave. In Tibetan practice the merit from virtuous deeds is always directed towards obtaining full buddhahood in order to be able to help beings most effectively. There is never any mention of really postponing or turning back from buddhahood. Otherwise any bodhisattva who did become a buddha would be presumably either deficient in compassion or have broken his vow. [...] According to Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, if a text states or implies that a bodhisattva postpones nirvana, it is not to be taken literally. It does not embody the final truth. It may be that it embodies a form of exhortatory writing -- the bodhisattva adopts a position of complete renunciation. In renouncing even buddhahood, the bodhisattva precisely attains buddhahood. [...] My purpose is simply to suggest sensitivity to the initial incoherence and textual uncertainty concerning the bodhisattva's claimed postponement of nirvana, an assertion which appears to have become part of the lore of textbooks on Buddhism."

Tengu800 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to delete[edit]

The article says: In the Mahayana tradition, the definition of Buddha extends to any being who becomes fully awakened. The Theravada Arhant would be considered a kind of Buddha (although not generally by Mahayana Buddhism itself) in this Mahayana sense, and this usage also occurs in the Theravada commentaries[1].

I would like to delete, (although not generally by Mahayana Buddhism itself). This is incoherent, whereas the article is well-written on the whole. Also, Tibetan Buddhism refers to shravakabuddhas and pratyekabuddhas.

If there are Mahayana traditions that contradict this paragraph, would someone like to point them out with references please, so that I don't delete something that merely needs rewording with a footnote.

Moonsell (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've deleted it. Please provide the evidence before reverting.

Moonsell (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is thoroughly confused, & this change only makes it worse. Let me try to summarize the position as I see it.
In Theravada, there are 2 uses of the term "Buddha".
  1. the usual one, referring to Sammasambuddhas only
  2. occasionally, synonymous with arahant, so including 3 types:
    1. sammasambuddha
    2. paccekebuddha
    3. savakabuddha
In Mahayana, I've never heard of the term "Buddha" ever being used in any sense other than referring to Samyaksambuddhas. Can anyone provide any reference for this? Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, see eg. page 20 of http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/medbudsutra.pdf, certainly a Mahayana Sutra. Also in Tibetan Buddhist teachings it appears regularly. They use the word xx-Buddha, but consider them Arhats, not really Buddhas. rudy (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page 20 of that the sutra in the link above does not say anything about a sravakabuddha, only that bodhisattvas should provide the Mahayana teachings to those on the sravaka and pratyekabuddha paths, in order to set them onto the Mahayana path. I was a bit surprised when I saw the link to the Bhaisajyaguru Sutra, as I was fairly sure there was no such association made in this text. After checking the source, it appears that there is no connection between sravakas and buddhahood in the passage. Tengu800 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayana buddha names[edit]

in Taisho Tripitaka

439 佛說諸佛經 many buddhas

440 佛說佛名經 many buddha names

441 佛說佛名經 many buddha names

442 十方千五百佛名經 10 directions 1500 buddha names

443 五千五百佛名神咒除障滅罪經 5500 buddha names

444 佛說百佛名經 100 buddha names

445 佛說不思議功德諸佛所護念經 many buddha names

446 過去莊嚴劫千佛名經 past kalpa 1000 buddha names

447 現在賢劫千佛名經 recent kalpa 1000 buddha names

448 未來星宿劫千佛名經 next kalpa 1000 buddha namesYew bo (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

449 for example 南無金剛堅強消伏壞散如來 出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 金剛堅強消壞散佛 聞名歡喜信樂誦念 得不退轉卻十萬億之罪 出自十方千五百佛名經

南無歡喜莊嚴珠王佛 出自佛說千佛因緣經 南無帝寶幢摩尼勝光如來 出自佛說千佛因緣經

南無阿彌陀佛 阿彌陀佛 聞名一心信樂誦念歡喜得無量 福離三惡道臨終至念佛自來迎

南無善寂月音王如來 出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 南無殊勝月王佛 出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經

以下佛名無講解 東北方青華世界悲精進如來  南無悲精進佛 一心敬禮者卻千億劫生死之罪 出自十方千五百佛名經

南無初發心不退轉輪成首如來 不退轉輪成首佛 一心敬禮者卻千億劫生死之罪

南無斷疑拔欲除冥佛 一心敬禮者卻三十六億劫生死之罪 出自十方千五百佛名經



南無德內豐嚴王如來 於是阿逸菩薩。長跪叉手前白佛言












































It's lamentable that we don't have these names in Sanskrit. --Invokingvajras (talk) 4:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


please add: [[he:בודהה (מושג)]]. Daniel B (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Black Buddha, Changing the Face of American Buddhism by Lama Choyin Rangdrul.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello Skysmith, why?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • first edition [1]
Austerlitz -- (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


When was this article protected? Probably it should be unprotected now if the concerns are met? Dragonzz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

On Buddhahood, generally speaking[edit]

"This evening I would like to talk about "The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion." When Buddha realized Buddhahood he attained the original state of the oneness of everything without limit. That state is beyond any description; however, in order to help sentient beings who were not aware of this reality, he used language that they could understand in order to guide them toward that experience. In so doing there is a limitation, because languages are built upon concepts, and concepts automatically set limits. The concepts are limited by nature, so how are we going to accomplish the task of using limited tools to describe a limitless state? Because of that, in describing Buddhahood, quite often in the Sutras you will find that they will have to say, "Buddha is complete in two ways."

Because of the limits of language we can speak only about certain aspects at one time. The rational aspect of Buddhahood is called "Wisdom," and the emotional aspect or the aspect of the will is called "Compassion." So we always say, "Buddha is complete in Wisdom and Compassion." However, we should realize that in Buddha himself there is no such distinction between Wisdom and Compassion. Whatever he does, whatever he says, whatever he thinks, is the totality and the unification of Wisdom and Compassion. But for us to understand it, we must describe it from different angles, therefore we say it has two sides."

Something of this kind should be mentioned within the introductory part of the wiki article.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) samantha is the best in the house.xxxx[reply]

Character Traits[edit]

I read that the Buddah had god like traights, but why is he sometimes potrayed as chubby? Could someone explane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is Budai. Mitsube (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He just wanted to get away from it all, like so many men nowadays, and possibly in any age. He did not want responsibility anymore, so he just walked out. Nowadays in the West, he might have been certified mental and locked up in a mental asylum. (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayana Buddhism and the Savakabuddha[edit]

In Theravada Buddhism it is commonly held, to my knowledge, that there are three types of enlightenment, and that arhats are also called savakabuddhas. I have tried to find more background on this term, as I have never encountered it in any Mahayana sutras that I am familiar with. It also seems that the Pali equivalent of arhat is the commonly used term in the early texts from the Theravada school as well. Looking through this talk page, there is a link to the Mahayana sutra for the Medicine Buddha, which is supposedly a reference for the Mahayana acceptance of the savakabuddha as a type of buddha. Even looking on the specific page, I see nothing related to this, and certainly no term equivalent to savakabuddha or reference to arhats being a class of buddha. All this sutra says about sravakas is:

I vow that in a future life, when I have attained Supreme Enlightenment, I will set all who follow heretical ways upon the path to Enlightenment. Likewise, I will set those who follow the Sravaka and Pratyeka-Buddha ways onto the Mahayana path.

In the article itself, there is another supposed source for the Mahayana acceptance of the savakabuddha, but again upon inspecting the link (a page from a work by Santideva), there is no such term or reference to arhats being buddhas, or any possible translation of savakabuddha. The only line even mentioning sravakas, seems to be verse 50, which has no indication of these things:

May the self-realized pratyekabuddhas be happy,
And likewise the shravaka listeners,
Always being honored with respect
By gods, anti-gods, and by men.

Upon checking the source for the claim about Tibetan Buddhist acceptance of the savakabuddha doctrine, the reference appears to be two sutras from the Pali Canon (?). Thinking that they might have some notes related to them in the translations, I found these two specific translations by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Access to Insight, but as I suspected, there is no mention of arhats and buddhahood, nor of savakabuddhas. So far three references claiming Mahayana acceptance of this term, have turned out to say nothing about the subject whatsoever.

In any case, my question is simply this: is there any evidence of (1) the term sravakabuddha being used in Sanskrit, (2) use of the term in Indian Buddhism, (3) use of an equivalent term in Chinese translations, or (4) use of the term in the Mahayana sutras or sastras? Tengu800 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the usual term is Arhat. The use of the term sravakabuddha at Wikipedia creates credibility for this term, but, to my opinion, it is confusing. Standard text books on Buddhism use the word Arhat. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is even a [webforum] where this question has been posted. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed order of the article[edit]

The 'Three kinds of Buddhas' are being mentioned on several pages throughout Wikipedia. This way, the terms become more important than they are. The importance lies in Pratyeka-Buddha and samyak sam-Buddha. Pratyeka-Buddha, as a Buddha who doesn't spread the Dharma, which is being seen as an less worthy kind of Buddhahood. And samyak sambuddha, as an idealtype, about which rhere is no uniformity in Buddhism. In a western context, it can even be distractive, as it fuels the dream of instant-perfection. But, that's my opinion. Anyway, I moved this part downward, and other parts upward, to emphasize the various visons on Buddhahood that exist within Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma vs dhamma[edit]

The article mentions dharma and dhamma (once) - I don't know enough about this to know if the dhamma reference is correct (a quick search suggests the concept exists but may be different from dharma) or a typo. If it is correct and different, it should be called out somehow. If it's correct but the same, I guess it should be changed to dharma for consistency. Could someone who knows what they're talking about have a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CupawnTae (talkcontribs) 08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same term, but in Sanskrit (dharma) and Pali (dhamma) respectively. I've added a short explanation. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article said dharma (no matter how you render the spelling) means "the right way of living". One would assume the right way of living would be to work and earn a living. Surely being lazy and beg for a living or relying on alms when you are an abled-body person would not be the right way of living. (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not NPOV[edit]

I thought I detected on a first read through, that this article had a definite tilt in the direction of the Mahayana view of the Buddha's divinity. But when I re-read the two sections "The Buddha as Divine" [or similar wording] and "The Buddha as Human", I found the POV quite blatantly expressed. The "Buddha as Divine" section listed numerous references in the Pali Canon supporting the idea (downplaying the Theravada view) which is fair enough. But the "Buddha as Human" section is devoted not to showing evidence supporting this view of the Buddha as human (a widespread one, so presumably it has support) but to refuting the idea! "It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human.".

Such bias undermines the credibility of the whole article. I'm surprised that this hasn't attracted attention of others.

-- (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a previous comment by me, as I came to the same conclusion reading this today. The article is dreadful. It (and the talk section) has deteriorated into a debate about whether or not the Buddha was human and how many types of Buddha there are and...where are we going next? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What seems to be missing is any discussion/clarification of the notion of Buddhahood that, following Nagarjuna, drifted towards the notion of a soul, and all the problems that caused.
A growing suspicion of mine is that nobody who identifies themselves as a Mahayanist should be writing in Wikipedia. It seems that everyone who does so speaks as a believer rather than as an observer, with all the emotion and distortion implied. "It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human." Why would a person expressing this kind of derision of an opposing point of view be quoted here?
-- (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Human" section seems more argumentative than necessary. Note that the "Divine" section doesn't really have counter-arguments, and I wonder why they would be necessary in either section.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with this article are mostly the sources used: many are primary sources, not secondary.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few sources -- not many. I'll look through them to see if there's anything that can be used here.--Daveler16 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here - what do you think of something like this? I needed to use a primary souorce at the end - it makes a very pertinent point and I cou'dn't find a referece to it in my other resources.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made the addition. Also removed the quotation marks from the title of the sub-section. There are schools whose basic assumption is that the Buddha is human, and quotation marks are generally used to trivialize something.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayana versus Theravada[edit]

Mrspaceowl has three times removed the following sourced info from the lead:

The goal of Mahayana's bodhisattva path is Samyaksambuddhahood, so that one may benefit all sentient beings by teaching them the path of cessation of dukkha.[1] Mahayana theory contrasts this with the goal of the Theravada path, where the goal is individual arhatship.[1]

turning the sentence into

In Mahayana theory contrasts this with the goal of the Theravada path, where the goal is individual arhatship.[1]


  1. ^ a b c Gethin, Rupert (1998). The foundations of Buddhism (1. publ. paperback ed.). Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. pp. 224–234. ISBN 0-19-289223-1.
  • diff edit-summary remove unnecessary wording synonymous with western undergrad literature students
  • revert by JJ edit-summary Undid revision 886817023 by Mrspaceowl (talk)basic Mahayana stance
  • diff edit-summary Undid revision 886886850 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) revision summary did not explain reason for revision -- how is Mahayana defined by its contrast to Theravada in any way that would not be clear from a simple statement that Theravada focuses on arthatship, even when we give the benefit of the doubt as to the truth of this statement? Do we have evidence of either tradition being defined solely by their contrast to the other!?
  • revert by JJ edit-summary Undid revision 886896382 by Mrspaceowl (talk)check the source
  • diff edit-summary Undid revision 886896448 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) if you have access to the source current then quote the passage because it is an extraordinary claim

Source: Gethin, Rupert (1998), The foundations of Buddhism (1. publ. paperback ed.). Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. pp. 224–234. P.228:

The traditions ofIndian Buddhism that resisted the Mahayana vision continued to think in terms of three approaches to what was essentially one and the same final release from suffering, nirval)a: the path of the sravaka or 'disciple' leading to arhatship, the path of the pratyeka-buddha and the path of the bodhisattva leading to the attainment of the samyak-sambuddha (see above, pp. 32-4). The Mahayana sfitras express two basic attitudes to this?The first is that the path ofthe disciple and the path of the pratyeka-buddha do lead to a kind of awakening, a release from suffering, nirval)a, and as such are real goals. These goals are, however, inferior and should be renounced for the superior attainment of buddhahood. The second attitude, classically articulated by the Lotus Sutra, sees the goal of the disciple and the pratyeka-buddha as not true goals at all. 8 The fact that the Buddha taught them is an example ofhis 'skill in means' (upaya-kau§alya) as a teacher. 9 These goals are thus merely clever devices (upaya) employed by the Buddha in order to get beings to at least begin the practice ofthe path; eventually their practice must lead on to the ,one and only vehicle (eka-yana) that is the mahayana, the vehicle ending in perfect buddhahood.

The goal of Mahayana is not Arahantship; and the comparison with Theravada is a standard comparison in Mahayana thought. The user in question has been blocked three times in two months; they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Four times; they're blocked again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua Jonathan. yes disruption of text-source integrity is not allowed. JimRenge (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit Devanagari equivalences being replaced by Brahmi.[edit]

I note that someone has started replacing the Sanskrit equivalences into Brahmi which in this form was more or less discontinued by the 5th century CE (cf. Brahmi script). Sanskrit nowadays is most commonly rendered in Devanagari and, indeed the entire Sanskrit article is rendered in Devanagari.

This seems to be somebody's pet project. It is out of place here. (20040302 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]