Talk:The Buddha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The examplar of Buddha as understood

At least in the Westernized version of Buddhism I have heard, Buddha is not a deity. He is a man who achieved enlightenment in the Hindu sense in one lifetime instead of in many reincarnations in a state of self-awareness. He achieved this by living many different lifestyles including that of a decaying waterfowl. After enlightenment, he recognized his unity with the universal oneness, or atman. He thus got to stop being reincarnated, just like many other people who had achieved enlightenment over many lifetimes. Since the original Buddha, several other Buddhists have accomplished this feat and are thus called Buddha as well (i.e. the fat LaughingBuddha of China). If anything, the name for the sole deity in the universe is "atman".

Some versions of Buddhism emphasize the Hindu legends more than others. The version you heard seems to be closer to the Hindu ideas of Buddhism. Most other versions do not focus on atman or reincarnation. Instead, the core of Buddhism is considered to be the teachings such as the NobleEightfoldPath and the FourNobleTruths.

Also, while it is considered possible to achieve the same enlightenment as the historical Buddha, most Buddhists would not call those enlightened ones "Buddha"--that title is generally reserved only for the historical Buddha.

Buddhism has a whole bunch of branches, and some of the less-philosophical-more-ritualistic ones have him as a deity.

After many life times of perfection and merit, Sidhatta Gotama was born. Through penetrating the truths, attaining insight, etc., he became an Arahant and The Buddha.
There is no reincarnation in Buddhism but Vajrayana (what is practiced in Tibet for example) adopted reincarnation from Hinduism.
I should state that this 'Laughing Buddha' is the historical Hotei, a figure in Chinese culture. He is neither a Buddha nor Enlightened nor mentioned in the Tripitaka.
Also, many Arahants have come to be after Gautama; not several but many thousands and the world will never be empty of Arahants. This is in the Tripitaka, the source used by all traditions.
Although Gotama Buddha said he was a perfected man and only could 'show the way', there will always be those who mistakenly take him as divine. But even in a country that is predominantly subscribing to the religion of Islam, you will find Muslims praying to the Muhammad's(pbuh) grave. Usedbook 23:34 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Buddhist 'theology'

Someone wrote:

Buddhism has a whole bunch of branches, and some of the less-philosophical-more-ritualistic ones have him as a deity.

Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of buddha and bodhisattva "deities" but this does not mean they are regarded as gods in the Judeo-Christian sense, i.e. creators and judges of creation. They are examples and guides to those pursuing enlightenment in their footsteps. zadcat 21:55 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Even in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and Islamic faith, you are meant to believe in these deities alone. This somewhat blind-belief is basically the same as what Vajrayana Buddhists practice. Usedbook 23:34 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

What a load of rot! This is illinformed and a million miles from what Tibetan Buddhists believe and practice! Mahaabaala 17:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maintaining Links

Redistributed links to various subjects within Buddhism. Also deleted a few that were IMO too insignificant or partial. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, No?? kh7 06:12 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Originally, there were links to cults and graphically intense sites with little text. I renovated so that all major schools of Buddhism would be represented, but it is agreed; there were too many links. I like what you've done. Be well. Usedbook 21:01 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

New name for article

Should this article be Siddhartha Gautama -- Buddha is not a name, its more of a title -- he isn't "Buddha"; but, "the Buddha". LirQ

It's a general practice to refer to the Historical Buddha as Gautama Buddha, and I think reflects the interests of the scholar who set the page up. I think Buddhists would tend to use "Shakyamuni", or "Shakyamuni Buddha". Siddhartha Gautama would not be right since that was his name before his Awakening. 'The Buddha' is never refered to as Siddhartha Gautama post-Awakening. As long as there are lots of links to it, I think the title will be alright as is. But if you do decide it has to be changed please make a redirect from here. Cheers Mahaabaala 13:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

'Gautama Buddha' is most common and 'Siddhartha Gautama' is only used to refer to the pre-enlightened figure. This is especially the case in Theravada. Usedbook 12:04, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Historicity in Gautama's life

Somebody who knows this should try to do a better job of putting it in the text: Siddhartha would be the heir to the position of "prince" of the Shakya clan's village of Kapilavatthu (or Kapilvastu) in the foothills of the Himalayas. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Questionable content removed

I removed the following edit made by User:131.111.161.185 on Oct 23rd:

died around the year 400 B.C. or at least between 420-350 B.C. Like any academic subject opinions vary, but the majority of scholars seem to have settled on this time frame for the death of the Buddha who is thought to have lived for 80 years. Heinz Bechert's The dating of the historical Buddha? (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung IV. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse ; 3. Folge, Nr. 189, 194, 222. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991-1997) is the first place to turn for anyone wishing to look at the evidence and the arguments, three volumes with a final introduction in Part III written a number of years after an original symposium which took place in 1988. (Older popular sources often placed the life of the Buddha earlier

It was placed oddly in the opening paragraph. I honestly have no idea where to put it. Any suggestions? Usedbook 12:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Realization of anatman (or anatta)

Atman actually is the egoself or the acceptance of the existence of self. The Buddha Gotama specifically mentioned that one of the three marks of existence was anatman or egolesness (no-self to be precise) we have no intrinsincate "soul" or atman since we are all dependant on paticcasamupada or anything's dependant origin. We are all results (vipaka) to an action (karma), hence have no intrinsic existence, or independence, but characteristics developed since birth conditioned by outer factors and personalized by the five aggregates.

Though the Buddha mentioned the existence of a temporal self, there is no infinite, independent self.

Title of article

The historical Buddha is often called 'Buddha Shakyamuni', and Shakyamuni also spoke of 'Amitabha Buddha', 'Kasyapa Buddha' and 'Maitreya Buddha'. This would seem to be consistent with using the title 'Jesus Christ'. -- beesucker

The outcome of the Jesus Christ vs. Jesus debate was that "Christ" is a title and its application constitutes a POV. Now, Jesus Christ is a redirect to Jesus. To stay consistent, Gautama Buddha, Tathagata Buddha, Buddha Shakyamuni, (and probably others) should all be redirects to Siddhartha Gautama. This is a hassle and needs to be done by an admin (since existing redirects will needs to be deleted before the shuffling around can take place). If you think this isn't worth the trouble, please go over to Talk:Jesus and voice your complaints. --Wclark 22:05, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be called "Siddhartha Gautama". Why isn't it? --Carl 13:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because he changed his name, and everybody stopped calling him that. Personally, I think this article should be Shakyamuni Buddha. - Nat Krause 13:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have to aggree, that although I believe he was a Buddha, this title in the article name does constitute POV. No one in this world knows for sure if Siddhartha Gautama was a "buddha", and no one can even be 100% sure that the Siddhartha Gautama was the real name of the Buddha. Secondly, to say that he "changed his name" doesn't really make any sense. First of all, the word "Buddha" is a title, as is explained above. Next, how specific are we wanting to be? I had a religious studies teacher who insisted on calling him "Gautama Siddhartha", putting the family name first. I see nothing wrong with having the title be "Siddhartha Gautama" and in the article explaining the different epithets, ie "Buddha", "Tathagata", "Conquerer". The page for the 14th Dalai Lama includes his name and title in the title, but "Dalai Lama" is definitely an official title - poltically and religiously. I guess I see "Buddha" as more of a nickname than anything else. Finally, these are all just words, are we not already buddhas ourselves :) Iluvchineselit 02:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You are sort of right that he didn't exactly "change" his name. What I mean is that, after he started teaching Buddhism, everybody stopped calling him Siddhartha Gautama, so far as we can tell from the (very limited) sources. This is the point at which he became famous. He stopped using his old name, but he didn't really have a new one, either. Most people addressed him simply as "sir", and he apparently referred to himself when necessary as "the tathagata", which is basically a synonym for Buddha. Some people may have referred to him in the third person as "the sage Gautama". Later, it became traditional for Buddhists to refer to him by the name Shakyamuni, "the sage of the Shakyas", although this is not very widely used in English among non-Buddhists.

In some cases, I would agree that the appellation "Buddha" would be a POV issue. However, in the case of this person, considering that the vast majority of English-speaking people know him simply as "the Buddha", I don't think it's a problem. Since Buddha is a separate article, I think Gautama Buddha or Shakyamuni Buddha are reasonable titles. - Nat Krause 07:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The man who would later become known as "The Buddha", at birth was given the personal name, Siddhartha. His family name was Gautama. The young prince and heir to a kingdom was correctly named, Siddhartha Gautama. After his departure from the palace and the great renunciation, turning his back on a life of luxury, he became a mendicant. At this point he was no longer a prince, but neither was he a Buddha. He had not seen into the true nature of man and attained Buddha-hood. Yet! So it would be wrong to call him Gautama Buddha, Siddhartha Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, or Gautama Siddhartha Buddha.

After six or more years of austerities, and nearing death from his practices, one night, as the culimination of many years effort, Siddhartha Gautama, gained insight into the problems of life and death. Saw the true-nature, and became "Buddha".

At this point in time he was no longer Siddhartha Gautama. That person, for want of a better word, was gone. No more. His problems were gone. No more. He was now "The Buddha". Enlightened being, and teacher of Men.

It would be wrong to refer to "The Buddha" as Gautama Buddha, or Siddhartha Buddha. In the Mahayana tradition, "The Buddha" is referred to as: "Sakyamuni Buddha".

Sakyamuni means "The sage of the Sakya clan".

Excerpt:
After his enlightenment, on the road to Banares, before his first sermon. Sakyamuni Buddha came across the five ascetics with whom he had previously practiced. They addressed him by his family name of Gautama or as 'friend'. This drew a prompt rebuke. The Buddha told them it was not proper to address him by his family name, even less by the basic form of 'friend'.
--Fundamentals of Mainstream Buddhism Vol.2. Page 31.

It is common practice in Buddhism for those that join the Sangha and wear the robe, to have their names changed. This is not done as a gimmick, but to sever ties with the person, that was before. A new name (Dharma name) is given, to go with the new attitude to life.

I hope this helps. stray 22:21:20, 2005-08-21 (UTC)

Did Lord Buddha believe in Brahman of not?

Taking from the Wiki page titled, "Brahman": Brahman in Earliest Buddhism It has been asserted by current secular Buddhism, that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.”

The highest appellation in Buddhist Nikayan sutra is “Brahambhutena attano” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman”; absolutely equivalent to ‘Tat tvam asi’ (That/Brahman, thou art). For the Buddha himself is = Brahmabhu’to (Become That, Brahman).

For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60].

[DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly diffferent than the word Brahman). [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.” [DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.” [Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman."

None of these references makes sense to me. What system is used and where is the references supposed to be found? [It 57], for example, is about taints in John D. Ireland's BPS translation... It would also be nice if you properly signed your edits and if you refrained to delete sections of the talk page (which I will restore shortly). --- Andkaha^(talk) 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion of those citations on Talk:Brahman. Long story short, to the extent that I could find the relevant passages, it appears that all translators other than the editor in question (User:Attasarana) use "Brahma" instead of "Brahman". Is this a relevant distinction in context? I don't know. Also, to be fair, the standard translators are probably all Theravadins. In any event, I am going to finally remove this material from the article, because the discussion on talk is no longer ongoing. FYI, I belive [It 57] is a typo, and it should be [It 56].—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Vishnu avatar

Deeptrivia, you state that it is a generalization that Hindus do not consider Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu. Isn't it also a generalization to say that they do? Perhaps the article should read, "Some Hindus..." to avoid generalizations. The issue also arises for the section of the article regarding Hinduism, in which the word "some" is used. There is also a photo caption that uses the word "some." It would not be fair to say that, in general, Hindus regard Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu.

Regarding Title of this Article

I dont want to debate about his birth place that he was born where and what this pslce called now. But he was born in Lumbini that every one seems to agree and in Lumbini the rigt pronounciation of Siddhartha Gautama is Siddhartha Gautam.There was no pronounciation such as Gautama in past nor is it now or it will be in future.The title of this article should be Siddhartha Gautam as it was pronounced not Gautama the -a after gautam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.110.114 (talk • contribs) .

Well, for one thing, not everyone agrees that Siddhartha was born in what we now call Lumbini; there are Indian scholars who argue that the actual Lumbini is in Odisha. More to the point, the person in question is always, always referred to as Siddhartha Gautama in English. That's why we should use that form in our encyclpaedia. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Nat. If he's a historical figure -- as historians now accept -- then we can't call him a Buddha, as that's a religious claim. I suggest we move this article to Siddhartha Gautama. I'm a Buddhist, but I want to be FAIR. Zora 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The combination of names is bizarre. "Gautama" is his gotra name, shared by thousands of people in his day who claimed descent from the rishi Gotama. "Shakyamuni" is his name as a Buddha. "Siddhartha Gautama" is not a name that anyone would actually have used (and it is uncertain that "Siddhartha", or its Magadhi equivalent, was actually his proper name). "Gautama Buddha" is meaningless, except as a kind of cipher that squeezes both the gotra name and the title "Buddha" in together. Those who didn't accept Shakyamuni as Buddha during his lifetime called him "Samana Gotama" (or "Shramana Gautama"). This was, however, intended to be somewhat disrespectful; for a Christian analogy, it would be like calling Jesus "the Judahite Rabbi". "Gautama Buddha" thus has a bizarre mixture of admitting the Buddha's claims to enlightenment, and being disrespectful to him at the same time!

Oh, and by the way, the commenter above is certainly wrong: there was a time and place when the "a" on the end of "Gautama" was pronounced loud and clear. In Magadha in the Buddha's time, however, the gotra name was probably pronounced "Gotame" (GOH-tuh-may). Gautama is a re-Sanskritization of the name.

I would suggest that if "Buddha" is somehow objectionable (and I don't quite see why it should be), then "Shakyamuni" would be the most appropriate name to file him under. At least it means something.RandomCritic 22:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Zora has not quite understood my position correctly. I was saying that the article should use Siddhartha Gautama in preference to Siddhartha Gautam. By the same token, if the title of the article is to be one or the other, then it should be Siddhartha Gautama. However, I disagree with Zora and others that it is wrong to include "Buddha" in the title of the article. In fact, what Siddhartha is almost always called in English is simply "the Buddha". Most people who aren't Buddhists don't really know enough about him to call him anything else. I would expect that, in most cases, a Christian or Muslim speaker would still call him "the Buddha" even when setting out specifically to criticise his teachings. Given that Buddha is unavailable (and ambiguous) as an article title, I think it's quite desireable to include the word Buddha in the title somewheres.

RandomCritic, I had the same reaction to the title "Gautama Buddha" that you have. I don't recall ever hearing "Gautama Buddha" before Wikipedia. However, since then I've done some checking and found that it is actually used sometimes in other sources on the internet. Moreover, I believe I've seen some passages from Pali scriptures where the Buddha is referred to as "Gautama" by followers (not when addressing him directly, though). So, I think "Gautama Buddha" is quite acceptable. I have previously suggested Shakyamuni Buddha but I now think it's okay either way. Gautama Buddha might be less obscure, since the educated reader is perhaps more likely to know (Siddhartha) Gautama than he or she is to know the name Shakyamuni. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some figures on Google hits:

• "Buddha" – 41,300,000
• "The Buddha" – 8,430,000
• "Siddhartha" – 3,350,000 (probably a lot of refs to the Hesse novel)
• "Gautama" – 1,750,000 (probably refers to a lot of other people)
• "Shakyamuni" – 560,000
• "Sakyamuni" – 473,000
• "Gautama Buddha" – 352,000 (n.b., probably includes a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors)
• "Gotama" – 344,000
• "Siddhartha Gautama" – 269,000
• "Shakyamuni Buddha" - 213,000
• "Buddha Shakyamuni" – 155,000
• "Sakyamuni Buddha" – 127,000
• "Historical Buddha" – 93,500 (a favorite of scholars)
• "Buddha Sakyamuni" – 71,800
• "Buddha Gautama" – 65,000
• "Gotama Buddha" – 41,900
• "Siddhattha" – 40,100
• "Gautama Siddhartha" – 30,700
• "Buddha Gotama" – 21,100
• "Siddhattha Gotama" – 13,900
• "Gotama Siddhattha" – 533

RandomCritic 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In my Zen group, usually we just say "Buddha" as easy verbal shorthand for the historical Buddha, but if you pressed us, we'd have to say that we are referring to Shakyamuni Buddha (name + title). Since WP doesn't use titles in referring to historical personages, I think Shakyamuni would be just fine as a title for the historical Buddha. How about that? Zora 00:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that WP never uses titles to historical figures. In general, we don't, but there are lots of exceptions. All of the Catholic Popes, for instance. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Buddha/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)