Talk:Buddha – God or Man

message: Deos anyboy know how to get the    command properly working?Sacca 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- Ritchy 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you Sacca 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: Buddha, the awakened, is simply that. Not man, nor god, nor neither nor both. To take position on these four would be wrong because in Buddhism, there is no fixed nature. No same thing, nor different things. Nor both nor neither. Can't be same because that would mean you right now is the same as you 10 years ago. Can't be different, saying that you in the picture taken 10 years ago is different than you right now would mean you are independent of others(which cannot be true). Can't be both because they are opposites. Cannot be neither, because it cannot "be".
So why create the article? Bah.. Maybe I'm thinking too much again.. Monkey Brain 04:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article.... why? 

message: There is no God in Buddhism, boy. God or Gods exist in Christianity or Islam or other various religions, but there is simply no entity equal to that God in Buddhism. If you think there is, it is most likely a misconception created during translations between languages. So add this into the wiki and move on. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny, when I saw "A silly question", I assumed that you would be asking something. Instead, it seems that you have decided to call everyone else's work silly. How interesting.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 12:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it's really funny isn't it? I didn't say silly work, I said silly question, dude. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are beings who think they are God (the Creator), similar to the god of Christianity and Islam. For example Baka Brahma and Maha Brahma.Greetings, Sacca 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And obviously they are the extreme minority. This is not worthy of a new article, you should merge this article with Buddha and state these minor interprets there. -- G.S.K.Lee 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think merging is necessary, maybe a deletion of the article is in order, these speculations confuse the general reader! I mean why try to confuse Buddha with "God" (probably abrahamic god), it's kinda silly like G.S.K.Lee said. Monkey Brain 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: These gods do NOT represent the teaching of Buddha. But they ARE gods recognized in the Pali Canon. They do not have eternal life and did not create the world. Since a few of these deluded 'I-think-I-created-the-world'-gods occur in the Buddha's teaching it is appropriate to have an article explaining the position of Buddha (who was not a god, but a man).Greetings, Sacca 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, they are not gods/God, they are like-gods but essentially not gods. God/gods does not exist in Buddhism or that the matter is unimportant. Yes, there were few deluded ones who think they are creator-god/god, but why is there an article about Whether Buddha Is God or Not? I can see a valid reason in creating an article on Buddhist god-like beings, but why this article on whether Buddha was God or Not? This article seems to point at a Abrahamic related POV(speculation). I see no valid reason to keep this article, although the editors may have had good intentions in creating this article and have worked hard to keeping this article updated. It still does not justify why there is an article about a speculation? It should be/already is stated in the Biography of Gautama Buddha. Monkey Brain 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Listen, this is the English Wikipedia, and when you say God, the majority of the average readers will immediately think of the kind of being depicting in this article, because that is what is called the God in English/Western culture. By that the existence of this article is a misguidance. Reading your comments, I strongly doubt you do not and still not understand the point and the meaning of the word God in English. I would like to see some useful content of this article be merged with Buddha following a deletion of this page. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A silly question

message: I do not understand why gsklee put this tag up. The article treats different points of view, from the points of view of different traditions in buddhism. Also user gsklee doesn't give any reasons for putting up the tag. I suggest to remove it as it has no basis. Greetings, Sacca 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see a powerful reference within the article explaining the whos and whys. I even do not see the name "Baka Brahma". -- G.S.K.Lee 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still you do not give a reason. A reference is not a reason. Baka Brahma is not a reason. But never mind.... Greetings, Sacca 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly is disputed about the accuracy of this article? If no one can raise specific points, I'll remove the dispute tag.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed

message: I am not sure if I have done things the "correct" Wiki way, but I have transferred the Dona-sutta section to a separate article as it is disproportionately in the context of the overall article.  I have also moved all the discussion for this section to the new Dona-sutta Discussion Page.  I hope everybody is happy with this move.  I have left Anon 216's comments here, because although they are now largely irrellevent, there are some points that do concern the main article that some might wish to address--Stephen Hodge 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anon, were you to read a few paragraphs above, you would find responses to this statement (made preemptively, no less). TonyMPNS: "I think the point is more whether the Buddha denied that he was a human being in the Dona Sutta (rather than denying that he was a deva)" Sacca: "You're right Tony, that's it - it's not so much about the god-thing as about the human-thing."—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is not about me reading the above paragraph, but what  reader sees and understands when he reads the article:
"While the Buddha in the third version states that he is a Buddha, and not a god or human, no philosophical conclusions are made explicit from this statement."
There is no implication that the Buddha is anything other than a human being by birth and in form, while it suggests that a Buddha belongs to another category of being in nature, beyond the human and the divine, by virtue of his enlightenment and liberation (while still being a human being)."
This reaches absolutely no conclusion.  
So does this answer, is Buddha God or Man? Was Buddha a human to begin with if he came out in the fantastical way he did, from the side of Queen Maya standing up, while having taken 7 steps right after birth "declaring to the world that this is the last birth, there is no one like me, etc. etc."? 
The Dona sutta inclusion just confuses the issue even more by putting in deva, gandharvas, and yakshas to boot
Perhaps it is a question wrongly asked and it's indeterminate nature should be explored. It is better to deal with it from perspective of different schools/
Theravada - he is a man perfected, who took several eons to do so, with the bodhisat birth being the last one, which is why it is so powerful and miraculous in nature as he had obtained most of the perfections.
How is God  commonly understood?
Buddha is more closer to the monistic brahman or tao rather than the theistic or monotheistic version of God which is omniscient, omnipotent, etc as told in the "Brahmajala sutta". --216.254.121.169 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anon 216: Suggest you read all the previous discussions above first so you cabn make informed comment.--Stephen Hodge 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dona-sutta

message: The Dona Sutta is irrelevent to the discussion on GOD the creator, omniscient, omnipresent etc... A deva, gandharva or yaksha in Dona sutta are minor dieties in the Vedic Pantheon.  The Equivalent to Yahweh, Allah or any other diety is similar to the Hindu Trinity.--216.254.121.169 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anon, were you to read a few paragraphs above, you would find responses to this statement (made preemptively, no less). TonyMPNS: "I think the point is more whether the Buddha denied that he was a human being in the Dona Sutta (rather than denying that he was a deva)" Sacca: "You're right Tony, that's it - it's not so much about the god-thing as about the human-thing."—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is not about me reading the above paragraph, but what  reader sees and understands when he reads the article:
"While the Buddha in the third version states that he is a Buddha, and not a god or human, no philosophical conclusions are made explicit from this statement."
There is no implication that the Buddha is anything other than a human being by birth and in form, while it suggests that a Buddha belongs to another category of being in nature, beyond the human and the divine, by virtue of his enlightenment and liberation (while still being a human being)."
This reaches absolutely no conclusion.  
So does this answer, is Buddha God or Man? Was Buddha a human to begin with if he came out in the fantastical way he did, from the side of Queen Maya standing up, while having taken 7 steps right after birth "declaring to the world that this is the last birth, there is no one like me, etc. etc."? 
The Dona sutta inclusion just confuses the issue even more by putting in deva, gandharvas, and yakshas to boot
Perhaps it is a question wrongly asked and it's indeterminate nature should be explored. It is better to deal with it from perspective of different schools/
Theravada - he is a man perfected, who took several eons to do so, with the bodhisat birth being the last one, which is why it is so powerful and miraculous in nature as he had obtained most of the perfections.
How is God  commonly understood?
Buddha is more closer to the monistic brahman or tao rather than the theistic or monotheistic version of God which is omniscient, omnipotent, etc as told in the "Brahmajala sutta". --216.254.121.169 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anon 216: Suggest you read all the previous discussions above first so you cabn make informed comment.--Stephen Hodge 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dona Sutta irrelevent to discussion

message: Since the Afd page is in use, we should use this here.
This article has an unencyclopediac title, more like the opening of a debate or TV documentary. It is alos made pretty clear in Buddhism that the Buddha is NOT a god. That kills the entire idea of Buddhism. The sugestion that any Buddha can take the role of a monotheistic god is ever worse, as there is more than one Buddha in the first place... Zazaban 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to nominate it for deletion again, you should start new deletion discussion. Like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buddha_-_God_or_Man, 2nd nomination or something like that.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I moved the talk page for Buddha - God or Man here during the first deletion vote on that article. It looked like it was going to be deleted, and I wanted to save the discussion, at least. However, it was eventually decided not to delete the article at that time, and it's remained in a sort of limbo since then.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Discussion 

message: How about renaming this article Buddha in the Pali Canon? — goethean ॐ 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Hello,
Looking at this article, it's very highly subjective, and shouldn't require an article all by itself.  There already is a section under Buddha for the divine nature (if any) of the Buddha.  This article is just redundant and not very professionally done.
--Ph0kin 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and redirected. Feel free to revert the redirect if you disagree, or open a second afd nomination if you want this deleted. Ask me on my talk page if you need help with the afd process. --- RockMFR 04:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Request Again