Talk:Buddhahood/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps it would also be useful toction on the roots of Siddhartha's journey in the "forest-renouncer" tradition that gave rise to the Upanisads, which are basically Buddhist ideas with a concept of individual souls and adherence to the authority of the Vedas?  Please correct me if I'm misremembering this, as it has been about 11 years since I took a class on this. 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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 Krause 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist quotes

message: 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)
replies: text: This article is about the concept of "Buddha", i.e., it includes Shakyamuni, Amitabha, Dipankara, and all other Buddhas. It is not about Siddhartha Gautama specifically, so it's unnecessary to mention his biographical details in the introduction. I wouldn't mind mentioning it later, although it will cause future conflicts with people who say he was Nepalese. - Nat Krause 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When Gautam Buddha was born, there was no Nepal as it exists today. Calling him Nepalese is like telling that Harappa, currently part of Pakistan, was not a part of India as it existed then, However, I do agree that the article being about the concept of Buddha, reference to the nationality of Gautam Buddha is extraneous. --MissingLinks 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens Harappa wasn't "part of India as it existed then", since we have no reason to believe that concept of "India" existed at the time of the IVC, any more than the concepts of Pakistan or Nepal did. Paul B 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look,this article is already as confused as it can get. we arent even sure which "Buddha" we are talking of ! WoodElf 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA SHOULD TIGHTEN UP ON THEIR VANDALISM POLICIES 

message: I added the cleanup template because:
* The introduction is far too long.
* There are too many lists.
Certainly this article can do better. joturner 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about "the historical Buddha." There have been and will be many Buddhas. deeptrivia (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What drew me to this article was the fact was the fact that it's so excrutiatingly bad. Bad English, bad scholarship. Does it need a clean-up, or will a bulldozer do? Ne'ertheless, there's already an article on Sid Gautama - I checked - so unless you can find another reason for this article to exist, it should go (the bulldozer option). If it's to stay, it should address the concept of Buddhahood - which, at the moment, it doesn't. At the moment, it doesn't do anything. PiCo 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bitchin' camera, bob. 

message: Repeated copyrighted-violations by flying-account vandal User:VANDALISM MUST BE STOPPPED, User:ADON, User:CARNASSUS. The copyrighted text is from . 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)
thread_title: Vandal

message: 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)
replies: text: Hillbrand, dear, please learn to write simple, concise English. Love hearing your thoughts though. PiCo 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, of course he was a hindu!!!just not the type we are accustomed to. however ALL people of south asia followed certain festivals and occasions and worshipped the same gods, amny of which now form the hindu pantheon, so duh, naturally buddha was a hindu. just like jesus was a jew.WoodElf 10:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: Erk! PiCo 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MARKSMAN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the state of this article 

message: :A point of contention raised by many non-Buddhists is the seemingly irresponsible life led by the historic Buddha. The Buddha's teaching that one live free from attachment can be taken to imply that one should neglect all earthly responsibility, including the responsibility to look after the welfare of others. Nowhere is this more dramatically portrayed than in Buddha's relationship to his own family. Buddha's reckless abandonment of his wife and child in order to "seek enlightenment" apart from earthly attachments can be seen as a tacit endorsement of giving up one's responsibilities towards one's family. However, it should not be forgotten that Buddha actually left his family before he was Buddha. In addition, numerous suttas expound, in great detail, the importance of one's duties to family and community. 
:It is written that both Yasodhara(wife) and Rahula(son) became arahats. After expounding dhamma to the first five disciples and some other ascetics in the area, Buddha immediately went towards his former home so he could teach his whole family the Dhamma.
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)
thread_title: The removed text: Controversy Regarding Buddha's Lifestyle

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your work. I agree about removing the "Teacher of Gods and Men" section .. it seems to ramble on toward an unclear purpose. I think the names of the Buddhas are important to include for reference, although the table I put them in might be the best format. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Nat.  I assume you added the Buddha image at the beginning too.  I like it.  ;)  Also, I like how the different types of Buddhas were collapsed into the opening paragraphs. I think it's more succinct and to the point that way.  Nicely done.  (If someone else made these changes, kudos to them).  As it stands now, I think the list is fine where it is since the article overall isn't so long anymore.  I see your point of keeping it as a reference.  The only point of contention I still see in the article might be the Eternal Buddha section.  It seems like although I cleaned it up a bit, it still detracts a little from the purpose of the article.  If there's a way to trim it down somewhat, I think it will all flow better.  Also, perhaps we should make a seperate section to explain the 'Fat Buddha' thing?  It seems that part isn't emphasized enough.  Thanks!  --Ph0kin 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shuffled pictures around 

message: 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
:Heh, I agree the life of Gautama Buddha shouldn't be in the article. On the other hand, you might note that it wasn't visible in the article until you put it there; see  and . As far as merging Buddha-nature into this page, I'm not sure that's a good idea: Buddha-nature is a complicated subject that is substantial enough for its own article. Also, your edits regarding Dharmakaya seem confusing. Is a Hotei statue really a representation of Dharmakaya? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with Nat on this one.  This article needs to be as general as possible since Buddha as a concept is very broad, so I have taken out references to Buddha-nature and Dharmakaya, and have de-emphasized some of the Mahayana-specific statements in the article.  Lastly, I removed some of the recently added text to "Buddha statue" section.  I did like the re-arranging of some sections, and have kept that in place.  Please be mindful of grammar and spelling as there were a number of mistakes left in the article by recent additions.  These too were corrected.  --Ph0kin 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of Gautama Buddha 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What this article needs to be 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "Cleanup Tag" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia Commons

message: 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)
thread_title: Buddha: God or Man ?

message: '32 marks mentioned in the Pali canon' - also the Mahayana - many references in the Lotus Sutra. Rentwa 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Markings

message: 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.
:"In Buddhism, a Buddha (Sanskrit, Pāli) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened), has permanently overcome greed, hate, and ignorance, and has achieved complete liberation from suffering. Enlightenment (or Nirvana (Pali: Nibbana) is the highest form of happiness. It only applies to the first one who has achieved this without prior knowledge of Buddhism. When all knowledge of Buddhism is lost and one becomes enlightened then we have a true Buddha"
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)
replies: text: With a bit of sleuthing, one finds this edit, which introduced the contradictory statement in August. Apparently, this editor disagreed with the first sentence of the article, but, rather than change it, decided to add a new sentence contradicting it. As it stands, the article is giving incorrect information to its readers. I'm sure this is probably the first time that's ever happened on Wikipedia.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in the first paragraph?

message: 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)
thread_title: Gautama Buddha

message: Please add this to the article: be:Буда 80.94.234.235 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: be-interwiki

message: 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)
thread_title:  otherwise are the same 

message: 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/
:I agree that we could do with a better image. What is the source of the image you link to above?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, Taipei, Taiwan" Dhammapal 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Quality Buddha image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links