Talk:Buddhahood

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I agree with moving the section  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New article based on "Depictions of the Buddha in art" scion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maintaining articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Peter - Excellent!  Thanks so much! - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit for buddhatta, buddhabhāva, and sammā sambuddha ? 

message: It says that Indonesian Buddhism believes in God.  Is anyone willing to expand upon this further? 77.98.26.117 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian Buddhism 

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

message: please add: he:בודהה (מושג). Daniel B (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  please 

message: Black Buddha, Changing the Face of American Buddhism by Lama Choyin Rangdrul.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.74 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.190 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.225 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.112 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: *
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.112 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title: Protection

message: *Dr. Yutang Lin: The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion
"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 -- 88.75.95.50 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: On Buddhahood, generally speaking

message: 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 74.194.243.221 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is Budai. Mitsube (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Traits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There is even a [webforum] where this question  has been posted. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahayana Buddhism and the ''Savakabuddha'' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changed order of the article

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dharma vs dhamma

message: Mrspaceowl has three times removed the following sourced info from the lead:
turning the sentence into
* diff edit-summary 
* revert by JJ edit-summary 
* diff edit-summary 
* revert by JJ edit-summary 
* diff edit-summary 
Source: Gethin, Rupert (1998), The foundations of Buddhism (1. publ. paperback ed.). Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. pp. 224–234. P.228:
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)
replies: text: Thanks Joshua Jonathan. yes disruption of text-source integrity is not allowed.  JimRenge (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahayana versus Theravada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sanskrit Devanagari equivalences being replaced by Brahmi. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion