Talk:Types of Buddha

message: Somebody reverted me on Arhat, and asked me to come here. Personally I think talk:arhat is a better place, but why argue needlessly? I am here, speak your peace (oh, and be aware, I'm not a buddha ;). Sam [Spade] 19:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo 

message: I've done some copyediting to this article, fixing a number of grammarical, spelling, and clarity errors. I've tried not to disturb the content, though in a few cases I've had to rearrange sentences and rewrite sections to enhance clarity. If someone better versed in buddhist tradition wouldn't mind scanning my changes to make sure I didn't inadvertantly change the meaning of something, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Phidauex 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several factual issues, but I will address both shortly. Thanks for your work (20040302 12:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited 

message: The hyphenation of samyaksambuddha as "samyaksam-buddha" is wrong, both in terms of spelling and as a guide to etymology.  It wrongly implies that there is an element "samyaksam".  Actually there are two layers of compounding here:
# Sam+buddha = "perfectly enlightened" (from sambudhyate "know perfectly") = sambuddha
# Samyañc+sambuddha = "thoroughly perfectly enlightened one" = samyaksambuddha
A prefix like "sam" is normally considered an integral part of the word it is attached to.  So you could hyphenate "samyak-sambuddha", but not "samyaksam-buddha".  It is better not to have any hyphen at all, though.RandomCritic 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: If no evidence of the Mahayana use of the term Savakabuddha is forthcoming, I think it will be appropriate to take out the reference to Mahayana scriptures which mention Savakabuddha. Greetings, Sacca 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly OT but FWIW here's a reference for the Theravada use case mentioned in the article, which was news to me: "The Upāsakajanālaṅkāra, a Pali treatise dealing with the ethics for the lay Buddhist, written in the twelfth century by a Thera called Ānanda in the Theravada tradition of the Mahāvihāra at Anurādhapura, Śrī Laṅkā, says...that when a disciple attains Bodhi (Enlightenment), he is called Sāvaka-Buddha (Skt. Śrāvaka-Buddha). A disciple, even without the attainment of Bodhi, if exceptionally well versed in the Tipiṭaka, is sometimes referred to as a Suta-Buddha, which means 'a Buddha (an enlightened one) by learning'—obviously a courtesy title in respectful recognition of his deep erudition in the Buddha's teaching (DA III (PTS), p745; MA I, Tripiṭaka Publication Press, Columbo 1933, p209)" Walpola Rahula, "The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda and Mahāyāna", as published in Zen & the Taming of the Bull (subtitle) Toward a Definition of Buddhist Thought, Gordon Fraser, 1978, p75; the semtence ending with the words Śrāvaka-Buddha is footnoted and cites "Upāsakajanālaṅkāra (PTS), p340". --munge 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Savakabuddha

message: In the "Teaching and Studying" section, the following is erroneously stated of the Mahayana: "the three types of Buddha correspond to different programs of skillful means (upāya) or expedient practices. Notably, chapter 3 of the Mahāyāna Lotus Sutra compares the three types of Buddha to three vehicles". It does not! The Buddha nowhere in that sutra speaks of "three types of Buddha", nor does he say in that parable that the people who travel in the three different carriages are "Buddhas" or that the three carriages correspond to Buddhas. Nor does Mahayana generally speak of "three types of Buddha" (i.e. Mahayana does NOT generally, if at all, speak of a "sravakabuddha"). So I propose to delete the sentence above in the coming days, unless good, sound evidential support can be adduced for its retention. Best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted this egregious error since, as Tony says, this notion is NOT found in the LS -- nor anywhere else in any Mahayana sutra I have ever read.--Stephen Hodge 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Portrayal of Lotus Sutra 

message: What does mainstream mean? Some scholars use it as yet another synonym for Hinayana/Sravakayana/conservative/early/Nikaya/sectarian/... Is it an acceptable term in Wikipedia at all? It seems to me to suggest that other, unspecified forms of Buddhism are marginal/fringe, which would seem to violate neutrality. Peter jackson 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream?