Talk:The Buddha/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Buddhist 'theology' 

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title:  New name for article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Questionable content removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Did Lord Buddha believe in Brahman of not?

message: Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment