Talk:Buddhahood

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))

Could someone knowledgeable add a section on the indentification and significance of the different postures of the Buddha in statuary, particularlt his hand positions - Buddha descending from heaven, Buddha subduing Mara etc etc? This would serve to enlighten the humble traveller as he tramps through the un-air-conditioned Bangkok Museum. Adam 12:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really knowledgeable, but I tried adding a little something in the hopes that someone else that actually knows what they are talking about will pick up on it and go with it. The prose could probably use some work and almost none of the resources I found listed asanas in a useful manner. So it's pretty slanted towards mudras right now. At least it's something. →Reene ^✎ 00:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Articles about images

I recently noticed that we have an article, Buddharupa, about Buddha images, which is more or less orphaned. We also have a long article on Buddhist art, which is mostly historical, and some text about Buddha images on this page, Buddha. I'm open to suggestions as to what is the most optimal way to organize the information across different pages. - Nat Kraus e 17:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I get home (I am currently in Hanoi) I intend researching and writing a proper article about the iconography of the Buddha, especially his hand positions (see above), and also the different national traditions of depicting the Buddha. If the article Buddharupa is relevant to that I will incorporate it. Adam

bodhisattvas - beings committed to Enlightenment, who vow to

(from the Nikaya view) postpone their own Nirvana in order to assist others on the path, or
(from the Mahayana view) secure Awakening/Nirvana for themselves first and thereafter continue to liberate all other beings from suffering for all time.

User:Sunborn reverted this. Let me explain.

The Nikaya doctrine of nirvana-without-remainder means that there is no difference (after death) between a sravaka-buddha and a samyaksam-buddha, and most significantly, there is no ability for any type of buddha to benefit others after death. Therefore, as we are currently in the world of Shakyamuni, the only option for students of Shakyamuni is to achieve sravaka-buddhahood, or if one is to be a Bodhisattva, (like Maitreya), to postpone nirvana until one has manifested as a samyaksam-buddha.

Mahayana buddhism has a distinct doctrine (see eg. Lotus sutra) of nirvana-without-remainder, and so therefore there is a distinction between the sravaka-buddhas who are at peace, therefore not initially engaged in benefitting others (after death), and the samyaksam-buddhas who are actively engaged in benefitting others for all time. For the Mahayana it makes no sense to talk about postponing Nirvana, because they do not assert the same doctrine of nirvana-without-remainder as the Nikaya schools. (20040302 08:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I must state I know not as much about the bodhisttava of the Mahayana tradition. However, the word in bodhisattva in Theravada, last of the Nikaya schools, means only one thing, "Buddha-to-be". It is used only to reference the Shakyamuni Buddha before he became a Buddha. It is important to know that Buddha also has a limited context. "Buddha" means self-enlightened. This means that there can be no Buddha as long as there is a Buddhism. Sometime in the future, Buddhism will not exist. All things are impermanent, after all. When another self-enlightened being will come and share the Dhamma once again. This is the Buddha-to-be, bodhisttava Maitreya. Therefore there can be no other Buddhas or Bodhisttavas anywhere else unless discussing the far future or distant past. --metta, The Sunborn 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunborn, thanks for replying. It appears clear that you are somewhat familiar with the term bodhisattva from within the Theravada - though, your etymology is not very good. My point above concerns the ability of a Buddha after parinirvana - which is identified by the Nikaya as being nirvana-without-remainder. Most importantly, within the Nikaya, a Buddha is not able to directly point the way to nirvana after death. This is a major distinction between Nikaya and the Mahayana, who conversely, state that once a (Samyaksam)Buddha arises, s/he continues to directly, actively point the way to nirvana for all time. I do not disagree with you concerning the status or nature of a SamyaksamBuddha. My position was concerned with what happens after that Buddha 'dies' and enters into Parinirvana. The Nikaya/Mahayana views differ, and this is exactly why the Mahayana do not talk about a bodhisattva postponing nirvana, and exactly why the Nikaya do. I am therefore reinserting the distinction into the article.

To make myself redundantly clear: Within Nikaya, Maitreya has chosen to postpone his Nirvana in order to introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists. While, within Mahayana schools, Maitreya will also be the next Buddha manifest in this world and introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists, however, he is not postponing his Nirvana to do so. Moreover, Mahayana argues that although it is true that for this world-system, Maitreya is the next Buddha to manifest, there are an infinite number of world-systems, many of which have currently active Buddhas, or Buddhas-to-be manifesting. This latter point is not relavant to the central point of the change in the article, which is primarily that, based on the Nikaya/Mahayana doctrinal distinction of the meaning of nirvana-without-remainder, we see too distinct views concerning the path of the bodhisattva, with the Nikaya stating that Bodhisattvas postpone their own Nirvana, whereas the Mahayana schools (maybe not the FWBO, but they should speak for themselves on this) stating that Bodhisattvas attempt to reach Nirvana as soon as possible, (just like Nikaya Sravakas do), but with the motive to continue to effortlessly benefit all beings for all time (due to the distinction of ability of a Buddha after death).

If you are still not clear about what I am talking about, please explain to me your understanding (from the Theravada view) of what abilities an arhat has after death, specifically the ability to benefit others through teaching and showing examples. As I understand it, (and I could be wrong), the Theravada view is that an arhat (including Buddha) after death has no ability to directly benefit sentient beings. This one point is in direct contrast to Mahayana doctrine, which states that a SamyaksamBuddha (such as Lord Sakyamuni Buddha) is able to continue to benefit sentient beings through teaching and showing examples for all time. A consequence of the Mahayana school's views is that they assert that Lord Sakyamuni continues to teach right now. If I am mistaken regarding the Theravada view, please forgive me and explain carefully and with detail the view that is held regarding the abilities of such great beings after death. (20040302 02:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Buddhist quotes

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 Kraus e 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

. Nat, I agree with you about the quotes. Giving quotations in an encyclopaedic article can be very useful and valid, and I think that the inserter of these quotes was potentially doing good work here; but these quotes are way-too numerous and not at all unified or integrated into the main article, and many of the quotes also constitute dubious translations; furthermore, many are not even from or about the Buddha (which is, after all, the subject of this particular entry). There are even alleged quotes "from the Buddha" which I am personally suspicious of (although it may well be that I have simply not yet come across these statements in my own study of the suttas/sutras): for example, "You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection". This sounds pretty un-Buddhist to me. It smacks more of "New Age" syncretism and self-love! But I am open to correction, if I am wrong. It is interesting to note in passing, perhaps, that the common practice of beginning the "Brahma-viharas" (of friendliness, compassion, shared joy, and equanimity) by directing friendliness etc. first of all towards oneself seems not to have its basis in any words from the Buddha (as far as I have been able to ascertain through study of the main suttas/ sutras). But again, I may simply be speaking from a position of ignorance here. Anyway, I do think the quotes should either be reduced to the really relevant ones on the Buddha (or the state of Buddhahood), or else re-directed to other more appropriate areas of "Buddhism" on Wiki, as you suggest. Best wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Birth

There is no citation of his mothers name or virgin birth status, yet this person is cited in the virgin birth listing of Wikipedia. Can someone please extrapolate in the article on his birth, mother and estimated years with a reference or two? Jachin 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where I should write this info so I am putting it here and if you like it, you can cut and paste it to the main article: Before the birth of the Buddha, his mother, Queen Maya, had a dream that an elephant descended from the heavens and melted into her body. Shortly thereafter she became pregnant. Based on this, there was a short-lived legend that the Buddha was born of immaculate conception, from a virgin. The Buddha insisted that he was just a man, not a god or son of god. It is interesting that many religious leaders have this legend attributed to them to help elevate their status.

YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT HE IS INDIAN

LOOK ALOT OF PEOPLE TO THIS DAY STILL THINK BUDDHA WAS CHINESE, OR JAPANESE, OR SOME KINDA OF MONGOLIAN/ASIAN DECENT...AND I THINK THATS REALLY SAD AND TAKES AWAY THE TRUTH OF HIM...HE WAS INDIAN WASNT HE? HE WAS A KASATRIYA FROM NORTHERN INDIA! WHEN I EDIT THAT HE LIVED IN INDIA, WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING THAT? I AM NOT EDITING YOUR ENTIRE PAGE, I AM JUST SAYING THAT HE LIVED IN INDIA! IS THAT SO WRONG? ARYAN818 02:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kraus e 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

chinese character for the buddha.

it would be a bright idea if someone were to add the traditional and simplified chinese characters representing the buddha.

The noble Truths

Cleanup

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)[reply]

Also, the 32 marks of the Buddha should be removed. This is meaningless and not important to the study or history of the historical Buddha. This is mentioned in one later sutra (discourse) to help elevate his status among the less educated and is a rarely used or talked about sutra in temples among Buddhists or non-Buddhists, for that matter.

This article is not about "the historical Buddha." There have been and will be many Buddhas. deeptrivia (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is about the historical Buddha. This article is not about the definition of a buddha or enlightened one, but is quite clear that it is about Sidhartha Gotama, the historical Buddha. Read the article first before making suggestions.

I agree that the part on the 32 marks would be best removed. They come from an out-of-the-way attempt in the Digha Nikaya to give the traditional Indian idea of the '32 marks of a superior being' some ethical content, but they really are a bit of an oddity and little referenced either by Buddhists or non-Buddhists. Their appearance so far up the page gives the impression that they are a prominent part of the idea of Buddhahood.

All the best

Alan

Vandal

Repeated copyrighted-violations by flying-account vandal User:AVNER, User:ADON, User:CARNASSUS. The copyrighted text is from [1]. 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)[reply]

Dispute

On what basis these people branded Buddha as Hindu? As per the available Buddhist texts Buddha born in Sakya Tribe in Lumbini, Nepal he gat enlightment at Bodhgaya, India. 2500 years back Going back to the sixth century B.C., Northern India did not form a single Sovereign State. There were different Tribes ruling separate small Kingdoms. There was no country as such India. Like today we have hundreds of tribes in Africa Continent. Same thing with Siddhartha Gautama. He born in some tribe known Sakya tribe or Sakya Kula that is the only available information about him Who told you that he was Hindu? If everybody is Hindu then do you call Jesus as Hindu? Paigamber as Hindu? Please remove all refernce that Buddha was Hindu! He was not a Hindu Price these Bhangi-Brahmins so-called Hindus keep branding anybody as Hindu.

The Sakya tribe is generally accepted as being of the warrior caste (ksatriya) otherwise, there would have been no reason for Siddhartha to be given the Brahmin clan name Gautama. While Northern India at the time was indeed composed of many distinct kingdoms, the area itself was under Aryan suzerainty, lending greater credence to the view that the Buddha was born into the Hindu religion. I think it wise to remove the dispute. S.N. Hillbrand 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, hasn't he already renounced his caste and prince-hood, and in fact DENOUNCED the caste system?

This is a useless discussion. The word Hindu literally means Indian, and that was the only meaning until the first census was done in India in the 18th/19th century, when a need was felt to coin a term for Indic religions. There were hundreds of different schools of thought clubbed together as Hinduism. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were not included within this term simply because of large number of adherents of these schools of thought. There is no point in discussing whether Buddha was a Hindu, even after his enlightenment. There was no such concept at that time. He never launched a "new religion" either. Of course he spoke against many Vedic practices, but so have hundreds of other "Hindu" sages. Even the Bhagvad Gita speaks at many places of rejecting Vedic rituals. Many Hindu sages have condemned the caste system and even the existence of God. IMHO, all these concepts of defining one relgion as opposed to another comes from a different bunch of religions, and should not be imposed on Eastern religions. deeptrivia (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originalist distinctions that you make are confusing for the reason that readers unfamiliar with how you define the term Hindu in opposition to its current definition would be unable to correctly parse your usage. I believe the question put by the original poster was whether Shakyamuni was born to a Hindu family and thus raised in the Brahmic orthopraxy. This would indeed be an important question given the Buddha's antinomian proclamations. As to the grouping of religions, this is done primarily on a shared belief and is equally useful in eastern versus western religions. You will always have some 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)[reply]