Talk:Buddha (disambiguation)

"fat buddha"; 3 Types of Buddha?

I have been trying to find information on the fat buddha statue that I commonly see in cultural shops. I've heard it refered to as buddha, but does not at all resemble siddhartha so I assume it is a different person. I hope im not being too vague in my description, and what I have in mind is recognised. I advise that this person's article has a link when "buddha" is searched, if it doesnt already; or correct me if im mistaken. considering my ignorance - edit this at will

The 'Fat Buddha' in Chinese tradition is called 'Bu Dai Hu Shan', it's either of a certain monk in ancient China or of Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be or the next Buddha. It's not Gotama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The historical Buddha at the time of his awakening would probably have still been extremely emaciated, as according to the scriptures he had only stopped his extreme fasting a week ago.

Also, I just changed "Nikaya" Buddhism to "Sravakayana" which is the polite name for Hinayana, of which Theravada is the most well known school. "Nikaya" means either a 'division' of the scriptures or a 'school' amongst the early schools. So "Nikaya" Buddhism could mean either: the Buddhism which relies on the Nikayas/ Agamas or 'sectarian' Buddhism, neither of which is probably exactly what whoever wrote it meant. Bhikkhu Santi 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sravakayana is not a correct term, since the bodhisattva path exists within Theravada.

Can anyone cite an authority for the statement that many Mahayana & Vajrayana Buddhists recognize 3 types of Buddhas? Peter jackson 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"celestial buddha"

In the line regarding Amitabha, it references a "celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism." Does "celestial buddha" here refer to those Buddhas described in the Five Dhyani Buddhas article? If so, can we wikipipe "celestial buddha" to that article (and perhaps a redirect page would be of benefit)? Thanks for any edification! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "celestial Buddha" is a more generic term than that, and probably a somewhat vague, modern English term, with no direct equivalent in Sanskrit or Pāli. The contents of Jan Nattier's recent book on the Ugraparipṛcchā mentions both "celestial buddhas" and "celestial bodhisattvas". After I read it, I'll let you know if those chapters have something specifically to do with the five dhyani buddhas, but I suspect it normally just refers to the (typically Mahāyānic) concept of the buddhas as supramundane entities.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks so much Nat! & Happy New Year :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This Sucks

(............)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.71.246 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 

Budha

I have removed the option

* Budha, in Hindu mythology, is the name for the planet Mercury

from the text, as this has nothing to do with Buddha. NikNovi (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring such an entry, since it is a mistake that will occasionally be made: If you see "Budha" and intend to look it up later, there's an excellent chance you'll misspell it. And that's what "See also" sections on Dab pages are for.
--Jerzy•t 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There've been even worse mistakes. One bibliography on Buddhism includes a work on Buda, the city later amalgamated with Pest. Peter jackson (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: Requested renaming of Buddha (general)

This is just FYI; we would like that renaming be the last one, so we decided to ask more people. — Sebastian 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Prose

In the current two paragraphs of the accompanying prose article, i bypassed the Rdrs and unlkd the subsequent rdrs to Gautama Buddha, which should always be done in articles. Alert to sensitivities, i neglected two matters:

1. The article bodhi is lk'd twice, once piped as "enlightenment". That is disconcerting at best to the user who follows both of them, but the remedy is not quite a no-brainer, and i wanted to stick to no-brainers. The natural solution is with no lk:

   ... bodhi (meaning "enlightenment"), ...

2. The current piping [[Gautama Buddha in religions other than Buddhism|Buddha (other religions)]] is the result of my converting the name of the Rdr lk to piping that hides the lk to the target of the Rdr, preserving the displayed text. The displayed text is clunky, confusing, and (by using a Dab-sfx'd title) cryptic. The probably remedy is to reverse the order of the two lks in that sentence, and change the piping from "Buddha (other religions)" to "Buddha in other religions" -- even tho what we're doing is presumably to hide either the fact that the target also covers Hindu views, or the fact that the target is mistitled. This is another non-no-brainer.

--Jerzy•t 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I hesitate to remove them, but aren't these basically self-promotion? --Michael White^T·C 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Siddharta ?

A recent anon edit — which appears to have been more mischievous than well-intentioned — replaced "Gautama" with "Siddharta." Given the overall appearance of mischief (or perhaps nonsense? e.g., replacing "Buddhahood" with "Buddhism") and the anon editor's prior vandalism in another article, I reverted this change. Nonetheless, I think the term "Siddharta" should be represented on this page given its high recognition value (e.g., based on my limited experience, I think that most Theravada/vipassana-oriented readers would likely recognize this name instead of "Buddha Gautama," not to mention the Herman Hesse crowd). As an example of how it might be done, here's how the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica does it:

Buddha

founder of Buddhism

clan name (Sanskrit) Gautama or (Pali) Gotama , personal name (Sanskrit) Siddhartha or (Pali) Siddhatta

(Sanskrit: “awakened one”)[1]

Pertaining to this item, we currently have:

• Gautama Buddha or Buddha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism

How'd y'all feel about something like:

• Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama) and personal name Siddhartha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhatta)

(I see we have something similar in the prior incarnation of this page here.) I'm concerned that such a line might be considered too verbose for WP:MOSDAB. Thus any other suggestions on how to incorporate "Siddharta"/"Siddhatta"? Any objections from our MOSDAB experts on the suggested change?

Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week and no objections have been raised, so I'm going to implement the above momentarily. If anyone subsequently has any concerns, please discuss them here. If there is a concern (e.g., due to the modified line's length), please attempt to identify an alternate manner in which the above desire for the inclusion of "Siddhartha" can be accommodated. Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Now that there appears to be a consensus that Buddha should be a disambiguation page, that implies that most links to Buddha on other pages are ambiguous, and should be corrected. Editors interested in and knowledgeable about this topic are invited to help correct these links to point to the correct substantive article. For more details, see WP:DPL. --Russ (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

???????

this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.140.84 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

About fixing links to this page

Quick question that I think I know the answer to, but just need some clarification on. In a sentence like "blah blah blah statues of Buddha", would that go to Gautama Buddha, or Buddharupa? I'm thinking the former, but I guess it could be either. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quickly: it depends on the context.

Not so quickly: I think it depends what is being emphasized in the article. If it has a picture of a statue, then a link to Buddharupa might be most helpful to readers. In addition, if the article is about a Buddha statue in East Asia or Tibet, then the Buddha being represented might not be Gautama Buddha. (Frankly, the work you're doing now [thanks for doing it, BTW] I've done sporadically in the past and I found that there were times when it was just unclear what "Buddha" actually refers to in some articles.)

Very slowly: One of these days (probably after I merge a designated section of Buddhahood into Buddharupa), I'm gonna likely suggest that the bulk of Buddharupa be moved to Buddha statue (which is currently a redirect to Buddharupa) because my gut feeling is that buddha-rupa (which is Sanskrit/Pali) is a Theravadan term and question its generalization to Mahayana representations of the Buddha. (If anyone has any knowledge about this last item, I'd appreciate your sharing it. Thanks!)

Sorry if this just totally wasted your time. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that helps. I find it's easier to just make some basic rules, like if it's "the Buddha" then it goes to Gautama, if it's "a Buddha statue", it goes to buddharupa, Buddhahood is a nice each-way bet for the really ambiguous ones, and if I'm wrong, the blame is ultimately on the person who wrote the sentence for not being clear enough in what they were referring to. That's usually how this stuff works. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The following information about Buddha in Islam has nothing to do with Buddhahood. Its content is from the Qu'ran which is about an Text found in the Sura. It belongs in the religion section as seperate from all religons and own creteria view.--Mujahideen54 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mujahideen54 -

Are you talking about the recently inserted, reverted, inserted, reverted, inserted following text:

In Islam, the Arabic text Bath, Batha and Tabaath is found in the Qu'ran 62:2 Sura Al-Jumua [1] [2] and is believed to be refering to Buddha.[3] The origin of the word Buddha in Arabic is; of descent, or he roused him, and put into action. [4]

First, let me say that, as a Buddhist, I find what you write to be very interesting and I am grateful for your sharing it with us on Wikipedia (WP). Beyond additional knowledge per se, your sharing cross-religious and cross-cultural insights is a thing to be applauded. Thank you so much again.

I was wondering if you would mind if I did explore the issue of where this text might best serve the WP community. I see the highly praiseworthy User:Nat Krause has expressed concern when reverting this text. I'd like to see if we could discuss some of this matter more fully here, with the hope of reaching communal consensus.

1. I think Mujahideen54 that you raise an interesting point about the "Religion" header being perhaps problemmatic. While I think it was initially thought to apply largely to "Buddhism," clearly it should allow for the inclusion of non-Buddhist material. Thus, if one wanted to keep this section of the article simply Buddhist, might it be worthwhile changing the sectional header to "Buddhism"?
2. This article, as indicated by its structure and the above talk page entries, is a WP disambiguation (dab) page. Thus, given it's title, it should only reference major denotations of the word "Buddha." For me, intuitively perhaps, I would think that all secondary, derived or tangential information should be included in the referenced articles, not here. Thus, for instance, does the above text have clear WP significance unto itself or is its significance really related to the notion of "the Buddha" (Gautama Buddha)?
3. The core of this dab page -- referencing Gautama Buddha, Buddhahood and Buddharupa -- is based on a survey of multiple external (external to WP) reliable resources (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica) to see what they refer to when they define "Buddha." Most (if not all?) of theses sources are identified at Talk:Gautama_Buddha#Other_on-line_encyclopedia.27s_.22Buddha.22_entries. Please review the findings here. If I may ask, can you see that Qu'ran reference cited in the above text does not seem to be identified as significant by these sources when defining the word "Buddha" per se.

For these reasons, I'd like to suggest two things:

1. Consider rewording the aforementioned header from "Religion" to perhaps "Buddhism"?
2. Identify the best WP space in which to insert this valuable reference you have provided from the Qu'ran. Nat has suggested Buddhahood. I'm wondering if the Gautama Buddha article might be a worthwhile alternative.

Any thoughts?

With metta,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may share an additional thought: It might be worthwhile considering the aforementioned inserted/reverted text as two separate statements. For instance, my personal intuition is that the first sentence (re: Qu'ranic references to Bath, Batha and Tabaath) might best serve our WP community in the Gautama Buddha article (unless, like Nat suggests, it refers to the general notion of "a Buddha" in which case it should likely go in Buddhahood). The second sentence (re: the Arabic word "Buddha") might best stay here on this dab page, perhaps under a header "In Islam" (assuming a parallel header of "In Buddhism" is created for the other material to go under); or, for such to be justified here, would a separate WP article (e.g., "Buddha (Arabic)") first need to exist? Just some more thoughts. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If any changes in my opinion would be to change the (Religion) section into (In Buddhism) and for other views an seperate column could be discoverd. However it leads to the same meaning --PadmaDharma101 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, PadmaDharma writes: "You perhaps do not understand ? That article Buddha is an Disambiguation and could refer to anything that means Buddha. If you want to change the section by adding (In Buddhism) go for it however if it's under (religon) then the text of Islam goes under Religion its common sense." The point here is that disambiguation pages are supposed to link to other articles. The text in question is not a link to another page. So, if this material were fit for Wikipedia, we would need to figure out which article it belongs in and then link to it from this page. I don't think it's necessary to discuss the layout of this page until we get to that point.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padma and Nat!

Padma, I can understand your desire and, frankly, I see that there is precedence for it. At a prior instantiation of this dab page (here), there was in fact a header, "In Buddhism." I also agree with Nat insomuch that I think there is value in only making changes to articles when merited (e.g., to foster long-term stability) and I guess Nat is focusing us again on the merit of the inserted/reverted/inserted/reverted/inserted text. I apologize then for my perhaps putting the cart before the horse.

I think the inserted text contains two significantly different types of information, so I'd like to explore their merits independently. I'm gonna create two subheaders below to facilitate this. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bath, Batha, Tabaath

The first inserted/reverted sentence reads:

In Islam, the Arabic text Bath, Batha and Tabaath is found in the Qu'ran 62:2 Sura Al-Jumua and is believed to be refering to Buddha.

The (hidden) references are:

1. The Qu'ran, Sura 62:2
2. http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/06201.htm
3. Maulana Abdul Haque Vidyarti, Muhammad in World Scriptures Vol 3 pg.1007

So, it appears to me that the reason that this sentence is pertinent to the word "Buddha" is because it identifies a possible referent in the Qu'ran to the Buddha (or a buddha?). Since this article is about definitions of the word "Buddha" per se — and not about the historical/mythic Buddha or other buddhas — it seems to me that this sentence is inappropriate for this article. It should go in the appropriate article (e.g., possibly Gautama Buddha or Buddhahood). Right? Does this make sense? This dab page is about the word "Buddha" and contains pointers to articles that then provide meanings to this word. The above sentence alludes to the meaning of "Buddha" as Gautama Buddha (or, again, perhaps Buddhahood, still not clear to me from the sentence :-) ). Perhaps in terms of semantic cohesion, it would best fit in Gautama Buddha in world religions? What do y'all think? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddha (Arabic)

The second inserted/reverted sentence reads:

The origin of the word Buddha in Arabic is; of descent, or he roused him, and put into action.

The (hidden) reference is:

4. Buddha Foretels The Advent of Muhammad

Here this sentence does in fact provide a new instance of the word "Buddha," separate from the existing denotations (of Gautama Buddha, Buddhahood, Buddharupa, etc.). I think the next question becomes whether or not every instantiation of this word is worthy of an entry on this WP dab page. For example, I previously mentioned one prior suggestion, that an entry be identified as a noteworthy instance of the word in another reliable source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, dictionaries from Oxford University Press, etc. Nat mentioned the matter of each entry on this dab page being associated with an individual WP article (e.g., Buddah Records, Buddha Air, etc.). This sentence appears to fail to meet either of these suggested standards. Perhaps if not worthy of an entry in the WP encyclopedia, might it be worth an entry in the Wiktionary (here)? Does the need for encyclopedic significance make sense? Thanks for your continued civil discourse, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The text from the Qu'ran still belongs into the Buddha Disamb cause its an summary of the text found in the Qu'ran Sura Al-Jumua (62:2 and in the end Tabath) theres also an next text in the Quran. The book Muhammad in World Scriptures is available online in PDF [[2]]. Plus theres references for claims in that book cause its under religion studies and is an information book. Theres another book from my library its more useful and also provides references from Sanskrit University graduates/scholars/teachers. Leads to almost same information. --PadmaDharma101 (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure I follow you. Summaries of text from various sources generally do not belong on this disambiguation page.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padma - it sounds to me like you are advocating for the authority of the first sentence regarding the term Bath, etc., in the Qu'ran. I think we can all agree that the Qu'ran contains such a reference and that there are texts that indicate or state that such a term refers to the historical Buddha (Buddha Gautama). I think we can all agree to this.

I think the thing that Nat, myself and User:Closedmouth are questioning is whether or not such (very interesting) information belongs on a dab page. For instance, the following is excerpted from WP:dab:

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.... There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation.... [D]isambiguation pages [are] non-article pages that contain no content and only refer users to other Wikipedia pages."

So, again, this is a disambiguation (dab) page. It is to contain no real "content," only links to other WP articles. The information that you provide from the Qu'ran is "content" regarding the historical Buddha and thus, from our perspective, should not be on this page. Does this make any more sense? Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddha Arabic is the correct article to define Buddha. Cause it has its own meaning in Arabic.--Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi source does not say anything about an Arabic term, "Buddha". It mentions the terms "bath, batha and tabaath". Are we to have an article on those words? I suggest Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your attention is weak. It clearly says, In fact Buddha is an Arabic word, Bath Batha and Tabaath means he roused him, excited him, or put him in motion or action. Baethun and Beath mean a man whos anxieties or griefs awake him from sleep.

The Quran says about Muhammad - He it is who raised Baatha among the illeterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages ....

you perhaps did not read the whole passage and must have a weak knowledge of the Qu'ran because Buddha is of Arabic origin that has its own meaning and terminology. It is Commonly mentioned in many areas of the Qu'ran. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps your attention is weak." Why lead with insults? In fact, I checked your source (here, page 49), and it does not say what you say it does. It says, "In fact the origin of this word is the Arabic word Bath, Batha, and Tabaath meaning he roused him, excited him, or put him in motion" (emphasis mine). This does not say that "Buddha" is an Arabic word, it says that its origin is the word bath, batha, or tabaath. If "Buddha" is an Arabic word, please produce an Arabic dictionary which lists this word.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however it still needs to be mentioned that "the origin of the word Buddha is derived from the Arabic text Batha, tabaath etc... " in some page, because the text Buddha is directed to this DAB page and the Etymology is not mentioned. the page Buddha (Arabic) could define the Arabic root with all three meanings and the mentionings in the Quran. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not every word needs to have its etymology listed in Wikipedia, and they aren't usually listed in disambiguation pages. Etymologies are relevant only in context of something else which is relevant. An additional problem is that this proposed etymology is highly implausible. You would need to provide additional sources before it could be included.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Buddha has it own term and meaning in Arabic so to define this word will be useful on the Wikitionary however to describe some passages of the Qu'ran and the meaning of this word will also be useful. The word Buddha and the Etymology of the word Buddha will be useful until this DAB becomes an information article about the word Buddha and defines a Buddha. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If "Buddha" is a word in Arabic, then please produce an Arabic dictionary which lists this word.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Other Buddhas

If this is a dab, as the discussion above seems to imply, then most of this section should not be here. The word "Buddha" can be used in a general sense to mean "anyone who's attained Buddhahood". However, in the context of a dab, the current layout implies that "Buddha" can mean specifically

• Amitabha (probably true)
• Vairocana (possibly true)
• Bhaishajyaguru (almost certainly not true)
• ...

Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt this Dab mean anything that defines Buddha ? If so then that Arabic content should be posted. Theres an book listed above and it states the word Buddha is acutally of Arabic origin. and says The arabic word Buddha means he roused him, excited him, put him in motion or action. Baethun and Beath mean a man whose anxities or griefs awake him from sleep. and then

The quran says about Muhammad " He it is who raised Ba'atha (Buddha) among the illiterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages and purifies them and teaches them book and wisdom, although they were before in manifest error, - Refers to Gauthama

Buddha also means the one who completed knowledge of righteousness. - In the Quran

and it further says the term Buddha is used throughout the Quran in various areas.

My opinion is that the word Buddha has its own sense and terminology in Arabic. However the first prophecy "aroused and put in action" refers to an Sakya Muni Gautama

Theres another section that compares Muhammad and Gauthama Buddha and leads to the sayn in the Qu'ran " It is he who rose Baatha " etc ... so that probably defines the the sura 62 however Buddha is also used through out the Quran with its own meaning. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddha (Arabic) ---- Would define and solve many issues --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But, as stated above, Buddha isn't an Arabic word. Rather, there's a word in the Qur'an bearing some resemblance to it that some Muslims have interpreted as referring to the Buddha (tho' there's no mention of this idea in the translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall). The proper place for that is in Gautama Buddha in world religions#Islam. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Define Buddha

This article should soon be upto Wiki Standards by adding the Defintion of a Buddha and the Basic Prophicies to claim the title 'Buddha' . On top of the page could be the Buddha (DAB) that could lead to the other meanings such as Buddha Airline or other Buddhas. --Anandveer (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The sort of material you're talking about belongs in Buddhahood, not here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even, Buddhahood is the term for companionship. The actual term 'Buddha' has its own meaning as well. You cant say Brotherhood means Brother the two have seperate meanings. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Brotherhood" and "brother" are two different words which would have separate entries in a dictionary. But, in an encyclopaedia, they are the same subject.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've just deleted "Pronounced "boo-DEE", as in "Judy"." because it's nonsensical. Judy isn't pronounced "joo-DEE" by anyone as far as I know. Could someone who knows about this sort it out please? Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Buddhas ctd

As I've had no disagreement (or agreement) for over a week, I've gone ahead & deleted most entries. It seems highly unlikely that "Buddha" ever means any of these. It's like having a dab for king & including a list of kings. Pure Land Budhists probably use Buddha to mean Amitabha, & Shingon perhaps for Vairocana, so I've left those for now. Peter jackson (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since both of those are on the list of Buddhas page, I've deleted them and just left a link to that page Dakinijones (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be merged with Buddhahood

...but currently Buddhahood is a mess (it may be merged with 2 articles/sections).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is a disambiguation artice. It's purpose is to direct readers to various other articles. It can be deleted or moved to another title, but it can't really be merged with another article. There could hypothetically be text on this page that belongs in a different article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

redirect

shouldnt this go to 'the' buddha's page directly as that is the most notable? There can be a link on the top from to this disambiguation page. Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic was discussed extensively in the past. Here is the archive.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

and its time to bring it up again. This is clearly a disambiguation page, so at the very least we should make it look like a disambiguation page. Furthermore, I'm certain that most people, most of the time, link the term "Buddha" with Gautma Buddha. People who have more advanced knowledge will be able to think of the competing doctrines of multiple Buddhas, Buddhahood, the Buddha to come, and so on, but thats what the disambiguation link is for. Gautama Buddha is most certainly the primary topic.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Actually, I gave the wrong link above to the original naming discussion. Most of it can be found here, in the archives of Talk:Gautama Buddha. The way that discussion transpired, it appeared that at first most people were in favour of simply moving Gautama Buddha to Buddha, but, as things developed, it was decided to make Buddha a disambiguation page. I would say that I don't really see the point of making Buddha a redirect; why not move Gautama Buddha to this title, then?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is this. Buddha Redirects to Gautama Buddha because that is the most appropriate title, this page becomes Buddha (disambiguation), and the top of Gautama Buddha gets the whole "Buddha redirects here. See Buddha (disambiguation) for other uses.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, and if I may point out, in the immediately preceding entry, the seemingly knowledgeable (certainly likeable) WP editor Esteban Barahona wanted to also make this page a redirect ... but to Buddhahood. In other words, there have been two competing strong currents of thought: one that "Buddha" refers to the protagonist of the Pali Canon; the other that it refers to all "buddhas" (as described in the Buddhahood article). On-line dictionaries (I believe found at Nat's reference?) reflect this two-fold denotation. I also suspect that Theravadins leans towards the former denotation while most or at least Mahayana practitioners tend towards the latter. (Or at least this has been my experience in my own practices, first of Zen, now of Theravadin Buddhism.) Just my two cents. (Or, since I'm using an IP address, evidently a Buffalo nickle and an opening for ridicule.) 24.136.229.74 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say when you come across popular literature on Buddhism you see "The Buddha says" which refers to Gautama Buddha. In complete from a neutrality perspective but indicitive of what most people think of when they see the term Buddha--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, I suppose that few popular writers in the Western world have much of a concept that there are different buddhas. So, if they say "the Buddha says", they don't really know whether they mean Shakyamuni or Amitabha, Dipankara, et al., and, if they did see a quote from another buddha, they would be very likely to still describe that as "the Buddha says". On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, few Buddhist scriptures are actually attributed to the words of another Buddha. Even the core Pure Land sutras, for example, are described as sermons in which Shakyamuni discusses Amitabha. Thefore, in practice, it would very likely be Shakyamuni Buddha who is quoted.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what I was trying to express earlier is that if the usage of "Buddha" is so heavily weighted toward meaning Siddhārtha Gautama (which is plausible), then I don't see why "Gautama Buddha" is the more appropriate title. If people usually mean the sage Gautama when they say "Buddha" and they usually say "the Buddha" when they mean the sage Gautama, then let's just move Gautama Buddha to Buddha. I'm starting to think that would be the most straightforward solution and probably the best.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's "popular" as in Lama Surya Das's "Awakening the Buddha Within" ... got me Gotama gut maybe? ;-) With metta and alliteration, 24.136.229.74 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote with Tznkai. Buddha should redirect to Gautama Buddha, and this page becomes Buddha (disambiguation).eu.stefan (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Buddha (intro meaing)

Recently, in combating an apparent vandal's efforts to make "Buddha" a primarily Arab word, a good-willed WP editor changed

Buddha (pronunciation: [bʊd̪.d̪ʰə]) means "Awakened one" or "Enlightened one"; in Arabic ...

to

Buddha (pronunciation: [bʊd̪.d̪ʰə]) ("Awakened one" in Pali and Sanskrit) ...

At the moment, this line reads

Buddha (pronunciation: [bʊd̪.d̪ʰə]) ("Awakened one" in Sanskrit) ...

I sincerely applaud and deeply appreciate User:Tznkai's repeated efforts to ward off vandals!

If I may though, I think it would be worthwhile inserting two things that have been lost in the current incarnation:

1. "Buddha" has been translated into English as both "Awakened One" and "Enlightened One."
2. "Buddha" is in fact both Sanskrit and Pali.

Here are a few well-regarded sources that support the use of either "Enlightened One," "Awakened One" or both:

(1) Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (PED), p. 488, last two entries:

Buddha¹ (adj.) [med. -- pass. pp. of bujjhati, cp. Epic Sk. buddha]

(a) understood S i.35=60 (su -- dub -- buddha very difficult to understand).

(b) having attained enlightenment, wise A iv.449; PvA 16 (buddh' ādayo), 60 (=ariya). Usually appld to the Bhagavant (Gotama) M i.386 (one of the adj. describing Gotama to Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta); Sn 993....

Buddha² [=buddha¹]

A. one who has attained enlightenment; a man superior to all other beings, human & divine, by his knowledge of the truth, a Buddha. At A ii.38 the Buddha declares himself to be neither a god (deva) nor a Gandharva, nor a Yakṣa nor a man....

(2) Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary (MWD), p. 733:

buddha mfn.

awakened , awake MBh. ;

expanded , blown Sa1mavBr. ;

conscious , intelligent , clever , wise (opp. to %{mUDha}) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ;

learnt , known , understood A1past. MBh. (`" by "' , usually instr. , but also gen. according to Pa1n2. 2-2 , 12 ; 3 , 67 Sch.) ;

m. a wise or learned man , sage W. ;

(with Buddhists) a fully enlightened man who has achieved perfect knowledge of the truth and thereby is liberated from all existence and before his own attainment of Nirvana reveals the method of obtaining it , (esp.) the principal Buddha of the present age (born at Kapila-vastu about the year 500 B.C. his father , Suddhodana , of the Sa1kya tribe or family , being the Ra1ja of that district , and his mother , Maya-devi , being the daughter of Raja Su-prabuddha MWB. 19 &c. ; hence he belonged to the Kshatriya caste and his original name Sakya-muni or Sa1kya-sinha was really his family name , while that of Gautama was taken from the race to which his family belonged ; for his other names see ib. 23 ; he is said to have died when he was 80 years of age , prob. about 420 B.C. ib. 49 n. 1 ; he was preceded by 3 mythical Buddhas of the present Kalpa , or by 24 , reckoning previous Kalpa , or according to others by 6 principal Buddhas ib. 136 ; sometimes he is regarded as the 9th incarnation of Vishn2u Hariv. Ka1v. Var. &c.) ;

n. knowledge BhP. (B. %{buddhi}). [Red added for emphasis.]

(3) Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary (CAP, see):

buddha a. awakened (lit. & fig.), completely conscious, enlightened; m. the Enlightened One, the Buddha, E. of Gautama of the Cakya tribe.

So, based on the above citations (which I assume would be inappropriate to list on a dab page but are sufficient here?), I'm going to change the current intro line (or at least when I last checked a few minutes ago) to:

Buddha (pronunciation: [bʊd̪.d̪ʰə]) ("Awakened one" or "Enlightened One" in Sanskrit and Pali) ...

Since I'm on wiki-break, I won't get into an edit war over this but offer this information, would like to suggest the edit and accept whatever follows subsequently. Best, 24.136.229.74 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (aka, User:Larry Rosenfeld)

Good catch--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

boo how

are u kidding this must be a joke so i had this project on buddha my partner didn't show up.....soo yea peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

yokes

where do u think the name word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some simple corrections, some suggestions

This is a foolish argument if I've ever seen one.

Buddha is essentially a Sanskrit nickname, applying to anyone who is buddh, "awake". This entry should start with that fact. Why can no one see that is the definition of Buddha? Simple enough!

Next: the 'historical' "Buddha" as recognized today was a crown prince from circa mid-6th centruy B.C., Nepal, by the name of Gautama Siddharta. It is pure idiocy what has been done with the man's name, which is simple enough to find almost anywhere! Also note that they followed the custom of putting the surname before the given name.

Gautama was in a way a private family name, for when he became a monk, the Buddha was called "Monk Gautama" (Gautama bhikksu) by the Hindus. His later nickname, Shakyamuni, gives his clan: Shakya, relative of the Mauryas, and -muni is yet another sort of nickname, meaning "sage". Thus the Buddha is also recognized as "the Sage of the Shakya Clan". It is one of His recognized Names.

Buddha is pronounced and probably has always been pronounced as "POOH-tah". Anyone who happens to have an Indian friend can ask about this! It is known from ancient coins that Europeans knew him as something like "BODA" or "BODDA". We can only guess how they pronounced the name, but probably the way the Aryans pronounced it.

This brings us to the simple (?) disambiguation which should be to one side: the Lord Buddha is sort of a patron to anyone who strives to attain, attains or has otherwise reached the same state of consciousness; remember, he's AWAKE. If you want to refer to "Buddhahood" then refer to that-- that is what it means. Then any proper facts can branch from there.

Honestly, you people don't know an encyclopedic entry from an entry wound!

A Buddhist Among Baptists Wishes You Well.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha??

See what I mean? I find a perfectly good page on BUDDHA, but it is the Gautama Buddha page. No Buddhist on earth uses that name, if it was ever used anywhere in history but here!

You sad, sad, people....

The Bad Buddhist Among Baptists

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 April 2009

Requested move 2 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – A few years ago at talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 10#Requested move 6 March 2018, it was proposed that Buddha should become a disambiguation page, but noone acted on the proposal. Hence this discussion. The rationale was roughly that there are many well known Buddhas, such as Maitreya and Vairocana (see also List of Buddhas). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear PT. Christ redirects to Jesus. Srnec (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good point. "Christ" means "someone anointed with oil (chrism)", but only one individual is commonly referred to by that title. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Gautama is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and per above. Although there have been many Buddhas, one is commonly known in English by the mononym "Buddha", and that is Gautama. Examples from three very different poets - Rudyard Kipling, T. S. Eliot and Bob Dylan. The lead of Gautama Buddha begins "Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha", a statement with which I agree. Narky Blert (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose- as per WP:COMMONREDIRECT Appu (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no such page as WP:COMMONREDIRECT. JIP | Talk 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gautama Buddha is the clear primary topic. In fact, I think there are quite many people, especially non-Buddhists, who are not even aware there are other Buddhas. JIP | Talk 15:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and note that the March 2018 RM was closed as "consensus not to move". There is a clear Primary Topic. PamD 16:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per discussion, Gautama Buddha should stay primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gautama Buddha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus to keep the page at it's current title. (note: the RM at The Buddha has ended with the result of no consensus.) (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Buddha (disambiguation) → Buddha – As has been discussed at previous move discussion at The Buddha, perhaps most pertinently here, there is a strong community sentiment that "Buddha" without the "the" has a multiplicity of potential meanings beyond that of "The Buddha" - the most prominent being the general sense of "buddha" lower caps, or "buddhahood", that draw into question the primacy of "buddha" alone (in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense) as a term to mean first and foremost "The Buddha". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This is going to clash with the ongoing discussion at Talk:The Buddha#Requested move 25 November 2022 should it go through, and many of the arguments there are dependent on this one passing. This really should have been presented as an option in a single multi-page discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Practically all of the incoming links to Buddha are about the historical Buddha from the 6th–5th century BC, and usage in general reliable sources are overwhelmingly as such. As the MediaWiki software does not allow for distinction between un/capitalised forms, they have to be assessed as a single term, and the Buddha/Gautama Buddha is clearly the primary topic. This was just proposed in September (see above) and met with unanimous opposition, which I suspect is stronger than the sentiment at the previous requests for the Gautama Buddha article. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Paul 012: How did you quantify this? I started going through some links at random to sample this, and I for instance found a link from Mobile Suit Gundam, which references Buddha statues, which could of course be a reference to statues of any number of buddhas. I'm sure there are others. What process led you to lead with "Practically all..." ? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Really just interested to know if there was a tool or advanced search function you used for this, or whether you also just sampled pages and links. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I just looked at random samples of articles in What links here. It wasn't meant to be a definitive statement, and I may have missed counterexamples. Anyway, it wasn't a very useful study, as any incoming links intended otherwise would have been incorrect and should have been fixed. (Regarding the Gundam article, in my reading it doesn't seem to be the intent to refer to any other buddhas. The cited source says, "... the worship of the carved images of Buddha in countless temples throughout the country." Buddha, not buddhas. The context is non-specific though and the link would probably be correct either way.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - As was demonstrated in the previous RM at Talk:The Buddha, when someone says "Buddha" in common English usage, they are overwhelmingly referring to the subject described at The Buddha. That subject is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the Buddha title to redirect there in respect to both usage and long-term significance. Yes, there are multiple things that could be described as Buddha, but that's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically addresses; that there are multiple possible uses does not preclude one from being the primary usage, and in English "Buddha" refers to The Buddha. When the word Buddha is used to describe other Buddhas it is almost always is done with a qualifier (e.g., "Maitreya Buddha" is used to describe Maitreya, rather than just "Buddha"). - Aoidh (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Anyone who has achieved buddhahood is a buddha, and it is generally asserted that there have been various buddhas. If people don't know that, they should be led to a disambiguation page so they can learn about it. There is one historical person who is most frequently referred to as "Buddha", but Messiah is not redirected to Jesus, and Dalai Lama is not redirected to 14th Dalai Lama, because there is a very important distinction to be made here. (Even The Messiah is not redirected to Jesus.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

And how does this relate to our policies? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

By requiring the title to be sufficiently WP:PRECISE to identify the sought topic unambiguously. Here there are at least two topics of particular WP:Long-term significance for adequate Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I somewhat resent being poked about expressing my views in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think it's a pretty obvious point that should not require a lot of Wikilawyering to understand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

BarrelProof Christ, the Greek translation of messiah, redirects to Jesus. cookie monster 755 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Greek one. I suspect that a very low percentage of English-language Wikipedia readers could provide that etymology of the word Christ. I also notice that you used pipes in both of the above links. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is why is there a difference between Buddha redirecting to Buddha and Christ redirecting to Jesus. If we are going to removing Buddah redirecting to the Buddah, maybe it should be said that Christ should not redirect to Jesus. cookie monster 755 03:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is actually not that uncommon for dictionaries to place the generic meaning of Christ first. See: Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster. This is obviously because Christos, the Greek translation of messiah, is also used throughout the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, where the concept first arises/is expounded. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps Christ shouldn't redirect to Jesus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers, regardless of the outcome at the other discussion. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, this Buddha is PRIMARY and where the page should be to begin with.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as the worst of all possible worlds. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the opposers and the 2021 RM, "Buddha" already redirects correctly. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic currently housed at The Buddha is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the term "Buddha", by both common usage and long-term significance.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and move The Buddha to Buddha. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.