Talk:Śakra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Śakra, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Reversion

User:Srkris has made some edits which are simply wrong; Sakko devānaṃ indo is the exact equivalent of Śakro devānām indraḥ, where the Sanskrit masculine singular nominative ending -aḥ (-o in sandhi before voiced consonants) corresponds to Pali -o. Pali -ā is a feminine ending corresponding to Sanskrit -ā. This is verifiable by consulting either a) texts, b) a textbook on Pali. Furthermore, the meaning is "Sakka, of (the) gods (or devas) the lord", not "Sakka, lord of the gods is Indra". Indo in this case is a common noun "king" or "lord", not a proper noun. Srkris may consult this article and, for the name Sujā, this one.

Ok fine. But I dont agree to the assertions that Devas in Buddhism were different deities than the ones in Hinduism. The Buddha didnt go about introducing everything from scratch, did he? They are all the same deities found in the Vedas. Its funny to see statements like Sakra was different from Indra, either in Buddhism or Hinduism or both. ­ Kris (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Indra is called that in Hinduism is becuase the common noun reflects his position. Shakra is the king of the gods and Indra is king of the gods. They are different names for the deity. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

True, so what is this thing about Gautama Buddha referring to well known deities of his time in a different context? Would people of his time have understood him had he portrayed Sakra and Indra as independent deities? I think its because of Buddhists wanting to show their religion to be distinct from other Hindu beliefs/deities that they introduce these novelties which the Buddha himself does not seem to have subscribed to. I have read the Tripitaka and can claim to have a decent level of knowledge on historical Buddhism. I've even heard buddhists say that the Buddha was against Vedas, while he was only against vedic rituals, as evidenced by the Pali canon. ­ Kris (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)