From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope 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 Bodhi, 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
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion Related task forces (major traditions): Eastern philosophy

Contents 1 anattā, the absence of ego-centeredness 2 Ambiguous sentence in Introduction 2.1 Definition given is incompatible with basic Buddhist doctrine. I have replaced the first paragraph. 2.2 WikiProject class rating

[edit] anattā, the absence of ego-centeredness

I thought that anatta is the absence of ego, not "absense of ego-centeredness" as given in this article. I have heard people, especially Western people, who would like there to be a nice, common sense, not-self-contradictory-to-logical-thought Buddhism, describe Buddhist enlightment as freedom from self-centeredness (i.e. "nice"). But as far as I am aware, the Buddha teaches the opposite of Descartes and is irreconcilable with reverance for the liars paradox; the Buddha teaches "I am not" - or at least, I (and ego and atta) are but names or signs signifying nothing (c.f Questions of King Milinda). Buddhism is even scarier than "The Matrix" because when you wake up, you aren't, and that is a main reason why people do not wake up. We are in love with ourselves and do not want to face the ultimate absense. --Timtak 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, if you ignore the mythical nonsense, it's about undoing the "first cut" (i.e. distinction between one's self and the outer world) and thus "being one" with the universe. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous sentence in Introduction

There is an ambiguous sentence in the first paragraph that can be read to mean that some bhodisattvas have attained bhodi. I know this because someone used it in argument at e-sangha to prove that assertion!

Here is the passage containing fatal sentence:

In early Buddhism, bodhi carried a meaning synonymous to nirvana, using only some different metaphors to describe the experience, which implied the extinction of raga (greed), dosa (hate) and moha (delusion). In the later school of Mahayana Buddhism, the status of nirvana was downgraded, coming to refer only to the extinction of greed and hate, implying that delusion was still present in one who attained nirvana, and that one needed to attain bodhi to eradicate delusion [1]. Therefore, according to Mahayana Buddhism, the arahant attains only nirvana, thus still being subject to delusion, while the bodhisattva attains bodhi.

It's hard to read that sentence without filling in the blank, so the problem is almost invisible. I'm going to fix it right now, for the sake of all sentient beings, or at least those who read Wikipedia an don't know the difference between a bodhisattva and a Buddha. I think I it would helpul if someone to wrote a response to this confirming that I'm not pulling a fast one. Cheers SeattleJoe (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition given is incompatible with basic Buddhist doctrine. I have replaced the first paragraph.

The definition given in the first sentence of this article may make sense in other traditions, but it contradicts the Buddhist conception of enlightenment in a fundamental way.

Bodhi (बोधि) is the Pāli and Sanskrit word for the "awakened" or "knowing" consciousness of a fully liberated yogi,

A buddha or an arahant can be described as a yogi, but not that kind of yogi. (As far as I know, in Buddhist terminology "yogi" means "someone who meditates.") Anything that might be called "an awakened consciousness" is not nirvana,and is not bodhi.

This may not be the same in other Indian traditions, and I have added a sentence to cover that. Someone knowledgeable in the subject should add a section on this topic.SeattleJoe (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)