Talk:Buddhahood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Review and WikiProject banners:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Maitreya

In what sense is he the next Buddha for Mahayana? Tibetans regard Nagarjuna as a Buddha, Nyingmas probably Padmasambhava, Soka Gakkai Nichiren, & most schools recognize the possibility of Buddhahood in this life. Peter jackson 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps this is an issue of confusion between different types of Buddha, i.e. samyaksambuddhas vs. fully enlightened śravaka arhats? Or, it could be an issue of people being able to hold multiple mutually exclusive opinions concurrently.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, Maitreya will come when all the teachings of the Buddha have been forgotten, so Maitreya will kind of teach Buddhism 'anew' in his era. In case someone else like Nagarjuna, Milarepa or Tsongkhapa becomes a Buddha in this era, he obviously cannot teach Buddhism 'anew', as it still exists. I suppose there is an official Sanskrit term of this (it may be something like 'wheel-turning Buddha'), but as far as I know, we talk of all of these as samyaksambuddhas, as pratyekabuddhas or sravaka arhats are not really Buddhas, but Arhats instead. rudy 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm hm... Paccekabuddhas not really buddhas? That's funny. Must be some new teaching? Greetings, Sacca 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But yes, Nagarjuna and friends are not Buddhas because they just commented on the teachings, and possibly realised them, but they did not discover them. A Paccekabuddha discovers the teachings, but then he doesn't teach others. Arahants, however, frequently teach others, and they realised the teachings, but did not discover them: somebody told them about it... Greetings, Sacca 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are the Theravada meanings. Can you cite any Mahayana text that gives them? Can you cite any Mahayana text that calls Pratyekabuddhas Buddhas? Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nat makes an important point about contradictory beliefs. After all, Mahayana often adopts a pragmatic concept of truth (Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p2), & modern Chinese Buddhism regards all doctrinal traditions as equally valid (Welch, Practice of Chinese Buddhism, Harvard, 1967, p395), so this sort of thing may be perfectly normal in Mahayana. That raises a problem for us. If we say somewhere that Mahayana, or some form, believes such-and-such, without mentioning either the general point or any contradictory beliefs held by the same people, this would seem to be a misrepresentation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Buddhas

The article has got a bit confused, & I'm not sure my edits really sort it out. Let's try to get a few facts straight:

  • according to Theravada tradition, there are explicitly stated to be 3 types of Buddhas (Udana com as cited)
  • normal usage in Theravada, as in Mahayana, is to use it for only 1 of these
  • I don't know whether the Sanskrit term Sravakabuddha actually exists, so I've used only Pali; I must say it seems perverse to be using Sanskrit in an exposition of Theravada doctrine anyway
  • I've deleted some material about perfections as misleading: there's a tradition (All-Embracing Net of Views, page 314 if I remember right) that all must practise the perfections, not just bodhisattas

Peter jackson 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I don't know details of the other traditions, but in Tibetan Buddhism, also these 3 types are known, but the Shravaka and Pratyeka Buddhas are not considered fully enlightened Buddhas, but Arhats instead - I think this is the same in Theravada, but obviously the terminology is confusing as all 3 types are called Buddhas. Also it seems there is a difference made (in general Mahayana) between Buddhas who become enlightened 'by themselves' and teach Buddhism anew as the world has forgotten about it (as wheel-turners), and Buddhas who achieve their full enlightenment while the teachings of a previous Buddhas are still present. In that sense, someone who becomes a Buddha now, is called somewhat different from eg. Maitreya, who will teach Buddhism 'anew'.rudy 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's well known that Mahayana recognizes 3 sorts of attainment, but does it call them buddhas? It uses the term pratyekabuddha, but does it call them buddhas? Does it use the term sravakabuddha at all? If so, does it call them buddhas? Does it ever say anywhere that there are 2 or 3 types of buddhas, or are such statements in our articles merely Wikipedia artefacts? Does Mahayana have a defined distinction between teaching Buddhas (Sakyamuni, Maitreya) & other Buddhas (Nagarjuna &c). Does the statement in some articles that a buddha is defined as one who attains enlightenment untaught have a source, or is it a Wikipedia artefact? All these questions need to be answered by someone who knows about the subject. Peter jackson 11:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter, perhaps Nagarjuna can clarify eg. here: http://www.angelfire.com/indie/anna_jones1/arhat.html rudy (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
At a quick glance that doesn't seem to address any of my questions. Peter jackson (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, that work probably isn't by Nagarjuna.

To clarify what I was saying above:

  • Theravada is clear: Buddha usually means Sammasambuddha, but occasionally arahant (3 types)
  • does Mahayana ever use Buddha to mean other than Samyaksambuddha?

Peter jackson (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, others can perhaps comment more knowledgeably about this than myself, but it seems to me that in Tibetan tantric Buddhism, the term "buddha" can be applied fairly broadly because of the concept that religious figures are actually emanations of fully enlightened cosmic beings. Thus, for instance, Avalokiteśvara is not simply a bodhisattva, but a fully enlightened

buddha acting in the guise of a bodhisattva. And, further, the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa, are docetic emanations of Avalokiteśvara, who is a buddha, so the line between those two men and "buddha" is fuzzy at best (and their chief disciples are both emanations of Amitabha, another buddha, etc) . Similar concepts might also appear in tantric and Pure Land-oriented forms of Mahayana (i.e. a very large portion of Mahayana as a whole) outside of Tibet. Still, your basic question remains, and I don't know the answer to it: whether Mahayanists, when they are writing in a context where terms are used fairly precisely and aside from the type of concept I mentioned above, ever use the term "buddha" to mean something other than a samyaksambuddha.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened with the simple proposal to merge? It seems the discussion got sidetracked. In my unenlightened impression, Types of Buddha is indeed largely redundant with the section Types of Buddha, and I'd support a merge. I'd prefer merging the article into the section for now, because the former is quite small, and it won't hurt this article either, if we add some more text; especially when we move Depictions of the Buddha in art to Buddhist art, as proposed.
Either way, can we please reach a decision so that we can remove the template on top of the article? — Sebastian 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article based on "Depictions of the Buddha in art" scion?

Anyone mind if we whack the "Depictions of the Buddha in art" section out of this current article and stick the section's material into a separate article so that the remainder of this current article can focus on "being a buddha," "Buddhahood," etc., as is being discussed above?

If we proceed with such, what should the scion article be called? Buddha (art)? Depictions of the Buddha in art? Buddha in art?

Thanks for your thoughts. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. As for the name, I'm fine with any of them, but I prefer Buddha in art because I'd assume it's most likely what people would enter in the search box. Maybe it would make sense, however, to wait for the results of the already existing merge and renaming proposals. — Sebastian 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I now see that there's a Buddhist art article. Perhaps if the "Depictions of the Buddha in art" section of this article here says anything different from what's in Buddhist art, the different material could be merged into Buddhist art and deleted from this here article? (This has just come up anew for me given the "surge" for renaming/moving this here article to the title Buddhahood -- a soteriological/metaphysical refocusing of content which I think would gain better cohesiveness if the current art-related material were removed.) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with moving the section Depictions of the Buddha in art to Buddhist art. In the context of renaming: Since we found out (in #Whatlinkshere that most references to "Buddha" - and presumably many links to this article - actually refer to statues or depictions of the Buddha, and since Buddhist art is, at least potentially, a more general topic, I propose to create Buddha in art as a redirect with possibilities. When I run AWB I can then semiautomatically change all such obvious links to that new redirect page. — Sebastian 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I just came across Buddharupa -- perhaps this would be the best place for the integration of this material? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I just inserted the WP:Merge tags into this and the Buddharupa article. Thanks for any feedback! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] simple:Buddha

A correction, a clarification & a query to Larry's remarks above:

  • it's doubtful whether the 32 marks are brahmanical: the suttas say they are, but no trace has been found in brahmanical literature
  • early Buddhism is ambiguous: the earliest sources mention 8 Buddhas
  • are there 28 or 29 Buddhas in the Pali Canon, counting Metteyya?

Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter,
Hope you had a nice New Years. In regards to your "correction," your assessment of "doubtful" appears to be at odds, for instance, with Maurice Walshe (Vice President of the Buddhist Society) and perhaps T.W. Rhys Davids (founded of PTS). For instance, this is from Walshe's "The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya" (1995), p. 610, n. 939:
"RD [Rhys Davids] has a wide-ranging introduction tracing the possible origins of such marks, which clearly must have been important in the minds of influential Brahmins in the time of the Buddha (see, e.g. DN 3) However, later Brahmin tradition has preserved very little about them." [Boldface added.]
I'm not sure the basis for Walshe's statement and took his scholarship at face value. That he says there is "very litte" and you say there is "no trace," I'm not sure how to resolve this. Perhaps you are aware of the basis for Walshe's statement and can show it to be inaccurate?
Gotta go,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No trace refers to a list of 32, or even the number. Obviously, it would be very surprising if no trace of any of them occurred. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the early Buddhism point, if you take it in a broad sense there are more than 28 or 29. Even if you accept the commentary's explanation of extra Buddhas in the Apadana as Paccekabuddhas, other schools have their own (overlapping) lists. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining articles

Another point from Larry's remarks. He says we would need more people to maintain the article. The fact is that the Buddha article is not being properly maintained as it is. It consists mainly of legends, theories & fundamentalist Theravada propagaganda masquerading as fact. Peter jackson (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit for buddhatta, buddhabhāva, and sammā sambuddha ?

In response to Sebastian's request (recently archived), I threw together some words so that the word "buddhahood" figured prominently in this article's intro. While doing so, I inserted parenthetical Pali words (buddhatta, buddhabhāva, sammā sambuddha) into the opening sentence. I regret that I don't know the Sanskrit equivalents (though I could make some questionable guesses) and would appreciate it if someone who does know such would insert them beside the Pali. (Or if someone who is more eloquent than myself [oh, come one, this means you] is inclined to rewrite the intro and obviate this request, please do so!) Thanks ahead of time for any help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter - Excellent! Thanks so much! - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian Buddhism

It says that Indonesian Buddhism believes in God. Is anyone willing to expand upon this further? 77.98.26.117 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Buddhas saved all sentient being?

Have the previous Buddhas saved all sentient beings before they themself pass into Nivarna? if previous Buddhas DID saved all sentient being, then what are u still here editing wikipedia? Ain't u supposed to be in Nirvana?Sawadeekrap (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

When did it say that they did save everyone? Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva -> "An arhat is liberated from samsara (or the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth), but did not choose, in a previous life, to try and save each and every other living being before passing away into nirvana, and thus is not a fully enlightened Buddha." This statement said that only fully enlightened Buddha will try to save everyone before they pass into Nirvana Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thea t sentence may have been unclear so I clarified it. Bodhisattvas vow to not become Buddhas until everyone is saved, which is why they haven't become Buddhas yet. It didn't say that people who didn't vow to be bodhisattvas and didn't vow to wait for everyone else first, could not become Buddhas. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That only applicable to Shepherd Bodhisattva, ur latest edit is in conlict with the other 2 type of Bodhisattva.
  1. King-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to become buddha as soon as possible and then help sentient beings in full fledge;
  2. Boatman-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to achieve buddhahood along with other sentient beings and
  3. Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category.

Sawadeekrap (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood" - are you sure? I can't agree with that, IMO it has nothing to do with delaying, but realizing that thinking about others, and working for others is the fastest way to achieve buddahood (of course it doesn't mean this is the best way at all, becouse the best can be only what is possible to do, there is no absolute measure). Probably this misconception about delaying is rooted in christian-based thinking about Mahayana. Any delaying in development is contradict with Buddha's teachings.Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Those 3 type of Bodhisattva info is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva, obviously u don't know what u talking about. Sawadeekrap (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, dear Sawadeekrap, obviously I know what I'm talking about. WP is not reference for WP and if you are citing WP read it first "In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is, at least in a sense, one who aspires to become Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings" and - I suppose - any delay in deliverance is logical contradiction with this aspiration. What is your opinion? Moreover also word used by you: "save" has christian roots and has nothing to do with Dharma. Yes, sometimes is used in buddhist context, but it's mistake (like o.e. "meditation deities"). Buddha only points the way, but following this way is task for all sentient beings. With buddhas help of course, but there is a big difference. BTW - error with dealying will be repaired.Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
ok. May be u right, these "delay to save all sentient beings" statement seem to implied that Boddhisattva is more compassionate than Gautama Buddha & the previous 28 Buddhas, as all the previous Buddhas as achieved Budhhahood and gone to Nirvana without saving ALL sentient beings Sawadeekrap (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


This subject is very confusing because different Mahayana sources say different things & i can't find any scholar who has properly studied this & presented the results. the problem seems to stem from the Lotus Sutra, which says in quick succession that a Buddha's lifetime is extremely long & that it's infinite. Problem: which is to be taken literally? The Tibetans (or at least the Gelugpas) take the infinite statement literally, so they see no point delaying enlightenment. Some Chinese authorities, however (Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism, pages 110f) regard a Buddha's life as extremely long but not infinite. They further say that a bodhisattva can do more good for beings in an indefinite period than a Buddha can in such a lifetime (which doesn't necessarily follow from the previous statement) & so a bodhisattva should deliberately refrain from becoming a Buddha for this reason. I suspect there are probably quite a variety of different positions to be found in the literature, but, as I said, i haven't found anyone who's collected the information together. The 3 types of bodhisattva listed above are given in Lopez, (Story of) Buddhism (I can find the page refs if anyone wants). Unfortunately, he doesn't cite a source, tho' the context suggests it may be Zhiyi.
As regards the point about bodhisattvas being more compassionate than Buddhas, the answer would be that the Buddha only appeared to enter nirvana. this is stated in the Lotus Sutra again. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to delete

The article says: In the Mahayana tradition, the definition of Buddha extends to any being who becomes fully awakened. The Theravada Arhant would be considered a kind of Buddha (although not generally by Mahayana Buddhism itself) in this Mahayana sense, and this usage also occurs in the Theravada commentaries[1].

I would like to delete, (although not generally by Mahayana Buddhism itself). This is incoherent, whereas the article is well-written on the whole. Also, Tibetan Buddhism refers to shravakabuddhas and pratyekabuddhas.

If there are Mahayana traditions that contradict this paragraph, would someone like to point them out with references please, so that I don't delete something that merely needs rewording with a footnote.

Moonsell (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've deleted it. Please provide the evidence before reverting.

Moonsell (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is thoroughly confused, & this change only makes it worse. Let me try to summarize the position as I see it.
In Theravada, there are 2 uses of the term "Buddha".
  1. the usual one, referring to Sammasambuddhas only
  2. occasionally, synonymous with arahant, so including 3 types:
    1. sammasambuddha
    2. paccekebuddha
    3. savakabuddha
In Mahayana, I've never heard of the term "Buddha" ever being used in any sense other than referring to Samyaksambuddhas. Can anyone provide any reference for this? Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)