Talk:Buddha

Hey all- I've been working on the main Buddhism article, and I thought this one could use some tweaks as well. I have been working out of the brief discussion of the Buddha's biography in Rupert Gethin's book 'The Foundations of Buddhism'. I have tried to push this article a little closer to current scholarly understanding of the Buddha's life, but there is a lot more that could be done. I will try to add some detail about the renouncer tradition at some point. This article is not something I am actively working on, though, so feel free to add whatever you like. Thanks, Brian P. Long 11:59, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

There's going to be a problem down the line with using 'Buddha' for a description of the historical figure... in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism there are many other figures to whom the term Buddha is applied. And even Theravada Buddhism applies the term to several other figures since the Pali Cannon identifies our historical Buddha as neither the first nor last. It'd be better to keep this page for what a Buddha is.--Hope Raven Nield 15:18, 10 July 2008 (CDT)

The Buddha and a buddha are two completely different things. If you would like to differentiate, you should start a page called Buddha. This should be renamed The Buddha. --Michael J. Formica 10:26, 30 August 2008 (CDT)

Hey Michael-- There hasn't been a whole lot of work on this article, as you might have noticed. As one of the few people paying attention to the article, I would be fine with moving the article on Siddhartha Gautama to a more precisely-named location. I personally don't feel that "The Buddha" is much better than straight "Buddha" ("The Buddha" may also run afoul of naming conventions, though I'd have to check); how would you feel about Siddhartha Gautama or Sammasambuddha? Brian P. Long 15:29, 31 August 2008 (CDT)

In normal English usage, (the) Buddha means the historical founder of Buddhism.

The name Siddharta/Siddhattha isn't mentione din any sources before about 100 BC & can't be regarded as historical.

Sammasambuddha/Samyaksambuddha is just a synonym for the general sense of Buddha (though occasionally the term Buddha is used in an even broader sense as a synonym for arahant.

There was a very lengthy discussion of these issues on Wikipedia, if that's relevant. (are our naming policies different?) Peter Jackson 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia naming conventions, I suggested simply moving the article on the historical Buddha to Buddha and leaving the article on buddhas in general at a different title. This is purely on the grounds of common usage. We might reach a similar conclusion here. On the other hand, if Citizendium allows a somewhat more didactic naming scheme, I would prefer for Buddha to be an article about buddhas in general and for the article on the historical Buddha to be at a more specific title. I would suggest Shakyamuni Buddha, except that I'm not sure that the Pali equivalent of that name is ever used by Theravadins. If it is exclusively Mahayanist, then I suggest instead Gautama Buddha, since the name Gautama seems to be of considerable antiquity.—Nat Krause 16:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sakyamuni does occur a few times in the Pali Canon, but it's not the usual Theravada name, which is Gotama. The usual Mahayana name is Sakyamuni translated or transcribed into local languages. Using it would be biased. Gautama is probably the commonest name in scholarly literature. Peter Jackson 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)