Talk:The Buddha

Requested move 31 March 2023
The Buddha → Gautama Buddha – I have gone through the previous two RM requests but I fail to understand how we still arrived at this conclusion. Although. Dwayne Johnson is more popularly known as The Rock, we can clearly see how the Wikipedia page is titled. And while I'm not advocating for the name change to Buddha, someone correctly said in a previous RM that there are many moons but the wiki page refers to our Moon. While, a case can be made that Captain America (please note, the lack of The) is a title for many characters but the page references to the character that is primarily known by that name (Steve Rogers), another case can also be made that Ant-Man is a title and many of the characters using that title have their own separate pages. So, what I'm trying to say is while Buddha would make sense, Siddhartha Gautama would make even more sense but The Buddha makes the least amount of sense. Since, Siddhartha Gautama was previously denied during a RM and the title of the article was not changed for over 15 years, I would suggest a RM back to Gautama Buddha. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.
 * Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.
 * I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.
 * A few examples for my reasoning.
 * 1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.
 * 2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.
 * 3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.
 * 4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).
 * It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical.  O.N.R.  (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. –  City Urbanism  🗩   🖉  19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at, following Britannica. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased/Controversial take on Hindu Synthesis
This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[393]–200[394] BCE and c. 300 CE,[393] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[395] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu

• Apparently, the paragraph begins with a "this," a pronoun. Suggests you it was made by some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language. • Then comes an uncalled term under the pressure of success of Buddhism even though I tried to change it to "following the success of Buddhism." • The comes another mention of "in response to the success of Buddhism;" seems like redundancy and bad grammar.

But, when I changed it into more appropriate language, I was called a "disruptor" and "pov edit warrior." I am letting the bullying slide but someone change the phrasing on this one. It's very unprofessional. Anant-morgan (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks like "some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language," and stop your pov-pushing. You changed
 * into
 * This Hindu-synthesis did not simply follow after the rise of Buddhism, it emerged under the pressure of the popularity of, and support for, Buddhism; it was a response to this popularity, which you're trying to hide.
 * Idem, the Buddha came to be regarded as an avatar of Vishnu in response to this popularity; there is a causal relation between this support for Buddhism, the pressure it put on Hinduism, and the incorporation of the Buddha into Hinduism. You're concealing this relation.
 * Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This Hindu-synthesis did not simply follow after the rise of Buddhism, it emerged under the pressure of the popularity of, and support for, Buddhism; it was a response to this popularity, which you're trying to hide.
 * Idem, the Buddha came to be regarded as an avatar of Vishnu in response to this popularity; there is a causal relation between this support for Buddhism, the pressure it put on Hinduism, and the incorporation of the Buddha into Hinduism. You're concealing this relation.
 * Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's my take against the writing that has been here for a longer time; not against its editor. PS do not shift the topic to elsewhere and read what I edited and how it was before and how little sense it made (and I'm not calling you 'senseless' just so we're cleark). Also, stop personal attacks against me by referring to me as 'another one' and 'pov warrior.' Anant-morgan (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not concealing amyth. I'm not even Hindu. Terms like 'under pressure' are suggesting as if it's a high school situation of stealing boyfriends. This language is starighup antagonizing Hinduism by saying it stole something. The references are all estimates and different point-of-views (I know how much you hate povs). You can't write stuff in that tone on a neutral website; at least not without adding 'allegedly.'
 * Also, now my official pov: Hinduism adapted it because they thought it was divine, happened in India, so it must be an Avatar of Vishnu. It seriously didn't need to feel any pressure from comparatively minor religions (Jainism doesn't even have anything to do with it). Hinduism wasn't particularly threatened by Buddhism (it is now though); it always saw Buddhism as its own subset. Anant-morgan (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Modest suggestion: follow WP:RS, instead of WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your personal pov isn't enough to change what it says, especially if the cited reliable sources disagree with what you think it should say. Which they do, to be clear. XeCyranium (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry dude but I already won my case a month ago the bad grammar has been fixed. Look here what your little brains failed to see in light of cancelling me, insulting me, calling me 'another one of those destructive edit warrior'
 * The adoption of the Buddha as an incarnation began at approximately the same time as Hinduism began to predominate and Buddhism to decline in India, the co-option into a list of avatars seen to be an aspect of Hindu efforts to decisively weaken Buddhist power and appeal in India.

'As opposed to whatever crap this was: This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[393]–200[394] BCE and c. 300 CE,[393] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[395] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.'


 * Was that so hard for you?
 * But you keep carrying on targeting people instead of seeing a platform like Wikipedia has such an immature language on The BUDDHA's page.
 * Also, I made edits yesterday, why am I blocked now for 2 years, right after your late response here? Did you do something impulsive again? Complained me or something? Better make it right then. Anant-morgan (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks, however bizarrely worded they may be. I'm assuming you're not blocked given you posted this comment, unless you're saying an alternate account of yours was blocked and you are using this account to evade said block. XeCyranium (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like you just edited out one of your own personal attacks which claimed that the text I edited was still there.
 * Why is that? Were you seriously gloating on bad grammar and phrasing??? Lol. Anant-morgan (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this other source say the same thing? "Co-opted" to "weaken Buddhist power"? It suggest that Gautama was absorbed as part of a political calculus by the clergy. If anything it's stronger. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm only discussing grammar here. I'm well aware of facts; I even added Pushyamitra Shunga as the culprit who caused this decline but that change was reverted to.
 * Don't know anymore what these elite Wikipedia editors think of themselves or want? It's like they'll reject any improvement until their little brains can't themselves come up with it a decade later. Anant-morgan (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead Sentence needs to focus on "Notable" aspects
Current lead: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

Notable: I think The Buddha is not primarily notable or known for being a wandering ascetic, but rather for being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism as per majority of WP:RS reliable sources

Giving such high priority to "wandering ascetic" seems to violates several WP guidelines

"Wandering ascetic" can be mentioned in relevant subsequent sentences.

Therefore, the lead voice needs to updated to:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

See similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

RogerYg (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you understand of those policies. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, is there a majority of researchers who doubt that he was a sramana? What's the best-known story about the Buddha? His ascetic life, that is, a wanderer. And: the Buddha was a sramana; that's relevant, as is his teachings did not exist in a vacuum, but are related to the broader sramanic tradition. Furthermore, he encouraged people to follow his example, and also become sramanas.
 * How this violates WP:NOTABILITY is a mystery to me; maybe you should actually read that policy. Same for WP:RS; are there sources which dispute the fact that he was a sramana? Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! for kind response.
 * I understand that I got confused between Notable and Notability, and I would like to withdraw the '' WP:Notability argument, as Notability is more about whether a topic is important enough to be published on Wiki.
 * My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content
 * The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?
 * You seem to have very good knowledge of Buddhism, and I respect that. I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha.
 * The answer to that is probably no. The most notable aspects are that he was a spiritual/religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism.
 * Though, I think we need to add philosopher to it
 * The next sentence can be about the wandering ascetic aspect. RogerYg (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That he was a sramana, a 'wandering ascetic', is one of the most notable aspects of the Buddha; 'religious homelessness' is the essence of his vocation. "Philosopher" is tricky, and has been debated many times before. You're right that "wandering ascetic" was repeated; I've edited the lead diff to change this. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua Jonathan,
 * Many scholars have been debating on "what is the most notable aspect" of Buddha for thousands of years, and I don't think we have sources to support that there is a clear winner and "wandering ascetic" was accepted as the most notable aspect.
 * Please think of a many common Wikipedia users, who come to Wikipedia page to get a very brief information on Buddha, and are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.
 * Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.


 * Also, "Wandering" in English has a tone and sense of being lost, which is clearly not the meaning of "Sramana", where the focus is on spiritual goals and spiritual seeking; hence, "wandering" does not make for a good translation.


 * A better translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"


 * Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"


 * So, I think good options are:


 * Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.
 * OR
 * Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.


 * RogerYg (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg, your entire argument is a non-starter; please read up on basic elements of Wikipedia articles such as Notability and Verifiability, two very different concepts. For one thing, WP:Notability is about topics and not about articles; that is number one. In particular, notability is a threshold which describes whether a given topic deserves to have an article or not. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, Notability has absolutely zero to do with the content or development of the article. Claiming that any given part of the article, whether the lead, or the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anything else has to be "notable" is just nonsense. In fact, the Notability policy specifically rejecs this notion in the Nutshell box at the top:
 * "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles."

and then lower down there is a whole section entitled, that underlines it again in more detail. So, you can just forget about the idea that notability has anything to do with the lead sentence—it does not.

Secondly, what goes into the lead sentence is described by MOS:LEADSENTENCE (guideline), which starts out:
 * "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about what are the most salient points to include in the lead sentence, but stating that the Buddha was a "wandering ascetic" cannot be denied, and in my view is a defining characteristic of the Buddha and his life. You may reasonably argue against it, but appealing to Notability is irrelevant. Also, the idea that "wandering" has connotations of "lost" are idiosyncratic imho; that is not what it means to most native speakers (it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost"). In conclusion, the proposal inherent in your section title "Lead Sentence needs to focus on 'Notable' aspects" is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability, as well as Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE, leaving your proposal without a leg to stand on. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mathglot for your insightful views. We had already discussed the confusion about Notable and Notability, and we are no longer discussing Notability, but about the Notable aspects as per Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE. We need discuss in good failth as per WP:TALK, rather than giving one-sided conclusions. Thanks again for the discussion.
 * My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content
 * The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?
 * I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha?
 * As Wiki editors, we need to understand that Wikipedia has broad readership, including both native and non-native English speakers, who are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.
 * Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.
 * As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers "(it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost")."
 * As anyone, with some knowledge of "Sramana" knows, it is not at all : "aimless", or "no fixed goal"; rather, it's about a spritual pratice focussed and aiming towards spritual goals.
 * A better broader translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"
 * Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"
 * So again, I think better options are:
 * Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.
 * OR
 * Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.
 * RogerYg (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RogerYg (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding your claim about two questions to be answered at the top:
 * The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
 * 'Yes' to the first, and a big 'No' to the second. The article is presumed notable due to the fact that an article exists. (If you disagree that it is notable, the proper venue is WP:AFD, not the lead sentence of the article.) I presume you have not the slightest doubt about the notability of the topic, but I'm here to tell you that the lead sentence is not about demonstrating notability. I realize that you are still relatively new here; please spend some time with the policies and guidelines about these key issues. As for your other points about "Sramana" and everything else, feel free to take that up as to whether it belongs or doesn't in the lead sentence, but please just stop referring to Notability here, which plays absolutely no role in it. I find that I am repeating myself, and that means it's time for me to bow out. I'll leave you to the wonderful folks here, who may be better suited than I to deal with your other arguments about content of the lead.
 * (P.S. Your indentation is all over the place, which makes it hard to see who or what you are responding to, and which part is your message and which may be someone else. Please see WP:THREAD and follow the recommendations there.) Best, Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll concede that in some marginal cases the lede might be used to help address issues of relative notability. That's not an issue here, where it's clear the subject meets many criteria for inclusion. I agree with the assertions of User:Mathglot and urge User:RogerYg to find some other aspect of this article which needs improvement. I'll also agree with Mathglot that the non-standard indentation makes points harder to follow in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan: All of this said, I'm not sure your earlier tweak was especially beneficial. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a few duplicate terms. The first paragraph is something of a microcosm of the rest of the lead. By contrast, tweaking the terms purely to eliminate duplication in the diction can yield pitfalls. I'm not convinced by "seeker" as a term that necessarily conveys much meaning to the lay reader. Also, "homeless" is not a word that to me conveys any of the right connotations. Homelessness is usually non-elective and quite involuntary, which is quite the opposite meaning of a vocational ascetic. I'm not even sure if it's accurate: is it fact that the former prince had no palace to go back to and call home had he so wished? Eschewing a home is not the same as not having one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Iskandar323 regarding "homeless" which was a very poor mistranslation. Thanks Joshua Jonathan: for reverting that.
 * Meanwhile, we need to discuss several more mistranslations and duplicates, including "wandering ascetic" in the lede.
 * As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers : "it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", which is not the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa
 * RogerYg (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since "wandering ascetic" is mentioned in the second sentence, there is no need to duplicate it in the first sentence, especially as we have noted issues about mistranslation and notable aspects.
 * Therefore, based on the points discussed, a good option for the lede can be:
 * Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. RogerYg (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While you or anyone is welcome to propose improvements to the WP:LEADSENTENCE as well as to any part of the article, please be aware of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and of the fact that it is a common newbie conceit to head straight for the lead sentence to propose changes, and to ignore pretty much everything else. The article has approximately 12,000 words, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE has eleven words, so, 1/1000th of the article. Given the number of words expended already in this discussion section, that seems highly disproportionate to me.
 * Secondly: you have mentioned "the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa", but this is English Wikipedia, and it is not our role to discuss what is the "correct" translation for this or that term from another language. Rather, we rely on what the reliable sources *in English* have to say about this point, and we do not substitute our own opinions about this for what the sources say. If you wish to discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, please confine your comments to what reliable English sources have to say about this; it is not up for debate among Wikipedia editors to opine about this based on private study or knowledge. If you wish to expound on the topic based on your own knowledge about the topic, please write it up and publish it at Medium or Substack, but not at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mathglot for the informative comments. I agree with most of your suggestions such as we should discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, mainly from reliable English sources and editors should avoid "our own opinions about this ".
 * RogerYg (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose a slight modification of the lead actually, and add the name "Śākyamuni." I believe it's fair to include this title, as it is a very common name for Gautama Buddha, used primarily in Mahayana tradition and by Buddhists of East Asian heritage. So the lead would read something like:
 * Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as Śākyamuni or most commonly as simply the Buddha ('the awakened'), ...
 * I'm open to suggestions on how to better word this or if it should be placed in another section of the lead. Invokingvajras (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

parinirvana translation
Parinirvana is a complex concept in Buddhism. In the first paragraph, it has been translated as "Complete extinction", without sufficient sources to support such translation.

I note that 1 source, The Buddha: A Beginner's guide by John Strong, which is more like "Buddhism for Dummies" translates parinirvana as "Complete extinction"

But, more respected sources, such as Gethin, Rupert (1998), Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press

mentions parinirvana as "physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur."

"Modern Buddhist usage tends to restrict 'nirvāṇa' to the awakening experience and reserve 'parinirvāṇa' for the death experience."

Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89

notes the Mahayanists of the Nirvana Sutra understand the "mahaparinirvana to be the liberated Self of the eternal Buddha"

"One of the main themes of the MMPS [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is eternal ... The Mahayanists assert the eternity of the Buddha in two ways in the MMPS. They state that the Buddha is the dharmakaya, and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as mahaparinirvana possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity.

Only in Mahaparinirvana is this True Self held to be fully discernible and accessible"

Further, Sager Qu in his book, Lord Buddha: The Universal Emperor by Sager Qu

translates parinirvana as "the final deathless state"

Based on these sources, better translation will be ""final liberation" or "final liberation from being" or "the final deathless state"

RogerYg (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on the sources, such as Guang Xing, Gethin, and Paul Williams, the more appropriate & brief translation from the sources is "eternal liberation"
 * Guang Xing,  The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya , RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89 "They state that the Buddha is the  dharmakaya  , and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as mahaparinirvana  possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity."
 * RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With more emphasis on widely accepted Gethin source, more appropriate is "final liberation", instead of "eternal liberation", eternal concept is primarily from some Mahayana sources RogerYg (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With more emphasis on widely accepted Gethin source, more appropriate is "final liberation", instead of "eternal liberation", eternal concept is primarily from some Mahayana sources RogerYg (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think tou put too much emphais on one specific Mahayana understanding. This edit unclear; it added:
 * Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) p.76 does not state something akin to "widely considered," nor does he use the term "state" ("state" is an eternalist stance...). Gethin also doesn't state that "the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena" are reborn. What Gethin doe state is that "Instead of being reborn, the person 'parinirvana-s', meaning in this context that the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur"; the aggregates don't occur again.
 * Eternal bliss: Gethin (1989) p.98-99 does not mention the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.
 * Guang Xing does not refer to "mahayanists," but to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
 * Note that the section where you added this is about the Buddha's (sipoosed) biography, not Mahayana Buddhism or the essentialist tendencies of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, on which Gethin has very things to say. "Eternal liberation" is certainly not an appropriate translation, as it is specific for only one text, not for all of Mahayana Buddhism, even less for Theravada. "Final liberation" is better. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, lets keep final liberation, instead of final nirvana, to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability.
 * Further, the additions were in the parinirvana section, and we can debate later, whether they are better placed in the Mahayana section. Also, regarding "widely considered,", I meant in general Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) is a widely accepted source, while I agree Guang Xing is a specific Mahayana interpretation. RogerYg (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since no one has provided any objection or arguments against final liberation, and the changing final nirvana, is need to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability, therefore this change is made. RogerYg (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, the additions were in the parinirvana section, and we can debate later, whether they are better placed in the Mahayana section. Also, regarding "widely considered,", I meant in general Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) is a widely accepted source, while I agree Guang Xing is a specific Mahayana interpretation. RogerYg (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since no one has provided any objection or arguments against final liberation, and the changing final nirvana, is need to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability, therefore this change is made. RogerYg (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Buswell & Lopez (2014), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.1544:


 * Bikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p.51:

And.... K. R. Norman (2005), A philological approach to Buddhism, p.14, explains that, while the term is used in connection to the Buddha's death, it is also used for living arahats, and therefor cannot mean "final nirvana." What it should be, them does he not explain, unfortunately... Note that Gethin also explains that parinirvana is kind of a verb: " the person 'parinirvāṇa-s'." Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  09:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree "final release from conditioned existence" is a reasonably good translation, supported by relevant sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Origin of Name Josaphat (The Buddha in Christianity)
Though Josaphat may be a character inspired by Buddha, I think it would be wrong to derive Josaphat from Bodhisattva. I have already studied about this name in the Septuagint (Josaphat happens to be a name of one of the kings of Israel), and I believe it is correct to say it derived from Yeho-shafat, clearly meaning "Yah(weh) has Judged".

Pax. 49.205.211.162 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please provide the sources for your statement, such as article, or book and Page number. I think it is mentioned that some sources consider Josaphat may be a character inspired by Buddha. A definite claim is not being made here. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization in Lead
In the third paragraph, "his teachings" should be changed to "His teachings" because "His" is the first word in the sentence. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)