text:
Buddhahood

In Buddhism, Buddha (Pali, Sanskrit: 𑀩𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀥, बुद्ध, "awakened one") is a title for those who are spiritually awake or enlightened, and have thus attained the supreme goal of Buddhism, variously described as pristine awareness, nirvana, awakening, enlightenment, and liberation or vimutti. A Buddha is also someone who has fully understood the Dharma (Sanskrit 𑀥𑀭𑁆𑀫; Pali dhamma), the true nature of things or the universal law of phenomena. Buddhahood (𑀩𑀼𑀤𑁆𑀥𑀢𑁆𑀯, buddhatva; buddhatta or buddhabhāva; ) is the condition and state of a buddha. This highest spiritual state of being is also termed sammā-sambodhi (Sanskrit: samyaksaṃbodhi; "full, complete awakening") and is interpreted in many different ways across schools of Buddhism.

The title of "Buddha" is most commonly used for Gautama Buddha, the historical founder of Buddhism, who is often simply known as "the Buddha". The title is also used for other beings who have achieved awakening and liberation (or vimoksha), such as the other human Buddhas who achieved enlightenment before Gautama; members of the Five Buddha Families such as Amitabha; and the bodhisattva Maitreya, known as the "Buddha of the future who will attain awakening at a future time."

The goal of the bodhisattva path is complete Buddhahood so that one may benefit all sentient beings by teaching them the path of cessation of dukkha. The vehicles of the Vajrayana and the Mahayana hold intentions to help all sentient beings achieve enlightenment; this contrasts with the Theravada goal of individual liberation, or arhatship, through following the Hinayana vehicle of the Buddha.

Definition
Buddhahood is the state of an awakened being, who, having found the path of cessation of dukkha ("suffering", as created by attachment to desires and distorted perception and thinking) is in the state of "no-more-Learning".

There is a broad spectrum of opinion on the nature of Buddhahood, its universality, and the method of attaining Buddhahood among the various schools of Buddhism. The level to which this manifestation requires ascetic practices varies from none at all to an absolute requirement, dependent on doctrine. While most schools accept the bodhisattva ideal, in which it takes aeons to reach Buddhahood, not all agree that everyone can become a Buddha, or that it must take aeons.

In Theravada Buddhism, Buddha refers to one who has reached awakening (bodhi) through their own efforts and insight, without a teacher to point out the dharma. A samyaksambuddha re-discovers the truths and the path to awakening on their own, and then teaches these to others after his awakening. A pratyekabuddha also reaches nirvana through his own efforts, but is unable or unwilling to teach the dharma to others. An arhat needs to follow the teaching of a Buddha to attain Nirvana, and may also preach the dharma after attaining nirvana. In one instance the term buddha is also used in Theravada to refer to all who attain Nirvana, using the term sāvakabuddha to designate an arhat, someone who depends on the teachings of a Buddha to attain Nirvana. In this broader sense it is equivalent to the arhat.

In Mahāyāna Buddhism meanwhile, a Buddha is seen as a transcendent being who has extensive powers, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and whose awakened wisdom (buddha-jñana) is all pervasive. This view can be found in numerous Mahāyāna sources, like the Avatamsaka sutra.

Mahāyāna buddhology mainly understands the Buddha through the "three bodies" (trikaya) framework. In this framework, the historical Buddha or other Buddhas who appear human are understood docetically as magical "transformation bodies" (nirmanakaya). Meanwhile, the real or ultimate Buddha is the Dharmakaya, the body of ultimate reality. Thus, the Ratnagotravibhāga (Analysis of the Jeweled Lineage), a key Mahāyāna treatise, defines the Buddha as "the uncompounded (asamskrta), and spontaneous (anabhoga) Dharmakaya" and as "self-enlightened and self-arisen wisdom (jñana), compassion and power for the benefit of others." This ultimate awakened reality is understood and interpreted in numerous different ways by the different Mahayana schools.

The Buddha-nature doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism also consider Buddhahood to be a universal and innate property which is immanent in all beings.

Most Buddhists do not consider Gautama Buddha to have been the only Buddha. The Pāli Canon refers to many previous ones (see list of the named Buddhas), while the Mahayana tradition additionally has many Buddhas of celestial origin (see Amitābha or Vairocana as examples. For lists of many thousands of Buddha names see Taishō Tripiṭaka numbers 439–448).

Nature of the Buddha

The various Buddhist schools hold some varying interpretations on the nature of Buddha. All Buddhist traditions hold that a Buddha is fully awakened and has completely purified his mind of the three poisons of craving, aversion and ignorance. A Buddha is no longer bound by saṃsāra, and has ended the suffering which unawakened people experience in life.

Most schools of Buddhism have also held that the Buddha was omniscient. However, the early texts contain explicit repudiations of making this claim of the Buddha.

Mahāyāna buddhology expands the powers of a Buddha exponentially, seeing them as having unlimited lifespan and all-pervasive omniscient wisdom, as omnipotent, and as able to produce an infinite number of magical manifestations (nirmanakayas) as well as being able to produce pure lands (heaven-like realms for bodhisattvas).

The classic superknowledges
The Early Buddhist texts (and other later sources as well) contain a classic list of "supernormal knowledges" (Skt. abhijñā, Pali: abhiññā) that a Buddha has attained through spiritual practice.

There is an ancient list of "six classes of superknowledge" (Pali: chalabhiññā, Skt. ṣaḍabhijña) that Buddhas have which are found in various Buddhist sources. These are:

 * 1) "Higher powers" (P: iddhi, S: ṛddhi), such as walking on water and through walls; flight, becoming invisible and creating mind made bodies.
 * 2) "Divine ear" (Pali: dibbasota), that is, clairaudience which extends in the human realm as well as into the other realms, like the realms of the gods (devas).
 * 3) "Mind-penetrating knowledge" (cetopariyañāa), that is, telepathy;
 * 4) "Remember one's former abodes" (pubbenivāsanussati), recalling one's own past lives stretching back eons into the past.
 * 5) "Divine eye" (dibbacakkhu), that is, knowing others' karmic destinations (where they will be reborn); and,
 * 6) "Knowledge of the destruction of the mental pollutants" (āsavakkhaya), which is the eradication of all negative mental states and the ending of suffering. This knowledge is the "liberation of the mind" (Pali: cetovimutti, Skt. cittavimukti).

Miraculous displays
Buddhist texts include numerous stories of the Buddha's miracles, which include displays of the abhiññās, healings, elemental magic (such as manipulating fire and water), and various other supernatural phenomena, traveling to higher realms of Buddhist cosmology, and others.

One of the most famous of these miracles was the Twin Miracle at Sāvatthī, in which the Buddha emitted fire from the top of his body and water from his lower body simultaneously, before alternating them and then expanding them to illuminate the cosmos.

Mahayana sutras contain even more extensive miracles. In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Buddha display the true pure nature of his "buddha field" to everyone on earth, who suddenly beholds the world as a perfect world filled with jewels and other majestic features. Likewise, in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha shakes the earth and shines a beam of light which illuminates thousands of "buddha-fields".

Ten epithets of a Buddha
Some Buddhists meditate on (or contemplate) the Buddha as having ten characteristics (Ch./Jp. 十號). These characteristics are frequently mentioned in the Pāli Canon as well as in other early Buddhist sources as well as in Mahayana texts, and are chanted daily in many Buddhist monasteries. The ten epithets are:
 * 1) Thus gone, thus come (Skt: )
 * 2) Worthy one (Skt: arhat)
 * 3) Perfectly self-enlightened (Skt: )
 * 4) Perfected in knowledge and conduct (Skt:  )
 * 5) Well gone (Skt: sugato)
 * 6) Knower of the world (Skt: lokavidu)
 * 7) Unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed (Skt: )
 * 8) Teacher of the gods and humans (Skt: )
 * 9) The Enlightened One (Skt: buddha)
 * 10) The Blessed One or fortunate one (Skt: bhagavat)

The tenth epithet is sometimes listed as "The World Honored Enlightened One" (Skt. Buddha-Lokanatha) or "The Blessed Enlightened One" (Skt. Buddha-Bhagavan).

Acts of a Buddha
According to various Buddhist texts, upon reaching Buddhahood each Buddha performs various acts (buddhacarita) during his life to complete his duty as a Buddha.

The Mahayana tradition generally follows the list of "Twelve Great Buddha Acts" (Skt. dvadaśabuddhakārya). These are:

 * 1) A Buddha must descend from Tushita heaven and transfer his throne to the next future Buddha.
 * 2) A Buddha must enter his mothers womb.
 * 3) A Buddha must be born (generally accompanied by miracles).
 * 4) A Buddha must master numerous arts and skills in his youth.
 * 5) A Buddha must live in the palace and enjoy his life with his wife.
 * 6) A Buddha must make a great departure from his palace and become a renunciant (sramana).
 * 7) A Buddha must practice asceticism.
 * 8) A Buddha must sit under a buddha tree (like the bodhi tree) on a bodhimanda (place of awakening)
 * 9) A Buddha must defeat the demonic forces of Mara.
 * 10) A Buddha must attain and manifest full awakening.
 * 11) A Buddha must give his first sermon, and thus turn the wheel of the Dharma.
 * 12) A Buddha must die and pass into Nirvana, demonstrating liberation and impermanence.

The Pali suttas do not have such a list, but the Theravada commentarial tradition lists 30 obligatory acts of a Buddha.

Buddha as a supreme person
The Theravada Buddhist tradition generally sees the Buddha as a supreme person who is neither a God in the theistic sense nor a regular human. Thus, the Buddha is seen as a very special and unique class of persons called a "great person" (mahāpurisa).

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human. Instead, he is seen as having many supranormal powers (siddhi), such as the superknowledges (abhijna), a very long lifespan, as well as the thirty-two marks of a great man.

In the Pāli Canon, the Buddha is depicted as someone between a human and a divine being. He has a human body that decays and dies, and he was born from human parents (though some sources depict this as a miraculous birth). The most important element of a Buddha is that they have attained the supreme spiritual goal: nirvana. This is what makes him supreme and what grants him special powers.

In the Pāli Canon, the Buddha is asked whether he was a deva or a human, and he replies that he had eliminated the deep-rooted unconscious traits that would make him either one, and should instead be called a Buddha: one who had grown up in the world but had now gone beyond it, as a lotus grows from the water but blossoms above it, unsoiled.

The Pāli Canon also states that Gautama Buddha is known as being a "teacher of the gods and humans," superior to both the gods and humans since he has attained the highest liberation, whereas the gods are still subject to anger, fear, and sorrow. In the Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18), Buddha is described in powerful terms as the Lord of the Dhamma and the bestower of immortality.

Similarly, in the Anuradha Sutta (SN 44.2), Gautama Buddha is described as the "supreme man" and the "attainer of the superlative attainment". Because he has attained the highest spiritual knowledge, the Buddha is also identified with the Dhamma (the most fundamental reality) In the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87).

Mahāsāṃghika school
In the early Buddhist schools, the Mahāsāṃghika branch regarded the buddhas as being characterized primarily by their supramundane (lokottara) nature. The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the buddhas and bodhisattvas and the fallibility of arhats. Of the 48 special theses attributed by the Samayabhedoparacanacakra to the Mahāsāṃghika Ekavyāvahārika, Lokottaravāda, and the Kukkuṭika, 20 points concern the supramundane nature of buddhas and bodhisattvas. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, these four groups held that the Buddha is able to know all dharmas in a single moment of the mind. Yao Zhihua writes:

"In their view, the Buddha is equipped with the following supernatural qualities: transcendence (lokottara), lack of defilements, all of his utterances preaching his teaching, expounding all his teachings in a single utterance, all of his sayings being true, his physical body being limitless, his power (prabhāva) being limitless, the length of his life being limitless, never tiring of enlightening sentient beings and awakening pure faith in them, having no sleep or dreams, no pause in answering a question, and always in meditation (samādhi)."

A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the buddhas is unlimited." According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through skillful means. For the Mahāsaṃghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha is equated with the Dharmakāya.

As in Mahāyāna traditions, the Mahāsāṃghikas held the doctrine of the existence of many contemporaneous buddhas throughout the ten directions. In the Mahāsāṃghika Lokānuvartana Sūtra, it is stated, "The Buddha knows all the dharmas of the countless buddhas of the ten directions." It is also stated, "All buddhas have one body, the body of the Dharma." The concept of many bodhisattvas simultaneously working toward Buddhahood is also found among the Mahāsāṃghika tradition, and further evidence of this is given in the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, which describes the doctrines of the Mahāsāṃghikas.

Guang Xing writes that the Acchariyābbhūtasutta of the Majjhimanikāya along with its Chinese Madhyamāgama parallel is the most ancient source for the Mahāsāṃghika view. The sutra mentions various miracles performed by the Buddha before his birth and after. The Chinese version even calls him Bhagavan, which suggests the idea that the Buddha was already awakened before descending down to earth to be born.

Similarly, the idea that the lifespan of a Buddha is limitless is also based on ancient ideas, such as the Mahāparinirvānasūtra's statement that the Buddha's lifespan is as long as an eon (kalpa) but that he voluntarily allowed his life to end. Another early source for the Mahāsāṃghika view that a Buddha was a transcendent being is the idea of the thirty-two major marks of a Buddha's body. Furthermore, the Simpsapa sutta states that the Buddha had way more knowledge than what he taught to his disciples. The Mahāsāṃghikas took this further and argued that the Buddha knew the dharmas of innumerable other Buddhas of the ten directions.

Mahāyāna Buddhism
Mahāyāna Buddhism generally follows the Mahāsāṃghika ideal of the Buddha being a transcendent and omniscient being with unlimited spiritual powers. Guang Xing describes the Buddha in Mahāyāna as an omnipotent and almighty divinity "endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities". Mahāyāna cosmology also includes innumerable Buddhas who reside in innumerable buddha fields (buddha kshetra). The Mahāyāna Lotus Sutra, for example, says the lifespan of the Buddha is immeasurable. It also says that the Buddha actually achieved Buddhahood countless eons (kalpas) ago and has already been teaching the Dharma through his numerous manifestations (nirmana) for eons.

In spite of this transcendent nature, Mahāyāna also affirms the immanent nature of Buddhahood in all beings (through the doctrine of Buddha-nature, which is seen as something that all beings have). This view of an immanent Buddha essence in all normal human beings is common throughout East Asian Buddhism.

The myriad Buddhas are also seen as active in the world, guiding all sentient beings to Buddhahood. Paul Williams writes that the Buddha in Mahāyāna is "a spiritual king, relating to and caring for the world". This view entails a kind of docetism regarding the "historical" Buddha, Shakyamuni. His life and death were a "mere appearance," like a magic show; in reality, the Buddha still exists and is constantly helping living beings.

Because of this transcendental view, Mahāyāna Buddhologies have sometimes been compared to various types of theism (including pantheism) by different scholars. There is disagreement among scholars regarding this issue, as well on the general relationship between Buddhism and theism.

Since Buddhas remain accessible, a Mahāyānist can direct prayers to them, as well as experience visions and revelations from them. This has been very influential in the history of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Furthermore, a Mahāyāna devotee can also aspire to be reborn in a Buddha's Pure Land or Buddha field (buddhakṣetra), where they can strive towards Buddhahood in the best possible conditions. This practice is the central element of East Asian Pure Land Buddhism.

The Buddha as just a wise human
Some modern Buddhists have argued that the Buddha was just a human being, albeit a very wise one. This is a common view in Buddhist modernism, which sought to teach a form of Buddhism that was modern, rational and scientific. One figure who sees Buddha as mainly human is Thích Nhất Hạnh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk in the Zen tradition, who states that "Buddha was not a god. He was a human being like you and me, and he suffered just as we do."

In a similar fashion, Jack Maguire, a Western monk of the Mountains and Rivers Order in New York, writes that Buddha is inspirational based on his humanness:

"A fundamental part of Buddhism's appeal to billions of people over the past two and a half millennia is the fact that the central figure, commonly referred to by the title 'Buddha', was not a god, or a special kind of spiritual being, or even a prophet or an emissary of one. On the contrary, he was a human being like the rest of us who quite simply woke up to full aliveness."

The Seven Buddhas of Antiquity
In the earliest strata of Pali Buddhist texts, especially in the first four Nikayas, only the following seven Buddhas, The Seven Buddhas of Antiquity (Saptatathāgata), are explicitly mentioned and named (see for example SN 12.4 to SN 12.10). Four of these are from the current kalpa (Pali: kappa, meaning eon or "age") called the good eon (bhaddakappa) and three are from past eons.
 * 1) Vipassī (lived ninety-one kalpas ago)
 * 2) Sikhī  (lived thirty-one kalpas ago)
 * 3) Vessabhū (lived thirty-one kalpas ago in the same kalpa as Sikhī)
 * 4) Kakusandha (the first Buddha of the current good eon)
 * 5) Koṇāgamana (the second Buddha of the current eon)
 * 6) Kassapa (the third Buddha of the current eon)
 * 7) Gautama (the fourth and present Buddha of the current eon)

One sutta called Chakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta from an early Buddhist text called the Digha Nikaya also mentions that following the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity, a Buddha named Maitreya is predicted to arise in the world.

However, according to a text in the Theravada Buddhist tradition from a later strata (between 1st and 2nd century BCE) called the Buddhavamsa, twenty-one more Buddhas were added to the list of seven names in the early texts. Theravada tradition maintains that there can be up to five Buddhas in a kalpa or world age and that the current kalpa has had four Buddhas, with the current Buddha, Gotama, being the fourth and the future Buddha Metteyya being the fifth and final Buddha of the kalpa. This would make the current aeon a bhadrakalpa (fortunate aeon). In some Sanskrit and northern Buddhist traditions however, a bhadrakalpa has up to 1,000 Buddhas, with the Buddhas Gotama and Metteyya also being the fourth and fifth Buddhas of the kalpa respectively.

The Koṇāgamana Buddha, is mentioned in a 3rd-century BCE inscription by Ashoka at Nigali Sagar, in today's Nepal. There is an Ashoka pillar at the site today. Ashoka's inscription in the Brahmi script is on the fragment of the pillar still partly buried in the ground. The inscription made when Emperor Asoka at Nigali Sagar in 249 BCE records his visit, the enlargement of a stupa dedicated to the Kanakamuni Buddha, and the erection of a pillar.

According to Xuanzang, Koṇāgamana's relics were held in a stupa in Nigali Sagar, in what is now Kapilvastu District in southern Nepal.

The historical Buddha, Gautama, also called Sakyamuni ("Sage of the Shakyas"), is mentioned epigraphically on the Pillar of Ashoka at Rummindei (Lumbini in modern Nepal). The Brahmi script inscription on the pillar gives evidence that Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Empire, visited the place in 3rd-century BCE and identified it as the birth-place of the Buddha.

"When King Devānāmpriya Priyadasin had been anointed twenty years, he came himself and worshipped (this spot) because the Buddha Shakyamuni was born here. (He) both caused to be made a stone bearing a horse (?) and caused a stone pillar to be set up, (in order to show) that the Blessed One was born here. (He) made the village of Lummini free of taxes, and paying (only) an eighth share (of the produce)."

The last 28 Buddhas of Theravāda (aṭavīsi Buddha)
The Pali literature of the Theravāda tradition includes tales of 28 previous Buddhas. In countries where Theravāda Buddhism is practiced by the majority of people, such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, it is customary for Buddhists to hold elaborate festivals, especially during the fair weather season, paying homage to the last 28 Buddhas described in the Buddhavamsa. The Buddhavamsa is a text which describes the life of Gautama Buddha and the 27 Buddhas who preceded him, along with the future Metteyya Buddha. The Buddhavamsa is part of the Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is part of the Sutta Piṭaka. The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three main sections of the Pāli Canon.

The first three of these Buddhas—Taṇhaṅkara, Medhaṅkara, and Saraṇaṅkara—lived before the time of Dīpankara Buddha. The fourth Buddha, Dīpankara, is especially important, as he was the Buddha who gave niyatha vivarana (prediction of future Buddhahood) to the Brahmin youth who would in the distant future become the bodhisattva Gautama Buddha. After Dīpankara, 25 more noble people (ariya-puggala) would attain enlightenment before Gautama, the historical Buddha.

Many Buddhists also pay homage to the future Buddha, Metteyya. According to Buddhist scripture, Metteyya will be a successor of Gautama who will appear on Earth, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure Dharma. The prophecy of the arrival of Metteyya is found in the canonical literature of all Buddhist sects (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana), and is accepted by most Buddhists as a statement about an event that will take place when the Dharma will have been forgotten on Jambudvipa (the terrestrial realm, where ordinary human beings live).

Mahāyāna Buddhas
Mahāyāna Buddhists venerate numerous Buddhas that are not found in early Buddhism or in Theravada Buddhism. They are generally seen as living in other realms, known as buddha-fields (Sanskrit: buddhakṣetra) or pure lands (Ch: 淨土; p: Jìngtǔ) in East Asian Buddhism. They are sometimes called "celestial Buddhas" since they are not from this earth. Some of the key Mahāyāna Buddhas are:

Some Mahāyāna sutras also contain long lists of Buddhas which are used in different ways. One popular list of Buddhas is the Thirty-Five Confession Buddhas which is found in the Sutra of the Three Heaps (Sanskrit: Triskandhadharmasutra). This sutra is popular in Tibetan Buddhist rites of confession.
 * Akshobhya ("the Imperturbable"), appears in various sutras like the Vimalakirti sutra. His buddha-field is Abhirati (lit. "The Joyous").
 * Amitābha (Amida Buddha, ."Infinite Light"), the principal Buddha of Pure Land Buddhism. His buddha-field is called Sukhāvatī ("Blissful").
 * Amoghasiddhi ("Infallible Success")
 * Bhaiṣajyaguru ("Medicine guru") also known as "Medicine Buddha", the healing Buddha. His pure land is Vaiḍūryanirbhāsa ("Pure Beryl Light").
 * Ratnasambhava ("Jewel Born")
 * Vairocana ("the Illuminator"), a key figure in the Avatamsaka Sutra and the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra. He is the central Buddha in Huayan Buddhism, Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Shingon. His pure land is known as the Padmagarbhalokadhātu (the lotus treasury world) and also as "Densely Arrayed Akaniṣṭha" (Ghanavyūhakaniṣṭha).
 * Prabhūtaratna ("Many Treasures"), an ancient Buddha who appears in the Lotus Sutra
 * Samantabhadra, a Buddha who is mentioned in the Akṣayamatinirdeśa Sūtra, which states that the bodhisattva Akṣayamati is said to be from the Buddha field of Samantabhadra.
 * Lokeśvararāja, a past Buddha who is mentioned in the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life
 * Budai (Jp: Hotei), the fat laughing Buddha, usually seen in China and often mistaken as the Buddha in western culture. This figure is believed to be a representation of a medieval Chinese monk who is associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha.

The Bhadrakalpikasūtra contains a list of one thousand and four Buddhas and discusses their deeds. Most of these are Buddhas of the future.

In Vajrayana
In Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana, Esoteric Buddhism), one finds some of the same Mahayana Buddhas along with other Buddha figures that are unique to Vajrayana. There are five primary Buddhas known as the "Five Tathagathas": Vairocana, Aksobhya, Ratnasambhava, Amitābha, and Amoghasiddhi. Each is associated with a different consort, direction, aggregate (or, aspect of the personality), emotion, element, color, symbol, and mount.

The Five Tathagatas and some of their associated elements are: Buddhist Tantra also includes several female Buddhas, such as Tara, the most popular female Buddha in Tibetan Buddhism, who comes in many forms and colors.

In the Buddhist tantras, there are various fierce deities which are tantric forms of the Buddhas. These may be fierce (Tibetan: trowo, Sanskrit: krodha) Buddha forms or semi-fierce, and may appear in sexual union with a female Buddha or as a "solitary hero". The Herukas (Tb. khrag 'thung, lit. "blood drinker") are enlightened masculine beings who adopt fierce forms to help beings. They include Yamantaka, Cakrasamvara, Hevajra, Mahākāla, and Vajrakilaya. Dakinis (Tb. khandroma, "sky-goer") are their feminine counterparts, sometimes depicted with a heruka and sometimes as independent deities. The most prevalent wrathful dakinis are Vajrayogini, Vajravārāhī, Nairatmya, and Kurukullā.

Buddhist mythology overlapped with Hindu mythology. Akshobhya, for example, acquires a fierce Tantric form that is reminiscent of the fierce form of the Hindu god Shiva; in this form he became known by the Buddhist names Heruka, Hevajra, or Samvara. He is known in Japan in this guise as Fudō ("Imperturbable"). The Indian god Bhairava, a fierce bull-headed divinity, was adopted by Tantric Buddhists as Vajrabhairava. Also called Yamantaka ("Slayer of Death") and identified as the fierce expression of the gentle Manjushri, he was accorded quasi-buddha rank.

There is also the idea of the Adi-Buddha, the "first Buddha" to attain Buddhahood. Variously named as Vajradhara, Samantabhadra and Vairocana, the first Buddha is also associated with the concept of Dharmakaya. Some historical figures are also seen as Buddhas, such as the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, Tibetan historical figures like Padmasambhava, and Tsongkhapa.

Depictions of the Buddha in art

Buddhas are frequently represented in the form of statues and paintings. Commonly seen postures include:
 * The Seated Buddha in the Lotus position
 * Buddha seated on a throne
 * The Reclining Buddha (usually depicts his final nirvana)
 * The Standing Buddha
 * A walking Buddha with one step forward
 * The emaciated Buddha, which shows Siddhartha Gautama during his extreme ascetic practice of starvation.
 * The baby Buddha (usually pointing upwards).

In Theravada Buddhism, the Buddha is always depicted as a monastic shown with hair and he is always shown wearing the simple monk's robe (called a kāṣāya). In Mahayana Buddhism, a Buddha is often also depicted with monastic robes, however some Buddhas are also depicted with different forms of clothing, such as princely or kingly attire, which can include crowns and jewels.

It is common to depict the Buddha accompanied by other figures. In Theravada, it is common to have him flanked by his two main disciples, Moggallana and Sariputta. In Mahayana Buddhism, it is more common to have him surrounded by bodhisattvas, like Manjushri, Samantabhadra and Avalokiteshvara.

The Buddha may also be depicted with various accessories, such as a victory banner (dhvaja), a lotus seat, and a begging bowl.

Special characteristics of a Buddha's body

Most depictions of a Buddha contain a certain number of "marks" (lakṣaṇa), which are considered the signs of his nobility and his enlightenment. The exactly design and style of these features vary regionally but most often they are elements of list of thirty-two physical characteristics of the Buddha called "the signs of a great man" (Skt. mahāpuruṣa lakṣaṇa).

Some of the most obvious features which can be found in many buddha statues include:

 * The uṣṇīṣa, a protuberance on the top of the head which symbolizes superb wisdom.
 * The ūrṇā, or ūrṇākośa, a spiral tuft of hair or circular dot between the eyebrows.
 * Dharma wheels on the soles of his feet and on his hands
 * Other auspicious symbols on his body (such as lotuses, swastikas, endless knots, etc.)
 * Long earlobes, symbolizing denoting superb perception
 * Unnaturally long arms and long thin fingers
 * Golden skin

Hand-gestures
The poses and hand-gestures of these statues, known respectively as asanas and mudras, are significant to their overall meaning. The popularity of any particular mudra or asana tends to be region-specific, such as the Vajra (or Chi Ken-in) mudra, which is popular in Japan and Korea but rarely seen in India. Others are more common; for example, the Varada (Wish-Granting) mudra is common among standing statues of the Buddha, particularly when coupled with the Abhaya (Fearlessness and Protection) mudra.

title: Buddhahood


text:
Talk:Buddhahood

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)

 * Wow. Paccekabuddha is surealy a Buddha. I'm shocked by reading this talk page :/ Faredoka (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2023 (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)

Types of Buddhas
ashley grant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.4.166.130 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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, 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 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)

 * Long overdue - I've pulled the relevant info from the other article and will merge.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Śākyamuni was a Prajñādhika (through more wisdom) Buddha. The next Buddha of this world, Maitreya (Pāli: Metteyya) will be a Vīryādhika (through more effort) Buddha." Does anybody know the reference to this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.227.148 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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 to Buddhist art. In the context of renaming: Since we found out (in Talk:Buddhahood/renaming 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

 * "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)

 * Admittedly, it is a bit of a confusing topic, especially to address in an encyclopedia article, although this sort of layered teaching is actually very typical of Mahayana teachings. In another example, bodhisattvas are said to practice the paramitas for billions of eons, but in the Lotus Sutra, a young naga maiden achieves enlightenment in a split second. Suffice it to say, the method of learning and interpretation of these texts is not the same as what is common in the Theravada tradition. There are layers, and varying interpretations may be deemed correct for individuals at varying levels of understanding and practice. But without digressing any further, Mahayana scholar Paul Williams asked one of Tibet's top monastic scholars about the subject of bodhisattvas "postponing" their attainment of buddahood:

 * ""It is frequently said in textbooks that the compassion of the bodhisattva is so great that he postpones nirvana, or turns back from nirvana, in order to place all other sentient beings in nirvana first. Such a teaching, however, appears prima facie to be incoherent, and contains a claim that somehow a buddha must be deficient in compassion when compared to a bodhisattva. [...] Moreoever, if sentient beings are infinite, a widely-held view in the Mahayana, then the bodhisattva is setting himself an impossible task, and no bodhisattva could ever attain buddhahood. I asked the late Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, a former head abbot of Drepung Monastery and one of the most learned scholars, about this while he was on a visit to Britain. I explained that it was widely asserted in books available in the West that the bodhisattva does not become enlightened until he has helped all other sentient beings to enlightenment. The eminent Lama seemed to find this most amusing since, as he put it, all those who become bodhisattvas would not become enlightened, while those who had not become bodhisattvas would. He stated quite categorically that the final view is that this is not how bodhisattvas behave. In Tibetan practice the merit from virtuous deeds is always directed towards obtaining full buddhahood in order to be able to help beings most effectively. There is never any mention of really postponing or turning back from buddhahood. Otherwise any bodhisattva who did become a buddha would be presumably either deficient in compassion or have broken his vow. [...] According to Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, if a text states or implies that a bodhisattva postpones nirvana, it is not to be taken literally. It does not embody the final truth. It may be that it embodies a form of exhortatory writing -- the bodhisattva adopts a position of complete renunciation. In renouncing even buddhahood, the bodhisattva precisely attains buddhahood. [...] My purpose is simply to suggest sensitivity to the initial incoherence and textual uncertainty concerning the bodhisattva's claimed postponement of nirvana, an assertion which appears to have become part of the lore of textbooks on Buddhism.""

 * Tengu800 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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".

 * the usual one, referring to Sammasambuddhas only
 * occasionally, synonymous with arahant, so including 3 types:

 * sammasambuddha
 * paccekebuddha
 * 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)
 * Hi Peter, see eg. page 20 of http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/medbudsutra.pdf, certainly a Mahayana Sutra. Also in Tibetan Buddhist teachings it appears regularly. They use the word xx-Buddha, but consider them Arhats, not really Buddhas. rudy (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 20 of that the sutra in the link above does not say anything about a sravakabuddha, only that bodhisattvas should provide the Mahayana teachings to those on the sravaka and pratyekabuddha paths, in order to set them onto the Mahayana path. I was a bit surprised when I saw the link to the Bhaisajyaguru Sutra, as I was fairly sure there was no such association made in this text. After checking the source, it appears that there is no connection between sravakas and buddhahood in the passage. Tengu800 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mahayana buddha names
in Taisho Tripitaka

439 佛說諸佛經 many buddhas

440 佛說佛名經 many buddha names

441 佛說佛名經 many buddha names

442 十方千五百佛名經 10 directions 1500 buddha names

443 五千五百佛名神咒除障滅罪經 5500 buddha names

444 佛說百佛名經 100 buddha names

445 佛說不思議功德諸佛所護念經 many buddha names

446 過去莊嚴劫千佛名經 past kalpa 1000 buddha names

447 現在賢劫千佛名經 recent kalpa 1000 buddha names

448 未來星宿劫千佛名經 next kalpa 1000 buddha namesYew bo (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

449 for example 南無金剛堅強消伏壞散如來         出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 金剛堅強消壞散佛　聞名歡喜信樂誦念 得不退轉卻十萬億之罪             出自十方千五百佛名經 南無歡喜莊嚴珠王佛              出自佛說千佛因緣經 南無帝寶幢摩尼勝光如來           出自佛說千佛因緣經 南無阿彌陀佛  阿彌陀佛　聞名一心信樂誦念歡喜得無量 福離三惡道臨終至念佛自來迎 南無善寂月音王如來              出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 南無殊勝月王佛                   出自佛說稱揚諸佛功德經 以下佛名無講解 東北方青華世界悲精進如來 南無悲精進佛　一心敬禮者卻千億劫生死之罪  出自十方千五百佛名經 南無初發心不退轉輪成首如來 不退轉輪成首佛　一心敬禮者卻千億劫生死之罪 南無斷疑拔欲除冥佛　一心敬禮者卻三十六億劫生死之罪  出自十方千五百佛名經

南無當來下生彌勒尊佛

佛名功德的講解

南無德內豐嚴王如來 於是阿逸菩薩. 長跪叉手前白佛言 . 寧有一事菩薩摩訶薩. 於此事中具大乘願住不退轉. 疾成無上正真道不. 佛言有. 阿逸. 北方有世界名曰豐嚴. 其國有佛 . 號德內豐嚴王 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師號曰眾祐度人無量. 其有得聞斯佛名者. 歡喜信樂持諷誦念而為作禮. 其人皆當得不退轉. 疾成無上正真之道. 卻一億劫生死之罪. 其有供養五千佛者. 此輩阿逸. 爾乃得聞德內豐嚴王如來名號. 其聞名者. 從是以後所生之處

. 常得天眼未曾不得天眼之時. 常能徹聽未曾不得天耳之時 . 常能飛行無有不得神足之時. 乃至泥曰常得端政 . 未曾受於醜惡之形. 乃至泥曰常當尊貴. 未曾生於下劣之處 . 乃至泥曰悉能除壞眾欲之縛. 其人六情眼耳鼻口及於身意終無有疾. 乃至泥曰初未曾生無佛之處. 聽大尊法未曾有礙. 不得聽時未曾有礙 . 不見僧時亦復不生八難之處. 戒常具足無有缺時. 識心清淨無有忿亂時. 當知阿逸. 其有得聞此佛名者. 淨心信樂於最正覺. 如渴欲飲. 發信敬心向如來者 . 此等阿逸. 悉能捉持諸佛世界最特之利. 其人皆當獲於殊妙奇特功德 . 是故阿逸. 並當專精持此佛名. 若族姓子族姓女. 欲得殊特妙淨剎者.

當急聽此諸尊佛名稱其名號. 當為 作禮自作是言 . 我今禮於德內豐嚴王如來 至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師號曰眾祐度人無量. 阿逸白佛言. 惟天中天. 其佛剎土為在何所去此遠近. 成佛以來為幾時也 . 佛告阿逸. 設使縱廣百由延中一大埠沙. 取一沙著一佛剎 . 如是悉著諸佛剎中悉令沙盡. 如是沙數諸佛剎土悉滿中沙. 復取諸佛剎土中沙. 復以一沙著一佛剎. 如是諸國剎中沙. 悉使令盡取此沙數. 諸佛剎土悉破為塵. 復取一塵著一佛剎悉令塵盡. 是諸佛國塵數剎土猶尚未至. 餘未到者過此百倍 . 其佛剎土去此極遠不可稱量

. 其佛世尊在彼豐嚴剎土之中. 而今現在與無央數諸開士等不可稱計諸比丘 眾. 前後圍遶而為說法. 我於此坐遙用肉眼. 見其如來於大眾中廣說經法. 彼佛世尊於 彼剎土在高座上. 亦用肉眼觀此世界. 亦復見我在於座上於大眾中而說經法 . 阿逸當知. 若有眾生信諸如來肉眼所見 . 而歡喜者. 此必成就正覺之道. 斯等皆諸佛如來之所護持. 令使信樂而不狐疑. 斯等皆當捉持如來深妙之慧. 得不退轉於最正覺 . 是故阿逸. 其有欲求此大福者. 若使三千大千世界滿其中火 . 故當入中聽斯佛名智慧之法.

 * It's lamentable that we don't have these names in Sanskrit. --Invokingvajras (talk) 4:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

please
please add: בודהה (מושג). Daniel B (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Done --Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Literature
Black Buddha, Changing the Face of American Buddhism by Lama Choyin Rangdrul.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.74 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

hello Skysmith, why?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.190 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * first edition
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.225 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Attainment of Buddhahood
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.112 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition

 *
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.112 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection
When was this article protected? Probably it should be unprotected now if the concerns are met? Dragonzz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC).

On Buddhahood, generally speaking
"This evening I would like to talk about "The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion." When Buddha realized Buddhahood he attained the original state of the oneness of everything without limit. That state is beyond any description; however, in order to help sentient beings who were not aware of this reality, he used language that they could understand in order to guide them toward that experience. In so doing there is a limitation, because languages are built upon concepts, and concepts automatically set limits. The concepts are limited by nature, so how are we going to accomplish the task of using limited tools to describe a limitless state? Because of that, in describing Buddhahood, quite often in the Sutras you will find that they will have to say, "Buddha is complete in two ways."
 * Dr. Yutang Lin: The Unification of Wisdom and Compassion

Because of the limits of language we can speak only about certain aspects at one time. The rational aspect of Buddhahood is called "Wisdom," and the emotional aspect or the aspect of the will is called "Compassion." So we always say, "Buddha is complete in Wisdom and Compassion." However, we should realize that in Buddha himself there is no such distinction between Wisdom and Compassion. Whatever he does, whatever he says, whatever he thinks, is the totality and the unification of Wisdom and Compassion. But for us to understand it, we must describe it from different angles, therefore we say it has two sides."

Something of this kind should be mentioned within the introductory part of the wiki article.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.50 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) samantha is the best in the house.xxxx

Character Traits
I read that the Buddah had god like traights, but why is he sometimes potrayed as chubby? Could someone explane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.243.221 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That is Budai. Mitsube (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * He just wanted to get away from it all, like so many men nowadays, and possibly in any age. He did not want responsibility anymore, so he just walked out. Nowadays in the West, he might have been certified mental and locked up in a mental asylum. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism and the Savakabuddha
In Theravada Buddhism it is commonly held, to my knowledge, that there are three types of enlightenment, and that arhats are also called savakabuddhas. I have tried to find more background on this term, as I have never encountered it in any Mahayana sutras that I am familiar with. It also seems that the Pali equivalent of arhat is the commonly used term in the early texts from the Theravada school as well. Looking through this talk page, there is a link to the Mahayana sutra for the Medicine Buddha, which is supposedly a reference for the Mahayana acceptance of the savakabuddha as a type of buddha. Even looking on the specific page, I see nothing related to this, and certainly no term equivalent to savakabuddha or reference to arhats being a class of buddha. All this sutra says about sravakas is:

 * ''I vow that in a future life, when I have attained Supreme Enlightenment, I will set all who follow heretical ways upon the path to Enlightenment. Likewise, I will set those who follow the Sravaka and Pratyeka-Buddha ways onto the Mahayana path.

In the article itself, there is another supposed source for the Mahayana acceptance of the savakabuddha, but again upon inspecting the link (a page from a work by Santideva), there is no such term or reference to arhats being buddhas, or any possible translation of savakabuddha. The only line even mentioning sravakas, seems to be verse 50, which has no indication of these things:

 * May the self-realized pratyekabuddhas be happy,
 * And likewise the shravaka listeners,
 * Always being honored with respect
 * By gods, anti-gods, and by men.

Upon checking the source for the claim about Tibetan Buddhist acceptance of the savakabuddha doctrine, the reference appears to be two sutras from the Pali Canon (?). Thinking that they might have some notes related to them in the translations, I found these two specific translations by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Access to Insight, but as I suspected, there is no mention of arhats and buddhahood, nor of savakabuddhas. So far three references claiming Mahayana acceptance of this term, have turned out to say nothing about the subject whatsoever.

In any case, my question is simply this: is there any evidence of (1) the term sravakabuddha being used in Sanskrit, (2) use of the term in Indian Buddhism, (3) use of an equivalent term in Chinese translations, or (4) use of the term in the Mahayana sutras or sastras? Tengu800 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that the usual term is Arhat. The use of the term sravakabuddha at Wikipedia creates credibility for this term, but, to my opinion, it is confusing. Standard text books on Buddhism use the word Arhat. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is even a [webforum] where this question has been posted. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed order of the article
The 'Three kinds of Buddhas' are being mentioned on several pages throughout Wikipedia. This way, the terms become more important than they are. The importance lies in Pratyeka-Buddha and samyak sam-Buddha. Pratyeka-Buddha, as a Buddha who doesn't spread the Dharma, which is being seen as an less worthy kind of Buddhahood. And samyak sambuddha, as an idealtype, about which rhere is no uniformity in Buddhism. In a western context, it can even be distractive, as it fuels the dream of instant-perfection. But, that's my opinion. Anyway, I moved this part downward, and other parts upward, to emphasize the various visons on Buddhahood that exist within Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dharma vs dhamma
The article mentions dharma and dhamma (once) - I don't know enough about this to know if the dhamma reference is correct (a quick search suggests the concept exists but may be different from dharma) or a typo. If it is correct and different, it should be called out somehow. If it's correct but the same, I guess it should be changed to dharma for consistency. Could someone who knows what they're talking about have a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CupawnTae (talk • contribs) 08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the same term, but in Sanskrit (dharma) and Pali (dhamma) respectively. I've added a short explanation. Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The article said dharma (no matter how you render the spelling) means "the right way of living". One would assume the right way of living would be to work and earn a living. Surely being lazy and beg for a living or relying on alms when you are an abled-body person would not be the right way of living. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV
I thought I detected on a first read through, that this article had a definite tilt in the direction of the Mahayana view of the Buddha's divinity. But when I re-read the two sections "The Buddha as Divine" [or similar wording] and "The Buddha as Human", I found the POV quite blatantly expressed. The "Buddha as Divine" section listed numerous references in the Pali Canon supporting the idea (downplaying the Theravada view) which is fair enough. But the "Buddha as Human" section is devoted not to showing evidence supporting this view of the Buddha as human (a widespread one, so presumably it has support) but to refuting the idea! "It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human.".

Such bias undermines the credibility of the whole article. I'm surprised that this hasn't attracted attention of others.

--50.68.134.51 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a previous comment by me, as I came to the same conclusion reading this today. The article is dreadful. It (and the talk section) has deteriorated into a debate about whether or not the Buddha was human and how many types of Buddha there are and...where are we going next? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What seems to be missing is any discussion/clarification of the notion of Buddhahood that, following Nagarjuna, drifted towards the notion of a soul, and all the problems that caused.

 * A growing suspicion of mine is that nobody who identifies themselves as a Mahayanist should be writing in Wikipedia. It seems that everyone who does so speaks as a believer rather than as an observer, with all the emotion and distortion implied. "It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human." Why would a person expressing this kind of derision of an opposing point of view be quoted here?
 * --50.64.40.229 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the "Human" section seems more argumentative than necessary. Note that the "Divine" section doesn't really have counter-arguments, and I wonder why they would be necessary in either section.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problems with this article are mostly the sources used: many are primary sources, not secondary.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a few sources -- not many. I'll look through them to see if there's anything that can be used here.--Daveler16 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Here - what do you think of something like this? I needed to use a primary souorce at the end - it makes a very pertinent point and I cou'dn't find a referece to it in my other resources.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Made the addition. Also removed the quotation marks from the title of the sub-section. There are schools whose basic assumption is that the Buddha is human, and quotation marks are generally used to trivialize something.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Mahayana versus Theravada
Mrspaceowl has three times removed the following sourced info from the lead:

turning the sentence into

 * diff edit-summary remove unnecessary wording synonymous with western undergrad literature students
 * revert by JJ edit-summary Undid revision 886817023 by Mrspaceowl (talk)basic Mahayana stance
 * diff edit-summary Undid revision 886886850 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) revision summary did not explain reason for revision -- how is Mahayana defined by its contrast to Theravada in any way that would not be clear from a simple statement that Theravada focuses on arthatship, even when we give the benefit of the doubt as to the truth of this statement? Do we have evidence of either tradition being defined solely by their contrast to the other!?
 * revert by JJ edit-summary Undid revision 886896382 by Mrspaceowl (talk)check the source
 * diff edit-summary Undid revision 886896448 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) if you have access to the source current then quote the passage because it is an extraordinary claim

Source: Gethin, Rupert (1998), The foundations of Buddhism (1. publ. paperback ed.). Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. pp. 224–234. P.228:

The goal of Mahayana is not Arahantship; and the comparison with Theravada is a standard comparison in Mahayana thought. The user in question has been blocked three times in two months; they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Four times; they're blocked again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks Joshua Jonathan . yes disruption of text-source integrity is not allowed.  JimRenge (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sanskrit Devanagari equivalences being replaced by Brahmi.
I note that someone has started replacing the Sanskrit equivalences into Brahmi which in this form was more or less discontinued by the 5th century CE (cf. Brahmi script). Sanskrit nowadays is most commonly rendered in Devanagari and, indeed the entire Sanskrit article is rendered in Devanagari.

This seems to be somebody's pet project. It is out of place here. (20040302 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ascetic Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Buddhahood


text:
Talk:1986 in American television

Untitled
Shouldn't this be 1986 in USA television ?

No. If you have information on other countries, please add it. -- Zoe

 * Just a note - I've been adding stuff from other countries as I find it... there just isn't as much information out there. -Jazz77

Yeah, 1986 was a big year of change for US television. NBC wanted to cancel or drastically change the format of their action shows (Knight Rider cancellation, A-Team format change, Miami Vice adopting 'darker' tones, etc.). Sitcoms were in vogue once again (after many long-running ones ending in 1984.) FOX would start broadcasting. Cable TV and VCR'S were becoming very commonplace. Lots of things were evolving and happening...

WWF Wrestling Challenge
I think I found an error, Wrestling Challenge did NOT start on September 28, instead it started on September 7, Ring the bell this program has started. Joey Chesnavich 4.13.2018 9:35 am ET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.81.128 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:1986 in American television


text:
Talk:January 27

Mozart

 * Should we use another picture of Mozart other than the current one? All the other engravings and portraits look different (and a lot better, in my opinion) and any could easily be used. ? —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bridget Fonda
Thank you Andy, this newbie will be bolder next time when he feels sure. However, I'm unsure about Bridget Fonda whoe year of birth conflicts with that on her biog. 1964 or 1974. I'll leave it to the wise. Pip Wilson

Eccles
1903 - John Carew Eccles, psychologist, winner of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963, (d. 1997) .... should read neurophysiologist, not pyschologist.
 * Changed. However everyone can change everything here, so you could have done it yourself as well. Just be bold. andy 13:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mahalia Jackson, Auschwitz
Contradictory dates: Both the death of Mahalia Jackson and the liberation of Auschwitz. I've seen both January 26 and January 27. Can somebody shed some light? -- Zoe

Plane crash
"2001 - A chartered Beechcraft King Air 200 crashes after takeoff from Boulder, Colorado killing 10." An accident with 10 anonymous people is notable enough to be here? JoaoRicardo 03:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
I second above statement. And How about M. Jackson and his burns? Not even WHO cares... ;-) -- Kku (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed
An error occured in 1695: Ahmed II died February 6, 1695. See other wikipedias. --172.183.110.86 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple
Is mentioning a speculative Apple product launch really worth being listed here? 79.245.94.8 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombings
When placing the date 27 January into the search box, two bombings appear - 27 January 2011 Baghdad bombing, and 27 January 2003 Mumbai bombing. Since these are events that are specified by the date, I wonder if they should be included here, too. -- Beardo (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'Contents' box reads 'Holidays and Oobservances' (sic)
How to fix? Toddsschneider (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Births and deaths
I've removed entries for people who have few or no articles in other language wikipedias and thus not internationally well known. This makes the section more manageable. Where possible, those that have been removed have been transferred to the relevant Year in Topic articles. See Days of Year Project talk pages. Deb (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on January 27. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121208150851/http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Jan&day=27 to http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Jan&day=27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes check.svg Done using a reference from the article. ‑‑ El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

1924
Can someone add Lenin's first name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.181.122 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Mustafa II. wrong date
Like on many other places, here too Wikipedia again mixes Gregorian and Julian calendar. So it often happens that on one place the Julian calendar is used for dating events, while on another place Gregorian calendar is used for the same event, without stating which calendar is used. I do not understand how you can do this. Gregorian calendar is valid in the present times, wikipedia is being created in the present times, when Gregorian calendar is valid, so Gregorian calendar should be used when dating events! 🤦♂

What is wrong here: Mustafa II. did not become Ottoman Sultan and Caliph on January 27th 1695, but on February 6th 1695. Ahmed II., his predecessor, did not die on January 27th 1695, but on February 6th 1695.

FINALLY start using GREGORIAN calendar for dating events! Or, if you want to leave the old system dates as they are, explicitely state it is used when giving dates (January 27th 1695, Julian or old system in this case). If you do not the reader may be confused and consider the information WRONG. It does not require anything else but a bit of conscientiousness and precision. 2A02:AB04:2D4:8C00:1DF:D51D:1179:E80A (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Old Style and New Style dates fall under the MOS:JG guideline. If you see an uncertain calendar date, you can post which calendar?.

 * If you see something that you can confirm is a Julian date, you can use OldStyleDate, which has this syntax:
 * if the year is the same, or
 * or  if the NS year and OS year are different
 * Examples would be:
 * February 2 1905
 * 5 January 1531
 * Let me cite an explanatory essay WP:NOTLEAD that states Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. ... If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. Since this is your ax to grind, I would refer you to the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy. Peaceray (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:January 27


text:
Piano trio

A piano trio is a group of piano and two other instruments, usually a violin and a cello, or a piece of music written for such a group. It is one of the most common forms found in classical chamber music. The term can also refer to a group of musicians who regularly play this repertoire together; for a number of well-known piano trios, see below.

The term "piano trio" is also used for jazz trios, where it most commonly designates a pianist accompanied by bass and drums, though guitar or saxophone may figure as well.

Form
Works titled "Piano Trio" tend to be in the same overall shape as a sonata. Initially this was in the three movement form, though some of Haydn's have two movements. Mozart, in five late works, is generally credited with transforming the accompanied keyboard sonata, in which the essentially optional cello doubles the bass of the keyboard left hand, into the balanced trio which has since been a central form of chamber music. With the early 19th century, particularly Beethoven, this genre was felt to be more appropriate to cast in the four movement form. Piano trios that are set in the Sonata tradition share the general concerns of such works for their era, and often are reflective directly of symphonic practice with individual movements laid out according to the composer's understanding of the sonata form.

In the Classical era, home music-making made the piano trio a very popular genre for arrangements of other works. For example, Beethoven transcribed his first two symphonies for piano trio. Thus a large number of works exist for the arrangement of piano, violin and violoncello which are not generally titled or numbered as piano trios, but which are nonetheless part of the overall genre. These include single movements as well as sets of variations such as Beethoven's Variations on 'Ich bin der Schneider Kakadu' Op. 121a and Variations in E flat major Op. 44.

After the Classical era, works for piano and two instruments continue to be written which are not presented as in the sonata tradition, or are arrangements of other works. Many of these individual works are popular on concert programs, for example Suk's Elegie.

For individual articles treating works for piano trio, see Category:Compositions for piano trio.

The role of the three instruments
The piano trios of the Classical era, notably those of Haydn, are dominated by the piano part. The violin plays the melody only a certain amount of the time, and when it does, is often doubled by the piano. The cello part is very much subordinated, usually just doubling the bass line in the piano. It is thought that this practice was related to the sonority of the instruments of Haydn's day: the piano was fairly weak and "tinkling" in tone, and benefited from the tonal strengthening of other instruments. Mozart's five late (K. 496 and later) trios are generally felt to mark the assured arrival of the form, attentive to balanced voices and three-part dialogue.

Beethoven's trios continued the compositional objectives inaugurated by Mozart. The new idea of equality was never implemented completely; the extent to which it is realized varies from one composition to the next, as well as among movements within a single composition. Certainly, by the mid-nineteenth century, all three instruments had been modified to have a very powerful sound, and each can hold its own in a modern ensemble.

The earlier trios are now frequently performed and recorded using authentic instruments, of the kind for which they were originally written. Such performances restore the sonic balance the composer would have expected, and have proven popular.

Other combinations
Some rather rare combinations of instruments have nonetheless inspired a few outstanding works.

 * Haydn wrote three trios for flute, cello and piano (H. 15/15-17), a combination for which Carl Maria von Weber also wrote one work (op. 63).
 * Beethoven wrote his Trio in G major, WoO 37 (1786) for flute, bassoon and piano.
 * Mikhail Glinka wrote his Trio pathétique in D minor for clarinet, bassoon and piano, although is also performed with a violin or cello substituting the clarinet or the bassoon, respectively.
 * Francis Poulenc's Trio for oboe, bassoon and piano op. 43 (1926).
 * The Horn-violin-piano trio is exemplified by Brahms' Trio Op. 40 in E flat and György Ligeti's 1982 Trio for Violin, Horn and Piano.
 * Trios with clarinet include masterpieces such as Mozart's Kegelstatt Trio and works by Beethoven, Brahms and Bartók; many more works are listed in Clarinet-violin-piano trio, Clarinet-viola-piano trio and Clarinet-cello-piano trio.
 * Ignaz Lachner wrote all of his six piano trios for violin, viola and piano.
 * The jazz trio formation of saxophone, piano and percussion has been taken up as an alternative "piano trio" in the field of contemporary classical music, initially by Trio Accanto who since 1994 have commissioned more than 100 works for this combination. Several other trios have been formed to perform this repertoire.

Example piano trios, extant and defunct
Among the best known of such groups are or have been:

 * Altenberg Trio (Austria)
 * Amatis Trio (the Netherlands)
 * (Berlin, Germany)
 * Maria Baptist [jazz] Trio (Berlin, Germany)
 * Istomin-Stern-Rose Trio, consisting of Eugene Istomin, Isaac Stern and Leonard Rose. (United States)
 * One consisting of Alfred Cortot, Jacques Thibaud and Pablo Casals, earlier in the 20th century
 * The Spivakovsky Trio, consisting of Jascha Spivakovsky, Tossy Spivakovsky and Edmund Kurtz, earlier in the 20th century
 * The Kalichstein-Laredo-Robinson Trio (United States)
 * The Beaux Arts Trio (United States), whose commitment to using the same players in every concert pioneered a new generation of similarly committed groups; defunct
 * The Sitkovetsky Trio (United Kingdom) consisting of Alexander Sitkovetsky, Wu Qian and Isang Enders
 * Trio di Trieste (Italy) consisting of Dario De Rosa, Renato Zanettovich, and Libero Lana/Amedeo Baldovino; defunct
 * The "Ax-Kim-Ma" trio, consisting of Emanuel Ax, Young-Uck Kim, and Yo-Yo Ma (United States)
 * Eroica Trio (United States)
 * Ahn Trio (United States/Korea)
 * The Borodin Trio (United States)
 * Trio Fontenay (Germany)
 * Trio Céleste (United States), consisting of Kevin Kwan Loucks, Iryna Krechkovsky, and Ross Gasworth
 * Suk Trio (Czech Republic)
 * The Florestan Trio (United Kingdom)
 * The Greenwich Trio (United Kingdom)
 * The Gryphon Trio (Canada)
 * The Oberlin Trio (United States)
 * The Alma Trio (United States)
 * Trio Vega (Spain)
 * Trio Kandinsky (United States)
 * Trio Wanderer (France)
 * Haydn Trio Eisenstadt (Austria): Harald Kosik, Hannes Gradwohl, Bernd Gradwohl/Verena Stourzh.
 * Bamberg Trio (Germany)
 * Petrof Piano Trio (Czech Republic)
 * Manhattan Piano Trio (United States)
 * Spirale Piano Trio (Belgium)
 * Xonor Trio (United States)
 * Vanic Trio (United States)
 * Vienna Piano Trio (Austria)
 * Stuttgart Piano Trio (German)
 * The Dutch Trio (Germany/The Netherlands)

Famous works for piano trio

 * Anton Arensky's Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor
 * Ludwig van Beethoven's trios, especially Piano Trio No. 7 in B-flat major "Archduke", Op. 97
 * Johannes Brahms's Piano Trios No. 1 in B major, Op. 8, No. 2 in C major, Op. 87 and No. 3 in C minor, Op. 101
 * Elliott Carter's Epigrams (2012)
 * Frédéric Chopin's Piano Trio in G minor, Op. 8
 * Antonín Dvořák's Piano Trio No. 4 in E minor ("Dumky"), Op. 90
 * Gabriel Fauré's piano trio, Op. 120
 * Joseph Haydn's 45 piano trios, particularly those composed from the mid-1780s onwards
 * Charles Ives's Piano Trio, 1911
 * Franz Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies No. 9 and No. 12
 * Felix Mendelssohn's two piano trios
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's piano trios, particularly No. 3, 4 and 5
 * Sergei Rachmaninoff's Elegiac Trios No. 1 in G minor and No. 2 in D minor
 * Maurice Ravel's Trio for Piano, Violin and Cello
 * Camille Saint-Saëns's Piano Trio No. 1 and Piano Trio No. 2
 * Franz Schubert's Piano Trio No. 1 and No. 2
 * Clara Schumann's Piano Trio
 * Robert Schumann's Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor and Piano Trio No. 3 in G minor
 * Dmitri Shostakovich's Piano Trio No. 2 in E minor
 * Bedřich Smetana's Trio for Piano, Violin and Cello
 * Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Piano Trio in A minor, Op. 50

title: Piano trio