 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
A question re: "A Pratyeka Buddha (Sanskrit pratyekabuddha; Pali pacceka-buddha) is one of two types of enlightened beings in early Indian Buddhism (the other being the śrāvakas)". Does this indicate that early Indian Buddhism had no concept of Samyak Sambuddha? This would appear to be at odds with this article's mention of "Supreme Buddha" a few sentences later. - Nat Krause 08:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Added reference for the statement that Pratyekabuddhas only have a place when Dharma is not preached/known. Quite useful knowing that e.g. Stephen Batchelor now has started encouraging 'followers of Dharma that do not want a sangha' to use the Pratyekabuddha model; does not look to be linked to the canonical usage of the Pratyekabuddha concept and that's useful to clarify for the Wiki. Erikdr (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Buddha was referred to as a capital h, "He," while a Buddha can be either sex (though cults derived from true Buddhism lie, and say only males can (those ones require things like nuns bowing, and possibly kissing the feet of monks to show submissive inferiority of patriarchy) (not all "schools" have that corruption, just as not all "schools" have the corruption that one must vow to life-long celibacy (which is anti-dharma))), and is not the Abrahamic god, or Jesus Christ. Never should Buddhas be treated like Jesus Christ, and the Abrahamic god are, as that is not how Buddhism works. --174.17.236.32 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
