Talk:Śakra (Buddhism)

Clarification needed

The article (as it is currently) is confused with Buddhist and Hindu traditions not clearly distinguished - perhaps reflecting Srkris belief "... I dont agree to the assertions that Devas in Buddhism were different deities than the ones in Hinduism..." It needs a rewrite in which there is less argument and more straight reportage. And no - I don't think it should be merged with Indra either. --The Lesser Merlin (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

User:Srkris has made some edits which are simply wrong; Sakko devānaṃ indo is the exact equivalent of Śakro devānām indraḥ, where the Sanskrit masculine singular nominative ending -aḥ (-o in sandhi before voiced consonants) corresponds to Pali -o. Pali -ā is a feminine ending corresponding to Sanskrit -ā. This is verifiable by consulting either a) texts, b) a textbook on Pali. Furthermore, the meaning is "Sakka, of (the) gods (or devas) the lord", not "Sakka, lord of the gods is Indra". Indo in this case is a common noun "king" or "lord", not a proper noun. Srkris may consult this article and, for the name Sujā, this one.

Ok fine. But I dont agree to the assertions that Devas in Buddhism were different deities than the ones in Hinduism. The Buddha didnt go about introducing everything from scratch, did he? They are all the same deities found in the Vedas. Its funny to see statements like Sakra was different from Indra, either in Buddhism or Hinduism or both. ­ Kris (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Indra is called that in Hinduism is becuase the common noun reflects his position. Shakra is the king of the gods and Indra is king of the gods. They are different names for the deity. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

True, so what is this thing about Gautama Buddha referring to well known deities of his time in a different context? Would people of his time have understood him had he portrayed Sakra and Indra as independent deities? I think its because of Buddhists wanting to show their religion to be distinct from other Hindu beliefs/deities that they introduce these novelties which the Buddha himself does not seem to have subscribed to. I have read the Tripitaka and can claim to have a decent level of knowledge on historical Buddhism. I've even heard buddhists say that the Buddha was against Vedas, while he was only against vedic rituals, as evidenced by the Pali canon. ­ Kris (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Buddha was a Hindu. He was raised in a Hindu home. The Jataka states: "Then the Great Being, saying to himself, “This is the immovable spot on which all The Buddhas have planted themselves! This is the place for destroying passion’s net!” Who were these other (past) Buddhas? They were obviously Hindu Deities since there was no "Buddhism" before Gautama. The line stating that Sakka is different than Indra should be removed. Somaeye (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Who were the other buddhas? So glad you asked... List of the twenty-eight Buddhas. Kassapa Buddha, Dīpankara Buddha, etc. Then there are also future buddhas like Maitreya Buddha, and buddhas from other world systems like Amitabha Buddha, etc. Tengu800 16:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Justification?

Should this article be subsumed into Indra's article, and this space redirected? Is it likely to grow and improve? Vampromero (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The justification is that these are two different deities. RandomCritic (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, RC. I must not have read it as thouroughly as I thought to get the most complete understanding. Thank you. Vampromero (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

rewrite suggestion

Sakra is mentioned in verse seventeen of the purusha sukta, in all of its significance for the root meaning of the "devas", as well as "vedas"! http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-5.html

Interestingly the word cakra is also used prior, the description is of a ritualistic containment of the universal meaning with purusa-idea being the "beast of sacrifice", not actual beasts.

The description is presented as the origin of the vedas, it is imho a great source of discerning their cultural origin. Consider also the common sanskrit meanings of "dhata" as well as "shakra" not only the associated religious deities mentioned in the translation of verse 17 linked. http://www.spokensanskrit.de

With respect to Buddhism, what is interesting to me is the cultural background of its influence on Taoism and its I-Ching "universal compass" - not ritual - holding the meaning of Wiccan annually-bifurcating Golden Bough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.17.85 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sakra is same as "Chakra", a Vedic name of Indra

I don't have time to supply the reference. Therefore apologize in advance. The etymology of Pali "Sakra" is Sanskrit "Chakra". Chakra means a wheel ordinarily but is also another name of God Indra in Vedas. Valimiki Ramayana repeatedly uses the word Chakra to refer to Indra, the Ruler of Gods. Sakra, Chakra and Indra are same and pre-date Buddhism. --2601:240:CC04:B2DF:38E3:ADDB:EDFC:27B6 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is completely erroneous. The two words are entirely distinct in Sanskrit and historically, not being spelled or pronounced alike and having different roots.RandomCritic (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Shakra in Rigveda 5.34.4 is in fact a name of Indra

In fact Indra is a title (lord or chief of the gods, as well Daityas, later called Asuras, as Devas). Shakra is the name of one Indra as evidenced by Srimad Bhagavatam 6.11.20, probably reffering to Sha in Srimad Bhagvatam 6.6.44 which would explain the relationship in Srimad Bhagavatam 6.11.14 + 15. 2003:F5:F746:F400:58FF:87C1:D9A3:FC2 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)