Wondering About ‘Buddha’?

A friend asked me a couple of interesting questions. I thought I would share them with their answers here – because I kind of wondered similarly in the past, and am sure some others out there would too!

Q: Have always wondered about the definition of ‘佛陀’. Does it refer to Shakyamuni Buddha or Buddhas in general?

A: Actually, ‘佛陀’ is the Chinese transliterated version (using words that sound similar – though they might not seem very much so to us!) of the Sanskrit/Pali word ‘Buddha’ (Awakened One). [‘Buddha’ came from the root word ‘Budh’, which means ‘aware’ or ‘know’.] So, in this sense, ‘佛陀’ refers to ‘any Buddha’ or ‘Buddhas in general’ (as the singular and plural version of ‘佛陀’ is the same). Thus is there the need to have the name of the particular Buddha as a prefix to identify him. E.g. The historical Buddha (as in, who appeared in our recorded history) is a specific Buddha called ‘Shakyamuni’ – in other words – Shakyamuni Buddha. That said, when we say ‘the Buddha’ or ‘佛陀’, we usually refer to Shakyamuni Buddha – for abbreviated convenience. For other transhistorical and future Buddhas, their prefix names would be mentioned to differentiate them from ‘the Buddha’ – e.g. Amitabha Buddha, Maitreya Buddha…

Q: What does ‘陀’ mean? Is the word associated with ‘阿弥陀佛’?

A: ‘阿弥陀佛’ means ‘Amitabha Buddha’, though technically, it should be ‘Amita Buddha’. ‘ 阿弥陀’ is the translitered version of the Sanskrit word ‘Amita’, which means ‘infinite’ while ‘abha’ means ‘light’. (Thus, ‘Amitabha Buddha’ means ‘the Buddha of Infinite Light’, while ‘Amitayus Buddha’, which is his other name, means ‘the Buddha of Infinite Life).

Amita + Abha = Amitabha
Amita + Ayus = Amitayus

So, ‘陀’ in the name of ‘阿弥陀佛’ has no relation to that in ‘佛陀’ (It is instead, as above.), though  ‘阿弥陀佛’ is definitely a ‘佛陀’!