<p>In the entirety of the Pali Canon, the oldest known collection of the Buddha's teachings, &quot;the Buddha&quot; is used as opposed to &quot;Buddha&quot;.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha</a> The name given to one who rediscovers for him/herself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of time of its having been forgotten bu the world.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Buddha (the title) comes from the pali term 'buddha' meaning awake, hence using 'The' is semantically analogous to saying 'The Awakened One'.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T08:06:17.393Z
Pali language doesn't have any equivalent for the English article "the". "The" is added in English translations to make it English.
Kumāra Bhikkhu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T05:07:43.877Z
2020-06-30T16:27:13.817Z
2020-06-30T16:27:13.817Z
jordan kramer
<p>Interesting question; in standard English usage, all (three) namings can be seen in reasonable text: rather technically perhaps: when noncapitalized article the, it would be used more in a context re a specific but nonparticularly named Buddha; for the name Buddha without a particle, it could be more of a friendly conversational type name, sort of like Bob or Jim, &amp; perhaps somewhat less formal; with capitalised The, The Buddha would often respectfully refer to (The) Buddha Gautama</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T20:39:44.130Z
2020-07-04T15:45:14.387Z
2020-07-04T15:45:14.387Z
M H
<p>I think &quot;the&quot; Buddha is more normal and more formal.</p>
<p>Without &quot;the&quot; sounds to me more <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)#Register_as_formality_scale" rel="noreferrer">casual</a> -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Variation_among_languages" rel="noreferrer">several languages</a> don't use articles.</p>
<p>If you think of the word &quot;Buddha&quot; as being a title like &quot;Teacher&quot;, well in formal English you'd usually include the article and say something like, &quot;The Teacher said, ...&quot;.</p>
<p>It's not incorrect, perhaps a bit familiar, to say something like, &quot;Teacher said, ...&quot;.</p>
<p>Also &quot;Buddha&quot; without an article would be right if &quot;Buddha&quot; were a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun" rel="noreferrer">proper noun</a>, i.e. a name -- but I think it's more like a title or a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas" rel="noreferrer">common noun</a> (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about is Gautama Buddha).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T10:31:37.473Z
I think "Teacher said" and "the teacher said" have the same _meaning_ and even degree of formality; the difference between them is in how we get to that meaning. The latter, "the teacher", is a just a common noun "teacher" with "the" to make it refer to a specific one of the class. The former, "Teacher", treats "Teacher" as almost a name. [continued]
msh210
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T10:31:45.220Z
[continued] Analogously, a child may refer to "the mother" in a book he's reading or to "Mother"; they both refer to a specific mother but "Mother" because that's what the child calls her and "the mother" because she's a specific mother in context. I don't know anything about Buddhism so can't relate this thereto. But I'll note that "the Teacher said" (capitalized) or "teacher said" (lowercase without "the") seems wrong to me.
msh210
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T10:39:35.420Z
If I refer to my mother as "Mother", I think that's "familiar", and so it is IMO not the same degree of formality.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T10:42:54.780Z
Also it's conventional in English to capitalise some titles -- perhaps as a mark of respect -- they'd write [the Queen](https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-the-queen) for example when using the title as a substitute for a name.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T10:50:40.547Z
Right, I agree with your last comment, and for all I know maybe the same is true of "the Buddha".
msh210
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-04T17:03:11.527Z
Also sometimes 'The Buddha', especially re Buddha Gautama, where 'the' is capitalised in the middle of a sentence.
M H
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-28T01:07:40.450Z
2020-06-28T01:07:40.450Z
ChrisW
<p>This answer is more or less the same as ChrisW's.</p>
<p>The term Buddha means &quot;awakened one&quot; or &quot;enlightened one&quot;.</p>
<p>It's a title or description, and not a name, just like King.</p>
<p>So, you would say &quot;the King&quot; or &quot;a King&quot; but not &quot;King&quot;. Similarly, we say &quot;the Buddha&quot; to refer to a specific person, or &quot;a Buddha&quot; to refer to any generic person who fits the description.</p>
<p>But if you say &quot;King George&quot; then it becomes a name with a title. Similarly with &quot;Gautama Buddha&quot;, &quot;Kassapa Buddha&quot;, &quot;Kakusandha Buddha&quot; etc.</p>
<p>This is related to the use of definite articles in the English language. If you consider another language like German, then the definite article becomes more complex with gender, and declension such as nominative, genitive, dative and accusative.</p>
<p>From my understanding, there is no definite article in Pali or Sanskrit. In the Pali suttas, the Buddha is usually referred to, in the third person, as &quot;bhagavā&quot;, meaning &quot;blessed one&quot; which is usually rendered in English as &quot;the Blessed One&quot;.</p>
<p>For e.g. from <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 44.10</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. (Sujato translation)<br />
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. (Bodhi translation)<br />
<em>Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>bhagavā = Blessed One, tuṇhī = silent, ahosi = was</p>
<p>There is also no uppercase or lowercase in Pali and Sanskrit.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T13:45:02.657Z
Is it correct that bhagava = Blessed One cause I read that bhagava meaning restrained from all of desire. That's why we called Bhagavan Gautama Budhha.
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:44:30.750Z
@Swapnil See [here](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#bhagava) also [here](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Bhaga&searchhws=yes) so maybe "Fortunate one". The first glossary says, "the term is derived from the word *bhaga* (luck, good fortune)", while the PTS dictionary seems to warn that there are "fanciful exegetic explanations of the term" in the Visuddhimagga and elsewhere. In any case it's a word used as some kind of title (a noun, not exactly a proper name): which is conventionally written with an article "the" when it is or isn't translated into English.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:53:38.660Z
@ChrisW Bhaga I know the proper word is bhagya meaning luck but bhagava I read that it means restrained from all the desires.   So what is the meaning of Bhagavato? Thank you
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:54:30.960Z
Please also see [The proper meaning of Bhagava](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/21648/471).
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:55:45.890Z
@ruben2020 Yes see Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena answer.
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:57:53.170Z
Apparently there are multiple meanings, if you read all the answers.
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:58:45.167Z
@ChrisW Bhagavan and bhaga/bhagya meanings are very different. Bhagavan it is used in hinduism for god but in terms of Buddhism it's philosophical meaning so sure luck , good fortune such things aren't there in Buddhism.
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T14:59:44.017Z
@ruben2020 and ChrisW here you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavitra_Bhagya
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T15:01:45.267Z
Bhagwan itself is an acronym of the combination of the 5 elements of nature. Bha means Bhoomi (Earth), Ga means gaggan (Space/Sky), Va means Vayu (Air), A means Agni (Fire) and finally, N means Neer (Water)  ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T15:03:59.247Z
Yes wiki document also mentioned that it means Blessed One but still I was interpret it as Restrained from desires.
Swapnil
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T06:41:47.330Z
2020-06-29T07:19:16.840Z
2020-06-29T07:19:16.840Z
ruben2020
<p>Wikipedia uses &quot;the Buddha&quot; to refer to the founder while a book uses &quot;Buddha&quot; without the definite article.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ZelRX.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZelRX.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>from &quot;Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho&quot;</p>
<p>Is it correct to refer to &quot;Buddha&quot; without &quot;the&quot;? If yes, when should I use which?</p>

<terminology>
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"
# Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-27)

Wikipedia uses "the Buddha" to refer to the founder while a book uses "Buddha" without the definite article.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ZelRX.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ZelRX.png)

from "Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho"

Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"? If yes, when should I use which?

**Tags:** terminology


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-06-28. Score: 7

I think "the" Buddha is more normal and more formal.

Without "the" sounds to me more [casual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)#Register_as_formality_scale) -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as [several languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Variation_among_languages) don't use articles.

If you think of the word "Buddha" as being a title like "Teacher", well in formal English you'd usually include the article and say something like, "The Teacher said, ...".

It's not incorrect, perhaps a bit familiar, to say something like, "Teacher said, ...".

Also "Buddha" without an article would be right if "Buddha" were a [proper noun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun), i.e. a name -- but I think it's more like a title or a [common noun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas) (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about is Gautama Buddha).

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: I think "Teacher said" and "the teacher said" have the same _meaning_ and even degree of formality; the difference between them is in how we get to that meaning. The latter, "the teacher", is a just a common noun "teacher" with "the" to make it refer to a specific one of the class. The former, "Teacher", treats "Teacher" as almost a name. [continued]  
> **username_5**: [continued] Analogously, a child may refer to "the mother" in a book he's reading or to "Mother"; they both refer to a specific mother but "Mother" because that's what the child calls her and "the mother" because she's a specific mother in context. I don't know anything about Buddhism so can't relate this thereto. But I'll note that "the Teacher said" (capitalized) or "teacher said" (lowercase without "the") seems wrong to me.  
> **username_4**: If I refer to my mother as "Mother", I think that's "familiar", and so it is IMO not the same degree of formality.  
> **username_4**: Also it's conventional in English to capitalise some titles -- perhaps as a mark of respect -- they'd write [the Queen](https://www.royal.uk/her-majesty-the-queen) for example when using the title as a substitute for a name.  
> **username_5**: Right, I agree with your last comment, and for all I know maybe the same is true of "the Buddha".  
> **username_3**: Also sometimes 'The Buddha', especially re Buddha Gautama, where 'the' is capitalised in the middle of a sentence.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-06-29. Score: 3

This answer is more or less the same as username_4's.

The term Buddha means "awakened one" or "enlightened one".

It's a title or description, and not a name, just like King.

So, you would say "the King" or "a King" but not "King". Similarly, we say "the Buddha" to refer to a specific person, or "a Buddha" to refer to any generic person who fits the description.

But if you say "King George" then it becomes a name with a title. Similarly with "Gautama Buddha", "Kassapa Buddha", "Kakusandha Buddha" etc.

This is related to the use of definite articles in the English language. If you consider another language like German, then the definite article becomes more complex with gender, and declension such as nominative, genitive, dative and accusative.

From my understanding, there is no definite article in Pali or Sanskrit. In the Pali suttas, the Buddha is usually referred to, in the third person, as "bhagavā", meaning "blessed one" which is usually rendered in English as "the Blessed One".

For e.g. from [SN 44.10](https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato):

> But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. (Sujato translation)  
> When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. (Bodhi translation)  
> *Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi.*

bhagavā = Blessed One, tuṇhī = silent, ahosi = was

There is also no uppercase or lowercase in Pali and Sanskrit.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: Is it correct that bhagava = Blessed One cause I read that bhagava meaning restrained from all of desire. That's why we called Bhagavan Gautama Budhha.  
> **username_4**: @username_7 See [here](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#bhagava) also [here](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Bhaga&searchhws=yes) so maybe "Fortunate one". The first glossary says, "the term is derived from the word *bhaga* (luck, good fortune)", while the PTS dictionary seems to warn that there are "fanciful exegetic explanations of the term" in the Visuddhimagga and elsewhere. In any case it's a word used as some kind of title (a noun, not exactly a proper name): which is conventionally written with an article "the" when it is or isn't translated into English.  
> **username_7**: @username_4 Bhaga I know the proper word is bhagya meaning luck but bhagava I read that it means restrained from all the desires.   So what is the meaning of Bhagavato? Thank you  
> **username_6**: Please also see [The proper meaning of Bhagava](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/21648/471).  
> **username_7**: @username_6 Yes see Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena answer.  
> **username_6**: Apparently there are multiple meanings, if you read all the answers.  
> **username_7**: @username_4 Bhagavan and bhaga/bhagya meanings are very different. Bhagavan it is used in hinduism for god but in terms of Buddhism it's philosophical meaning so sure luck , good fortune such things aren't there in Buddhism.  
> **username_7**: @username_6 and username_4 here you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavitra_Bhagya  
> **username_7**: Bhagwan itself is an acronym of the combination of the 5 elements of nature. Bha means Bhoomi (Earth), Ga means gaggan (Space/Sky), Va means Vayu (Air), A means Agni (Fire) and finally, N means Neer (Water)  ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan  
> **username_7**: Yes wiki document also mentioned that it means Blessed One but still I was interpret it as Restrained from desires.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-06-29. Score: 1

In the entirety of the Pali Canon, the oldest known collection of the Buddha's teachings, "the Buddha" is used as opposed to "Buddha".

> [Buddha](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html) The name given to one who rediscovers for him/herself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of time of its having been forgotten bu the world.

Buddha (the title) comes from the pali term 'buddha' meaning awake, hence using 'The' is semantically analogous to saying 'The Awakened One'.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Pali language doesn't have any equivalent for the English article "the". "The" is added in English translations to make it English.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-06-30. Score: 0

Interesting question; in standard English usage, all (three) namings can be seen in reasonable text: rather technically perhaps: when noncapitalized article the, it would be used more in a context re a specific but nonparticularly named Buddha; for the name Buddha without a particle, it could be more of a friendly conversational type name, sort of like Bob or Jim, & perhaps somewhat less formal; with capitalised The, The Buddha would often respectfully refer to (The) Buddha Gautama


---

