user19339: Wikipedia uses "the Buddha" to refer to the founder while a book uses "Buddha" without the definite article.

from "Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho"
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"? If yes, when should I use which?

user19346: 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 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'.

user471: This answer is more or less the same as ChrisW'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:

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.

user254: I think "the" Buddha is more normal and more formal.
Without "the" sounds to me more casual -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as several 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, i.e. a name -- but I think it's more like a title or a common noun (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about is Gautama Buddha).

19339: <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.stack.imgur.com/ZelRX.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/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>
 19346: <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>
 471: <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>
 254: <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>
